Entries from October 2008 ↓

One summer afternoon, as many as the wonderful afternoons I had in my childhood, soon as Koung Koung came back from work, I was asked to get ready after the meal, to go for our recreational ride to Marie Reine de la Paix and to the Champ de Mars Edward VII monument. After the dinner, Koung Koung and Popoh had the habit of having their afternoon rides to breathe fresh air and to relax in a green and pleasant environment. As the eldest grand son, I was privileged to accompany them and to have spent time with them. This close relationship and frequent interactions  with the grand parents also yielded to my fairly good command of the Hakka language which I have kept all of my life.

The ever faithful Bye Mamode was  aways there waiting in the Rover 5885 to drive us. As far as I can remember Bye Mamode has always been our driver. He used to tell me that he was  first employed by Koung Koung to drive the  public bus that Koung Koung owned on the run  from  Riviere du Rempart to Sebastopol. More than a driver he was also the errand man as well as the rent collector for the Grand Pa.

That afternoon,riding  in the car with them, I felt that Popoh was not in her normal mood. She was complaining about the new maid’s service. Already she had difficulty conversing with the maid as she herself was not able to speak creole, she kept on complaining  on the stupidity and clumsiness of the new recruit. Koung Koung had enough of Popoh’s mumbling. In a poised and gentle tone he said to Popoh: ‘after all this new maid will only work as a maid because she was not bright. What do you expect of a young girl coming from the country side without any education and who has been brought up in very humble condition? You will have to take the patience to train her and give her time to learn. If she was as bright and as intelligent as you, she might even be able to replace you.” The complaints and mumblings stopped short immediately.

We spent the rest of the afternoon sitting on the leather cushions we brought with us on the grass of the Marie Reine de La Paix garden terraces in silence and enjoyed watching the sunset over the harbour.

En septembre 2002, j’avais eu le grand plaisir de recevoir a Maurice Alain Thiry et Catherine Paenhuys

deux expert belges dans l’apprentissage pour la formation des enseignants dans le cadre de L’Ecole pour

la solidarité et la justice.

Ce projet sponsorisé par le Rotary Club de Port Louis et The Circle, m’avait donné de joie et  satisfaction.

Je pense qu’il serait opportun de faire revenir ces experts pour continuer la formation donnée. Voici l’article qui a paru sur le journal aux termes de leurs séjours :

Le PNL : pour une nouvelle stratégie de l’apprentissage

Dans le cadre d’un stage de formation de Stratégies de l’apprentissage à base de Programmation neurolinguistique (PNL), l’Ecole pour la solidarité et la justice (ESJ) reçoit en ce moment Alain et Catherine Thiry, psychologues belges spécialisés dans la pédagogie. Le stage d’une durée de six jours commencé vendredi dernier, et qui se poursuivra ce week-end est destiné aux enseignants des Ecoles complémentaires, dont les stagiaires volontaires sont au nombre d’une vingtaine. Ces derniers n’en sont pas à leur découverte dans ce domaine puisqu’ils ont déjà suivi, en septembre dernier, 15 heures de cours d’initiation, dispensés par Joseph Yip Tong, formateur généraliste de PNL.

Au sein de l’histoire des sciences humaines, celle de la Programmation neurolinguistique est assez récente. C’est aux Etats-Unis, dans les années 70, que les premières recherches ont eu lieu, afin de pallier une pédagogie impuissante devant les élèves dits “moyens” ou “à problèmes”. Des chercheurs se penchent alors sur des sujets brillants : qu’est-ce qui fait que ces derniers ont du talent ? Cinq stratégies mentales, sur lesquelles doit agir l’enseignant, se dégagent de leurs recherches : la compréhension, la mémorisation, la réflexion, la prononciation, le transfert (utilisation dans tous les contextes des facultés que l’élève sait utiliser dans un domaine). ” En général les enfants ont envie d’apprendre, nous déclare Alain Thiry, mais quand ça ne marche pas, ils se démotivent. “

