TFL - FML

They should consider changing the name from Transport for London, to Transport Against London, as my commute took over one and one half hours today. Normally, this is a forty minute journey. I believe this is now the new normal, as they are tearing up half the road on the way in to college to replace London's 'Victorian water mains' as all the signs remind. As if that makes stand-still traffic any more acceptable. Get someone to direct traffic please!

They don't need no thought control!

I know one isn't supposed to talk about politics or religion in mixed company, which may explain the British ability to talk about the weather in great detail for extended periods of time. But, that doesn't stop me doing so. In the wake of Easter weekend let us consider the curious case of religion, mostly Christianity, in the UK.

America is regularly and accurately described as one of the most religious, or at least religiously observant, countries in the industrialised world. The results of a recent comprehensive survey of religiosity and belief in the United States grabbed headlines when it revealed that a full 15% of Americans now describe themselves as 'non-religious', or unaffiliated with any religion. Of course, only 1.6% call themselves atheist or agnostic (even if 12% are atheist or agnostic based on stated beliefs gathered in the survey). However, this was big news in the USA; a swelling 'non-religious' population challenged many assumptions about Americans' views of themselves and their society, even if the percentages are rather small compared to other countries. However, the media tended to ignore the stats on Christian affiliation, which suggest that more and more people are moving from the liberal/mainline Protestant churches into a 'broad evangelicalism'. This evangelicalism of course lacks the thorough-goingly academic, organised, accountable, and more 'democratic' structure that the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists etc. all have. This to me seemed the more worrying finding, but then again I suppose I'm not a 'real American'.

I reflect on that after having just had a four day weekend for Good Friday/Easter here in the United Kingdom, which seemed a tad overblown observance in a country with so few observant Christians. Even if 70% of the population identifies as Christian, only 1 in 10 attend church services with any regularity, and less than half of Britons believe in God. Britain has become, despite its established Church, one of the most thoroughly secular non-believing societies in the industrialised world. Yet, faith schools still receive public money alongside any other state school, and we get a long weekend for Good Friday and 'Easter Monday'. This is to say nothing of my, and other non-British friends', bemusement at people's Easter partying attitude on Good Friday, a traditionally solemn day! It's as if all the trappings of a religious society are still there, with very little of the actual understanding or substance to back up that illusion.

Why is this? I think it has to do with the fact that while religion and politics have largely been divorced in UK political life, church and state never have been. The upkeep of an established church has led to a lot of public money and attention being given not only to Anglican institutions, but to all sorts of religious organisations in order to justify establishment while bowing to the fairness demands of a multicultural society. Unlike in the US, where church and state have at least a theoretical 'wall of separation' which allows both to thrive in their own spheres, British political secularism has been content to stop with PM's 'not doing God' while millions of pounds are funneled to religious organisations as if they are a branch of the state. This to me seems a peculiar, and peculiarly dysfunctional, approach to secularism and respect for religious belief. Like it or not, religion and spirituality still plays a big role in peoples' lives, even if it is in increasingly non-traditional and non-organised ways. Finding an appropriate approach, where peoples' personal beliefs (or lack thereof) are respected and examined for the contributions they can make to public life while keeping the state separate from religious organisations and visa versa, is still something that British society seems to be struggling with. Increasingly nasty public relations clashes between religious and anti-religious groups only highlight the polarisation and increasing mutual incomprehension that results from the British approach to religion and public life.

My home country and this one are very different on these fronts, and I do not claim the US has got it completely right either, far from it in fact. I merely find it amusing that, on 'Easter Monday', the BBC can write with lightly-veiled shock (and horror?) that up to an apparently whopping 55% of Britons believe in Heaven or an afterlife after having observed a long weekend celebrating the salvific death and miraculous resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Such a survey result in the US would garner shock at the number being so low! Meanwhile, all those puritanical Americans quietly celebrated (or not) the holiday as a religious one with friends and family on the Sunday, having no days off or official public recognition of the holiday, excepting perhaps the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.

In a somewhat related observation: here in the UK, when one says Easter Egg one means chocolate egg, the British sadly lacking the great tradition of dying real eggs in a multitude of colours to celebrate the risen Lord and/or bank holiday.

Amen.

GB = Great Britain, or Gendy Bendy?

