outsidein »

• Hooray for the G20?

  September 25, 2009 @ 1:50 pm | by Bryan

  

  “The fact that 20 or so individuals right now are determining economic trade policies for four to five billion people just isn’t right,” Mr. Griffith said. “That’s why we’re here.”

  Most news organisations are making a big deal over the fact that the G8 is being replaced by the G20. The fact that a handful of the most powerful ‘developing nations’ are being added to the elite club that gets to set the economic rules for the rest is supposed to represent the dawn of a new inclusive era or something. It does no such thing.

  Let’s take a look at some of these ‘developing nations’. China. India. South Africa. Turkey. Brazil. These aren’t exactly the nations that I would pick were I trying to get a good understanding of the concerns of the typical state in the South. China is China. India, while being home to some of the world’s poorest people, is also incredibly wealthy. So much so, the Indians not only sent a rocket to the moon, they were also the ones who recently discovered water there. They’re not exactly Malawi or Haiti – nations trying to come up with a formula for growing enough food to meet domestic needs. As for Brazil, the OECD has been trying to woo them for a while. The OECD, you may have noticed, have not expressed much interest in Cuba or Paraguayi. The G20 is so inclusive that neither Nigeria nor Egypt, Africa’s second and third wealthiest nations, were deemed worthy. And yet, just about all of Europe is represented there by the EU. But just to make sure, France, Germany, Italy and Britain get their own special seats. The same is true of North America – the US, Canada and Mexico are all members.

  So just to re-cap, the G20 is made up of Europe, North America, and everyone else with too much economic clout to ignore. And what happens when only the powerful get to make the rules? Let’s look at the response to the recent financial crisis, shall we? As was recently demonstrated on the excellent three part BBC television series, The Love of Money, the politically powerful got together with the economically powerful to craft a solution to the crisis. Unsurprisingly, it was decided that to avoid catastrophe, the economically powerful could not be allowed to fail. Equally unsurprisingly, the chosen mechanism of their rescue was a transfer of wealth from the rest, to those deemed to large to fail. Could it be that the proposal to transfer wealth to struggling mortgage holders instead of, or in tandem with the banks bailout, would have got more of a hearing were struggling mortgage holders part of the deliberations? Hoping that China, Brazil or even South Africa will represent Malawi’s economic interests is like expecting AIB or Bank of Ireland to ask the Finance Minister to consider my local credit union’s needs, and give some of the taxpayer money allocated to the banks to St. Anthony’s Credit Union instead. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  Like Trevor Griffith, I have serious problems with a small group from the most powerful nations making potentially life and death decisions for the rest of the planet. If however, that’s the direction the world is going to take, then at least let’s be completely honest about it and get rid of the charade that is the United Nations General Assembly. Maybe let’s get rid of the UN altogether? It can’t be that important if the real decision makers use it as a pit stop en-route to G20 meetings.

• Pre-emptive And Effective Buggin’ Out

  September 19, 2009 @ 3:06 pm | by Bryan

  

  One of my favourite movie characters of all time is Buggin’ Out from Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. Giancarlo Esposito is a great actor and plays the part well, but what really gets me is the symbolism behind the role. He represents well meaning, passionate social and political activism that is misdirected and therefore ultimately futile. Hence the name, Buggin’ Out.

  I’ve been trying to think of what Buggin’ Out’s cousin would be called. How would Spike Lee depict behaviour that is just as animated, but whose purpose was to shut down any meaningful discussion on a given topic? Try as I may, I can’t come up with a Lee character that personifies the kind of response that met Jimmy Carter’s observations this week.

  Former President Carter shared his opinion that the majority of the most vocal, the most fierce opposition to Obama, comes down to racism. There are some people who do not believe a black man should be the president of the United States, said Carter. That was always going to be a controversial position to take. But rather than give the elder statesman the benefit of the doubt and look into the claims thoroughly, most have dismissed him as a bumbling fool. Not only that, there has been quite a bit of ‘buggin’ out’ in the process. The derision of Carter has been quite animated.

  It is interesting how every society has its taboos. It appears that in the US, it is taboo to imply that the nation fails to live up to its ideal of itself. That taboo is maintained by a lot of hollering, kicking and screaming (buggin’ out). It’s an effective means of ensuring that most people remain well within the acceptable bounds of public discourse. And even when the likes of Jimmy Carter, Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Maureen Dowd do speak up, they are successfully drowned out by the hollering.

  ‘Pre-emptive And Effective Buggin’ Out’ is too much of a mouthful. It would never work as the name of a movie character, Maybe Spike will come up with something better in his next film.

• Amusing Ourselves to Death

  September 15, 2009 @ 2:03 pm | by Bryan

  Concluding another excellent piece of writing in today’s Irish Times, Fintan O’Toole makes the following plea:

  …can we perhaps conduct the crucial debates on Nama and Lisbon without conjuring bogeymen to give force to our arguments?
  

