Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 21

Who are Trump and Biden speaking to?

By
Roy Shinar Cohen
-
Image credits: kellybdc / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Many of us love American politics. We flock to see American politicians and leaders when they speak in Oxford, discuss elections and issues passionately around dinner tables, and casually mention that we read The New York Times as often as possible. Yet, we do all of that from our ivory tower of ‘across the pond’. Usually, when we discuss these issues and criticise politicians for their latest policy or statement, we completely forget that they are not aimed at us. To better understand them, I think we should ask ourselves who they are speaking to.

The United States is highly polarised. In his acclaimed book Why We’re Polarized, the journalist Ezra Klein discusses the causes and consequences of polarisation. Klein writes that Americans became “more consistent in the party we [Americans] vote for not because we came to like our party more – indeed we’ve come to like the parties we vote for less – but because we came to dislike the opposing party more”. This has been a core part of the growing divide in American society. As the Pew Research Center found, in the two decades before 2014 the ideological overlap between Democrats and Republicans shrunk substantially and the parties became more ideologically consistent and ‘pure’. Although they have not published another report about polarisation recently, there is reason to believe the trends they described continued or even accelerated in the decade since 2014.

So, just over six months away from the second Trump-Biden election, the public is nearly perfectly divided. In a new study published earlier this month, the Pew Research Center analysed the political coalitions in the United States. According to them, American voters are split between Democrats and Republicans, the former leading with 49% to the latter’s 48% of voters. However, within these voter blocks the differences are substantial. Although both parties became more diverse in recent decades, there are significant differences between Democratic and Republican voters. The Republican coalition consists of 79% White voters, 9% Hispanic voters, and 12% voters who are Black, Asian or belonging to other racial groups. In comparison, the Democratic voter coalition is made up of 56% White voters, 16% Hispanic voters, 18% Black voters, 6% Asian voters, and 4% belonging to other racial groups. As former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi said during a speech at Oxford Speaks this April: “Our [Democrats’] diversity is our strength”.

Yet, is Pelosi right in stating that Democrats are more diverse? Diving further into Pew’s data it appears so. The voter groups who predominantly support the Republican party are White evangelical Protestants; people living in rural areas; White men; and White voters without a college degree. On the other hand, the voter groups who mostly support the Democratic party are women with a college degree; religiously unaffiliated voters; voters living in urban areas; and the majority of Hispanic, Black, and Asian voters. Additionally, it should not surprise you to know that two in three young voters (18-24) align with Democrats while the majority of older voters (65 and older) identify with Republicans. These differences really are quite stark.

To put it bluntly to anyone reading, you are most likely not in either Trump or Biden’s mind when they speak. Both parties’ efforts will be aimed, mainly, at mobilising specific voter groups they identified as increasing their chances of winning. This includes making sure they remain loyal to the party, as well as go out to vote. Accordingly, the parties will focus on messaging (speeches, social media posts, and policy announcements) that will resonate with their expected electorate. Democrats will want to make sure young, urban, college-educated, non-religious, female, and racially diverse voters are excited about Biden (or terrified of Trump). For Republicans, almost the exact opposite is true: they will try to reach old, rural, religious, White, not-college-educated voters.

It is important to remember that most voters do not like Biden or Trump and were hoping for different candidates than what they now have. According to FiveThirtyEight’s analysis, approximately 56% of voters disapprove of President Biden. Furthermore, 538 found that at no point since leaving office did the majority of Americans have a favourable view of Trump. Today, approximately 53% of Americans hold unfavourable views of Trump. Here we should remember what Ezra Klein pointed out: voters do not like their own party; voters hate the other party. For this reason, we are seeing substantial campaigning not on the merit of the candidate but on the faults (or ‘HUGE RISKS’) of the other.

So, according to the data, if you were in the United States it is more likely that Biden’s messaging would be directed at you. But, as you are in the United Kingdom, you are, by and large, uninteresting to them (unless you are American, of course). Nevertheless, we should keep in mind, when reading about American politics, who the candidates are trying to convince (or scare) in order to win. That is, in most cases, the reason why they are saying what they are saying.

Pro-Palestine protesters establish encampment demanding University action

By
Cherwell News
-

An encampment has been constructed in Oxford in protest of Israeli action in Palestine and calling for the University to “end complicity with genocide”. Students, faculty, and staff have gathered to demand that the University reveal and divest funding into Israel and arms companies, as well as boycott all institutional connections with Israeli universities. 

Positioned in front of the Pitt Rivers Museum, the encampment was established early Monday morning and is in coordination with a similar protest in Cambridge. It has been organised by the newly founded Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P). 

In a joint statement with Cambridge for Palestine (C4P), OA4P told Cherwell: “we refuse to accept our universities’ complicity in Israel’s war crimes against the Palestinian people – and we refuse to stand by while they justify Israel’s campaign of mass slaughter, starvation, and displacement.”

The encampment in Oxford comes after a string of similar movements at other universities across the world, including Yale, Harvard and UCLA, where 132 were arrested and rubber bullets used against the students. 

