outsidein

  • National Sovereignty Day

    June 30, 2009 @ 1:28 pm | by Bryan

    There was a lot of speculation at the time of the invasion of Iraq that oil was a significant motivating factor in that conflict. It’s ironic that on the day that security for urban Iraq was handed over to local forces, oil reserves were being auctioned off to foreign firms. Mission accomplished?

    The day has been declared a public holiday, ‘National Sovereignty Day’, no less. I’m not an economic nationalist. Well, not an extreme one anyway. But isn’t celebrating this day as a mark of sovereignty incredibly cynical? Yes, US troops have left the cities, but they’ve just moved into the countryside. Should violence flare up again, they’ll be back. Also, how do you define sovereignty? It has been reported that a sizeable proportion of Iraqis aren’t happy with the idea of their oil fields being sold to foreign firms. The auction is an admission of the country’s inability to extract and make adequate use of its own national resources. It hardly strikes me as a day to jump up and down for joy at the thought of your sovereignty.

    I would far rather be under the domination of Exxon Mobil than Saddam Hussein. And who knows, Exxon Mobil may leave enough crumbs for many Iraqis to benefit from their presence - although the fact that they are already haggling over prices is worrying. Still … the fact that there has been a significant improvement in the country’s security situation should be celebrated. Only, let’s not call it National Sovereignty Day. It’s quite clear that Iraq is anything but a sovereign state.

  • Democracy: in word and in deed

    June 29, 2009 @ 10:34 am | by Bryan

    A few days ago:

    Yesterday:

    President Manuel Zelaya of Hondurus has been ousted. What fascinates me is the fact that the coup is being legitimised as a democracy saving act. In short, the perpetrators argue that Zelaya was a megalomaniac in the making. The army, judiciary and others simply took preemptive measures against a leader with dictatorial designs.

    I’m always amazed at how the language of ‘democracy’ is co-opted by various power groups, especially in the developing world. It’s seen as a legitimising ointment almost. If your actions can somehow be linked to the constitution, or free speech, or better still, the people’s rights, then they’re okay. So on one hand, the fact that Hugo Chavez has taken such a liking to his job that he wants the option to remain in it indefinitely is okay. It’s okay because people voted for the necessary constitutional changes in a referendum, and as we all know, ‘people’, ‘referendum’ and ‘vote’ are some of the most powerful words in the democracy lexicon. On the other hand, Zelaya had to go because he was going to fiddle with the constitution (another important democracy word). In reality all he did was ask people to vote on the prospect of a later referendum on constitutional change. The language of democracy can be used to cast the act of democracy in an undemocratic light.

    Which begs the question, is democracy, especially in regions of the world with comparably less experience with it, little more than a façade? Is it just a mask behind which power hides? In Hondurus at least, it seems that the old alliance between the military and the middle class got tired of the charade, and for a brief moment, removed the mask.

  • Picture of the week

    June 27, 2009 @ 8:24 am | by Bryan

    The late Michael Jackson at a press conference in London in March. Photography: Joel Ryan/AP Photo

    The late Michael Jackson at a press conference in London in March. Photography: Joel Ryan/AP Photo.

  • Alternatives

    June 26, 2009 @ 10:46 am | by Bryan

    Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa blamed capitalism for the global economic mess. No surprise there. Left leaning leaders of Latin American countries have a tendency to say that sort of thing. Capitalism is a problem. White guys with blue eyes created the recession. We’ve heard it all before.

    That said, Correa and some of his colleagues went a step further. According to Reuters,

    “Patching up the Bretton Woods system, which we do not control, makes no sense for (developing) countries,” Correa said in a speech on the second day of the conference.
    Reforming the IMF and World Bank “would be an insufficient stopgap solution,” he said, adding that “we are faced with a crisis unlike those (previously) provoked by capitalism.”
    If the Bretton Woods institutions cannot be abolished, he said, then they should be changed and given less authority over the world’s poor countries. More financial decision-making power, Correa said, should go to the United Nations instead.

    That’s more potent than your run of the mill ‘capitalism is bad’ statement. Yet even this rather more radical stance is not new. From about the 50s onwards, the developing world has been trying to fight the ‘establishment’ view on development, and the rules of global financial and economic governance. There have been a plethora of statements, pledges, plans and even alternative organisations set up to combat the influence of the Western dominated Bretton Woods institutions. But the outcome is always the same.

