outsidein »

• Gladwell and Minister Harney

  April 28, 2010 @ 11:55 pm | by Bryan

  I really like Malcolm Gladwell. I had the privilege of listening to him speak when UCD hosted the writer a little over a year ago. On that occasion, he even kindly answered a question I put before him as he signed my copy of Outliers. Days later, while reading the book, I remember disagreeing with something he had written (the first and only time that I’ve seriously disagreed with Gladwell). Mixed in with stories about Mozart, Steve Jobs, and Korean pilots, while defending his 10 000 hour thesis, Gladwell makes the case for charter schools.

  Charter schools seem to me to be a particularly American solution to poverty. A testimony to the mastery of the market, they demonstrate what can be accomplished given the right incentives. Typically, inner-city American children fall behind their better-off cohorts academically. The root problem is that social issues keep these children from devoting as much time to their studies as others. Charter schools therefore start early in the morning and end late in the day. They also offer shorter vacations since they aim to keep their pupils in active learning for as long as possible. The idea is that if these children are in school for a sufficient period of time, they will cover as much ground as children in better social circumstances and will therefore be more likely to succeed academically. And they do just that, making the schools very popular in poor areas, despite being almost cruelly taxing on their pupils.

  I don’t like the idea of charter schools. An old paediatrician once called me a bleeding heart liberal, but on this issue, I think we would agree. Charter schools, in my opinion, treat the symptom rather than the underlying pathology. If poverty is the issue, I don’t see how allowing a few to keep up academically can be thought of as anything but a temporary bandage. Reading Gladwell hold up this bandage as a potential solution makes me more than a little uncomfortable.

  That same feeling was evoked in me by the minister for health, who wrote:

  …The critical question is how we use all resources, particularly public resources, to help people stay healthy and to get best outcomes for patients from healthcare…

  …It’s a critical question for all developed countries because the hospitalisation model of healthcare is financially unsustainable…

  …I invite people to recognise that it’s more important how money is spent than how it is raised from the public…

  …Our policy is equity of access to publicly-funded health services. We are open to using all providers who meet quality and value for money standards to contribute to public services…

  A comparison between Gladwell and Minister Harney isn’t quite fair. I generally tend to agree with the former while I mostly disagree with the latter. I just don’t share her faith in the market. Gladwell believes in charter schools because he believes that if you spend long enough at something (10 000 hours), you’ll do well at it given some aptitude. Minister Harney on the other hand, from what I can gather, believes in the market.

  But even before we get to the question of service delivery, an important question must be answered. What does ‘equity of access to publicly-funded health services’ mean? We can even simplify that. What is equity? Does it mean that people get what they pay for, such that those who are willing to pay extra are entitled to more or better or faster services? Does it mean that absolutely no distinctions should be drawn between patients, so that regardless of one’s ability to pay, or how expensive one’s treatment may be, each will be treated ‘equally’? Or does it mean that each citizen will be allocated a fixed sum of money, health credits so to speak, and will be entitled only to their fair share such that when those credits run out, they are no longer eligible for state health services? Or that the state’s health services will be structured so as to serve the greatest number; meaning that those whose ailments are expensive to treat will have to access their healthcare elsewhere?

  And what about the suggestion that ‘the hospitalisation model of healthcare is financially unsustainable’? Isn’t it only unsustainable if one holds to a certain set of values? The Cubans (I know, this example is well worn now), seem to value healthcare above modern consumer goods. I imagine that the idea that the hospitalisation model is unsustainable, on a budget of €15 billion, when far greater sums can be found to prop up the financial services sector, would make no sense to them.

  Doesn’t the question of what is or isn’t financially sustainable then really rest on what we take as our foundational principles? Isn’t the same true of what we mean by the word ‘equitable’?

  I suppose what worries me most about the minister’s article isn’t so much the matter of our ideological differences, or my fear that, as Dr Christine O’Malley suggested on radio today, the subtext is a desire to privatise health. No, the real worry for me is that we make Gladwell’s mistake and fight over which bandage to apply rather than engaging in debate over the real underlying issue. What are our views on justice? What does equity look like? Who should get what and why?

  The only way €15 billion isn’t enough to sustain the health of less than 5 million people is when there is an attempt to throw money at the issue instead of directly addressing those difficult core issues.

