Social media and the death of dialogue

Social media has given everyone a voice. It has removed the traditional gatekeepers and democratised the process of sharing information. It has given people like myself a platform to share my thoughts, express myself and connect with like-minded people from across the world. But unfortunately, it also seems to have killed the desire and ability to have coherent conversations.

We exist in our tribes, riding the wave of how good we think we are for holding the convictions we do, emboldened by the likes and retweets, and either blissfully unaware of everyone else or conveniently choosing to ignore them. Even when there is a crossover of ideas, you’re more likely to see abuse and blind disagreements than an actual exchange of ideas. Now, I am not one for ‘why can’t we all get along’ (I don’t have time for that) but I truly believe we lost something the day we signed up to the endorsement culture that comes with social media. The more ‘thumbs up’ we get on a post and the more retweets, the more we feel commissioned to exalt our views above others. Especially if those other views do not seem to be as popular as ours.

I like to think I have friends and associates from every school of thought on every issue you can imagine. From evangelical, socially conservative Christians to passionate, socially liberal atheists. From BNP sympathisers to Afro-centric ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’, and everything inbetween. One of the many benefits of being exposed to these wide range of convictions is that you get to hear opposing but often well thought out opinions on pretty much every issue under the sun. Unfortunately, it doesn't often go beyond that. The different sides hardly ever talk to one another and when they do it’s more like a boxing match - each person trying to land the biggest blow.

The torrent of political activity in recent months (and years) has highlighted this even more. From the UK’s EU referendum, to US Presidential elections and the UK General Elections, our social media feeds have been transformed into a running commentary on events from all sorts people. The commentary would’ve been enjoyable and worth it if it unveiled the rich dialogue around the complex issues we face but unfortunately it’s more like a verbal diarrhoea of dogma, unsubstantiated suspicions and insults.  

In the lead up the UK General Election (and since), I’m sure I’m not the only one that found the conveyor belt of stories on how bad this candidate and that political party was quite tiring. Stories that were light on objectivity but heavy on finger-pointing and blatant political bias. And you’ll get it from all sides, with the evangelists of each school of thought only out to speak and not to listen or engage. This unwillingness to listen, coupled inexplicably with the desire to make the biggest deal of the differences in opinion, is making it impossible to actually talk about the things we need to talk about.

At this point, I have to say that I’m more worried for the next generation than anything else. For many youngsters who are just forming opinions and behavior patterns, we risk initiating them into the very unhelpful way of engaging (or not) with people you don’t agree with if we carry on like this. Beyond our disagreements, we need to make sure that our youngsters are not deprived of the glorious gift of dialogue that many of us have benefited from.

It was Voltaire that said “I disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death for your right to say it” and until we get to this place (perhaps not the “to the death” bit but maybe giving up something of ourselves to give people we disagree with a platform), we definitely still have a lot to talk about.

Corbyn and Trump – Not as different as you think

Before anyone accuses me of making a false or unfair comparison, the purpose of this post is not to say that these two are the same. In many ways, they couldn't be more different. Trump spent the majority of his 'career' generally being an unpleasant person to work with. Corbyn, on the other hand, has always been a man of the people. He's built a reputation for being in the trenches with the “masses” and fighting for their causes. My aim is to address some remarkable similarities in their approach and how it helped their results.

The first similarity is the connection with the general public. While Corbyn had always been in touch, Trump made the astute move of tapping into long held frustrations and providing a voice for those frustrations on a bigger platform than they usually got. In America, it was immigration, jobs and 'Islamic extremism'. In the UK, it was austerity and wealth inequality. Both politicians took the brave move of addressing these issues at every opportunity, even when it seemed like the emphasis was grating on everyone else.

This persistence with the message earned an unyielding loyalty from the masses which was unshakeable in the face of what can only be described as spectacular gaffes. In Corbyn's case, he and his allies repeatedly got their numbers wrong ahead of the elections but that did not stop the

quite remarkable success of his campaign. Diane Abbott, one of Corbyn's strongest allies and also one of the repeat offenders in the campaigning process went on to record the biggest ever majority in her constituency. Trump, on the other, said a series of racist, sexist and generally derogatory things on the on the campaign trail (and beforehand) but that did not stop him from winning.

