Not exactly an apology: on ideology, debate, and patriots

Over the weekend, Rick Lowe and I had an email exchange that didn't end as well as our private exchanges usually do. I won't go into details, but it boiled down to the question of whether I dismissed him in the discussion following the last post or not. He certainly felt dismissed. Not what I intended, but there it is.The matter in question was health insurance, which I declined to discuss. The bigger question, though, was the idea of debate and discussion and whether or not, by not discussing it, and by referring to ideology as my reason for not discussing it, I dismissed Rick and his point.That was not my intention, as I said before. And yet I didn't want to engage with the topic, and I still do not want to for reasons that are very personal. Part of the reason is that Rick and I have discussed health care at some length elsewhere on this blog, and I'm not at all sure that either of us has changed our position. But part of the reason is also, fundamentally, our disagreements are predictable. He is a libertarian; I tend towards socialism. Our positions on any issue are liable to be diametrically opposed, and usually are. Though sometimes a lot can be gained from the discussion, the best debates are those that are supported and/or supportable by evidence. In the case that I avoided, Rick has most of it; I don't have all that much. What I do have is a weight of personal experience, which makes my bias emotional and fundamental, and which skews the discussion in such a way that it is liable to deteriorate.But our private exchange raised the question for me. What is the role of ideology in debates? Speaking for myself, I don't have a whole lot of time for prepackaged ideologies, not even the kinds that makes sense to me, which usually (but not always) fall to the left of the centre. Most ideological stances were developed by dead white men in countries far, far away from here, in times far removed from ours, holding assumptions that do not fully apply to our realities; most ideological stances are only vaguely relevant to our country and our reality.But Rick and I are both patriotic Bahamians. Where I find discussions between us to be most interesting are in the spaces where we agree. Libertarians and socialists usually don't; where we do are in places that touch our shared Bahamian experience. Where we do should be a bright flag for whoever reads our blogs regularly. As for the rest, for me the value is in the debate itself. Conclusions are boring; they're probably going to find us on our sides of the issue in the end, and we'll be joined, predictably, by people who share our positions. But it's the journey that's the fun part.And so Rick, maybe one day I'll engage about health insurance. But not right now. Right now, I'm more interested in the general economy -- and not in how we're spending our money (or not) today, but where we're going to get it in the future. I could be wrong; but I see the current economic time as a symptom of a far greater change in global economics, not an end in itself. Where we're moving I can't say. But what I am pretty sure about is that our country and our government are stuck in a reality that is fast becoming obsolete, and we'd better get all hands on deck, and light every torch around, to figure out what we're going to do when it's over.

Hell freezes over yet again

Those of you who follow this blog will know that this happens whenever I agree with Weblog Bahamas' Rick Lowe (and vice versa).

But his commentary on illegal immigration just makes sense. See below:

While the country has a major problem with illegal immigration and people should not break the law by hiring immigrants that are not entitled to be here, there must be more facts to be considered.

Why would people knowingly break the law and hire an illegal immigrant for example?

1. Could it be that the law is too restrictive on allowing them in within the legal frame work?

2. Could it be that minimum wage laws prevent the hiring of Bahamians for the same job?

3. Could it be that Bahamians no longer do the menial tasks that the illegals usually do?

4. Could it be that Mr. McCartney is simply grand standing for political points?

I suspect it is a combination of the above points.Our problems with illegal immigration by Haitians are very similar to those faced by the United States from Mexican's sneaking across the border looking for a better life.

However, they do not seem to be able to deal with the problem either.

As the Cato Handbook for Policymakers suggests:

"Any lasting solution to the challenge of illegal immigration must recognize the legitimate needs of American employers to hire the workers necessary to meet the demands of their customers."

Hopefully one day our policy makers will offer more serious dialogue when addressing such a serious subject.

Continuing to excite our base instincts with rhetoric, rather than examining the fundamental reasons for the problem will never solve this dilemma that crosses all political lines.

WeblogBahamas.com: Branville McCartney Bahamas Immigration Minister speaks out

Dr Keva Bethel's Speech at the Bahamas Business Outlook Seminar

On Thursday past, my mother, Keva Bethel Ph.D., had the opportunity to address the luncheon guests at the Bahamas Business Outlook Seminar.From all reports, the reception to the speech was overwhelming.Two people asked me whether I could get a copy of it for wider circulation. Well, I spoke to Mummy about it, and she sent it on over. I told her I'd like to post it here, and she didn't have any objections, so here you go:

