(Nairobi, Kenya)
“Cholmondeley” is one of those surnames that are guaranteed to get the anti-class brigade’s blood boiling, as it has become synonymous with arrogant, air-headed toffs and the dying tail-flapping of the feudal system. I have never met anybody whose surname is Cholmondeley and I don’t personally know anyone who has, but I suspect that’s not really the point. The Ruperts, Sebastians, Farquhars and ffoulkes of this world are destined to be reviled as worthless idiots until they do the sensible thing and change their name to something inoffensive. Something like Simon Howard, for example.
To be termed an “aristocrat” in the twenty-first century is indeed unfortunate for your public image, as is the fact of being an alumnus of Eton (or Harrow, or Rugby or any of the other knee-jerk school names). Shooting somebody doesn’t help much, either.
Last week Thomas Cholmondeley, an Eton-educated “aristocrat” and important landowner in Kenya was convicted of manslaughter after shooting an alleged poacher on his land in 2006. There were echoes of the case of Pádraig Nally, the County Mayo farmer who shot dead an alleged trespasser on his land in 2004, in that it brought up once more the debate of the right of a person to protect themselves on their own property, the moral or legal limits of the method used and the possible legal repercussions of the resulting death.
However, the West of Ireland is very different from Kenya. Cholmondeley is one of the white people who sit on vast tracts of land that once belonged to the indigenous population, land that was acquired through murder and maintained through violence and enforced poverty. Ever since they arrived – and apparently this is just as true now as ever – these landowners have killed anyone who has strayed onto their land and expected the justice system to absolve them of any wrong-doing.
In fact, Cholmondeley himself had a murder case against him dismissed for lack of evidence after shooting dead another alleged intruder on his land the year before the shooting for which he has just been convicted.
From afar we sit in judgement of the actions of others without pausing to consider what the local system of morals or ethics would allow or proscribe. In some places it is perfectly acceptable to shoot somebody who has trespassed on to your property or who appears to pose a physical threat to you. However, nowhere is it acceptable to attempt to maintain a status quo from colonial times, and it is obvious in this case that it is another example of a powerful landowner killing one of the indigenous people and expecting to be acquitted.
Cholmondeley was found guilty according to the current laws of the country he lives in, and if anything this conviction is a sign that in Africa, the white aristocratic landowner has more than outstayed his welcome.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tony's punishment
(Sedgefield, England)
May is an important month in the life of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He was born in May 1953, became PM in May 1997, and announced his resignation at a meeting in Sedgefield in May 2007.
It is now two years since that speech, in which Blair told the democratic world what it had deserved to hear for some time, and yet nothing has been done to convict one of the most notorious and unrepentant modern leaders.
On 8th July 1982 Saddam Hussein responded to an attempted assassination by having 148 men killed in the town of Dujail, a crime for which he was eventually tried and hanged in December 2006.
On 11th July 1995 Radislav Krstic oversaw the killing of as many as 8000 men from Srebrenica, and in August 2001 he was sentenced to 46 years in prison (later reduced to 35).
On the 20th March 2003 Blair and then US President George Bush started the Iraq war based on lies about Iraqi weaponry – most conservative estimates are that 100,000 civilians died and nearly two million people were made refugees, and there are still numerous charges of torture and other war crimes outstanding against the invading forces.
And then there’s the matter of Doctor David Kelly.
So far Blair has been rewarded with the job of peace envoy to the Middle East – oh the irony – and choice posts at JPMorgan Chase, Yale University with the promise that he will be made President of Europe. He is also a millionaire.
The people of Iraq still have to contend with the presence of around 140,000 mainly US and British troops, a lack of utilities, and other life-threatening problems such as hunger and cholera.
It is time for the so-called international community to exert pressure on Britain to try Blair for his crimes, and if Britain refuses to clean up after its own then the ICC should take up the responsibility on behalf of the victims, otherwise a dangerous message will be sent to Western leaders – if you are rich and white, you can do whatever you want.