    Again, according to Reuters,

    The final proposals, watered down from an initial draft that was prepared by [UN General Assembly President and former Nicaragua foreign minister] D’Escoto and rejected by Western powers as too radical, include a call for reforming the IMF.
    But the only specific reform they call for is that the decision-making power of emerging market and developing states be increased in the next IMF quota review by early 2011.

    Sometimes I wonder why the likes of D’Escoto bother. At best, these measures get some lip service while nothing really changes. More often than not, they are just ignored and treated with contempt. Which begs the question, is it possible to offer a development paradigm that is antithetical to that of the IMF and World Bank? What more have it adopted and allowed to succeed?

    Are real alternatives, real departures to the status quo, possible? Or is the best that someone like D’Escoto can hope for a haggling session that ends with a statement of the intent to give up, at some undisclosed occasion in the future, a few crumbs?

  • Perspective

    June 25, 2009 @ 12:49 pm | by Bryan

    Unemployment stands at 10% and it has been suggested that it may rise to 16% by year end.

    Double digit unemployment is far from ideal. That said, I can’t help but wonder if there hasn’t been a loss of perspective here. Things aren’t great, but they could be so much worse. And if the OECD is to be believed, the global economy is starting to turn around which means that in the coming year or two, Ireland’s economic fortunes could turn.

    But let’s assume that OECD is wrong. Based on past performance, that’s not too much of a stretch. Let’s assume that the recessions lasts for another 5 years (that’s my attempt at creating a worst case scenario). Even then, aren’t things in Ireland a lot better than we like to think? Long-term unemployment can have serious personal and social consequences, but part of that is based on how society frames that state of unemployment. And in a place like Ireland, there is a definite safety net so the loss of your job does not equate to the loss of access to healthcare, education, housing or food. At the same time, a depressed economy is probably the easiest one to reform. Evidence for that can be seen in the calls for a referendum to reduce the earnings of judges.

    I’m not trying to trivialise the difficulties many of us are currently undergoing, but I think there’s a real need for the country to stop and breathe. The sky isn’t falling. Things aren’t as good economically as they might have been, but they could be a lot worse. Having lived in a place with 80% unemployment and an inflation figure that you couldn’t pin down because it grew so fast, I honestly think Ireland needs to follow Bill Clinton’s advice and just ‘chill out’.

    Rather than doing the Chicken Little thing, shouldn’t we be calmly discussing what kind of society we want to become and then work towards that? Instead, all of us - pundits, politicians, the electorate - are guilty to swinging from one sign of impeding doom to another in fits of hysteria.

  • Changing culture

    June 23, 2009 @ 11:15 am | by Bryan

    In an opinion piece titled Our calls for reform fail to blame our basic culture, Elaine Byrne writes:

    Prof Coakley spoke about the paradox of Irish political culture. Irish Independence signalled the overt rejection of British influence in Ireland, yet we accepted British models of government as our own.
    Are our institutions more appropriate to the egalitarian organisation typical of Protestantism, which gave them birth, and less suited to the hierarchical disposition of Catholicism, which inhabits them?

    I’ve often wondered about the same thing with respect to sub-Saharan African countries. For example, having rejected colonialism, nascent African states decided to reaffirm uti possidetis juris, the principle of international law stating that newly formed states should maintain their previous borders. The same artificial borders that were the result of a negotiated settlement in Europe at which some grumpy old men carved up the continent with a pencil and ruler. It didn’t end there. Former French colonies tend to have institutions that resemble those in France. British colonies likewise, down to strikingly similar ceremonies for the opening of parliament.

    At a talk he gave in Dublin towards the end of last year, Malcolm Gladwell suggested that there are times when culture needs to change to function in today’s systems. That evening he gave the example of South Korean pilots needing to learn to put behind their deferential culture at work in order to fly airplanes safely. In his book, Outliers, Gladwell also writes about the struggles poor inner-city children must go through to attend charter schools. His suggestion seems to be that rather than expecting reform of the education system, the culture of the poor must change if they are to have a hope of breaking the poverty cycle.

    On the surface, that seems reasonable, but is it? How reasonable or realistic is it to expect tectonic shifts in culture? Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to change our institutions so that they conform to their cultural context? Or would that require more imagination and courage than we are comfortable with?

