Foodie Fridays: Autumnal Za'atar 'Salad'

It's certainly true that "the night's are drawin' in" as we say here, which means an obvious urge to eat masses of stodgy comfort food. However, much like another beer seeming like a good idea, despite the immediate short-term pleasure of cheese, pasta, chips it does very little for your mood or energy levels. So, in an attempt to keep JJ and I still active in these colder nights, I semi-improvised a hot salad dish. Shown here in it's first incarnation. I've already got ideas for a second attempt and would love to hear from anyone that makes it themselves and whatever they add/remove/change.

A note on 'chef' ingredients. I know it can be frustrating reading through a recipe and finding an ingredient that you've never heard of and that seems only to be included just to show how innovative the recipe writer is. So, for those who don't know about Za'atar I apologise, I know it's annoying, but you need to introduce Za'atar into your cooking. In this recipe it heightens the various flavours and binds them all together, like every good spice mix or herb blend should do.

Za'atar is the name of the herb as well as the mix itself. It is a species of wild thyme with an especially long history in the middle-east, being a staple ingredient in Arab, Israeli and North African cooking. The mix varies by locality, but is normally a combination of ground dried herbs, sesame seeds, salt and olive oil. My shop bought Za'atar mix comprises of: sesame seeds, sumac, thyme, salt, basil and sunflower oil, which is fairly basic and traditional, but could also include: oregano, marjoram, savory (satureja),  ground cumin, or caraway seeds.

If you can't find anywhere selling Za'atar mix near you, it's not too hard to get some of the ingredients and grind them up yourself. 

Serves 2

1/2 Butternut Squash, peeled and cut into chunks

1/2 Green and Red Bell Peppers, deseeded and cut into chunks

2 Carrots, grated

1/2 tin of Chickpeas

1/2 bag of Rocket

2 Spring Onions, sliced

1/3 Cucumber, cut into half moons

1 Avocado

1 Lime, juiced

Mixed seeds (sunflower, pumpkin, sesame)

Chilli Flakes, pinch (optional)

Honey, spoonful (optional)

Za'atar, BIG pinch (NOT optional)

1 cup of Brown Rice (replace with Pearl Barley if preferred)

Method

1. Preheat oven to 200c

2. Add cubed squash to an oven tray, cover with a little oil and one pinch of the za'atar (and the chilli flakes if using), mix and place in the oven for 15 minutes. Start preparing the brown rice, give it a wash, add to a covered pan and add three times the amount of water to rice, i.e. 3 cups of water for my recipe. Put it on boil.

3. After 15 minutes add the chopped peppers, mix and roast for about 30 additional minutes, or whenever they are all softened and slightly charred. Also, once the rice starts boiling turn it right down to a low simmer. The brown rice takes a little over 30 minutes too.

4. Prep all the rest of the ingredients (except the avocado) ready for 'construction' of the salad.

5. Once the roasting veg and the rice are done you're ready to build! (While the veg is hot out of the oven, mix the honey through, if you like it especially sweet!)

6. It's a matter of taste, but I keep the rice separate and build the salad in this order: Rocket-Carrot-Chickpeas-Cucumber. You could mix it all up rather than layering (it's a habit of mine). Scatter the roast veg over the top.

7. Half, de-seed, and slice the avocado. Sprinkle lime juice and seeds over this. Top with sliced spring onions and possibly more za'atar.

8. Done! 

Possible additions: Yoghurt-based dressing with tahini? Toasted pittas breads with olive oil and za'atar dip? It could probably do with some sort of dressing, chilli olive oil?

P.S. If I'd have thought of it sooner, I would have thought of a punning name for the recipe between the 'herbs' of the za'atar and the German word for autumn...

Melancholy Mondays: Hatred of life is the love of death

I used to believe that the elderly had some greater knowledge of death, or else, a certain wisdom that allowed them to face their own deaths with an inner strength. As this, the fear of death, is something I continue to struggle with, I found this thought comforting. That is, at some point in my future I will also find this wisdom and learn to face my own death without fear. However, as I stumble into middle age, I begin to learn that this earlier idea might not be correct. I start to consider that it is not an acceptance or wisdom of death, but a disconnection or disregard for life instead. When all your dreams have failed, all your loved ones died before you, the world has collapsed into chaos, all that might have been good has finally been destroyed or corrupted, then we can say "bring on death, there is nothing more for me here."

