Terror at Millar's Creek Fundraiser

April 27, 2008 by Nicolette Bethel in Getting Myself in Trouble, Human Rights, My Bahamas, Social Conscience

I received the email below while I was away in Guyana, attending a regional cultural meeting and hearing about Guyana's difficulties with crime and civil liberties. As I read it, I found myself thinking Why am I worrying about Guyana? We have problems with civil liberties right here.And we don't talk about them.The email is in fact a press release put out by the environmental community group Millar's Creek Preservation Group, which had the fundraiser they were holding at the Millar's Creek community park raided by police, who proceeded to terrorize the patrons at the fundraiser and the organizers for several hours during the night.I'm not at all sure what the impetus for the raid was. There was an element of xenophobia in it, certainly. Worse, it was a xenophobia which was desperately misdirected. Perhaps not worse. As Lynn Sweeting writes,

Even if that event was packed to the rafters with illegals, a lawful, decent, humane immigration and police operation CANNOT BEGIN WITH MASKED GUNMAN FIRING SHOTS.

And:

We are all in trouble when we cannot any longer tell the difference between the criminals and the police. The party-goers at the Millar’s Creek fundraiser know the horror of this first hand. All of them, Mr. McKenzie told me, are deeply traumatized, especially those legal and documented persons who were still locked up at the time of this conversation. Mr. McKenzie is asking: Who is responsible for the terror and trauma caused to these innocent people?

Here are a couple of excerpts from the press release. The entire release is below the fold.

Thinking a robbery was taking place I, along with everyone else darted for cover. Some people headed across the creek where we were confronted by several men in masks who pointed guns at us and told us to get down. At this stage I was petrified and feared for my life. When one of the masked men proceeded to place hand-cuffs on me- I realized that these individuals might be law enforcement officers. The men started to drag me and others through the mangroves towards the dirt road on the other side of the creek. I started to ask for some identification and questioned the officers as to why the park was being invaded. I was told by one of the masked men to shut the F---- up or risk getting shot in my head. I immediately complied as these men did not display badge numbers or any other identifying signs.

And

After all the officers had left the scene I began to take an assessment of the past night’s operation. I found out that some of my workers who had work permits had been taken to the detention centre. The persons who were responsible for collecting money at the gate stated that the envelope containing the money was taken by officers. The person who was operating the bar explained that when he was told to lie down, a junior officer attempted to take about two-thousand dollars from his pocket. A senior officer instructed the officer to put the money back without any warnings or disciplinary action levied against this officer. Several cell phones had been tossed into the creek. Someone had his passport torn. Some patrons had been walked on and gun butted by unidentified officers. The most amazing thing I found out that some of the officers had consumed most of the food and drinks that were on sale at this event.

