Pages

Monday, March 31, 2014

one of the last people alive who can recall the horror of the Armenian genocide

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-extraordinary-story-of-100yearold-yevnigue-salibian-one-of-the-last-people-alive-who-can-recall-the-horror-of-the-armenian-genocide-9224585.html


The extraordinary story of 100-year-old Yevnigue Salibian, one of the last people alive who can recall the horror of the Armenian genocide

Her life was saved by the reins of a horse as her family fled the brutality of Ottoman rule


She was a child of the Great War, born on a faraway killing field of which we know little, one of the very last witnesses to the last century’s first genocide, sitting in her wheelchair, smiling at us, talking of Jesus and the Armenian children whipped by the Turkish police whom she saw through the cracks in her wooden front door. It’s not every day you get to meet so finite an observer of human history, and soon, alas, we will not see her like again in our lifetime.
They took me to meet Yevnigue Salibian last week up in the Mission Hills of California, whose warm breezes and palm trees are not unlike the town of Aintab in which she was born more than a hundred years ago. She is an old lady now in a home for the elderly but with a still impeccable memory and an equally sharp and brutal scar on her thigh – which she displays without embarrassment – where a horse’s reins suspended her above a ravine until she almost bled to death in her final flight from her Armenian homeland. “Hushhhhhh,” she says. “That’s how the blood sounded when it poured out of me. “I still remember it: ‘hushhhhhh’, ‘hushhhhhh’.”
The facts of the Armenian Holocaust are as clear and real as those of the later Jewish Holocaust. But they must be repeated because the state of Turkey remains a holocaust denier, still insisting that the Ottoman government did not indulge in the genocide which destroyed a million and a half of its Armenian Christian population almost a century ago. The Armenians were axed and knifed and shot in their tens of thousands, the women and children sent on death marches into the deserts of northern Syria where they were starved and raped and slaughtered. The Turks used trains and a primitive gas chamber, a lesson the Germans learned well. Very soon, there will be no more Yevnigues to tell their story.
She was born on 14 January 1914, the daughter of Aposh Aposhian, an Aintab copper merchant who taught his five children the story of Jesus from a large Bible which he held on his lap as he sat with them on a carpet on the floor of their home. They were – like so many Armenians – a middle-class family, and Aposh had Turkish friends and, although Yevnigue does not say so, it appears he traded with the Ottoman army; which probably saved their lives. When the first deportations began, the Salibians were left in their home, but the genocide lasted till the very last months of the Great War – it had begun within weeks of the Allied landings at Gallipoli – and in 1917, the Turks were still emptying Aintab of its Armenians. That’s when the sound of crying led three-year-old Yevnigue to the front door of her home.
“It was an old wooden door and there were cracks in it and I looked through the cracks,” she says. “There were many children outside without shoes and the Turkish gendarmes were using whips to drive them down the street. A few had parents. We were forbidden to take food to them. The police were using whips on the children and big sticks to beat them with. The sounds of the children screaming on the deportation – still I hear them as I look through the cracked door.”
