Is it better to live in Britain or in Poland?

A long time ago a dodgy liberal British newspaper ran a series on Poland, and here I gave a link to a number of comments by both British and Polish people regarding living in Poland.

 Like with the animation of Jan Lenica (here a still from "Labirynt") there are many hidden treasures in Poland

Now, a dodgy right-wing British newspaper has ran two articles on the quality of life in Britain and Poland.  This article showed that "lifestyle is better in Poland than in Britain", while this article gives a contrary view, "Poland better than Britain?  That's not what the Poles think".  (Yes, I know, links to the Mail.  It could be worse.)

I found the articles interesting, because they chime with my experience of hearing from British people living in Poland, and Polish people living in Britain.  To summarise, while people in Britain may be richer, they consider themselves to have a low quality of life due to "high crime, violence and the cost of living".  Now, leaving aside the Mail's tendency to exaggerate crime levels in GB, let's compare the quality of life Britain and in Poland.  Here is a summary of what I have heard British people say (bearing in mind of course that other people may have radically different views; in any case the views given may be more self-revealing than anything else):

Shopping:  Like with many things in Poland, the same thing can be both good and bad at the same time.  In Poland one can buy more or less what one needs (if you leave out certain non-Polish specialities), if you are prepared to go outside of town to certain shops, or if you go to more expensive shops.  The average shop in Poland has less selection, the reason being that they are small.  Therefore, you won't be able be buy things like camembert in the said shops.  Now, that's just one example.  You may not eat camembert every day, but when one adds up all the slightly luxury things that one wants to buy, one'll have a lot less choice here, certainly in villages.

However, it depends on your needs.  The brilliant thing in Poland is that supermarkets are less dominant.  In the square mile around where I live, I have a choice between, I would guess at least 10 fruit and veg shops, 10 Bar Mleczny, 3 bakeries and countless convenience stores.  Additionally, there are loads of pharmacies, one cobblers, one bag repair place, and three clothes pressers.  There is also the best beer shop I have ever known.  For basic needs, I don't need to leave the local area.  That is not the case in Britain.

Food:  To add the issue of shopping it must be pointed out that food is massively cheaper in Poland.  The standard fruit and veg (pots, carrots, leeks, apples, etc.) are very cheap, and the slightly luxury foods (strawberries, blueberries, walnuts, apricots) are extremely affordable.  One can eat better, healthier and cheaper in Poland.  Additionally, food in the local shops is fresh and doesn't tend to be massively over-packaged.

Now, owing to the small number and nature of immigrants to Poland, there is deffo a wider choice of restaurants in Britain.  There one can choose between many different variations of British food (Polish people find it difficult to understand that Indian and Bangladeshi food can be British).  Here, non-Polish food often disappoints.  On the other hand, Polish cuisine can be very good.  If one eats normal food, or if one eats meat, the food is largely local and fresh.

Travelling:  In cities, there can be extensive bus and tram networks.  Generally, they are of a decent standard.  If one travels in the rush hour people who have issues with body space will not have a pleasant time.  Getting from one side of the town to the other can be a long and complicated journey on Sundays and bank holidays.

Outside of the cities, travelling by train and bus can be a very mixed experience.  On trains, one shouldn't always expect to have a seat when one travels on weekends/holiday times, or also expect that there'll be water/paper/functioning heating/people who don't smoke/clean toilets.  On the positive side, travel is exceedingly cheap and the views are very nice outside.

A key thing for the British person is that Poland borders many other countries.  Non-British people find this difficult to understand, that Britain feels psychologically far from other countries.  Here many interesting countries are not that far away.  Even the Balkans seems less insurmountable.

Safety: As I said, I believe that violence is exaggerated by the right-wing media.  Here there is no real difference.  Certainly, I hear about things being stolen here.  Saying that, walking in town centres can be a more pleasant affair here on a Saturday night in Britain.

A difference is that, if one has black skin here, I would imagine that one is more likely to be attacked than in Britain.  Another difference is that I believe elderly people to be more openly aggressive here.