More below.Millar’s Creek Preservation GroupP.O. Box CB-12254Nassau, BahamasPh: (242) 362-1366 / (242) 454-8411PRESS RELEASEEmail: info@millarscreek.comThe Millar’s Creek Preservation Group is a registered non-profit NPO that is overseen by residents of Golden Isles and friends of our natural environment. The group’s mission is to clean and restore Millar’s Creek and oversee the daily operations of Millar’s Creek Recreation Park which is located off Bacardi Road.The Banana Tree Café is located on Millar’s Creek and is operated by our members and is sometimes used as an entity to generate funds for our project and as a welcome centre for our guests. This club has the following licenses to operate; Proprietary Club, General Liquor License, Restaurant License and a Music and Dance License.On Saturday 19 April 2008 we contracted the band “All Stars” to perform at a fund raising event which attracted almost 300 patrons. We charged $10 at the gate for gentlemen and $5 for ladies. As a security measure we secured the services of three security personnel, one stationed at the gate to search guests as they entered the park and two others to patrol throughout the performance.The event started at 9:30 p.m and proceeded without incident until shortly before midnight when our function was disrupted by gunshots coming from the gate area. Thinking a robbery was taking place I, along with everyone else darted for cover. Some people headed across the creek where we were confronted by several men in masks who pointed guns at us and told us to get down. At this stage I was petrified and feared for my life. When one of the masked men proceeded to place hand-cuffs on me- I realized that these individuals might be law enforcement officers. The men started to drag me and others through the mangroves towards the dirt road on the other side of the creek. I started to ask for some identification and questioned the officers as to why the park was being invaded. I was told by one of the masked men to shut the F---- up or risk getting shot in my head. I immediately complied as these men did not display badge numbers or any other identifying signs.On the other side of the creek I was taken to an area where there were about 50 uniformed men and women in dark clothing, some of whom were unmasked. None of the individuals wore a visible identification number. A man, who I presumed was the person in charge, started to do a role call with all the other uniformed individuals. A middle aged Haitian national was also taken to this area at the same time. We were both terrorized and asked our names and nationality. I identified myself and advised the gentleman who gave orders that I was one of persons in charge of organizing the event. I again questioned why the park was being targeted. He cautioned me to shut up and answer the questions, and once again I complied. The officer seemed fixed on pressing me to see if I was Haitian or Bahamian. The other gentleman was also being questioned about his nationality. I saw his state of shock as he tried to respond to questions fired at him from several of the uniformed men. After finding out the individual was a Haitian national, one of the masked men proceeded to point a gun at this individual and threatened that if he did not have “papers” he was gonna “Muori” which means die in Creole. The person who seemed to be in charge, then started to ask me what kind of illegal operation I was running. I responded that our organization was legitimate and that this event was our first big fund raiser for the year as we had just fully completed our café and welcome centre. A lady in uniform interrupted that if our business was legal why where we catering to “these kind a people” I assume she meant Haitians. I told her that our group does not discriminate against any individuals and that we were aware that many Bahamians and Haitians would be attracted to a popular band such as the band we had hired. She then asked “ how y’all could let in illegals to y’all club then?.When I asked the masked men who held me if it was necessary for the handcuffs to be so tight, he told me to shut up and started to rough me up some more, pointing a gun at my head. A younger officer who was not masked came to me and asked me if I remembered him. I told him that I did not. He asked me if I used to be a teacher I replied yes. He then started to rough me up and ask me why I had lied about my name. I told him that I had my driver’s license in my pocket that could identify me. The Haitian man and I were told to sit down. I became even more fearful for my safety when I heard the uniformed men started to whisper to each other. The commanding officer started to use scare tactics by asking one of the guys if he had more rounds in his gun. I thought for sure I was going face an ‘accidental’ death so that I could not be a witness to this whole catastrophe.About 20 minutes later the men started to escort me and the others from the area on to Bacardi Road This is when I became aware that this was a major operation, with more officers I had ever seen in one area representing the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, the Royal Bahamas Police Force and the Immigration Department. I asked to see the commanding officer of the entire operation and was again told to shut up. The individual who escorted me squeezed the hand-cuffs so that by now they were cutting into my skin. We were then taken to the café and welcome centre where most of the patrons were lying on the ground.Our group’s public relations person, Vanessa Small, then came up to me and asked if I was all right. I told her I was not and asked her to call our lawyer. She told me that no one was allowed to use the phone at this time. Again I was told to shut up by the individual who escorted me, or faced being 'gun butted'. At this time I started to take an account of what was going on around me. I noticed that the place was in disarray. One patron seemed to have blood all over his shirt while others seemed to be in a state of shock.About 15 minutes later I was again asked to give the particulars of my identification. After it was established that I was the person who was in charge of the event, I was told by someone who identified himself as an inspector that I had to have my property searched and was told to follow two unidentified officers into the Millar’s Creek Office and cottage. I was then interrupted by a lady who did not identify herself. She started to ask me questions about my identification and my past and present employment. I told her that I had taught at a private school for about 10 years before pursuing the Millar’s Creek Project. She cracked some joke with the others asking me if I had been fired. After both establishments had been thoroughly searched, the officer who carried out the search said that he was satisfied that there was nothing illegal found. They then took my laptop and digital camera. I told them I needed to be present when they went through my documents. They told me I did not have any rights.It was only after the search was done that another officer presented me with a search warrant. He advised me that they were in search of illegal weapons and drugs. I realized then that our organization had been set up. I responded that no illegal activities were allowed in this area as the park is an area for family events and the Welcome Centre was offered free of charge to anyone who wanted to have a non-profit event. I further stated that if illegal drugs or any other illegal activity was allowed I would not have gone through the trouble of having individuals searched at the gate before entering. An hour later I again asked to see the chief commander. One of the inspectors pointed him out to me but cautioned that I had to be profiled first and have a picture taken with which I complied. I spoke to the person in charge of the entire investigation who did not identify himself or show any other form of identification. I told him that this was a big misunderstanding and that what they were doing was against the law. I was cautioned by an inspector who insisted that he knew for sure that we harboured illicit drugs and guns in this area. I then asked him to show the proof of this. He produced a receipt that he claimed was dropped by someone who had paid for drugs on the property. I found it ludicrous that someone would incriminate himself/herself by writing a receipt with his/her name on it for selling drugs. I did not relay my thoughts to the inspector.At this point I believed all the high ranking officers knew that they had made a grave mistake. They did several background checks on me and found that I had a clean record and an impeccable past. Ten minutes later one of the inspectors came to me and said I had a warrant for a minor traffic offence that was committed in 2006. He continued that I must be placed under arrest and that only a judge could 'free me'. I told him that I was responsible for securing the place and that the government would be responsible for any vandalism or stealing that could occur if no one was there. This is when an officer who introduced himself as Evans told me that I would be free to secure my place over the weekend but I needed to see him at the Carmichael Road Police Station on the following Monday. I told him I would do so as soon as I spoke to our lawyer. Before leaving I was cautioned by an inspector about what to say in regards to that night’s operation. He reminded me that they had done me a favour by not locking me up for a traffic warrant. He, along with the unidentified chief operation officer, insisted that they knew for sure that this place had illegal activities and they would continue to target it. I reiterated that this was false and for the record I was not going to accept this statement.It was about after 3:30 am when the unidentified squad team started to wrap up their operation- I was released from my handcuffs. All Bahamians were asked to vacate the premises first, followed by other individuals. I insisted that Vanessa Small, our group’s public relations administrator stay so we could take an account of everything.After all the officers had left the scene I began to take an assessment of the past night’s operation. I found out that some of my workers who had work permits had been taken to the detention centre. The persons who were responsible for collecting money at the gate stated that the envelope containing the money was taken by officers. The person who was operating the bar explained that when he was told to lie down, a junior officer attempted to take about two-thousand dollars from his pocket. A senior officer instructed the officer to put the money back without any warnings or disciplinary action levied against this officer. Several cell phones had been tossed into the creek. Someone had his passport torn. Some patrons had been walked on and gun butted by unidentified officers. The most amazing thing I found out that some of the officers had consumed most of the food and drinks that were on sale at this event.On Sunday 20th April I began to take a full report from all the individuals who had worked or had been present the night before. Many individuals complained that money had been removed from their living quarters by officers.Today, Monday, 21 April I am still in a state of shock as I write this report. I have contacted about 50 individuals who are willing to testify and verify these reports. The Millar’s Creek Preservation Group has decided to forward this report to the Ministry of National Security and Immigration, the Commissioner of the Royal Bahamas Police Force, the Commander of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force and the Director of Immigration, with the hope that an explanation will be forthcoming; and that the irregularities mentioned in this report concerning the actions of some officers will be investigated and dealt with immediately.The Millar's Creek Preservation will be holding a press conference at 2 pm Wednesday, April 22, 2008 at the Millar's Creek Recreation Park located off Bacardi Road. We have invited victims who attended the function to be a part of this conference.E. Emmanuel McKenzieChairmanMillar’s Creek Preservation Group

The Long Silence

April 24, 2008 by Nicolette Bethel in Getting Myself in Trouble, Human Rights, My Bahamas, Personal, Race & Stuff, Social Conscience

I am never sure how to address this question -- the question of my silence. It's not that I am not thinking. It's not that this blog isn't important either. The challenge I have, though, is my position as a senior government official. More and more the things I have/want to say seem to be in conflict with that fact. It isn't that everything that is current is politically charged -- but it seems as though there are many things that invite comment, and that comment is liable to be critical.So the question is, what do I do?I want to post, for instance, the story of an incident that occurred recently (two of them, in fact), because I think that the responsibility of a writer is to raise awareness, to speak out about injustice, and to point at things that are wrong in a society so that we can fix them. Let me just say this. The two stories to which I refer have to do with the abuse of power of our uniformed branches. Now I am a supporter of the police and the defence force. In my position I see the best of them; they work with us in securing major events and help us with logistics on a national level, and they do difficult jobs very well. But what I have heard on both sides are so egregious that they cannot be kept silent about.So the question is -- how do I do that?Well, I'm just going to do it, I guess.Watch this space.