  Comments (25)

• Michael v Mary

  February 17, 2010 @ 11:06 pm | by Bryan

  

  Tánaiste Mary Coughlan makes a phone call in her office following her meeting last night with Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh.

  The spat between the Tánaiste and Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary is fascinating. It begs the question, who is more powerful, a bunch of elected politicians, or a businessman with the capacity to create lots of jobs?

  Granted, the playing field is uneven in that we are in a recession and jobs count for a whole lot more than they normally would. Also, there isn’t very much goodwill towards politicians right now. So maybe it’s wrong to read too much into the fact that, from what I can tell, the consensus is that O’Leary is right and the government is made up of ditherers who either don’t care enough, or are too incompetent to get a handle on the jobs situation.

  I come to this issue with my own bias. I think the market dictates the range of options available to politicians. The market in my opinion, is really just the interests of those in society with the most capital. Simply put, while the likes of the Tánaiste get fancy titles and all sorts of administrative responsibilities, people like O’Leary are the ones who really run things.

  But maybe I’m wrong. If Michael O’Leary was really that powerful, he probably wouldn’t have had to take his beef with Mary Coughlan into the public realm. He’s thrashing her there, but maybe the fact that there’s even a fight means that the O’Learys of this world aren’t quite as powerful as I thought?

  …unless of course this spat precipitates the fall of the government. The rest of the political establishment is well and truly behind O’Leary in this matter. The ability to replace a government with like-minded politicians would be a most impressive display.

  Comments (7)

• Pirates

  January 26, 2010 @ 2:46 pm | by Bryan

  Rihanna has released a version of Bob Marley’s Redemption Song in order to raise funds for people in Haiti. As the pop star told Oprah, “This song, for me, any time there was a difficult situation, I always listened to this song. It’s so liberating. Even now, I listen to it when my back is up against the wall. I feel the people of Haiti need to hear something inspiring.” Hmmm….

  Redemption Song is my favorite Bob Marley track. Rita Marley said that her late husband was already in a lot of pain when he wrote it. I don’t know if that pain is what separates the song from others. Or if it’s the simplicity of a man singing with nothing but a guitar to aid him. Or maybe it’s the knowledge that there’s something subversive in the lyrics, even if you don’t know what that something is.

  Years ago, in a dingy room in one of the halls of residence at the University of Zimbabwe, a friend tried to explain to me exactly why those lyrics are subversives. Imagine genuinely believing that someone had literally saved your soul from eternal damnation; pulled you out of ‘the bottomless pit’, so to speak. Imagine then that the same person, minutes later, put you in chains and sold you into a cruel, brutal captivity.

  Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
  Sold I to the merchant ships,
  Minutes after they took I
  From the bottomless pit.

  What does that have to do with Haiti’s earthquake? Simply put, I think you, me, Rihanna and anyone else who can afford to get onto the internet and read this, we’re today’s pirates.

  I once lived in a cockroach infested house. They were invisible most of the time and would only come out after we had all gone to bed. But if you got up in the middle of the night and switched on a light, especially in the kitchen, you would see them scurrying towards the closest hiding place. The response to Haiti’s earthquake reminded me of that house; I felt as though I were seeing the same process, only in reverse. Disaster struck, and where many saw international solidarity and good will, I saw a swarm scurrying onto a vulnerable population for all sorts of reasons – some, genuinely there to help; more for chess-like geopolitical positional advantage; and even more for marketing reasons, in order to gain greater brand exposure and recognition for one’s country, company or organisation. And I suppose it was inevitable: a disaster like that, it was bound to have a huge television audience.

  And let’s be honest, under normal circumstances, who cares about Haiti? Who really cares about it’s history? So what if the French and Americans have plundered and sucked it dry? And if it’s political instability is in good part the result of the meddling of Western countries (including the seemingly benign, like Canada) and institutions like the United Nations?

  What if said meddling leads to your financial gain and mine? Thomas Pogge, in several books and academic papers, argues that if we are involved in, or benefit from institutions that exploit or in other ways harm people, even if those people are on the other side of the world, we are guilty of harming those people and have a duty towards them. Pogge, in my opinion, convincingly makes his point, and he clearly demonstrates the fact that we the global aristocrats – we who don’t worry about whether or not we’ll eat anything tomorrow – do in fact benefit from institutions that harm people in places like Haiti.