A student participating told Cherwell: “It’s not even 10am and we’ve already had dozens of people join us in the building of a beautiful community in our Liberated Zone, and more people stream in from the street with each passing hour. It’s an honour to stand alongside people who care so deeply for Palestinian Liberation and demand that the genocide in Gaza must end.

“Our university is complicit in Israel’s genocide, occupation and apartheid – and as a coalition of students, staff and faculty we say no more [emphasis added by student]. After seven months of overwhelming support for Palestine on campus, we call on [the Administration] to take action that’s long overdue.”

The group has made seven demands of the University, primarily relating to the assets and investments held. They demand a disclosure of all University assets and a divestiture of all holdings in arms companies and companies “complicit in Israeli genocide, apartheid and occupation of Palestine”.  

OA4P has said: “Oxbridge’s profits cannot continue to climb at the expense of Palestinian lives, and their reputations must no longer be built on the white-washing of Israeli crimes. Today we join the university students, faculty, and staff across the globe who refuse to continue business as usual while our institutions profit from genocide.”

It is also demanded that the University and its subsidiaries end all banking with Barclays. This comes after a protest in January outside the Oxford branch in protest organised by the Oxford Palestine Solidarity Campaign. 

A boycott of institutional relationships with Israeli universities has also been demanded. This consists of the ending of exchange programs, joint projects and conferences. They also demand  that the Univerisity “end research, career, and procurement partnerships with companies and institutions that are complicit in Israeli genocide, apartheid, or occupation.” 

Demands relating to changes in University investment include adding an ethical restriction against investing in companies that are “complicit in Israeli genocide, apartheid, and occupation” and utilising an ethical investment review process to have decisions adhere to ‘justice-based guidelines’”. 

The group demands the University provides financial and material means to rebuild Palestinian universities, establish a long-term task force to recommend how best to rebuild the higher education sector in Gaza and allocate resources to support Palestinian students such as exchanges, joint projects and scholarship programmes. 

A University spokesperson said that they were aware of the demonstration, and stated that they “respect our students and staff members’ right to freedom of expression in the form of peaceful protests”, asking protestors to “do so with respect, courtesy and empathy.”

They further emphasised that the university’s primary focus was the health and safety of the community, and to ensure that any impact on work, research or exams are minimised: “As we have stressed in our student and staff communications there is no place for intolerance at the University of Oxford.”

The University also reiterated that the Museum of Natural History and the Pitt Rivers Museum remain open.

At 6pm, around 500 demonstrators attended a vigil held just outside the encampment. The aim of the vigil was to demonstrate solidarity with the healthcare and education workers of Gaza. The protesters say that their workplaces have been destroyed through Israeli bombardment.

Participants along the first rows at the vigil held placards with names of healthcare workers who have lost their lives as a result of the ongoing conflict. 

The first speakers, in scrubs, began by reading out the names of the deceased healthcare workers, of which there have been around 200, to an audience in silence. Later speakers spoke of the dismantlement of Palestinian civil society, with chants of “no justice no peace” from the audience.

Update, 12th May 2024:

On the evening of 11th May, a group of six men arrived at the encampment, shouting abusive and threatening remarks at the protesters – including “terrorist” and “I’ll f*cking kill you”. They also accused a Jewish student in the encampment of being a “fake Jew,” according to video footage, available on Instagram @madeleine_observes as of 11th May. The group of men also pushed several encampment members trying to block their advance.

A statement from the encampment also alleges that the men destroyed banners, used “xenophobic and transphobic slurs” as well as “antisemitic language” targeting Jewish students. The statement furthers: “We are thankful no one was hurt, but we remain enraged at the politically-motivated fearmongering that jeopardised the safety of our campers…

“The incident falls squarely on the shoulders of Prime Minister Sunak, University Administrators, and irresponsible media, who all spent the week weaponising antisemitism to demonise campus protesters. In a shallow act of desperation, they’ve placed us in danger to distract from the fact that they are aiding and abetting Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.”

‘Runfluencers’: Another commodified wellness trend?

By
Lara Foxon
-
Artwork by Joe Walford

Running has long had bad PR. Hating running has been far from contentious, liking it reserved for the smug, self-congratulatory type. The consensus has seemed clear. Running is something marred by tedium, pain, and memories of the Beep Test. Looking at it like this, it is easy to see why running has been so unpopular.

And yet, miraculously, my Instagram is suddenly full of praise for it. Public opinion seems transformed. A quick search on Instagram shows that ‘#running’ racks up 93.2 million posts. It takes me less than a minute on Reels before I scroll past someone vlogging their long run, their get ready with me, their outfit of the day.  

Maybe I am in an echo chamber of my own making. I tell the algorithm I like to run and it rewards me with its steady churn of content. But, the fact that new ‘run clubs’ are springing up, and more people are taking on the mantle of ‘runfluencer’ suggests otherwise. 

More importantly, this apparent surge in popularity seems to have encouraged people to try running for themselves, on their own terms. Outside of being forced to run the school cross country, it seems that running can be likeable, enjoyable even. Seeing more people running  changed my own opinion of it. Like many, I started running during the first lockdown. I’m not sure I can remember exactly why I started, but the popularity of ‘Run 5 Donate 5 Nominate 5’ posts certainly made the prospect less daunting. Instagram often has a way of making you try something new by making that something less intimidating, or alien. 