And one day, the victims will not be on the other side of the world.
May is an important month in the life of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He was born in May 1953, became PM in May 1997, and announced his resignation at a meeting in Sedgefield in May 2007.
It is now two years since that speech, in which Blair told the democratic world what it had deserved to hear for some time, and yet nothing has been done to convict one of the most notorious and unrepentant modern leaders.
On 8th July 1982 Saddam Hussein responded to an attempted assassination by having 148 men killed in the town of Dujail, a crime for which he was eventually tried and hanged in December 2006.
On 11th July 1995 Radislav Krstic oversaw the killing of as many as 8000 men from Srebrenica, and in August 2001 he was sentenced to 46 years in prison (later reduced to 35).
On the 20th March 2003 Blair and then US President George Bush started the Iraq war based on lies about Iraqi weaponry – most conservative estimates are that 100,000 civilians died and nearly two million people were made refugees, and there are still numerous charges of torture and other war crimes outstanding against the invading forces.
And then there’s the matter of Doctor David Kelly.
So far Blair has been rewarded with the job of peace envoy to the Middle East – oh the irony – and choice posts at JPMorgan Chase, Yale University with the promise that he will be made President of Europe. He is also a millionaire.
The people of Iraq still have to contend with the presence of around 140,000 mainly US and British troops, a lack of utilities, and other life-threatening problems such as hunger and cholera.
It is time for the so-called international community to exert pressure on Britain to try Blair for his crimes, and if Britain refuses to clean up after its own then the ICC should take up the responsibility on behalf of the victims, otherwise a dangerous message will be sent to Western leaders – if you are rich and white, you can do whatever you want.
And one day, the victims will not be on the other side of the world.
Friday, April 24, 2009
We choose our own heroes
(Glasgow, Scotland)
Early last month Chuck Norris wrote an article for conservative news website WorldNetDaily in which he mentioned the possibility of Texas seceding from the union and his readiness to be its first president in independence. How many votes would he obtain? The result would probably be a landslide, taking into account his popularity among extreme conservative, pro-Second Amendment, anti-abortionist and anti-gay marriage voters.
However, any other candidate with identical political views would be beaten not on policy but on the advantage of exposure and the influence of modern popular culture.
In 1981, former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan was voted in as president in the US, and he kept his Alzheimer’s-ridden finger hovering over the nuclear button for two full terms. In 2003, another former Hollywood actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was voted in as Governor of California and the politically uncertain muscleman is currently serving his second full term in office.
These are two high-profile entertainment-politics crossovers, but there have been many more people in the history if the US who have used their popularity in film and television as a springboard into politics, from Helen Gahagan Douglas to Shirley Temple Black to Clint Eastwood. From the records it would appear as if screen exposure translated easily into votes, even if it does seem to be a little frivolous to vote in an entertainer residing in an ivory tower as a high-ranking public official.
This is one of the many interesting aspects of modern culture – the faces that entertain us are much more influential in our lives than the politicians who really do have a great deal of control over us, which of course makes it easier for people to cross the divide between the two supposedly separate fields. It is something not too dissimilar from preferring to watch soap operas than the news as an antidote to the working day.
On this side of the water we have seen another fascinating aspect of modern culture at work as the internet helped create another legend. The people voted with their clicks by making an anonymous Scottish woman more relevant to popular culture than Barack Obama’s inauguration speech. Obama was only voted in a few short months ago, but in this frantically-paced modern world we need and create heroes at a staggering rate, and Susan Boyle is our new hero.
Is it frivolous to prefer an audition from a talent show to the speech of a modern statesman? Perhaps, but it is also shows that popular culture is a manifestation of the freedom that the people feel is their inherent right – in spite of the politicians, we still choose who and what we want. And in this case, the people have their priorities exactly right – the little person in the flowery dress over the big person in the suit, the power of a beautiful voice over the banality of political rhetoric (however well-intentioned), the simplicity of the solo singer over the spin of the speech-writer.
