Brilliant: Hattie Morahan in Anatomy of a Suicide. Photograph: Tristram Kenton for the Observer

When sadness runs through a family, is it inherited? Alice Birchs skewering Anatomy of a Suicide suggests something more complicated. A sort of hypnotism. A transfixing of one generation by another. A daughter who finds her mothers life compelling may vacate her own existence.

Three generations of women enact their histories from the 1970s to the 2040s side by side. They are so closely woven together that it is hard to know where one begins and the other ends. Does the suicide of her mother cause the breakdown of a woman when she gives birth? Does that womans drug habit steer her daughter towards becoming a doctor and sterilisation? Words home is one that recurs and gestures echo between them. When a woman speaks of wrists, her mother (who has tried to slit hers) sends her hand pirouetting gracefully in the air.

Birchs dialogue is as unswerving as it is in her Lady Macbeth screenplay, but more intricate. The influence of Caryl Churchill is apparent in ellipses and overlaps. But there is individual sharpness. Hurrah for this response to a woman who says she is sorry because her acquaintance does not have a husband. What a funny thing to say.

Hattie Morahan brilliantly vanishes. Her mellow voice is dulled, her limbs are angular, her features are fixed. All her systems are shrinking. Adelle Leonce gives a beautifully judged performance as her granddaughter: fervent but contained. Kate OFlynn is remarkable: a bolt of unhappiness. She has arrived as a vital actress in stealthy splendour, not as a lightning flash. A knockout four years ago in Port and last year in The Glass Menagerie, here she is metallic with grief.

Taking us into depression so deeply means a bleaching out, and levelling of texture. The play is both riveting and static. Director Katie Mitchells distinctive trance style comes into its own. Between scenes, each woman stands like a mannequin, as clothes are slipped on and off. As if life were simply draped over them.

At the Royal Court theatre, London, until 8 July

Go here to read the rest:
Anatomy of a Suicide review unhappy days are here again - The Guardian

By Douglas Anele

But despite their remarkable capacity for creative ingenuity and accomplishments, the Igbo as a group, according to Prof. Chinua Achebe, have the deadly flaws of hubris, overweening pride, obsession with material success and irritatingly noisy exhibitionism or showiness which tend toinvite envy from members of other ethnic groups. Yet, those flaws do not justify their being massacred periodically by northerners or treated as second class citizens in their own country. The May riots of 1966, Ironsis gruesome murder and massacre of Ndigbo afterwards led to a radical rethinking of their attitude to the idea of a unified Nigerian nation. The Igbo began to realise that their belief in a strong central authority that provides a level playing field which enables Nigerians from every ethnic group to actualise the ideal of one nation, one citizenship, and one destiny was a delusion.

The belated Igbo questioning of One Nigeria was consistent with the memorandum submitted by the northern delegation to the Nigerian ad hoc constitutional conference of September 1966. In it, northern representatives claimed that We have pretended for too long that there are no differences between the peoples of this country. The hard fact which we must honestly accept as of paramount importance in the Nigerian experiment especially for the future is that we are different peoples brought together by recent accidents of history. To pretend otherwise would be folly. The north even went further to demand that in any new constitution a secession clause should be inserted granting any member state the right to unilaterally secede completely from the union, and to make arrangements for cooperation with other members of the union in such a manner as they may severally or individually deem fit. Now, from what transpired later, it became clear that northerners were only interested in regional autonomy as long as it favours the north.