Social media seems to be the medium, then, for running’s popularity. But what does this mean for its message? 

Tempting as it is to accept the latest trend as running’s long awaited reimagining, we need to ask how it is being presented. In short videos, is the simple answer. Peppered with all the hallmarks you would expect to see on Instagram. A running rucksack and a slicked back pony (extra points for a giant scrunchie) complement a nice outfit – preferably coupled with a pastel top and colourful trainers. All of which is best viewed through the inevitable 0.5x lens shot. It is curated, it is trendy. And it is no secret that to be big on Instagram, you need to be able to sell. Personal brand, salient message, and product alike must trade on their currency. Running, in this format, is the perfect saleable commodity. It links lifestyle to product. It sells a fully integrated package. 

I don’t think that this is the whole message, or what ‘running influencers’ explicitly set out to do. But formats like Reels trade on short clips, shorter attention spans, and the desire to Just. Keep. Scrolling. What is lost in such an endless medium is the detail. What is remembered is the gilt of the veneer.  

This gloss perfectly combines consumerism and fabled self-discipline. Buying these trainers, this look, that is what will realise your potential. It is attractive, alluring and seemingly simple. It sits snugly with the idea that, if you just muster enough willpower to condition yourself properly, you too can feel, can be, purified. Or, in less effusive terms, you too could vlog your run to work in the City. 

If that wasn’t enough, this is bedded in with a healthy dose of corporate opportunism. Run clubs are sponsored or hosted (and posted) by your favourite brands. You can try, then buy, those trainers. Be a part of the lifestyle, be a part of the brand. That is the fully integrated package. 

Perhaps it stretches a one minute video too far for me to pick it apart like this, how much can really be read into its subtext after all. But I think its seemingly innocuous nature makes it more important to recognise and critique. Running has never been apolitical, exempt from the social contexts it exists in. It is easier to see where this newfound popularity has come from when you consider the message this trend promotes. It leaves unquestioned the idea that we can all be perfectly self-governing individuals, untainted and uncompromised. Even in leisure, our self-discipline is productive, and conducive, to the never-ending consumption needed to perform it. 

None of this is what running is about, no matter its pretence. Of the many reasons to run, it doesn’t jump out  — it seems entirely separate from the atmosphere of any races I’ve ever ran. Gone is the uniform and colour scheme. Instead, the start line is awash with friends and family running together; charity and club vests; favourite t-shirts and trusty trainers. Marshalls volunteer and encourage, alongside supporters who make noise for those they love and those they have never met. This brightness, spontaneity, and community of running will long be its best advertisement. Better than any one minute long vlog or shameless sponsorship. And despite all my railing against self-discipline, I endlessly appreciate the fact it makes it easier for me to get to sleep (sorry Foucault).

New humanities faculty building celebrates construction landmark in ‘topping out’ ceremony

By
Adam Saxon
-
Image credit: John Cairns

On Friday 3rd May, the University of Oxford celebrated the ’topping out’ of the Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities. The ceremony to mark the completion of the roof involved speeches from Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracey and donor Stephen A. Schwarzman, CEO of the Blackstone Group, who has to date donated £185 million in support of the project. Musical acts clad in hard hats braved rainy conditions to perform on the roof, still a site of ongoing construction. 

Once completed, the Schwarzman Centre will bring together seven different faculties currently based around Oxford. It will be home to a 500-seat concert hall, a black box performance space, a new 140,000-book library, and the University’s new Ethics of AI institute. The centre will also facilitate  the Cultural Programme and a whole host of other projects and venues.

Tracey began the ceremony with a speech in which she praised the project and its progress so far. She highlighted the need to “support, nourish, and develop” the humanities into the future. The level of investment provided by Schwarzman comes in the face of cuts and closures to a growing number of humanities courses at universities across the country. 

Schwarzman also made a speech. Beginning by joking that the drizzly weather felt like February, he went on to praise the hard work of the construction workers who were “essential” for reaching the topping out stage. He also thanked former Vice-Chancellor Louise Richardson for convincing him to donate to the project and spoke of how he in turn convinced her to take on the project “properly” and produce a building that pushes the boundaries of what is possible. 

The topping out ceremony itself involved a branch of the oldest tree in the University’s collection, an almost 400-year-old willow in the botanical gardens, which was attached to the final piece of roofing waiting to be moved into place. The use of the branch is an ancient tradition which aims to ward off “evil spirits” from the building.

Tracey, Schwarzman, and the CEO of the construction company, Laing O’Rourke, then signed the final slab of the roof ahead of it being moved into place. Members of the team from Laing O’Rourke and the University who have helped deliver the project up to this point were also invited to sign. 

Image Credit: John Cairns

Following the signings, guests were treated to rooftop music performances from the Oxford University Jazz Orchestra, saxophonist Soweto Kinch, and cabaret singer Meow Meow. The latter began her performance with a tongue-in-cheek statement against corruption and the pursuit of profit before reminding the audience that such concerns were “not what today is about.”

The performances were organised by the University’s recently launched Cultural Programme, which will hold a range of events around Oxford in the coming months while it prepares to use the completed building. 