Selon lui, les enseignants sont souvent impuissants à aider l’élève quand ce dernier est confronté à un problème. En général, ils vont donner à l’élève des conseils tels que : ” Sois attentif “, ou ” Concentre-toi “, ce qui ne veut rien dire pour l’élève et s’avère complètement inefficace. Quant aux parents, encore plus démunis, ils disent souvent : ” Mon enfant n’est pas bête mais… ” ” Nous donnons alors aux élèves, poursuit Alain Thiry, une direction de pensée avec nombre de détails techniques, comme, par exemple : “Regardez bien cette image, puis, fermez les yeux en tâchant de la mémoriser, etc” Au vu des résultats, nous sommes en mesure de prouver à l’enfant qu’il n’est pas bête. ” Si ces résultats, toujours selon Alain Thiry, sont souvent spectaculaires, la méthode ne tient pas pour autant du miracle, l’essentiel dépendant de l’acquis de l’élève. C’est un travail de construction : comme on ne peut bâtir que sur du solide, il est souvent nécessaire revenir en arrière, avec l’élève, jusqu’au point où le mur est solide. Tout va alors dépendre de l’élève : s’il faut revenir trop loin en arrière, il y a le risque que ce dernier se décourage. Dans les autres cas, tous les espoirs sont permis.

One of the memorable experiences of my life was the marriage encounter week end my wife and I had in 1983 or 1984. It was like going to the school and to learn about the subject after I had the licence to operate for years!

In my days there were no lessons on marriage before engaging in such a great lifelong and noble venture. Couples were left on their own to experiment on their own to embark on the way to married life. I am pleased to note that the Catholic Church will accept a wedding in church today only after the married couples have been through a session of preparation. I do encourage all couples to experience a marriage encounter week end and recommend an engagement programme to the new couples.

Love is not a feeling, it is a decision. Men and women are attracted to each other more through feelings but it would be wise to marry not only out of feelings but more out of thought out decision.

This is an extract from the Marriage encounter organisation:

Here are ten easy steps you can take to keep your relationship with your spouse on a healthy track.

1. Make a weekly date night. Lives of lovers in the 21st century are more than just full. From day to day, we are bombarded with one thing after another that screams “Prioritize me!!!” Push back, for the sake of your relationship. Make a commitment to put each other first, once a week. Have breakfast at a coffee shop, do to dinner and a movie, or just go for a long, easy walk – but make it happen.

2. Touch each other. A touch can say it all. Whether it’s holding hands while walking, putting a hand in each other’s lap while watching TV, or brushing against one another in the kitchen – touch is another way of reminding each other “I love you, and I love to be near you.”

3. Celebrate the intimacy of marriage. A married couple’s sexuality is an important part of their life together. Stress, long hours, or the demands of family life may often lull you into thinking you haven’t time, energy, or desire for physical intimacy any more. Don’t fall for it! Woo one another into sharing this gift of marriage. Don’t depend on spontaneity – put it on the calendar if you have to!

4. Write love notes to each other. Whether it’s texting, email, or a good old-fashioned note taped on the windshield, commit your love for each other in writing. It’s a gift worth giving.

5. Be polite. After putting on our best face for the ones we work with, it’s tempting to think of home as a place to “let my hair down”. So let it down. Throw on a pair of jeans and a T-shirt, put your feet on the sofa – but remember that it’s the little things that make life pleasant. Getting up for a mid-game beer? Offer something to your spouse. Had a sweaty day in the yard? Wash up so you’re pleasant for others to be around. This may seem elementary, but too often we think it’s okay to drop the niceties around those who love us most. Miss Manners would be the first to say, “It isn’t.”

6. Celebrate special days. Anniversaries, birthdays, and Valentine’s Day’s aren’t just about Hallmark – they are special days to be reminded of how much we are loved. Make the most of them while you can.

7. Allow each other personal expression. Being a couple isn’t about liking and disliking the very same things. More often it’s about loving each other despite your differences – and learning more about yourself along the way. Rather than pressing your spouse to adapt your likes and dislikes, work a little harder to understand theirs. Allow one another the luxury of being able to say, “I feel depressed”, or “I feel sad” without having to make excuses for their emotions. This is the key to deeper intimacy – true, deep, acceptance.

8. Trust your spouse. You can’t do it all. You need each other. You are a team. Trust each other to fulfill their part. Trust your spouse to say the right thing, to follow up on what they said they would do – to take out the trash before 9. Learn the difference between nagging and sharing the load.