We have noted that the civil war that lasted from July 1967 to January 1970 proves the deadly extent caliphate colonialists can go to maintain its dominance in Nigeria. But before the war proper, a last ditch attempt was made in Ghana to save the country from disintegration occasioned by the fallouts of the two military coups in 1966. The Aburi meeting hosted by Ghanas military ruler, Lt. Gen. Joseph Ankrah and attended by senior military and police officers as well as government secretaries, resolved that each region should be responsible for its own affairs, and that the federal government would be responsible for issues dealing with the whole country, such as defence, currency and external affairs. In my opinion, if the Aburi accord had been implemented, the Biafran war would have been averted because eastern region would not have seceded. The agreement collapsed because ab initio there was a mismatch between the delegation led by Gowon and the one from eastern region headed by its military governor, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu: whereas Gowon and delegates from other regions apart from the east arrived Aburi with the vague idea that somehow Nigeria must remain as one country, Ojukwu and his group came with a well-articulated detailed vision of what the future political architecture of Nigeria should be. Thus, although the eastern position was eventually adopted, the two parties left Aburi with different ideas of what the agreement meant in practice. As a corollary, some aspects of the accord, especially those dealing with the issue of power relations between the central government and the regions, were unrealistic and impractical to implement given the growing domination of the army and political power by the north, coupled with the strained relations between the Igbo and northerners as a result of pogroms against Ndigbo resident in the north. Moreover, top federal civil servants in Lagos vehemently opposed the accord, and convinced Gowon that it was unworkable. The problem was aggravated by the all-or-nothing attitude to the contents of the accord by Gowon and Ojukwu, which was unnecessarily rigid and myopic. Gowons unilateral repudiation of the agreement was matched by Ojukwus insistence on its full implementation as quickly as possible: both men failed to realise that a give-and-take approach and compromises are required forsuccessful implementation of agreement on troublesome political conflicts.

The non-implementation of the Aburi accord by the federal military government heralded the end of the concept of regional autonomy and self-sufficiency in Nigeria, leading to the consolidation of caliphate colonialism. After Gowon had emerged as military head of state, he started implementing measures that effectively turned Nigeria into a unitarist federation, which increased the powers of the federal government over the federating units beyond what was allowed by the unification decree promulgated when Ironsi was in power and which was used by northern soldiers and their civilian collaborators to justify the bloodthirsty coup of July 29, 1966. Interestingly, northern emirs who had for long opposed the creation of states mainly in order not to compromise the norths geographical and political domination of Nigeria suddenly urged Gowon to create states. Gowon complied with the demand. The creation of states was more detrimental to solidarity among the three regions in the south than to the northern region because southern Nigeria did not have the equivalents of the theocratic emirate system, Islam and a dominant language (Hausa) which tended to unify different ethnic nationalities in the north. Besides, by concentrating more power at the centre ostensibly to keep Nigeria as one united country, Gowon also ensured that the federal government dominated by northerners controlled all revenues from recently discovered large deposits of petroleum mostly in the eastern region. As a result, Gowon not only expanded the pre-independent policy of using resources from the south to develop the north, he instigated the bizarre practice of northern preponderance in the ownership of oil wells in oil-bearing communities. One can claim justifiably that some of the most significant pre-war decisions taken by the federal government headed by Gowon are responsible for the extremely damaging effects of caliphate colonialism in Nigeria since 1967.

Any student of Nigerian history who blames the eastern region, particularly Ndigbo, for seeking self-determination after the horrendous atrocities they suffered in northern Nigeria is either a pathological misanthrope or moron. It is difficult to imagine a self-respecting ethnic nationality with the quantum of human and natural resources of the defunct eastern region that would not desire to take its destiny in its own hands. As Prof. Achebe observed, The Nigeria that meant so much for [Ndigbo] was not reciprocating the affection we had for it. The country had not embraced us, the Igbo people and other easterners, as full-fledged members of the Nigerian family. Hence, on May 30, 1967, when Ojukwu, on behalf of the 335-member Consultative Assembly of Chiefs and Elders who unanimously mandated him to pull out the east from the rest of Nigeria at an early practicable date, announced the secession of Biafra, he was actually demanding that Igbo people and their immediate neighbours be allowed to develop at their own pace untrammelled by the yoke of caliphate colonisation. Many uninformed Nigerians believe the pernicious falsehood that the Igbo declared war on the rest of Nigeria. Far from it because, as I have stated earlier, if there is any group that have contributed most to the building of modern Nigeria and lived the concept of One Nigeria (and still does, admittedly,to its own detriment) it is the Igbo. Therefore, it is in Ndigbos interest that Nigeria continues to exist and prosper. When the eastern region seceded, caliphate colonialists led by Gowon decided to respond with a short, surgical strike through what he called a police action.