So many parents were killed in the first year of the Armenian genocide that the orphans – tens of thousands of feral children who swarmed through the land in their absence – were only later driven out by the Turks: these were tiny deportees whom Yevnigue saw. The Aposhians, however, were able to cling on until the French army arrived in eastern Turkey after the Ottoman surrender. But when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk launched a guerrilla war against the French occupiers of his land, the French retreated – and in 1921 the surviving Armenians fled with them to Syria, among them Yevnigue and her family, packed into two horse-drawn carts. She was among the very last Christians to leave her Armenian homeland.
“My family was divided between the two carts. I changed places with an old lady. It was at night and over a ravine, our horses panicked, and the cart overturned and an iron bar killed the old lady and I was thrown over the edge of a bridge and only the horse’s reins saved me when they got wrapped around my leg. Jesus saved me. I hung there and there was the ‘hushhhhhh’ sound of my blood pouring out of me.” Yevnigue shows the harsh scar on her leg. It has bitten deeply into the muscle. She was unconscious for two days, slowly recovering in Aleppo, and then Damascus and finally in the sanctuary of Beirut.
The remainder of her life – as she tells it – was given to God, her husband and the tragedy of losing one of her sons in a Lebanese road accident in 1953. A photograph taken on her arrival in Beirut shows Yevnigue to have been an extraordinarily pretty young woman and she had, she says, many suitors. She eventually chose a bald-headed Evangelical preacher, an older man called Vahran Salibian who had a big smile and whose name – Salibi – means crusader. “He had no hair on his head but he had Jesus in his heart,” Yevnigue announces to me. Vahran died in 1995 after 60 years of marriage and Yevnigue has lost count of her great grandchildren – there are at least 22 so far – but she is happy in her cheerful Armenian nursing home.
“It’s not a good thing to be away from your family – but I like this place. Here, it is my extended family.” She loves America, Yevnigue says. Her family fled there when the civil war began in Lebanon in 1976. “It is a free place. All people come from everywhere to America. But why is our President a Muslim?”
I try to convince her this is untrue. She reads the New Testament every day and she talks constantly of her love for Jesus – this is an old lady who will be happy to die, I think – and when I ask her how she feels today about the Turks who tried to destroy the Armenians, she replies immediately. “I pray for Turkey. I pray for the Turkish officials that they may see Jesus. All that is left of the Prophet Mohamed is dust. But Jesus is alive in heaven.”
And I am taken aback by this, until I suddenly realise that I am not hearing the voice of a hundred-year-old lady. I am listening to a three-year old Armenian girl whose father is reading the Bible on the floor of a house in Aintab and who is looking through the cracks of her wooden front door and witnessing her people’s persecution. 