  But if we took the likes of Pogge seriously, we couldn’t continue to live as we do. So when Senator David Norris suggested on radio yesterday that people in Ireland may be partially responsible for the situation in Haiti, he was unsurprisingly put in his place by his audience. Not only was he told that the Irish are incredibly generous (the Department of Foreign Affairs have been very busy lately because there has been a lot to say about the Irish government’s response to the earthquake), but what happened in Haiti was a natural disaster. It wasn’t, of course. There may have been an earthquake, but the exaggerated loss of life resulted from the structural failures that led to poor infrastructure and administration in that country. Those structural failures, if you believe Pogge, come back to you and I.

  So what are we to do? We’ll express remorse. We might even learn where the country is on the map. Some will give. Some will give a lot, maybe even of their time. They’ll try to raise funds for the disaster relief, and they may even go to Haiti or other miserable places to help comfort the suffering. But for most of us, something else will capture our attention in the coming months. The World Cup maybe. Or we’ll find out that some other celebrity had an affair. Or a row will erupt over whether bankers should be burdened with an additional tax on their second imported luxury car. Whatever it is, we’ll forget about Haiti until its next disaster.

  Institutionally, the likes of John O’Shea and The Economist will do their best to turn Haiti into a modern day colony, only with benevolent colonial masters. Bill Clinton will probably get another term in office, even if it is a smaller one. Naomi Klein will despair as she watches the process she described in her book unfold. Things will probably go wrong. Poor Haitians are likely to go on being the wretched of the earth (or at the very least, the wretched of the Western Hemisphere). And you and I will be the better for it, even if we oblivious to the workings of the world.

  I wonder if that is what Rihanna had in mind when she decided to fundraise for Haiti with Bob Marley’s song? Probably not. But I’m sure Marley would have seen the irony in the fact that I gain financially from this piece. I too am a pirate.

  Comments (23)

• 2010 pessimism

  January 4, 2010 @ 9:00 pm | by Bryan

  Regular readers of this blog may find the next statement hard to believe. I am, by nature, an optimist. Really, I am. But over the course of 2009, a cloud of pessimism settled over me. And to be honest, I don’t see it lifting over the course of the coming 12 months.

  Here’s an example of where my negativity stems from. Based on conversations with a mix of people in Belfast, it seems as though one of the largest determinants to peace and stability is economic well-being. Money, or more precisely, the process of pursing ‘the good life’ with a reasonable expectation of one day attaining it, can be positively distracting – in a “an idle mind is the devil’s playground” sense. Granted, an argument could be made for the role of things like intrusive body scanners and remote controlled planes that can bomb whole villages to smithereens. But does anyone really think that airport security, a hypertrophied ‘intelligence community’, or wars in far off places will rid the world of people like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, let alone the people who armed and trained him?

  Once upon a time, before that great IMF idea that was economic structural adjustment, Zimbabwe was a relatively prosperous little country. We were wealthier than most of our neighbours, so we did our bit to keep out the poorer Malawians and Mozambicans. Those who got into the country were tolerated, but I’m pretty sure we tried to keep them to a minimum. And then the IMF came along and in a relatively brief period of time, income inequality within the country soared. People who were relatively well off built large walls to keep out their poor fellow citizens. For the most part, the walls served their purpose, but with increasing regularity, some found ways over them. They would then help themselves to things they couldn’t otherwise afford while the owners of the big houses were asleep. There came a point where we wrecked the country. Things got so bad that even those living in big houses behind bigger walls began to struggle. So a lot of Zimbabweans, rich and poor alike, made their way to neighbouring and distant countries, sometimes illegally scaling real and metaphorical walls and fences.

  So why am I pessimistic? Because, it’s easier to build, buy and install body scanners and to blow stuff up than to try to understand the world on the other side of our walls. The world seems destined to imitate the likes of Johannesburg and Rio de Janeiro, who have found it easier to live with their fear than address the structures that give birth to their underworld. I’m pessimistic because I get the feeling that we’re a year closer to the day parts of the world are relegated to rubbish heap status, while others become fortified cities.

  But I could be wrong.

  Happy 2010.

  Comments (16)

• Di-Aping, climate change and the Holocaust

  December 21, 2009 @ 8:28 am | by Bryan

  

  [The Copenhagen Accord] asks Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries. It is a solution based on values, the very same values in our opinion that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces. – Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping (Chief negotiator for the G77 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen).