Bribery and Corruption

February 17, 2008 by Nicolette Bethel in Bahamas Government, Caribbean, Crime, My Bahamas, Social Conscience

One of the clichés about the so-called third world is that nothing can get done without some money--personal money--changing hands. It's not that you have to pay for everything you get; unless you live in some land touched by socialist thinking (i.e. almost every land, save the USA) you have to pay for plenty of stuff. It's that you have to pay again, to hand over money to induce some civil servant to do the job you're already paying him (or her).One of the fortunate things about living in The Bahamas--so far--is that that kind of corruption is not a pervasive feature of our society.Now this is true of the Caribbean in general. While it's certainly true that the civil service works slowly, and, for some people, paying money makes things happen faster, it's still possible to get what is due to us by waiting, by going through the channels, by doing things the right way.Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I'm being a starry-eyed idealist as I write this. But it seems to me that the kind of corruption that exists--for now--in our society mirrors the kind of corruption that exists in many small-scale governments, from local councils and municipal governments in places like the UK, the USA and Canada: you call in favours, draw upon who-you-know. It's only when you want to contravene the law, to outright cheat the system, that you pay bribes.Like when you want to get voters' cards, and you're not entitled to them.Or when you want to put up a business in a residential neighbourhood.Or when you want to get a driver's licence without having to pass the driving exam. Or when you want to get your phone hooked up before BTC gets around to doing it themselves.I read this article today, courtesy of Global Voices. Here's what it could be like, if we let it:

I do have to say though that I do actively resist paying bribes, mostly because it bugs the hell out of me that people have so easily fallen into an expectation that ‘backhanders’ should be given for every little thing they do. There was a time when bribes were a way to smooth extremely difficult or lengthy processes. Now it seems we need to bribe ordinary people just to get off their bottoms and do ordinary jobs.

In my case I had ‘no choice’ (that easy excuse): the failure to bribe would have caused me all sorts of personal paperwork problems and it was very clear from all the hurdles being thrown up that the government official I was dealing with had no intention of even blinking unless I gave him money.

So, R10, given to an intermediary to pass on (because I am chicken) suddenly produced activity and papers. It was so easy.

It worries me that it was so easy. Am I better off, as a person, for realising how easy it is to make my life a bit better with a bit of foreign cash? I think not. I can see now how so many fall into a pattern of bribing, their casual acceptance that bribing makes life easy leading to a casual expectation from all officials that accepting cash is the way to go.

So far, my experience as a civil servant has been that while there are scores, probably hundreds, of government employees who are accustomed to doing no more than is absolutely required of them, who do as little as possible to keep their jobs, who underperform with impunity, the average government official does not yet expect to be paid to do the basics expected of them. Not yet. But what is there to stop us from going the way of Zimbabwe, of fulfilling the myth that attaches to third-world societies?More on that later. For now, time to think.

Goodbye, Benazir

December 29, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Social Conscience, Women, World

Global Voices Online » The assassination of Benazir BhuttoThe assassination of Benazir Bhutto day before yesterday has the global blogworld talking.I haven't added my voice yet because I honestly don't know what to say. For now, then, I'll simply post links to some of the various coverage of the event; the above link is from Global Voices, which gives a good aggregate of some of the discussion.Some comments:

Taking the issue forward, some blogs are discussing the legacy of Benazir Bhutto, the future for Pakistan and the likely suspects who ordered the assassination, even as the Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility.Red Diary discusses why Bhutto was a target, and the resulting riots.
The strong possibility of the rise of a secularist Benazir into power made her a mortal threat for those in the State who harbored sympathy for Islamic Fundamentalists, with whom the notorious intelligence agencies, such as the ISI, were closely knitted since the Cold War and the Afghan War. Benazir Bhutto become a symbol of resistance against Islamic Extremists - both residing inside and outside the State. She stood secularism and modernity against militant retrogressive and conservative trends.

Global Voices, Why Bhutto, and What Now for Pakistan?

and

Some other perspectives have also emerged, looking at Bhutto both as a possible leader and a mover in international politics. Counter Terrorism Blog says
She was someone who the U.S. could actually work with to seek a way forward for Pakistan in light of the profound challenges posed by religious intolerance and political extremism, the drug trade, governmental institutions that do not provide essential services in many areas of the country, and Pakistan's troubled relationships with of its immediate neighbors -- Afghanistan, India, and Iran.Her faults were also profound, as the well-documented grand corruption cases brought against her and her husband attest. She did indeed treat her country like it was a family-owned business, with corrosive results. These includied her removal from power in 1990 and again in 1996 as the corruption both weakened her politically and played a significant role in her inability to deliver the reforms needed to make Pakistan's government responsive to the needs of its people

The Moderate Voice has a bio on Benazir Bhutto, including information on her father who was also the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and was sentenced to death in the 70s for charges similar to the ones Benazir faced much later.
Global Voices: Bhutto's Death and Impending Elections

I will, however be back. Events like these -- and, on a smaller scale, the murders and subsequent hue and cry closer to home -- make one think that chaos is vanquishing order around the world. But is it?

Murders, Christianity, and Research

December 08, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Christianity & Not, Social Conscience, Thinking Critically

There's a lot of fear going about out there. My mailbox lights up on a regular -- almost daily -- basis. I receive local news circulars, you see, and the focus of every one is violent crime. There's one email update that keeps count of 2007's murder rate; there are others that blaze headlines across their tops when you open them. And talk shows and newspapers keep us thinking about our crime rate.The most common response to the murder rate, the crime rate, all the rest of it, is that we need to turn to God. Now I have to confess that I find this strange. After all, the same people who pontificate that God is the Answer to our Crime Problem are the same people who proclaim, loudly, that The Bahamas is a Christian Nation, that Adulterers and Homosexuals will not enter Heaven, that God Blessed The Bahamas, etc.And yet. We have a screamingly high rate of violent crime. Paradoxical, no?Well, here's the thing.At least two studies of religion and society suggest that the higher the religiosity of any society, the more violent that society is.The studies I'm talking about are both published in the Journal of Religion and Society, an electronic publication that examines religion in its social dimension.The first one, conducted by Gary Paul and published in 2005, begins with the following question:

If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations?

The popular conception, of course, is that belief in God, or, in our case, commitment to Christ, leads to a better life and a stronger society. But the facts appear to contradict this idea. What Paul, who focussed on developed democracies in his study, seems to have discovered is that the more Christian the society, the more violent and dysfunctional it is.The results are summarized thus:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. ... No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.