Dr. Keva Bethel before speaking at the SeminarA VISION FOR THE BAHAMAS OF THE FUTURE

by Keva Bethel, Ph.D.An address delivered at the Bahamas Business Outlook 2009,Wyndham Nassau Resort, Cable Beach, New ProvidenceThursday, January 15, 2009I must first thank Mrs. Albury for having invited me to address you. She said that she wanted a "heart" piece, outlining my vision for the future of The Bahamas. Initially I was reluctant to accept, because I knew from experience that speaking to a lunchtime audience during a conference such as this was a really tough gig: everyone is either hungry or engrossed in eating, and far more interested in chatting with one another than in listening to yet another speaker spout ideas. I agreed, however, because there are indeed things that have lain heavy on my heart for some time and this is an opportunity to get them off my chest and to articulate them publicly. I promise to try to keep this as brief as I can, though, and will simply share a few thoughts about The Bahamas I should like to see in the future, not only from my perspective as an educator, but even more so from the perspective of a grandmother concerned about the kind of country in which my now 18 month-old grandson will grow up. Dr Keva Bethel delivering the speech Let me plunge right in by saying, first, that I pray that Jaxon Elijah will grow up in a country that will finally have been able to come to a truly national consensus about the kind of society we want to be and the kind of role we wish our nation to play in the 21st century world context. The fallout from present-day global economic challenges has revealed only too starkly the vulnerability of our status quo, and while our current difficulties clearly require urgent, short-term responses, this may also be an appropriate moment for us to come together more deliberately as a people to craft a longer-term, more indigenously-based, collaborative, non-partisan, national blueprint for our future.In my view, to be defensible such a blueprint should take intentionally into account, and reflect unequivocally, genuine respect for the special features of the natural environments of our individual islands and our commitment to their protection, conservation and appropriate use. It should also demonstrate clearly the value we place upon the historical and cultural heritage of the inhabitants of our islands and our determination to build upon and strengthen these. It seems to me that such considerations would provide a more rational basis for sustainable development initiatives that would be compatible with those realities, and for whose realisation we might, with greater clarity of purpose, seek the assistance of local or foreign investors sympathetic to our goals. (It is fitting that I mention here that for a number of years, a group of concerned individuals has been engaged in just such a visioning exercise, and that this process continues through a project supported by Civil Society Bahamas entitled Imagine! Bahamas. The seminal work already done and that which is ongoing could serve as a valuable springboard for a more widespread defining process for the country).Central to ensuring the kind of future I envisage will be the collective commitment and positive participation of the people of The Bahamas. We must find ways to temper the present rampant materialism in our midst that demands immediate personal gratification, and to engage our people more fully in working for the long-term well being of society as a whole. I should, moreover, like to see a society in which my grandson and all others can be comfortable in their own skins (of whatever shade those might be) and never have to feel apologetic or defensive about any aspect of their heritage. For we shall be less narrowly prescriptive in our definition of who ought legitimately to bear the responsibility of being a "true-true" Bahamian and of contributing valuably to its development. In sum, we shall have become a society that truly values the diversity of its people, that actively promotes tolerance and understanding and that eschews the tendency, too often evident at present, to express distrust and in some cases active dislike of those we perceive to be different in some way from ourselves. These qualities will only result, I feel, if we become a society that roots our people firmly in a more complete knowledge and appreciation of all aspects of our history and culture, so that we may develop a deeper and more genuine sense of who we all are in our wonderful variety.In the future Bahamas I envision (and hope to live to see) we shall have abandoned the current attitudes of dependency and entitlement that seem so deeply ingrained in us as a people and that, to my mind, are so demeaning to and destructive of our national character. I dare to hope for a Bahamas, rather, in which the various social entities -family, school, church, government, private sector and civil society as a whole - will work together in consistent, mutually supportive ways, to develop men and women who have the will and the confidence to take greater responsibility for themselves and their actions and who will draw upon their individual abilities for the purpose.As an important ingredient in such a shift of attitude, we shall have to make a deliberate effort to heal the bitter political, religious, racial and other forms of division that continue to fracture our nation in either overt or subtle ways. If we are not only to survive but also to thrive as a reasonable society in which to live, we shall have to abandon the all too easy temptation either to find someone else to blame for our difficulties or to seek to earn brownie points for ourselves by suggesting that we might do things better. And, ladies and gentlemen, here I am not referring only to tendencies observed in the political arena: if we are honest we must confess that we are all of us guilty of such impulses.We are a small country, with what a colleague of mine has dubbed "countable people." Surely it should not be beyond us, if we sincerely desire it, to come together to address effectively the critical large issues that affect us all. For this to happen, however, we shall all need to open up our thinking much more, and be prepared to jettison some of our preconceived ideas about who should fix what and how. (The alarming crime rate in our country is but one example).  