Norway on my mind

I have only been to Norway once. And only to Oslo.

We went to the Viking Ship Museum.

We went to the fantastic open-air architectural museum.

And then we took a ferry to Denmark. (All photos by Bob)

Susan and I also bought a lot of yarn. Our hotel was up the street from the best, most famous handicrafts store in Oslo. How lucky was that. We had to window shop all weekend, waiting until Monday morning when the shop reopened. As we approached, there was a crowd outside that turned out to be the American ladies on the Vogue Knitting Magazine Tour of Scandinavia waiting at the door ahead of us. We were planning a longer trip in Norway the following year, but Bibs was born, and we went to the States instead.

Norway was on my mind on Thursday because Bob and I went to a concert at St John's, Smith Square called Nordic Voices, from Norway. Bob bought the tickets thinking they were a group he listens to on iPod/CD, but when he read the programme, he realised they were some completely different group. Six a capella singers doing Lamentations by Gesualdo and Victoria. Done often. Done well. Nice. And then after the interval they turned to modern pieces by Norwegian composers — Ødegaards, Thoresen, Nystedt, Havrøy (their baritone) — using folk melodies and folk singing voice techniques. An absolutely amazing performance. It was electrifying, and they looked so happy. They thanked us and said this was their first trip to London. Sadly the audience was miniscule. St John's, Smith Square is a much too large Baroque church turned into a concert venue years ago, with terribly uncomfortable chairs and no rise in the floor. Music people we know have a nostalgic fondness for the place, but the concert halls that have opened in the past few years have marginalised St John's, Smith Square. Every established group is deserting them; most of their offerings seem to be posh school music recitals. Audiences are down everywhere, we've noticed. Tickets are an easy item to cut back on when money is short.

Friday morning, Bob called me and said have you seen the news.......no I hadn't, and when I clicked on the New York Times, I was left speechless. A few hours later, Megan called, also speechless. In fact we had a ten minute conversation that was mostly dead air as we communicated speechlessly. She was the first person in the States whose reaction I heard, and I was surprised when she said, Why Does Norway Hate Us? or some variation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not sure Americans realise how much the rest of the world reveres Obama, how much they idealise him. This is a little hard to comprehend in the States, where everyone — the right-wing nuts, the dissatisfied lefties, the press, other politicians — always criticise something Obama has done. There seems to be no question the guy is a loser, with a failed administration, and no backbone. And then there are the people who think he is fascist socialist Nazi, just like Mao, and is appointing czars because he wants to establish a Communist Russian monarchy.

In England, where they can read this stuff, since it's written in English, they have become a bit more cynical — although you wouldn't know it from the days of newspaper coverage on: Why didn't Obama have a one-on-one meeting with Gordon Brown in New York? Why did Gordon have to corner him in a kitchen at the UN for 15 minutes? It can't really be because we tortured his grandfather, can it? The man is a star. Everyone wants to spend their 15 minutes with him. The repulsive Berlusconi shoving Prime Ministers aside, and being upbraided by Queen Elizabeth for his boorishness. The ridiculous Sarkozy organising a 65th D-Day commemoration at the last minute, strong-arming Obama to come, knowing that months earlier Brown had declined participating in such an event, so he wouldn't have to share his rock star guest. And of course the Spanish Prime Minister's Goth daughter(s) — I thought it was hard to tell since the entire family was dressed in black right down to the Prime Minister's tie — with their family holiday photos. None of these people read the swill available to us English readers — most of them could read it, but why would they want to waste their time. What they do know is that the United States had the great good sense to elect a handsome, brilliant, personable, thoughtful, well-educated, caring, accomplished man, who loves his wife and daughters, and who also happens to be a member of a racial/ethnic minority, something which very likely could not happen in whatever country they live in.
 
However, Norway did not make this award to Obama because he is the biggest rock star on the planet. The motive is much more Manichean: there is Good and there is Evil. The United States by definition is Good, but for eight years, the country turned to the Evil side — and the Peace Prize is a reward for renouncing Evil and turning back to Good. George W. Bush was loathed every where outside the States. He represented every negative trait universally recognised as the stereotype of an American: thick, noisy, bull headed, uncultured, xenophobic, entitled, overly familiar. The first time he became president most accepted it as a terrible mistake; the second time was unforgivable. Electing Obama — and many in Europe commented they should be given the right to vote in US presidential elections because the outcome was so crucial to their lives —was met with relief. The slipping structure of the world had been righted.

Norway is the world's richest real country —  discounting Luxembourg which is hardly a country — so they must do a lot of things right (alas, the policy of killing whales is not one of them), so if they want to exert a little power in the unique opportunity given to them of choosing the Nobel Peace Prize winner, what's to say they shouldn't. Most of the criticism heaped on Obama's selection is in the vein of, "but what has he done to deserve this." In fact doing something is not a criteria for the prize laid out in Alfred Nobel's will. Merely acting on the desire to promote peace is acceptable. A BBC Radio-4 presenter made reference to this in a report yesterday mentioning the case of apartheid in South Africa. Nelson Mandela was awarded half the prize in 1993 (nobody ever remembers that F.W. de Clerk was awarded the other half). For 27 years Mandela was imprisoned as a terrorist who regularly refused to denounce violence as a means to end apartheid. When he was released in 1991, and became head of the ANC, he negotiated with de Clerk, but early in 1993, the talks had broken down, and the election that ended apartheid was not held until 1994, several months after the Peace Prize was awarded to the two men. The Prize may have helped to move policy in the direction of peace, and we can all be thankful for the prescience of Norway in taking that step. Norway took a risk on Mandela, and the risk paid off. Don't forget Henry Kissinger was also given a similar half-Nobel — his Vietnamese co-winner turned his half down on the grounds that peace had not yet been achieved — and the war did continue for two  years. This too was a case of Norway using the award to influence policy going forward.

So Norway does not hate the US. They may have made Obama's job more difficult with their little surprise. Most commentators seem to believe that.  I doubt if that was the Norwegians' intention. No one outside of the US wants Obama to fail, making the world a more dangerous place than it is now. From the slurs I see on the internet, there certainly seems to be a substantial number of Americans who would like nothing better than to see Obama fail. I got this link to Gawker from Megan, and it is incredibly funny, citing things that used to be okay, before Obama did them. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize and getting a puppy for your children head the list.  Gawker links to other pieces that I found quite shocking in the level of their vitriol and rudeness. The casual acceptance of vicious behaviour is a danger to the nation, preventing us from working to solve the critical problems that are undermining life in the States.