'Riding with Death' by Jean-Michel Basquiat, 1982

Quotes worth saving (17): George Yancy

[This is a section from an interview with the philosopher George Yancy, from the excellent http://www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/ that is edited by Clifford Sosis]

How do you see the future of philosophy?

It will have an abysmal future unless it becomes far more relevant to actual human suffering, pain, rage, death and dying, and oppression.       

Disconcerting trends?

Of course, while I don’t see this as a trend, I would say that one disconcerting reality is the failure of us, male philosophers, to confront our sexism in and outside of the profession. Guys, stop the bullshit. Another disconcerting aspect would be the pathetic ego-driven, “god-like” pretensions of so many philosophers. Come on, you ain’t all that. None of us are. Man, the arrogance is appalling. By the way, that shit isn’t exclusive to white folk. Black philosophers and philosophers of color are also guilty of this. Lastly, disconcerting is the continued lack of a robust interdisciplinary ethos within philosophy.           

Exciting?

There are more multiple voices within the field, though still too few; and there are differently embodied folk and thereby different epistemic and value-laden horizons that challenge various oppressive practices and assumptions.    

What do you make of the black lives matter movement?

Powerful. And politically necessary. Yet, profoundly disconcerting that in 21st century North America Black people find it necessary to make the declaration that their lives matter. You know, it is actually within that declaration, contrary to those who don’t understand it, that all lives matter. In other words, Black Lives Matter is a universal that is inclusive of all lives mattering. I think that this implied universality is linked to being treated as the damned of the earth, the lowest of human refuse. By the way, it does not follow (and has not historically followed) that White Lives Matter is inclusive of all lives mattering. Historically, and in our contemporary moment, white lives continue to have a certain ontological premium attached to them. In fact, the logic of whiteness is both viciously binary and dehumanizing in its exclusionary structure.  Black Lives Matter is a movement that Black people have shaped since our coming to this country in chains. It’s not new, but more of the necessary same.       

Trump?

Man, you don’t stop. Simply put. He is a conduit through which white America expresses its most vile desire for white purity. An apocalyptically dangerous white man who sees himself as the center of the world. That kind of hubris bespeaks realities of genocide. 

Library Tales: Dedications VII

I've decided to included the book title and author after each dedication now (although I've already lost the first one) as it's almost always the first thing anyone asks about the dedication...

- - -

To the Gang
Bear, Bunny, Cow, Bear 2, Polar Bear, the Baby Bears, polar Bear Gone to Paris, Malinda, Elise, and all of the others (including Valerie and Christine, of course)

To Elaine
who has put up with my being digital for exactly 11111 years
[Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte]

To two individuals who have provided
comfort and solace in difficult times
and added to our pleasure in the good times -
Jim Beam and Johnnie Walker
[Epidemiology by David L. Streiner and Geoffrey R. Norman]

- - -

A small break, a change in location, institutions, job title and pay grade (fortunately for the better)
And now, the dedications continue...

- - -

The Laughing Buddha

Beside the pond in our garden is a statuette of a laughing Buddha. He stands with arm stretched upwards in joyous celebration. Except one arm is broken, the missing piece resting on the ground next to his feet. When the accident happened, I asked my husband to stick the piece back on. Noticing that the repair went undone for some considerable period of time, I enquired as to whether there was a problem. 'I quite  like it like that', was the response. Over time I have come to agree with him. The wounded laughing Buddha speaks of joy reaching through pain, of severed connections nevertheless sustained. It has more to say than the perfect model.
[Negotiating death in contemporary health and social care by Margaret Holloway]

For Deneige (at 30) and Andrew
and Jeremy (at 28) and Alison.
May you continue to retain your illusion of control.
[Anxiety and its disorders by David H. Barlow]

To the wonderful old times, and to an exciting future.
[Contemporary Intellectual Property]

For our families (undefined).
[Cohabitation]

'Look,' Aileen said. 'Forget Prozac. Forget Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory. Forget Jeffrey Masson - or is it Jackie Mason? The only thing that is going to revolutionize this profession is Bidding the Job.'
'I specialise in Christmas,' said the psychotherapist, a man named Sydney Poe, who wore an argyle sweater vest, shiny black oxfords, and no socks. 'Christmas specials. You feel better by Christmas or your last sessions free.'
'I like the sound of that,' said Aileen. It was already December the first. 'I like the sound of that a lot.'