We shall have to recognise that few tough problems are susceptible of simple, one-dimensional solutions. We must be prepared to face more honestly the things we need to change and to listen to voices that speak sense - no matter how unexpected their source. Particularly, I would suggest, we shall need to listen more attentively to the real messages so many of our young people are giving us, both with their words and, even more eloquently, with their actions. One important message that comes through to me is that our traditional social institutions (and I use this term in the broadest of senses) are failing to reach them in meaningful ways. The cynicism and alienation reflected in the often self-destructive behaviour of so many of our young people  (and particularly our young men) are generally incomprehensible to those of us who are older for, on the surface, our youth seem to have so many more opportunities to flourish than were available in the past, opportunities that they fail to embrace - or so we think. But do they really?We know that too many of our children and young people are the unplanned, perhaps unwanted, by-products of the casual sexual encounters of mothers and fathers who are often too young to be effective parents. In some cases children seem to be viewed either as trophies affirming that their parents are real women or real men, or as tangible means of cementing uncertain relationships. In addition, there are many instances of young women being exploited by older men. Child rearing is frequently subject to unskilled parenting and punctuated by neglect or abuse. Further, there is also the isolation of the many stateless young among us who must undoubtedly feel resentment that they do not really belong anywhere and who are routinely treated as outsiders by their peers. Despite all these factors, we in the wider society expect our young people to follow rules whose purposes they may not have ever been adequately taught or that they fail to understand, and in the observance of which they may have had all too few examples in their immediate environment or sometimes even in the wider community. Society also expects them to succeed in an educational system that, despite all best efforts, often seems irrelevant to the real needs or interests they bring to the school.  Ours is a society, moreover, that only too readily confirms what is likely to be their already low self-esteem by branding them as failures when they do not measure up to expectations. Happily, however, there are enough others who are genuinely able to achieve success to make it plausible to hope that the gloomier picture can be reversed.I again take as a point of reference my observation of my own grandson.  He is a happy, friendly little boy, full of curiosity and a sense of adventure. Most relevant to this discussion, however, is the fact that while some of these qualities may come from his own personality, much of the confidence he displays arises not only from his obvious trust that he is loved unconditionally, but also from the fact that he is guided at each stage of his development by parents who invest time, intelligence and informed practice in the process.  This kind of attention is what I should like all of our children to be able to receive.Now, I am not so naïve as to think we can realistically expect to prescribe a universal nuclear family structure for all of our people. What we do need to ensure, however, is that all of our people understand that parenthood is a sacred trust that ought not to be taken lightly. As a society, it seems to me, we must bend our minds and efforts to a deliberate, multi-faceted approach to family building. I personally believe, moreover, that in order to accomplish this we shall, collectively, need to begin by committing to a vigorous, comprehensive national programme to encourage responsible family planning, drawing upon the many valuable initiatives undertaken in the past and those continuing in various forms at present. Such a programme will need also, however, to commit communities to accept more fully the responsibility of assisting parents (especially young ones) in their child-rearing experience, by providing as necessary the kinds of safety nets and guidance that children will need in order to thrive. [I should interject that single parents are nothing new in our society, but in the past we had a stronger extended family structure that provided a cushion for their offspring. Nowadays, grandmothers may themselves be too young to be willing to take on such responsibility. [In one of my projects a few years ago I encountered a great-grandmother who was only 39 years old: she had had a child at thirteen, who had had a child at thirteen, who also had had a child at thirteen. If we now have to face generation cycles of thirteen years, we are in serious trouble].The actions I propose will only be possible, though, if all social partners come to practical agreement about their importance and viability. Clear consensus on the provision of effective, comprehensive education (within and outside of the school system) regarding responsible sexual behaviour, supported by appropriate modelling of such behaviour by adults, will not only be critical to help to prevent young girls from becoming mothers at too early an age, but also to protect them from contracting damaging sexually transmitted infections or the potentially life-threatening infection of HIV and AIDS.Clearly, education is a key element in this as in all social development and here I am first referring to education in its broadest sense - the process that occurs in all settings from the time we are born. For it is important that we as a community recognise that our words, and even more tellingly our actions, teach our young what we really value. It is trite but