Things never to say to the parents of a newborn


9 Things Never to Say to the Parents of a Newborn

Posted: Updated: 
Print Article
BEAU COFFRON
Now that I have a 1-month-old child again, it has become abundantly clear that there are times when people just don't know what to say to me. This is the third time I've been through this stage, and the comments are always the same. Sometimes people who don't know you well are just grasping for topics to talk about, and sometimes people with no kids are just clueless. It's not their fault; they just haven't been through it.
So consider this a guide to inform you about what not to say to those people who are in the middle of trying to figure out life with a newborn. Some of these are questions, some are statements, but none should ever leave your mouth when speaking to a new parent.
1. "Are you getting much sleep?"
What do you think? Parents of newborns generally walk around like extras in the show, The Walking Dead. If you see parents of newborns who don't look like this, they are most likely numb to the sleeplessness. Another possibility is the grandparents have just swooped in like heavenly angels and woken up throughout the night with the little devil, uh, I mean baby. This is the number one question asked of me. Just don't go there, the answer is always the same.
2. "Let me know if I can do anything for you."
I have a newborn. Like I have the time or energy to remember who told me to "ask them if I need anything." My mental capacity is near empty; if you want to know why, see #1 above. Some good questions would be, "What can I bring your family for dinner on Thursday?" or even, "Can I pick your kids up from school tomorrow and take them to the park to play?" Either of these is like a miracle from above. Don't make me call you and ask -- just tell me what you can do and when. And bring dessert with you. Dessert is never bad.
3. "How is your wife doing?"
She's fantastic. She just pushed a watermelon through a hole the size of an orange. She's never been better. In fact, she might just run a marathon next weekend on a whim. Instead ask, "I hope your wife is recovering well, what's one thing I can do for you so that you can have a little bit more time to take care of her?"
4. "Is the baby sleeping through the night yet?"
Why yes. At 2 weeks old he is a medical freak of nature and sleeping all the way through the night. With all the extra time on my hands from him sleeping so much, I have been researching new fashion trends. The one I am trying right now is called "Death Warmed Over." Do you like it? It's the newest look, especially among parents of newborns.
5. "I just got a puppy, so now I know what having a baby is like."
Really, do you now? Last time I checked, it was still illegal to lock up a baby in the dog kennel when it's in the way or you just can't handle any more of the messes. Did you have to get up to nurse the puppy at 2 a.m., 4 a.m. and 6 a.m.? I also don't think you woke this morning to a screaming little one covered with poop up to their armpits. I swear diapers aren't designed to hold it in, they actually are just there to channel poop up the baby's back. I could go on and on with this one, but you get the picture.
6. Usually said by a stranger in a store when the baby is screaming and you are just trying to make it through your shopping list and keep your sanity: "You know your baby is probably tired/hungry/has a dirty diaper/etc."
Listen, I didn't ask for your advice and I probably know exactly what my baby needs. Unfortunately, I am barely holding it together, haven't showered in four days and honestly couldn't care less what your opinion of the situation is. If you want to actually help, give me your place in line so I can get out of the store faster.
7. "When are you going to bring the baby over?"
You need to understand that getting a newborn out of the house can sometimes feel as daunting as defusing a bomb in under 30 seconds. Besides that, stupid people always want to touch newborns' hands, which spreads germs and sickness all over the place. And sick babies don't sleep... ever. So thanks for the offer, but our newborn will come out to play when we are good and ready.
8. "When are you having the next one?"
While adding another pooping machine to the fold is awfully tempting, we will hold off making that decision for now. People should never make important decisions while exhausted, stressed or in the middle of a major life change. Well, guess what? Having a newborn means we are dealing with all three of those. Also, if every parent of a newborn made that decision right away, no kid would ever have another brother or sister.
9. "Is having a baby worth all you give up for it?"
This baby is a miracle, and having him is one of the greatest moments of my life. We are a month in and I would do anything for him. Every dirty diaper, sleepless night and mind-numbing children's song is nothing compared to the joy of being a parent. I will never have a regret about giving up some of my freedom (and sleep) to raise my child. I just pray that I can be the parent all my children deserve and have a ton of fun at the same time!