The two also made a big deal out of campaigning and getting supporters fired up. You may disagree with some of their policies and their general approach but one thing you cannot deny is that their supporters had more fire in their belly than supporters of their opposition. The justifications for this 'fire in the belly' are, of course, up for discussion but what both politicians did was to tap into that fire and ride the wave. Their rallies were packed to the rafters and even though I wasn't there personally, you could feel the passion from the other side of the television. Their opponents, on the other hand, seemed to be conducting robotic events that attendees were not too keen on.

Corbyn and Trump also used the supposed attacks from the media as a tool to galvanise supporters. Both were parodied (and continue to be parodied) from pillar to post but instead of dampening the spirit, it has spurred supporters on to greater commitment to the cause. On the morning of the UK elections, the UK's best selling newspaper, The Sun ran a front page saying “Don't chuck Britain in the Cor-bin” with a picture of Jeremy Corbyn's head sticking out of a dust bin. At the end of the day, Corbyn's Labour Party had increased its number of seats by 34 (I guess he had the last laugh there).

There is also the anti-establishment card, the fact that they were both up against opponents that were in their position by some kind of default and a range of other issues that show interesting similarities between Corbyn and Trump but I think you get my point. These two were given next to no chance and both defied the odds to record astonishing successes. By taking politics back to its fundamentals and speaking up for “the people”, they managed to deliver successes that even many of their supporters did not see coming.

What exactly do Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May supporters see in them (and the other)?

Theresa May vs Jeremy Corbyn

June 8 is the date for the next General Elections in the UK and for the first time in a very long time, the electorate have genuine options. No more the days of David Cameron and David Cameron-lite. In Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, UK citizens have two candidates that see the world in almost entirely different ways and have different visions for it. (I know there are other candidates and parties in the race but if we are being honest, most of them are no more than protest votes so I wont be focusing on them in this post. Maybe next time)

Campaigning has started in earnest and some supporters of both candidates have already shared more social media posts than would've been necessary for a nationwide campaign a few years ago. The intentions to help are undoubted but, too often, these post are overflowing with bias and just short of lying. If Theresa May is not being described as 'only interested in the wealthiest in the nation', Corbyn is described as a feckless and hopeless leader that is only useful for organising political protests. The honest truth is that both candidates actually want similar things for the country, albeit via different paths. But beyond this, these two are backed by armies of supporters. All equally convinced that their candidate is the right person for the job.

It's easy to dismiss people with opposing views but Brexit and Trump should have taught us that we would be doing that at our own peril. So, I think it is only right that consider what supporters really see in the two front runners.

With Theresa May, her supporters see a pragmatic and steady politician who has shown herself to be capable handling high profile positions. From her days as an opposition MP to her days in government (serving as Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities), May's supporters have seen a steady hand. They feel like she will improve on what exists and that she is genuinely trying to build a society that works for everybody. Not just the very wealthy.

With Corbyn, many of Theresa May's supporters see him as a disruptive maverick who is bent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. His integrity is never questioned but his ability and desire to lead is always up for discussion. They see him as a naïve optimist charting new frontiers that will take the country to somewhere it has never been before and should never be.

To Corbyn's supporters, he is something of a messiah. He is the figure head for the revolution they feel the country has needed for a very long time. The system is rigged and the Tories are a cancer that only Corbyn can remove. His track record on issues like the Iraq war and nuclear weapons is a major plus-point and the issue of leadership qualities doesn't get much airtime.

Corbyn's supporters see May as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the UK establishment. She is 'more of the same' and a vote for her would be another reason to despair for the future of the country. They see her as divisive and only interested in her own personal gains. For example, some have said even this election is entirely about her and her personal gain, and nothing to do with the country.