none the less true to say that children learn what they live, and they very quickly discern the difference between what we demand of them in our pronouncements and what we ourselves display in our own behaviour.As the system designed and mandated to accept major responsibility for the formal instruction of the young, however, our schools and other educational institutions have particular challenges to meet in this twenty-first century world which is and will continue to be so different from that for which most of our current approaches were designed. The formal educational systems I would wish to see in the future, therefore, will be ones that will have genuinely continued their quest to transform themselves to meet these new demands. Such transformation will have begun with an honest examination of the purpose of formal education for, as heretical as this may sound in this particular setting, this can no longer be viewed primarily as being that of providing students with skills for the workforce, as important an aim as this will continue to be. More fundamentally, I believe, the formal educational experience will need to aim above all to assist individuals to develop their particular gifts in ways that will enable them to live rewarding and fulfilling lives as law-abiding, functioning members of society. Curricula, institutional arrangements and methodological approaches will, moreover, reflect an understanding that the roles of the various actors in the process of formal education have evolved considerably from those of previous eras. Educational practice will be more deliberately informed by the compelling array of research findings on the multiple forms of intelligence that students bring to the school enterprise and on the ways in which the brain actually learns. The current tendency to reflect a hierarchy of value among individuals' differing abilities and that relegates technical, practical or artistic pursuits to places of lesser importance than those enjoyed by academic subjects will no longer be a feature of the commentary or practice within or outside of the school system.The focus in schools will be even more upon guiding students to develop their ability (1) genuinely to understand their value as individual human beings and to strengthen their capacity to become self-directed, disciplined learners; (2) to think and reason critically and independently, while mastering important skills of language and computation as doorways to wider learning in other disciplines; (3) to access for themselves useful, necessary information and make reasoned judgments about its value and quality; (4) to relate effectively to other people and to resolve conflicts when these arise. Extensive social and nutritional support will be routinely built into the provision of the formal system.  Information technology will be embraced, not merely as an add-on to traditional methodologies, or as the subject of special study, but rather as an integral teaching/learning and management tool. Its potential as a means of enhancing the access to and quality of educational provision to students throughout the archipelago will have been fully recognised and actively exploited.Student learning will be assessed in multi-dimensional ways, that will more authentically measure the degree to which achievement goals have been attained. No longer will standardised examinations be the major yardstick by which student and school accomplishment is judged, as useful as these may be as a quick measure for the purposes of higher education institutions and employers. Teachers and school administrators will be appropriately prepared to meet changing demands, and they will be encouraged to view ongoing professional development as a routine feature of their careers. Parents and the general public will engage more productively with the schools, not only for the purpose of questioning or criticising their efforts, but also to celebrate their successes and to assist in addressing areas of weakness. Particularly important, members of the adult community (especially those in positions of influence) will display a greater commitment to reflecting in their own speech, conduct and professional performance the kinds of standards they expect students to demonstrate.We shall have a University of The Bahamas that will stand as the important source of intellectual leadership in the country and the broad range of its offerings will enable increasing numbers of our people to attain higher levels of academic, professional and continuing education here at home. The research generated at the University will serve to advance knowledge and guide national planning, policy and decision-making.The Bahamas that I should like to see in the future will have succeeded in educating its people more effectively as to the real functions of democratic governance so that members of government themselves may be able to see their responsibilities less as doing things or solving problems for the people of the nation, and more as ensuring the effective provision of necessary public services, and creating environments and opportunities that will challenge and enable members of society to become more productively engaged on their own behalf.Finally, I hope that in the future our actions as a people will demonstrate in more genuine ways our oft-repeated claim of being a Christian nation. Our present tendency to strident manifestations of religious fervour and our complacent, self-satisfied belief that God must surely be a Bahamian are all too often belied by our lack of appreciation and care for His natural or human creation. I hope that as we tout our constitutional commitment to Christian values we shall in fact learn to translate these into more Christ-like behaviour, characterised by compassion, love and genuine concern for those who share with us this very special part of God's creation.Utopian dreams? Perhaps, but let us aim for the stars, even if we only hit a tree!Ladies and gentlemen, you have been very patient with me. Thank you for your attention. Enjoy the rest of this important conference.

