Naive post-colonialist claptrap

Greg Castle responds to Irish journalist and writer, Kevin Myers’ article, in which he criticises left-wing opinion on Africa and the so-called “liberal consensus”.  His essay appeared in The Irish Independent.. To read the article that incited this response, see - http://africaunauthorised.com/?p=1311

As much as this article (see link above) was clearly a brave and controversial one to write, and there are undoubtedly many truths within it, it is still clearly a rather naive, post-colonialist approach. It conveniently omits the centuries of damage caused by the colonialists themselves, Britain being one of the worst, to otherwise very peaceful nations and tribes, living in harmony with nature and feeding themselves perfectly. The Egyptians, Malians, Ghanaians, Moroccans, etc, were way more civilised than the Dark Aged Europeans, and thousands of years earlier too. That was until they were trustingly duped and forced to grow crops for the Europeans that they didn't consume themselves. Tobacco, coffee, tea, wheat, and mine diamonds, gold and oil, none of which made their lives richer, just a few handfuls of colourful glass beads perhaps. 

Let's not forget the slave trade to the Americas, making those once culturally rich countries in Africa rather more and more dependent on their colonial masters.

So it suited the colonialists at the time to rape and pillage, leaving in their wake mayhem and devastation. That's why they feel a degree of guilt to this day. But the damage has been done. It'll take much more than Bob Galdorf, Bono, Bill Gates and the like's charitable handouts to correct.

A rather ironic article from someone who comes from a Nation where a third of the slobby, lazy and undisciplined population get weekly charity of a similar sort, from hard working individual tax payers in the form of the Dole..

Liberal defence of Islam may be a double-edged sword

There is undoubtedly a fine line between noble liberals who stand up for the disenfranchised Muslims, taking a stand against Islamophobes, and those who speak up for the many, particularly women, who feel completely oppressed by the religion of their birth.

As one who abhors religious fundamentalism of any form, and cannot honestly take any religion seriously, other than for its therapeutic and cathartic side effects, I have always attempted to be as true to my conscience as I possibly can when it comes to taking a stance of this nature.   Yet when it comes to arguing for or against much of the Islamic response to Western ideology I find myself somewhat betwixt and between.

Why?  Well simply because I can see the argument from just about all three dimensional sides (the naïve and narrow-minded West, the naïve though well intentioned liberal Islamic supporters and the downtrodden women and gays born into Islam).  I do not however see the argument for persecution and murder in the name of any religion; Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other.  After all they have been the main perpetrators throughout history and continue to be to this day, neither one better than the other.  Of course, always with the argument of, “but when it’s in the name of ‘my’ god, then it’s sanctioned by the Holy one and therefore justified”.  Interesting how ‘god’ appears to be the instigator of so much murder and mayhem from all sides throughout history, because ‘he’ is the justification for it after-all.  And all in the name of ‘peace’!  Rather, I am conflicted because I detest religious fundamentalism and their ‘black and white’ tinted spectacled view on the world around them, indoctrinated by parents, teachers and preachers during their most vulnerable years, as much as I’m appalled by the xenophobic blanket approach by many around me when it comes to Islam as a whole.

The truth as I see it is complex and yet very simple.  Islam is not that dissimilar to Judaism and much of Christianity, particularly Catholicism (Ooh, I know some will be angry with that statement..).  After all, they all have one ‘god’ (call ‘it’ what you will), dress has evolved from similar garb, traditions of bowing down, going on one’s knees, chanting, hypnotising, food restrictions at particular times, palatial places of worship, passing judgement, and of course passing the collection basket.  These are all common traits and yet certainly not an exhaustive list by any means.  But within each of those, moral guides and generally well intentioned religious books (not forgetting the major parts eliminated or bastardised to suit ‘the cause’ over time), there is too much room for human interpretation and misinterpretation.  Assuming of course that these ‘books’ were in fact written, or even inspired by ‘the holy one’ ‘himself’, ‘he’ did ‘himself’ no favours by allowing space for misinterpretation and prognostication to creep in.  As a result the sects that now exist, having felt disenfranchised or side-lined by the mainstream for whatever reason (as Jesus did 2000 odd years ago), have felt compelled to start their own version of the religion to suit their own means.  Of course, believe what you will, but man passed down these stories for centuries via word-of-mouth before others wrote the ‘books’ in the first place, and therefore much of the translation has been lost, and much has been misconstrued to suit the preachers of the day. 

