The Ironies of Unfair Advantage

As one who followed the athletics events, especially to watch the Caribbean (via Jamaica) runaway with medals, I was struck by the scrutiny and treatment of South African athlete Caster Semenya with regard to her gender. While Semenya is not the first woman to have doubts cast on her gender, I found the treatment from IAAF both baffling and laced with ironies and contradictions.

As I understand it, the concern arises because Semenya does not conform to some ideal body type of a woman, hence a gender verification test. While I wonder what that body-type is and how this is determined (i.e by whose standards), I cannot help but deduce that this seems to be too closely linked to colonial half-baked-science, eugenics and sexist proclivities. Given the numerous tests for urine samples while being watched, one can hardly believe that we have a case of a woman masquerading as a man!

Interestingly further clarification of the IAAF request makes this whole spectacle even more ridiculous. There is the claim that the verification is grounded on a concern that she has a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage. This is even more mindboggling: how can someone with an inborn biological difference be held responsible for an unfair advantage? Is it that all athletes are born with the same genes that give them the same height, length of legs, body shape and proportion of fast and slow muscle fibres?

What is unfair, unjust and humiliating is that like some alien species on parade she will be examined by "medics, scientists, gynaecologists and psychologists", reminiscent of those colonial efforts at trying to make Black bodies the object of science. Not surprisingly her case is being compared to that of the 18^th century Kosian woman (Saartjie Baartman) who was undressed in order for umbrella carrying colonialists to poke and study here genitals.

In my view, an unfair advantage that should be scrutinised is located in those rich nations and athletes with all the top-of-the-range-facilities and personnel who are able to pump millions into getting athletes fit to compete. Those are the athletes and nations with an unfair advantage – not people like Caster Semenya, for whom sport facilities are virtually nonexistent and where training takes place on uneven dirt tracts. No wonder these athletes would be largely unheard of until someone discovers them!

In the meantime, athletes from the Caribbean and Africa will continue to excel and break records purely on determination, muscles strengthened by walking long distances to get to school or carrying water for long distances, remembering colonial history, and living on a diet of ackees, breadfruit, yams, ground provisions and fruits among the multiplicity of fresh foods and fruits.

© copyright Jagessar August 28 2009

RULE BRITANNIA - ACROSS THE SEAS

“The Sea”, writes Derek Walcott, “is history” and in doing so he not only reflects on the “tidal waves” and “shards” of past colonialism that shackled the Caribbean: he also points to the ways this history continue to shackle the region. This includes present day Caribbean politicians. As Walcott writes: “One morning the Caribbean was cut up by seven prime ministers who bought the sea in bolts....”Ever since Columbus everyone has been trying to buy and sell the Caribbean!

Walcott may not have had the Turks and Caicos Prime Minister in mind, but his poetic imagery carries a timely ring given the present debacle on this British territory. History has a strange way of repeating or reinventing itself as we can see with the imposition of direct rule by Britain on Turks & Caicos. Memories of the suspension of the constitution of Guyana in the sixties come to my mind, and to a lesser extent that of the invasion of Grenada.

In the case of the Turks and Caicos islands, politicians have been accused of being corrupt (selling crown land which was stolen in the first instance from the original inhabitants) and of irresponsible governance. And since Britannia still rule the waves (or is attempting to do so) around these islands then “to hell with democracy” and “due process” in addressing these charges. “We must teach these bloody natives a good lesson. So how about imposing direct rule, and then on our time determine when they are ready to again handle their own affairs.”

While not removing responsibility from the native politicians, this whole debacle smacks of hypocrisy. “What is the difference,” I ask myself, “between the corruption and sleaze of British politicians as revealed in our own recent and continuing scandals here in Britain and that of politicians and governance on these small Caribbean islands, albeit British territory?” Who will impose direct rule on parliament here in Britain to save the population from the lies and arrogance of smooth talking politicians? House cleaning is more meaningful and effective when it starts closer at home – especially since so much is imploding right on our own turf and before our eyes.

© copyright Jagessar August 16 2009

GIANT LEAP or HUMAN ILLUSION?

I am rediscovering science and technology through the reading materials of our sons. From books on quantum physics, particles, and history of science to Focus Magazine (BBC), I am having a good time trying to make moral, ethical and religious connections: and these are numerous. One article in particular from the summer issue of Focus (2009) got my attention.

This issue looks at “The new Space Race” and the article by the Science Fiction author Stephen Baxter “The Next Giant Leap” made interesting reading. Baxter explores the future of space exploration and argues that this will be determined by what happens back “home” especially in a few nations states (US, China, India & Europe). Some of these factors or events will be: wars which will be more technologically intense and locally focused (in other words these will happen on somebody else’s land!); climate change which will dictate economics, the depletion of key resources and the superhighway of technology.

The latter, contends Baxter, will result in improved access to “orbit and beyond” which will then contribute towards “supporting our civilisation on earth” and towards creating more sophisticated communication systems – interplanetary internet spanning the Moon, Mars and asteroids. We will then be able mine outer space resources to solve our energy problems and climate change issues to the extent of even moving our heavy industries to outer space. Baxter reasons that by doing so we will then reduce our carbon footprint on earth “while sustaining a growing civilisation”. Then there will be the matter of finding life beyond that of mere earthlings.

All this sounds exciting – even promising and while I do wish to take the insights of a science fiction writer seriously (mindful that much of theology will also fall in the fictitious mode), there are a number of unanswered questions and contradictions from the imaginings or musings of Stephen Baxter.

For instance: there is still no hard evidence before me to suggest that human beings live responsible lives on earth (as it is our irresponsibility a fundamental factor to our present environmental demise) that will then be replicated in the ways we will treat and care for outer space. What guarantees will there be that we will not behave the same way in outer space? How can our tinkering in outer space enable us to change our life styles to that which is sustainable on earth? Interestingly, Baxter’s solution to climate, environment and energy matters is more about mining resources somewhere else rather than rethinking and changing how we live on earth. Baxter is certainly correct in noting that when humans occupy space that science and industry will transform our “corner of the cosmic neighbourhood”. The question is: for the good of whom, especially if a handful of super states will be calling the shots. We need more than Outer Space Treaty to deal with moral issues such as inequalities, greed and other human ambiguities.

© copyright Jagessar August 15 2009