First off, I'd like to state that I'm all for the smashing of the gender binary and the liberation of people of all gender identities. However, there are some things about gender norms in Britain that I think are amusing (while making no judgment of them as bad, just remarkable for their difference from my home culture). I'll keep it short, but consider these points about the behaviour of British men:

1. They get drunk and touch each other, a lot. And I mean, noticeably so, to the point where I sometimes feel confused when witnessing the straightest of 'lads' hanging all over their friends while slurring out 'Mateeeeee....' and hugging, and grabbing. Not in a sexual way, but this sort of physical showing of affection between heterosexual males, normally so guarded with any show of emotion, takes some getting used to.

2. Many young males use hair straighteners, as in irons, to get that hyper-straight look before crafting some of the most intensely sculpted do's around. As if the average male of British ethnic background doesn't have fairly straight hair to begin with. Unlike in the United States, this activity is not confined to the more aesthetically interested gay male, but permeates even to the late-teenage football-playing hetero crowd.

3. From personal experience: Friend A (a male) is informed that Friend B (also a male) is gay. Friend A exclaims surprise. I mention to Friend A that, if we are going to use stereotypes about behaviour to assess people's sexuality, Friend B is fairly flaming. Friend A responds, 'Oh, I just thought he was a bit camp, not gay.' Because here, one does not necessarily imply the other, especially among the middling and upper classes. Though, I suppose its sort of like preppy Georgetown types wearing pink pants and half-unbuttoned linen shirts.

C'est la Vie.

Sealed with an 'x'

In the land of the cold stare, where it takes at least three months into any interpersonal relationship to see the pasty white shell of British reserve even give hint of cracking, one would probably expect most textual exchanges to close with a curt, 'Sincerely, Mr. So-and-So.'

You'd be totally wrong, and here's why: British people of all stripes, male and female, young and old, gay and straight (and 'other', which deserves a whole post of its own), tall and short, etc. etc. love ending text messages, facebook messages, and basically any other short correspondence with a sultry 'x' or even a whole string of them at a time. Upon first encountering this during my last stint in the Kingdom, I kind of figured it was mostly a girl phenomenon. Mostly because I was texting and receiving messages primarily from female friends, not because I have no male ones, but that was just how it went. This time around, I realized that men did it too. Shocker: men x'd other men!

No, this wasn't some weird revelatory moment such as many youngsters might have when they kind of hope Holden Caulfield had gone on smooching his teacher at least a little longer or less horrified-ly, or realizing they enjoy 'Men's Health' magazine not only because it gives great tips on how to achieve your optimal physique. Mostly, to me it just seemed a fairly intimate way of ending a text message with your 'mate' to arrange a trip to the pub. I can't say I like hugging most friends, so to end a communique with an even textual kiss seemed a bit much.

At first I thought, maybe it's a gay thing, but I asked around, and apparently even a good number of otherwise 'blokey' straight men will end texts to each other with an 'x'. The same straight-male-British friend I asked for confirmation explained it this way:

We find it a way to express affection without compromising our British sense of reserve. It allows us to show a feeling without all the unpleasantness that might come with an awkwardly forced (or one-sided) hug, or other real-life show of emotion.

This seems as good an explanation as any; generations of repressing outward signs of affection, at least in most situations, begins to leak out in text messages and other less personal and thus safer modes of communication. Rather than having to get pant-wettingly drunk before expressing affection (And by the way, what's up with straight guys groping their friends once they have a few drinks in them, Britain? Something to explore another day, I think!), one need only pick up one's mobile and let your thumb speak volumes of unspoken softness of heart with a solitary virtual kiss.

x

Keep your eyes peeled, as this post has got me thinking about the next one, an examination of the relatively more flexible gender norms, especially for men, in modern Britannia.

Slang the Second

I've clearly got nothing better to do than write random musing blog posts (in the word's of Alicia Silverstone, as if!), so here is another serving of fine London slang for all the folks at home.