People: I have dealt with the subject of making friends in Poland before.  Check out this article to see the views of British and Polish people on this subject.  To summarise: Polish people can be very open, and also very closed.  British people likewise.  The the individual British person in Poland or Polish person in Britain, their view of the friendliness of the other can be dependent on what they expect, and what they understand culturally.

Service: It took me a few years to stop getting annoyed with the "nie ma" ("we don't have them") in shops.  Generally, friendliness and politeness are less important in Poland than in Britain when one is buying something.  Staff can be very unhelpful and occasionally rude.  On the other hand, they can be more likely to say "Hello" and "Goodbye".  Additionally, when they notice that you're a (white-skinned western) foreigner who speaks Polish, they can smile and be friendly.  Occasionally this can be patronising, but it's better than nothing.

Gender roles: If you're a man coming to Poland (leaving aside stereotypes about Polish girls) on the one hand things can be quite cool.  It is less to be expected that you help with cooking and cleaning when visiting places.  You're not expected to make a big effort to look good.  One is generally treated with respect (leaving aside the fact that you may be young).  On the other hand you may be expected to look after the "weak" female, giving any random woman your seat, lifting their bag up.

For women I think things can be harder, as women are kind of expected to be pretty and put make-up on.  Women who do things like lift their own bags can be looked upon as being strange.  Though saying that, I know many exceptions to that rule.  However, compared to Britain, I would say that gender roles in Poland are more fixed.

Religion: If you're a church goer you'll largely like it in Poland, as going to church is culturally accepted, something which is not the case in Britain.  Days off are given to various Christian festivals.  Of course, if you're not Roman Catholic-friendly you may have a hard time.  Even though not all Polish people are believers, things like going to graveyard and lighting candles are mainstream.

 All Saints and All Souls in Oświęcim

In Britain there are some Protestant bigots, but they are small in number and low in influence.  Here there are a higher proportion of Roman Catholic bigots, and they can be high in influence.

Going out: Generally in Poland there is less choice as to the type of place one wants to go to.  It is also the case that it tends to be people in their 20s who tend to go out.  People over 30 tend to stay in.  On the positive sides, places tend to be less standardised like in Britain, and are deffo cheaper.

Civic life: Here Britain is clearly better, as Poland is still facing the hangover from the communist state rule, whereby people left things to the government.  Authoritarianism is such that any state institution received an overt form of respect.  Regarding newspapers, there are few and read by a small proportion of the population.  For that reason, Poland lacks a developed criticism.  For an example, see the fascist marches in Poland last November, supported by many who didn't think to ask about who was organising them.

Saying that, a weaker media means that people are less influenced by the media, something which would have been good in the recent debacle about the allegations towards Luis Suarez recently.

Football: Obviously, the Polish league is not as good as the English one.  The Scottish one is also better.  With a population of 1.8m, only the Welsh league is worse than the Polish one.  Hooliganism is a problem in Poland.  Generally, the football culture in Poland is weak in Poland.  Poland has many wools, people who pretend to be "proper" football fans, but really know nothing of the culture of the English teams they "support".  I imagine there are exceptions to this.

For this reason, watching football in Poland in pubs is not a good experience.  There is a positive, however.  Poland lacks the many gobshites who watch football in pubs in Britain.

Nature: Nature in Poland is excellent.  While there's hardly any coast (and the coastline is flat) there are plenty fields, forests and lakes.  Wildlife is immense.

Saying that, there's loads more litter in Poland.  A river close to me has got tons of plastic and glass bottles and other stuff by them.  Fag ends are also ubiquitous.  And don't ask me about dog shite.

Weather: Poland has more extremities.  This means nicely hot summers, and bloody freezing winters.  If one likes that, one'll prefer Poland.  Here one can see tons of snow, and get something resembling a tan in summer.  The only thing that Poland lacks is a good fresh wind.

Conclusion

For the British person there are many positive things about life in Poland.  While somethings can be bloody terrible here, there are also things that are miles better than in Britain.  

