It’s Not Sports, its Politics Stupid: (Jamaica’s Ascendancy in World Athletics)

Jamaican, Usain Bolt, fastest man in the world

The balance of power in world athletics has finally shifted. American dominance of the popular sport is well and truly over. Since August 1936 when American Jesse Owens accomplished athletics history by capturing four gold medals (100m, 200m, 4×1 relay and long jump) at the World Championships in Berlin, Germany, the American reign has been absolute and complete. No nation, large or small, resource rich or resource-poor could beat the American sprinters. Their triumphant intervention in the second World War had rendered the United States the new world super power. With no clear rivals except Communist Russia and the entire Soviet bloc, the post war years saw America becoming increasingly accustomed to domination and power and being a top of the world – militaristically, politically, economically, technologically and in terms of industrial and scientific development.

Sport was for America another avenue by which to display its skill and exhibit its superiority. Though there were glimpses of talent in other nations, none had managed to outshine and outperform America in track and field. America’s contingent at world games, including the Olympics, was always the largest, its medal haul the biggest and its place atop the world standings persistently secure. The world naturally basked in America’s glory and stood in awe of the constancy of their achievements. Jesse Owens became the marker of such success and later Carl Lewis, Marion Jones, Gail Devers and Michael Johnson – who helped to further and embed American domination in world athletics. Johnson himself set a world record in the 200m sprint of 19:32 secs, a time so outstanding that it was unsure whether it would ever be beat for a long time. But it has. Jesse Owens’ 1936 achievements – mighty and astounding as they were – remained the historical marker that no one could conquer. That is, until now.

Today, some 86 years later, a young 22 year old called Usain Bolt from the small island nation of Jamaica, has shattered all expectations. Usain Bolt bolted to victory in both the 100m (in world record time of 9.69 secs) and the 200m (19:30 secs) at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and then breaking his own records in the 100 m (9.58 secs), and 200m (19.19 secs) at the famous Berlin stadium where Jessie Owens gained international prominence. Usain Bolt is now the first man in the history of world athletics to hold both the Olympic and World Championship records for the 100 and 200m simultaneously. Jesse Owen’s marker has not only been equalled. It is unquestionably surpassed. Owen’s 9.4 secs in the 100 yards, notwithstanding.

THE WINDS OF CHANGE FROM 1948 ONWARDS

Jamaica knew this day would one day come. The evidence has been continuously clear. At the London Games in 1948 and later in Helsinki in 1952, three black men from Jamaica – Herb McKinley, George Rhoden and Arthur Wint sprinted into athletic history. Although McKinley captured gold in the 4×4 relays in Helsinki in 1952, it was the persistent silver of second place, and bronze that became the precedent for this nation, especially at the Olympics.

Gold would come for the likes of Veronica Campbell- Brown and Asafa Powell in the contemporary area of sprinting but it was silver and bronze that occupied our cabinet. So embedded had Jamaica’s silver and bronze rush become that the popular Jamaican sprint Queen, Merlene Ottey, became known as the ‘Bronze Queen’. And there is little awe surrounding second place finishers. American domination meant that Jamaica – although present in every final at the world level- and medalling consistently, would never get the recognition it deserved from the global media and sport authorities. This was about to change. The tide had begun to change.

 At the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Jamaican Deon Hemmings hurdled her way to the country’s first gold medal in the 400m. What seemed impossible suddenly became a reality. Her victory would inspire a nation and set a mark for other athletes. Jamaica’s presence on the athletics track could no longer be ignored. Suddenly, it seemed that the black green and gold was everywhere. After Jamaica’s cracker of a performance at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney Australia and later at the 2006 Commonwealth Games also in Sydney, the global media began to pay increased attention to this small Caribbean country inhabited by a mere 2.7 million people, and whose athletes had a rich tradition of sprinting, but for whom the gold rush had eluded for more than fifty years. Jamaica’s successful showing in world athletics had now become obvious and inescapable beyond the track. Many governments, developed and developing, had begun to take notice of this tiny 3rd world nation whose economy was in tatters, where crime mushroomed, whose size was negligible on the world map but whose sheer confidence and skill was rendering it a real competitive force beyond the sporting world. After all, sport was always a measure of a country’s stature in the world. It was therefore only natural that Jamaica’s increasing success on the track would begin to offend some in the political class of highly developed countries.