I don’t care if Chuck Norris wins an election and becomes President, but I would love to see Susan Boyle win that talent show, not just because she deserves to but also in order to see the people exercise their right to choose their own heroes.
Early last month Chuck Norris wrote an article for conservative news website WorldNetDaily in which he mentioned the possibility of Texas seceding from the union and his readiness to be its first president in independence. How many votes would he obtain? The result would probably be a landslide, taking into account his popularity among extreme conservative, pro-Second Amendment, anti-abortionist and anti-gay marriage voters.
However, any other candidate with identical political views would be beaten not on policy but on the advantage of exposure and the influence of modern popular culture.
In 1981, former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan was voted in as president in the US, and he kept his Alzheimer’s-ridden finger hovering over the nuclear button for two full terms. In 2003, another former Hollywood actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was voted in as Governor of California and the politically uncertain muscleman is currently serving his second full term in office.
These are two high-profile entertainment-politics crossovers, but there have been many more people in the history if the US who have used their popularity in film and television as a springboard into politics, from Helen Gahagan Douglas to Shirley Temple Black to Clint Eastwood. From the records it would appear as if screen exposure translated easily into votes, even if it does seem to be a little frivolous to vote in an entertainer residing in an ivory tower as a high-ranking public official.
This is one of the many interesting aspects of modern culture – the faces that entertain us are much more influential in our lives than the politicians who really do have a great deal of control over us, which of course makes it easier for people to cross the divide between the two supposedly separate fields. It is something not too dissimilar from preferring to watch soap operas than the news as an antidote to the working day.
On this side of the water we have seen another fascinating aspect of modern culture at work as the internet helped create another legend. The people voted with their clicks by making an anonymous Scottish woman more relevant to popular culture than Barack Obama’s inauguration speech. Obama was only voted in a few short months ago, but in this frantically-paced modern world we need and create heroes at a staggering rate, and Susan Boyle is our new hero.
Is it frivolous to prefer an audition from a talent show to the speech of a modern statesman? Perhaps, but it is also shows that popular culture is a manifestation of the freedom that the people feel is their inherent right – in spite of the politicians, we still choose who and what we want. And in this case, the people have their priorities exactly right – the little person in the flowery dress over the big person in the suit, the power of a beautiful voice over the banality of political rhetoric (however well-intentioned), the simplicity of the solo singer over the spin of the speech-writer.
I don’t care if Chuck Norris wins an election and becomes President, but I would love to see Susan Boyle win that talent show, not just because she deserves to but also in order to see the people exercise their right to choose their own heroes.
The camera never lies
(London, England)
Norfolk conjures up images of a traditional, rural lifestyle played out in small market towns, of a place unspoilt by the more pernicious aspects of the industrial revolution and certainly far removed from the post-industrial information holocaust. Here you can find Norwich, the greenest city in the UK and one of the most polite, or Sandringham, the beautiful royal estate set in 8,000 acres of stunning English countryside.
As it happens, Norwich has the highest number of internet users in the country, and shows itself to be a modern, cultured city. And nearby King’s Lynn also offers an ambiguous image, for this quiet rural haven was the first town in the country to have CCTV cameras installed, suggesting a population of thuggish ne’er-do-wells and an absence of law and order.
However, Norfolk is not alone in being tainted by the connotations of modern technology. Bournemouth, the sedate retirement town on the south coast and home to the Winter Gardens and The Royal Bath Hotel, suffered a similar fate in 1985 when it became the first town in the country to have these cameras installed on the streets, evoking images of wild lawlessness.
It is estimated that a generation later there are between four and five million public and private surveillance cameras (the government being by far the biggest operator), which in a population of approximately sixty million translates as one camera for every twelve to fifteen people. Not 12,000 to 15,000 or even 1,200 to 1,500 – one camera for every 12 to 15 people.
Norfolk is certainly a county which matches England’s view of itself and indeed for many years the view that the rest of the world had about the English – polite and calm, a fair-minded people with their emotions under control and a strong sense of right and wrong.