While this ceremony celebrated the completion of the main body of the roof, the building has not yet reached its highest point. That moment will come within the next week when the giant dome is moved into place by a crane, having been assembled on the ground. The dome will be the ceiling of the central atrium, which will be known as the great hall. 

Head of the Humanities division, Professor Daniel Grimley, told Cherwell: “Celebrating topping out is a thrilling high point for the Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities, as we look forward to our opening in Autumn 2025. The Centre will be a beacon for the Arts and Humanities in Oxford, nationally, and beyond. We will welcome a diverse community of students, researchers, creative artists, policy makers, and members of the public, and offer an innovative and stimulating programme of events nourished by Oxford research.”

Sir Michael Palin and others to be awarded honorary degrees from the University of Oxford

By
Joshua McGillivray
-

World-renowned comedian and actor Sir Michael Palin and Grammy-nominated sitarist Anoushka Shankar are among six people to be awarded honorary degrees from the University of Oxford. This year’s Encaenia Ceremony, where the six will be awarded their honorary degrees, will take place on June 19.

Sir Michael Palin is an actor and comedian who first rose to prominence as a member of the comedy troupe Monty Python in the 1970s. Palin has also presented travel documentaries for the BBC and written travel books. In 2019, he received a knighthood for “services to travel, culture and geography”. He studied Modern History at Brasenose College.

Anoushka Shankar is a musician, sitar-player and composer. She has been nominated for nine Grammy Awards and an Ivor Novello Award. She is also noted for her activism, supporting refugee related causes. Shankar wrote on her Instagram page that she was “still pinching [herself]” about the honorary degree. Last year, she became the inaugural Visiting Professor of Music Business at Oxford’s Music Faculty.

The other British individuals receiving honorary degrees are Warren East and Sir Demis Hassabis. Warren East has served as CEO of Arm Holdings from 2001 to 2013 and of Rolls-Royce from 2015 to 2022. He studied Engineering Science at Wadham College.

Sir Demis Hassabis the CEO and co-founder of the AI research laboratory DeepMind. His laboratory notably developed the program AlphaGo, which defeated the then world champion Lee Sedol at the board game Go in 2016.

The remaining honourees are Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a Nigerian economist and the first woman and first African to hold the position of director general of the World Trade Organisation, and Professor Salim Yusuf, a Canadian cardiologist and epidemiologist. The University describes Yusuf’s work as having “substantially influenced prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease.” He was elected as an honorary fellow of St John’s College in 2023. 

Honorary degrees have previously stoked controversy at the University, such as when the Sultan of Brunei handed back his honorary degree in 2019 following widespread criticism.

The University of Oxford has conferred honorary degrees to distinguished men and women since at least the late 1470s. Notable honorary degree recipients include Jimmy Carter in 2007, Martin Scorcese in 2018 and Hilary Clinton in 2021.

Labour loses seats in Oxford City Council as Independents and Greens make gains

By
Cem Kozanoglu
-
Image credit: Mike Peel / CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Labour party has been reduced to 20 councillors out of 48 in the Oxford City Council as the Greens and the Independent Oxford Alliance made gains in extremely tight local elections. The developments in Oxford come amidst a resounding defeat for the Conservatives nationwide, who are expected to lose half of their seats up for election.

A total of 25 councillor seats were up for election this year, two in the ward of Blackbird Leys and one in every other. The Labour party lost two seats, while the Oxford Socialists Independents groups lost five. Their losses resulted in four seats gained for the Independent Oxford Alliance, two for the Greens and one for an Independent candidate. 

The new makeup of the council will be as follows:

  • Labour Group – 20 seats
  • Liberal Democrat Group – 9 seats
  • Green Group – 8 seats
  • Oxford Independent Alliance – 4 seats
  • Independent Group – 3 seats
  • Independent (non-grouped) – 3 seats
  • Oxford Socialist Independents Group – 1 seats

Last October, Labour lost its Oxford City Council majority for the first time since 2010 after nine councillors resigned over the party’s refusal to condemn Israel’s actions during the War in the Gaza Strip. 

Six of the councillors moved to form the Oxford Socialist Independents Group, and three formed the separate Independent Group. The resignations led to Labour losing its majority, which has meant that they have had to rely on support from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to govern. With the losses for Labour and the for the Independent Socialists this election, their situation seems more precarious. 

Nationwide results so far show that the Conservatives are on track to lose around 500 councillor seats and key mayoral elections across the country. Part of the swing backwards for the Conservatives can be explained by their exceptionally strong electoral performance in 2021, when they made gains across the country. 

While initial results don’t seem much worse than expected, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will be facing significant discontent from his party if the losses are extreme. 

This article will be updated tomorrow when the counting for the Oxford Police and Crime Commissioner is completed.

Oxford Union believes international climate policy is neo-imperalist

By
Tom Gardner
-
Image credit: Anita Okunde /

On Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion ‘This House believes international climate policy is neo-imperialist.’ The final count had 85 members voting for the motion and 40 members voting against. 