In every war, it is always plausible to argue, after the fact, that it could have been averted or avoided if the combatants had shown more restraint. The Biafran case is not anexception. The war was led by two young military officers in their early thirties, Ojukwu and Gowon. Perhaps, older and more experienced statesmen could have handled the complex issues that led to the bloody conflict much better in a manner that would have led to a peaceful resolution, although it would have been extremely difficult, judging by the horrors they suffered in the hands of their northern compatriots, to persuade the eastern populace shortly before the civil war broke out that they are equal stakeholders in the Nigerian project.

Now, northern hardliners such as MurtalaMohammed wanted full-blown war as the final solution to teach the Igbo a brutal lesson and consolidate the norths domination of federal power, whereas Gowon saw it as an opportunity to cut the arrogant and rebellious Ojukwu to size. Eastern leaders who mandated Ojukwu to secede at the earliest practicable opportunity were desperate and confused, and the people themselves were emotionally exhausted and disillusioned. In such a psychologically charged atmosphere, critical thinking and logic would be replaced by the exciting logic of war hysteria such that anyone who questions the extreme measures taken by Ojukwu in response to Gowons prevarications and provocations or expresses doubt concerning the propriety of secession without adequate preparation for war would bebranded a spineless coward or saboteur. To be continued.

Read more here:
The anatomy of Caliphate colonialism (5) - Vanguard

On-air challenge: Every answer today is a word that contains part of the human body in the exact middle.

Ex. Group of Native Americans, starting with T and ending with E --> TRIBE, which contains RIB between the T and the E 1. E ____ Y Mournful poem 2. W ____ Y Tired 3. A ____ G Very sore 4. EL ____ SE Geometrical shape 5. LE ____ ES Beans and peas 6. RE ____ AL Opposing argument in a debate 7. OB ____ TE Out of date 8. RA ____ SS Quality of a harsh voice 9. FLA ____ ESS Showy display

Last week's challenge: Consider this sentence: Benjamin, the Greenpeace ombudsman in the panorama, was charmed by the chinchilla fragrance. This sentence contains seven words of seven or more letters. They have something very unusual in common. What is it, and can you think of an eighth word with the same property?

Puzzle answer: You can delete some of the interior letters of each of the words to leave the name of a country Benin, Greece, Oman, Panama, Chad, China, and France.

Other words with this property include Chipotle (Chile), Indicia (India), Latinos (Laos), Ironman (Iran), and Turnkey (Turkey).

Puzzle winner: Mike Strong of Mechanicsburg, Va.

Next week's challenge: This is a spin-off of the on-air puzzle. Think of a familiar two-word phrase starting with T and ending with S, in which the interior letters name part of the human body. Remove the first and last letters of that word, and what remains will name another part of the human body. What's the phrase, and what are the body parts?

Submit Your Answer

If you know the answer to next week's challenge, submit it here. Listeners who submit correct answers win a chance to play the on-air puzzle. Important: Include a phone number where we can reach you. The deadline is Thursday, June 22 at 3 p.m. ET.

See the original post here:
Sunday Puzzle: Hopefully, You Paid Attention In Anatomy Class - KUNC

Gianforte proved himself unworthy

Montana, I am disappointed that we have just elected another rich man to represent us in Congress.

Greg Gianforte proved himself unworthy of our trust the day before the election, yet actions do not appear to matter much anymore. In his victory speech, he said Congress should not get paid until the budget is balanced, he will vote for term limits, and is standing with President Trump to make America great again. To take him at his word then, he will stand with conservative Republicans on health-care legislation that Congress has already exempted themselves from (why would they do that if it is good for us and how is it even allowed under our Constitution?); pass laws that seek to control women and limit their rights; oppress minorities; and disregard science, which will further diminish the health of our planet.

Why are we electing people that want to take away what little liberal safety nets exist for the poor, sick and elderly?

Dont believe the claims that these efforts are being passed for our national security and economic well-being. How secure is a nation if its own people arent fed, healthy, and have equal access to education? If we have some measure of those things now, however imperfect, isnt America STILL a great nation?

I am proud to be a fourth-generation Montanan, but this make America great again is nothing but a deception and manipulation by the wealthy and a dysfunctional two-party system. Kathy Smith, Bigfork

A letter to my Democrat friends:

I know you are all in shock that the good people of Montana should have the gall to elect as our congressman a man who allegedly manhandled a member of the media who tried to shove his tape recorder up his nose.