For Polish people living in Britain, the second article I linked to shows a woman who has a well-paying job.  No wonder she's happy in Britain!  The fact is, one earns more in Britain.  I see nothing wrong in Polish people wanting to make the most of that.  Britain has made itself rich and powerful through taking the wealth of other countries in the past.

Generally from Polish people I know, they like the general cosmopolitan lifestyle in Britain (not just in England's capital) and find the nature and rich history (Wales is full of castles) to be very attractive.

All in all, there is no quantitative way to measure which country is best to live in.  I will guess that those Brits who are happy here have a positive relationship to people here (probably a wife) along with being able to experience the best (and worst) of the kind of life one had in Britain over thirty years ago (such as cheap food, local shops).  Seriously, I've heard this many times.

There is no empircal way to measure which country is better to live in.  I know that the birth rate of Polish people in Britain is higher than that in Poland, the reason being the superior children, health and social security provision in Britain.  Apart from that, anything else is dependent on ones experience.  If Polish people have good jobs and have made good friends it is to be expected that they will want to stay in Britain.

Why then, are British people less happy with life in Britain?  Well, as the articles say, British people are quite capable of complaining.  For this reason, I have the theory that British people expect less of Poland, and therefore are less disappointed with the problems here than they would be with lesser problems in Britain.  Polish people on the other hand have lesser expectations and therefore find Britain to be so good (the same Britain that British people complain about).

As I have shown, there is no one thing in Poland or Britain that is better.  Everything has positive and negative aspects to it.  If one is generally happy with life, and is open towards other behaviours, both Polish and British people can be happy in the other countries.

What do you think?  Are you a British person living in Poland?  Do you prefer life here, and why?  Or are you a Polish person living in Britain?  Where do you prefer?

Let us know in the comments underneath.

Otherwise, "like" Wroclaw workshops on Facebook :)

“I blame Thatcher”: Britain and the hangover of Capitalism

As part of the "Wroclaw, the heart of Europe" series, whereby people write guest articles on this blog (thus bringing me some extra readers!), thereby using the internet for dialogue about issues not often shown in the mainstream media, here is the latest installment (the last one is here), by Roy who writes at http://postmoderndisco.blogspot.com/, a blog about spirituality, postmodernism and 1980s culture.  It's a decent read.

Welcome to new readers of this blog.  Have a look at the article list on the right.  You can keep in touch either via RSS Feed (see right) or via a Facebook page.


__________________________________________________________________________

When we hear news stories from countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union, we often rationalise their economic and political turmoil as consequences of swift regime changes in the 1990s. We assume that everyone in those nations suffers from a form of post traumatic stress disorder having lived under totalitarianism for, in some cases, almost their entire lives, and that this explains why they are not open to western liberal ideas that we take for granted.

Yet very rarely do we ever consider the consequences of Cold War capitalism on our own western society. For over thirty years "East" and "West" built up increasingly pointless arsenals of nuclear weapons with which they could obliterate each other in the event of a conflict escalating. Both sides would never have admitted to being the trigger-happy one, and many people doubt they would ever have seriously been considered as a form of conflict resolution, yet their presence left an indelible mark on our national consciousness and it is intimately connected with the way we remember World War II.

George Michael and WHAM! were standard-bearers for the new capitalism, but what price did Britain pay for the Club Tropicana lifestyle?

Growing up, my childhood was full of warlike imagery, as I am sure was the case across Eurasia. In other countries, particularly post-Soviet ones, these were images of missiles, parades of soldiers emphasising the strength of the regime. For Britons, however, we were bombarded with stories of domestic strength despite chaos on the ‘Home Front’. Between 1939 and 1941 over 41,000 Britons died in bombing raids carried out by Luftwaffe planes, and millions were left homeless. That is a tragedy I seek not to belittle, and it is understandable that we Britons would wish to try and find a way of comprehending, even rationalising what happened. However, from this a myth has grown of a nation united in solidarity to defeat the foe, a little island facing the ‘Bosch’ in a David-Goliath battle.