Why Obama matters to all of us, everywhere

Four Fingers and a ThumbOn a hot day in a school in Laventille, I am reasoning with a student. This beautiful young woman of 17 years or so. I say to her, what do you want to be? She laughs and says a stripper.Her classmates laugh too, because to them it is a joke, as funny as their lives being lived out in predictable boxes.On a hot day in a school in Laventille painted in colours disturbingly similar to the wall around the Royal Gaol, this beautiful young woman sums up the totality of her potential in saying that she wants to be a stripper.I am not amused. I am also not surprised that she doesn’t hesitate to respond in the negative. I fight the urge to run from the room screaming and crying because she is living proof that you can build buildings but if you don’t build the people, your social fabric will crumble and then what is the point of phallic concrete edifices in you city?I suggest to her that she creates her own reality. I suggest to her that words have power and if you call yourself a whore enough, the ease of the words on your tongue will numb you to the dread reality of your actions.I ask her again what she wants to be. She says that what she wants for herself is not what other people want for her.She says she wants to be a hairdresser and a singer. And I wonder who has told her that she can’t be anything she puts her mind to.

This is from a blog by Trinidadian writer Attilah Springer, who wrote it on Saturday while engaging in the "escapist fantasy" that Barack Hussein Obama might win the US election. I posted it because it is so fundamentally true in so many places that are growing young people of colour.The "No You Can't" mentality is pervasive throughout the world, not just in the USA, and it's in part because our leaders swallowed wholesale and without critical examination the concept that there are first and second and third class citizens in this world, and people of colour never break into the first group, and it's also in part because the popular media really only promote images of non-white people engaging in sex, drugs, violence and angry, nihilistic music. It's also in part because our leaders see no value in supporting an economy or a culture that enables us to create alternative images for our own young people.Until now.The fact that Obama has been elected President of the United States of America means something. It means something to all of us, and it's far more than just the fact that he's African-American (and when we apply that to him, it means something real, it's not just another synonym for black/negro/nigger/ex-slave). It means that the people who elected him, who are overwhelmingly under 30, of all backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, beliefs and class are the people who are creating new realities for us. And maybe it also means that something of that hope, of that new reality, will trickle down to the rest of us in the African diasporic world.  It isn't going to come easily, and it isn't going to come automatically. But what it does mean is that we can no longer fool ourselves that our destinies are out of our hands. And it means too that throughout the Caribbean we must make our own futures. We have to confront those politicians who have nothing but old ideas, stuff fed to them by imperialists and racists and people who didn't even realize that they were imperialistic and racist but who were force-feeding those worldviews anyway, and tell them it ain't like that anymore.And we have to kill the "No We Can't" attitude stone dead.Dare to dream. America just has had its dream come true. Time for us to dream big too.

Obama, Elections, History

I'm in New York City this week. I'm in New York today. It's part of a regular pilgrimage we make to the city every year if we can make it; above all, my husband's a theatre director, and this is part of his investment in his career, this is part of his own research. Since we've been married it's been part of mine, which has been good for the playwriting side of me.But being in the US on election day, especially this election day, is historic.This election is historic. It's already been so -- the fact that two major contenders for president were visible minorities, albeit in the same party. Whoever wins will make history -- the first black president, the first female vice-president, the oldest president. But history has already been made.What's historic for me in my adult life is the participation of the American people in the vote. Since Reagan, which was the last time that I remember an election generating as much discussion as this one, there's been a distancing between the average citizen on the streets from their leadership. Perhaps it was the result of the contempt shown for good sense by the nomination of a B movie actor as Republican Presidential candidate back in 1980, I don't know; it certainly seemed like that to me. So it's true I was seventeen at the time, and frightened for the world. So it's true that it was a terrifying time for those of us who didn't have any say, for those of us who weren't moved by the smooth delivery of the man who would be president (and why wouldn't he have a smooth delivery? He was an actor, after all, not that there's anything wrong with that, but he made his living all his life by being able to deliver lines.) But the election of Reagan marked, it seemed to me, watching from the outside, an abdication on the part of the majority of the American people of their right to participate in the democratic process.As Gil Scott-Heron observed in his commentary on that election:

Well, the first thing I want to say is:Mandate my ass! Because it seems as though we've been convinced that 26% of the registered voters, not even 26% of the American people, but 26% of the registered voters form a mandate or a landslide. 21% voted for Skippy and 3, 4% voted for somebody else who might have been running. 

("B-Movie")

Being on the outside in American elections, watching a fraction of the American people go to the polls and elect leaders whose impact resonated far beyond the borders of the USA, and suffering the consequences of those choices, has not been easy. As a result I've distanced myself from all of the elections. Why work myself up about something I can do nothing about? Why worry about how "they" stole the election in Florida (twice) when I could have never made a difference anyway? And more recently, why get worked up about this presidential race when I could never do anything to affect its outcome?

I know the answer to the last question. It's been answered again and again around the world, and yes, I voted in the if-the-world-could-vote poll, and yes, I voted for Obama. But I'm above all a Bahamian, and Bahamians above all are pragmatic people, and fundamentally what matters is what have we learned from this process? What have we learned from the involvement of ordinary Bahamians in the Obama campaign? What have we learned from the real chance of real change, and how will that affect us at home?