9. Pray for one another. Whether you pray together before work, as a family, or if you are just making passing comments to God as you drive past the church each day – find ways to make God a part of your daily relationship. Prayer is the key to all those things you don’t know about each other – because He does. Prayer is one way of truly giving your spouse pure, unconditional love.

10. Make a Marriage Encounter Weekend. Millions of couples the world over have rediscovered and grown in their deep affection for each other through a Marriage Encounter weekend. Your relationship deserves this! If you have gone before, maybe it is time to go again. Or find a marriage enrichment event to attend.

Who remembers Porlotaco? In my youth the cheapest taxi in Port Louis were operated in Citroen 2 CV cars. It was popular for being cheap but unfortunately did not last. These taxis operated only in Port Louis for local trips, and charged only Rs.3 per trip to start off with. There was a great difference in comfort for the passengers between the much roomy Minor and the Porlotaco. I personally did not fancy the Citroen 2 CV.

Today, France and Citroen celebrate the 50 years of the introduction of the 2 CV.

The first car I owned was a Toyota MK1 , plate number Z941, and was olive green in colour. It was purchased for Rs.13500 from an expatriate who had the car for a year.

I had crashed Dad’s car AA404 in an accident past Newgrove area. It was in the days when I was working as the sales officer of Air India and needed to attend duties at Plaisance airport. It was equipped with a 3shift gear transmission box and a powerful 1300 cc engine. It was a 5 passenger’s car as the front seats could take 2 passengers besides the driver. I sold it for Rs. 11000 after a year or so, to a taxi driver when I was provided with a car by Rogers and company when I had taken the responsibility of the air cargo division.

My next car then became the Mini Van number plate V993 before being allotted an Allegro.

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 21, 33-43.

Hear another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey.
When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to obtain his produce.
But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned.
Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones, but they treated them in the same way.
Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking, ‘They will respect my son.’
But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’
They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.
What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?”
They answered him, “He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.”
Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’?
Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.

The Vineyard and the Fruits

Gospel Commentary for 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By Father Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap

ROME, OCT. 3, 2008.- The immediate context of the parable of the murderous tenants of the vineyard is the relationship between God and the people of Israel. It is to Israel that God first sent the prophets and then his own Son.

But similar to all of Jesus’ parables, this story has a certain openness. In the relationship between God and Israel the history of God’s relationship with the whole of humanity is traced. Jesus takes up and continues God’s lament in Isaiah, which we heard in the first reading. It is there that we find the key to the parable and its tone. Why did God “plant a vineyard” and what are the “fruits” that are expected, which God will come to look for?

Here the parable does not correspond to reality. Human beings do not plant vineyards and dedicate themselves to its care for the love of the vines but for their own benefit. God is different. He creates man and enters into a covenant with him, not for his own benefit, but for man’s benefit, out of pure love. The fruits that are expected from man are love of God and justice toward the oppressed: all things that are for the good of man, not God.

This parable of Jesus is terribly relevant to our Europe, and in general to the Christian world. In this context, too, we must say that Jesus has been “cast out of the vineyard,” thrown out of a culture that proclaims itself post-Christian, or even anti-Christian. The words of the vineyard tenants resound, if not in the words at least in the deeds, of our secularized society: “Let us kill the heir and the inheritance will be ours!”

No one wants to hear anymore about Europe’s Christian roots, of the Christian patrimony. Secularized humanity wants to be the heir, the master. Sartre put this terrible declaration into the mouth of one of his characters: “There is nothing in heaven, neither good nor evil, there is no one who can give me orders. […] I am a man, and every man must invent his own path.”

What I have just sketched is a “broadband” application of the parable. But Jesus’ parables almost always have a more “narrow band” application, an application to the individual: they apply to each individual person, not just to humanity or Christendom in general. We are invited to ask ourselves: What fate have I prepared for Christ in my life? How am I responding to God’s incomprehensible love for me? Have I too, by chance, thrown him out of my house, my life; that is, have I forgotten and ignored Christ?

I remember one day I was listening to this parable at Mass while I was fairly distracted. Then came the words of the owner of vineyard: “They will respect my Son.” I started, and I understood that those words were addressed to me personally in that moment. The heavenly Father was about to send me his Son in the sacrament of his body and blood. Did I understand the importance of this great moment? Was I ready to welcome him with respect, the respect that the Father expected? Those words brought me brusquely back from my wandering thoughts.

