Greetings,
I listened to a call-in programme in the Caribbean on which there was a panel discussion about the response, and accountability, of government to the people. Good, thought I, as that is what democracy is all about. However, some members of the public who called in to the programme to voice their views, gave me cause for concern.Their tone did not seem to express a genuine interest in the business of accountability by government in a democratic society, but rather that the government was not being 'subject' to their bidding. I guess some folk are experiencing difficulty in understanding what government is about, and how to engage it. Moreover, there is still the belief by some that there is still room for the colonial 'cutchey' (forgive me if my spelling of the word is incorrect.). This means, it is considered necessary to satisfy this ancient custom of subservience in order to be met with approval, even in the 21st century. What was more disturbing was the impression of a distinct air of superiority towards the powers that be underlying the stance of these callers.
Why am I going down this road?
History has a habit of repeating itself. According to my parents, this was the type of behaviour they had to contend with in their youthful days on their Caribbean island when it was a Crown Colony, and which continued after they had left it. It supported a false belief that if what is to be done, put forward, or presented, is not satisfactory to 'those who matter the most', which did not necessarily mean the people per se, then nothing will go on.
"The government is the method of management used by the state". (The Pattern of Government, Rust 1969, p.2)
Government is not in place to serve the few to the exclusion of everybody else. It is not a
'Domestic Servant', or to be manipulated by 'the chosen' to the detriment of the state. Many a conflict has taken place around the world because of these misguided notions.
I will explain part of the above by referring to history passed on to me.
I use the term 'Domestic Servant', because for some folk, the only reference they have in order to communicate with The Government, authorities of the state, and certain individuals at home and from abroad, is the condescending manner used towards the employees of the former islandwide 'Domestic Service Industry' in the days of Crown Colony, and the early days of Independence. This intrinsic behavioural attitude of 'subservience to be paid to...', is the root cause of agitation, and is an impediment to the conversation that should be taking place to bring about response, and accountability from the government, that some members of the public crave.
So, to those who still have this thinking pattern, I suggest you...
Forget it.
Bury it.
Get over it.
Accept that the former days, and the way it was, won't be coming back, EVER!
...and instead...
Add to your thinking, RESPECT (which in turn will be mutual).
Come up with something constructive, practical, and sensible, with which to engage government in the 21st century, and will be of benefit to the state.
Response and accountability by government may be forthcoming, if the level of engagement is in keeping with today's world.
Peace
Grace
Tuesday 10 March 2015
CHANGE has not eluded some of us after all!
Greetings,
Interesting development.
Finally, it has dawned on some politicians that the historically infamous 'cooking exercise' of long ago (and whatever form that may take today), propaganda, hysteria, large crowd gatherings with trumpeting from the platform about issues and potential policies which have no substance, will not a future government make in the 21st century!
The realization has kicked in that one actually needs credible PLANS, and SOLUTIONS, something in the kitty to back it up, and an informed public, in order to make any kind of impact in the daily lives of the electorate.
My, my, my, it is is never too late for a shower of rain, eh?
I wonder how our friends, 'the old timers' over there in their 'Bubble Kingdom' are taking all this? After 50+ years of the same old, same old, these new fandangle ideas must be quite a shock to the system. Bless their hearts!!!
Here is a grand opportunity to break with the past. I wonder how it will turn out?
Anyhow, I say congrats to the brave who have decided to move forward, but as the old saying goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Peace
Grace
Interesting development.
Finally, it has dawned on some politicians that the historically infamous 'cooking exercise' of long ago (and whatever form that may take today), propaganda, hysteria, large crowd gatherings with trumpeting from the platform about issues and potential policies which have no substance, will not a future government make in the 21st century!
The realization has kicked in that one actually needs credible PLANS, and SOLUTIONS, something in the kitty to back it up, and an informed public, in order to make any kind of impact in the daily lives of the electorate.
My, my, my, it is is never too late for a shower of rain, eh?
I wonder how our friends, 'the old timers' over there in their 'Bubble Kingdom' are taking all this? After 50+ years of the same old, same old, these new fandangle ideas must be quite a shock to the system. Bless their hearts!!!
Here is a grand opportunity to break with the past. I wonder how it will turn out?
Anyhow, I say congrats to the brave who have decided to move forward, but as the old saying goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Peace
Grace
Monday 2 March 2015
Defending Human Rights: the approach is the key
Greetings,
This post is not directed at any human rights group, organization, or persons who have an interest in human rights. It is not intended to criticize or promote any case. It is about what type of approach, I believe, should be given consideration before defending citizens who have experienced injustice by the State.
