Death and the King's Horseman

Some plays are so sensuous, brilliantly written and dramatic that they literally make me want to either take my clothes off and join the action. It’s fair to say Death and The King’s Horseman is one of those plays. It’s like somebody at a cultural bar offered me a cocktail of all the things I love and put it into one play: History, Melodrama, Yoruba culture, proverbs, dance and music and above all great writing. So, you can understand my excitement when I heard the National Theatre was putting on this play. It’s only the second production of the play in the UK, and a very rare outing for it in the west. For those of you who haven’t seen it, or don’t intend to see it – here’s a little précis. It’s 1944 in Oyo and the King has died; as by tradition, his horseman, has to follow suit by committing suicide; but this is Nigeria in 1994, under British rule, so there are obvious complications in this simple aspect of tradition.

This production is good. Soyinka has always said this play is not about ‘a clash of cultures’ – it is deeper than that; perhaps even more than Soyinka as a writer realized; Kwame Anthony Appiah, the philosopher disagreed with Soyinka’s reading of his own play, saying it was a play about a clash of cultures; but when you see this production you'll realise, Soyinka is right. He's said the inspiration for the play came from seeing a bust of Winston Churchill everyday as a fellow at Cambridge and wanting to smash it. In a sense, that is what he has done, when you see this production, you realise what this play says is, silly billy, you’re in our world, a world you don’t understand. This comes out so clearly from the moment, District Officer Pilkings and his wife first hear the drums playing in their home in which the very furniture seems alive. It is a play, believe it or not, which manages with white characters to take place in an entirely African world. Ultimately, it’s a play about how one man deals with Death; It is not by accident that it’s called Death AND the King’s Horseman, rather than Death of the King’s Horseman. I thought Nonzo Anozie really did draw this aspect of the play out, the tragedy of the matter of a man smaller than the mission to which he is called; the British and their intervention are ultimately flies on the backside of a raging elephant. It isn’t Pilkings that prevents Elesin’s death – it is Elesin’s own weakness, a fatal flaw he admits towards the end of the play. That said, the British are very entertaining flies in this production. Rufus Norris’s decision to cast black actors in whiteface brilliantly underscores the fact that the whole play is a mockery of the posturing and artifice that defined the colonial attitude. I thought I saw some white members of the audience squirm to see black actors sending up the empire so comically, which perhaps shows that the play really takes place in a black African world not controlled by the people who think they are in power. The set is delicious and so evocative, with lampshades that crawl and plant pots that nod, and a world of objects so evocative of the Yoruba saying that the world is a market.

There were obvious limitations in the pronunciation of certain words by the actors, a sin for which they can be forgiven I suppose. Nevertheless, the verbal exertions this play requires are masterfully handled. Nonso Anonzie doesn’t really miss a beat as Elesin-Oba; Claire Benedict as Iyaloja is suitably regal, though I found her (and the praise singer) a bit shrill at times, she still delivered what are the best lines, at the end of the play with aplomb. The only performance that really disappointed me was Kobna Holdbrook-Smith as Olunde. This is a character who is meant to have travelled to England as a sensitive boy and come back to Nigeria as a more worldly and critical, even regal and cerebral character, but Holdbrook-Smith delivers a performance which owes more to Keenan from Keenan and Kel; he waddles about petulantly like a fat and spoilt brat who needs his mommy when he’s supposed to be condemning the British. I wasn’t really sad when he died on stage - I thought good riddance. I hope the actor straightens his spine and plays the character with more of the dignity he deserves. An actor, whose name escapes me now, plays one of the market-women really deserves an award for switching so effortlessly from the high camp British accent to a Nigerian accent, and back again. It’s in one of the market scenes that the quality I appreciated the most in this production comes out, its humour, and the light-heartedness with which it wears its authenticity. I’m glad the national theatre brought this African masterpiece to life, now if only they would sell a larger version of the play’s poster I would be totally happy.

Belated Note: The G20 and the Protest Rabble.....