America’s democracy is fit for the 1 per cent

March 30, 2014 4:59 pm

America’s democracy is fit for the 1 per cent

Both US parties are up for rent. Patriots of all stripes should be troubled
©Matt Kenyon
Is inequality bad for US democracy? Not according to the US Supreme Court. In the next few weeks America’s apex court is likely to remove what remains of post-Watergate limits on campaign finance.
In 2010 it did away with the biggest restriction by giving corporations the same rights to free speech as people. Now it looks set to scrap ceilings on what individuals can give to candidates and parties. In a less unequal society, the downside would be limited. But in an economy where the top 1 per cent of the population owns more than a third of national wealth, it corrodes the republic from which such riches sprung. People fret about America’s 1 per cent economy. They should worry more about its 1 per cent democracy.
Both ends of the spectrum should be concerned about the rising US oligarchy. Last week several Republican presidential hopefuls trekked to Las Vegas to pay their respects to Sheldon Adelson, the gaming billionaire, who owns casinos in Nevada, Macau and Singapore. Mr Adelson wants to ban online gambling because he sees it as a threat to his vast offline empire. He is prepared to throw tens of millions of dollars at whoever will take up his cause. In practice, mainstream candidates, such as Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, and Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, are likely to smell a rat. That means the money will probably go to a Christian conservative such as Rick Santorum, who is fanatical enough to tarnish his party’s electability. If one man and his millions can alter a party’s nomination, he can wreck the party. Genuine conservatives ought to worry.
They should be concerned too about Tom Steyer, the liberal hedge fund billionaire who plans to spend $100m on the upcoming midterm elections on candidates who promise to tackle global warming. The rights and wrongs of Mr Steyer’s stance are beside the point. His aim is to bend the national debate to his will and ensure that President Barack Obama – whom he has hosted for election fundraising events – denies permission for the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. Republicans with longer memories might cast their minds back to 1996 when Bill Clinton skirted close to breaking the law by giving generous donors overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House.
When money can so easily penetrate the official home of the US commander-in-chief, democracy suffers. The uncomfortable truth is that both US parties are up for rent. Patriots of all stripes should be troubled.
America was forged in opposition to the aristocratic corruption of Europe. Today, inherited wealth is more entrenched in the US than it is in almost every corner of the old world. So too are legacy places at Ivy League universities that were once such wellsprings of US meritocracy.
Today, inherited wealth is more entrenched in the US than it is in almost every corner of the old world
In politics too, dynasty has rarely been more entrenched. It would be little surprise were the 2016 election to turn into a contest between Hillary Clinton and Mr Bush. Seven of the past nine presidential elections have featured a member of the Bush or Clinton families. Next time could make it eight out of 10.
Both families benefit hugely from the networks of donors they have cultivated over the decades. It goes without saying that their donors have done pretty well too. The story continues. George P Bush, Jeb’s son, is running for land commissioner in Texas. Many believe Mrs Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, is preparing the ground for her own future in US politics.
Of course, dynasty is not only about money. In a celebrity-driven age it also brings valuable name recognition. Moreover, money is not enough on its own to change election outcomes. The infamous Koch brothers, Charles and David, who own the second-largest private corporation in the US, spent tens of millions on the 2012 presidential without avail – as did Mr Adelson. And US democracy is still capable of extraordinary upsets, notably Mr Obama’s emergence from nowhere to dislodge Mrs Clinton in 2008.
Yet he may be the exception that proves the rule. Mr Obama campaigned on a promise to drive the money-changers from the temple. His efforts have come to naught. Aside from a nominal ban on permitting lobbyists to work in his administration, Mr Obama has been unable to stem the flood of spending since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. It is on his watch that US inequality has regained the levels last seen in the Great Gatsby era of the 1920s.
The debate continues to rage among economists over whether such extremes of inequality harm US growth prospects. Some say the fact that the bulk of income goes to the top 1 per cent reduces growth because it undermines the middle-class consumer engine. Others say that such outsized gains offer an incentive to risk-takers to work on the next generation of technological breakthroughs.
There are strong merits to both arguments. But the debate is far too important to be left to economists. In a society where the median net wealth is $113,000 per family, can it be healthy that the median for members of Congress is more than $1m apiece? Should one person one vote be replaced by one dollar one vote? Most economists agree that the effects of technology and globalisation will result in even more inequality in the years ahead, perhaps spectacularly so. The only real countervailing force is politics.
It would be a tragedy for US democracy were its political system to act as a spur, rather than a check, on the extremes of our age.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8fe32c2-b5cb-11e3-a1bd-00144feabdc0.html


April 4, 2014 6:58 pm

A decision right in principle but wrong in practice

Lifting the cap on funding will tighten the hold of political donors on US politicians
The US Supreme Court is reshaping election law based on principles that are distant from most Americans’ idea of common sense: companies have rights to free speech. Money and speech are the same thing. A political “contribution” is different from a political “expenditure”.
This week the court voted 5-4 to remove caps that had kept big individual donors from backing more than nine national candidates at a time. Anyone who was appalled by the court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling – which let corporations and foundations bankroll big political action committees, or super-Pacs – will like this one no better. The decision will mean, as The New York Times puts it, “giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics”. The alternative, alas, is giving politicians the loudest voice in deciding who gets to be a politician.