 WHEN POLITICS TRUMPS SPORTS: NEW ZEALAND DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER SNOBS JAMAICA AFTER COMMONWEALTH VICTORY

 During Jamaica’s dominance at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne (Australia) in 2006, I was a student in New Zealand. In a tribute to the New Zealand athletes in the House of Parliament, then New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen remarked: “The only country to have done better than New Zealand is Jamaica, and given Jamaica’s crime rate, we would not want to swap places with them”. I could not believe my ears. A Commonwealth Head of State was failing to acknowledge the fortunes of a fellow member of the Commonwealth, choosing instead to undermine Jamaica’s achievement by remarking on the political performance of its government in the area of crime control. Jamaica’s ascendance was no longer about sport; it was now politics through and through.

The Third World ‘other’ was to be snubbed and relegated to consolidate the dominance and superiority of the First World. It was apparently difficult for this highly developed nation to accept that a Third World society – a kind of non-entity in the real world- battered by high crime and limited resources – could have produced such an abundance of talent, and excelled in such a marvellous and fundamental way – to capture world attention, while highly developed societies with robust economies were not achieving the kind of victories to match its status and stature in the world.

WHEN POLITICS TRUMPS SPORT: HILTLER SNOBS JESSE OWENS AT 1936 BERLIN GAMES?

This situation is not insignificant as way back in 1936 at the World Games in Berlin, Adolph Hitler was said to be using the Games to consolidate Germany’s resurgence as a world power. Germany indeed dominated the games with victories (toppeing the medal tally), and Hitler by this time was spreading German Nazism, which elevated the so-called Aryan people as a master race and while positioning people of African ethnicity as inferior. When the African-American Jesse Owens stunned the world by claiming four gold medals at these Berlin games, Hitler is reported to have avoided acknowledging his victories and refused to shake his hands (see Wikipedia, Jesse Owens). In his Memoirs, Inside the Third Reich, written and recollected by war armaments Minister, Albert Speer, it is noted that:

“Each of the German victories and there were a surprising number of these made Hitler happy, but he was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvellous coloured American runner, Jesse Owens. People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilised whites and hence should be excluded from future games (Wikipedia, Jesse Owens)”.

Although Owens disagreed that he was snubbed by Hitler, instead declaring that he was snubbed by the American political class who failed to send him congratulatory messages, invite him to the White House or bestowed on him any honours – the above incidents are significant. They first speak volumes about the power of politics to intrude into the sporting arena. Secondly, Usain Bolt’s eclipse of various world records embeds Jamaica’s authority as the sprint kingdom and heralds this Caribbean nation’s supremacy in world athletics. At the same time, and even more significantly, it exposed the now weakened, inferior position of its main rival, the United States.

DRUG SCANDALS- FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR AMERICAN ATHLETICS

Whereas Jamaica was finally gaining its rightful recognition in world athletics, a sport in which they had been participants for more than 60 years, drug scandals and disgrace was eating away at America’s dominance. Former Olympian, Marion Jones took home 5 medals at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, including gold in the 100m sprint, only to be stripped of these medals when she admitted to using banned steroids. She was without a doubt the female Jessie Owens of her generation. Even so, America still had world class competitors of the likes of Alyson Felix, Jamaican-born Sanya Richards, Muna Lee as well as a long list of powerful male sprinters such as the popular Tyson Gaye, who continued to stamp their class on the sport.

But Gaye’s celebrated squeaky-clean image cannot repair the damage already done. With drugs out of the way, the true champions – Jamaica – had emerged – and they were from a society that was no match for America’s size, political clout or standing in the world. Their track emissaries did not veil their envy and dismay. American sprinter, Michael Johnson, though rendered speechless when Usain Bolt broke his own 100m record in Berlin, refused to acknowledge that Bolt had surpassed Jesse Owens. Johnson had prior to this lauded praise on  Bolt but in this moment still relegated to to second place. Owens is after all an American. It would be politically incorrect to admit that he has been surpassed. Even Jesse Owens may have marvelled at Bolt’s success.

For former American sprint great, Carl Lewis, it was ‘ridiculous’ that Jamaica was capable of taking over from America. In a 2009 article about Jamaica’s sprint victories, he declared:

“Are you kidding me? We’ve [America] dominated and then all of a sudden, one Olympics and these Jamaicans come along and run these crazy times and performances and all of a sudden everyone says now they are the fastest. It’s like everyone just lies down. Really it’s ridiculous. People need to get over it, go to work and stop whining.”