However you look at it, both sides have valid points. With Brexit and the current state of world politics, the UK is at a crossroads and needs to decide on how it wants to define itself for the next generation. May is bent on building on what we have (whatever you think that is) and Corbyn wants to put a stop to that. Whatever you think of the options, please make sure you go out to vote. The only wrong choice here is not voting at all.

Celebrating the Obamas

Today, January 19 2017 is the final day that Barack Hussein Obama and his wife, Michelle Lavaughn Obama will occupy The White House as President and First Lady of the United States of America. I know there hasn't been a shortage of praise and accolades but I just wanted to add my voice to that of many others in celebrating them.

There is a growing sentiment that the impact and success of the Obamas will not be fully appreciated until long after they have left office and I fully agree with that. The long list of achievements speak for themselves but more than that, Barack and Michelle have inspired many along the way with story, their ambition and their dedication to one another.

We have all seen the pictures of their humble beginnings and heard stories about their struggles in the early days. Many of us have watched interviews and listened to speeches in awe and admiration of their effortless charm. We have followed them like they were extended family members that we hoped and prayed did well, and they have. It is not everyday that you have someone in high office that comes in on a wave of excitement and expectation, and leaves with commendable and honorable record.

I'm not going to pretend like the Obamas had a perfect time or that I agree with every move they made because I don't. I didn't expect to and anyway, this post is not about that.

A few years before Obama was elected, I distinctly remember having a conversation with friends about the possibility of seeing a black president of the United States in our lifetime. Our conclusion at the time was that it wouldn't happen. America was too racist and wasn't ready to elect a black man as president, we said. While racism in America is still alive and well, it gives me great joy to be able to say that not only did Barack Obama get elected as president (twice), he did so despite the racism.

It also gives me great pleasure to be able to say that the first black woman to occupy the role of First Lady was Michelle Obama - with degrees from Princeton and Harvard, and all the grace you could hope for. A formidable woman in her own right and a force to be reckoned with by any standard.

The Obamas had their fair share of nonsense to deal with as well. Between the caricatures (Obama's baby mama) and the blatant insults (the birther campaign), they made a habit of conducting themselves with great dignity  - exemplified by the 'when they go low, we go high' motto. Barack didn't perform to poorly with his White House Correspondents' Dinner comedy attempts either.

By the end of the day on the 20th, the Obamas' tenure will be history and a new chapter will begin. Time will tell how that chapter unfolds and, to be honest, I really don't want to think about that now. I am just happy that they did it their way. They came, they saw and they have conquered. I just hope history is indeed as favorable to them as I have been.

The curious case of Delta Airlines and Adam Saleh

By now you would have heard the story of Adam Saleh, the YouTube prankster that was kicked off a Delta Airlines flight, allegedly for speaking Arabic to his mum on the phone and with a friend he was travelling with. Apparently whatever he did or said made up to 20 passengers uncomfortable. 

Since the incident happened on Wednesday, social media has been awash with every imaginable reaction, from calls to boycott Delta to claims that it was all a hoax. Many have pointed to Saleh's previous pranks that involved speaking Arabic and doing other provocative things to get a reaction. According to these doubters, Saleh's reputation leaves him with little credibility. Something like the boy who cried wolf. 

In another development, Delta Airlines issued a statement defending their decision to remove Saleh from the flight. According to them, "based on the information collected to date, it appears the customers who were removed sought to disrupt the cabin with provocative behaviour, including shouting. This type of conduct is not welcome on any Delta flight.”

“While one, according to media reports, is a known prankster who was video-recorded and encouraged by his travelling companion, what is paramount to Delta is the safety and comfort of our passengers and employees. It is clear these individuals sought to violate that priority.”

Another eyewitness on the flight has come out to claim that there was indeed some provocative action from Saleh at the root of the ensuing situation. Basically, he shouted in Arabic and some people got really uncomfortable. 

If this was indeed the case, surely the solution would be to mediate the situation, move people around and find a way to restore some calmness. Especially when you consider that Delta has been under pressure recently for allegations of racism against staff with the case of the black lady who 'wasn't a doctor'. The last thing they needed is another controversy. But no, Delta is not that sort of airline. Their staff have not been trained to handle these situations tactfully. 