Surely this should have been the death knell of his political life.

So I suggest you take a week or so off, clutch your pearls, enjoy pate de foie gras, sip your chardonnay in haunts far away from the great unwashed, then re-enter life, and contemplate how such a political disaster could possibly have occurred.

Could it be attributable to one, or some, or all of the following?

Your candidate was unqualified unless guitar playing is a prerequisite for public office.

Your candidates accomplishments were in the local entertainment field, not in the real world.

Your candidate was unprepared to discuss the issues.

Your candidates personal finances were a disaster.

Your candidate was lawsuit happy, suing a respected local doctor and thereby bringing out in public his STD and his marijuana use.

Your candidates bringing Bernie Sanders out from the crypt to stump for him was, well, sort of bizarre for Montana.

Your candidate was in it for the paycheck.

Seems to me that the Democratic Party has a sort of death wish these days. First Mrs. Clinton playing her role of every mans ex-wife, running on a platform that she has female genitalia and thereby deserves to be elected, and now a troubadour who wanted to sing his way into the halls of Congress. Might there not be some really qualified folks on the left that you could put up for office, or is the bench really that thin? Mind you, I must confess that I like it this way, sending forth the unqualified and unelectable to stand for public office, but you might want to consider whether the results justify the effort and money expended in the process. Cy Appel, Whitefish

Mr. Greg Gianforte has won the special election for the sole Montana House seat in the U.S. Congress. His 6 percent margin over the Democratic nominee, Rob Quist, earned our congratulations and best wishes.

Our state, because of our population of 1 million and 65,000 people, is limited to only one member in the House of Representatives. Consider the fact that the city of Los Angeles alone has 18 members of the U.S. House and one begins to grasp the challenge facing Montanas single representative. I was fortunate to serve Western Montana in the U.S. House for seven terms beginning in 1980 and become our lone congressman for two terms starting in 1992. In that rather lonely position one quickly understands the importance of the old-fashioned values of rapport, friendliness, and patience. Neither a hot temper nor tendencies toward violence are considered attributes in the House. Montana has been embarrassed enough.

It is true that most who successfully campaign for political office possess a sense of pride and that is particularly evident in those who arrive in Congress not only victorious in politics but also come there having become recently wealthy from success in business. Hopefully our new congressman, who will be the wealthiest person in the House, brings to his new legislative task a natural sense of humility.

The Washington, D.C., press corps is comprised of very bright and friendly reporters brimming with talent and curiosity. Each has a deep respect for their assigned task of reporting the publics business. This country cannot survive without the press and its well-educated cadre of individuals determined to ferret out the truth. They deserve the respect of as all our citizens and that includes every elected official as well.

To my thinking, one of the most valued sentiments for a representative from here is a sense of satisfaction. Since returning home in 1997, I have earnestly hoped each of our newly elected Montana members of the House would not use the election as simply a stepping-stone to a run for the Senate. Our state needs seniority in the House.

Good luck and best wishes, Mr. Gianforte. You will need it and so will we. Pat Williams, Missoula

If you were harassed by a person claiming to be a journalist what should you do?

We know that congressional candidate Greg Gianforte was harassed by a person claiming to represent a British journal. Harassment was annoying and steady.

There are claims that Mr. Gianfortes stern response was sudden and unprovoked.

There also are claims that Mr. Gianforte stood up for all of us in his response and that nobody should be harassed. What constitutes a provocation? Is there a right to trespass and dominate private events? Can an activist claim to be a reporter?

Should public figures be harassed while the rest of us are protected by law? What is the best response?

Mr. Gianforte is a Republican. Would we tolerate similar mistreatment of a Democrat? What harassment must you and I tolerate if we are involved in a newsworthy event? Can national tension be reduced?

Missoula protesters recently did their worst to stop calls for facts and figures on mass immigration of refugees. Police could not defend because there had been no violence, only threats and harassment. Reporters refused balanced coverage.