To admit that Bolt had become the greatest sprinter of all times, and to accept Jamaica’s new dominance in sprinting would be to acknowledge that America had finally been conquered and the American athletic reign had well and truly come to an end.

An Early Quaker missionary to Jamaica had observed that “Jamaica is destined to exert an influence upon humanity disproportionate to its territorial extent”. From Bob to Bolt, that influence is now undeniable.

_________________________________________

Dr. Hume Johnson holds a PhD in Political Science & Public Policy from the University of Waikato New Zealand. She teaches Journalism and Communications at James Cook University (Queensland, Australia). She can be reached at humepela@gmail.com

Crisis Management Post Hijacking: How did the Jamaican Government Fare?

The murder of Pakistan’s cricket coach, Bob Woolmer in Jamaica at the height of the Cricket World Cup Tournament in 2007 was the last time the Jamaican government has had to confront a massive (negative) global media attention. Remember that CNN and BBC are transmitted in over 600 countries and the internet is the only truly global medium used by millions in every country across the world. What did the world see and learn. It learned that a gunman had forced his way unto an aircraft in the resort town of Montego Bay (the hub of Jamaica’s tourism and one could say our tourism-dependent economy), and held some 160 passengers and 6 crew hostage. We learned that he had a gun and shots were fired which surely speaks to the traumatic conditions under which passengers were held as they possibly feared for their lives. We learned later that the gunman-hijacker was of unsound mind and that having released 160 hostages/passengers, he held six crew members hostage for a total of nine hours.

The suspense was chilling because one ever knows what a person of unsound mind with a gun will do in desperation or anger. That the airliner was not Air Jamaica, and the passengers were mostly foreigners; and it was CanJet (a Canadian Jet) and Canada’s PM was on the Caribbean on an official visit only compounded the magnitude of the crisis. That the story was broadcast continuously around the world during the 12 hour duration of this incident means that the world awaited for either the escalation of the crisis (possibly killing of passengers or crew) and Jamaica’s response to the crisis and how it may be contained and resolved.

Yet what is often not reported and what is not seen when the camera stops recording, the lights are out and the microphones and tape recorders put away is the fall-out for the country on whom the negative spotlight was shed. This was without a doubt a major crisis for the Government of Jamaica – the global notion banded about in recent years (and most recently manifestly so in Australia with the prime time airing of a rather scathing documentary on crime and corruption in Jamaica) that Jamaica is an unsafe place to visit/holiday- was compounded/ (possibly confirmed) on Sunday night (April 19). The idea that the airports are unsafe fosters images of ‘terrorist threat’ in Jamaica. That the incident occurred in the tourist capital and at the gateway for tourist visitors chips away at the already declining image of Montego Bay. Here, uncontrolled crime, an unplanned and undeveloped city, and a poorly run Parish Council create havoc on a city meant to be the country’s economic lifeline.

Yet, it is often at this point – after the fact/post incident- that we fail to undertake proper damage control and crisis management strategies. Sadly, we often allow it to blow over and carry on in a merry way, the consequence of which is Jamaica’s deteriorating international image without an effective counter response. Jamaica relies almost entirely on its ‘brand’ – its image and international perception – to claim its place in the world. It cannot afford to not protect its image, and its real public relations terms rebuild relationships with its various publics when they go awry. So what was the likely response the Government of Jamaica ought to have taken in this latest crisis and how did it fair?

CRISIS MANAGEMENT 101- WHAT WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN THE MONTEGO BAY HIJACKING.

Minutes after the news broke, (and there was absolutely no information on the Gleaner website except a breaking news headline), I posted a Facebook note in which I said damage control was immediately required. Here are the steps I proposed for the post hijacking crisis management response.

1. RESPOND IMMEDIATELY (Call press conference)

2. ACKNOWLEDGE THE INCIDENT

3. TAKE ACTION (Arrest; Prosecution)

4. APOLOGISE TO ALL CONCERNED

5. APPEASE PASSENGERS/CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

5. REITERATE THAT NO ONE WAS INJURED

6. THANK CREW FOR CALM RESPONSE

7. RECTIFY (institute new airport security measures now)

8. DECLARE INCIDENT UNPRECEDENTED/ONE-OFF

9. EMPHASIZE THAT JAMAICA IS SAFE FOR VISITORS
HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT FAIR?

I believe overall the Government of Jamaica faired well in its management of the disaster and its post incident crisis management response. The actions taken were for the most part appropriate. The acknowledgment of the incident and the actions taken to arrest the passenger has to be high on the list of effective responses. Indeed, the fact that the police and military which cordoned off the Sangster International Airport did not storm into the aircraft with guns blazing was quite frankly pleasantly surprising to me. With the world watching, this would have made us look like complete baboons – as we did during the Bob Woolmer saga.