There is a sense of regret, of delusion in the parable. It certainly is not a story with a happy ending! But in its depths it tells us of the incredible love that God has for his people and for every creature. It is a love that, even through the alternating events of loss and return, will always be victorious and have the last word.

God’s rejections are never definitive. They are pedagogical abandonments. Even the rejection of Israel, which obliquely echoes through Christ’s words — “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” — is of this sort, as is that described by Isaiah in the first reading. We have seen that this danger also threatens Christendom, or at least large parts of it.

St. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans: “Has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. … Did they stumble so as to fall? Of course not! But through their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make them jealous. … For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:1 passim).

Morris Minors have been the taxis of Mauritians for decades. I believe that there will be a road show of the vintage Morris Minors soon in Port Louis. My mum learned to drive in one of them, plate number 8937 if I am not mistaken.

The revolutionary Morris Minor was launched at the Earls Court Motor Show on 20 September 1948.

Sir Alec Issigonis is famous for his creation of the Mini and a range of later cars for the British Motor Corporation (BMC), but he became known to the general public for designing the Morris Minor. It was conceived as a vehicle to combine many of the luxuries and conveniences of a good motor car with a price suitable for the working classes. The Morris Minor, when compared with competitor products in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, excelled as a roomy vehicle with superior cornering / handling characteristics. Over 1.6 million of the lightweight, rear-wheel drive car were eventually produced, mainly in Cowley, Oxfordshire, and exported around the world, with many variants of the original model. Production continued in Birmingham, England through to 1971 (for the commercial variants and estate only), and it remains a well loved and collected vehicle.

This Saturday afternoon, the cronies got together to have a chat and a cup of Chinese tea between the rounds of Pen Kim, Chinese narrow cards. I gather that  SIOW AH FEE just came back from Hong Kong and brought back an American car. Good for him, it appears that Gold and jewellery business is doing well. By the way, the third wife of Mr. Li, is expecting another child this week, after the first son she delivered a baby girl, let us hope that she has a son this time.

Koung Koung retorted: you will recall that some years ago, Mr. Li suggested that I avail myself of a second wife? Well, let me tell you what I found: when Mr. Li had two wives, he had to devise a roaster to ensure whose turn it would be to prepare the warm water for the daily bath. Now with the third wife on board, I found that every day, Mr. Li is lighting up the fire to warm water for his new wife and preparing the bath tub for her and him. I do not want to be in the same situation as our good friend Mr. Li. The cronies had a good laugh and carried on their game of Chinese narrow cards.

To be able to understand the US stand in reading the worlds ’event, it was interesting to read the theories of Huntington and the various critics made thereon.

Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights, liberal democracy and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the ‘end of history‘ in a Hegelian sense.

Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future would be along cultural and religious lines. As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict. In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes:

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Huntington seems to fall in the primordialist school, believing that culturally defined groups are ancient and natural, however his early work would suggest he is a Structural Functionalist. His view that nation states would remain the most powerful actors is in line with realism. Finally, his warning that the Western civilization may decline is inspired by Arnold J. Toynbee, Carroll Quigley, and Oswald Spengler.

Due to an enormous response and the solidification of his views, Huntington later expanded the thesis in his 1997 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

Source Wikipedia

Il y a quelques mois j’écoutai à la radio RFI une interview de Jean-Claude Guillebaud pour la sortie de son dernier livre. Immédiatement cela a fait ‘tilt’ dans ma tête. Avec un passé si riche et un parcours si fécond, il ne peut qu’être un écrivain intéressant. J’avais pris les soins de lire sur son parcours sur le web et surtout de prendre connaissance des critiques sur ces écrits. J’ai commandé 2 bouquins de 2007 et 2008 et vient de terminer le premier de 2007. Un vrai régal ! D’un trait, plus exactement en une soirée et une matinée j’ai consommé les 182 pages. Cela m’a donné beaucoup de plaisirs et pas mal de questionnements sur mes propres convictions.

La force de conviction

En 2005, Guillebaud publie La force de conviction. Ce livre discute essentiellement deux thèses.