  • Hilarious!

    June 22, 2009 @ 10:46 pm | by Bryan

  • Picture of the week

    June 20, 2009 @ 8:29 am | by Bryan

    Supporters of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi light fires during protests in Tehran, Iran June 16. Photo: Getty ImagesDemonstrators attend a protest in support of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi in Vienna June 16. Photo: Leonhard Foeger/REUTERS

    Top: Supporters of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi light fires during protests in Tehran, Iran June 16. Photo: Getty Images.
    Bottom: Demonstrators attend a protest in support of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi in Vienna June 16. Photo: Leonhard Foeger/REUTERS.

  • Understanding the Lisbon Treaty

    June 19, 2009 @ 11:33 am | by Bryan

    Taoiseach Brian Cowen arriving at the EU summit today. Reuters/Sebastien Pirlet

    Taoiseach Brian Cowen arriving at the EU summit today. Reuters/Sebastien Pirlet.

    I knew the Lisbon Treaty was back on the agenda when the Minister for Overseas Development devoted at least half of a speech on Africa’s development, to Europe and the treaty’s importance in making Europe a force for development. There couldn’t have been more than fifty Irish people in the room.

    I’m surprised. The Taoiseach felt he needed legally binding guarantees on abortion, tax and defence before asking the country to vote on the Lisbon Treaty for a second time. His European counterparts evidently agreed and those guarantees will be enshrined in future treaties.

    I’m surprised because, with the recession, I would have thought that the country would be running into Europe’s arms. If the economy doesn’t improve in the foreseeable future, I imagine that the government would rather look to Europe for help than the IMF. And since it always helps to be on good terms with the people you might need to borrow money from, why is the Lisbon treaty still an issue?

    I get the independence and sovereignty argument. It resonates with me. But if you’re potentially economically dependent on an entity like the European Union, how politically independent can you be? Personally, I like power to be as decentralised as possible. That said, based on past help, and the potential for more of it in the future, Ireland owes Europe, doesn’t she?

  • Belfast

    June 17, 2009 @ 6:22 pm | by Bryan

    Belfast has been a bit of a dodgy place in mind since the 1990s when I read a story about racially motivated attacks on a Chinese family and a Zimbabwean woman. My first thought at the time was something like, “How did they caught up in a Catholic-Protestant fight?”

    That 115 Romanian families could be in hiding because of what happened at a football match against Poland is almost laughable. Stranger things have happened, but there surely has to be an underlying reason.

    In South Africa, for example, xenophobia is the escape for people who are frustrated by their government’s inability to change their social circumstances. To attack the ruling party would be to attack their own liberation movement from less than twenty years ago. That would be like wounding yourself. It’s much easier to attack the foreigners who are scrounging for scraps with you. All it takes is a change in focus and aspiration. You just need to stop asking why you aren’t seated at the main table and start demanding that only people who look and sound like you be allowed to scrounge under it.

    Belfast is a completely alien entity to me. Are the occasional reports of racism just the result of a few maladjusted ‘bad apples’? Or do they represent something more systemic? Are there just some people who still need to fight an enemy, be it on religious or racial grounds?

  • ‘New’ Unionism

    @ 12:40 pm | by Bryan

    UNISON, Britain’s largest public sector union, has halted some of its funding to the Labour party and threatened to stop its financial support to the party altogether. The reason? Labour’s privatisation of public services.

    It’s an interesting development. Labour’s response is eye opening. According to Reuters, a party spokesman said,

    The Labour Party and UNISON share a commitment to the values of public services and social justice … but the Labour Party’s policy is built on wider foundations — listening to the views of the whole community to build a fair future for all.

    It’s the ‘wider foundations’ bit that really stands out for me. It’s true that a governing party needs to look to the interests of many stakeholders and sometimes their interests collide. But a party that takes its name from the working classes should surely have, at its core, the interests of people on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. I don’t know when that was last the case in Britain, but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown definitely did their bit to create a party whose character has little in common with its name.

    Even more interesting for me is the Irish trade union movement. Maybe its just evolution or changing with the times, but if there was a New Labour in Britain, there has to have been a New TU movement here. Although they sometimes refuse to sign up to collective bargaining, and they are criticised for all the ills of industrial Ireland, I can’t really tell the trade unions from the political establishment. It’s like the closing scene of Orwell’s Animal Farm. The animals in charge look just like the humans before them.