The timely appeasement of the passengers, bussing them to the nearby Cornwall regional hospital for shock treatment; the establishment of a hotline for them to make contact with their relatives overseas were appropriate. I am not sure if an official apology was offered by the Government but I would hope so since this was a clear breach of security which ought to have been prevented. The fact that the crew endured nine hours of torture and did not further aggravate an unstable, anxious gunman was a blessing and ought to be recognised as part of the reasons for a less than dramatic ending to this disaster.

THINGS THAT BOTHERED ME

There are a few things which irked me while I watched the continuing reports of the crisis on CNN and BBC, and spoke to colleague journalists at home. I will outline them here:

Simply ordering an investigation will not do. Surely, it would be nice to find out what happened; what the procedures are for entry at the tail end of checking in as if a plane is getting ready for take off, unless you suited off in your Air Jamaica or Airports authority gear, then a simply ID on your neck cannot be sufficient to let you through. Yet, I would’ve liked to have heard about how the Government plans to rectify the situation. I would’ve preferred to hear something to the effect that ‘the security arrangements at airports will be revised in light of the incident’. Surely, this will not just blow over as the next incident will not end this happily. This is not usual for us….

Another issue which concerns me is the seemingly strategic response by Government officials to turn up at the scene of disasters. I know we are a small country but I don’t get it. Why was Bruce on the tarmac? Why isn’t the Security Minister, Dwight Nelson and Information Minister, Daryl Vaz sufficient a presence – if there needs to be such official presence outside the police. Is Bruce the police? Is he a disaster management expert? Is he a hostage negotiator? Is he a reporter? Is he a priest? Is he a doctor? Someone please tell me what the role of the Prime Minister is under these circumstances. Like the disaster in December of 2008 when 14 persons lost their lives when the market truck overturned in Portland, the PM wants to show/lend his support to the victims. In my view, lend your support elsewhere – allow the police and the relevant persons to do their job! The presence of the PM is a disruptive force- he will have to be factored into all discussions and cannot give expert advice so should not be there. The representative officials are sufficient to provide him with updates on what is happening and perhaps away from the disaster he has a clearer head as to how to respond overall when the incident is resolved. God forbid another incident should occur and he is busy on the tarmac in Mobay mini-managing! This pandering in the spotlight is more disguised vote-buying than actual leadership or genuine care.

Finally, what is with the government’s deference for the international press? Is it that we wish to be on international news or shall our Ministers learn to navigate media interviews no matter who is asking the questions? Who are the real spokespersons? This is a decision that cannot be taken on the tarmac during a disaster. In the first place, a disaster plan must be in place that factors in all possible incidents in your country. This is the reason the Metropolitan Police in London were so excellent in their response to the London Bombings. Nothing was taken for granted and Scotland Yard was working from a script. I was fortunate to have been one of the journalists trained by their Public Affairs team to handle crises during the preparatory phase of the Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007. A spokesperson must be nominated so that one information is coming through. The press must not be chasing up individual persons for an interview. You may contradict each other and your reports of the facts may not be so or you may divulge something that may be inappropriate to say at that stage this brings me back to Bruce on the tarmac.

THE TRIED AND TESTED “WIGGLE UP” APPROACH

I have learned that the best response is a ‘wiggle-up’ approach. This means that in a disaster, you may want to use your lower level spokesman to do the talking (Govt Media Liaison). If needs be, you ‘wiggle up’ to a Minister of Security, and if the situation warrants, we move to the Prime Minister. The idea is that you never know when/if the crisis will escalate – in this case – the gunman killing a hostage, killing himself, killing the crew and/or the police storming in and making a bad situation worse. In this sense, it is best to hear from the Minister of National Security. If the Minister’s credibility is shot because he promised the safe return of passengers and this does not eventuate, then we would now – mandatorily – hear from the Prime Minister. Now if the PM is already on the tarmac, his presence alone overshadows the proceedings; his Ministers would be press corps gleeful and forget all the universal globally-recognised tenets of effective crisis management.