Première thèse

Premièrement, l’être humain ne peut vivre sans croyances. Les croyances religieuses, politiques et/ou scientifiques conduisent à des comportements tout compte fait assez voisins, remplis d’une certaine assurance morale et d’un certain dévouement / prosélytisme vis à vis des autres humains – et peut-être aussi souffrant d’une certaine surdité… Comme tant de non économistes, il se moque des conclusions de la science économique (“si les bienfaits du libéralisme tardent, c’est parce que vous n’avez pas fait les efforts nécessaires ; persévérez”, etc.) ce qui donne à penser qu’il ne mesure pas le poids du socialisme en Europe.

Un autre point que Guillebaud apporte est celui que l’opposition de la science et de la religion est une imposture. Il y a des cas d’obscurantisme, mais aussi des cas où la recherche scientifique était encouragée par l’Église catholique, par exemple.

Deuxième thèse

Deuxièmement, les évènements historiques du siècle dernier ont « vacciné » les gens contre un certain nombre de croyances. Par exemple, l’hécatombe de 1914-1918 a vacciné les Français contre le dévouement à leur patrie ; le régime communiste a vacciné les gens contre l’objectif de l’égalité ; les maux du développement vaccinent les gens contre l’idolatrie de la science et du progrès (les cathédrales de la science se vident comme les autres…).

Il argumente qu’en cette époque, ce n’est pas la religion qui manipule la politique, mais souvent l’inverse. Il remet en question l’analyse qui veut que par exemple, Bush et Ben Laden soient deux extrémistes qui mènent une guerre de religion l’un envers l’autre. Il note aussi que la plupart des conflits et idéologies meutrières contemporaines ont été menées par des non-religieux (des laïcs), même s’ils ont parfois utilisé la religion, d’autant plus que les véritables autorités religieuses s’y sont opposé dans bien des cas.

Conséquences]

La conséquence de ces deux thèses est que les nouvelles croyances sont plus fumeuses (la parapsychologie, le New Age, dont les chiffres d’affaire sont discutés) et se prêtent encore moins à une discussion éclairée que les croyances antérieures (l’histoire des religions est devenue une science). Guillebaud considère en particulier que le terrorisme n’est pas le fils de la religion – mais qu’il est le fait de gens ignorants de la religion, fascinés par une image très partielle de la religion, et en quête d’intégration à un groupe.

D’autre part, Guillebaud note que ce sont souvent des personnes avec des croyances faibles (donc inquiètes et appeurées) qui se tournent vers des extrémismes ou du terrorisme. La violence n’est pas le fait des personnes profondément religieuses, donc suffisamment stables pour discuter de leurs croyances.

Il s’oppose d’ailleurs à la philosophie portée à l’avant dans les années 1980 par Gilles Lipovetsky voulant que le vide nouveau de croyances allait amener une ère de loisirs insouciante. Au contraire, chacun tire sur son bout de couverture et le vide laissé par le religieux se remplit vite de croyances de toutes sortes. Donc le vide de croyances entraîne la perte des repères communs en plus de la violence.

La question ouverte par le livre est de savoir sur quelles bases établir les croyances nécessaires.

Résume de son livre « Comment je suis redevenu chrétien ».

‘Ma démarche ne participait ni de l’effusion mystique, ni de la nostalgie, ni même de la quête spirituelle, comme on dit maintenant. C’est d’abord la raison qui me guidait. Par elle, je me sentais peu à peu ramené au christianisme. Cette réflexion a d’abord été très périphérique par rapport à la foi, puis les cercles de ma curiosité se sont rapprochés du noyau central, celui de la croyance proprement dite.J’en suis là. Je ne suis pas sûr d’être redevenu un ‘bon chrétien‘, mais je crois profondément que le message évangélique garde une valeur fondatrice pour les hommes de ce temps. Y compris pour ceux qui ne croient pas en Dieu. Ce qui m’attire vers lui, ce n’est pas une émotivité vague, c’est la conscience de sa fondamentale pertinence. La rétractation d’une telle parole dans l’enclos de l’intimité – se taire ! – me semblerait absurde. La laïcité véritable, ce n’est pas la peureuse révision à la baisse des points de vue, c’est leur libre expression dans un rapport robuste et apaisé.’