We are what we have become
Cassandra's Candid Corner
So some humanoids have once again exposed themselves and our motherland to the world on April 21 at Bourda. We are what we have become. Fundamentally, we are a lawless people. We were all involved in the genesis and the nurturing of the plant and now we are reaping the fruit. Businessmen broke and break the laws governing the payment of taxes and the externalization of capital, traffic laws are broken with impunity, consumers are cheated when they are consciously sold inferior goods, the common man supports the scampishness when he drinks beer on which no duty has been paid. The judiciary plays eenie, meenie meenie mo and vocally supports indefensible acts. The whole damn society disrespects the law. And what is characteristic of the whole is surely characteristic of the part. Well, we witnessed a lawless part at Bourda. I suppose it would be too much to expect the recognition of the fact that an uneducated inebriated, over enthusiastic lumpen element steeped in the tradition of lawlessness and with an opportunity to misbehave without punishment invaded the field. That would be too simplistic. The intellectuals and the politicos (notice that I make a distinction) on the one side pontificate that since certain elements wanted to make the State ungovernable, what's the difficulty in making cricket ungovernable? Bourda gave them an opportunity to argue that the seeds of lawlessness which were carefully planted when the State was stolen, were dutifully and liberally fertilized with Party Paramountcy, seized and stuffed ballot boxes, castration of the Trade Unions, intimidation of the judiciary, the undermining of the independence of the Disciplined Services, and the establishment of a self-serving Constitution. They went back to prehistoric slime to explain the Bourda lunacy. On the other hand, the Opposition points out that such a debacle not only never happened when they were in control, but the Bourda Episode was an absolute reflection of mismanagement at its worst. And as to the "28 years" argument, they point out there is an increased harvest of the bitter fruit of economic instability, infrastructural collapse, social services decline, and an escalated educational devastation. Of course, they point out that irrespective of pre election promises, the Government seems to be in no hurry to alter the self-serving Constitution and now tells us that power sharing is a recipe for mayhem (forget the "winner will not take all" promise). All of these ingredients promoted the Bourda display. Well, they can into a political football. Good luck to them. I, for one, will not be fooled by all the posturings, the righteous indignation, the crocodile tears, the illogical efforts at exculpation and even justification of the mob's behaviour. For me, it was a case of mindless morons having an opportunity to get their 15 minutes of limelight by making a spectacle of themselves. It was a single problem that has a simple solution. (For the simple solution I refer you, dear readers, to Kit's Commentary of 22.4.99 (i) more police trained in crowd management techniques(ii) employment of private security services with the powers to arrest, (iii) the erection of higher fences, and (iv) alcohol to be sold only in small lightweight cups). Now let's turn to the parallel of the Barbados exhibition. Was there a parallel? Let's not delude ourselves that, because there might have been some common characteristics, there is great similarity in the two events. The Barbados display had instinctively reactive spontaneity. There was anger. There was terror and violence and a promise of more of the same. Above all, it had motive. In the end, the violence and threats achieved their objective. A decision was overturned. The message resounded around the globe. Force can win you the day. Who else/will now use the same tactics? I'll end this discussion with the wisdom of a relative unknown by the name of Michael Roberts who once wrote, that for the most part, the spectator's stake in the proceedings is the gratification that comes from identifying with success. Whoever can provide such vicarious joy needs no other justification as a human being. The capacity of one man's actions to butress the self-esteem of another is demonstrably a potent force. Still with cricket. So, Carl has retired from international cricket, while so much of his talent is left unshown; and Cozier must be saying "I told you so". There was a small sentence in an article (SN 28.4.99) about "Hoops" that revealed tons of information. This son of our soil needed help, and the 1995 England Tour Manager, Hall, sent him to the psychologist Mike Brearley. Methinks Hooper needs much more help than the good but inadequate Mr Brearley could have given him. One or two sessions with a psychologist would not be enough. I just hope that this comrade does not opt to reside in Australia. That might just exacerbate his condition. Australia's emigration laws are a reflection of its isolationism and, one might argue, of its innate racism. Can you imagine that this huge continent steadfastly does not allow easy entrance to Indonesians whose islands are bursting at the seams with population overgrowth. Let's stick with sports. Is there a sight in any spectator sport so utterly revolting as to have a 50 year old grandmother knocked to the canvas by a female half her age. Is there anything so despicably repulsive as to have two fat women purporting to be boxing while really just being on display like freaks in a side show. Boxing, at its best, is a reprehensible sport, and the only undertaking in which the competitors, from the inception, have the objective of inflicting pain and agony on each other. In fact, the show is truly at its "best" when there is intensified brutality and significant swelling, maiming and gore. Why is boxing such a successful spectator sport, in spite of all the visible and covert shortcomings? Is the biological imperative of man the savage beast revealing itself?. Or does boxing in the sense of a mass-spectacle, with death to add to the underlying excitement, come into existence when, as Lewis Mumford in "Technics and Civilization" posits, a population has been drilled and regimented and depressed to such an extent that it needs at least a vicarious participation in difficult feats of strength and skill (or heroism, even if it means the death of the hero), in order to sustain its waning life sense? Enough is enough. I'll leave you with those thoughts for the week.
|