The debating chamber was affected by power cuts before the debate, leading to the cancellation of the emergency debate. The Union also faced power outages at the end of Hilary, during which the society’s buildings were out of action for several days. Contingency plans to move the debate to the Goodman Library were also considered. 

Professor Noel Healy, a contributing author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and professor at Salem State University, spoke for the proposition. Speaking alongside Healy were Secretary’s Committee members, Ammar Ansari and Zarin Fariha.

Opposing the motion were the Union’s operations officer, Makkunda Sharma, standing committee member, Moosa Harraj, and New College PPE student, Prajwal Pandey. 

When introducing the opposition speakers, Ansari joked that, given Pandey’s position as Co-Chair of the Essex Climate Action Commission, he would be better suited for the proposition.

Ansari opened the case for the proposition by arguing that countries with a “history of colonialism [with] influence on global international bodies” were responsible for developing unjust climate policies which widen global inequalities.

Although some countries have paid climate reparations, he acknowledged, these “reparations must go further.” He ended by drawing attention to the impact of the war in the Gaza strip — how chemical weapons, for example, have contaminated Gazan soil. He said the lack of support provided by the West to call for a ceasefire as an example of neo-imperialist policy. 

Harraj opened the case for the opposition by emphasising the seriousness of current climate circumstances and the importance of all nations uniting against this issue. He cited the Paris Climate Change agreement as a recent success. 

He asserted that “developing nations are given some of the strongest voices” in creating climate policy and that that international climate policy provides a path of sustainable growth for developing nations. He cited the Chinese solar industry as a recent example. International agreements, he said, are necessary as well as a “beacon of unity and collective action.”

Fariha then continued the case for the proposition by arguing that powerful nations “weaponise” climate policy to create an “illusion of great success.” She remarked that resources pledged by Western nations are insufficient. Fariha pointed out the lack of progress provided by international climate policies and the particular impact of climate change on developing countries, citing flooding in Bangladesh and droughts in Somalia as examples. 

Fariha further stated that the mechanisms by which climate policies are formed are by nature imperialistic and display power imbalances. She also drew attention to a “contradiction” of Western nations who promote themselves as “pioneers of climate security” yet oppose calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, after exploring the damaging impact wars have on the climate.

Next, Pandey argued that international climate policy’s unique ability to provide financial support to developing nations, including helping them transition to green energy sources, makes mitigating climate change possible. 

He also drew attention to the limited timeframe to act against climate change, calling the issue “one of our very existence.” He affirmed that, through helping to develop international climate policies, ‘the West’ is holding up its responsibility and urging other nations to fight “an issue which ultimately affects them most.” 

To conclude his speech, Pandey noted that the motion frames ‘the West’ as holding the solutions to climate change and urged the house to consider international climate policy as a two-way process.

Concluding the case for the Proposition, Professor Healy contextualised the debate, pointing to the high historic emissions of nations in the so-called Global North. He said that states in the Global North had used international climate policy to repackage “the power nations of old” — referring to former colonial nations.

Examples of this, he suggested, include non-committal climate policy and missed pledges. He cited the ability of large multinational corporations to influence climate policy as another example, including the $1.4 trillion recently poured into fossil fuel subsidies by the G20 nations. 

Healy also called into question the sincerity of the Global North in its support for developing nations. He pointed out that monetary pledges are equal to just 0.2% of total loss and damages caused by climate change. 

He argued that the ‘polluter pays’ principle is unfair on the Global South, since countries in the Global North often outsource energy-intensive industrial processes to the Global South as a means of reducing their carbon emissions. 

Speaking last in the debate, Sharma accused the proposition of “flip-flopping” in their arguments. He called upon his personal experience living in New Delhi, pausing his speech to put on a mask inside the chamber, to illustrate the high levels of pollution there. 

He continued his speech by noting that climate targets are set voluntarily, and questioned how voluntary action could be a form of neo-imperialism. He said that climate policy is harshest on countries such as the United States and highlighted the impact that climate policy has on developed countries, who financially support the developing world. Finally, he emphasised a distinction between climate policy and social justice, arguing that climate policy alone has made real impact on slowing the rate of global warming. 

‘Hustler nation’: A Kenyan cultural crisis? 

By
Ebony-Coco de Lara
-
Image credits: Judzie7 / CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Jomo Kenyatta’s ‘Harambee’ movement in 1963 sought to unite the then newly formed Kenyan Republic, assembling from smouldering ashes a sense of cooperation and kinship. Through the implementation of collective fundraising efforts, it cultivated a solidarity amongst the divided tribes – fostering a Kenyan identity built on fraternity and mutual achievement. A concept derived from the African cultural tendency to favour one’s community over oneself, culminating in the ancient African philosophy, Ubuntu – taken from a Bantu word meaning the act of showing ‘humanity to others’. 

The practice of ‘Ubuntu’ is a commonality shared throughout Africa. Despite the rich diversity within the continent there lies a joint understanding in the importance of a common humanity. A common humanity communicated by means of the most subtle gestures, like sharing crops with one’s neighbours or welcoming a stranger with a steaming hot cup of tea. This is certainly what I am told is the norm in my mother’s place of origin. As a begrudging child, learning to share my toys, my mother would enlighten me with the same knowledge bestowed upon her by her mother. That it is of the most importance to share everything and anything all the time, regardless of how much one has – using the example of splitting a grasshopper’s head to share amongst friends. 