I think ultimately the summit will be more important than the protests, that this is obvious does not mean it should not be said. Despite the police brutality, this was not the face-off between capitalism and its nemesis:

The G20 summit was established to address the world we live in

Paradoxically that’s what the protesters were there to do as well

The G20 is made up of a group of disparate countries bound by one goal, not to let the global financial system go to shit. The protestors are a loose group of people not bound by one common goal, letting the global capitalist system go to shit. Spirited though they are, the protests are rooted in addressing the status quo and that, apart from the general apathy (in the world) is why the cries of revolution ring hollow. At least the leaders of the G20 currently stand for something. The protestors do not – disagreement does not a vision make. We know that free-market capitalism is not perfect – we also know that full-throttle socialism is not perfect. Somebody needs to articulate a vision that goes beyond both of these 20th century ideologies; something fantastical, that sits right outside the human imagination as it currently is – and which encompasses the visions, or more precisely, the aspirations of groups as diverse as the climate change campaigners, the trade unions and the fair trade movement. More importantly, it should be a vision that the people who are so vested in the status quo can either resist or support. Not the current wouldn’t it be nice? That characterises most people’s attitude to causes such as climate change and free trade. And I include myself in this category; floating through life, my outlook is underpinned by vaguely capitalist and socialist ideas, yet, nevertheless, I haven’t really been fired up by any of the visions of society that they offer. One idea that I recently encountered is the concept of a resource-based society, proposed by a prolific designer and engineer, Jacques Fresco. He argues that the resources upon which the world depends can be shared freely.

It’s not an impossible thought, if you are aware, for example, that technically speaking there is no scarcity of diamonds in the world, and that they are artificially made rare by global diamond corporations such as De Beers to artificially inflate the price of diamonds. The biggest problem in the vision of the resource based society is the problem of human motivation and drive, that instinct that makes human beings quest for achievement, at least so the argument goes. But really? The original quest for humanity was survival, and once that is fulfilled we seek to express ourselves in other ways. Have you noticed how you set to creating or destroying something once you have spent a long period of time being bored? Human beings will ultimately set themselves to creating something – the question is will they do it for nothing? It might be impossible for us to give up our attachment to the idea of money and impoverishment and with that the global capitalist system on which we now depend. After all, the fear of poverty is the great engine of capitalism, but surely someone can articulate a vision of the world – a welttheorie - that can incorporate an economic system based on maintaining the earth, and creating prosperous societies?

Why Bishop Akinola is wrong

In a country where more than fifty percent of the population live below the poverty line, and a low-level civil war over resources is brewing the most pressing concerns amongst legislators and the self-appointed moral guardians of the country is the theoretical threat posed by the small and largely powerless homosexual population. It would be funny if it was not tragic. Despite the ridiculousness of it all we must resist the impulse to ask if there are not more important matters to discuss – because this debate exposes the root of Nigeria’s problem – our inability to live side by side to difference and respect it. I won’t get into debating whether same sex marriage or relationships are valid within Christianity and the Anglican Communion - that is an internal matter for members of the Anglican Church, not one that concerns the greater body politic of Nigeria. However, the archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Reverend Peter J. Akinola has issued a position paper on a bill currently before the Nigerian house of legislators to ‘prohibit the marriage between persons of the same gender, solemnization of same and for other matters related therewith’. In this paper, presented to the Nigerian House of Assembly, the good bishop lays out the Church of Nigeria’s support and disagreements with the bill. It is only right that the church have a voice in the direction of the country – freedom of speech is a value we must cherish and uphold even when we disagree with what is being said. Nevertheless, the arguments the church makes in support of the bill; arguments which are in fact the entire basis for this bill can and should be refuted.

In his preamble, Akinola says ‘the present trend in certain quarters to cast the bible aside and foist on the world a religion that does not have god and the bible at the centre was why...the introduction of this bill at this stage of national development is one of the best things to have happened to this nation’ – expressing his joy that the bill will confirm his position on the internal argument he and others are conducting within Anglican church. He goes on to say that that the bill should be upheld because of a number of biblical passages, citing a number of biblical passages, including Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1 26:27, and First Corinthians 6:9. Well, he’s wrong. Nigeria is a secular country, under the rule of a constitution. The church has a legitimate voice but its concerns and guiding principles cannot be the basis of the laws of the country. Akinola continues in a section entitled ‘Marriage is a creation of god between man and woman’, that since marriage was created by God ‘those who argue for the legalization of this unwholesome practice on the claims of human rights must first of all recognize and respect the right of god to order his creation as he wants it. Human Rights therefore should not infringe on the right of God to remain God!’ It beggars belief that God, and especially the Christian God who reputedly flooded the world to maintain its purity needs defending from a small group of human beings. He maintains homosexuality is a threat to procreation. The truth is that the greatest threat to procreation in Africa and elsewhere is the war and famine rampant throughout the world and in Nigeria – a crisis to which the archbishop speaks too little. Globalisation is held up in Archbishop Akinola’s paper as the root of the degradation of Nigerian youth and ergo the ‘rise’ in homosexuality, linking it with the rise of gay churches and fellowships in the country. Last I checked, however imperfectly, Nigeria’s constitution upholds freedom of religion. If certain groups of people interpret the bible to allow same sex marriage, the bishop can disagree to granting them communion within his church but he has no right to infringe on their freedom of belief or practice. He goes on to say individualism is a western influence that threatens an African sense of community. This is the frequent argument that for Africans to be happy we must all agree, a lie that we know all too well leads to war. A sense of community is not fostered when the leaders of any community call for the extermination of any one group or sanction their persecution. The family which Akinola proclaims to be the nucleus of any society is under great strain and threat in Nigeria by the twin evils of corruption and poverty than any group of homosexuals will ever be. For good measure, the bishop says the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to an increase in male prostitution. It is a logic fallacy that is hard to take seriously. Surely if gay men and women are married they would have little cause to prostitute themselves? The institution of marriage so well practiced by Nigerian men has failed to eradicate female prostitution – in fact, the imbalance in power between men and women in society is at the root of this problem, how then will persecuting and prosecuting a small group of men and women who want to get married and live in peace eradicate any social vices?

