Can we really be friends with animals?

Animals have long held a special place in the hearts of humans. Throughout history, animals have played a unique part in people’s way of life be it in Ancient Egypt and Rome where animals held religious significance or our present world where people bequeath millions to their pets.

The strength of man’s feeling for his ‘best friend’ can be seen in the extraordinary lengths he goes to to protect him/her.

In February, a man in Essex, UK crawled over a frozen river just in his underpants to rescue his trapped dog. Of course, the firefighters didn’t find his reckless exploit funny.

In the same month, a woman in Melbourne, Australia spent three hours stuck in the quagmire as she comforted her horse which sank into a pit of mud as she was riding it.

It is indisputable that people become attached to their pets and even, in some cases, treat them better than humans. But can the friendship be mutual? If not, why has man insisted on creating and building relationships with animals?

Do you have/have you had an animal(s)? What kind of relationship do you/did you have?

Do Men & Women Live in Parallel Universes?

 I was chatting with a Christian brother yesterday and he asked me a thought-provoking question: "Why are there more women in church than men?" I found myself stuttering to answer his question.

 He went on to cite various examples in the Bible that showed women were more devout worshippers than men. For a few minutes we racked our brains trying to figure out an answer to his question but alas we could not produce a cogent explanation

So I thought of throwing the question open to my Fresh Angle readers. What is it about men and women that make us so different? Are we inhabiting parallel universes, or do we have more in common than we realise?
 

You're Under Arrest for Using the Internet!

How would you feel if you typed a search term on Google on only to be greeted by the words Access denied. The information you are trying to access is protected by copyright. 

Or worse still, you popped into your local chemist to buy some paracetamol, only to be told cheaper versions are no longer in circulation, so you are forced to fork out an eye-watering sum.

I can guess how you would feel: incredibly bewildered.

Caution: before you wave off the scenario as fiction, think again. If the international copyright treaty, ACTA, is passed, it could spell the end of easy access to information as you know it.  

Historic Win for Zambia

A big congratulations to Zambia who clinched the African cup of nations after a hard won victory against Ivory Coast on Sunday. The copper bullets, or Chipolopolo, as the national team is called, beat favourites Ivory Coast 8-7 in a dramatic penalty shoot out in Libreville, Gabon.

Their historical win was particularly significant because 19 years ago their national team was wiped out when their plane crashed into the ocean near Libreville. Goal keeper, Kennedy Mweene told reporters, "The players who were killed in the plane crash in Gabon was what behind us and what was driving us through the tournament." 

Thousands of Zambians have taken a day off work to celebrate their good fortune. Way to go people, more grease to your elbows.

Guess the Time and Place

A while back - I won't mention when exactly - I posted some amazing photos from around the world from a certain century. Here's a second set of photos without the captions or any explanations. I'd like you to have a crack at naming the country, century and if possible the people or event the photograph is portraying. Bon chance - good luck!





Is the Web Messing With Your Head?

What would you do if you found out that the internet is virtually turning you into an idiot?

We all treasure the perks of modern life: round-the-clock internet connection, instant communication and unlimited information at our fingertips, but do we pull back at some point to examine the impact it might be having on us?

Below, Kenneth Onah looks at ways the internet could be messing with our brains.

The Truth about Human Zoos (conclusion)

  
It is an extravagant misconception to think that human zoos equal rounding up natives in a confined space and subjecting them to the glare of curious audiences. It is much more than that. 

Human zoos are the everyday photos we see in news reports capturing the pain and suffering of the ‘other’. The ‘other’, who may not necessarily be called primitive, native or be a protected tribe, is still exploited by charities, photographers, news agencies and individuals.

Chinese New Year Begins Today

Today (Monday 23rd January) marks the beginning of the Chinese new year. On the Chinese calendar, 2012 - known as the year of the dragon - is the year 4709.

The Truth About Human Zoos (1)

‘Dance!’ a policeman urged the girls dressed in loin cloths singing, clapping and swinging their hips from side to side.

They are one of India’s protected ancient tribes and, in the video that surfaced last week, were dancing for tourists in exchange for food.

Charities, media organisations and government officials were breathing fire when the video emerged on the net. The Jarawa tribe from India’s Andaman Island has just 403 members, and under Indian laws photographing or coming into contact with them is illegal. 

That is why The Guardian newspaper (UK), which first broke the story and other news organisations condemned the actions of the tourists and greedy policemen. Words like ‘disgusting’ and ‘exploitation’ were thrown about. Some headlines even went as far as describing the reaction as ‘outrage at human zoo’. 

Human Zoos

The concept of human zoos was prevalent in the 19^th and 20^th century when European explorers returned from continents like Asia, America and Africa with natives who were put on display for curious spectators.

 Human zoos were popular in cities like Paris, Antwerp, London, Hamburg, New York and Warsaw where up to 300,000 visitors flocked to see the exhibitions.

A famous example of a human exhibit was a woman called Sara Bartman who was uprooted from the east cape of South Africa and displayed in exhibitions around England and France until her death in 1815.  Exhibitors were particularly fascinated with her unusual anatomy.

Another famous example is Ota Benga who was taken from the Congo in 1906 and put in a cage at a monkey house in New York’s Bronx zoo. Scientists at that time believed certain races were evolutionary inferior and Benga was living proof. The New York Times reported that around 40,000 people flocked to the park to see ‘the wild man from Africa.’

Benga on display with monkeys at Bronx zoo

Benga showing off filed teeth before he left Congo

 On the whole, some 35,000 people were said to have taken part in the human zoo displays and were viewed by approximately 1.4 billion spectators.

The exhibitions were first banned by Hitler and steadily declined after World War II.

Today it is inconceivable to think that such acts of depravity were widely accepted. No one would permit or tolerate such inhumane acts. But here’s the truth about human zoos: they might no longer appear in the same crass form that they did in the past, but they are still in existence.

Generations have passed and attitudes about race have changed, but people have not changed. They remain opportunistic. That means that people will exploit situations for their benefit if given the chance. And that is exactly what The Guardian and other media outlets (I am not exempting myself) are doing.

  
I admire The Guardian but found it ironic that they were condemning a video showing a protected dwindling tribe exploited by tourists on one hand, and on the other hand were milking it for all its worth.  

If it is so exploitative why show it in the first place? Would the ‘more than half a million viewers’ who clicked on the video have something to do with it? And why the thirty-second commercial before the video?

Members of Jarawa tribe dancing for tourists

On the face of it, the media and charities are drawing attention to a social malaise that needs to be tackled. But on the flipside, they are also constructing an 'exotic' story that will lure their readers to their papers/sites, thereby boosting their audience.

Without knowing it, we the readers become voyeurs who avidly consume images of the 'other'/native/primitive just like the spectators did hundreds of years ago. We are gawking at them from our privileged positions. Our curiosity is fuelling their exploitation, while inwardly we feel things are faring much better. That is an illusion.

(to be continued)

Freak snow traps thousands across Europe

While heavy snowfall is the delight of every skier, this week thousands of skiers across  parts of Europe got more than they bargained for when heavier than usual snowfall left them trapped in their hotel rooms.
Freak snowfalls dumped up to 18ft of snow blocking roads and railways in Austria, southern Germany, France and Switzerland.

One skier told a radio station, "It's a bit like being trapped in paradise."

Read more

We Want a Life!

There is however a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue
-Edmund Burke



Everyone has a breaking point no matter how resilient a person might be.

For years the Nigerian people have endured untold economic hardship: high unemployment, bad roads, a lack of security, erratic power supply and poor living conditions. All they have had to ride on is the false hope embedded in grandiose government promises that are dished out year after year.

However yesterday Nigerians united as one big family as people took to the streets in a massive protest that ground activities nationwide to a halt.



Young, old, rich and poor united to protest against the removal of fuel subsidies by the government that has caused the price of fuel to rocket - a litre of fuel sells for more than twice the original price.

 The Nigerian Labour Congress and Trade Union Congress flagged off strikes yesterday demanding the reinstallment of subsidies.

Demonstrations continued for a second day today. Here are more photos curtsey guardian.co.uk

Insanity is a virtue

 

 The world is turning crazy. 

While the Libyans are still picking through the smoldering ruins of their battered country, overtones of another war are growing louder by the day.

It is not as if invasions are a novelty – far from it – but the frequency at which they are occurring at the moment is worrying.

 First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya, and now (if things escalate any further) Iran might be the next country to bite the dust.

Its crime? Developing  nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the charge brought forward by the United States and bolstered by a report by the U.N nuclear watchdog, the Atomic Energy Agency, is very thin on evidence.

Since the accusation, the war of words between both countries has escalated.

We know they’ve been at each other’s jugular for decades, but now rhetoric is morphing into action. Notable examples include  U.S’  increased surveillance of Iran’s nuclear sites; Iran’s capture/seizure of an American spy drone; E.U’s proposed sanction against Iran, and Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil-trade route.

The most worrying developments of recent are:

• ·         An upcoming joint military exercise between Israel and the States – the biggest of its kind – that will simulate ballistic missile defence

• ·         A U.S deal with Saudi Arabia to supply $30 billion worth of weapons

To me, that signals one thing: conflict.

U.S invasion = World War III 

Many commentators have dismissed the talk of war as unlikely saying it would be profound foolishness on the part of U.S, and tantamount to starting world war III. After all Iran has the world’s fourth largest oil reserves; and if the Hormuz strait is closed in the event of conflict, a barrel of oil could sell for as much as 200 US dollars; leading to worldwide inflation.

I desperately hope they are right. 

In any event, it looks like a lose-lose situation for Iran. 

Because whether Iran steps up or steps down the rhetoric, it cannot wriggle out of the impossible situation it is trapped in. As the saying goes, give the dog a bad name and hang it. Iran is stuck with the ‘axis of evil’ sobriquet which dogs its steps like a shadow. 

Iran has been known to sponsor terrorism; it has taken hostages and bombed U.S embassies, but has not invaded any country in modern history. That will not save its skin.

It is stuck with two unsavoury options:

1. ·         Giving up its nuclear programme OR
2.       Carrying on with it at the risk of treading the same path as its neighbour, Iraq

If Iran gives up its nuclear programme , it will be caving into the demands of imperialist countries and will personify weakness.

If it does not, it could be invaded. A new government will be installed (by western countries), rubber-stamped by the UN, and maintained by a western military presence.

There are two worlds

It is happening to Iran right now but other non-conforming (Southern) countries should not watch on distantly. 

They could be next. 

Today's world operates under two domains: the imperialists’ who are simply the dominant class that  write world rules. The rules favour them politically and economically and marginalise the other domain (the non-imperialists) who must either bite the bullet or face the consequence.

Political analyst Michael Parenti describes the non-imperialists as ‘comprador’ classes. 

A comprador is one that cooperates in turning its own country into a client state for foreign interests.

A client state is one that is open to investments on terms that are decidedly favorable to the foreigner.

These are old realities, but ones that need to be tackled if not resource-rich countries from the South will continue to be subsumed by a system that does not favour them.

Former British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli once said it is easier to be critical than correct. Anyone can criticise but not everyone can proffer solutions. I don’t know what solution you have in mind but here’s mine:

There should be a new law – the law of reaction.

Law of reaction: to every action there is (should be) an equal and opposite reaction.

To every superpower/world power/imperialist/northern alliance there should be an equal and opposite reaction – the building of a Southern alliance/superpower/world power, if things are to even out.

That could cost the non-imperialist world a leg and an arm. It would resemble insanity, but in this case, insanity will be a virtue.

Question is, how can it be achieved and will it work?

We stop being selfish at 33

A recent study by a UK charity claims that when we reach 33 we lose the 'all about me' attitude and begin to consider others' feelings more frequently.

The Make-a-Wish foundation revealed in its study that the older we grow, the more selfless we become in almost all areas of life. Over 33's are likelier to

• Look out for their neighbours
• Give up their seats for elderly people on public transport
• Donate their unwanted clothes and items to charity rather than throw them away
• Get involved in issues affecting their communities

In contrast the under 33's were likelier to put themselves first in all circumstances.

What do you think of the study?

Do you agree? Has growing older made you less selfish?

Rage Against Religion

(This is the concluding part to 'We "don't do God" in politics. Enjoy it).

Before Queen Elizabeth I ascended the throne of England, the country had had its fair share of religious strife and bloodshed. Her predecessor, Queen Mary I, notoriously burned protestants in a bid to return England to Catholicism.
It was under the prevailing circumstances that Elizabeth I declared:

“I never had any intent that (my) subjects should be troubled or molested by examination or inquisition in any matter either of their faith or for that matters of ceremonies, as long as they shall in their outward conversation show themselves quiet and not manifestly repugnant to the laws of the realm.”

She laid the foundation for religious freedom and tolerance.

That was back in the 16th century. Things have moved on since then. As I mentioned in the previous post, secular neutrality is now touted as the best stance governments should take towards religion.

Under a secular government:

• Citizens are granted religious freedom

• The legal system is free from religious control

• Political leaders are free to exercise whichever religion they choose
• State religion is disestablished

• Public funds are not used for religious purposes

In essence, the machinery of state is neutral, leaving individuals free to hold their own beliefs.

One of my readers summed it up eloquently in a comment he posted. He wrote:

“ I think it is better for governments to steer well clear of religion, because,as history has shown the tendency to inflict harm on society increases exponentially when religion is cited as the driving force for a particular course of action.”

On paper, neutral secularism looks good. In arguments, it sounds cogently reasonable. However, it is impossible to separate politics and religion.

Why? Well, first of all, we need to go back to the basics. What is religion?

The website oxforddictionaries.com defines religion as:

• The belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion

• A particular system of faith and worship

• A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion

The two underlying words here: belief and devotion.

It would be absurd to presume that any single human being is devoid of these two qualities.

Atheism is premised on the belief that there is no God.

Humanism rejects religion and favours human welfare and values.

Secularism is premised on the belief that keeping religion separate from the state is essential to promote equality.

Even if a person claims not to be religious, an atheist or agnostic, s/he must be devoted to something. It could be the pursuit of fame, money, fitness, health or knowledge. We are wired to want, and our wants drive us to pursue. Therefore by nature we are religious. How then can we separate religion from politics?

In theory it looks so simple - take a big knife and lop them asunder. In reality, it’s like going down to the seashore and trying to separate the water from the sand. An impossible task!

The very idea that a state can be neutral is a myth. Who determines what is neutral? The atheist? The agnostic? Why should their beliefs, which boils down to religion, be favoured over others?

Many times neutrality is a rejection of religion, which in itself is a bias against religion and removes the claim of neutrality.

Interestingly many states categorised as ‘secular’ maintain a lot of religious practices and symbols.

In France for example, many Christian holy days are official holidays for the public administration, and teachers in Catholic schools are paid by the state.

In April this year France banned women from wearing face veils in public. Anyone seen wearing niqabs and burqas could be fined up to €150, or attend lessons in French citizenship.

As stated earlier a neutral country allows individuals the right to hold their own beliefs. Question: does France’s actions display neutrality?

The United States is another example of a secular government. How is it that since 1937, the United States presidential inauguration has included one or more prayers given by members of the clergy? It doesn’t add up.

As mentioned in the earlier post, in the UK critics were kicking up dust because the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that Britain is a Christian country. Many found it insulting that the PM should make such a suggestion in a multicultural society that is home to various religions. It is a secular country, they argued. Illusions of grandeur. In Britain’s upper house – the house of Lords - Twenty-six bishops (including the two Archbishops) are members and are known as the Lords Spiritual. They are thought to bring a religious ethos to the secular process of law.

The simple advice Cameron proffered was: traditional Christian values should be revived in order to counter the “moral collapse” in Britain. He said "live and let live" had too often become "do what you please".

And that’s the problem with neutrality, it also implies anything goes, so there’s no moral compass that people can collectively follow.

Conversely religion offers a clear roadmap about acceptable and unacceptable moral behaviour. Now this does not translate to theocracy or the chopping off of heads and hands in the name of religion. No. It means each country has its religious base which sets the norm for its citizens. As Queen Elizabeth I said, people are entitled to individual faiths as long as they fall within the boundaries of the law.

One of my favourite Obama quotes is, what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart. I believe that.

We might practice different religions, but there are always meeting points. Most, if not all religions advocate love, fairness, honesty, tolerance and kindness amongst other virtues. The forces that bind us together are greater than the forces that drive us apart.

So if a leader says his/her country is a Christian or Islamic or humanist country, he could be saying in essence; this is our moral frame work. We will not persecute you for practicing a different religion, but we expect you to adhere to this way of life.

While neutrality might be upheld as the best policy, it opens the door to moral decline and a lack of direction. It is religion that molds a better tomorrow.

Get it off your chest!

I was listening to BBC radio four this morning – one of my favourite stations – and up until I left the house there was nothing captivating on their news programme. That’s highly unusual. Shows that even the most creative media outlets can struggle to keep things lively and exciting in the midst of a news drought.


So you’ll have to bear with me if I sound like scratched CD, revisiting the same issues over and over again.

This week yet another video popped up on the web. It was another train journey kerfuffle. This time in Scotland. It showed a lad arguing with a ticket collector for not having a valid ticket. He swears at the collector who repeatedly tells him to get off the train. The melee drags on a little until a bulky passenger now dubbed ‘big man’ butts in and asks the collector, “Do you want me to get him off for you?”

He then proceeds to shove him off the train. The lad attempts to get back on but he pushes him back onto the platform. Apparently he received a round of applause from fellow passengers.

I laughed at first when I watched it but my sister pointed out that the big man had no legal right to touch the boy. Oops, I thought. I’d never dream of laying a finger on anyone in such a circumstance but I thought how ignorant many of us are of the law. The next day I read that the boy’s father wants the big man to be charged for assault.

Presently the big man has garnered more support judging from the comments on news sites and forums.

Firstly, I strongly condemn the big man’s tactics. I know what it is like to endure the antics of a passenger who turns out to be a nuisance on public transport BUT big man should have saved his display of strength for the boxing ring. If he’s really that strong, he should sign up with WWF go enter a wrestling ring and take on Hulk Hogan and the likes. Yes, the guy was getting on his last nerve but it is inexcusable for him to toss him about like a raggedy doll.

Besides there are two sides to every story so next time before assigning yourself the position of an arbiter, think twice.

The lad’s family argued that he was sold the wrong ticket at the station. That is possible. But that does not excuse his use of language. Okay, I risk sounding like a grumpy old woman here even though I’m far from one, but if I could pass one law it would be that the use of the F-word should be banned in public. If your mouth is so itchy that you’re dying to swear, wait until you’re behind closed doors, in your house!

Why must young people especially litter every sentence with F this and F that? Gosh, it’s as if having a sense of decorum is becoming an exception!

It’s a shame some newspapers are even permitting its use on their pages.

Another story that cracked me up came out of Nigeria. A man is away from home but on his return what does he see? A young man having his way with his 20-year-old daughter! The man doesn’t wait for the judge to decide whether or not it is rape. He administers justice there and then by slicing off the assailant’s manhood. Dear me. The young man alleged that the daughter was actually his girlfriend. But he was charged for unlawful break in and rape.

As for the father, a judge has ordered his arrest for taking the law into his hands.

This might sound controversial but the father went too far. If it were a six-year-old girl, he would have my sympathy. But his daughter is 20. How could an unarmed man possibly break into the house and rape her? Rape in my opinion, would be more possible if he was armed .Perhaps she was his girlfriend and she only put up a show of resistance upon sensing her father’s return and not knowing how to back out. Okay, I’ll stop here.

The young man on the other hand is nothing short of a fool, I don’t need to mince words. Nigeria is a very conservative society with strong moral traditions. Even if the girl was his girlfriend, common sense would tell him it is forbidden in Nigerian culture to have a girl under her father’s roof!

Continuing with the topic of sexual assault, a report has emerged of the sexual abuse of children in catholic institutions. According to the report tens of thousands of children have suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions since 1945. It also said Catholic officials had failed to tackle the widespread abuse at schools, seminaries and orphanages.

I’ll take a deep breath here because my catholic friends are not going to like what I’m about to say. If the oath of celibacy is causing so much controversy and leading to the abuse of children – which is very destructive – then it should be scrapped or made optional.

The gift of celibacy, is a rare one and very few people are privileged to be born celibate if you ask me. Even Jesus acknowledged the fact. He said, “…there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb and there are eunuchs who became eunuchs by men and there are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can receive it let him receive it.”

Obviously the priests involved in the abuse of children cannot receive it. The fact they signed up for celibacy does not mean they have the gift of celibacy. And there is no magic machine that can detect that even if they are subjected to years of training.

My two cents: if a tradition is causing more harm than good, it’s time to have a rethink.

A slow but sure death

There are three kinds of death in this world. There's heart death, there's brain death, and there's being off the network. ~Guy Almes

Once upon a time in a whitish-blue marble called planet earth, mortals lived together happily ever after. In those days of happiness, warmth and love, people were contented to meet, savour each other’s company and have real conversations.

Parents, brothers, sisters, uncle and aunts enjoyed the subtle craft of letter writing. They wrote to far-away loved ones on blue-lined foolscap sheets. With enthusiasm they folded the paper into envelopes, ran their tongues over the sticky borders of the flap then marched down to the post office proudly.

At the post office they were happy to be attended to by the clerk. It did not faze them. Neither did visits to the bank to withdraw money over the counter or standing on queues in the supermarket waiting for the attendant. They cherished human interaction.

It was days of simplicity when rotary dial telephones sat idly in a corner of the living room. People’s lives were not built around it because they lived lives full of human activity.

Then slowly but surely life changed forever.

Now upon a time citizens of planet earth live selfishly ever after. In these days of consumerism, indulgence and want, people are contented to swap mobile numbers but never call each other. They are contented to meet, greet and possibly delete on facebook. They gladly choose machines over face-to-face interactions.

In these fanciful days, mobile phones, laptops and Ipads have become right-hand companions. These are days of instant communication and instant gratification. They are days when the user is king, and where life begins with the press of a button. ON.

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life. ~Andrew Brown

On the 14th of December, 2011, I read a story on CNN. It said that facebook is encouraging its 800 million members to use a system created by the company to flag suicidal or otherwise violent messages. So if someone is posting unsettling photos or writing status updates about killing him/herself, friends can click on a ‘report suicidal’ content link. The aim is to link the suicidal person with specialists who will be able to help.

I think it is a move that deserves applause even if some critics may argue that motives behind it are selfish.

It also flags up so many issues about the internet such as the storage of personal data and lack of privacy. But one strong point it makes is about how virtual life has become. While technology has brought sweeping progress, it has also eroded the essence of human relationships. It is meant to bring us together but it is pulling us apart.

What do I mean? I’ll use some simple but very practical examples.

Emails
Sending mails electronically is an amazing experience. It means you can reach people across the world in a matter of seconds. On the flip side it could also mean sending an email to a colleague at work who is sitting right across you. Cuts out the need for conversation and opportunities for increased human interaction.

Isn’t it funny that when you log into your email, you get an automatic greeting. ‘Hello Lydia!’ as if you’re long lost friends who have known each other from Adam. Here the email tries to simulate a feeling of familiarity and friendship.

Without realizing it, your email becomes your friend.
Youtube
You can play your favourite music online then leave a comment, bantering with other viewers on the page. Best part is the next time you visit the page, youtube would have noted your preferences from your previous visit, so it can recommend similar videos.

It takes an interested person to take note of your preferences then pander to your needs. Youtube makes an effort to make you feel special. Automatically you have an admirer.

Forums
Be it a news site or chat forum, you can read a story then join the gang of commentators at the bottom. Nobody can see you, therefore it is safe to be as rude as you want to be. Afterall, you are invincible. Nobody can arrest you or confront you physically. You wield such epic proportions of power that would be impossible in real-life interactions.

Facebook/twitter
All the friends you’ve ever known from nursery, primary, secondary school and even higher institution live and breathe on facebook. So why bother giving them a ring and asking after their wellbeing? There’s no need for that.

Andy tells you he’s just had beans on toast for breakfast.

Then he tweets that he is sooooo bored at work.

Hours later, he’s on the bus enduring the smell of fish and chips from two teenage girls

Andy just bruised his elbow on the wall – ouch!

Cynthia has just posted the fifth photo in one day of her striking different poses in different attires, pouting her lips with that ‘Aren’t I beautiful?’ look on her face.

She gets a litany of validation from fellow users.

Now you’ve heard all about Andy’s diet, work and peeves. You’ve seen all Cynthia’s Miss World photos; her graduation photos; ones of her Mum, Dad, siblings, boyfriend, female friends; Question: what are you calling Cynthia for?

I’ll tell you a story. Last month I incidentally bumped into a former schoolmate I had last seen ten years ago. We expressed our joy at seeing each other but parted without exchanging numbers. Strange? Not at all. We are friends on facebook. We didn’t say much the day we met but later on we chatted on yahoo messenger. I was doing other things on the internet and at the same time firing off instant messages to her. Very convenient.

The internet – amongst other things – can validate us. It can provide a sense of importance and self-worth. In many ways, it has replaced real-life relationships. That could be a reason why distressed individuals turn to the web to bare their hearts. The internet is the best friend they know.

If we are not already wallowing in it, we are slowly but surely sliding towards narcissism. And that is a very sad thing.

Internet: absolute communication, absolute isolation. ~Paul Carvel

No thanks, I'll keep my identity!

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.'

They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

(braindeer.com)


Whenever issues crop up regarding European Union treaties and Britain’s level of involvement, my mind backtracks to my days at University. There were two core modules I took at two different universities and both explored the definition of Britishness and British identity.

The Unanimous slant of the modules was the UK prides itself on being a sovereign nation and will kick against any measures that appear to erode its autonomy. The language was always ‘we can’t hand any more power to Brussels’.

Equally, in the media, British identity has been widely discussed and the overall perception is that Britain is losing its identity to Europe.

(Poll by Guardian newspaper UK, 2008)



So when British PM, David Cameron, vetoed a new EU treaty aimed at tightening fiscal policies in the Eurozone it came as no surprise to me. During a summit held last week (8th-9th December, 2011), 26 countries signed up to a treaty that sets out tougher budget rules. It is aimed at preventing a repeat of the current Eurozone crisis.

New rules include:

• a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries' annual structural deficits

• "automatic consequences" for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP

• a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised

Cameron’s decision to opt out of the treaty has elicited much criticism and commendation.

Critics say the UK has placed itself in a precarious position where it can be easily marginalised, while supporters believe the UK is better off without the EU.

Only time will tell if Britain has made the right decision. However, in my opinion, PM’s reaction highlights issues of nationality and perceived identity.

I will compare countries' identities to an individual's identity. There are many components that make up an individual – some fixed and some variable. For instance the colour of a person’s skin, his/her gender and physical attributes such as height, are fixed.

Other things like financial status, nationality and even personality are subject to change.

Now it is the prerogative of the individual to set out the parameters of who he/she is. Therefore a person is who he/she imagines him/herself to be.

The same goes for nations.

In his book, ‘Imagined communities,’ Academic Benedict Anderson defined a nation as an ‘imagined political community.’

It is imagined because members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear of them. Yet in their minds they carry an image of shared affinity and sense of belonging between them.

The UK has a population of 62 million. Each British person imagines him/herself to be part of a wider community of Brits, even though he/she has never met them.

What the community provides for its members is a sense of identity and belonging.

Kathryn Woodard in her book ‘Identity and difference’(2002) argues that we build identity through difference. For instance, flags, uniforms, colours can be used to represent our difference.

Hence one way of defining Britishness would be: we are British because we are NOT European. That means not being part of the single currency. It also means limiting the amount of power the European Commission can exercise over British financial institutions.

Attempts to further integrate with Europe would threaten the nation’s definition of who it is. Just like an individual that has drawn the parameters of who he/she is, the person will fight hard to maintain the status quo.

Britain is not an exception. Haven’t you found yourself wondering sometimes why German Chancellor Angela Merkel never speaks English? Or why French President Nicolas Sarkozy speaks French unfailingly at international conferences? That sheds light on the parameters of their identity as people and countries.

Former Nigerian leader, Olusegun Obasanjo, throughout his presidency stuck to a native dress code. Again, that said a lot about his sense of identity.

What I’d like to know is if we are better off with these distinctive identities.

Is it necessarily a bad thing if the world becomes homogenous? Would it be detrimental if we did away with national flags, passports, native languages, territorial barriers? Okay, that would be extreme. But how flexible should a country be in maintaining the parameters of its identity and accepting change when due?

How far would you go to defend the definition of you?


A poem:

Becoming ‘Me’

Wheels are rolling, the train rattles on

Charging down the slope with full momentum

Ebbs and tides of memories,

Conversations from the past

Rebound like echoes in my head

Memories of the past rear

Their head

They run after me; tear at me relentlessly



I am thousands of miles away but I can’t run away from me

I cannot run away from home

The place where I became me

Home is the taste on your lips that won’t go away

Home is the laughter that regurgitates in

Your head

It is the place a carefree boy frolicked in his underpants

Where he climbed the mango tree

And unhinged ripe juicy mangoes

It is the place he ate roasted corn off the cob

It is the place soldier ants attacked his

Sweet sticky fingers in bed at night



Time flies by dreams multiply

Hunger, thirst, starvation

Mosquitoes, malaria

Suffering, suffocation

Corruption, disruption harum-scarum,

Cackling laughter, clapping hands

Effusive expressions

Lives merge

Privacy’s submerged

Please take me away from this dizzying mess

Take me to a safe haven of rest



Destiny collides with fate

Life fades into an apparition

Pink pouting lips, cascading hair,

Self-deprecating demeanours

Get me out of this crazy dream

Democracy, refreshing reliability

Efficiency, opportunities,

What on earth is this dream?



Counsellors, commercialised compassion

Lost humanity

Come be my countryman

Don’t be my countryman

Come stay with me

Run away from me

We are silent trees swaying on the underground

We are mute objects hurtling though the streets

We are crazy creatures denying

One another’s existence

I matter to me

I am somebody

But matter to nobody



I want to hate you and

I want to love you, so

I love you because I can’t hate you and

I hate you because I can’t love you

I strive to be somebody

But end up becoming nobody

I am caught up in an endless stream

I become nothing but a flag, a figure

A colour

A name on paper

I am everything

I am me

(by Lydia Oluchi Ugwu)