PS: Jamaica is a brand, but the brand is not only positive. A brand is, for all intents and purposes, dynamic – it continually changes and variable factors often impact on it. This means that we are obliged to respond effectively and urgently and continually to events and circumstances which alters people’s perception and opinion of that brand. Enough said.

Obama’s Idealism: Can his contagion of change impact deeply racialised societies?

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, when Americans went to the polls to elect their 44th President, I was among a massive group of young and old Australian professors, and a massive number of young white American students at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia. Their absolute joy at Obama’s victory was incredible. One young white American man cried openly as he screamed Obama’s name. Who would have dreamt that a genuinely African American (son of an African immigrant who married a fully black woman) would hold such an appeal to whites around the world? But it was President Barack Obama’s fresh idealism, his superb oratorical skills and his extraordinary ability to draw millions around his vision, that sealed his appeal for many. His innate and extraordinary belief in the power and possibility of change in America and people’s belief and confidence in this vision is the source of Obama’s triumph on Tuesday.  It is this overwhelming possibility in the human spirit and the restoration of hope after almost a decade of war, terror and fear, that has struck a deep chord with many Americans who voted on Election Day (November 8, 2008), and felt so powerfully by peoples in every nation around the world.

His message of racial unity came from a genuine place. He too had suffered the indignity of racial prejudice but who saw the value of harwork and the power of a good education. His message is contagious, not because Barack Obama is saying anything extraordinary or novel, but because people have become exhuasted with the monotony of their socio-economic, cultural and  political condition, and a lived existence of depravity, hatred and apartheid-like divisiveness. But many commentators – although firmly believing in the desire and requirement for change – have begun to wonder aloud about America’s readiness to shift deeply entrenched attitudes towards each other to realise the type of change that Obama speaks of. 

Sitting down in Australia – a country still considered to be perhaps the most racist in the world, I, too, wonder whether all societies which are deeply racialised, where xenophobia is the accepted attitude and where powerful (white) groups cocoon themselves within their own nests in pretence that their commanility offers protection rather than embeds social apartheid – are ready for the kind of change Obama’s victory represents.

This continuing debate about change and a society’s readiness for change harkens back to a keynote speech I had the privilege of giving at a postgraduate dinner while I was a student at the University of Waikato in New Zealand back in October 2003. Having had many discussions about the smiliarities and differences between New Zealand and Jamaica, I had concluded then that there was a lot that Jamaica could learn from New Zealand  and vice versa, and indeed a lot we could all learn from our varied and varigated societies. The trouble is, as I noted at the dinner, is that there would have to be an enabling environment, a space created, a mechanism set up to enact or effect this two way learning process.

Importantly, as many observers are pointing out in the case of America’s race problems, there has to be a readiness and a willingness to take on the challenge, a deep desire to embrace new cultures, lifestyles, peoples. Such change requires an openmindedness that tells you that your society is inescapably changing as the world itself changes or ought to change as part of the natural evolution that all societies undergo. Critically, the inhabitants of the country must possess or develop the overarching humility needed to succeed in the relearning process. So the real question must agaiun be posed – are societies that are deeply racialised ready, willing, and meek enough to undertake this process of adaptation and change? And are those from minority communities able or willing to accept the challenge of helping to teach  folks in hegemonic groups such a difficult lesson, to recondition their attitudes to people of differing races, classes and religions?

I cannot speak much for other socities as well as I can speak for Jamaica and the West Indian community. ‘Despite our colonial history of oppresion and enslavement, Jamaica’s national motto, ‘Out of many, One People’ represents our desire for embrace. Our societies were constructed from a variegated mix of races, cultures, values and peoples derived through conquest, slavery, indensturehsip, colonialism and globalisation. Societies such as America, New Zealand, Australia and many within the European continent had no such nurturing. It may be said too that the opportunity for this kind of social conditioning had been squandered. It is for this reaosn that these societies seem ill-prepared to fully accept the reality of ‘openness’, multi-culturalism, and therefore change. America, however, proved on November 4, 2008 that it can grow and adapt and, importantly, CHANGE.