The rights of citizens do not exist in a vacuum. Their rights exist within a political, judicial, social, educational, cultural, and economic context. To advocate for, and defend human rights, it is important that it is dealt with objectively, that there is a thorough knowledge of the workings of government, its language, how to communicate with it, and awareness of the possible implications that may arise, if the correct approach is not taken. Diplomacy and tact, is one approach, which should be carefully thought out, prior to dealing with issues on human rights. The interests of the complainant, and all other parties concerned, should not be jeopardized by disrespect, lack of decorum, subjective perspectives, and self-interest.
Choosing the correct approach should be the fundamental principle when defending the rights of the citizen, defending the rights of the citizen within the rule of law, and to encourage public support. An area of particular importance, is the involvement of external organizations when they are invited to support a case, and/or to present findings, in whatever the human rights case may be. That task becomes difficult for them when the original presentation of the case to a government was in an atmosphere of hostility, and contention. No case can achieve the desired result when the approach is inappropriate and negative.
This is not suggesting that the rights of the citizen should not be defended as one thinks fit. On the contrary, one is entitled to their opinion on how to proceed with a matter. However, it is the approach, its implementation, and the effect of it, which is a contributory factor to the outcome.
If human rights is to defend the rights of the people, let the people be the focus, and the approach taken be in their interest. This is more productive than blurring the issues, creating a tussle to score political points, irrelevant posturing, and useless manoeuvring.
Peace
Grace
This post is not directed at any human rights group, organization, or persons who have an interest in human rights. It is not intended to criticize or promote any case. It is about what type of approach, I believe, should be given consideration before defending citizens who have experienced injustice by the State.
The rights of citizens do not exist in a vacuum. Their rights exist within a political, judicial, social, educational, cultural, and economic context. To advocate for, and defend human rights, it is important that it is dealt with objectively, that there is a thorough knowledge of the workings of government, its language, how to communicate with it, and awareness of the possible implications that may arise, if the correct approach is not taken. Diplomacy and tact, is one approach, which should be carefully thought out, prior to dealing with issues on human rights. The interests of the complainant, and all other parties concerned, should not be jeopardized by disrespect, lack of decorum, subjective perspectives, and self-interest.
Choosing the correct approach should be the fundamental principle when defending the rights of the citizen, defending the rights of the citizen within the rule of law, and to encourage public support. An area of particular importance, is the involvement of external organizations when they are invited to support a case, and/or to present findings, in whatever the human rights case may be. That task becomes difficult for them when the original presentation of the case to a government was in an atmosphere of hostility, and contention. No case can achieve the desired result when the approach is inappropriate and negative.
This is not suggesting that the rights of the citizen should not be defended as one thinks fit. On the contrary, one is entitled to their opinion on how to proceed with a matter. However, it is the approach, its implementation, and the effect of it, which is a contributory factor to the outcome.
If human rights is to defend the rights of the people, let the people be the focus, and the approach taken be in their interest. This is more productive than blurring the issues, creating a tussle to score political points, irrelevant posturing, and useless manoeuvring.
Peace
Grace
Monday 29 September 2014
Emotion and trivia versus facts and constructive criticism
Greetings,
On reading a particular Caribbean newspaper, I found it interesting how those who want change to advantage themselves, rather than the nation, are never able to come up with practical suggestions or solutions for the benefit of all. Negative criticism, put down, humiliation, and ridicule, are the order of the day to prove the perceived incompetence of 'them', as opposed to the self ordained enlightened 'us'.
Emotion and trivia can contribute to:
1. heightened blood pressure
2. remaining in a static position.
Could this be the reason why the glass clinkers, and the old guys and gals network cannot get any momentum, so the only thing to do is to blame everybody else for the social and economic conditions?
A veteran from pre-independence times told me about his sightings of the 'happy' happenings on the verandah which was very vocal, and laced with colourful language. According to the veteran, how much of the discussion focused on the national interest was hard to say. However, from his vantage-point of the sidewalk, the voices of the gathering suggested it did not include people like him, or the social class of the masses among its number.
Venting the emotions and exchanging trivia over a glass of Scotch on the Rocks, and other intoxicating beverages available, may have served a purpose where only the privileged could afford to indulge in the expensive liquor. Today that ritual has its limitations. It can take one a short distance only, because, before long, the need for hard facts with supportive evidence, and constructive criticism kicks in, if any attention is to be drawn to issues of concern.