The study says considerably more, and I encourage people to read it for themselves.There's a second study, carried out by Gary Jensen, that pushes that idea further. Jensen begins by considering Paul's research, and recognizes the weaknesses in it. As he says:

His conclusions were based on an examination of scatter-plots for a small set of nations with no attempt to consider alternative explanations nor to encompass the research in the larger body of sociological theory and research on the topic.

So Jensen examines a wider swath of nations, using a different methodology -- he refers to a compilation of data collected during the 1990s called the World Values Survey. In this survey, Jensen explains, which covered up to 54 countries, "respondents were asked questions about the importance of God and religion in their lives, beliefs in the Devil, Heaven and Hell, belonging to a religious faith, and attendance at religious services." (paragraph 11) He's more cautious in his conclusions than Paul is, taking into consideration a number of possibilities, and being more specific in his observations, but he still suggests the following:

A more reasonable explanation for the high homicide rates would focus on religious and moral cosmologies. Indeed, it is reasonable to propose that variables such as inequality may have significant, but indirect, consequences for homicide by reinforcing dualistic moral cosmologies. High levels of inequality may be associated with high levels of â€œus-versus-themâ€ views of the moral cosmos and tendencies to blame external forces for interpersonal problems.

He's saying two main things here. One, that high levels social inequality may affect both the cosmology of the society -- inspiring a greater tendency to believe in both God/Heaven and the Devil/Hell, for instance -- as well as the crime rate. His data appears to suggest that where societies have a strong belief in God and the Devil, the level of lethal violent crime is high. What's interesting about his study is that simply believing in God doesn't appear to be enough to make societies' homicide rates spike; societies have to believe in an opposing evil force as well.Go read it for yourself. It has some interesting things to say about belief and action, especially when it comes to violent crimes. If you've got a high tolerance for academic jargon, read this passage to see what he's suggesting:

It seems quite reasonable to hypothesize that the evangelical movement encourages high levels of passion and moral and/or religious dualisms. It is plausible to propose that religious and moral dualisms may coincide with other forms of dualism at the individual level. ... homicide is one outcome of situated transactions where honor is at stake with a narrow range of options for responding and heightened sensitivity to what might appear to be minor affronts. Whether called a â€œculture of violenceâ€ or a â€œcode of the streetâ€ ... disputes are easily triggered and there is little flexibility in acceptable responses. In short, other cultural or sub-cultural dualisms may help explain variation in behavior at the individual level. If a youth grows up in a world where there are rigid boundaries for attaining honor, a wide range of situations that are interpreted as disrespect, and limited cultural means for reestablishing honor, the range of situations generating interpersonal violence are enhanced.

My point? That the persistent invocation of "God", which appears to be the only solution offered by anybody in discussions of this current crime wave, could be as much a part of the problem as it might be a solution. We have to be careful with our cosmologies, and avoid transmitting intolerance and hate along with our religious beliefs. These studies suggest, and I believe, that our apparent piety is as much a source of the problem of our social violence as it can be a solution.It's something to think about, at least. Go on. I dare you.

Thinking it through

November 11, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in My Bahamas, Personal, Social Conscience

I know. I know. It's been a long, long time since I've posted anything really thoughtful on this blog. There are some reasons for that, among them a couple of personal bereavements that distracted me from anything too much, a set of commitments that really do take up my time, and a period of thoughtfulness about what my life is, what it should be, and where I go from here.More on that. In the meantime, though, I wanted to share a little about the difficulties that come with serving in public office. I'm not a politician, and I'm not a political appointee per se. But the position of Director of Cultural Affairs is a public position, and at times the thoughts or actions expected of the Director are not those that I actually hold.Now this is okay, most of the time. A lot of the time I'm privy to information that makes it okay, even if it's not easy to live with. I know what the struggles are that go on behind the scenes, and I know -- more than others may -- the good will that often goes along with those struggles. But every now and then I wonder what I would think if I didn't hold this office, if I wasn't in a position to know the backstage story.This video points to one of those things that I'm sure I would have a firm and unwavering opinion on if I weren't in my present position.[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU5BqaOPIpI&rel=1]And then there's this:Art Lovers Blocked from Sacred SpaceI know what my opinion would be if I weren't in the seat I presently occupy. But -- as my grandmother was fond of saying (so much so that I thought it was alloneword until I was a teen) -- circumstances alter cases. And so the opinion I actually hold is different from the opinion that I'd hold if I weren't in this position.This is a rambling and awkward blog post, I know. There are things beneath the surface, things that can't be articulated right here and right now. But suffice it to say: I'm thinking it through.What it is is another story altogether.Cheers.

Trini Activism

October 04, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Social Conscience

Â In Trinidad and Tobago, the citizens have developed a culture of criticizing their government between elections. What's new about that, you might ask? We do that as well. The thing is, Trinis have taken it a step further, and have moved beyond criticism to action -- to doing instead of saying, to taking pretty fundamental risks, and to suffering sometimes for their principles.If you've ever been to Port of Spain, you'll know that the Savannah is the citizens' pride and joy. It's the biggest roundabout in the world, they'll tell you, the biggest (or one of the biggest) urban green space in the region. And it's a centre of activity, of communal life; who doesn't congregate on the Savannah jogs or walks around it, or just buys food and drinks from the vendors around it. And of course, it's the centre of Carnival.But not every Trini has always respected it. Ten years ago, the government itself began to pave it over. This Trini tells about how she took a stand against the government. The risk to herself and some of her colleagues was very real -- she was, after all, a civil servant, governed by a set of General Orders very similar to those that govern me, and criticizing your employer is expressly prohibited.But sometimes it has to be done. This link tells the story.Save Our Savannah: Sitting at the CoffeewallahFor inspiration, here's how it ends:

That day I learnt about myself and my fellow man. I realised that regardless of personal cost, I would uphold my beliefs and do what I considered to be right. At the end of every relationship, if it was worth anything, you find that ground to keep going. That a lot of peoole shared our views but were too afraid of retaliation or paralysed by fear to DO anything. A lot of these people came afterward to share their thoughts or congratulate us on our bravery.It isn't about being brave, I have fears just like the next person but I believe unless you are willing to do something, you lose your voice and sometimes even your rights. In the eight years since that protest, I have continued to live my life with personal integrity, no job is worth losing yourself and your self respect. To this day, we continue to fight for the survival of the Savannah. I marvel that politicians who fight to distinguish themselves from each other are in fact really all the same for the most part. When will we learn?Would I do it again? In a hearbeat.