I would argue that much like Workers Unions, all Religious Foundations are for the enrichment of the top dogs, who fleece the flock in the name of what is apparently all in the flock’s best interests.  The more naïve and downtrodden they are the better. Let the Vatican’s billions be a great example of that.  But it must be highlighted that it was ‘men’ who wrote these books (unless some of the bits left out were also penned by women), and therefore rather sexist and demeaning of women in general.  After-all, they were apparently the ‘temptresses of all things evil’ according to some interpretations.  I should know, my wife often temps me into partaking of yet another glass of wine..  Perhaps it could therefore be argued that ‘god’ was rather clumsy in his manufacturing prowess after creating ‘perfect man in his own image’, having also created the window of opportunity for ‘evil’ to creep in, in the first place.  Of course ‘he’ created everything, so there’s no room for being selective here to suit our cause is there?  But I digress..

On the other hand however, there are many women, particularly Muslim women and gay Muslims, who have absolutely no voice.  Many are oppressed, mostly out of ignorance and ‘tradition’, and ridiculous interpretations of Islamic laws and beliefs originally penned by men in the very first place.  Men on the whole have always preferred their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or else if they must go out, under wraps for fear of losing them to temptation.  Just because we are physically stronger (usually), doesn’t make us keepers and controllers of women, surely.  There has to be a place in society for Muslim women and others to openly and freely speak out for themselves and debate interpretations of their own faith.  Surely they should be able to sit beside men in the same section of their Mosque and wear whatever they wish to?  Why are Muslim men and many women so afraid of this?  Is it because their religion is so insecure it is perhaps treading on broken glass? 

Nevertheless, there is a strong argument for the fact that people like me, with our so-called liberal, well intentioned defence of Islam on the whole, that we are in the process in fact silencing the oppressed within that very religion.  The oppressed who are then muzzled by liberal sympathy for their religion as a whole, warts and all, and therefore left with no room to raise their voices of discontent.  Some may argue that it is a form of reverse racism that encourages ‘liberals’ to defend the downtrodden, even if some of the criticisms resulting in the 'putting down' are well founded.  That may be true.

That said, of course it is up to those oppressed within any religion to take a stance for themselves, given the right environment in which to do so.  But with Islam it is no easy feat, as one stands to lose one’s head in the process, or at best be condemned to stoning.  As barbaric as it may sound, and it is, don’t forget the Jewish stonings which took place not so long ago, or the pro-choice abortion doctors murdered by Christian fundamentalists with a ‘directive from God’ to sort out the ‘Devil’ on ‘his’ behalf.  None of those religions are in any place to throw stones within their own glass houses.

So my quandary remains.  Do I err on the side of supporting the rights of good Muslims so that they may continue to take pride of place in society amongst all of us without prejudice, and their understandable anger at many Western paradoxes and ambiguous ignorance?  Or do I err on the side of those very ideologies I find abhorrent and demeaning of the very people they profess to represent, by standing back in silence in order to allow the voiceless to use the now wide open debate forum to state their case from within?

As with most things in life, I suspect the answer lies somewhere betwixt and between..

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/10/25/comment/an-open-letter-to-ben-affleck/

Greg Castle's response to Noseweek's article 'What the Aussies can learn from us'..

Having travelled to Australia many times over the past two decades, spending time with my Australian born wife’s family and friends every couple of years, I found the recent Noseweek article by Sue Segar, titled ‘What the Aussies can learn from us’, along with the response letter from Sandra Devine of Queensland, Australia, ‘Right about Aussie bigotry’, most interesting and felt compelled to contribute. 

These issues are far more complex than they appear at face value, however I have often believed that if one gives people hand outs, one breeds lethargy and lack of ambition, and that goes for South Africa too.  It can also be a very good disguise for a form of keeping people in their place of birth and mindset (i.e. a form of Apartheid in itself, as is the case of the Aborigines in Australia). This in-turn inevitably leads to massive social problems, societal breakdown, substance abuse, etc., merely as a form of escapism from the realities of life.  And yet white Australians generally put that down to merely culture.