More

ON THIS STORY

ON THIS TOPIC

CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the court’s 1976 Buckley case established that Americans could spend freely to express their own political opinions but could contribute only a limited amount to individual candidates per election cycle (now $5,200). There was also, until this new decision, an aggregate cap of $48,600. This cramped the style of the Alabama Republican activist Shaun McCutcheon, who had wanted to spread about $60,000 among 28 candidates. The court backed his claim that the caps violated his first amendment rights.
In his decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a plurality of his colleagues that political speech during a campaign is the most important kind of speech – and ought to be the most protected. One ought to err on the side of removing constraints. The results may be unedifying, but they are no worse than “flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades”, to quote Mr Roberts’s list of other kinds of speech the first amendment protects. He cites precedent to warn that using electoral law to level the playing field between haves and have-nots can “impermissibly inject the government ‘into the debate over who should govern’. And those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern.”
That is inspiring. But Mr Roberts is as wrong in practice as he is right in principle. The aggregate limits in the US electoral system are meant to fight corruption but the only kind he recognises is the kind in which a politician offers a rich benefactor a legislative quid pro quo. Most corruption is not like that. More common is an inequality of access to politicians, about which Mr Roberts professes himself unconcerned. “Government regulation,” he writes, quoting precedent, “may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies or the political access such support may afford. ‘Ingratiation and access  . . . are not corruption’.”
Mr Roberts pooh-poohed the likelihood that removing the caps might permit donors to launder big contributions to desired candidates by using other candidates and committees as pass-throughs. But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenting justices, showed that a rich donor can now give up to $2.4m every election cycle (if he wants to donate in every congressional race), as well as $1.2m to party committees, and that the system might be easier to game than Mr Roberts assumed.
This week’s decision advances free speech, but at a high price: tightening the hold of rich donors on US politicians. Maybe there will be some small positive effects. The old caps, by making fundraising inefficient, increased the amount of time legislators had to devote to it. They may now be able to read and talk to voters more. But it is hard to see much practical benefit beyond that.
The mystery is why removing these caps was a matter of such desperate constitutional importance in the first place. A tone of impatience enters Mr Roberts’s prose when he insists: “The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.” But is that a good comparison? Why do donors need to be able to fund 10 candidates when they will be represented by only one congressman? Does backing candidates in distant constituencies not violate the Anglo-American tradition of “representation”? If one takes this tradition – and the idea of citizenship – seriously, it is admirable for an Alabaman to back a candidate in his own state’s Senate race, but meddlesome to back one in New Hampshire.
Money, which does not respect such state boundaries, is introducing elements of a delocalised system in which every citizen votes for the whole legislature at once. You could call it the “Dutch” system, after the national lists used in the Netherlands. You could call it an “at large” system. Whatever you call it, it is a worse system.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard

RELATED TOPICS

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c1c439c-ba62-11e3-8b15-00144feabdc0.html

Sunday, March 30, 2014

The last Jews of Calcutta

The last Jews of Calcutta

Picture of interiors of Magen David synagogue in CalcuttaHaving once served a thriving community, Calcutta's Magen David synagogue now lies empty

Related Stories

It is a busy time for pupils at the Jewish Girl's School in central Calcutta. Many of them are taking their final exams. They are all smartly dressed in uniforms which have the Star of David on their blouses, but their nervous mothers waiting outside are wearing the 'salwar kameez', or 'burkas'.
Most of the students are now Muslims and few can remember the last time a Jewish pupil was studying at the school. Like many in one of the world's largest cities, they know little about the Calcutta Jews.
In her late 50s, writer Jael Silliman is trying to change that. Before the community completely disappears, she - one of its youngest members - is compiling a digital archive that will record their history. Her inbox is full of photos and materials sent by members of the Calcutta Jewish diaspora who are now scattered across the world.
Picture of Jael Silliman and her mother Flower SillimanJael Silliman's mother, Flower, returned to Calcutta after settling in the USA and Israel
This was once a thriving community. The first Jew, Shalom Cohen, arrived in the city in 1798 from Syria. His financial success encouraged others to follow from Iraq and by World War II more than 5000 lived here. Now, less than 25 Jews call Calcutta their home.
Jael says: "Many left when it became clear that the British were about to leave India as they were worried about the direction the country was heading in and, once a few started to go, others quickly followed."
Synagogue with a steeple
They left behind one of the largest synagogues in Asia. The Magen David was built in the mid 1880s and used to be crammed full of families, with the men sitting downstairs and the women upstairs, on its wooden pews. Heavily influenced by the design of the British churches that were being constructed in Calcutta at the time, it has a steeple, which is unusual for a synagogue.
Jael Silliman says that "the community had to write to the Jewish leaders in Baghdad to get permission. When it was finally given, there was a caveat that the steeple must be higher than all the buildings that surrounded it."
The synagogue, which was the centre of this once vibrant community, now lies empty.
Outside its gates, most of the street vendors think it is a church. When I tell them that it is actually a Jewish place of worship they look confused. One of them asks me: "Are you sure?" But then his friend adds: "He is right. This is the building that is looked after by Rabul Khan."