The tension grows. What do you think? John H. Jack Wiegman, Missoula

Greg Gianforte eventually apologized to the reporter he manhandled on election night. For some the apology was late and inadequate. For others Gianforte shouldnt have apologized to the liberal reporter at all. Such is the divided nature of these times.

If Gianforte owed an apology, though, it was to the people of Montana for reaching the age of 56 and showing the maturity of a 7-year-old.

Gianforte was under stress when he attacked the reporter. Political campaigns are stressful. But so is holding public office. In this session of Congress, Gianforte will have to make tough decisions, sometimes late at night when he is bone-tired and under pressure, on health care, tax reform, the priorities of a balanced budget, energy and the environment, and a host of other contentious issues with big implications for Montana people. Coolheaded and careful judgment will be required.

Both Steve Daines and Jon Tester provide Montanans with sure-footed and responsible representation in the U.S. Senate. Both are respected and effective. Both are relatively young and building valuable seniority. Good for Montana, but not adequate if our sole spokesman in the House is a loose cannon. Thoughtful Montanans can only reserve judgment on Gianforte. He has a lot to prove and little time to transform himself from a lifetime of becoming the man he is.

Violent escapades are not new in American politics, but they can be a sign of the times in which they occur. In 1856 shortly before the country was ripped apart by the Civil War, pro-slavery South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks blind-sided anti-slavery Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, and beat the defenseless Sumner so viciously with his cane that he broke it. The result was that Sumner, an invalid for the rest of his life, was made a martyr in Massachusetts and most of the North, whereas Bully Brooks became an instant hero in the South, receiving dozens of canes from soon to be Confederates across cotton country.

In 1950, Sen. Joe McCarthy, furious with newspaper columnist Drew Pearson, hurled Pearson against a wall as the guests were leaving a Washington, D.C., dinner, and was vigorously kneeing Pearson in the groin, when young newly elected Sen. Richard Nixon wrestled the burly McCarthy off of the traumatized Pearson.

In the press coverage that followed, the country was deeply divided about whether the liberal Pearson had it coming, or whether the brutish McCarthy was an out-of-control right-wing fanatic. This was near the beginning of the time in history remembered for McCarthyism.

Maybe similarly the Gianforte episode is an early indicator of a new period in our political culture already described by some as Trumpism.

Broad minded, thoughtfully balanced representation by Greg Gianforte would send a positive signal from a congressman elected by only 50.2 percent, and with something to prove. But if Gianforte identifies with the renegade and divisive Freedom Caucus, that will send another signal. Time wont be long in telling. Bob Brown, Whitefish

To the press panel on Face the State on June 4, let me provide perspective outside the self-serving, self-righteous and self-interested bubble in which you live.

Greg Gianfortes confrontation with the Guardian reporter did not constitute coverage of a public official. Mr. Gianforte was a private individual running for public office. Accordingly, Mr. Gianforte had no obligation to humor the press.

Second, no one surrenders private property rights when they run for office. A campaign office is private property. If asked to leave and a reporter stays, he or she is trespassing.

Third, no comment means no comment. A reporter has no entitlement to badger asked and answered. No candidate has an obligation to the press. Freedom of the press is freedom from censorship, not a license to operate outside the law or engage in harassing, trespassing or slandering.

Finally, I for one and many people I talk with believe the Guardian reporter, Ben Jacobs, had an agenda, a liberal agenda in-line with the left leaning politics that infect the Guardian, and his goal was to provoke a confrontation specifically to embarrass and damage the campaign of Mr. Gianforte at the 11th hour. Kevin Corbett, Whitefish

Although I dont agree 100 percent with the end result in now-Congressman Greg Gianfortes scuffle with reporter Jacobs, I feel this matter needs to be addressed as what could have been an orchestrated political assassination attempt against the GOP.

Can one consider the possibility that Mr. Jacobs was choreographed similar to the MoveOn.org protesters that were paid to rally against President Trump last fall? If I were a Republican candidate for any office, I would have an experienced security team that could diffuse any confrontational journalistic privilege from a trespasser to a closed venue on the eve of Election Day. How would Gianforte know whether that uninvited microphone shoved into his face at a BBQ wasnt a weapon? Mr. Jacobs was aggressively approaching a highly publicized candidate with maximum media exposure in an important race and may have instigated the action to get an end result such as this ... either to sabotage a successful campaign at the last moment ... or as an ambulance chaser to ultimately make a civil claim against a powerful multi-millionaire for personal gain.