I am not saying this based solely on Saleh's story. I have also recieved similar treatment from Delta staff. On a flight from Heathrow to JFK, I was 'randomly selected' to have my bags searched (emptied out) at the entrance of the plane. Not at the security checkpoint where everybody puts their bag through the scanner. Right at the door of the plane. 

Picture this - as everybody is boarding the plane, I am being searched and patted down. The only other person that was 'randomly selected' was a Latino lady (make of that what you will)

Fast forward to passport control on the other side and I was taken to the homeland security office to answer questions about whether or not I knew how to fire a weapon or if I'd ever been to Somalia aka terrorist training camp. I still don't know why I recieved this treatment but apparently it is something to do with the underwear bomber who also happened to be Nigerian. I am not the only one to have this experience either. I know someone else (also Nigerian) that experienced the exact same situation on at least five seperate ocassions. I haven't flown Delta since and never will. 

I am not trying to equate my experience to Saleh's but there are some parallels. Both instances are the result of profiling. Saleh was assumed to be a threat because he is Arab and I was assumed to be a threat because I am Nigerian. Ironically, it is this sort of behaviour and reasoning that gives Saleh's pranks a platform. If people weren't so paranoid, hearing another language would not make you so uncomfortable. I hear people shouting in English everyday but I don't think they are about to commandeer my belongings like they did in Africa years ago. 

However you look at it, Saleh is not a terrorist and there is no way he would've been seen as a threat is he wasn't Arab. To miss this point and to pander to people's prejudice is a huge error of judgement from Delta and it shows where their priorities lie. And the fact that this is not a one-of suggests that there is some intent behind it all. 

I am not going to pretend to be surprised by this sort of behaviour but if it is going to continue unchallenged and even encouraged by the authorities at Delta, they must be made to pay by the public. 

I am fully behind the move to boycott Delta. I have been doing so for a few years. Our values are clearly different and I will not be giving them my hard earned money to support their prejudiced regime. I suggest you consider the same line of action. Not just for Delta but any organisation that needs to learn a lesson. 

Rewriting history - the ultimate privilege

The BBC today published a story that discusses the support of the Russian government for a World War 2 movie based on a "Communist myth". The movie, Panfilov's 28 Men, tells the story of 28 Red Army soldiers outnumbered by invading German soldiers but fighting on heroically before they are all killed.

The BBC article goes as far as calling the movie 'Communist mythology' as well as saying that it "echoes a Russian foreign policy concept: a Moscow-centred "Russian World" united by a common language."

The truth is that this story is indeed made up. It is a propaganda tool to boost morale and a sense of national pride. Various state-funded and independent sources confirm this. Basically, no one is denying that the story has been made up but the tone of the BBC story and the ongoing anti-Russian rhetoric (aka look at the horrible thing Russia has done) has me wondering how much of it all is actually a genuine crusade for truth and how much is purely political.

If we take Hollywood, the significantly larger US counterpart of the Russian film industry, and assess some of the inaccuracies it has sold as 'based on a true story', we might be here from a long time. White Jesus, White Cleopatra, Braveheart, primitive Africans and '300 Spartans' are just the tip of the iceberg. But I don't recall as much fuss and outrage being made out of the errors in these narratives. Also, most Hollywood war movies are embellished to the hills. Don't think I've seen many articles on mainstream media talking about links to foreign policy.

I am not condoning the falsification of history for any reason. My issue is with the readiness of some Western media to criticise something that happens so frequently within its own community. This attitude is not limited to movies either. You can see it in politics as well where some sections of the media, with the ink barely dry from their excuses for Western governments' meddling in conflicts across the world, writing scathing damnations of Russia's involvement in Syria. Don't get me wrong, what is going on in Syria is deplorable, inexcusable and needs to stop but it seems the same level of criticism is hardly ever directed at Western leaders and governments when they are at least equally guilty of the same crimes. The saying "take out the log in your eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's" comes to mind.