To ward off those pesky international human rights activists, the bishop invokes the sovereignty of Nigeria to make laws according to the wishes of its citizens - and the good bishop is right. Nigeria is a sovereign nation which has bound itself to the laws of an international system, one of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It entitles everyone to freedom from persecution. It is true Nigeria’s legislators can pass this bill, but in doing so, they will be confirming all the worst impressions of Nigeria and Africa as a place of intolerance, persecution and strife. Lastly, the bishop wheels out the shibboleth of the west’s pernicious influence on Africa including the slave trade, the world bank and IMF programmes and all the horrors of our post-colonial history. Yes, we have to acknowledge that very often the west’s influence on Nigeria has often been malevolent - but it is not westerners entering the National Assembly to protest for their rights; it is Nigerians, gay and proud who are affirming their right to exist. It is ironic that the loudest applauders of their persecution are the Church of Nigeria and Muslim leaders, two institutions established in Nigeria by a colonising western nation and Arab invaders respectively,. Now if that isn’t unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, un-cultural, un-African and un-Nigerian?

Dele Meiji

Charles at 60

Over here in the UK this week, we’ve been celebrating that our oldest junior executive is getting his free bus pass. Yes, this week, Prince Charles, the beloved eldest son of our monarch, Queen Elizabeth II has reached the age of sixty, hale and hearty. First of all, Prince Charles has to be congratulated, for being, like me, a Scorpio, one of the nobler signs of the zodiac system. (So, I’m told at any rate.) Nevertheless, there has been a great brouhaha over the fact that the prince, when he ascends the throne:

A. Wants to redefine his role as defender of the faith to become, defender of
faith

B. Wants to continue with his current ability to express opinions and champion particular causes such as the campaign for organic food and in support of tackling climate change.

All worthy causes, everyone agrees, yet perhaps not edifying for the role of king in the world’s oldest constitutional monarchy. This quandary got me thinking. Perhaps it’s time for us to revisit the idea of monarchy and consider what use it can have in a modern twenty-first century democracy. In the days when monarchy served as a preserve against chaos, warriors and peasants gave up their rights to bear arms and be the defenders of their own livelihoods by holing up in villages and fortresses protected by the strongest warrior their societies could produce; by and large, the means by which this was established was brute force and often, by the very democratic notion that the warrior with the strongest arm would become king. Isn’t it time we reverted to this time-worn principle?

Instead of considering whether to abolish the monarchy perhaps we should consider making the position of monarch an elected office, to which those able, noble and willing put themselves forward as the embodiment of the nation. The monarchy is a well established institution in British society, respected and a buttress against the ravages of change and turmoil in our increasingly diverse and multicultural world; making this office which has all the conferred grandeur of age an elected office would obviate all the debate about monarchy vs. Republic, old vs. New, and tradition versus modernity. We could still have a royal family but it would be one constituted of an ordinary family elevated by the people to the role of Heads of State. In a period when we are already re-considering the role of such age old institutions as the House of Lords, it would be fitting to revisit the role of monarchy with the view to preserving what is best – the role of the royal family as the embodiment of brutishness and the first ambassador for our country – in a time when the world expects us to become more of what we are – an old nation, respectful of its traditions but ready to renew itself and innovate. What could be more innovative than a monarchy determined not by heredity but by the will of the people?