(Lorrie Moore, 'Birds of America')

[Short-Term Psychotherapy by Alex Coren]

A dialogue on multiculturalism between two strangers on social media

Conversation on social media is a tricky thing. 

Indeed, the opportunities to find offence in misreading another's comments are almost endless and when you add heightened emotive topics the possibility for antagonism is near absolute, even between normally rational friends. So, when you add complete strangers, many of whom use the opportunity to insult strangers as a sort of game (i.e. 'trolling') then the chance for a reasoned dialogue seems impossible. 

However, by fortune, I found myself able to share a few words with a complete stranger on a fairly volatile subject matter. Multiculturalism, in this case, his denial of it's ability to function/exist. I suppose that we were able to have a discussion was facilitated by my willingness to allow a number of assumptions to slide, rather than confront them head-on. It would have been rather easy to immediately accuse him (let's call him X) of bigotry, to start by calling X out on his implicit bias, but this, I suggest, would have stopped rather than started a conversation.

Indeed, that the majority of 'discussions' on social media (in this case, facebook) are either shouts of agreement or opposition without context or connection is the outcome of this lack. A lack of what? Reason, respect, trust? I'm not sure, but allowing another to hold a differing opinion without the desire to immediately 'correct' them seems to be the starting point. 

Is the job of the philosopher (or the philosophical thinker, or simply the reasonable) to merely correct the perceived errors of others, so that they might see the world as the philosopher does, that is, correctly? Perhaps, that should be as 'that' philosopher does, because philosophers tend not to agree with each other... 

I would suggest that instead of this didactic 'teaching' that instead what we want to be doing is rather questioning assumptions, including (it is hoped) our own. By doing this we hope to find some sort of common understanding, or else, to see the flaws in our own and others reasoning or beliefs. This is how I would define dialogue, anyway.

However, this sort of reasoned analysis is all but impossible via social media's 'chat' and it is too easy for points to become buried or lost and misinterpreted without the possibility of explanation. This is always a threat in normal conversation anyway, but it is too easy on a social media, so when even a partially open discussion happens it feels like a moral victory. Well, it certainly did to me. When X thanks me and says that he feels he learned something, I felt like we'd actually managed to communicate something.

Communication being something that social media actively distorts or removes entirely. The possibility is there, but the potential seems severely limited. My own brief conversation with X runs to not much over 1000 words but took the better part of a day to complete. Something that would take not much more than five minutes in a face to face discussion.

Anyway, below is the complete discussion. I've edited some lines together for coherence, and removed all uses of our names & minor typos. Whether I successfully changed his mind was never my goal, but hopefully we learned something from each other. You're welcome to assess my own failings and offer a differing perspective. Who knows, perhaps even start another conversation?

***

X: I'm all for a multi-racial society, but multiculturalism cannot work, unless you want to allow one group of people the right to FGM, arranged marriage etc etc.

Y: I don't see why you'd have to allow FGM or arranged marriage to accept another person from a different culture into this one. We have laws, these break those laws, & are therefore not allowed. Most importantly these are not the only things that define any culture.

Multiculturalism isn't about many cultures existing in isolation or one single culture that absorbs all others, but that there are many or a multitude of cultures living and working together. Multiculturalism takes an effort on both sides, WE (locals) have to learn about THEM (incomers) as well.

Also, Britain has always been multicultural and no it doesn't always work, but that's because one or both sides have stopping trying to make an effort to co-operate with other people and are trying to dominate.

X: Well you've summed it up there in your last paragraph. How do you cooperate with someone whose culture breaks the law of the land? Sikhs not wearing crash helmets, women made to cover themselves, the list goes on and on. I'm with you when you say that there is no problem if everyone abides by the law of the land, but that's the problem when the law is at odds with culture.