Because our last election was a joke. I've said what I can say about it; we voted based on hype, rather like we go to see movies at Galleria, more than on anything of substance. We never questioned our candidates about anything likely to affect us and our nation in the long run. We never demanded from them what we have seen from the American candidates. We never dissected the spin, if spin it was; we never educated ourselves in any general sense on issues, on anything that might actually matter. No. We preferred to go along with what the newspapers said, with what the talk shows said, voting from emotion rather than reason, allowing both parties to get away with sheer idiocy that has very little to do with the world in which we find ourselves. 

And how much do we really, even now, understand about the world in which we find ourselves? In our Bahama-for-Obama frenzy (which, understand me, I share), how much do we understand what that means for us? How much do we really appreciate about the implications of a victory for Barack, which is (at the risk of jinxing a sure thing) the likely outcome of this vote today? It goes beyond the glib Democrats-are-bad-for-our-economy platitudes (which are pretty shallowly-based it seems to me, and have not really considered the idea from the point of view of history; was Truman bad for our economy? Kennedy? Was Roosevelt throughout his career, or was it only at the beginning when he repealed the idiotic Volstead Act?) 

Here's the thing. How can we, after this election, which has already been historic no matter what the outcome, in that it's likely to be one of the few American election in half a century or so where far more than 26% of the registered voters turned out, go back to thinking of ourselves in the same way? How can we maintain the sense of victimhood that allows us to get away with the systemic mediocrity, institutional cowardice and bullying that have marked our preferred way of doing things for well over twenty years? How can we continue to allow ourselves to doubt ourselves after this?

You tell me.

What we're good at: Farming

School teaches children such lies.One such lie told when I was in school was that agriculture failed in The Bahamas.Common sense back then should've told me that this wasn't true. After all, people in my grandparents' generation were feeding themselves well into my teens. My father's mother hardly ever bought fresh fruit from any food store or outlet -- she had her guavas and bananas and hog bananas and plantains and hog plums and mangoes and coconuts growing in her back yard -- which was on East Bay Street, between Bay and Dowdeswell, a place which was "town" even when I was a kid. My mother's mother kept chickens in her yard on Delancey Street, a yard which was the real kind of yard, with a bunch of houses all in the same lot.And then I grew up and studied anthropology.  And I learned not only about the lie, but where the lie came from.  There's a myth, see, in the world, see, that says that technology is hierarchically stacked and that agriculture is better than horticulture which is better than foraging and fishing which is better than ... well, animal social organization.And in this world, it's true that agriculture failed in The Bahamas.  But what nobody tells you is why it failed.Because of the monolithic worldview that assumes that the history of Europe is the only history that any civilization can ever have -- a history that centres settlement around river deltas and grows cash crops and builds societies around agricultural farms that produce surpluses etc -- the kind of farming that works here in The Bahamas -- farming that is disparaged in literature and discussion as "slash and burn" farming but which is recognized by anthropologists as a valid adaptation to particular terrains and social organizations is ignored completely.  Forget the fact that one person in Long Island or Cat Island can not only feed himself but his entire family, including those who are scattered around the Bahamian archipelago, and all year round, with the range of crops grown on his land.  Forget the fact that the soil that lies trapped in our limestone pockets is not terribly deep but is extraordinarily rich, and produces vegetables and fruits that are pretty darn good -- and among the biggest I've ever seen (I still remember the cabbage I brought back with me from Long Island in 1995 -- huge and sweet and heavy as a cannonball).  Martha Stewart's raving about the produce she cooked with in Nassau doesn't surprise me in the least.But don't take my word for it.  Take word of the homemaking queen herself:

As I mentioned the other day, while I was in the Bahamas, I cooked a fabulous meal with Frederic Demers at Jean-George Vongerichten’s, Café Martinique. I wanted to know where this top chef finds all his beautiful produce and he told me about a wonderful gem of a farm called Holey Farm. I wanted to visit in the worst way, so I grabbed the television crew and off we went. We were greeted by Maria-Therese E. Kemp, who created this amazing place. Holey Farm gets its name because the growing areas are actually situated in the holes of limestone formations. It was very challenging to grow produce at first, in such rugged terrain, but Therese had perseverance and developed many special techniques. [The result:] a most unusual garden that many local chefs rave about!

The Martha Blog : Blog Archive : More from the Bahamas — Holey Farm

Presentation Zen: Is education killing creativity?

Came across this:

our education systems (around the world) are outdated and mainly designed to meet the needs of industrialization. Sir Ken [Robinson] makes many good points — some you may not agree with — but he certainly is not saying that math and science should be taught or studied less, rather that music and the arts and creativity in general should be pursued more.Presentation Zen: Is education killing creativity?