Age of the movie

If Europe conquered the world by the bible and the maxim gun; it was cinema and coca cola which won it for America; beaming images of it’s dream into billions of homes and hearts across the world was the soft edge of America’s might, and why the world is so familiar with it’s values, it’s people, it’s cities and it’s fears. People arriving in its cities, New York especially, are struck with the eerie feeling of visiting a place familiar, and wrapped up in the very fabric of their own dreams. There was a time when the means by which we escaped the world was a book; increasingly we understand the world through the visual image. Citizens of European empires pinned for the metropole that they knew of only through books and letters, and generations of settlers understood themselves as civilized only by their feelings of belonging to a greater, whiter whole that was the west from books – now that age is past and we live in an age of pictures; the iconic image of towers crumbling like Babel; the green haze of an ancient city under bombardment or a fading president memorialised in a biopic. In the 21st century cinema is king – in fact, its ascendancy began in the twentieth; for an Africa emerging from centuries of negative stereotyping, it promises the possibility of erasing all the constructed myths around our identity and replacing them with new ones. A banishing of the clichéd images of tarzan, safaris and famine for something new, thriving, aching cities; epic and dazzling history and tender, careworn people, falling in love, falling in grace, gaining in riches. At some point in my studies, reading African Literature a feeling impressed itself on me, that somehow the world of books, which had become so important to me and my understanding of myself had been superseded by a more powerful force. Cinema it seemed to me would be crucial in shaping the way the world perceived a culture, and in the way a culture perceived itself that anyone with the ambition of shaping ideas and the world would have to engage with it. I still love books, and still believe in the power of a book to change, and yes, sometimes save a life, but in making sense of the world, film I believe will become increasingly powerful as a medium. It’s because of this that I am excited about the London African Film Festival, organised this year by the Royal Africa Society, showing films in cinemas all across London. Everyone in the game of revamping Africa’s PR must begin to see culture in general, and film especially as just as powerful as the maxim gun in changing the way we are perceived. There is still a place for books in all this, for the writer’s mind has always been the well from which all stories are drawn. As for the power of the cinema, the London African Film Festival is a welcome start.

http://www.africaatthepictures.co.uk/

Why South Africa’s latest party is to be welcomed

It’s the latest drama in the history of the rainbow nation, but the arrival of the as yet unnamed and breakaway party out of the ashes of Thabo Mbeki’s ousting from power has prompted murmurs of unease within South Africa and elsewhere. The ANC, always an uneasy alliance of communists, trade union activists and anti-apartheid fighters has worked hard to maintain its internal unity and indeed dominance in Africa’s strongest democracy, yet the cracks have always been evident. The tensions between the forces of the left such as COSATU, Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party, and the market oriented wings of the ANC, embodied by former president Thabo Mbeki, have coalesced around the neo-liberal route to development and economic prosperity the country has followed since its ‘independence’ in 1994. It is anger over the fact, that despite ten years or more of ANC government, unemployment amongst black South Africans remains at 40% while corporations and a few individuals have grown rich that powered the vote against Mbeki’s chairmanship of the ANC and secured the role for the controversial populist politician, Jacob Zuma. The high profile battle inside and outside of the courts to convict Zuma on charges of corruption is what finally brought down Mbeki and triggered the political split now consuming the ANC. Mosiuoa Lekota, a former defence minister officially broke with the ANC and called a convention of like-minded south Africans. The split, according to the BBC is primarily over three things, ideological differences over economic policies, with the breakaway faction leaning to the right and in support of Thabo Mbeki’s policies, a clash of personalities, and more darkly, tribal divisions. The last reason is perhaps the one to be feared the most, that South Africa’s politics will increasingly become like that of the rich tapestry of basket cases to its north, spelling an end to the ‘miracle’ that has bedazzled the world for ten years.

There are some reasons why this is unlikely to happen, not least the existence of a civil society that is more vibrant than most, and the existence of the Inkatha Zulu party which is unlikely to welcome any encroachment of its political terrain. Yet there is enough popular anger in South Africa as we saw in the recent xenophobic riots to force South Africans to seek an alternative to the neo-liberal model that has dominated the country’s politics over the past ten years. Though the new party is yet to formulate any policies and is unlikely to stray too far away from Thabo Mbeki’s neo-liberal ones, its existence should be welcomed. Not least because its success would represent a mature turn for South Africa’s democracy; currently the ANC carries 70% of the national vote. It’s likely that this is less to do with South Africans great love for the ANC, though no doubt this does play a part, but more to do with the lack of viable alternatives. A new party, led primarily by leaders with an anti-apartheid and ANC pedigree would do much to enrich debate in South Africa; it would also guard against the apathy and corruption that seem to have become a sub-culture with the ANC.

The current electoral system in the country would also come under increasing pressure for reform, if a mass movement of black South Africans could be gathered behind the new party, to make it more representative. Currently, MPs are picked by party lists rather than directly elected by their constituents – a system stacked in favour of the ruling party and more relevant to a revolutionary outfit than a modern democratic nation. Lastly, as black South Africans in particular become differentiated by income, the existence of a party of the neo-liberal right might be good for the ANC, allowing it to focus and position itself as what it was always aimed to be, a party of the people.