If you say to all people entering this country that you can enter but you must not practise this or that aspect of your culture because it is against our law to do so, then, by definition, that country cannot claim to be multicultural.

Y: As far as I know about Sikh's and crash helmets, an allowance was made along the lines that it is their choice to risk their own life by not wearing a crash helmet. They do not risk anybody else's life do they? Also, not wearing crash helmets is NOT comparable to FGM or arranged marriage. Notice how you had to move to this much lesser claim than your original one.

As for women being "made to cover themselves" that is incorrect because they choose to wear the hijab as it is part of their religion, indeed, I know that Muslim women can also choose to NOT wear the veil (in this country).

X: The hijab is not part of their religion. I offered a further example, I did not move to a lesser claim. An allowance, as you put it, to not be held to the law of the land is an example of where culture/ religion is not compatible with the law, meaning you have one law for one group and one law for another. Is that it? Is that all your argument?

Y: FGM might be an aspect of a culture, much like hooliganism or sexual abuse in places of authority is an aspect of our culture, but that is also illegal and not considered by most right thinking people to represent who we are.

X: What's your opinion on FGM and arranged marriage?

Y: Actually, allowing multiple cultural traditions within one jurisdiction (the laws of the UK) IS the definition of multiculturalism and as I said FGM or arranged marriage are not the only things that define any culture, any more than any negative aspect you might think of as part of British culture.

X: No, I can't say I understand your logic there. I understand when one refers to a culture of hooliganism in a football club but the culture of a country is somewhat different to that of a small group of non-representative people. To most right thinking people FGM and to a lesser degree arranged marriage, would be unacceptable to our culture but perfectly acceptable in others. Where does the compromise occur here?

Y: You're not getting this fundamental point, FGM is NOT the ONLY aspect of any culture any more than institutional abuse is. I'm not taking about "a culture of hooliganism" but as hooliganism as being an aspect of British culture.

 I'm glad we're talking though; I think the main problem with the country today is people with differing opinions not talking together respectfully. So thank you for that.

X: That's not a fundamental point. You are picking and choosing. I'm just pointing out the irreconcilable differences in cultures that you seem to want to ignore.

Y: I am not ignoring them and it is a fundamental point. You say that not allowing someone who comes from a culture where FGM and so on is viewed as acceptable and is therefore not allowed to practice that here is denying multiculturalism, but it is not, it is denying an ASPECT of that culture. A harmful negative aspect that the majority of nations in the world agree that it violates human rights. Indeed, that we have these laws is the reason many people move here from those countries.

Missed an earlier point... The hijab is not part of Islam? I'd have to check but I really think it is. And yes the law makes allowances for certain groups under certain circumstances. So, Sikhs argued that they didn't want to wear crash helmets for a religious reason. The law decided that it was not harmful to others and that they (Sikhs) were accepting of the risk. Someone else argues for the 'right' of FGM, the law disagrees AS it removes consent and thus is still illegal. So, yes, reasonable allowances. Remember I said that multiculturalism was about both sides learning to accept the other culture.

X: Therefore, you are changing the culture of others to fit into your own. So, multiculturalism is not, cannot be, viable. This is not learning to accept other cultures; it is changing them to conform to the incumbent culture.

Interesting exchange of views. I think I've learnt from you. Cheers

Y: Ah, here's the impasse then... I think of culture (much like a self) as a constantly changing thing (evolve or die) and so there is no problem in accepting some of other cultures in your own (as they adapt to our ways also). This is the value for me of a multicultural society, as I said to someone above, cultures like genetics benefit from greater diversity. Learning to accept IS change. Everything changes. Panta Rhei. I suspect you think not (?) and see culture as essential (unchanging). But that can never be the case, Britain today is radically different than 1950's than they were from the 1880's than... etc etc. Aren't you a different person today than you were 20 years ago? You've learned things, experienced things, some good some bad and that has shaped you. You don't have to accept it, because it's already changed you anyway. Indeed, not accepting changes things as well. Anyway...

 I've really enjoyed the discussion too and wish you all the best.

***