  I really wish we could, but apparently, that is just not going to happen. Let’s give NAMA a break and take the Lisbon Treaty as an example. I’m sure there is no end to the number of sensible arguments for and against it that one could make. But take a walk down any busy street and read the posters that have sprung up. Neither side is being very subtle. In bright colours and, at times, with provocative imagery, elements on both sides of the debate are trying to conjure up the scariest bogeymen possible.

  And just to ensure that we are entertained, both sides, and the media, are pushing their most glamorous stars forward. In the same way that Coke picks attractive young people; that Gillette shows off Thierry Henry, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer; and just as a circus promotes its trained monkeys in bright red suits, we’ve been given Ganley and O’Leary. Like in a true soap opera, we’re building up to a climax in which these two individuals go at it, dramatically exchanging the most outrageous claims possible.

  Hard as I try, I just cannot understand why there is this almost wilful desire to avoid confronting the substance of the difficult issues confronting us, but to engage in fringe or made-up controversies. I really don’t get it. Do we just not have the collective attention span required to ask difficult, boring questions of each other? Why do we feel the need to have individuals that come across well on TV and radio leading such important debates, instead of the most knowledgeable, sensible and courteous people? Imagine, a panel debate in which the aim is that both sides understand the other’s point of view and engage in a back and forth aimed at clarifying issues, not scoring cheap, publicity points. Unthinkable!

  I can only conclude that Neil Postman was right in his belief that our desire for ‘entertainment’ – be that in the discussion of the news and in other areas, such as education – would be our downfall. The title of his book, in that sense, was prophetic. Amusing Ourselves to Death.

• A compromised dream

  July 29, 2009 @ 3:29 pm | by Bryan

  

  According to his biographer, Mark Gevisser, Thabo Mbeki’s chief concern as South Africa’s first democratically elected government assumed office can be summed up by Langston Hughes’ poem, A Dream Deferred:

  What happens to a dream deferred?
  Does it dry up
  Like a raisin in the sun?
  Or fester like a sore–
  And then run?
  Does it stink like rotten meat?
  Or crust and sugar over–
  like a syrupy sweet?
  Maybe it just sags
  like a heavy load.
  Or does it explode?

  Based on my experiences in Zimbabwe, foreign news reports of riots tend to be exaggerated. Often, fairly contained events are blown up or made to look more widespread than they really are. I suspect that’s true in the case of the riots in Johannesburg.

  That said, Mbeki was right to worry about the Dream Deferred. Lord knows what will happen when poor South Africans of colour eventually discover that their dream was compromised away a long time ago.

• Mandela day?

  July 19, 2009 @ 1:18 pm | by Bryan

  

  Preparations before last night’s concert in celebration of Mandela Day. Photograph: Getty Images.

  Maybe I’m just overly cynical, but I don’t get it. I don’t understand modern society’s tendency to turn people into icons. Recently, the death of Michael Jackson was turned into an odd media frenzy. An eccentric man, no doubt one of the best performers the world has seen, was for a moment turned into something of a god. Never mind the fact that while he was alive most seemed relieved by his departure from the spotlight.

  This weekend was Nelson Mandela’s turn. I have a lot of respect for Madiba. But I feel that we’ve replaced the man for a myth. In the process, we’ve decided to forget about apartheid and how it was overcome. In place of that, we have erected a monument to Mandela. Now, I wonder how many people outside of South Africa know of people like Chris Hani, Robert Sobukwe or Steve Biko. I wonder about the degree to which the end of apartheid is thought of as some sanitised negotiated settlement with a lone figure in a prison cell talking down not just his jailers, but also the leaders of a repressive regime.

  Chomsky has written about the way in which we tend to think of social movements being the product of great, visible leaders. History gets distorted and protracted struggles, won by anonymous foot soldiers, are ascribed to people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela. Unfortunately, that makes sense. God forbid that we should acknowledge the fact that people, many of whom today live in little tin shacks, are the heroes who made South Africa a more just society. We couldn’t have Carla Bruni, Stevie Wonder, Lil’ Kim, Wyclef and Alicia Keys performing in their honour in New York. It’ one thing to have Morgan Freeman play Madiba in a biopic that reinforces our great man view of history, but there just aren’t enough black A-list actors in Hollywood to create a film that honours all those who played a significant role. Not even Spike Lee could pull that off. But even if he did, the world might then be confronted with the fact that heroes are literally living in slums. And that might be too much truth for us. No amount of praise for the few could then be sufficient penance for our neglect of the many.

  I think that’s why I dislike the ‘iconisation’ of even great men like Madiba. It’s a selective process that allows us to forget other great people. It distorts our memory of history. That’s problematic for me because, in the words of the Czech writer, Milan Kundera, “the struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

• 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.

• Jerusalema

  June 2, 2009 @ 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.