Start Quote

Muslim parents are very grateful to the Jewish community for running this school and the children love celebrating Jewish holiday as it means they get extra days off”
Abeda RazekTeacher and former-student at the Jewish Girls' School
Once you walk through its gates, you will be met by the Synagogue's Muslim caretaker. Rabul Khan's family have been looking after the Magen David for generations.
Whilst handing me a 'kippah', a Jewish cap to cover my head, he smiles as he remembers the days when it was full for prayers, or 'namaaz', as he calls it.
As I am about to leave, he gestures to me to stop. He asks me a question: "Do you think they will come back?"
Not sure of how I should respond, I shrug my shoulders.
"Well, until they do, I will be here to look after this place for them," he says.
'Claustrophobically Jewish'
One of those who did return was Flower Silliman, Jael's mother. She is in now in her 80s but has more energy than most 40 year olds. She left Calcutta to set up home in the United States and then Israel. But she always missed the city of her birth, because for her being Indian is as important as being Jewish.
She describes her early life as "claustrophobically Jewish". Except for her servants, all the people she knew were Jewish as her parents were scared about assimilating into local life.
But Flower was ashamed of that, so she started to rebel. She insisted on learning Hindi, not French, and when she was at college in Delhi she joined the Indian independence movement.
She still vividly remembers the day she arrived back at Howrah station wearing Indian clothes: "My mother was horrified, " Flower tells me.
"To her it was like her daughter had gone to hell, and she made it clear to me that I would never wear these clothes whilst I was living under her roof."
Picture of Joe Cohen, secretary of Calcutta's Jewish Girls' SchoolJoe Cohen, secretary of Calcutta's Jewish Girls' School, hopes the school will be as important in the years to come
Once a month, Flower and six other members of the Jewish community meet to discuss how to maintain their synagogues, cemetery and schools. There are funds available, but with so few members of the community left it is not easy. They are also all aware that in 30 years' time there will probably be no Jews left in this city.
They see the three synagogues and the cemetery as their architectural contribution to it. But it is the Jewish Girls' School that they believe will be their lasting legacy.
School secretary Joe Cohen says: "The community is more than 200 years old and have been very well treated by people in this city.
"Running the Girls' School is our way of giving something back to Calcutta."
Fees are kept low so that families from the local Muslim community can educate their girls. Joe Cohen says she hopes that "in 200 years' time the Jewish Girls School will still be going strong and be as important to Calcutta as it is today."
That will mean that some children in the city will continue to have a holiday on Yom Kippur and Passover, though they will probably not be watching Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments as students do now to help them understand Jewish history.
Abeda Razek used to be a student here, now she is teacher. She tells me: "Muslim parents are very grateful to the Jewish community for running this school and the children love celebrating Jewish holiday as it means they get extra days off."
The Jews of Calcutta may soon disappear, but others in the city will be celebrating their festivals for some time yet.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Saturday, March 29, 2014

How to get British kids reading

March 28, 2014 7:03 pm

How to get British kids reading

A child reading in Kent, England©Peter Marlow/Magnum
A child reading in Kent, England
Pavan’s favourite activity is playing football outdoors. His second favourite is playing football indoors, and in third place is practising football skills against the sofa. Reading – the pursuit that Francis Bacon claimed “maketh a full man” – comes further down the eight-year-old’s list, behind school, going to discos, buying stuff, chatting to people, watching TV and playing on his Xbox games console.
Would he ever pick up a book for pleasure? “No,” Pavan shoots back jovially. “If I’m bored, I will ask my mum if I can play on her phone.” By this point, I am relieved that Michael Gove is not part of our conversation at a homework club in Harlesden Library, north London.
The UK education secretary has long feared that British children are “just not reading enough”. The same concern has been raised by publishers and literacy charities, which worry that new distractions – computer games, online videos, social networking – are pushing books off the shelf. More than 60 per cent of 18-to-30-year-olds now prefer watching television or DVDs to reading, according to a survey for the charity Booktrust. A similar proportion of young people think the internet and computers will replace books in the next 20 years.