However, recently it seems as if Kenyan attitudes to the collective have changed. The incumbent President, William Ruto, has introduced the Western concept of ‘hustler culture’, akin to that which can be found in TikTok rabbit-holes and on the profiles of Instagram ‘micro-influencers’. As one Gerard Irick of the Urban Dictionary rightly puts it, aspiring to be “someone who uses their skill, talents, or instincts to make a quick buck”. This is epitomised in the characterisation of his political party, the United Democratic Alliance, which communicates the slogan “Kazi Ni Kazi” or “A job is a job; All hustles matter”. 

A self-proclaimed hustler, Ruto’s rise to fame saw a ‘rags to riches’ transformation in which he rose from his position selling chickens at the roadside to his ascension to the Presidency. He claims that this course of action allows the greatest way to rejuvenate young Kenyans, inspiring a generation to work hard to achieve their aspirations and likening his belief to the famed ‘American Dream.’ 

This connection with the West extends closer to home. Ruto’s apparent doctrine of ‘grafting’ as hard as one can poses an interesting synergy with the rhetoric of Thatcher’s neoliberal economic policy and dissident approach to society. She even claimed the latter not to exist, stating: “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.” Maintaining the primary objective of ensuring one’s own (nuclear) family the support they desire over the needs of the collective, a distinct contrast to Ubuntu. 

Thus, it must be considered to what extent Ruto’s proclaimed desire to build Kenya into a ‘hustler nation’ symbolises an implicit preference to favour the individual and his family’s personal goals over the betterment, or building, of society. More importantly, if – by extension – an adoption of Western ‘individualist’ doctrines has impeded on the preservation of Kenyan (and, consequently, African) cultural habits. In the wake of sowing the seeds of hustler culture to nourish the individual, Ruto is forgetting about the most intrinsic aspects of Kenyan society – considering your neighbours, and their circumstances, over your own. A belief so integral to the country’s development and legacy that the mere word ‘Harambee’, used by Kenyatta in his campaign of the same name, is adorned on the country’s insignia. The physical manifestation of a Kenyan’s commitment to their community, one which is not to be taken lightly. 

This ‘grindset’ of individual satisfaction undeniably seems to be an accepted ideal for several Kenyans. Glances at the ‘Kenyan side’ of Facebook, at least, convey this blatantly. The lifestyle of the ‘hustler’ provides a newfound motivation for my cousins, too, who report these ambitions online, littering their social media accounts with pictures of material goods they so desire to attain – the newest sports cars and flashy clothing decked out in luxury brand names. A drastic change in behaviour. No longer does my mother hear stories of community ‘get-togethers,’ neighbourly friendships or joint efforts. These, once normalised, events are exceedingly rare, replaced with high-rise fencing, dividing adjacent plots of land and the people inhabiting them. It seems as if the community-central attitude of Ubuntu ceases to exist. 

This begs the question, what is the drive behind this cultural shift? Why is Ruto so set on proposing an agenda of self-betterment? I would suggest that Ruto’s hustler ideology emphasises a greater yearning to replicate his Western counterparts.

It is undeniable that the president’s intentions lie in his belief that fostering a ‘hustler nation’ would provoke somewhat of a ‘modernisation’ of the country – perhaps allowing for a growth in industry or through diversifying the market. Yet, it seems to me that Ruto is attempting to emulate a foreign culture. A culture of independence, of caring purely for one’s own and, therefore, the very antithesis of the African tradition of Ubuntu. 

Why does an attempt to modernise Kenya have to follow a Western blueprint, especially when it risks losing the rich heritage being replaced? 

Thus, the problem with this momentous change in perspective is that there is a very potent possibility of losing one’s Kenyan identity. Ruto’s ‘hustler’ movement – or, rather, his desire to imitate the rhetoric of the West – signals an imminently emerging catastrophe. One which makes itself abundantly clear. Post-colonial Africa no longer has an identity of its own. The precariously teetering balance between a need to refashion our image on a global scale and the desire to preserve the practices previously denied to us has brought about an immense cultural crisis. A climate where the ideologies of the West seem to, continuously, trample on the beliefs of our ancestors. It is this balance Ruto must aim to strike, ensuring that his opinions do not insult the legacy left behind by those who fought (and died) for Kenya’s status as a Republic. 

Tackling the Trinity Terrors

By
Ted Holbrook
-
Image credit: Ninara / CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

Trinity Term marks the final term of the year, the term where the sun is (sometimes) shining, you can finally enjoy the joys of Port Meadow, and the long-awaited four-month summer is on the horizon. Whilst Trinity is often crowned the best term of the year, it is also the term when most students feel shackled to the Bod.

I am grateful to be able to say that, as a second-year geographer, I will not be experiencing the ‘Trinity terrors’ this year, but I am highly aware that Trinity presents a constant dilemma: soaking up the rays or battling the stresses of revision. This inevitable tension is particularly drawn out for those with exams in 8th or 9th week, with many forced to make the tough decision whether to attend the typical end of year entz. The image of sitting in Exam Schools the following week remains in the back of their heads as they sip their third Pimm’s of the evening, wondering whether not reading that one paper could have been the difference between an academic flop or a groundbreaking essay.