However, the visitor to the modern UK will surely be overwhelmed by a sense of panic on seeing the number of security cameras. And they are everywhere, on all forms of transport including taxis, all town centre buildings including shops and restaurants, and on every street corner be it city centre, urban outskirts or rural idyll. And now they are to be accompanied with Orwellian loudspeakers which utter anonymous, monotone instructions to the citizens as they go about their daily business.
How ironic, therefore, that those same cameras betrayed the forces of government oppression when they attempted to cover up their brutal murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. And how appropriate now that the people should use their camera-phones and video cameras to capture more examples of police brutality during the G20 protests, namely the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson and the assault on another young woman.
However, perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that the conservative population of middle England – whose representatives in blue have been found out in such an unequivocal way – will eventually suffer the consequences of ‘getting what they wished for’. An unsurprisingly high number of English people are in favour of the presence of constant surveillance to back up the popular ASBO court orders – it is part of the typically English desire to control every last movement of their neighbours and to be able to have that all-important last word by proving that their neighbours are indeed indulging in such anti-social behaviour as not putting their bins out in the correct way or parking on the kerb.
Having loudspeakers tell people what to do is the ultimate asexual fantasy of those who lurk behind net curtains and in the corner of bay windows, squinting at those awful people from across the road (or indeed across the seas). Barked orders and short, sharp shocks is what middle Englanders have always threatened to impose if they were ever made Prime Minister.
I have every sympathy for that young woman in London and for the family of Ian Tomlinson, people who tried to exercise the supposedly traditional English rights of free speech and freedom of movement but who became victims of the age-old English desire to oppress. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the conservative middle class who are hanging themselves with the electrical cables of their own CCTV.
Norfolk conjures up images of a traditional, rural lifestyle played out in small market towns, of a place unspoilt by the more pernicious aspects of the industrial revolution and certainly far removed from the post-industrial information holocaust. Here you can find Norwich, the greenest city in the UK and one of the most polite, or Sandringham, the beautiful royal estate set in 8,000 acres of stunning English countryside.
As it happens, Norwich has the highest number of internet users in the country, and shows itself to be a modern, cultured city. And nearby King’s Lynn also offers an ambiguous image, for this quiet rural haven was the first town in the country to have CCTV cameras installed, suggesting a population of thuggish ne’er-do-wells and an absence of law and order.
However, Norfolk is not alone in being tainted by the connotations of modern technology. Bournemouth, the sedate retirement town on the south coast and home to the Winter Gardens and The Royal Bath Hotel, suffered a similar fate in 1985 when it became the first town in the country to have these cameras installed on the streets, evoking images of wild lawlessness.
It is estimated that a generation later there are between four and five million public and private surveillance cameras (the government being by far the biggest operator), which in a population of approximately sixty million translates as one camera for every twelve to fifteen people. Not 12,000 to 15,000 or even 1,200 to 1,500 – one camera for every 12 to 15 people.
Norfolk is certainly a county which matches England’s view of itself and indeed for many years the view that the rest of the world had about the English – polite and calm, a fair-minded people with their emotions under control and a strong sense of right and wrong.
However, the visitor to the modern UK will surely be overwhelmed by a sense of panic on seeing the number of security cameras. And they are everywhere, on all forms of transport including taxis, all town centre buildings including shops and restaurants, and on every street corner be it city centre, urban outskirts or rural idyll. And now they are to be accompanied with Orwellian loudspeakers which utter anonymous, monotone instructions to the citizens as they go about their daily business.
How ironic, therefore, that those same cameras betrayed the forces of government oppression when they attempted to cover up their brutal murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. And how appropriate now that the people should use their camera-phones and video cameras to capture more examples of police brutality during the G20 protests, namely the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson and the assault on another young woman.
