It’s all About the Money...

Prior to a recent visit to China, the USA’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying that she would press China on human rights but that those issues would not keep the USA and China from working together to address the global financial crisis.

In a world where we often hear politicians talk about moral leadership, human rights and democracy it’s interesting to hear someone’s true motives coming to the fore albeit unintentionally. As always we find a politician making a grand claim or promise with no real intention on following through on the words of the promise because their priority is actually revealed in the afterthought. What do I mean by this?

Clinton said that she was going to press China on human rights – something that we have heard about from time to time. China’s involvement in various alleged human rights infringements have been in the news over recent months and years – whether it’s the treatment of pro-democracy voices inside their own country, the treatment of Tibet or their connection to the events in the Darfur region. While this sounds encouraging what follows the but reveals their true priorities. Economics. More specifically their priority is the mess caused by US banks and multinationals. Sure it’s going to be sold as something that is in the best interests of the global economy but realistically the bottom line is seen as more of a priority than lives and rights of unknown non-Westerners.

Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t surprise me in the least. It’s just refreshing to see true motives being revealed, even if it was unintentional.

Coloureds, Culture & Coconuts….

Originally written on Saturday, 28 February 2009…

In a previous entry on this blog (http://nomadiclessons.blogspot.com/2008/09/thoughts-on-rainbow-nation.html) as well as in another blog I write I briefly touched on my cultural/ethnic heritage and some of my thoughts on being a coloured South African (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured).

But sometimes I have to ask the question, what is a coloured South African? And, I have to believe that I’m not the only one asking this question. The reality is that this cultural/ethnic label is a product of the apartheid and there is such diversity within this artificially constructed social group. When I lived in South America I was occasionally asked about my ethnic/racial heritage. I developed an answer that consisted of my saying that I was the ‘rainbow nation’ in one person. I am the descendant of slaves and slave owners, foreigners and natives. I know that at some point in my genealogical story I have native ancestry, as well as European ancestry. While that is true this is not the culture embraced by people with a similar story. What is our culture? Who are the people who arrived here as slaves from various places around the Indian Ocean? In broad terms we know who they were but we have lost contact with that culture, with that language. The late Taliep Peterson musically explored a similar question just before his death through his play Ghoema. But looking at Peterson’s rendering the reality is that while many accept this as a part of the general history there still exists a lack of comfort with elements of the story, nor is there a central unifying culture. This is hardly surprising considering the fact that in a sense this ‘cultural group’ is in reality an amalgamation of those who didn’t fit the black, white and Indian labels in the old regime. This is not a value judgement, after all if I were making a judgement it would be aimed at the person I see the mirror every morning too. So what is ‘coloured culture’? I’d suggest that nobody really knows, but rather that a collaged sense of culture and identity has been developed. So where does this leave us?

Because of my life experiences, as well as the fact that I almost entirely speak English, I’ve occasionally been referred to as a coconut – brown on the outside but white on the inside. This is an interesting concept though, especially since the ‘brown’ on the outside is at best not clearly defined and at worst unknown. So what does it mean to be coloured? I sometimes wonder what makes up our identity beyond homo sapien and South African. This is a complicated issue though and one for which there are no quick and easy resolutions. Some will undoubtedly suggest that I’m one of the few who is confused, but so be it… I welcome comments, criticisms and thoughts…

Tasty Vinaigrettes…

Vinaigrette is a mixture of vinegar (or sometimes citrus juice) and oil, often flavored with herbs, spices, and other ingredients… Commercial preparations are often emulsified with lecithin or similar additives, while fresh preparations can be more weakly emulsified with mustard or left as mixtures that will separate.

It’s been a while since I had anything to say on this page. Okay, truth be told I almost always have something to say but I’ve been a bit lazy when it comes to sitting down in front of my keyboard lately.

Recently I was chatting to someone about matters relating to reconciliation and specifically the challenges stemming from racial segregation. We spoke about South Africa’s history as well as the challenges of being a minority USA resident – she was born in Central America. We’ve both had experiences where we have been (and she still is) a part of student bodies that are, at least superficially, integrated. While there are at times still some prejudices, mistrust or other segregation by-products I’m not going to dwell on those right now.