Three related incidents blugeoned me years ago into this sad reality in Aotearoa. The first was racial remarks made by New Zealand talkback host, Paul Holmes about former United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan in 2003. Holmes referred to Annan as a ‘cheeky darkie”. (This was my introduction to racism outside my own country). The second was the immediate production of caps/memorabelia to advertise, promote, commodify, proft from and institutionalise an extremely offensive racial remark. The third was the relative silence of civil society, politics and academia on this matter and the cowardly attempts by  some groups to explain away/rationalise rather than outrightly condemn any semblance of racism and bogotry.

The great West Indian novelist, George Lamming, in his seminal literary work entitled ‘In the Castle of my Skin’ called upon both the coloniser and the Afro-West Indian to step into each other’s skin in order to understand their collective plight. Obama’s call for change in America replicates this call for unity, understanding and compassion. The ‘cheeky darkie’ event in Aotearoa back in 2003, the nature of the immigration debate in America, and widespread xenophobia in Western Europe reflects the widespread ignorance about the black struggle across the world. It is a struggle dismissed, unstated, effectively denied. The Jews never let us forget their holocaust, but the Black holocaust is continually forgotten: They have managed to cow us into silence while the Jews make films and build museums to solidy, embed and immortalise their suffering. Obama’s victory was a swift reminder to the world of that struggle and how far along from the cottonfields and the slave plantations black people have come.

As my Australian colleagues congratulated me on the momentous Obama victory, and while they themselves beam with glee at this positive result, I doubt they truly understood what it means for us as black folk. Unless you had artrived at your place in the world from the incredibly hideous suffering and oppression of the Middle Passage, slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and neo-coloniality, one would totally misunderstand the black man’s anguish, and the deep-seated depravity that he feels – and the absolute elation he would feel for Obama; to bear witness to this journey from slavery and the plantation to the Presidency and the White House. Only Mandela’s exit from his Robben Island prison after twenty-seven years to the Presidency of South Africa could compare.

I know that when Obama ask for change, he is not only talking about racism, but this is perhaps the area requiring the most immediate change across the world. It would thus behoove my colleagues in academia, politics, civil society and the media not to be in silent acquiescence with those perpetuating racial hatred, xenophobia, apartheid and hate. When we remain silent, it means we approve of the status quo. The paradox for us as thinkers and students of a new age is that we are here to learn, reframe, theorise and diagnose our own politics, history, development, culture and values from within the context of societies which everyday clebrate their progressiveness, liberty and freedom of expression. These are soceities which  laud their accomplishments in extending rights to those traditionally marginalised – women, homosexuals, prostitutes etc. But it would appear that immigrants, refugees, blacks, Asians do not fall within this bracket of rights. There can be no half-rights.

Racism is inimical to multiculturalism. It abhors the diversity many developed societies applaud and celebrate. It runs counter to the enabling environment and humbling space needed to foster change and learning between our different groups. Societies such as America, New Zealand, Australia and those of Western Europe have two options: They can either continue to be arrogant, small-minded and racist, or it can choose to excite the imagination of citizens and visitors to the uniqueness of its vast and rich plurality of cultures, peoples, beliefs, religions and values which will render it attractive to the world. It is only then that any of its group can speak of change without courting doubt, sarcasm, indifference and pity.

Obama’s Idealism: Can his Contagion of Change Impact Deeply Racialised Societies?

Many pundits chalk up the widespread popularity of Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to his fresh idealism and his superb oratorical skills. I am not so much in awe of his oratory, simply because I have heard many a speaker – preachers, politicians, academics- articulate and resonate equally or better than Barack. But his innate and extrordinary belief in the power and possibility of change in America is, for me, is most appealing attribute, and this has struck a deep chord in me. It is a simple message coming from a genuine place. It is contagious, not because Barack Obama is saying anything extraordinary or novel, but because people have become exhuasted with the monotony of their socio-economic, cultura and  politicalcondition, and a lived existence of depravity, hatred and apartheid-like divisiveness.

But many commentators – although firmly believing in the desire and requirement for change – wonder aloud about America’s readiness for the type of change that Obama speaks of. I wonder about and ask that of all societies which are deeply racialised, where xenophobia is the accepted attitude and where ethnic groups cocoon themselves within their own nests in pretence that their commanility offers protection rather than embeds social apartheid.