 Differently to Australia, in South Africa, despite Apartheid, people constantly mixed and interacted with one another across race groups, cultures and creeds.  It may have been primarily within the work environment, but most white kids grew up with black house cleaners and babysitters, farm labourers, office workers, shopkeepers, waiters, cleaners, neighbours, etc., etc., and interacted with their families daily.  Many of us grew up with mates of different races as kids, and were encouraged to do so.  White kids particularly on farms in Natal and E.Cape grew up speaking either Zulu or Xhosa respectively before their own family language of English.  

Although many private schools allowed the admission of black kids from as early as the ‘70’s, government schools didn't until the late ‘80’s.  Yet contrary to this, we had these draconian laws that prohibited me from inviting my black boyhood friend and coloured fellow Navy sailor during National Service, out for dinner at any restaurant in town, where it was regarded as 'whites only'.  We had to have dinner in hotels or out of the way establishments.  Yet we interacted and knew one another rather well, better than we even realised.  We had so much in common, including love for music and sense of humour, yet freedom of choice wasn't one of them.

My impression is that things are rather different in Aus when it comes to ‘true’ integration.  My summation is that Australians have never been forced to really understand their indigenous people other than from a selective, somewhat distant 'white settler' perspective.  Instead I have always got the impression, despite the best intentions and apparent well-meaning of most Australians, that society and government have approached it in a rather patronising, paternalistic manner, thinking that perhaps to be the best approach.  It may sound rather harsh, but there’s a remnant of the rather old fashioned way that the somewhat 'self-important' and 'pompous' Brits use to deal with the indigenous people in the colonies. "Nice but shame, they're simple folk with simple needs and wants".  

I think Nyunggai Warren Mundine (Executive Chairman of Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce)  summed it up rather well when interviewed recently, saying that "Poverty persists because we treat communities such as the Ampilatwatja like dependent children and smother them in bureaucratic mire.  Let's start treating them like adults."  

History books need to perhaps be rewritten by those from all sides of the spectrum as they have here now and continue to be.   The Islamic 'invasion' into Australia is a case in point.  It was somehow alright for there to have been a 'British/European/Christian' invasion a few centuries back and since, (although Italians, Greeks, Portuguese and the like were treated as second class citizens until very recently), and yet now it's just not 'cricket'.  Australians must apparently have an ‘Australian culture’ and set of values to 'fit in' and to be accepted, whatever that means?  But that's another discussion, yet very closely linked to the mind-set that I believe many very well meaning, relatively open minded Aussies still quietly have deep down, that Aborigines are just not the same as us. 

 This is certainly not finger pointing, it’s just how things naturally are unless there is a real appreciation and desire to truly understand the other perspective and to see how contradictory history can be when it comes to culture and religion.  Cultural affairs worldwide have moved on dramatically in the last few decades alone.  Ironically perhaps, South Africa had the advantage of having to shake a 'statutory', openly racist monkey off its back, which may have expedited things.  But more importantly, deep down, South Africans of all races knew one another rather well, which made the cultural, political and economic transition much easier than most of us thought it could ever have been.  There wasn't much to overcome culturally from an acceptance point of view.  Even with rather radically different approaches to marriage (e.g. acquiring wives for lobola, polygamy), herbal medicine, ancestral beliefs, tribal laws, etc.  

In Australia I perceive a real sense of general suspicion, even down to deep-seated hatred that I never experienced growing up in Apartheid South Africa, despite the atrocities. Although it may sound sanctimonious in saying, ‘What the Aussies can learn from us’, it appears it may be so.  Perhaps we should be proud of what we've become, despite all odds and much of the negativity that we may dwell on day-to-day.  This glass is half full..

Forwarded by Martin Welz (Editor of Noseweek Magazine) 

Article written by Greg Castle

Founding Managing Director of strategic management and marketing planning consultancy - Torquil Strategic Marketing, and boutique winery - Brothers Wines.