Fight your fears away? Unfortunately, I don’t think the Trinity terrors are something anyone can choose to ignore. It is a matter of finding a way to maintain the balance between focus and fun. Whether they choose to admit it or not, the anxieties of the exam season are experienced by everyone in some shape or form.

So what can you do to maintain a balance between fear and fun? While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, for every milestone in your revision, you have to attempt to recognise your progress. Whether this is delving into that extra sweet treat that you definitely budgeted for after a library session, enjoying an hour in the sun or making the most of your sport commitments, the way I approached Trinity last year was rewarding the little wins. You’ll appreciate this a little bit more if, in the future, you are able to sit in your scholar’s gown (although that tailored piece of fabric does not define you) whilst knowing in your head that you did it without going MIA to everyone in your life.

This balance is also nicely complemented by – without wanting to sound like your school headteacher – a more rigid working schedule. Find friends who maintain a similar working pattern to you and work together. Committing some hours to the SSL together is worth it if it means you can then enjoy an evening of sun (and perhaps sangria).

Celebrate these personal wins, but recognise the wins of others too. In the height of exam anxiety, it is very easy to maintain tunnel vision and forget that other people are in a similar boat. Find the friends that motivate you, but also allow you to maintain a personality that is more than ‘I have exams in two weeks.’ I know this can be easier said than done. Oxford (and university as a whole) can be a pretty lonely place at times, so if that means you spend more time alone, celebrate your little or large wins with the people who matter to you, even from afar.

Most importantly, the Trinity terrors are only temporary. Before you know it, you will be able to have (more) freedom as the summer approaches and life will appear a lot less academically stressful.

Whilst this ‘finding the balance’ lecture might appear to be core to the typical working attitude of an Oxford undergraduate, it doesn’t come as easy as you might think. Preserving your mental health is the most important exam preparation you can do, so, where possible, make time for what, who or where you love during Trinity. Your time at Oxford is incredibly finite, so treasure everything it can give you. From the experience of myself and others, it is possible to satisfy that craving for academic validation and stellar results without physically locking yourself into one of those dingy, claustrophobic study pods in the SSL for hours on end.

An interview with Federico Enciso, Paraguay’s First Openly Gay Politician 

By
Adam Noad
-
Image courtesy of Federico Enciso.

I am not going to lie. I myself was pretty much oblivious to Paraguay’s existence before being introduced to the documentary, 108: Cuchillo de Palo. Set during Stroessner’s dictatorship, it goes in search of the truth surrounding the director’s uncle, a gay ballet dancer who was found dead in his house one morning. It’s one of those documentaries that keeps you thinking for days. 

Spurred on by curiosity to find out what being gay in Paraguay is like today, I did what everyone does when they cannot stop thinking about something: I googled it. A few amateur searches composed of a jumble of disconnected words regarding the LGBT community in Paraguay allowed me to delve into the topic. At some point, I stumbled upon an article headline from the country’s main news outlet, ABC Paraguay, reading: ‘First openly gay candidate speaks out against vote-buying’. 

While the prevalence of ‘vote-buying’ is obviously condemnable, what caught my attention was the first part: the ‘first openly gay politician’. Having just read horror stories about the gay experience in South America’s most conservative country, I felt that I had to hear from him. A good dose of healthy stalking later, I found his Instagram profile, sent him a message, scheduled a Zoom call, and here we are. What follows is an interview with Federico Enciso, a 28-year-old master student in social work and the former candidate for the opposition party, PLRA (Authentic Radical Liberal Party), who just so happens to be gay: 

Why did you decide to become a politician? 

“Ever since I was a boy, politics has always interested me, despite the fact that my family was pretty much apathetic to the subject. I started investigating and became involved in my school’s student council. Though we initially only debated issues which affected education, we started contemplating the possibility of getting involved on other fronts, such as party politics. We all got involved because we wanted to – and still want to – discuss things which are simply not talked about in Paraguay. One of the things which we wanted to talk about was young people that political parties ignore.”

Is there a difference between Paraguayan young people’s attitude to politics and your parents’ generation? 

“Paraguay’s main problem is that it went through one of longest dictatorships in Latin America, and the main ‘achievement’ of this dictatorship was to instil fear, indifference, and apathy towards politics in the population. With regard to LGBT issues, I guess things have got better, but they are far from perfect. Above anything else, people are afraid. Even though there is no law against homosexuality in Paraguay like there is in Russia, for example, the fear of social rejection is still stronger than ever. For instance, if you are gay, it’s harder to get a job and there are many cases of abuse, not only mental but also physical. And if you are transexual, everything is a thousand times worse.”

Why has so little changed since Stroessner’s dictatorship? 

“Paraguay’s history is not like that of other South American countries. In Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, dictatorships fell, giving way to – more or less – stable democracies with alternating governments. Here, the same party that supported the dictatorship is still in power and this makes change a lot harder. If you actually look at election results, you’ll see that most people don’t vote for the Colorado Party, but there’s a First-Past-the-Post system, which means that the opposition vote is split between three or four candidates. If the political system was different, a lot of change could have already been made in several areas.”