As a martial-arts instructor and a past personal bodyguard, I can sympathize with Rep. Gianfortes dilemma here. Let me explain. Mr. Gianfortes security team should accept liability for not being immediately present to diffuse this situation. This is their job ... to protect their employer. This is what they are trained, licensed and bonded to perform. They dropped the ball, not Mr. Gianforte. Every action should be met with a reaction. If Mr. Gianfortes security team wasnt up to the task, I dont know that any other public figure would have reacted any differently. What if this happened to a female politician? What if the security team was actually present and they physically removed Mr. Jacobs for trespassing and invading Mr. Gianfortes personal space ... and maybe even took him to the ground to inspect what could have been a weapon. This scenario wreaks of a sabotage by the left to me.

Again, I do not agree completely with Mr. Gianforte taking this small scuffle to the ground, but he may have recognized it as a threat and simply defended himself, when security wasnt present as they should have been. I would caution Rep. Gianforte to beware and prepare for not only Fake News to be prevalent in his political career, but for some new ambulance chaser to appear out of the woodwork, looking to make a buck, even though Mr. Jacobs was unharmed except for his pride, machismo and broken glasses.

Fake journalism can affect us all in a negative manner. Ive been a victim of it myself, so I can sympathize. I would encourage the naysayers to give Congressman Gianforte the benefit of a doubt ... as a family man, honest businessman that employed hundreds of Montanans and a good Christian. He earned my vote and that of the majority. Suck it up and hope for the best from your new congressman from the great state of Montana. Kevin Moore, Bigfork

The disconnect is still there between the press and the average Montana citizen as shown by the reactions to the shoving match between Rep. Gianforte and reporter Ben Jacobs.

Giantorte has been chastised and rightfully so, but the egregious actions of Jacobs which precipitated the incident have been wrongfully neglected to the detriment of all reporters. Its time for our news organizations to create a board which would promulgate a code of conduct like other professions. In so doing they could effectively corral thuggish reporters into a more acceptable line of conduct more nearly matching the values and feelings of the citizens of Montana.

Most people I talk to did not feel at all sorry for Jacobs, hence the lack of reaction in the way of votes during the election (in fact many think it may have helped Gianforte). Jacobs was not invited to the press meeting underway. Ignoring this fact, he barged into the room anyway, shoved a microphone in the face of Gianforte and started peppering him with questions even after being asked to leave. His behavior was rude at best and he was guilty of trespass and possibly assault at worst. The reaction, though regrettable, was predictable. Montanans are fair-minded people but also realistic. They know there are many spots in Montana where Jacobs behavior would have ended up with his microphone protruding out of some posterior orifice tweeting comments the like of which havent been heard before with many people speculating he got what he deserved.

Our news organizations have lost their effectiveness for many reasons, not the least of which is the boorish, rude and at times, immature actions of rogue reporters like Jacobs. A code of conduct that specifies what is and what is not appropriate for the actions of reporters would go a long ways toward correcting that situation. For instance, if a person does not want to do an interview with a reporter, that is his/her right and it should be respected. Crowding in front of others to press forward your agenda without regards to others should be discouraged and, if continued, punished in some manner or another. Courtesy and politeness should be encouraged. Such a policy would go a long way into bringing respect and credibility back into the reporting profession.

Rep. Gianforte reacted badly to this situation, but Jacobs actions are worthy of criticism as well. They were completely uncalled for and ultimately ineffective. Indeed his actions have cast a bad shadow over reporters in general which is unfair to our hard working reporters who are trying to do a professional job.

Our news organizations need to clean up this mess with policies which enhance the professionality of reporting not just in Montana, but the rest of our country as well. Such policies would be warmly welcomed. And as for Ben Jacobs I have this advice: If you want to be accepted and effective when reporting in Montana learn to mind your manners. Mark Agather, Kalispell

Read this article:
Anatomy of an assault - Daily Inter Lake