We have overcome....

Ambition is always grasped with the hazy reach of desire. The desire to transform, influence, create usually begins unclearly; just a beating in the breast, an anxiousness to do something, be somebody. It is either nurtured or crushed by the measure of its owner’s force, by their confidence, or the mirror the world holds up to them. For a long time, in the United States of America, and by consequence or in similarity, the rest of the world - the ambitions of black peoples have been constrained by the ever present concern that they won’t let it happen. It is for this fact that in 1972, when Shirley Chisholm declared audaciously her candidacy for the United States presidency, her campaign was humoured, to put it politely, and laughed at, to be blunt. Yet, the audacious hope that led her, and Jesse Jackson and countless other leaders, thinkers and martyrs to push their weight and mind against the weight of entrenched prejudice and centuries of oppression has borne fruit.

On November 5th 2008 we lived to see a black president-elect of the United States of America, the same country that legislated less than three hundred years ago that black men and women were three-fourths of a human being. For this moment alone, it is good to live in these times. Yet in many ways, it illustrates the world as it is. The world has not suddenly changed the odds it puts on the lives of black men and women, and the intractable problems of Africa and Africans have not been resolved because a ‘son of the soil’ is on his way to the white house. It has however woken up to the fact that we can alter history. The structures of power that would have made it impossible for Barack Obama to be president forty years ago can be and have been challenged. Now, it’s time for that slow revolution called ‘African Progress’ to begin.

If the prizeee is right....

Right, Dan Kennedy’s piece here is really deep. Essentially, we are all holding our breath for the days till Obama wins; he contends we shouldn’t. McCain might still win on the basis of the stuff below,
Voter suppression. What do you think the McCain campaign's full-scale war against Acorn is all about? Acorn, a left-leaning activist organisation, has indeed engaged in voter registration fraud - or, rather, has had registration fraud perpetrated upon it by unscrupulous signature gatherers. But these phony voters are not going to be able to cast ballots unless they show up at the polls with some sort of valid identification.

This is election rigging! Winning by Fraud! If the republicans win the presidency on this basis for another four/eight years it will be the strongest declaration yet to the world that the United States is morally bankrupt as a nation, especially when it goes abroad to espouse the rule of law. For the longest time, the mystique of America (nay, the west) has rested on the ‘it couldn’t happen here principle’. Not that that was ever clearly the case, and as Toni Morrison has always argued, the denial of liberty to black peoples has always been the dark canker at the heart of american democracy – we might begin to see it crack, if black americans are so blatantly denied the vote (see the article, and Gary Younge’s superior piece on African Americans and the vote) and a candidate so deserving does not succeed. There are some who would say disparaging thing about what it says about a nation that puts the republicans in the white house again – but I was raised to say nothing when I can’t say something nice. Actually, another thought occured to me - maybe the votes will be disputed by Obama and then McCain will suggest a government of national unity.....

Upside to the Downside!

Richard Dowden’s appraisal of the impact of the financial crisis on Africa is reassuring; the fallout will probably be less severe on African countries because they are so famously marginalised of the global system – (begs the question, is there an upside to being in the margins?) Certainly! As they say - every crisis is an opportunity!

Why?

Why do people in England grimace rather than smile when they encounter each other casually?

(I can uderstand why he has a reason to grimace)

Whether in the office or on the street, the grimace seems to be the default facial expression when words are too much but ignoring each other seems less than possible. I never thought I was one of those people with visceral, pet hates, but increasingly I believe this is one of mine – what is wrong with a smile? It seems as if people think smiling is some sort of transaction, which I suppose it is, implying as it does the underlying thought ‘I think you’re alright, and you think the same of me, I assume’. Rather we grimace – ‘which while not being a f**k, is close to expressing a physical pain at being caught in the same space with another human being.

Anyways! There’s my rant – further posts will be focused on our usual topics, tune in again.

It's people, stupid...

The great man was (or is?) in London to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Things Fall Apart, and I had the honor of seeing him at a reading at Foyles bookstore at charing cross; it was a sedate affair, a reminder that as much as to us ‘literati’ these people are earthshaking – we are always in a minority amongst the hoi polloi. Achebe answered questions on all the above politely, and took questions from the audience, including yours truly: there was a quote by Maya Jaggi (the lady asking questions) that Achebe had made saying the trouble with Nigeria was its leaders. I asked it if were not the case of the people as well being deficient in someway; the father of modern African literature replied, that the people never sought leadership or made any promises, whereas the leaders did. I begged to disagree, but it wasn’t the place. On this occasion I was one of those annoying people who ask two questions in one - I asked what he made of evangelical Christianity’s sweep in Nigeria, and found we both agreed that it was a symptom of the economic and social malaise in the country. So, at least he was right on one thing. I’m not sure who said people get the leaders they deserve – but in the case of Nigeria, perhaps it’s true.