From the classic sit-com "Dad's Army"

In Britain there has been much talk recently of the ‘Big Society’, a Britain in which more people take voluntary  responsibility for the provision of amenities previously funded by the taxpayer. While many have been sceptical of a plan that allows the government to cut public services accordingly, the leitmotifs of this philosophy hark back to the fiction of a wartime Britain united in community fervour, when you gathered with the family in your Anderson or Morrison shelter and sung songs, knitted socks or read a copy of the London Illustrated News waiting for the bombs to stop falling, in which you took in neighbours whose houses had been destroyed.

While solidarity no doubt occurred as people had to work together, what was at the time a horrific and terrifying time of tribulation has perversely become a model for how Britain and Britons should ideally behave. There was a common goal to unite around and a conveniently unambiguously ‘evil’ enemy in the shape of Nazism. When the war ended with Britain sustaining approximately 1% of war casualties, not only had Britain been vindicated as a nation, but also as a moral entity. This was important because at this time Britain also stood for an empire as well, and these virtues of Britishness had been spread round the world. 

Within thirty years of the events of World War II, Britain’s self image of nationhood was under threat. Unemployment hit record levels under both Callaghan’s Labour government and then Thatcher’s Conservative regime. The optimism of the 1960s, which gave Britain a fleeting cultural renaissance with the ‘Mersey Sound’ and ‘Swinging London’ as exportable commodities, had died away and there was a genuine feeling of national decline. In this period, war films such as The Great Escape, The Longest Day, Bridge over the River Kwai and A Bridge Too Far were box office draws, three hour long epic tales of British ‘grit’ and determination in the face of incomprehensible evil. In Bridge over the River Kwai, Japan’s brutality is directly contrasted with the civilised British adherence to law as Alec Guinness’ commanding officer is hit for pointing out an article of the Geneva Convention. Nationhood in War films is easy to define.

Then in April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, and Britain witnessed a unique moment of national unity. Almost all are united in support of the Falklands War, which is the only conflict of the past thirty years Britain has been involved in that has been morally comprehensible: Islanders want to remain British and are invaded by Argentineans, so we protect them. 255 British and over 600 Argentineans died to make national unity possible, and hundreds more were injured in the sinking of HMS Coventry and HMS Sheffield, not to mention the ARA General Belgrano, still a controversial act of war.

Thatcher in Conservative Party Conference mode, probably between 1982-1987

When the General Election came round in 1983, the Conservatives won a resounding victory, giving Margaret Thatcher a democratic mandate to begin her reforms of Britain in earnest. Markets were loosened up, the Trade Unions were emasculated through often brutal strikes, industries and businesses operated by the government were privatised and the phrase ‘council housing’ was turned into a by-word for poverty. Yet most Britons have a complicated relationship with Thatcher, for as much as she is reviled by those whom she left to flounder (the City of Liverpool being the most prominent example) most Britons benefited materially from her actions. This, however, had consequences that remain painful to this day.

Allowing people to buy their council homes and invest in shares gave people the chance to accumulate wealth on a new scale, and many ventured into this new capitalist paradise with glee. Shopping centres were developed and ‘credit’ lost the stigma it once had. Former Liverpool Council Deputy Leader Derek Hatton is a good example of how this system corrupted all. A controversial figure effectively declaring war on the government in Westminster during his time as a councillor, in 2008 it was revealed he was now a property developer in Cyprus. The journey from Militant Trotskyist to Capitalist was always Thatcher’s aim. 

British Gas released their shares as part of a huge 

publicity campaign, led by the slogan 'If you see Sid, tell him

Hatton is aware of the hypocrisy of this action though. In a recent radio interview, he pointed out that Thatcher’s legacy will always be the fact she allowed Britons to be greedy. The three decades leading up to the Credit Crunch in 2008 were a time of wealth and prosperity, but one that is now seen in a different light.