I was actually thinking back on my experiences at high school and one of my college experiences and I likened those student bodies to a vinaigrette type salad dressing. The reason for this is that while the ingredients don’t dissolve they combine to form something new that none of the elements could manage on its own. Vinegar, oil, spices and herbs can combine to transform a simple salad but it takes a bit of shaking, stirring or mixing to get all the ingredients to work together. So what happens when everyone leaves the campus? Well from I experience I’d say that this would be like no longer shaking or stirring the mixture. They oil and vinegar separate, the pepper possibly sinks to the bottom and perhaps some of the herbs will float, or vice versa. I’ve seen this happen where friendships/connections across cultures are only superficial that once the whisk (the campus experience) is removed we tend to separate and return to what is familiar.

Is this a good thing? Is it natural? Is it just the ways things are (supposed to be)? Is there then any point to mixing things up in the first place? How do we maintain the flavour of the vinaigrette? I have my own thoughts and/or answers to some of these and perhaps in another entry I’ll delve into some of them, but for now I thought I’d make this observation. That’s all… What do you think?

Mail me at: nomadiclessons@gmail.com

Building Empires…

About a week ago I was walking through town with a friend and as we often do we ended up talking about political and related issues. This particularly conversation turned toward the topic of empires – they come and they go. This is what has happened throughout history and it will continue to happen. One particular question that came to mind for me was to what degree we should laud the empires of the past and their achievements.

So why on earth did this come to mind? Well, it’s not unusual to look with amazement at the achievements, chronicles and artefacts of the so-called great empires of the past – such as the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Romans. Yet at the same time it is quite common for people to feel animosity toward economic and/or political empires that indirectly or directly impact their lives. So my question is how do we hold these conflicting perspectives together? Can we despise those empires who attempt to gain so much control now and still sing the praises of empires built with so much blood mix in with the cement? This is a question I ask myself too – after all I too have find myself in awe of the achievements of these empires.

Not really anti-USA?

From time to time I find myself in the middle of a conversation regarding the state of our little global village, whether specific issues in specific locations or overall trends. Based on the responses I occasionally get to the things I say and the opinions I share I realise that people regard me as being anti-USA, so I thought I should clarify a few things.

While I’m not going to look at it at length there is a well-known line from the USA’s Declaration of Independence that reads as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. As with any idea or belief someone, somewhere will try and find problems with this statement but there is something striking about this idea of equality among men at that time in history – or at any time I guess. After all, it flies in the face of so much of the outworking of human ambition. Along with other ideals on which the republic was founded I find this to be something essential and undeniable, although it is in the sporadic and limited applications of these beliefs that my concerns are based.

When “all men” becomes all white men or all American men then I have a problem. When the “unalienable rights” are perceived in such a way or extend so far that the pursuit thereof infringes on the rights of others then something is wrong. When someone’s life is more important or valuable than that of another based on where they are from, then someone has gone off-track. Or, when someone’s pursuit of happiness results in someone else’s unhappiness then we have to question the process and the legitimacy of that happiness. There is a strong-foundation at the base of the USA but I, like many others, believe that some of the builders have not stuck to the original blueprint.

Babies, puppies & New Year’s Day…

Every Wednesday afternoon I have a 2-hour English conversation class at a local company and in order to get there I can walk down a street that has a pet store, usually with a variety of puppies just inside the window and more inside the store. Sometimes just standing there for a few minutes watching those balls of fur puts a smile on my face. So what does that have to do with babies and New Year’s Day?

As I walked away from the store one day I started wondering why people like puppies and came up with one and surely not the only answer – at the very least this applies to me. They are new, innocent and unspoilt among other things. Obviously though I’d say that the “cute factor” is the main reason. So once again what about babies and New Year’s Day? Well I think that apart from the obvious and inherent cuteness of babies there is this idea of newness coming into play when we get excited about babies or 1 January. I think most people would agree that the world we live in is seriously troubled at the best of times, even if Hollywood tries to sell us something different. So, when I see a baby, a puppy or arrive on 1 January there is a sense that regardless of everything going on in the world here is something that is new and unspoilt. There is potential for all kinds of great things that flies in the face of the challenges that life can throw at us. I would even go beyond that and say that especially a baby or a New Year can cause us to dream, to hope and for some to pray for something more, something better…

With Friends like These…

In global politics there are often numerous words and terms been thrown around to describe supposedly undesirable elements – state sponsors of terror, rogue states and dictator among other things. But recently I’ve been thinking about a very simple word that is seemingly easy to understand – enemy. But what is an enemy?

