Chakari Minaret

You can be wrong. Oh wait. Did somebody just say something? You can be wrong, but when an author’s wrong and makes you wrong and you finally discover the error, even if it’s years later, it makes for interesting blogging, I can tell you that. Concatentation, anyone?

The “Minaret Chakari”. Or as I’m calling it here, the “Chakari Minaret”.  Same thing.  I don’t know anything about those little figures standing to the right, but they give you a sense of scale.

For years I thought this was a “column” built by Alexander the Great’s army on their triumphant murderous swath through ancient Afghanistan. 325 or so BC. I’m still using the “BC” dating probably because I’m from BC.                 ↑

You have to admit that as a “column” it’s somewhat phallic. At least in this image from this angle taken around 1991 or something, not long before it came down. And it’s actually not a “column”. Vladislav Tamarov. It’s all his fault.

Minaret Chakari
Minaret Chakari 1983

← Here’s what it looked like in 1983 in Vladislav’s book. “The column was built by the troops of Alexander the Great many centuries ago.” And I believed it. I’d never heard of this thing before about 2005 looking into Mr. Tamarov’s book. But I was hooked.

I brought it in myself for re-sale. The book, that is. Ten Speed Press. It was a reprint. I didn’t realize that at the time. I was just fascinated by the book. And so, years later, in 2015, in connection with another project, I was gratified to see the book, one copy, which I very much wanted to have a look at again, was on the shelves at the Vancouver Public Library, Main Branch. I just want to make that clear. Things are confusing enough.

Those little figures at the bottom of the “tower” or “minaret” are Russian soldiers.  Somehow, Vladislav Tamarov, who took the picture, got his facts wrong.  The book, originally titled “Afghanistan:  Soviet Vietnam” was published in San Francisco in 1992.

It’s full of very interesting black and white pictures of Vladislav Tamarov’s  Russian Military unit in Afghanistan, a unit overwhelmingly made up of young men 18 – 20 years old, many of whom didn’t make it home. The text is an excellent translation.  The book greatly impressed me in 2005 and it’s done it again this week in 2015.

Vladislav Tamarov couldn’t get his book published in his own country. I can understand how he felt about that.  He emigrated to the United States.  He flogged copies in San Francisco and on the streets of  Manhattan, New York.

I was saddened to learn that Vladislav Tamarov died in Nevada on December 26, 2014. He was 49. He was an artist.  “This massacre,” is how he referred to what was going on in the Afghanistan depicted in “Afghanistan:  A Russian Soldier’s story”, the retitled reprint I read. The VPL’s copy I’ve been massaging the last few days is the original “Mercury House” edition.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to come up with data on the “column” by “troops of Alexander the Great” not far from Kabul.  There was none and I wondered why. Finally I discovered that the “minaret” or “tower” or “column” or “pillar” was put up in the 1st century AD and is of Buddhist provenance. What does provenance mean?  It means these were the people who built the thing. And so “minaret” isn’t exactly the right word either. At least not originally.

The Taliban attacked the “Minaret of Chakari” as part of their modernization plan for Afghanistan. It became a pile of rubble in 1998 having lasted a mere 2000 or so years.

I’m way over my word count and I hope I don’t get fired. I’ll be right back.

 

 

June Day

June 1.  Turn the page.  And you wonder.  How far can irreverence take you?  You try hard.  Sure you do. You struggle with irreverence and not only irreverence but irrelevance. And then you wonder what that could look like if it doesn’t work out.  I mean in the long term.  And subconsciously, way down, you’re worried. Very worried.  Because you haven’t figured this out.

I can’t believe that Daniel Bruhl and Joshua McGuire are not the same person.  Let’s take a look.

Daniel Bruhl photo courtesy Elena Ringo
Daniel Bruhl

 

 

Joshua McGuire
Joshua McGuire

How many people know about this?  This could be important.  What if I’ve stumbled into something here?  Is Daniel Bruhl impersonating Joshua McGuire, or is Joshua McGuire impersonating Daniel Bruhl?  And if so, why?  Why either way?  What is the motive?