'innit - pronounced in-it very quickly - used to emphasise the preceding statement, to imply it as unquestionably true, or to seek an implicit assent from the conversation partner. Also seemingly sometimes used without any real function. Coming at the end of a sentences; ( a contraction of 'isn't it?' but with a broader meaning and usage).
Examples:
Young student 1: That boy is thick as shit 'innit.
Young student 2: Yea, he right dense.
Translation:
YS1: That boy is very stupid.
YS2: I agree, he is very dumb.
or:
London man on phone: Then I went to the shops, innit. I got this pair of trainers for 20 quid, innit. Credit crunch deals, innit.
Translation:
LMoP: Then I went to the store and bough a pair of sneakers for only £20, what a good deal! It's due to the financial crisis, I say.

brethren - pronounced as bred-drin - referring to one's friends, posse, 'crew', or homies, if you like.
Examples:
Threatening young man: You best get runnin' or I'm 'unna get muh bredren on ya'.
Threatened man: runs away.
Translation:
TYM: Leave now or I shall have my friends attack you.
Also:
Teenaged girl: And den he comes in wiv' all his bredren finkin he impressin' me, like I want him so bad. I really could not be bothered.
Translation:
TG: Then he walks in with his friends, thinking that the sight of him leading his group of friends would impress me. Wrong.

Snow what?

OK. So. The United Kingdom, which once ran an Empire upon which the sun never set, surrenders unconditionally as soon as frozen precipitation begins to fall from the sky. The Nazi Luftwaffe bombed London to bits, yet still the buses ran. Monday, a mere six inches of snow brought the network to a halt. Boris Johnson, London mayor and crazy bigoted side-show act, proclaimed that we all needed to pool our resources to get the city through the situation. REALLY? Next week, if it hails, are we going to re-introduce fabric rationing?

Now, I know this was the greatest snowfall in 18 years, and that it would be economically silly to have equipment prepared to deal with such rare events. But, would it really be economically bad sense? Due to the number of people who couldn't get to work on Monday, early estimates suggest the UK economy is down over £1.2 billion just in lost productivity, and that number is seen as likely to rise once final costs are totalled. Meanwhile, snow continues to blanket parts of the country, with more predicted for London tomorrow.

Surely, the cost of a minimal number of snow plows (which can be easily attached to the fronts of pre-existing vehicles) and some planning for outlying weather events would save money in the long-term? That, and reminding people that clearing snow and slush from their walkways early on helps prevent packed snow and ice from forming, which are definite hazards for anyone trying to walk just about anywhere. I slipped and fell three times walking down the road I live on. So great an injustice must not be allowed, lest the natural beauty of my face be imperiled by an icy 'pavement'!

So, therefore, I judge you government and people of the United Kingdom. Government, ensure transportation cannot be brought to its knees by what is in actuality a very manageable amount of snow. People, get out your shovels (brooms will work on slush!) and clear those walkways in front of your houses. If we all do our part we can and will get through these most trying of times.

So I spend a lot of time on the bus...

I know this is yet another in a series of bus themed postings, but I do not care! After being back in DC, briefly, I have my confirmation of something I had noticed was different about the bus-riding habits of Londoners versus those I knew before. That is this: people riding the bus in London have absolutely no qualms about quickly fleeing the seat next to a person as soon as one with two free seats opens up. I noticed this behaviour shortly after arriving in the big smoke, and found it a bit odd, in that I would feel rude doing the same thing and hadn't noticed it in my previous home city.

Granted, I will admit no one exactly likes being forced to sit directly next to some stranger on the bus. Perhaps your knees will touch awkwardly, perhaps they had to move their all too precious bag/purse/rucksack/glove in order to make room for you to sit. When this is the case you, steely bus rider, have no doubt first been forced to endure the 'look of death' that seems to result from your rude imposition of wanting to sit, and feeling you are probably more entitled to do so than, say, the random rider's clutch. God forbid humans get priority over glorified lipstick holders..but, I digress.

My main observation is that, as soon as a seat opens up where one might be able to sit alone, people in London will immediately scramble away from their erstwhile seat-partner to have the pleasure of sitting alone (or with only their own bag as seat-mate). This has always struck me as slightly rude, and was something I had never noticed before in my years of public transit ridership. In DC, and perhaps much of the rest of America, people will generally remain seated directly adjacent to someone, even when another seat has opened up, from my observations. I think that I, and perhaps other Americans, don't want to appear rude. I'd hate to give the person next to me the impression that sitting beside them represents some unendurable trial for me, perhaps as a result of their body odour or some other unmentionable misfortune. In London, this consideration doesn't seem to figure quite as prominently. Or, if it does, the Londoner's desire for a seat of their own quickly overrides any consideration of appearing unable to handle being within a few inches of another person. Maybe it is the relatively cramped nature of life in London as compared to, for example, Washington DC, that makes the difference. I'm not sure, but wonder whether others have noticed similar dynamics (either grin-and-bear-it DC style, or jump-and-sit London)?