Margaret Thatcher always claimed she believed allowing people the freedom to make money would make them better people, though David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ gimmick is essentially an attempt to patch up the damage done to British society by three decades of unbridled capitalism. The riots that took place in many of Britain’s major cities last summer were just one expression of how capitalism has destroyed the fabric of British society. Many were dismayed as an act of protest at the shooting of Mark Duggan became a ‘smash-and-grab’ exercise in looting. All comparisons with the morally justifiable Brixton riots of 1981, which were a genuine reaction to police brutality towards afro-Caribbean communities, were lost as images of hooded youths stealing pairs of trainers filled the papers.

The 'Keep Calm and Carry On' range of merchandise

So Britons should be careful when looking at post-Soviet nations and judging them too harshly for laws which are perhaps distasteful to western sensibilities. These attitudes will fade with time and integration, though what we as those who suffered from an unbridled capitalist regime for so long must do is be willing to speak to those in nations that are far more foreign to us than far-eastern nations are. 

Open and honest dialogue might allow us to learn something from the natural repulsion to inequality and unfairness that a lot of people from formerly Soviet countries have, as well as the desperately sought after feeling of community that Britons so desire. Either way, it is as much of a national trial to come to terms with capitalism as it is to come to terms with communism. As liberating as it is to say “I blame Thatcher”, she did not force us to enter into the capitalist world, she merely opened the gate and let us run. The sooner we are honest with ourselves about what we let ourselves become the better.

Taboo: Racism in GB

To start the "Taboos and other subjects to piss people off" series here is an unplanned article about racism in GB.  The reason for its creation are the events of the past few weeks in GB whereby racism has become a hot topic, and a topic misunderstood or misused by many in GB.

First, a word about truth.

I once heard an Episcopal Priest say that the truth is "in the middle".  That the context was his words about conflicts between Republicans and Democrats in the US it was quite a strange claim.  By any case, there is a marked reluctance by some liberally minded people to not believe in any truth, wishing to avoid being like the likes of Nick Griffin or Jarosław Kaczyński.  While it is the case that some things are heavily nuanced and that we don't know everything, some things are clear.  It is truth that the Holocaust happened, for example.  There is truth, and there are LIES.  Satan was called the "father of lies".  Lies are there to be pointed out, to be named for what they are.  It is liberating to do so.  When I watched the parliament debate about the Hillsborough disaster I was struck with the immense sensation of rightness: This is TRUTH.  One of the whole points about things like museums and memorials for victims of crimes is the public acknowledgement of what truth was.  The truth and the acknowledgement of it can set us free.

Diane Abbott

Bearing all that in mind, let's look at what has been happening with how people have been treating Labour MP Diane Abbott, and Liverpool striker Luis Suarez.

Polish people have often told me that they see GB to be a "tolerant" place.  The ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that "tolerance" is a key feature of Britishness.  Certainly we have come a long way from the 1980's, where Jim Davidson was doing racist jokes on prime-time television, a BBC sport programme also was prone to racism.  Racism was not the taboo that it largely is now (some taboos are good.)

 

Liverpool player John Barnes at a match against Everton backheels a banana thrown by an Everton fan in 1987 From The Telegraph. 

Certainly, the most relevant issue at the moment in GB regarding racism is the trial of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.  Two of those who took part of the killing have been found guilty.  That this was a racially motivated murder is one thing.  That the way in which the police dealt with the murder to begin with was later heavily criticised; indeed the police were labelled as "institutionally racist".  One would think, then, that now would be a time to reflect on the racism in British culture that made the murder possible.  

Well, no.  The two cases which have got people most caught up in the theme of racism are that of Labour MP Diane Abbott and Liverpool striker Luis Suarez.  To summarise, Diane Abbot spoke on twitter about "white people love playing divide and rule".  This led to a massive outcry about her being "racist".  Richard Seymour deals with this claim well:

"Following the verdict against the two Lawrence suspects, and the way in which this drew attention to the facts of institutional - no, structural - racism in British society, it was a dead cert that the media would search for a way to restore white victimhood."

What we are seeing here is clearly the view of enemy figure of people with coloured skin who are ready to use the "race card", who are out for financial gain and who are in fact racist themselves (this is very much like one subset of anti-semitism). 