    The clue to what has happened can probably be found in the action UNISON opted to take to show their displeasure. They withheld money. If political representation comes at a financial cost, those with the least money will be represented the least.

  • Iran’s elections

    June 16, 2009 @ 12:22 pm | by Bryan

    I don’t know what to make of Iran’s elections and their fallout.

    The problem is that like most people who live this far away from Iran, my knowledge of the country and its internal dynamics is ridiculously limited. It boils down to the odd news clip here and there, the sum total of which tell the story of a dangerous psychopath on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon and destroying the world. There’s also the bit about supporting terrorism, destabilising Iraq, treating women very badly and generally having a disregard for human rights, as well as a fundamentalist take on religion.

    Some, maybe even most of those things, could be true. I just don’t know. But if past experience is anything to go by, at best the international media construct of Iran is oversimplified. At the same time, I wonder how much that international media influenced Iran’s view of itself. I wonder the degree to which, over time, that country internalised those external critiques, owned them and turned them into what is now called the ‘reformist agenda’.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s support base supposedly lies with the poor. They are less likely to be influenced by what the international media have to say about their leader because they can’t afford access to it. I’m not suggesting that the middle and wealthy classes or Iran are so dense that they have their opinion formed for them by the press. But if they are exposed to it, like the rest of us they must be influenced, to some degree by it. Looking back over the history of political change in Zimbabwe, I think international opinion was a definite catalyst. I remember the urban electorate’s frustration with their rural counterparts for their perceived ignorance.

    I wonder if globalisation means that just as it is impossible to have an Ireland that is completely ‘Irish’, Iran’s elections are bound to be influenced, to an increasing degree, by international commentators and opinion. I wonder if that is what Barack Obama means when he speaks of the ‘tide of history’.

    That frightens me a little. I’m not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but I feel I have a stake in the continued existence of Iran’s political system. If they can have a system of which the part of the world that creates conventional wisdom disapproves, that is proof that alternatives can exists. If, on the other hand, the tide of history is washing that system away, Ahmadinejad first, then I’m not so sure.

  • Picture of the week

    June 13, 2009 @ 9:21 am | by Bryan

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu talks beside Bob Geldof at the ONE press conference in London, England June 11. Each year the ONE campaign publishes an annual assessment of the extent to which the G8 are following through on their commitments to global development. Photo: Tim Anderson/One Campaign via Getty Images

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu talks beside Bob Geldof at the ONE press conference in London, England June 11. Each year the ONE campaign publishes an annual assessment of the extent to which the G8 are following through on their commitments to global development. Photo: Tim Anderson/One Campaign via Getty Images.

  • Questions about the Ryan Report findings

    June 12, 2009 @ 10:12 am | by Bryan

    A child's shoe displayed during the silent march of solidarity for victims of institutional abuse in Dublin this week. Photograph by Matt Kavanagh

    A child’s shoe displayed during the silent march of solidarity for victims of institutional abuse in Dublin this week. Photograph by Matt Kavanagh.

    An Irish friend who lives in the US sent me an email recently asking my opinion on the revelations from the Ryan report. She had specific questions about redress, and since I know a bit about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation process, my friend wanted to know if I thought that would be a good model here.

    Honestly, this is not a topic I’m comfortable discussing. I don’t have a long history with Ireland. Other than what I’ve read and the odd conversation with taxi drivers, I don’t know much about the pre-Celtic Tiger years. I don’t really understand the church-state-citizenry relationship of that time. And so it isn’t surprising that I don’t understand how the systematic abuse of children in care came to be.

    Mary Condren’s article is insightful. It reminded me of a question that another sociologist asked recently. How could people not have known? Condren writes, Few of us are innocent: we must all now enter the dock.

    I really don’t understand. Hopefully this post will encourage a discussion that clarifies things for all those who, like me, don’t get the full significance of what happened. I would really like to know if, as I think Condren suggests, the spotlight has been cast on the worst perpetrators to the exclusion of the wider societal failings that kept things from being brought to a stop earlier.

  • Joe Higgins

    June 10, 2009 @ 12:39 pm | by Bryan

    I have to start with a confession. I know very little about Joe Higgins. All I know is that he is a member of the Socialist Party in Ireland.