Furthermore, a separatist approach which rides high on a verandah platform, and serves the self-interest of the few, will never be an effective tool for dialogue, to create change, or advance a society. It is counterproductive, unproductive, destructive, and a means to no end. Facts and constructive criticism to encourage productive debate is sacrificed for expediency, and short lived unsustainable policies, with charitable deeds thrown in for good measure.
It appears the message is hard to understand. Old habits die hard. One-upmanship and a separatist mentality will achieve nothing. Even now it has produced zero results.
In my view, the way around this obstacle is to create an environment where everyone can be a part of the conversation that encourages constructive criticism in the national interest, and the presentation of facts that can be understood by all its people.
If we are to share the same space, we need to be on the same page regarding how that space is to be developed and advanced. Cooperation, and a unified force, is the key to progress while we agree to disagree.This is what can make a difference, and move a people, and nation forward.
Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with my position is neither here nor there, but please, I ask you, do not be emotive and trivialize it. Look at the facts, if you can, then criticize constructively at your leisure.
Peace
Grace
On reading a particular Caribbean newspaper, I found it interesting how those who want change to advantage themselves, rather than the nation, are never able to come up with practical suggestions or solutions for the benefit of all. Negative criticism, put down, humiliation, and ridicule, are the order of the day to prove the perceived incompetence of 'them', as opposed to the self ordained enlightened 'us'.
Emotion and trivia can contribute to:
1. heightened blood pressure
2. remaining in a static position.
Could this be the reason why the glass clinkers, and the old guys and gals network cannot get any momentum, so the only thing to do is to blame everybody else for the social and economic conditions?
A veteran from pre-independence times told me about his sightings of the 'happy' happenings on the verandah which was very vocal, and laced with colourful language. According to the veteran, how much of the discussion focused on the national interest was hard to say. However, from his vantage-point of the sidewalk, the voices of the gathering suggested it did not include people like him, or the social class of the masses among its number.
Venting the emotions and exchanging trivia over a glass of Scotch on the Rocks, and other intoxicating beverages available, may have served a purpose where only the privileged could afford to indulge in the expensive liquor. Today that ritual has its limitations. It can take one a short distance only, because, before long, the need for hard facts with supportive evidence, and constructive criticism kicks in, if any attention is to be drawn to issues of concern.
Furthermore, a separatist approach which rides high on a verandah platform, and serves the self-interest of the few, will never be an effective tool for dialogue, to create change, or advance a society. It is counterproductive, unproductive, destructive, and a means to no end. Facts and constructive criticism to encourage productive debate is sacrificed for expediency, and short lived unsustainable policies, with charitable deeds thrown in for good measure.
It appears the message is hard to understand. Old habits die hard. One-upmanship and a separatist mentality will achieve nothing. Even now it has produced zero results.
In my view, the way around this obstacle is to create an environment where everyone can be a part of the conversation that encourages constructive criticism in the national interest, and the presentation of facts that can be understood by all its people.
If we are to share the same space, we need to be on the same page regarding how that space is to be developed and advanced. Cooperation, and a unified force, is the key to progress while we agree to disagree.This is what can make a difference, and move a people, and nation forward.
Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with my position is neither here nor there, but please, I ask you, do not be emotive and trivialize it. Look at the facts, if you can, then criticize constructively at your leisure.
Peace
Grace
Friday 2 May 2014
University is about society
Greetings,
This is an interesting question.
How widespread is racism at uni? - The Guardian, Friday March 14, 2014
Before I went to university I met an undergraduate. I wanted to know what is done to gain the degree, and what university is like. The undergraduate answered the first part of my question. To the second part the response was unexpected - "university is about society".
The students who enter university are from all walks of life, bringing with them their belief systems, prejudices, values, attitudes, norms, and mores. There is no guarantee the higher education experience will bring about a change in behaviour.
Wherever one chooses to have a university education, it is a battleground, just as life is outside of it. Fitting in, is difficult enough. It becomes more difficult when there is racial insensitivity.
So what is the answer to this question?
Take a position.
Forward
Grace
This is an interesting question.
How widespread is racism at uni? - The Guardian, Friday March 14, 2014
Before I went to university I met an undergraduate. I wanted to know what is done to gain the degree, and what university is like. The undergraduate answered the first part of my question. To the second part the response was unexpected - "university is about society".