San Francisco to Offer Care for Every Uninsured Adult - New York Times

September 14, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Human Rights, Social Conscience, Thinking Critically, World

San Francisco to Offer Care for Every Uninsured Adult

SAN FRANCISCO â€” Since contracting polio at age 2, Yan Ling Ho has lived with pain for most of her 52 years. After she immigrated here from Hong Kong last year, the soreness in her back and joints proved too debilitating for her to work.That also meant she did not have health insurance. Not wanting to burden her daughter, who was already paying her living expenses, Ms. Ho delayed doctorsâ€™ visits and battled her misery with over-the-counter medications.â€œSometimes the pain was so bad, I would just cry,â€ she said. â€œI didnâ€™t know what else to do.â€Last month, unable to bear her discomfort any longer, Ms. Ho went to North East Medical Services, a nonprofit community clinic on the edge of Chinatown, and discovered to her delight that she qualified for a new program that offers free or subsidized health care to all 82,000 San Francisco adults without insurance.

It amazes me to realize that, in the world's greatest country, there are people -- ordinary, everyday people, not just the people who slide under society's skin and get blamed for stuff they don't actually cause, like the homeless, who live on the fringes of society, or immigrants, who have taken their chances, leaving their homes, or any other undesirables -- ordinary upstanding individuals like you or me, who are barred from obtaining regular medical treatment because they do not have private medical insurance.It's not a new realization by any means. I have long known it; and we hear it frequently, as Americans debate the issue and as we debated national health insurance here at home. But it's not often that it comes home to me. After all, I live in a society where there is no income tax at all, but where the taxes we do pay nevertheless manage to provide us with universal access to basic health care. We have clinics in almost every community, and we have public and private hospitals, so that almost all of us can obtain some measure of health care.Now this is crucial for me. I belong to a family that is relatively uninsurable. Unless we want to sell our cars and mortgage and remortgage our homes, the fact that our fathers all died before their 60th birthdays, from various chronic or non-communicable illnesses makes it virtually impossible for me and my cousins to get private insurance. Oh, I have coverage. But it's group insurance, and it's tied to a place of work. I wanted to be able to have a more flexible work situation. One of these days I would like to write full time, be self-employed as it were. So I applied for Bahama Health, which is friendly and warm and fuzzy and all that, and which made me think that it was the biggest group insurance in the country, but it turned me down.In the USA, I would be uninsured. And this is unfathomable to me. If our small nation, the size of a flea on the American elephant, can provide universal access to basic health care to all of its citizens, its immigrants, and even its tourists, I cannot for the life of me comprehend the reasoning behind it. After all, this is the nation that prides itself on its democratic principles and sets itself up to be the monitor of the free world. I can't see what principle of democracy is served, however, by excluding huge numbers of people from accessible health care.In San Francisco, the city government is making its own decision about this idea.

The initiative, known as Healthy San Francisco, is the first effort by a locality to guarantee care to all of its uninsured, and it represents the latest attempt by state and local governments to patch a inadequate federal system.It is financed mostly by the city, which is gambling that it can provide universal and sensibly managed care to the uninsured for about the amount being spent on their treatment now, often in emergency rooms.After a two-month trial at two clinics in Chinatown, the program is scheduled to expand citywide to 20 more locations on Sept. 17.Whether such a program might be replicated elsewhere is difficult to assess. In addition to its unique political culture, San Francisco, with a population of about 750,000, has the advantages of compact geography, a unified city-county government, an extensive network of public and community clinics and a relatively small number of uninsured adults. Virtually all the cityâ€™s children are covered by private insurance or government plans.

Now this -- the fact that the programme may not be replicable beyond San Francisco -- is another thing I find remarkable. The USA, we're told, is a federation, a place where the federal government has to balance its power against the state governments. It's a system that sounds pretty good on paper, most of the time. The states control a number of different things, like whether they execute people and how they do it, what kind of education system they provide, at what age people can drink liquor, how people can get married and to whom, and, presumably, health care. And there's apparently a growing grass-roots movement demanding access to basic health care for all, especially given the fact that the most influential generation of Americans in our time (the so-called Baby-Boomers) is aging. But this movement is being blocked. In the USA, that great democracy to our north, it would seem that the major opponents to healthcare, whether it be state-wide or federal, is the insurance industry.This should come as no surprise. The USA is a capitalist nation, and insurance companies are capitalist empires. While they appear to be fatherly and nurturing and friendly, they all too often bear elements that, in any other industry, would scream "scam" writ large. Don't get me wrong. Insurance works best when it's dealing with things -- house insurance, car insurance, property insurance -- all these make sense to insure. I don't mind paying a fairly reasonable premium to help me out when bad things happen to my possessions. Even life insurance makes some sense; it's not designed to help me, after all, but to keep me from being a burden to people I love, to help cover funeral expenses and so on. Insurance of these things makes sense.But health insurance? I can't help thinking it's the biggest scam there is.If you're in the business of health insurance, forgive me, but here's why I say that. Most companies refuse to insure people who are likely to claim on their insurance, like the elderly, or people with a history of chronic diseases, or people who (like me) come from a family where people have a history of chronic diseases. If they don't drop you, your premiums go up. So the healthy get insured, and happily pay their bills, while the unhealthy can't.Now here in The Bahamas, while that's an issue, it's not as bad as we think it is; even the uninsured can get basic health care here. We Bahamians, this little black country, have figured out how we can cover everybody with basic health care with the non-income taxes we pay. In Nassau, particularly, our HIV patients receive treatment. All our mothers are entitled to pre-natal and post-natal care. Our elderly get taken care of. Even our tourists, whether they are insured or not, get to use our hospitals and clinics. And we never grow tired of complaining how our illegal immigrants can find all the health care they want or need -- a fact, by the way, which I believe is a strength of our society and our government, not a weakness.Because, contrary to what the federal and state and county and city governments of every part of the USA seem to think -- except for, apparently, San Francisco -- I happen to believe that people are more important than things. I don't believe that my health, or the health of any other human being for that matter, is a commodity that can be valued by employers or insurance companies and abandoned when it the profit margin grows too narrow.It would appear that this is a peculiar idea. It would appear that capitalism leaves very little room for people when money is on the line. The San Francisco initiative is being challenged by an employers' federation. There are laws, apparently, that determine what "benefits" employers can offer, and how; and it would appear, further that health care is a "benefit". Not a right.