More

IN ESSAY

The literacy debate received fresh impetus last October when a study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggested that vast numbers of young people were leaving school without the ability to read well. Of the 24 industrialised countries covered by the research, England was the only one that went backwards, with literacy and numeracy skills lower among the young – those aged 16 to 24 – than the old. (The results were little better in Northern Ireland; Scotland and Wales were not included in the study.)
The OECD’s hard-nosed economic concern with skills leads logically to reading for pleasure, which is closely associated with educational success. An analysis of the 1970 British cohort, tracking about 6,000 young people born in April of that year, found children’s test scores correlated more with how often they read than with how educated their parents were. “Being able to read a book mechanically is vital, but reading for pleasure shouldn’t be optional,” says Joanna Prior, managing director of Penguin UK. “The benefits will be reaped throughout a child’s life.”
For publishers, the commercial implications of a decline in literacy are obvious. In some ways the threat to the UK’s £3bn book market is more fundamental than that faced by the record industry: even when people stopped paying for music, they never stopped listening to it.
Literacy charities have tried various tricks to promote reading – including the Six Book Challenge, to get less confident readers in the habit; Quick Reads, which distributes short, easy texts for adults; and Premier League Reading Stars, which enlists top footballers to spend time with struggling schoolchildren. In areas such as Harlesden, such initiatives have drawn countless children and adults closer to books. But they are fragmented.
So literacy charities have come together under a single “Reading for Pleasure” campaign in the hope of having greater impact, particularly in lobbying government. “We need to slightly toughen up the message,” says Prior. “There’s a literacy crisis in the country. There shouldn’t be anybody who doesn’t read properly when they leave school.”
Views differ on the most effective interventions. Some focus on the period in which books enter a child’s life; some on the ages of 10 and 11, when other hobbies often take over; and others see the emotionally formative teenage years as the most important. But the wider point is clear: “If you’re going to engage a reader for life, you need to engage them before they become an adult,” says Louisa Livingston, head of consumer insight at Hachette UK.
That means making children comfortable around books, with soft-furnished areas in classrooms and personalised guidance so that each child can be directed to the books he or she might enjoy. School librarians, whose ranks are at risk from government funding cuts, should be seen as “book experts”, says Penguin’s Prior. Above all, while successive governments have fretted about test scores, publishers want politicians to recognise the importance of reading for pleasure. If that can be achieved, they argue, imaginative teaching methods will surely spring forth.
The social context is crucial. A 2011 National Literacy Trust survey of British children found that a third of respondents did not have books of their own. Of these, 19 per cent were below the reading level expected for their age, compared with 7.6 per cent of those who did own books.
Inequalities were also picked up in the OECD study. England and Northern Ireland showed “one of the stronger associations between socio­economic background and literacy proficiency” among the countries tested. What’s more, the report concluded, “unlike most other countries, this association is stronger among young people than among the overall adult population”.
Such issues have come to the fore in a parliamentary inquiry into adult literacy now under way. “Whether or not you use the word ‘class’, it is about home environments,” Helen Casey, an adult literacy expert, told MPs at its first session last month. “Kids spend 12 per cent of their time in school; they spend the rest of their time not in school. The culture they grow up in is really important,” said another expert, David Hughes. Yet at least one of the MPs seemed sceptical of that approach, suggesting that amounted to “excuses for the education profession”.
That is not the only apparent disconnect between educationalists and politicians. Gove wants children to study more books, and has amended the GCSE syllabus accordingly. His critics worry that will turn children away from reading for pleasure. “Teachers almost don’t have time for children to be relaxed around books,” says Sue Cowley, an educational author. “Reading starts to become something that’s done to be measured, not done out of choice.”