One definition I came across suggests that an enemy is “a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent” or more generally speaking it is “something destructive or injurious in its effects”. Now I look at the state of global politics and economics (after all, we can’t separate those two) and I have to wonder who the real enemies of freedom are? Sure there are countries who perhaps don’t live up to the expectations of others within their own borders, but whose economic and other policies keep the rest of the world on the back foot? Yes it s true that this is a complex issue but at the very least there are those who claim to be on the side of freedom and democracy whose actions can at times be regarded as “antagonistic activities” and or are “destructive or injurious in its effects” even though they claim benevolence.

When then hear terms like “leaders of the free world” or “defenders of freedom” I can’t help but laugh (at the very least) at the gall of those using these terms. And, I have to ask the question: who are the real enemies of global freedom and human rights? After all, with friends like these who needs enemies?

Surprise, surprise...

In the USA, at least from John McCain at the moment, there is some talk about a league of democracies with common interests and values (whatever that mean), and who control large economic resources to act against Iran. His reason for this is that Russia is preventing certain actions in the UN Security Council. Once again when something works it’s great, but when it’s not working they toss it out… One question on my mind is who is going tend up in the line of fire next?

Consistently Inconsistent…

Recently I have been keeping track of the events in the USA’s economy and the attempts that are being planned and/or made to “bailout” their economy. Apart from the fact that these events in and of themselves are fascinating and do in fact have global repercussions, it is the USA government’s response that I find the most fascinating.

Over the years the USA has been at the forefront of the development of and advocating for a global (free-market and/or capitalist) economy as well as numerous efforts to bring democracy to various corners of the globe. What I find interesting though is the limited and very selective applications of these ideologies at times – with the one consistency some would argue is that the USA is better off. What am I talking about? Although the USA brought democracy (to some degree) to different countries they, with the assistance of other countries, have prevented a true global democracy – I’m once again referring to the existence of the veto power of the UN Security Council. There are other, some would say debatable, examples where it has been ensured that introduced democracies are USA friendly, but that’s something I’m not going to go into right now.

Then there is the $700 billion proposed bailout of the USA economy. It is being sold as something that is good for the world, but it has to be argued that it also attempts to ensure the USA maintains its position as a global economic leader – a position that is coming under threat more and more from the EU, Chinese and Indian economies. Then there is the irony of taking an arguably socialist action in an attempt to shore-up a falling economy. Some say that the number don’t lie and while I don’t always agree with this the fact that this bailout could free the entire African continent from its foreign debt 3.5 times over is definitely eye-opening and at the very least this has to cause us to question the USA’s claims of benevolence. I’ll close of with two comments I came across recently regarding this plan-of-action. Allan Chernoff (CNN, Senior Correspondent) said that this plan is “throwing capitalism on its head” and a US Senator Jim Bunning said that this is “socialism and it is un-American”.

Changes for our fledgling democracy…

So, what important thing could Zuma and his supporters have done for democracy in South Africa? Well, according to some reports we may see a split in the ANC as a result of Mbeki’s removal from office, with one report stating that Mbeki’s mother is in support of the idea to form a new political party.

While, others may not share my view on this I think this is a great thing for our fledgling democracy and something that I have expected and hope for over the past few years. To date there has not been any serious opposition to the ANC on a national level and that could be the very thing it needs to hold it accountable for its actions or lack thereof. Furthermore, with the more than two-thirds of votes cast in any election (as it achieved in the last election) the ANC has the power to make changes to the constitution – a power that fortunately it has not acted on so far. These are my reasons for hoping for a split and potentially a stronger opposition.

My main reason for expecting this spilt was simple. The bloc of voters supporting the ANC is huge (nearly 70% of votes cast in the last election) and the differences post-1994 experiences within this bloc is vast. On the one end of the scale there are those who have become millionaires through various means (occasionally with the assistance political contacts and the benefits of Black Economic Empowerment) while on the other end of the scale there are those who as yet do not have basic necessities such as running water. How does anybody hold such a disparate group of people together under one banner and maintain South Africa’s position and good name on the world stage? I would say it’s a/n (near) impossible task.

I’m realistic though and I know that any significant change or shift in power could likely arrive coupled with unrest and violence – something South Africa has seen all too often and which nobody needs to face again.

PS: I neither support Zuma nor Mbeki, but I feel that change was inevitable and necessary...