A final financing mechanism has placed the program in legal jeopardy. To make sure the new safety net does not encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, the city in January will begin requiring employers with more than 20 workers to contribute a set amount to health care. The Healthy San Francisco program is one of several possible destinations for that money, with others being private insurance or health savings accounts.Late last year, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged that provision in federal court, arguing that it violates a law governing employer health benefits. A judge has scheduled a hearing for early November.

I'll say it again. I don't mind paying car insurance, life insurance, or house insurance for peace of mind. I don't even mind paying for health insurance, if it means that I can qualify for more sophisticated or daring treatment, should I ever become very ill. But what I cannot comprehend is the idea that I should pay health insurance simply to be seen by a doctor at all. I do not believe that my health is a commodity that the "market" -- any market -- should determine. That's what I elect my governments for.Not, apparently, in the great democracy of the United States of America, where the greatest medical system in the world is accessible only to those who can pay. American governments, apparently, view the health of their citizens as just another thing, to be bought and sold and valued by an industry that has no real accountability to the citizens they "serve".So hats off to San Francisco. And hats off to The Bahamas, to all the politicians through the ages who made it a priority for all Bahamians and residents and visitors to gain access to medical treatment no matter what their status.

Getting up, getting out, getting over: Art is the way

August 26, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Culture and the Arts, Literature, Race & Stuff, Social Conscience

Over on his blog, Reginald Shepherd has posted a meditation on how he made it in the cultural world as a gay black man from an impoverished background. It's also turns out to be a meditation on why art and culture are -- or, excuse me, this is The Bahamas -- should be a fundamental part of any social agenda. As he puts it,

... if one is black, if one is gay, if one has been raised in poverty (as I was, in tenements and housing projects in the Bronx), if as an individual one has never fit into the various social contexts to which one has been expected or even to which one has hoped to belong, the burden of the distance between oneâ€™s own sense of self and the fixed and often distorted images others have of one is especially heavy.

He accepts that most people who hold positions similar to his are in fact from wealthy backgrounds. He recognizes that the world of the cultural elite (he's talking about in the USA, of course, but we'd do well to consider how global that idea might be) is a world of privilege. As he writes:

The art that saved me has so often belonged to the wealthy and privileged that itâ€™s hard to remember that itâ€™s not merely an ornament of power. Part of my project as a writer has necessarily (in order for me to be a writer at all) been to attempt to disentangle artâ€™s liberatory from its oppressive aspects, to remember that those who so often own art donâ€™t define it, that (as Adorno pointed out) art is the enemy of culture and culture is the enemy of art.

By "culture", he means, I'm guessing, the invisible structure of society that's held in place by the status quo, and by "art" he means the individual's approach to that culture, each creator's interpretation of, answer to, and redefinition of that culture. In the USA, that status quo is defined internally, from the top down, and so "culture" and "art" are quite probably at war. Here, though, that status quo is defined from the outside in. Our culture should be the fodder for our art; but without the latter, the former is slipping away. We are the hollow men, and so we use everybody's yardstick to measure ourselves except our own. We put our culture aside, we have very little art. Will we ever get up, get out, or get over?

On Elections

April 28, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in My Bahamas, Social Conscience

Before I start, let me say three things.First, I am a civil servant, for better or for worse, for my sins. As a civil servant, I am obliged to serve the government of the day, no matter whose initials they wear.Second, as a writer, I prefer not to politicize (in terms of superficial party politics) the issues I choose to discuss. If our political parties can be said to have ideologies, I imagine that my opinions might align with one or the other. However, as none of them appear to have any true ideological bent these days, I imagine I'm pretty safe.Third, I happen to believe that the value of party politics for the nation has eroded. I don't believe that blanket support of any group of people is going to benefit The Bahamas in general as we move forward (perhaps I ought to say if we move forward). Moreover, as the political parties who are contesting these elections have eschewed every discussion of relevant issues in favour of ad hominem attacks, I really don't see much point to them at all.That said, let me add that I chose, in December, to quit writing Essays on Life until after the elections. The main reason for that choice was that no matter what I chose to write about, I thought it would acquire a political spin. Anything remotely critical of government policies or actions might be construed as supporting the opposition (whether the opposition had chosen to be critical in that direction or not) and anything remotely critical of opposition positions could be construed as supporting the governing party.Turns out I needn't have worried; none of the political parties are talking about specific issues. Had I written articles, apparently, I would have been perfectly safe.So what I want to say, on the virtual eve of election, is this. This has been the most insipid and empty campaign period I can remember in a generation -- or more, because in every other election year there has been some discussion of issues that mean something. I'm not talking about vague psuedo-issues like "trust" (come on, really, how often does one meet a politician one can trust anyway?) or "corruption" (the flip side of "trust", and, well, come on). I'm talking about real issues, like governance -- are we being well served by the form of government we have, where the first man past the post wins the whole pot, and where fifty-three or four or five per cent of the voters can bring about a landslide victory? Has the two-party political system outlived its usefulness in the country? Is it doing something meaningful for our development, or is it simply prolonging long-standing divisions in our nations, divisions that took place along racial lines mostly? Is the choice that our last two governments have made, pretty uncritically, to provide material development by foreign investment something that is either sustainable on a long-term basis, or even desirable in the short run?Or smaller, but equally pressing issues, like the question of traffic congestion on New PRovidence, or the need for local government in Nassau, or the need to enforce laws about campaign spending and advertisement, or the question of breaking the back of patronage?Or major philosophical issues, like what it means to be a prosperous nation populated primarily by people of largely African descent, and what our responsibility is as a nation to those around us and to our citizenry?Or what national identity is all about, and how to make Bahamians proud to be who we are?Because it seems to me that all we are achieving through politics and the politicians who play them is stripping away all that remains that is good and honourable about the Bahamian people and pandering to the basest of impulses -- greed. We hear bleating about the buying of votes; but the fact that candidates and their generals have to resort to hopeful bribery suggests that all that elections do for us as a people and as a nation is turn us into money-grubbing beggars in a land of plenty. That is corruption of a kind that cannot be forgiven, and that it is the norm suggests that it has nothing to do with the initials one wears or the colours one waves, but with the practice of politics itself.And we should be ashamed -- ashamed on behalf of all those upstanding Bahamians generations ago who sacrificed their paychecks and their jobs to ensure that we could vote, that we could represent ourselves, that we would no longer have to be obliged to Bay Street for whatever crumbs were thrown our way. We should be ashamed for replicating, and expanding, the corruption that has governed us as long as we have had representation, and for doing so while at the same time we are imagining ourselves to be free. No matter who we think we support, or what party we will elect on May 2, we should be ashamed for allowing our so-called leaders to engage in such a widespread denigration of who we are, and for insulting us and the democratic process by reducing the gift of universal suffrage to a competition between who can throw the most mud the fastest, who can lie the best, and whose bankroll is biggest.