I think I tend to agree.Forget being tentative. I totally agree.Here's what Sir Ken says in his own words:

Every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects ... At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and at the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth. And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are normally given a higher status in school than drama and dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance everyday to children the way we teach them mathematics.

See for yourself - the YouTube clip via Riz Khan:[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAt-3Yk2u80&hl=en&fs=1]And the whole thing itself thanks to TED:http://static.videoegg.com/ted/flash/loader.swfArt and culture make good business.

Nah, ya see ...

It isn't a frivolous thing to protest against the way in which people expect to view Africa (and the rest of the third world for that matter, where skins are dark and palm trees feather the skyline).  I know Hurricane Ike was a bastard, and ripped up the southern Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos and slammed Cuba and is now going to hammer Texas.  I know this, and so do you.But is there any excuse for the kind of coverage provided below?BBC NEWS | Americas | Paradise flattened in storm's wakeHere are other ways in which the BBC has reported on the storm:Images of Ike (almost all of Cuba, which racks up the heartstring points)And here is how the local media covered it:Images of Ike damage in Inagua, including millions of dollars' damage at Morton SaltMy conclusion:  our lens sees damage.  The lens of the BBC seeks human distress.All the better to underline, once again, and subtly (or not-so-subtly) the wonders of being civilized.I wrong?***(15/09/08) Edit: So maybe a little wrong, and certainly a lot biased.  Here are some other links to consider before weighing in on the discussion:New York Times on Ike (May require a password to view)LA Times on IkeHuffington Post on Ike

Thoughts on Independence

I don't know whether this is the best title for this post.  All I really wanted to do was to quote this paragraph from this post:

"Say nothing of my religion," Jefferson once said. "It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."

This is exactly how I feel about myself and my religion, my own faith.I'm thinking about it because last night we held the Independence Gospel Extravaganza at Arawak Cay for the first time since the 30th Anniversary, and naturally that got me thinking about God, faith, and so on.  I do not worship as many of us do.  My faith is not worn on the outside.  I have never much liked the uniform.  I hope that my faith in God guides my life from within.When I was nineteen, I prayed for integrity.  One thing I've discovered -- one shouldn't pray things lightly.  I also prayed once for patience, and was rewarded with a position in the government of The Bahamas! Integrity is something else again, and it comes with all kinds of burdens and responsibilities.  I don't know about the rewards.  I'm not all that interested in the car and the house and the clothes that some people's faiths seem to come equipped with.Last night I was moved by the music and by the singing of almost all of the performers.  We were exhorted to get up and dance in the spirit.  I felt the same way I felt when I hear all good music; I find the Holy Ghost in the human creative spirit.  This is holy.But really?  I feel as Thomas Jefferson did.  Not that I would read my Bible the way he did.  But I return to his comment about his own belief, and say it again:

"Say nothing of my religion ... It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."

Tim Wise: Your Whiteness is Showing

Tim Wise: Your Whiteness is ShowingI'm sure that others have linked to this before me, and I'm coming late to the party, but --it's fun.And rings true.See for yourself.

This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.***First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...Your whiteness is showing.

Go.  Read.  Laugh.  Think.

The Gaulin Wife

The Gaulin Wife - Helen Klonaris' blogLynn Sweeting sent me this link today, and it's with much pride that I announce it here.  I'm not always so excited about new blogs, but I know Helen, I know her work, and I encourage everybody who's interested in thinking differently about ourselves as Bahamians take the time to visit -- specially if you're interested in culture, writing, or identity.Here's an excerpt from what she's thinking:

When individuals step out of line, or cross the line between status quo and the unknown, into the dangerous and wild places of the imagination, we tell them first they are abominations; we tell them they are of the devil. We threaten them with spiritual warfare, eternal damnation and the like. When that doesn't work, when those individuals do not cower in fear for their souls, we send in backup: the physical forces of domination, in this case, the Royal Bahamian Police Force.

From "Poetry Under Investigation" - Helen Klonaris

Hell freezes over

It's not often that Rick Lowe of BlogBahamas and I agree on much. In fact, if you follow my blog or his, you'll conclude that we have maintained a relationship of cordial disagreement for the past few years. Our politics are very much at odds -- I *gasp!* have not-so-vague socialist tendencies and he's *oh no!* a libertarian. Our local politics veer in similar directions. We rarely see eye-to-eye.But I think also we have a relationship built on mutual respect. The most wonderful thing about democracies and freedom of speech is that they permit people who do not agree to live together peaceably and work for a common cause. In this case, the common cause is a better Bahamas and a better world.Those of you who follow his blog will have already seen this link. But for those who don't, let me reiterate his comment. This is worth watching in its entirety, and not because of Dr. Pausch's personal circumstances. Hope -- and a personal and philosophical commitment to hope -- is fundamental to achieving any real change in any real society, and what Dr. Pausch is talking about, ultimately, is hope.And now over to him.[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo&hl=en]

Murders, Christianity, and Research

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 “us-versus-them” 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 “culture of violence” or a “code of the street” ... 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.