This is what happens when you start watching too many movies.  You fall into labyrinths of actors you’ve never heard of and how they actually have well established careers you didn’t know about.  And you wonder, again, for such a supposedly smart guy, why you didn’t know about Daniel Bruhl and Joshua McGuire and not only didn’t know about them but didn’t know about the Bruhl/McGuire look-a-like controversy.  It’s all over the tabs.  I think it was on ET.

6:00 pm.  So you struggle and wrassle with some very important issues.  And then you start tearing apart your mother-in-law’s carpet cleaner to see if it’ll work for the job that needs doing here.  It’s totally relevant.  And it looks like just about everything is set for this massive undertaking.  It’s a Bissell.

 

actor photogs copyright the photographers

 

Strange Concatenation of Events

You can be in the wrong for years and not know it.  You can be kind of proudful that you have information others might not have and it’s always interesting when that information, unbeknownst to you, is entirely wrong.  It’s erroneous.  And you’ve been wrong.  Hopefully you don’t go into a pout or snit but take the news well because you’re a public figure and have a certain standard to uphold.  A standard you invented yourself.

DSCN9946I’ve spent a month thinking about this.  Two weeks.  Actually, a few days.  I’m not making a big thing out of this but when you get something wrong it’s best to fess up and it also gives you, that is me, the motivation to come over to this here blog thingy to see what’s going on, which, and I’m not going to water this down any here, has let an entire month pass, and the merriest month of May, no less, without a single entry, or “post”, or whatever’s supposed to be going on here.

I know.  Big question mark.  Again.  Let’s take a short break and see what’s out there and maybe coming our way.

DSCN9950It’s all right.  It’s just that guy taking pictures of the sky again.  Why does he do that?

Musical Interlude

Take a word like “concatenation”.  For years you pronounced it and spelled it, on those admittedly rare times when you might have written it down, as in never, “concantenation”.  Raise it up for the Concantenation, hiya.  We free.

Then, I was stumbling around, bumbling and burbling and bliffling for something to get on with and then States said something.  It was something about something, or it might have been something about something else.

But it caused me to say:  “A strange concantenation of events”.  And she said she’d never heard of the word before.  And I felt strong because I’m so learned.  I knew about “concantenation”.  What I didn’t know then I know now and that’s always so humbling, isn’t it?  Feel so good.

I couldn’t remember where I’d first come across the word and the phrase.  And for years, although I had the phrase right, I was spelling and pronouncing “concatenation” with that extra “n” in there before the “t”.  It’s “concatenation”, Mike.  Not that other thing.

Concatenation: The action of concatenating, or the condition or relation of being concatenated. 1. Union by chaining or linking together; concatenated condition. b. an instance of chaining or linking together. 2. Union in a series or chain, of which the things united form as it were links. 3. A concatenated series or system, an interdependent or unbroken sequence, a ‘chain’.  That’s from the good book. OED.  God bless.

DSCN9935

Chain of events.  Then I managed to re-discover where I came across this word and phrase, and was reminded that the original discovery itself was the product of a strange concatenation of events.

It was a series of events that caused me, years ago, and I’m still a bit bewildered by this, and it’s kind of shocking, so be careful, to be reading Edward Gibbon.  Not the guy who runs the dry cleaners over on 8th, but the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” guy.  And for reasons unknown the word and phrase stuck through the decades.

And now, today, at last, through a further strange concatenation of events, I’m sharing with the world all that’s gone on about this.  And you can see how it could go on.  And on.  Because just about everything is the result of a strange concatenation of events.  Today is the result of every day that has come before.  I’m sure of it.

Belisarius or somebody was getting his kilt dry cleaned and by a strange you know what something went amiss.  I think that was it, but I could be wrong.