English: the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto

April 02, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Human Rights, Miscellany, Race & Stuff, Social Conscience, Thinking Critically

That title is ironic, by the way. Just so you know.I also want to link to this article by Sylvia over at Anti-Essentialist Conundrum.Here's the bit I particularly like:

we simultaneously promote lockstep conformity to amorphous and contradictory â€œAmericanâ€ values whose only blatant connection is raw opportunism. We sit and we applaud blatant bigotry for our own personal security rather than any serious concern for the security of this country. Around what are we uniting? Do we care about the significance of that union anymore beyond materialist safeguarding and the polarization of classes?I was going to launch into a long rant about the value of bilingual education and the importance of cultural awareness. I was going to denounce the reprehensible coding of Gingrich equating these important goals for advancing understanding on a growing interdependent international landscape with â€œtrying to understand the ghetto,â€ and the classist and racist implications of the word â€œghettoâ€ in American social society. Hell, I was even going to discuss the ignorant imperialist and colonialist tropes of associating the English language with â€œprosperityâ€ â€” a language traditionally spoken by thieves of native cultures; by oppressors on a large, reprehensible scale. This emergence of a learn the language of your conquerors/superiors mentality. How his comments seem to erect a wall of ignorance to the fact that people who do not speak English in America are learning English to accommodate our systems. How those comments run counter to a land of opportunity where every person is given the tools to succeed.I was going to write all of those things, and then I grew disgusted with the fact that I wanted to spell them out in a post. Itâ€™s a disheartening feeling, one of those canâ€™t people just see that for themselves? feelings. Those feelings that you canâ€™t write everything down; you canâ€™t properly capture in English how much perception of these narratives tighten an everpresent knot in your stomach. How onerous it is to read this tripe and its association with power, and then to look into the faces of others who work to survive day-to-day amidst this faux-intelligence that leads to an ideological hysteria that could cost them their livelihoods or even their lives. Their children. Their liberty.

Go on. Read the whole thing. You won't be sorry.Or maybe you will.

A view from South Africa

April 01, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Miscellany, Race & Stuff, Social Conscience, Thinking Critically, World

I want to link to a debate on Ten Taxis, a South African blog, for a couple of reasons. One of them is that, in commemoration of the Abolition Act, two Ministers of Government here â€” Fred Mitchell of Foreign Affairs and Alfred Sears of Education â€” organized two days of activities that helped to focus our minds on slavery and history and by extension ourselves. (A week ago, Cultural Commission and the Festival of African Arts had done a similar thing; but ministers have higher profiles).Anyway. On Friday gone, we had a day in communion with African and Caribbean intellectuals -- Nalidi Pandor, Minister of Education for South Africa, and George Lamming and Maureen Denton, Caribbean writers. Need I say who Lamming is? (If you have to ask, go do some research of your own). Denton is a playwright and actress, and they collaborate. This was hosted by the Minister of Education. Yesterday, in Fox Hill, we had a day in communion with them again, but in commemoration of abolition. This was hosted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the MP for Fox Hill.The difficulty is, though, that these commemorative activities have already been politicized in ways that do far more harm than good. Someone somewhere has decided â€” absurdly â€” that slavery and emacipation and the general history of the Bahama Islands are a PLP issue, and not a national one. Thus the discussion of slavery is painted in navy blue and yellow, and is carefully walked around on cat feet by those people whose political allegiance is paramount. As for those of us who don't care to politicize these issues, we are invisible and unheard.I'm linking to this debate, because it's about the position of Afrikaners in the new South Africa, and raises a number of issues that I think are relevant to the debate about slavery and emancipation, and â€” more important â€” raises them in such a way as to be fairly rational and open to engagement.We can only dream of such an exchange occurring here. Can't we?Anyway, here are the relevant links. And here's to Ten Taxis for posting the exchange.

Original post - an article in the Sunday Times of South Africa
First series of responses
Second series of responses
Third series of responses

The point about this is that South Africa's liberation is a whole lot more recent than ours. And unlike us, South Africa is not apparently shrinking from the difficult discussion that has to be had in order for the victims of oppression â€” who include both the oppressors, who have sacrificed their humanity, and the oppressed, who have had their humanity stripped from them â€” to begin to heal. Of course, I could be wrong, and looking at the issue from the perspective of too many thousands of miles truly to understand. But I found the exchange, and the fundamental respect which surrounded it, a far cry from the kinds of rhetoric in which we engage round here, where the fact that black Bahamians also owned slaves appears to provide readers and writers of The Tribune with a defence of slavery rather than raising the more pertinent question â€” whether any of the slaves owned by Free Blacks (or even by slaves themselves) were ever Europeans. I think not. The oppressed are not excluded from oppressing others. But we have to ask the right questions to draw sensible conclusions. In an election year, the rightness of the question is the last thing on our minds.In the absence of sensible discussion about oppression and liberty and history that deals specifically with us, then, I point you to South Africa to get a sense of what such a discussion could be.

Stumbling towards freedom

March 18, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in My Bahamas, Social Conscience

I began this year with an observance about the date. In The Bahamas, years with twos, threes and sevens in them are likely to be major anniversaries of things; and as the twos and the sevens are five years apart, they double one another. Years with eights in them are extensions of the years with threes as well.I say all that to say this. The fact that this is a big year in terms of our history and our identity has been overshadowed by the rather grubby fact that it's also an election year. The result is that most things have been politicized. What hasn't been politicized has been put on hold until the election's over. Good thing that we have to hold it by mid-year; otherwise this entire year could become an exercise in water-treading for anybody who wants to get real things done.Perhaps this is why we aren't discussing abolition and what it means for us. This should, of course, be a source of shame for us all. When the United Kingdom is making a big deal out of this year, and out of the anniversary that's coming up on March 25, we're strangely silent. Is it because people on the PLP are afraid to make too much out of it because of the long years of invoking slavery in election years (the running of Roots on ZNS, in 1977, 1982, and 1987, the references to Exodus) have rendered the concept of slavery impotent as a political tool? Is it because people in the FNM have rejected the concept of slavery because they believe that it alienates those people who are not the descendants of slaves?Something to think about.