Back to the hypocrisy around Panfilov's 28 Men, it seems like the right to make fictional movies is only reserved for Hollywood. Or maybe I missed the memo on Hollywood’s immunity from the fundamental need to represent history accurately. When you consider that barely anyone outside of the Russian-speaking world will see this film, it is even more eyebrow-raising that the film is being critiqued as it has been.

I doubt that the movie will be marked as ‘based on a true story’ but even if it is, what happens as a direct consequence will not even come close to what we have seen as a result of the Hollywood inaccuracies listed above. Either way, if Hollywood is allowed to embellish, why can't the Russians?

The Donald Trump phenomenon – Dissecting the inevitable

Despite intense media campaigns to undermine his integrity and opposition attempts to amplify his faults, Donald Trump continues to record remarkable numbers in polls. His followers also seem to have the loyalty of martyrs. Staying with him despite his faults and failings. If things continue as they are, it pains me to say it but Donald J Trump will surely become the next president of the United States of America. 

However you look at it, Trump's support base is quite fascinating. Especially when you consider that they have pretty much defied every preconception in mainstream politics. It is easy to dismiss them as uneducated, super-conservative white men but the polls suggest something different. For example, Trump is polling very well among Republicans with degrees. Some polls also suggest that he is running stronger than average among Republicans who support abortion rights. The huge majority of his support base is male but he most recent polls suggest that he is yet to fall below 24 per cent support from women in a single state. That mean that roughly one in five women support him. Some polls also suggest that support amongLatinos and other minority groups is rising.

These numbers seem to defy logic but one thing that doesn't is the fact that Trump has a huge following among people who have 'had enough of the system'. A RAND Corporation study found that voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” are 86 per cent more likely to support Trump than any other candidate. This, for me, is the statistic that explains Trump's seemingly unshakable support. Here is a man with no political background to speak of running against the wife of a former head of state in a country divided on so many lines and all the various sections pointing the finger of blame at the establishment. It seemed like a bad joke to start with but further review will show why he is an 'anti-establishment' movement's dream.

Brexit pretty much followed the same lines. It would be easy to assume that most pro-Brexit voters were white people of British heritage who were tired of foreigners but the number of ethnic minorities that voted for Brexit should not be underestimated. I personally lost count of friends and acquaintances that voted for Brexit, most of them Londoners and of African decent. There were a variety of reasons why they voted but one thread that ran through was that of discontent with the norm and the opportunity to change a system that they didn't like. The 'debunking of myths' and 'warning signs' were of no consequence. The greater goal was more important than whatever character flaws the messengers carried.

You could say the same about Trump and his followers. The parallels are just too similar and I am beginning to be less surprised by how events are unfolding. Whatever the intention and however we got here, we live in a world that thrives on systematically dividing people. The conservatives against the liberals. The socialists against the capitalists. The educated against the uneducated. Add the big city versus country divide to the mix and you have the perfect mix of ingredients for a 21^st century revolution.

When you consider that only 57 per cent of eligible US citizens voted inthe 2012 election , that means nearly half of the country did not vote. Granted that there will be a multitude of reasons why the 43 per cent did not vote but this also means that they are an untapped resource for whoever has the means and rhetoric to engage them.

Trump's impending success is based on the fact that he has been able to unite a significant portion of people that feel like they have been on the wrong side of the divide for too long. Whether or not this is right is up for debate but it is of little consequence at this point. There is also the added advantage of being able to self-fund his own campaign which means he doesn't have to justify any expenses to anyone and can invest as he sees fit.

Trump is not everyone's cup of tea but I am confident that he will become the next president of the United States of America because what he has to say has traction. Maybe not with the majority of you that will read this but we made the mistake of underestimating the impact of people outside the mainstream with Brexit and it might be too late to change the inevitable with the Presidential race. Perhaps this is what 'the silent 43 per cent' have been waiting for. This definitely seems to be their moment in the sun. I just hope, for the sake of the world, that things don't get as ugly as the current rhetoric suggests.