• The Rosebud Syndrome

  May 26, 2009 @ 9:10 pm | by Bryan

  Reading Stephanie McCrummen’s article, I couldn’t help but think of what Robin Wood called the ‘Rosebud syndrome’ in reference to the film industry. According to Wood,

  Money isn?t everything; money corrupts; the poor are happier … the more oppressed you are, the happier you are, as exempli?ed by the singing “darkies” of A Day at the Races (Sam Wood, 1937)…

  McCrummen follows a Kenyan immigrant who decides to return home with his family, leaving the creature comforts of the United States. The way her piece reads, her subject swaps the rat race for true inner joy and peace. That may be true, but in the words of a filmmaker I know, the stories that are left untold are just as important as those that are.

  It’s true that the recession has led many migrants around the world to pack their bags and return to their countries of origin. It is also true that the quality of life for some is better in their home countries. But there are some serious consequences of this growing trend that need to be highlighted.

  For one thing, remittances, the money that migrants send home, comes to more in sub-Saharan Africa than overseas development aid. The African Development Bank is concerned about what will happen in the coming months as that income decreases. The loss of remittances will probably lead to reductions in the numbers attending schools or with access to health care. As for the returnees themselves, not all will have accumulated savings. Some will return without very much money and may end up as burdens on their family networks where they were once bread winners. The simplistic, idyllic picture painted by McCrummen will not be every returning migrant’s experience. It might only apply to a minority.

  Any story that ‘shows the other side’ of Africa is a breath of fresh air. That said, it still remains true that the developing world will be disproportionately affected by this recession … even though it contributed least to the financial shenanigans that brought about the downturn. In that context, and bearing in mind the fact that the world is somehow capable of mobilising massive funds to protect big business, we shouldn’t ‘Rosebud’ the poor. I would hate to think that there are people out there who think that the migrants who are being forced to return will mostly be returning to paradise. That’s too much of a Hollywood view of the world to be realistic.

• The ‘markets’

  May 11, 2009 @ 2:49 pm | by Bryan

  The New York Times approves of now President Jacob Zuma’s cabinet picks. And it’s not just the Times, the Wall Street Journal approve of his choice for Finance Minister as well as the fact that the outgoing one gets to remain in the cabinet.

  So what? In appointing his cabinet, Zuma had to keep one eye on the international ‘markets’ and the other on the nearly two-thirds of South Africans who voted him into office. All the media concern about how he would govern and whether or not he would ‘bow to the pressure from his supporters on the left’, the very same noise that accompanied the new presidency of Brazil’s Lula, ensured that no such thing would happen. For better or for worse, every ‘serious’ economic player in the world is in a polygamous marriage with ‘the markets’. And it’s one of those old-school marriages – divorce is not an option. The only way out is to do a Cuba, North Korea or Zimbabwe and commit economic suicide.

  It’s a fascinating system. The range of options that are realistically available to the Irish government for dealing with the downturn are constrained by the markets. Even if the McWilliams proposal was adopted and the euro was scrapped, Ireland wouldn’t have economic autonomy. Britain, with its own central bank and monetary policy is still bound by the conventional wisdom of the markets.

  All this would be well and good if the markets were some metaphysical positive entity, some type of economic god. But they aren’t. At the end of the day, aren’t the market simply the collective wisdom of a bunch of super rich guys (and maybe the odd girl here and there) whose chief interest is the continued existence and growth of their wealth?

  I actually don’t think that the greatest threat to South Africa’s poor is Zuma embarking on some radical economic policy. He wouldn’t last a week if he tried to do that. His party would recall him like they recalled Mbeki and replace him with a market friendly guy the Wall Street Journal and New York Times would approve of. No. The Greatest threat to South Africa’s poor is the possibility that their interests and those of the Wall Street Journal reading ‘markets’ may differ.

• Swine flu

  April 30, 2009 @ 4:32 pm | by Bryan

  I don’t mean to trivialise a very serious problem, or to appear insensitive to the families of those who are ill and those who have died. That said, I don’t understand the hysteria around swine flu that is emanating from a lot of media outlets.

  All potentially fatal illnesses must be taken seriously. Communicable diseases should also raise public concern. But outside of Mexico, swine flu has resulted in one mortality. I understand the need for monitoring, the need to keep the public informed, and the need for a public awareness campaign to limit the risks of further transmission. But hospital acquired MRSA is far more significant in Ireland than swine flu. In fact, even in Ireland, the spread of HIV between heterosexual, white non-i.v. drug users is a growing problem that isn’t given the time of day outside of the medical community.

  So why all the panic about swine flu? Is it a reflection of modern culture? Maybe we have all watched so many episodes of shows like 24 that we have been conditioned to expect global disasters that have the potential to wipe out the whole race. Or maybe, we just like ‘excitement’ and a developing story. That 3000 people die each day of malaria in Africa, while lamentable, is something we have come to expect. It’s no longer news. And it’s something that is happening far away. Swine flu on the other hand is exciting! There have probably been less than 3000 cases in total (and that probably becomes definitely once you exclude Mexico), but it could happen to you! Swine flu might be coming after you! If it does, statistics show you’ll probably be fine after a few days’ treatment. But the fact that it might land on your doorstep is enough for this virus to be a top story.

  I never cease to be amazed by how the world works.

Next Page »