Thinking about Emancipation: White Privilege

March 08, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Race & Stuff, Social Conscience, Thinking Critically

There's a very interesting dialogue about race here, at the Anti-Essentialist Conundrum, and here, at the Anarchist Black Cross Network.On ABC, Peggy McIntosh writes:

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks....After I realized the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious. Then I remembered the frequent charges from women of color that white women whom they encounter are oppressive. I began to understand why we are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way. I began to count the ways in which I enjoy unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will. My schooling followed the pattern my colleague Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow "them" to be more like "us".

I find much of this valuable, especially coming from a white (American) feminist. It's part of what I talk about when I refer to hegemony -- the idea that what is "normal" is actually what is white -- and, from the perspective of The Bahamas, what is white and other (what is white and Bahamian is actually a rather African-flavoured form of whiteness; more on that later). White Bahamians are not white Americans or white Europeans; their Bahamianness -- from the national cuisine to, these days, the national accent -- already rendering them different from the norm.Now McIntosh is, as I say, a white feminist. Sylvia, author of the Anti-Essentialist Conundrum, a pretty cool blog that considers issues of race and equality, written by a black (American) woman, while agreeing broadly with her principles, also critiques them. As she says:

There are three main problems with the essay and its framework. The first is its voice: the author is a privileged, white, intellectual, feminist, American woman with some level of financial self-sufficiency and physical ability, and her mode of explanation proceeds from these characteristics in its word choice and description. To say that each characteristic needs its own privilege study would be too obvious; to say that one characteristic should monopolize the discussions of privilege for everyone â€” too divisive. The second problem is its method of identifying white privilege: its language leaves the gate wide open for white people engaged in denial to invoke defenses leaning towards white pride or white guilt. The third problem is the list of characteristics surrounding white privilege would function easier if separated into categories of the types/classes of privilege instead of specific situations.

This last critique is impotant, for, as Sylvia observes, people can be both privileged and oppressed at the same time. See what she says herself:

The third problem cycles back to the first: McIntosh invoked the list of items that existed in her perspective of the knapsack. Ongoing discussions of privilege in a variety of disciplines point to intersectionality â€” the ability for people to live within different frameworks of oppression and privilege simultaneously. It is disheartening, but not unsurprising, to see a black man boggle at a black womanâ€™s accusation that he shares in male privilege. His understanding only reaches to both of them suffering under privileged whites. These debates enclose incidences where a white lesbian suffering under heterosexist privilege and male privilege engages in racist behavior, or where an affluent Vietnamese-American maleâ€™s class privilege and assimilation into white supremacist xenophobia turns on the ambiguous category of lowerclass, undocumented â€œHispanicâ€ American workers. While privilege manifests differently in each concentric circle of oppression, it never alters its M.O. As a result, we as human beings cannot cry hypocrite when a victim in one cycle switches sides in another cycle â€” especially with our knowledge that all privileges sprout from a fundamental hierarchy equally lacking in exposure what it gains in power.

In this year when we observe the bicentenary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, it's important that we understand that emancipation is not a simple thing. Oppression and privilege are not simple, after all. Victimology is an insidious process, and imperfect understandings of history, of self, of location, of hierarchy permit all kinds of oppressions that go unrecognized. In our society, where most of us, well coached by the American mass media to view "white" as one thing and "black" as another, undifferentiated, thing, tend to imagine ourselves universally oppressed, we ignore the very real oppression we visit on one another: outrageous racism against Haitians, unexamined violence against women and children, and actions founded in self-hate.I encourage people to check out these sites. Yes, they're radical. But they're worth a good hard look.

"Authentic" tourism

February 28, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Cultural Industries, Social Conscience, Tourists & Tourism

Titilayo over at gallimaufry has an interesting post on the edgy side of tourism.

A few weeks ago I was chatting with a guy from Argentina and he mentioned staying at a hotel in Brazil and seeing that their lists of activities for guests included a â€œghetto tourâ€, a guided trip through one of the nearby favelas. Apparently slum tours of that sort are moving from being a novelty and becoming a recognised niche product: poverty tourism, also dubbed â€œpoorismâ€, is growing in popularity amongst visitors to developing countries like Brazil, India and South Africa (although the South Africa tour doesnâ€™t seem to be actively exploiting the poverty aspect as much as the others).

What's interesting to me about this is that this is the dark side of what I've often been preaching here at home, where tourism is controlled by huge conglomerates that cluster along the best beaches and block our view of the ocean God gave us, and where relatively little of the tourist revenue makes its way into people's pockets. I've been talking about the demand for "authenticity" in the tourist product, which is a rising demand, and one that certainly occupies much of the mainstream of the wealthier tourists, so much so that the Ministry of Tourism has begun to notice. I have long criticized our tourist product for being exclusively outwardly-focussed, for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what makes us us, seeking instead safe ways of packaging ersatz bits and pieces of performative culture (Junkanoo in the summer, hello) for "the tourists", and have suggested that what "the tourists" really want is the illusion that they have touched the real life that can be called Bahamian.There's a thin, thin line between "authenticity" and "poorism", though; and the arguments are not easy to resolve. They are uncomfortable -- the whole idea is uncomfortable -- but there's a little more to it; this is a Dalmatian of a problem, not something that's either black or white. You see, "poorism" does for the inner cities of many so-called developing countries what tourism has not yet done -- it puts tourist dollars directly into the pockets of the people who well may need them the most.But you decide.Here's an account from the Globe and Mail Here's the comment that titilayo's riffing off of Here's a completely different point of view Here's how it's done in the States Township tourism in South Africa

Martin Luther King Day

January 15, 2007 by Nicolette Bethel in Events, Human Rights, Miscellany, Race & Stuff, Social Conscience

That's today.This is what the Writer's Almanac has to say:

It's the birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., (books by this author) born in Atlanta (1929). It was 1955, early in King's new tenure as pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, that Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on one of that city's busses. King was elected to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association, which was formed with the intention of boycotting the transit system. He was young â€” only 26 â€” and he knew his family connections and professional standing would help him find another pastorate should the boycott fail, so he accepted.

In his first speech to the group as its president of that organization, King said: "We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice."

The boycott worked, and King saw the opportunity for more change. He formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which provided him a national platform. For the next 13 years, King worked to peacefully end segregation. In 1963, he joined other civil rights leaders in the March on Washington â€” that's where he gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

Here's a link to the speech.