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

San Francisco to Offer Care for Every Uninsured Adult

SAN FRANCISCO — 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 doctors’ visits and battled her misery with over-the-counter medications.“Sometimes the pain was so bad, I would just cry,” she said. “I didn’t know what else to do.”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 city’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.

Update on election results - final numbers

Votes CastTotal Registered Voters: 150743Total Votes Cast: 137578Percentage: 91.27%Popular Vote by PartyBDM 1186 0.86% IND 3208 2.33%PLP 64684 47.02%FNM 68500 49.79%Difference: 3816 2.77%Total SeatsFNM 23 56.1%PLP 18 43.9%Difference: 5 12.2%*Why am I posting these? you may wonder. The strife is over, the battle won. Why care about numbers?Precisely because they are numbers. There have been so many words, most of them nonsensical, written or spoken about these elections, that it seems to me that the more information -- the more facts -- we have the better. We can play with the numbers any way we like. They are open for analysis, and analysis leads to spin. But I believe that it's important that people get to create their own spin.Spin away, peeps.More at the links below.

Let's Give 'em Something to Talk About

africa_in_perspective_map.gifThere's a site called Strange Maps, which fascinates me. The owner is a person after my own heart, but more diligent; he(?) understands that mapping is an exercise not only in making sense out of the world, but in dominating the world. A map, like a book, is not a fact; it is an interpretation of a fact, a representation of what the minds understands to be reality. But that "reality" is shaped in the mind by all sorts of things, from the relatively harmless influence of the environment to more sinister influences, like the need to amass or maintain power over people's minds and actions.Let me explain what I mean by that. Take the following images, for example.mercator.jpgThe first is the "normal" map of the world -- the Mercator Projection, designed for sailors from Europe. If you believe what you see, you are left with the impression that Europe and Asia and North America are far bigger than they actually are -- that the USA is as large as South America, and that Europe isn't much smaller than Africa. But what you don't think about is the fact that this map is in fact a distortion of reality. The world is a globe, not a flat piece of paper, and the lines of longitude are not parallel, which means that the distance between them at the equator is greater than the distance between them closer to the poles. These distances are not fixed, which means that Canada isn't as long as it appears on a map.peterms.gifThe second is an adjusted map of the world, which attempts to present a more accurate view of the situation. In this map, the distortions err in a different way. Instead of imitating the actual shape of the continents, it attempts to draw them according to the actual sizes of the land masses See how the equatorial continents suddenly appear far larger than the northern ones? They are accurate in terms of size, not shape.pacific-centric-world-map.gifThen there are the maps that approach the world from different centres. In the one we're most familiar with, the Atlantic Ocean is in the middle, which means that when readers of Roman letters look at it, the first thing they see are the Americas and the second thing they see are Europe. This is a EuroAmerican centric view of the world. In the this one, Japan is in the centre of the world. Quite a difference, huh?mcarthur.jpgAnd then there's the map that places the South Pole at the top of the map rather than the North Pole. It appears upside down to us -- but why should we imagine that North is up and South is down? If we're from the southern Bahamian islands, it's the other way round -- and who's to say we're wrong?But I say all that to say this. This is the map I wanted to share.africa_in_perspective_map.gifIt's from Strange Maps, and shows how big the continent of Africa really is in terms of the square footage of different dominant countries. In the case of the USA, the non-continental US states have been added to the total size of the country, so that the sizes of Alaska and Hawai'i have been calculated in. But what's really illuminating about the whole image is the discussion that it spawned on the blog. If you read it, you will understand just how much influence what people want to believe -- what they do believe according to their deepest prejudices -- leads them to justify nonsense.Something to think about, isn't it? Something to talk about, too, I hope.

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

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 “American” 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 “trying to understand the ghetto,” and the classist and racist implications of the word “ghetto” in American social society. Hell, I was even going to discuss the ignorant imperialist and colonialist tropes of associating the English language with “prosperity” — 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. It’s a disheartening feeling, one of those can’t people just see that for themselves? feelings. Those feelings that you can’t write everything down; you can’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

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 — Fred Mitchell of Foreign Affairs and Alfred Sears of Education — 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 — absurdly — 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 — more important — 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.

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 — who include both the oppressors, who have sacrificed their humanity, and the oppressed, who have had their humanity stripped from them — 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 — 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.