    In a culture that is sold hook, line and sinker on the joys of consumption and capitalism as the means to further consumption, I understand why Joe doesn’t make headlines regularly. One of the legacies of the Cold War is that the term socialism conjures visions of bleak poverty and unhappy, oppressed people. Because we all prefer ‘happy thoughts’ to bleak ones, we’d rather not read articles or see pictures that bring up unhappy thoughts. So a candidate who promises to get us more stuff is more likely to sell advertising than a socialist.

    With that in mind, I have two questions about Joe Higgins’ election to the European Parliament. First, how did he get his votes? A lot has been said about the Obama campaign. It was definitely impressive, but it was also largely conducted within the mainstream media. Higgins is more like Ron Paul. I would love to know how the Higgins team managed to do that effectively enough to win a seat. I would also like to know if the Socialists have a network that is strong enough to translate this electoral success into more local and national seats going forward.

    In other words, how much of his victory has to do with Joe Higgins the man as opposed to socialism the idea? Was this part of an ‘ideological shift’ (mice voting for another mouse), or was this another manifestation of identity politics having met with a protest vote? Apparently, the trend in Europe showed a decline in the socialist movement and a rise in support for parties on the right. Is Ireland bucking the trend, or do people in Dublin just really like Joe?

  • Blah blah blah

    June 9, 2009 @ 2:34 pm | by Bryan

    The strangest thing happened to me last night as I was watching Questions and Answers on TV. As senior members of the main political parties discussed the election results, all I could hear was, “Blah, blah blah, blah realignment, blah blah, blah general election, blah blah.

    ”It was the strangest thing. I’m a self-confessed political junkie. Questions and Answers is my favourite current affairs programme on Irish television. I should have been glued to the screen, forming all sorts of opinions and maybe even deciding on what to blog, or write about next. Instead, halfway through the show I pressed the mute button and started doing something else.

    I’ve been called a cynic a few times but I don’t think that was the cause of my temporary hearing impairment. It couldn’t have been politics fatigue because I’m pretty sure I’ve still got an appetite for it. I think I’m just tired of being lied to and watching a bunch of actors pretend to be engaging in an important discussion. I think that’s it.

    Sometime ago, at a networking event for journalists, I asked a veteran of the profession if the media was to blame for turning politics into theatre. He had just been justifying Declan Ganley’s media coverage with the often repeated ‘he’s a fantastic media performer’. His response was that the media chases entertaining stories and at the end of the day, it’s up to politicians to come up with ‘entertaining’ gimmicks if they want to be covered.

    Because both the political and the media establishment have come to terms with this ‘fact’, there is almost no point watching politicians on TV. Their aim isn’t to intelligently address the matter at hand. It is to put in a good media performance. The better the performance, the more likely you and I are to think they know what they are talking about. And if we think they know what they are talking about, there’s a good chance we’ll elect them. That’s at least partially why George Lee (with the greatest respect to Mr. Lee), and not some unknown economist (like Terrence McDonough at the NUIG) stood in and won a by-election.

    And what does a good television performance look like? A little aggression. Sticking to a few well prepared talking points regardless of the questions put forward. Understanding that a response does not have to be related in any way to the preceding question or even the matter being discussed. Interrupting everyone else. Aggressive interruptions work especially well. And in this department, there is a certain minister for justice who is unmatched. Which makes plenty of media sense. Who doesn’t want Judge Dred to be the minister ensuring their safety. If you don’t look and sound like Sly Stallone, the next best thing for a justice minister is to be the guy you least want to meet in a dark alley.

    And on it goes. The point is, at some point last night, it hit me. I’m watching this show to get a better understanding of the country’s political landscape. But the only thing I’m going to get from it is an idea of who may have a shot of becoming the next great soap star. If they’re really good … Taoiseach?

    I really need to read Brave New World again.

  • A thought

    June 8, 2009 @ 8:17 am | by Bryan

    Martyn Turner's Cartoon on 8/06/2009

    Martyn Turner’s Cartoon on 8/06/2009

    In light of the fact that we will spend the next few weeks digesting election results, the following Immanuel Wallerstein quotation seems appropriate:

    …in premodern systems, whenever there was real change it was justified by arguing that no change had occurred. In the modern world, whenever real change does not occur, it is justified by asserting that change has in fact taken place.