I think underlying Achebe’s reply is/was an expectation of benevolent paternalism from our leaders without the vigilance of the people. In a way, that was the naïve hope of his generation, and maybe mine and the generation that comes after especially those in Nigeria will be/are less blinkered and more active in demanding the kind of government and change they want. Things Fall Apart – it’s still a great book fifty years on.

Achebe – at Foyles’ highlight

Audience member: As a writer of fiction, fifty years on, is there anything you wished you could change about the book, (Things Fall Apart)?

Achebe: No. (to audience laughter)

Achebe: I just feel, if you want to change something, write another book!

Coup by Portfolio

What country does Robert Mugabe think he is living in? The latest twist in this saga of 'my country, my country' is that the old leopard is up to his old tricks, which is to be expected, but what I hope will not happen is that the MDC show the same restraint they have shown in the process so far. Mugabe is probably banking on them hanging on and grudgingly accepting the situation, at which point he and the ZANU-PF machine will swallow them whole. If this happens Mutambara would probably be the one to fold first. On the other hand, if they raise the barn and jump out of the deal - they might have lost what was/is essentially a 'see who blinks first' contest. I personally feel the MDC should just walk out of that agreement, and start talking to the incoming South African president to switch off the electricity in Zimbabwe. Maybe a few days in the dark, will make Mugabe see things clearly; though the old goat has been quite clever, the west is distracted by the credit crunch and South Africa is having Post-Presidential Syndrome - perfect time to launch your own coup by portfolio. Despite it all, I'm reminded of a quote about two old men and a comb...except in this scenario, it's a tired old man fighting a man with an afro, and afrosheen to boot for a comb! Honestly, Mugabe should just do us all a favour and drop dead.

Dreams of my Father

The surprising thing about Barack Obama’s memoir, Dreams of my father, is that it’s such a cracking good read; I don’t know why this surprised me, after all, he is eloquent, a smooth and persuasive speaker with a knack for soundbites that capture the popular mood. Yet, the emotional intelligence that courses through the book, is not one I, and I suspect, most people would expect from a modern day politician; it has the tone of a man suddenly aware of the physical power he wields, both aware of it, terrified by it and determined to wield it for good. On one level, I couldn’t help but think this was a very good myth, a powerful story of the creation of a hero, like the odyssey, a story of a prince learning the limits of himself before he returns to his kingdom to rule; but then I remember that this was written before his momentous, historic campaign for president, before he became the Obama of Yes, we can.

I think it had so much more force for me, because it came before, because it was written at the stage in life, where as he says somewhere in his book (we do the things we tell ourselves we need to do to grow up), and exists now as a record of how a man goes from that to where he is now. I don’t have any illusions of grasping for the same kind of power Barack Obama has reached out for, yet in reading his book, the journey from taking himself – a confused, fucked up, mixed race kid to the security of campaigning as a post-racial candidate, I find a map of sorts. It involves boxing with shadows, and wrestling with demons; if he does nothing more than run for president of the United States, Barack Obama has already achieved a great deal – millions of mothers can point to him, as his own mother did with the role models, of King, Baldwin et al and say yes, you can too.

Slavery is Back....

Slavery is back, this time though it’s the Chinese who are cracking the whip against black backs, at least, that’s the story if (Peter Hitchens) is to be believed; reporting from Zambia in the unlikely abolitionist newspaper, The Daily Mail, he exposes the modern day slave trade in which millions of Africans are being sold as chattel to the highest bidding China PLC by unscrupulous African governments and leaders. It’s not rice or cotton that’s king but minerals, iron ore, copper and zinc that are being ripped out of the earth to feed China’s rapacious appetite for wealth and industrialization, he writes. I hope my entre gives a little of the hyperbole masquerading as journalism in Hitchen’s piece.

It’s not the very verifiable fact of China’s expansion and consumption in Africa that’s contentious in this piece, but the insidious but nevertheless, predictable Daily Mail take on the story. Confronted with a story of Africans negotiating the torturous process of opening up to the world economy, they choose to portray a simple story of passive Africans lying down and taking it. It’s a bit much to take from a paper that laments within its pages the demise of colonialism, and many of whose readers and writers no doubt mutter beneath their breath that the place was much better run when they were around. Scratch the surface of the Daily Mail’s new, benevolent concern for Africa’s fate at the hands of the Chinese and what you will find is this: A palpable fear (and jealousy) that the ‘yellow peril’ is back with a vengeance eating up the yummy goodies that should rightfully be consumed by the west and the predictable patronizing attitude that this poor continent is doomed.