  You’ve got to hand it to the Sudanese chair of the G77. Europe is still pretty touchy about the holocaust, and the suggestion that the continent is helping to get the gas chambers cranked up was always going to evoke a response. Di-Aping knows how to make headline grabbing statements, but is there any substance to his charge?

  First of all, there’s the suicide pact stuff. On that, I’m with Di-Aping. The smaller countries don’t really get much consideration (and that’s me trying to be as generous as possible to the rich and powerful ones). Barack Obama didn’t take Malawi, Bangladeshi, a couple of Pacific Island nations and Paraguay into a private room to discuss their grievances. Part of that is Malawi et. al. aren’t responsible for much of the greenhouse gases the world produces so they can’t be expected to be at the forefront of a new green revolution. That said, because they aren’t very well off and don’t have much political clout, the views of Malawi et. al. aren’t going to be seriously considered. Let’s face it, Greenpeace have a better chance of getting a hearing from the Obama administration on the effects of climate change than Malawi. I’m not the only one who thinks as much. According to Michael Levi of the Council for Foreign Relations, “The climate treaty process isn’t going to die, but the real work of coordinating international efforts to reduce emissions will primarily occur elsewhere.” “That elsewhere,” speculates the New York Times, “will likely be a much smaller group of nations, roughly 30 countries responsible for 90 percent of global warming emissions,” i.e. the 30 most powerful nations. As for the weak, heard of Darwin?

  Then there’s the values stuff. What values led to the holocaust? I’m no expert in this area. On some level, ‘The Pearl’ must be right – there was money to be made in the exploitation and murder of millions of innocents. More interesting philosophical and sociological explanations have been put forward, but when all is said and done, most come down to the fact that we (people) like situations that work to our favour, especially if the consequences (or victims) are safely out of sight. The structure of the global political economy, for example, is such that I can easily afford to buy a cup of coffee most mornings, while the farmer who grew and harvested that coffee might struggle to feed her family. The distance between us allows me to sleep peacefully at night.

  So maybe Di-Aping is right on both counts. Maybe the small and vulnerable will continue to pay the price for the short-sightedness of the rich and powerful so long as ‘the dollar bill’ lies at the centre of our global value system.

  Comments (15)

• Blame it on the immigrant

  November 24, 2009 @ 1:14 pm | by Bryan

  38 per cent of 18-24-year-olds would like to see most immigrants leave, compared to 23 per cent of over-65s.

  72 per cent of people want to see a reduction in the number of immigrants living here.

  43 per cent say they would like to see some, but not all, immigrants leave the State, while 29 per cent would like to see most immigrants leave.

  People in rural areas and those from less well-off backgrounds are also more likely to support a reduction in the number of foreign workers based here.

  40 per cent of those in the 18-24 age group say they are likely to emigrate.

  None of this is very surprising. Life in Ireland seems a little more uncertain than in previous years. People are rightly worried that there isn’t enough to go around. It makes sense then that there’s a desire to get rid of anyone who doesn’t have to be in the country – all those without a strong claim to a slice of the dwindling national pie.

  Fair enough. But what assumptions go into that thinking? When the 1,004 participants in this survey were picturing the typical immigrant, who did they have in mind? The typical immigrant in Ireland is someone from an EU-member state. Europeans, based on the last census, make us something like 70% of the immigrant population. Do the 38% of 18-24 year olds who want to see most immigrants leave really want to boot out the Brits, French, Germans, and Poles? And how does that square up against the finding that 40% of those in that same demographic want to emigrate?

  This period in Ireland’s history is in danger of going down as one huge wasted opportunity. Maybe a state of mass reflection and re-evaluation is too much to hope for when people are genuinely fearful of what the future will bring. But venting out at the usual suspects – the politicians, the wealthy, the immigrants, the trade unions… – how much good is that going to do? The country could expel every immigrant, politician, rich person, every union official and everyone else deemed to be responsible for the current state of things, but the underlying problems would remain.

  Shouldn’t those underlying problems be the focus of attention?

  Comments (53)

• Why are we marching?

  November 6, 2009 @ 4:40 pm | by Bryan

  

  Clockwise from top left, the routes and starting times of the protest marches in Galway, Dublin and Cork.