Some also detect an unwelcome snobbishness in Gove’s desire for the books to be harder – he has expressed particular gripes against John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men (too short) and Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series (too easy). “If someone’s reading a football magazine, shouldn’t we just be happy that they’re reading?” says Richard Mollet of the Publishers Association. “If a child is reading and enjoying the immersion, then surely that’s the most important thing.”
While that debate rumbles on, a wave of technological change means that children may find it harder to reserve time for reading. Technology has helped people to enjoy books – a backlit e-reader means no more torches under the duvet – but it has helped other media more. Long train journeys once meant hours reading or hours gazing out the window. Now, with an iPad, they can mean computer games and the previous evening’s TV programmes.
One option for publishers is to follow the music industry, encouraging authors to do even more events and engage more with social media so as to create “touchpoints” with their fans. Another is to adapt the books themselves. Interactive ebooks already offer multiple endings (a digital variation on the theme of “if you choose door A, turn to page 78”), and publishers are investing in apps that seek to lure infrequent readers with video and audio embellishments.
“There’s very much an experimental attitude at the moment,” says Jake Manion, creative director at animation company Aardman, which worked on HarperCollins’sThe Hobbit app. “Smartphones haven’t been around that long and people are still writing the stories in the way they’ve always done.” The biggest change, Manion argues, will come in “five to 10 years”, by which point writers will be “so familiar with the technology that they’ll be creating stories in different ways”.
And then, perhaps, football practice might wait.
Henry Mance is the FT’s media correspondent
-------------------------------------------
South Korea: An investment in the imagination
Bae Hyun-suh, a 10-year-old from Seoul, does not describe himself as an avid reader but still tries to visit his school library as much as possible, writes Song Junga.
“If I read books for 30 minutes, I get a stamp from the teacher. If I collect 10 stamps, I can skip homework once or do not have to clean the classroom for a week,” he says.
Thanks to this kind of encouragement by teachers and the government, the habit of reading is on the increase in South Korea. According to a survey conducted by the culture ministry last year, 96 per cent of Korean students aged above 10 read at least one book a year, the highest in seven years, while that ratio reached 71.4 per cent among South Korean adults – up 4.6 from 2011. The government aims to increase the ratio among adults to 80 per cent by 2018.
The culture ministry attributes this improvement to a government campaign to encourage reading and the use of public libraries – the proportion of South Koreans visiting at least once a year rose from 22.9 per cent in 2011 to 30.3 per cent last year. A scheme to encourage reading in the morning before classes start has also helped, with nearly 70 per cent of schools participating.
Such efforts are reflected in the results of an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study published last October, in which the literacy proficiency of South Korean 16-24-year-olds was rated third out of 24 countries. “We are seeking various ways to encourage reading because reading books is the best way to foster creativity and imagination, which is the basis of the ‘creative economy’ and our vibrant culture,” says culture ministry official Ha Jae-yeol.
About 50 new public libraries are built annually, while spending on new books will be boosted by nearly 70 per cent this year to Won15bn (£8.4m). The government is also encouraging book clubs at schools and companies, with the aim of creating 100,000 by 2018. It plans to provide tax benefits for book purchases to support the struggling publishing industry and is seeking to persuade broadcasters to set aside more time for book-related programmes.
Some worry, however, that government support for reading risks being undermined by the effects of a highly competitive education system focused on the university entrance exam. “Primary school students read a lot but once they enter a middle or high school, they can’t afford to read books for pleasure because of the educational rat race,” says Jin Young-kyun, a spokesman for the Kyobo Bookstore, the country’s largest bookshop. “All they read is textbooks and those books that can raise their grades at school.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0e82701c-b50c-11e3-a746-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Flife-arts%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct