Browsing the archives for the Observations category.

Come September!

I resumed school as an undergraduate in September 2000. Sometime in early 2001, I took my first creative writing class in the department of English under a very brilliant professor (now author of several books). One of the first tasks he gave us in class was to write a piece of creative short fiction which we would eventually come to discuss with the whole class sometime before the end of the semester. I was barely twenty, and was just beginning to develop some of my political and literary sensibilities, so my first attempt at fiction was a combination of both in order to make a satiric point. The story was titled Sam’s Tragedy. It was a story of a fictional feud between two women, and the tragic way in which they exacted vengeance on each other mostly at the expense of the clearly incompetent husband.

A few months after I finished with the class with an excellent grade, I expanded the work into a play of the same name. This time however, the characters became less fictive and more resembling of real life characters in world politics. There was a Sadman, a Sam and a Chinese character whose name I’ve forgotten now. Sam was an oppressive landlord and Sadman was a neighbour – his nemesis – who also had his very disgusting attributes. The play – a quite anarchistic experiment – ended with an explosion that took with it all of Sadman and much of Sam’s very famed real estate in the neighbourhood. This must have been around June or July of 2001. I showed it to a few friends, explained a few of the conspiracy theories fueling my creativity, and expressed the desire to put more work into it until it became something more worthy of the stage. On the afternoon of September 11th of that year when I was called frantically to the tv viewing room of my hall of residence to watch the two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Centre, one of the things I remember my friend asking me about was “How much of this feeds into your gloomy prediction, Mr. Playwright?”

It was a sad day, one of the most horrible I’d ever witnessed. Human beings were having to choose between burning to death in a building and leaping down to their deaths hundreds of feet below. I remember feeling very confused about the extent of my own creative condoning of a sudden chaotic intervention in world affairs which had now come to pass, and the real life implication of a tragedy brought about by people far more sinister in motives than my fledgling creative mind. For many years afterwards, I read lines from the play occasionally and wondered if it was still relevant – first because the doom it predicted had already happened in a far more sinister way than the absurdist play could have predicted, and secondly because I grew increasingly discontented with my own playwriting abilities. America had fascinated me from then as I got increasingly removed from an ivory tower bubble that treated it like an isolated entity incapable of emotions. The movie 9/11 – the only movie I know that showed tv footage of the first plane hitting the building – gave distinct humanity to the residents of New York, particularly the brave fire-fighters that went up the stairs of both buildings as workers and other victims made their way out.

The world changed after September 2001, and so did I, slowly, and now here I am. Ten years after, it is hard to think back to that September evening in Ibadan without feeling just as overwhelmed as I did then seeing so much destruction the worst I had ever seen outside hollywood movies. Thankfully, the world has learnt some good lessons since then. Some of the evil political players of the days before and after the attack have become irrelevant, and some of the perpetrators have already been brought to justice. We will hopefully have all learnt to work for a world where such an attack and the responses to it would have become unnecessary. As for me, I have stopped pursuing a career in playwriting but will one day take a look at that script and see which part of it can still be salvaged. Not much, I’m guessing, especially since I can’t say for certain in what part of my room in Ibadan the script is now gathering dust.

It has been a very bumpy decade and I wonder if our obligation to the coming one might as well be to do everything in our power to never stop talking civilly to one another.

To Coffee

In the beginning was the world, created after six days according to the good book. He looked at it – the creator – and saw that it was good. Hundreds or so of years ago however, man had a taste of a certain beverage, dark and spunky, and finally found a way of getting through the beautiful, boring world that the creator had made. Before then, flowers smelled sweet and life went by as normally as it could but didn’t look as pleasant to the senses as it eventually did when man found his most effective stimulant. Normal life is good, man discovered, but who wants to live just a normal life? He went for a stimulating exceptional, and coffee took the glory of it all.

And he lived happily ever after, at least usually until the effect wears out.

America’s Language War

These are interesting times in this country. I have been watching a lot of television lately (something I haven’t done in a while), usually the frontline of the many ideas competing to take hold in the national mind. Today’s issue is about language use, and rhetoric, in politics. Fox News had just juxtaposed the video of President Obama talking in February about civility in political discourse with the video of Labour Leader Jimmy Hoffa calling the Tea Party activists “sons of bitches” though not directly.

President Obama had made the remark at the memorial for the dead at Tuscon, Arizona, calling for people to tone down the heat in their talk and bring civility back to public discourse. However, now after such a pummeling by an unrelenting army of conservative activists in his own political career, he seems to have now been tacitly endorsing a retaliatory verbal retort by his own army of union workers. Sean Hannity, on his All-American show this evening, stacked  the set with a group of people who believed that the president needs to step up and censure his own people. What is not being verbalized is that if that is not done, the Conservative right will return to do the same and won’t listen to any entreaties.

What I find mostly interesting about it all is the spin that confronts the viewer depending on which television station they watch. I had been watching Fox News, the mouthpiece of the conservative movement (as contrasted – by their own words – to the mainstream media*). When I am watching MSNBC, I get a different perspective. I grew up in Nigeria watching CNN so I had a pretty “mainstream” access to the American news world. There was Larry King, Wolf Blitzer and a host of others. Watching Fox News today is like watching a different country. It finally dawned on me that there are many Americas, and each of them has a different window on the world which they often defend to the exclusion of others.

In his exclusive interview with Vice President Cheney yesterday where he did all he could – sometimes superfluously –  to make the former Bush Administration powerful man discredit the current administration, Sean Hannity played a clip of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then asks the Vice President whether he was offended by Colin Powell referring to him as Mr. Cheney rather than Vice President Cheney. When the latter said “no”, Sean Hannity seemed surprised. The irony of the situation, of course, was that for many more times than the former Vice President in the same interview, Sean Hannity referred to the current president as “Barack Obama” or “Obama” and the current Vice President as “Joe Biden”, but the ex-President as President Bush without a hint of self-awareness.

So here is what I see: that the ideological underlining of these media enterprises makes it hard for them (and thus their viewers) to admit a simple universal truth whenever it favours an opposing ideology. Ed Schultz of MSNBC needlessly puts a racial slant on Rick Perry’s “black cloud of debt” speech while Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh – no matter how much it comes out of the mouth of even their own favourite interview subjects – would never agree that the current administration ever did anything right. It’s strange that each of them believes that their viewpoint represents what America really is. On the one hand, some viewers are able to see this spin. On the other hand, there are many more who views the world and the country only through these narrow media viewpoints.

On the bright side, it will always give people like Jon Stewart something to amuse us about, and people like me something to write about on an idle evening.

*PS: By what standard exactly is Fox News not part of the mainstream media, with their record of consistent high ratings for many years. I never quite understood that part of their usual talking points.

A World Without Borders

Well, for a start, let us all agree that this fabled world doesn’t exist anywhere except perhaps on the internet. A Nigerian on a three-hour stopover at Heathrow will not be allowed into London for fear, perhaps, that he will suddenly ditch his American visa and decide to live in the fruitful fields of England forever, eating clover, beans and mangel-wurzels. A Turkish citizen hoping to visit any European capital will usually need a shengen visa or should just not make an effort. It all makes sense, doesn’t it? A few years ago, all anyone needed to visit Kenya from any part of Africa was a passport. Then after 1998 embassy bombings by a few radical thugs, everyone needed a visa, including neighbouring Ugandans.

The concept of national borders is fascinating, and mostly annoying. Take for example the problem of driving from Lagos to Dakar, a stretch that will be similar to one from Minneapolis to St. Louis just as soon as we can ignore the useless police checkpoints along the borders of the “countries” along the way. Once upon a time, West Africa was just west Africa, with contiguous autonomous kingdoms and no fake borders manned by corrupt men in khaki uniforms. Now, the Yorubas are not just Yorubas. They are Nigerians, Beninoise and Togolese, and this doesn’t prevent them from the harassment of faux obstacles placed on a road leading from one part of the continent to the other.

The last time we had the Ambassador of Kenya to the United States on campus, I asked him why it is taking African politicians so long to realize that artificial obstacles at national borders created more problem than it solved, he gave a platitude. And then I switched on the news and heard that even the United States is now considering building a wall – yes you heard right – a wall between itself and Mexico, this time to prevent the problem of illegal migration. Yet, all migrations are legal, as we all know, as the basis of human civilization, and change. Is there a point to my rant on this post? I doubt it, but I’ve spent some time pondering the idea of human migration for a while now. I think my most recent motivation is the discovery of an interesting fact that humans – no matter where they find themselves – would always prefer migration at some point in their life, than staying in the same spot. Yes, that applies to Americans too.

On Dangerous Revolutionaries

There is a curious pattern of dangerous behaviour  now coming out of the Libyan revolt against the government of Moamar Gaddafi. In this frightening CNN report, rebel soldiers looking to exact revenge on the dying regime have found a perfect victim demographic: black sub-saharan African (in this case Nigerians) who are in the country en route to Spain or Italy for a better life.

There is enough to debate about the presence of Nigerian citizens residing legally or illegally in a war-torn country (and the Nigerian government has a duty to protect them as well, to the best of its ability), but a so-called revolution aimed at liberating a country from tyranny should not turn itself into one – at least not so soon – at the expense of foreigners. The fact that they are targeted for their skin colours – as the report states – makes it even more alarming, and worrisome.

In post-Apatheid South Africa a few years ago, a similar thing happened where foreigners (also mostly Nigerians) became a target of xenophobic behaviour by citizens looking for scapegoats in a poor economy. It didn’t matter that just years before then, most of those other African countries had provided asylum for the freedom fighters running away from the oppressive Apatheid government. A similarly disgusting thing happened right after the Egyptian revolution succeeded, when Gael Ghonim – the acclaimed IT mastermind of the whole movement tweeted this. (At least he didn’t have a gun to someone’s head.)

A pattern has emerged here that should be roundly condemned.