  I’m not sure how I feel about today’s planned marches. I’m a huge supporter of deliberative forms of governance. I also strongly believe in the right of people to protest and publicly register their collective sense of anger. But I have little time for meaningless gestures, and I fear today’s protests fall into that category.

  About 15 years ago Zimbabwe was a flawed, but generally prosperous country that looked like it had a bright future. Somewhere along the line, several big issues came up which polarised the nation. Instead of engaging in a deliberative process, both sides adopted a confrontational approach. National challenges were cast as consequences of the incompetence or callousness of one side or the other, leading to further polarisation and more aggressive confrontation. Fast foreward 15 years, and what was once a prosperous country now resembles a frail invalid who may never return to her previous state of health.

  People have all sorts of ideas about what went wrong in Zimbabwe, some of which have more merit than others. Whatever the other reasons, had the main protagonists actually engaged with each other, had they not gone down the easy road of confrontation but had tried to work things out, the country would, at the very least, be far healthier than it is today.

  That’s Zimbabwe. What has that to do with demonstrations across Ireland? I think the same principles apply. Why are people protesting? If you were to give the gathering in Dublin or Galway a magic wand, or better still the authority of the cabinet, what would they do with the power? Are these protests simply an expression of anger, or is there a substantive underlying demand? I’m all for simple displays of anger, but then what? Do the protesters want a general election to be held in order to elect new leadership? Is the fall of the present government the aim? Do they support a specific set of economic policy recommendations? If so, have all the consequences been thought out and debated?

  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the protesters and organisers are the bad guys, or that the cabinet are the unappreciated good guys, any more than I think Zimbabwe’s government had an open door policy 15 years ago. But shouting across the room at the person who is ignoring you probably isn’t going to get them to take a serious look at your recommendations. In fact, the more time and energy are invested into shouting and ignoring, the less that goes towards thought, deliberation and problem solving.

  I don’t understand – maybe it;s just human nature. People, in both their private and public spheres, don’t like to address things directly. We’re broke, and resources that are there are distributed unevenly. Rather than debating how those resources should be distributed, how benefits and burdens should be shared, and what distributional outcomes political, economic, social and legal process should lead to, we fight over specific cases like NAMA, or Brendan Drumm’s pay. NAMA was a bad idea, Drumm shouldn’t have got that bonus, but both are inconsequential when compared to the need to deliberatively establish a national vision, and a plan by which to get there.

  If I could pass one law, it might be that every high school student be made to watch Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, and then to write an essay entitled On the futility of Buggin’ Out.

  Comments (16)

• Good news?

  October 28, 2009 @ 1:01 pm | by Bryan

  Today’s Irish Times poll asks the question, “Should cuts in social welfare be introduced in the forthcoming Budget?” Thus far, a surprising 62% believe that they should. Does that result reflect the socio-economic standing of the average Irish Times reader, online poll respondent, or the prevailing mood in the country?

  I’m surprised because I assume that few people in today’s job market are completely confident that they will have their current job this time next year; or that should they be made redundant, they will easily get alternative employment. That being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that even those who are currently employed are sympathetic to the plight of the jobless. Not only that, people who are currently employed could think of tax as a form of insurance against the loss of earnings that would follow future unemployment.

  So, if the employed are paying contributions towards the national safety net, and if there is a realistic chance that those same contributors will need that safety net in the not too distant future, why do 62% want to see a reduction in welfare benefits? Is there a national consensus on the desirability of income inequality? Does Ireland generally hold that the poor should be x% poorer than the person on the average industrial wage, so that if the average wage is falling, the income of a family on the dole should fall proportionately? I’m struggling to come up with rational explanations for the poll result. Surely in this economic environment hardly anyone believes that most people who are out of work find themselves in that position through idleness, do they? If it doesn’t serve the medium-term interests of the employed, and definitely not those of the unemployed, why do we want to see the dole payments reduced?

  A simple answer might be that we all agree that the payments are too high and the country can’t afford to maintain the social welfare budget. But that assumes (providing the poll reflects the national sentiment) that 62% of people in Ireland would voluntary opt for a smaller social welfare payment than is enjoyed today, should they be made redundant tomorrow. I doubt that’s the case.

  Maybe this poll is a cause for celebration. I can only assume it means that job security is much greater than I imagined. The only way that result makes sense to me is if the the bulk of that 62% doesn’t really think they’ll need to go on the dole tomorrow, or any time in the near future.