In his piece, Hitchens interviewed Zambian opposition leader, Michael Sata, who is vigorously querying the Chinese presence in his country and questioning its benefits. Despite the obviousness of a story here – Hitchens could have led with a story of how some Africans are working for the welfare of their citizens, and covered more in depth the challenges they faced, he followed the spurious but sensational line that a new slave trade is afoot. It’s powerful stuff – but hey we all have something to cry about – give me something to shout about.

Yes – but the story makes people in the west aware, right? Well, no. All it engenders is the feeling of hopelessness that this/that continent cannot be saved – and here comes another group of rapists to attach in Liffey’s words ‘this poor helpless continent’. It’s a feelgood movie for the folks back home; (there but for the sake of god…).

I’d like to hear about how the efforts of people like Michael Satu can be taken forward; for one, it seems obvious to me, that the next steps should be to unionize the workers and make them aware that China has a lot more to lose than gain if the mines close.

Side Business

On a post clubbing bus ride a few days ago, one of my friends told me a story of how he’d arranged to do a bit of business on the side by sending some items to Nigeria to be sold through a very close family relative. We’re talking through the same uterus close’. This close family member executed his duties very well and stood to gain a very handsome commission out of the deal – which said friend hoped to make into a regular sideline that would benefit not only him but also the relative in question.

For whatever reason, the relative managed to spend all the money gained, both his share and my friend’s. The story was told to me in a very downcast and bitter tone, with my friend vowing, more or less between gritted teeth not to trust anyone in Nigeria anymore, not even his own family. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard such a story before, and not I suspect the last. In my own family, there are countless examples of similar heartbreaking experiences. We both wondered how his relative could be so short-term in his thinking, and I recalled some of the stories I’d heard of others killing the ‘goose that lays the golden egg’. Apart from the fact that my friend was hurt, emotionally by the incident, the sad part of this story is the discouragement that it gives to people trying in their own small way, to make a buck and help people along the way.

It seems to me that the ‘extended family’ benefits of the African family that we’re always shouting about, are much less robust than we would like to think, and in fact, is corrupt down to its core – isn’t it just an excuse for family members to take advantage of each other and exploit each other? As to the idea of following the Asian example and building a business empire along family lines, like the Tatas, et al in India, it seems like we might be too selfish to do that. When I was at university, one anecdote that a well-oiled Nigerian (forgive the pun) colleague told me, was that his father had resorted to employing eastern Europeans to mange his farms, such was his distrust of his fellow Nigerians as employees. It’s a disheartening model – not only for job creation but for developing that social element which seems in and among Africans to be in short supply – Trust.

What's worth dying for?

Two things have struck me this week as extraordinarily brave. I spend a lot of my time thinking about how to be active in the world, and (that’s probably half the problem) - trying to decide what is important – or knowing what we/I think are the really big and important things yet not knowing how they should manifest in the day to day minutiae of our lives. Two extraordinary acts of bravery, or foolhardiness, depending on how you want to frame it struck me this week. In Nigeria, a young man by the name of Roland Macaulay has started up the first gay church - in defiance of local homophobia. In Ireland, Maura Harrington, began a hunger strike to protest Shell’s building of an oil pipeline right through her town.

It’s a symptom of our generation and the times that we often imagine that the age of great, passionate political action that can transform the world is gone; people don’t buy into that anymore, in any case, the forces are too large, too overwhelming to do anything; so we sink into the apathy of being disgruntled with the world to a degree, but not disgruntled enough to do anything about it. That’s why I find Roland Macaulay’s actions both brave and inspiring. Roland was the head of an open and tolerant church in London, and he could happily have remained there, ensconced in the safety of London’s tolerant environment. Nevertheless he’s chosen to put his money where his mouth is, foolhardy as it might seem to some. Maura Harrington has taken an even more extreme approach to political protest; her hunger strike in protest against what in England more often than not elicits a few feeble and resigned complaints from local residents – is shocking not so much because this woman is starving herself to death but more because we have become so apathetic about the ability of big business to get their way (even in the democratic west) that a hunger strike has become a conceivably way for someone to have their voice heard. I guess the thing that awes me is that, what these two people have decided is what, for them is worth dying for: for Roland Macaulay it’s the prospect (yes, perhaps not so imminent) of a Nigerian mob, and for Maura Harrington, the possibility of an excruciatingly painful death, and all this held in the balance by the belief in other people’s ability to change or at least accede to the statement they’re making – yes, I’m here and the only way I’m going to away is if you kill me first.