The students who enter university are from all walks of life, bringing with them their belief systems, prejudices, values, attitudes, norms, and mores. There is no guarantee the higher education experience will bring about a change in behaviour.
Wherever one chooses to have a university education, it is a battleground, just as life is outside of it. Fitting in, is difficult enough. It becomes more difficult when there is racial insensitivity.
So what is the answer to this question?
Take a position.
Forward
Grace
Circles
Greetings,
I understand a Cambridge college at Cambridge University chose a theme for its annual ball namely, "Gone with the Wind".
Cambridge college cancels 'racist' Gone With The Wind themed ball - The Guardian, Wednesday March 19, 2014
This is the title of a 1939 film set in the period of the American Civil War.
For further information click here: "Gone with the Wind"
In my opinion, with some decisions, the thinking that underlies the decision, is more important than the decision itself.
Values, attitudes, norms, and mores help to form one's thinking. Thinking patterns will not change on request.
I believe, if there were no objections, "Gone With The Wind", would have, gone on.
It is very unlikely issues on race will be a thing of the past any time soon.
Hattie McDaniel, an African-American actress in the 1939 film "Gone with the Wind", played the controversial role of Mammy, the very busy, and ever conversant house slave. For her role she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, the first African-American actress to do so. In Hattie McDaniel's time, African-Americans experienced extreme racial stereotyping, racial prejudice, and segregation.
Forward
Grace
I understand a Cambridge college at Cambridge University chose a theme for its annual ball namely, "Gone with the Wind".
Cambridge college cancels 'racist' Gone With The Wind themed ball - The Guardian, Wednesday March 19, 2014
This is the title of a 1939 film set in the period of the American Civil War.
For further information click here: "Gone with the Wind"
In my opinion, with some decisions, the thinking that underlies the decision, is more important than the decision itself.
Values, attitudes, norms, and mores help to form one's thinking. Thinking patterns will not change on request.
I believe, if there were no objections, "Gone With The Wind", would have, gone on.
It is very unlikely issues on race will be a thing of the past any time soon.
Hattie McDaniel, an African-American actress in the 1939 film "Gone with the Wind", played the controversial role of Mammy, the very busy, and ever conversant house slave. For her role she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, the first African-American actress to do so. In Hattie McDaniel's time, African-Americans experienced extreme racial stereotyping, racial prejudice, and segregation.
Forward
Grace
I, too, support Oxford
Greetings,
The Black and Minority Ethnic students at Oxford University have 'voiced' their experiences.
Oxford's 'students of colour' on being 'othered' at university - The Guardian, Wednesday March 12, 2014.
I have no quarrel with anyone at Oxford. However, I do take exception to the inappropriate questions, comments, and remarks, made to the BME students at the university.
The BME students are under no obligation to justify their presence at Oxford. It is obvious they fulfilled the requirements for entry through the university's normal admissions procedure.
I am in support of the BME students', "I, too, am Oxford " campaign. It is unfortunate the students found it necessary to take this informative approach to raise awareness of their concerns.
Preconceived notions of 'others', avoids seeing what is really there - a human being. It is the preparedness to accept new people, that makes cohesion, cooperation, and respect possible.
Forgive me for coining a passage of scripture, but the truth is, we have been around this 'race' mountain long enough. It is time to change direction, and maximize the positive opportunities, particularly those which come in human vessels, to enrich learning.
I wish all students at the University of Oxford every success.
Forward
Grace
The Black and Minority Ethnic students at Oxford University have 'voiced' their experiences.
Oxford's 'students of colour' on being 'othered' at university - The Guardian, Wednesday March 12, 2014.
I have no quarrel with anyone at Oxford. However, I do take exception to the inappropriate questions, comments, and remarks, made to the BME students at the university.
The BME students are under no obligation to justify their presence at Oxford. It is obvious they fulfilled the requirements for entry through the university's normal admissions procedure.
I am in support of the BME students', "I, too, am Oxford " campaign. It is unfortunate the students found it necessary to take this informative approach to raise awareness of their concerns.
Preconceived notions of 'others', avoids seeing what is really there - a human being. It is the preparedness to accept new people, that makes cohesion, cooperation, and respect possible.
Forgive me for coining a passage of scripture, but the truth is, we have been around this 'race' mountain long enough. It is time to change direction, and maximize the positive opportunities, particularly those which come in human vessels, to enrich learning.
I wish all students at the University of Oxford every success.
Forward
Grace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)