  Comments (12)

• Money makes the world go round?

  October 6, 2009 @ 5:07 pm | by Bryan

  

  Yes campaigners celebrate outside the main count centre in Dublin Castle on Saturday after the convincing Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Photograph: Cathal McNaughton/Reuters.

  Let’s face it, there was only ever going to be one result to Lisbon II. It has been said that it is evaluated experience, rather than simply experience itself, which is the best teacher. So let’s evaluate the referendum’s outcome. Why was there such an overwhelming ‘Yes’ vote? In my opinion, it all boils down to money.

  What did the ‘No’ camp have to offer? Legitimate concerns about sovereignty, the spirit of democracy, and justified anger. Anger at not only being asked to pass a reworked version of a document that was well and truly rejected not too long ago, but also being asked to rethink what officialdom considered the lapse in judgement that resulted in Lisbon I’s defeat. These legitimate concerns were unfortunately shrouded by various elements on the ‘No’ side, in nonsensical non-issues.

  The ‘Yes’ camp also put forward their fair share of nonsense. But at the heart of their appeal was economic survival. In short, their message was, “Mess this up and you will literally pay for your mistake.” I have no idea if that proposition was correct. But that’s irrelevant since at the end of the day, a large majority, staring economic uncertainty in the face, chose not to risk irritating those nice Europeans who have over the years invested significantly in Ireland.

  When this issue is stripped bare of niceties, isn’t this the lesson: money really does make the world go round? Couldn’t we also say that in the hierarchy of societal ideals, financial security trumps the finer questions around constitutionality and even democracy? Were that not the case, there surely wouldn’t have been such an all encompassing effort to circumvent the safety mechanism worked into the Nice Treaty that called for unanimity? Lisbon I’s Irish defeat would have sounded the treaty’s death knell.

  Why then, does the Western political establishment make such a big deal about Hugo Chávez calling for a vote to remove term limits, or Kagame establishing himself as a de facto military dictator? In both cases, the vast majority of the local population has decided that the prospect of economic stability trumps constitutional concerns. Just like the majority of the population here, they would rather be prosperous than rigidly stick to the tenets of some piece of paper.

  Both here and elsewhere, money really does seem to make the world go round.

  Comments (10)

• Poverty tourism

  September 30, 2009 @ 9:21 am | by Bryan

  

  A view of the “informal settlement” of Mathare at Nairobi, Kenya. Photograph: Frederic Courbet.

  This isn’t new. It happens in parts of South Africa, and I’m pretty sure it also happens in other places. Kenya is now home to a new kind of income generating scheme – poverty tourism.

  That’s right, poverty tourism. People pay to see the misery of others and then… I don’t know what happens then to be honest. I’m sure the whole thing isn’t meant to be sadistic. I imagine that those paying to see these slum dwellers do it for noble reasons, like the desire to understand how the other half live, so they can more effectively campaign for them. But to me, it smells like the horrible product of a George Orwell and Stephen King collaboration.

  What’s next, Survivor Khayelitsha? A show in which regular folks from various rich nations get to spend twelve weeks in South Africa’s largest township with nothing but the average income of the typical shanty town’s resident? Following District 9’s lead, the contestants might have to supplement their diet with rats and who knows, maybe cat food? At what point does concern and empathy become vulgar voyeurism?

  In a fascinating report from Kenya, Fintan O’Toole shared a debate between two Masai men on modernisation and the future of the tribe. Arguing for the path of modernisation and integration into the wider Kenyan society, O’Toole reports that Leina Mpoke, programme director with Concern, said the following:

  …Masais are kept in the same category as wildlife. Even when tourists come to look at wildlife, without the Masai next to a giraffe or a Masai village near the lions, it’s not complete. I refuse that kind of consumerism where the Masai is rated the same way as a beast. But the Masai man of the old time is not the same as today. The Masai warrior insisted on facing his enemy man-to-man and believed that even arrows were for cowards. And they got killed.

  Unfortunately, the path favoured by Mpoke isn’t much brighter. The majority of those Masai who ‘integrate’ end up in slums. History suggests that it will be years before that group works its way up the social ladder. Until then, those who escape the humiliation of being photographed as part of the wildlife may very well end up being captured by the camera lens of another kind of tourist. This time, as the wildlife itself – part and parcel of the urban safari experience.

  Comments (23)