This continuing debate about change and a society’s readiness for change brings me back to a keynote speech I had the privilege of giving at a graduate/postgraduate dinner while I was a student at the University of Waikato in New Zealand back in October 2003. Having had many discussions about the smiliarities and differences between New Zealand and Jamaica, I had concluded then that there was a lot that Jamaica could learn from New Zealand  and vice versa, and indeed a lot we could all learn from our varied and varigated societies. The trouble is, as I noted at the dinner, is that there would have to be an enabling environment, a space created, a mechanism set up to enact or effect this two way learning process.

Importantly, as many observers are pointing out in the case of America’s race problems, there has to be a readiness and a willingness to take on the challenge, a deep desire to embrace new cultures, lifestyles, peoples. Such change requires an openmindedness that tells you that your society is inescapably changing as the world itself changes or ought to change as part of the natural evolution that all societies undergo. Critically, the inhabitants of the country must possess or develop the overarching humility needed to succeed in the relearning process. So the real question must agaiun be posed – are societies that are deeply racialised ready, willing, and meek enough to undertake this process of adaptation and change? And are those from minority communities able or willing to accept the challenge of helping to teach  folks in hegemonic groups such a difficult lesson, to recondition their attitudes to poeple of differing races, classes and religions?

I cannot speak much for other socities as well as I can speak for Jamaica and the West Indian community. ‘Despite our colonial history of oppresion and enslavement, Jamaica’s national motto, ‘Out of many, One People’ represents our desire for embrace. Our societies were constructed from a variegated mix of races, cultures, values and peoples derived through conquest, slavery, indensturehsip, colonialism and globalisation.

Societies such as America, New Zealand, Australia and many within the European continent had no such nurturing. It may be said too that the opportunity for this kind of social conditioning had been squandered. It is for this reaosn that these societies seem ill-prepared to fully accept the reality of ‘openness’, multi-culturalism, and therefore change.

Three related incidents blugeoned me years ago into this sad reality in Aotearoa. The first was racial remarks made by New Zealand talkback host, Paul Holmes about former United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Holmes referred to Annan as a ‘Cheeky darkie”. (This was my introduction to racism outside my own country). The second was the production of caps/memorabelia to advertise, promote, commodify, proft from and institutionalise an extremely offensive racial remark. The third was the relative silence of civil society, politics and academia on this matter and the cowardly attempts by  some groups to explain away/rationalise rather than outrightly condemn any semblance of racism and bogotry.

The great West Indian novelist, George Lamming, in his seminal literary work entitled ‘In the Castle of my Skin’ called upon both the coloniser and the Afro-West Indian to step into each other’s skind in order to understand their collective plight. Obama’s call for change in America replicates this call for understanding and compassion. The ‘cheeky darkie’ event in Aotearoa back in 2003 reflects the widespread ignorance about the black struggle across the world. The Jews never let us forget their holocuast, but the Black holocaust is effectively denied, forgotten: They have managed to cow us into silence while the Jews make films and build museums to solidy, embed and immortalise their suffering. I will need an entire blog devoted to this latter topic. The point is that unless you had artrived at your place in the world from the incredibly hideous suffering and oppression of the Middle Passage, slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and neo-coloniality, one would totally misunderstand the black man’s anguish, and the deep-seated depravity that he feels.

I know that when Obama ask for change, he is not only talking about racism, but this is perhaps the area requiring the most immediate change across the world. It would thus behoove my colleagues in academia, politics, civil society and the media not to be in silent acquiescence with those perpetuating racial hatred, xenophobia, apartheid and hate. When we remain silent, it means we approve of the status quo.

The paradox for us as thinkers and students of a new age is that we are here to learn, reframe, theorise and diagnose our own politics, history, development, culture and values from within the context of societies which everyday clebrate their progressiveness, liberty and freedom of expression. These are soceities which  laud their accomolishments in extending rights to those traditionally marginalised – women, homosexuals, prostitutes etc. But it would appear that immigrants, refugees, blacks, Asians do not fall within this bracket of rights. There can be no half-rights.

Racism is inimical to multiculturalism. It abhors the diversity many developed societies applaud and celebrate. It runs counter to the enabling environment and humbling space needed to foster change and learning between our different groups. Societies such as America, New Zealand, Australia and those of Western Europe have two options: They can either continue to be arrogant, small-minded and racist, or it can choose to excite the imagination of citizens and visitors to the uniqueness of its vast and rich plurality of cultures, peoples, beliefs, religions and values which will render it attractive to the world. It is only then that any of its group can speak of change without courting doubt, sarcasm, indifference and pity.