  • Picture of the week

    June 7, 2009 @ 8:48 am | by Bryan

    Marie O Neill and Imelda Cusack pictured sorting the votes in the Limerick City and County Local Elections at the University of Limerick Arena, June 6th. Photo:Brian Arthur/ Press 22

    Marie O Neill and Imelda Cusack pictured sorting the votes in the Limerick City and County Local Elections at the University of Limerick Arena, June 6th. Photo:Brian Arthur/ Press 22.

  • Obama and Bush

    June 3, 2009 @ 11:45 pm | by Bryan

    Stylistically, there is no comparing Presidents Bush and Obama. Substantively however, when it comes to foreign policy, is there any real difference? Obama wants to help the rest of the world ‘embrace’ the ‘American values’ that Bush tried to force down their throats. The endpoint is the same. Militarily, their objectives are the same. In terms of the global economy, both men’s first goal is American dominance. Inequality and the global distribution of wealth are further down the list for both.

    I like Obama, a lot. But I’m not convinced that where the rest of the world is concerned, he is anything more than a carrot where Bush was a stick. A change in methods is a far cry from real change.

  • Book Review: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

    June 2, 2009 @ 10:41 pm | by Bryan

    Chavez - The Revolution Will Not be Televised: A Case Study of Politics and the Media

    At the heart of Rod Stoneman’s book lie questions about power. Specifically, the power to construct reality, and to create both ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’.

    My first tangible encounter with apartheid was probably Richard Attenborough’s 1987 film, Cry Freedom. The moving images brought to life my incomplete, abstract knowledge in powerful ways. Apartheid, for me, was to… Click here to read the rest.

  • Jerusalema

    @ 11:40 am | by Bryan

    Gayatri Spivak’s essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” asks questions about whether society’s ‘underclasses’ can get heard. It is a question that I have been grappling with. Can those without power, both economic and political, express themselves to the rest of society?

    The Galway African Film Festival was held this weekend. The event included a seminar on East African film by film critic June Givanni. The main film, Jerusalema, was introduced by its producer, Tendeka Matatu. Both Givanni and Matatu had interesting things to say about the African film industry and perceptions of Africa abroad.

    As Givanni demonstrated through her numerous clips from Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda and Ethiopia, there is plenty of film talent in that part of the world. Interestingly, African filmmakers tend to tell not just different stories, but they also tell them in different ways to the generic Hollywood template. Besides the fact that the films Givanni showed were remarkably entertaining, they also challenge the stereotypes about Africa. Unfortunately, you and I probably won’t get to watch any of them. Our ability to watch a film is the result of a series of decisions made by those in the film distribution business. As profit, not cultural enrichment or even entertainment is the end goal of this business, the tried and tested films are the ones shown in cinemas and are placed on store shelves. This is true even of a film like Jeusalma, perhaps the best film I’ve watched this year.

    The fact that Jerusalema is struggling to get adequate distribution is worrying. It was made by accomplished filmmakers. It is immensely fun to watch. And if you want to understand what contemporary inner city Johannesburg is like, apart from moving in, I doubt you could do better than watch this film. If Jerusalema can’t get a global hearing, forget their ability to speak, the subaltern are on life support. Matatu and Ralph Ziman, Jerusalema’s director, are part of a global middle class. They aren’t even the subaltern and yet their voices are barely audible. How then does the poor, rural child in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia or Latin America get heard? What sort of self-determination do they have?

    Having read Rod Stoneman’s Chavez - The Revolution Will Not be Televised: A Case Study of Politics and the Media, I think the media, in a real way, gets to construct reality. The BBC has played a huge role in constructing Asia in my mind. So much so, there is little difference between their view of the region and mine. I suspect the same is true for many others. Unfortunately, their view on southern Africa, a region I know well, is wrong (in my opinion). It is, at the very least, at odds with that of the likes of Matatu and Ziman, whose own vies may be at odds with those of other Africa filmmakers and Africans who can’t afford to make films.

    If the power to represent, and in some ways to construct reality is proportional to economic power, maybe Spivak was right. Maybe the subaltern can’t speak. And maybe distributing Jerusalema isn’t profitable because we don’t want to come close to hearing them.

Search outsidein

 
Close
E-mail It