Laurie Perry puts it well 

"Defenders of privilege and hierarchy will do anything at all to distract attention from power, and to re-phrase attacks on power as attacks on the powerless."

Or as Sanum Ghafoor put it, "Tackle racism?  No, just #blamedianeabbot.  A convenient scapegoat figure to take the attention away.  That is also a feature of the Luis Suarez case.

Man Utd defender Evra claimed that Suarez had said a "racist word" "ten times".  What actually happened is complicated involving the need to have lingual competence (the conversation between Suarez and Evra took place in Spanish) whereby a word used as a friendly way of greeting a black person in Uruguay was used by Suarez and, seemingly, misunderstood by Evra, who further claimed that other racist things were said by Suarez.  Despite the lack of proof for Evra's claims, they believed his word and Suarez received an eight-match ban and now faces hatred by all manner of football fans, including many who are working in anti-racism initiatives.  (This site deals well with the issue.  The Independent have also began to question the testimony of Evra.)

To tell the truth, what I am hearing is a matter of accepting either Suarez's words or Evra's.  Why then did the FA take the side of the Man Utd player Evra?  There's more to this case than meets the eye:

Other forms of prejudice in GB

There exists in GB from high to low a prejudice against people from Liverpool.  This has led to tragic consequences.   Bear in mind that Man Utd and Everton are two teams who have had players accused of racism, and that Spurs fans and Man Utd fans have been recently singing racist songs (and not just by a few fans either, rather, hundreds.)  In fact this document detailing racist offenses shows that Man Utd fans are in the top spot for racist chanting and abuse, more than double Sunderland fans in second place.  Also to bear in mind is that fact that thousands of Man Utd fans (even in a youth game) and hundreds of Everton fans have been singing chants which make fun of the Hillsborough disaster.  Outside of football prejudice against people from Liverpool is fairly mainstream.  (Of course, by raising this I fulfill the Catch-22 situation of "playing the victim".)

Is this why a Liverpool player has received a far more hostile treatment than other players accused of racism?  There's much more to it.  Look at the three links you just saw, and note that two of those accused were British, and the other one is Danish (i.e. white).  A clue lies in the allegation that Evra used a word which denotes a prejudice against people from South America.  No furore resulted when that emerged.  Prejudice against people from South America has not an issue that is seen to be relevant in GB.  Add to that the FA wanting to act tough to FIFA and a media campaign with both malicious people and also well-meaning but misguided anti-racist people, as well as the fact that the FA have a heavily criticised disciplinary commission that has a 99.5% conviction rate, together with the mass mania effect and we arrive at the guilty verdict arriving at Suarez's door.  Now we have people falling over themselves to heavily criticise the Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish for backing Suarez, including those involved against racism.


EDIT: Note also that the BBC (and countless viewers) tolerate the xenophobia directed against Mexicans by Top Gear presenters (see this excellent article dealing with that and the contrast with how Suarez was treated.)

Suarez could have said something racist.  Evra could be telling the truth.  We will never know.  That hasn't stopped most people from jumping to a foul conclusion that will stick with Suarez.  Meanwhile away from the public gaze xenophobia against Polish and French migrants exists, Muslims are attacked inside their mosque, all manner of claims are levelled against a woman with coloured skin forced to give birth in a waiting room, a pogrom against Romanian Romany happened within the UK and fascist paramilitaries increase their network, or where black people are seven times more likely to be stopped by the (still institutionally racist) police.  But no, the media are concentrating themselves on "racism" by focussing on two people with coloured skin.  There's truth.  The taboo is that racism is a strong feature of the attacks on Abbott, and xenophobia and prejudice against Liverpool is a feature of the attacks on Suarez.

Incidentally, this leads me to the view that prejudice against the left-wing isn't just about the usual anti-left or anti-communist prejudice, it's also sometimes about what they stand for: Internationalism and anti-fascism.

British people still haven't come to terms with the racism intrinsic to the British Empire.  As promised, I shall return to this theme.

Keep in touch either through Facebook, or via the RSS Feed at the top right.