How many of us are that certain about what is worth dying for?

This is bravery....

I think the answer to the question is self-evident; this is bravery.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2008/sep/16/activists.pollution

Rag&Tag

A few nights ago, I watched an independently produced and directed movie called, Rag & Tag. It’s a family drama of two boys whose childhood love for each other transcends the bounds of time and the social forces that try to separate them and find each other again in adulthood. The films, and the characters, are set primarily within the Nigerian black community. It is, as you can probably, already imagine, also a gay love story. I watched the film in a small, private screening in east London, which was heavily attended, primarily by gay, black men, and featured following the screening an audience with the screenwriter and director, Adaora Nwandu.

The film has many obvious limitations, the script could have done with a lot more refinement and development, many of the characters and situations are blatant stereotypes of Nigerians, Jamaicans in the west, it includes a drug-dealing, wheeler, dealer Nigerian who works in import-export, a Nigerian patriarch with an exaggerated and often confused accent, and of course, bible-bashers galore, and in parts, the performance of the actors was less than polished; Nevertheless, this film, without the obvious advantages and TLC of the Hollywood or pinewood machine, was enthusiastically received. The audience, mostly black, gay men, responded so passionately to having their story told, and seeing some semblance of their lives onscreen, a response which thrilled and inspired me. Their response tells me one thing, black audiences; particularly black, gay audiences are hungry for stories that talk about their lives beyond the usual stereotypes of the media. If such a flawed piece of cinema could elicit such an enthusiastic response, it puts a lie to the frequent claims that the audience for black stories, black gay stories have no audience; to the stock excuses that there is no audience for these stories, and any endeavor catering to them is fated to struggle and bankruptcy. The story of making the movie is in itself remarkable. It took Nwandu, three years to make the film, and it was made by literally begging and scrapping around, and commandeering every friend and family member who would help. The final love scene was shot in the director’s mother’s bedroom. It’s a remarkable thing for the subject matter that it was shot both in the United Kingdom, but also in Nigeria, where to put it mildly, the subject of homosexual love is a taboo.

To be fair, the director herself was at pains to stress that she understood why many people baulked at funding the movie; because ultimately stories are about ourselves, and stories which, especially in the west do not reflect what those who unfortunately have the money and clout to make movies want to see, will and have struggled to be made; despite this, the fact that this flawed movie received the enthusiastic response it had, and which by all accounts is growing, (and will grow) both financially and critically, suggests that there is a space for stories beyond the mainstream, a small space perhaps, but one that in this day and age of democratized media can prove a financial goldmine, we have all in the media industry heard about the long tail, perhaps its time for the moneybags to take more leaps of faith. Meanwhile, Adaora Nwandu is busy working on her next venture. I, for one, will be paying my five cents to see it.

http://www.mukaflicks.co.uk/

@Dele Meiji

Zimbabwe' - A new deal for african elections

Zimbabwe’s power sharing deal gives a vague sense of hope to those who’ve despaired of a solution to the leadership crisis for a state that went in very quick bound from bread basket to basket case. The nature of the deal which leaves, Robert Mugabe undiminished in his position of president, but gives Morgan Tsivangirai the position of prime minister feels of course like another one of those African dances that involves two steps forward and one step back. It seems a precedent is being set for what happens when there are disputed African elections. The incumbent seizes power or declares victory in hastily convened elections, and the opposition galvanise an increasingly incensed people to protest against the thwarting of their democratic will. To avoid full-scale civil war, a compromise solution is reached in which the two sides agree to share power. This has been the case most recently in Kenya, and a bit further back in Cote d’Ivoire. On the upside, we might be witnessing the steady erosion of the all or nothing approach to politics; albeit, a very grudgingly conceded one as witnessed by Mugabe’s murderous intransigence. It’s interesting to note that the two places where such compromises have now been reached, the opposition’s power and appeal is based on trade union movements that have been able to a degree to transcend ethnic divisions; in fact, the political maturity of leaders such as Tsivangirai and Odinga in railing in their supporters from violence might be a model example for other African nations, not least, the reputedly stable South African body politics (and its undoubtedly polarising upcoming elections) to follow, in the coming years. The fact that each side controls some coercive power of the state Tsivangirai the police and Mugabe, gives some hope that the balance of power won’t rest solely on who shouts the loudest at the unwieldy cabinet meetings.

Nevertheless, watching Mugabe, Tsivangirai, and Mbeki signing the accord, I couldn’t help feeling just how cosy the whole deal seemed, even the third wheel Mutambara was fitted in.