However, perhaps the greatest irony of all is the fact that the conservative population of middle England – whose representatives in blue have been found out in such an unequivocal way – will eventually suffer the consequences of ‘getting what they wished for’. An unsurprisingly high number of English people are in favour of the presence of constant surveillance to back up the popular ASBO court orders – it is part of the typically English desire to control every last movement of their neighbours and to be able to have that all-important last word by proving that their neighbours are indeed indulging in such anti-social behaviour as not putting their bins out in the correct way or parking on the kerb.
Having loudspeakers tell people what to do is the ultimate asexual fantasy of those who lurk behind net curtains and in the corner of bay windows, squinting at those awful people from across the road (or indeed across the seas). Barked orders and short, sharp shocks is what middle Englanders have always threatened to impose if they were ever made Prime Minister.
I have every sympathy for that young woman in London and for the family of Ian Tomlinson, people who tried to exercise the supposedly traditional English rights of free speech and freedom of movement but who became victims of the age-old English desire to oppress. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the conservative middle class who are hanging themselves with the electrical cables of their own CCTV.
Monday, March 16, 2009
When a weapon is attacked
(Lahore, Pakistan)
Lahore is a beautiful city boasting an exotic mix of impressive monuments, exquisite street food, modern media companies and traditional festivals. It would be a tourist paradise were it not for the problems that still beset this jewel. The city was torn apart during Partition, and soon afterwards riots between Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus further damaged both the physical infrastructure and everyday life. It was the objective of an attack by the Indian army in 1965, and its position close to the new border has never let it rest. Today Lahore figures prominently in the conflict against between the West and its enemies.
On March 3rd a group of gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team, killing six people (five policemen and a driver) and injuring nine more. Comparisons were quickly made to the violence at the Munich Olympics in 1972, when members of Palestinian group “Black September” kidnapped and later killed eleven member of the Israeli Olympic team.
However, the Olympics are widely regarded as an event which brings nations together in a sporting festival which still observes the accepted ethics of competition and morals of human co-existence. The irony of the Lahore attack is that it was committed against a team engaged in a “sporting” activity which was used as an unsubtle truncheon in the English class war and more importantly as a weapon in the colonial domination of a post-abolition British Empire.
Many people have likened sport to war – not least when the situation in question involves English football supporters – and there are obvious parallels between armies and teams, flags and team colours, trophies and conquests and primitive tribal belligerence and football crowds. Some would even point to a direct connection between the gentlemanly rules of engagement and the gentlemanly rules of a sport. Whatever the extent of the similarities, it was only a question of time before the already blurred boundaries between these two “sporting” activities were shot to pieces.
Lahore is a beautiful city boasting an exotic mix of impressive monuments, exquisite street food, modern media companies and traditional festivals. It would be a tourist paradise were it not for the problems that still beset this jewel. The city was torn apart during Partition, and soon afterwards riots between Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus further damaged both the physical infrastructure and everyday life. It was the objective of an attack by the Indian army in 1965, and its position close to the new border has never let it rest. Today Lahore figures prominently in the conflict against between the West and its enemies.
On March 3rd a group of gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team, killing six people (five policemen and a driver) and injuring nine more. Comparisons were quickly made to the violence at the Munich Olympics in 1972, when members of Palestinian group “Black September” kidnapped and later killed eleven member of the Israeli Olympic team.
However, the Olympics are widely regarded as an event which brings nations together in a sporting festival which still observes the accepted ethics of competition and morals of human co-existence. The irony of the Lahore attack is that it was committed against a team engaged in a “sporting” activity which was used as an unsubtle truncheon in the English class war and more importantly as a weapon in the colonial domination of a post-abolition British Empire.
Many people have likened sport to war – not least when the situation in question involves English football supporters – and there are obvious parallels between armies and teams, flags and team colours, trophies and conquests and primitive tribal belligerence and football crowds. Some would even point to a direct connection between the gentlemanly rules of engagement and the gentlemanly rules of a sport. Whatever the extent of the similarities, it was only a question of time before the already blurred boundaries between these two “sporting” activities were shot to pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)