In which areas besides LGBT rights do you feel that Paraguay lags behind? 

“One of the most basic things that I think is lacking in Paraguay is a true democratic tradition. If you look at some surveys, you’ll see that most Paraguayans would support an authoritarian regime. Even if we have been a democracy for a long time now, there is still an absence of democratic values. The other big issue, for me, is inequality. In Paraguay, there is no middle class; you are either crazy rich or you live in poverty. This inequality affects all areas of life: education, healthcare, and employment. Most jobs are precarious and pay peanuts. There is no real industry apart from agriculture in Paraguay, and, as a consequence, people cannot find good jobs. All of this is aggravated by the fact that Paraguay has one of the worst education systems in the world.”

In the last few years, several important Paraguayan politicians have made homophobic remarks, most notably the country’s former president, Horacio Cartes, who said he would ‘shoot himself in the balls’ if he had a gay son. What do you make of these comments? 

“I think you have to split this topic in two. The first problem that we see is impunity. Politicians can say whatever comes to mind because they know that there are never any consequences. In fact, there is no law against homophobia in Paraguay. However, there is also another issue. In the past, people used to blame everything on communists in Paraguay. Anyone who criticised the government was a communist. If someone went out to protest against poverty, he was immediately labelled a communist. Not much has changed. Now, in Paraguay, the government blames everything on the UN’s ‘Vision 2030’. There’s a whole band of politicians who scare people saying that the LGBT community wants to indoctrinate children. All of this is merely a tactic to distract the population from the country’s real problems. Besides being homophobic, these politicians are also using this discourse with an aim in mind. For instance, Cartes is accused of being involved in narcoterrorism by the US government. Instead of taking these accusations seriously, all of Cartes’ political entourage has blamed them on the fact that the US ambassador to Paraguay is gay. He attributes the claims made against him to the dissonance between his conservative political views (as a defender of God, family and the fatherland) and the ambassador’s.”

How do you feel being an openly gay politician in such a conservative country? 

“What I have noticed, since I am a public figure, is the power of social media. Because of what I do, I receive a non-negligible amount of hostility on my social platforms, but rarely in person. I know that it’s not just because I’m gay. It’s the whole package, you see? I’m gay, and I criticise the government. I don’t really let it affect me; often, on social media, there are profiles that are quite visibly fake or bots. What makes me happy is that I have received lots of messages of support, from lots of people who tell me that they would not have the guts to do what I do and are happy to see someone defending the cause.”

How was your coming out? 

“My story does not reflect that of the majority. I was also supported by my family and friends, something which normally does not happen here. In Paraguay, if you come out, generally, you have to move out too. Hostility to gay people exists pretty much everywhere; maybe there is not so much discrimination in Asunción [the capital city], but that is not to say it does not exist.”

You now live in Argentina. Why did you decide to leave Paraguay? 

“First and foremost, I’m here for academic reasons; I came to study here. In Argentina, public universities are good and accessible, something which cannot be said of universities in Paraguay. While education is a right set out in the Paraguayan Constitution, nobody respects the legislation in practice. The other reason why I am here is because I’m tired. Let me explain. Many of the people I knew in Paraguay who were involved in the same struggle went through a process of thinking things were going to change quickly to understanding that the problem was much deeper-rooted. Paraguay has been a democracy for over thirty years, but not much has changed over that time period. Partially, it was this lack of change which pushed me to leave. I was tired of seeing gay friends suffer for being who they were. It’s all very tiring. To be honest, I think I am going to stay in Argentina.”

Is there a difference in attitudes between Argentina and Paraguay? 

“Just by crossing the river which separates the two countries, everything changes. It has been a while now that there is legislation which protects the rights of the LGBT community. In my university course, I have a fellow student who is trans in my class, and everybody calls her the name that she has chosen. I just can’t see this happening in Paraguay. All of this is a relief for me. Obviously, there are still conservative politicians, and, in fact, the president of Argentina is a conservative. Despite this, in general, things are much better, not just among young people but also among older generations who accept diversity.”

Do you not want to go back to Paraguay to try to change the situation? 

“I could, if I wanted to, but I would have to give too much of myself. I would have to put in so much energy and put my mental health on the line in the process. I’ll give you an example. I remember that about two years ago I had a boyfriend, and we were lying down hugging each other on a beach when a man who worked for the local council came over to tell us that we couldn’t do what we were doing. At that moment, I faced two options: either to complain and make a scene, as I usually do, or to keep quiet and leave. The latter is what people usually do, because putting up a fight is tiring. It’s so tiring having to explain the obvious. I know this might seem like a bit of a petty example, but it’s a constant. All the little things that happen on a daily basis add up and affect your mental health. Paraguay is among the countries with the highest rate of young people with depression, anxiety…. It’s because of all of this that, at least for now, I am staying put in Argentina. I love my family and friends, but the political situation in Paraguay is just too complicated.”

All this time that I had been speaking with Federico Enciso, I could not help remembering what Augusto Roa Bastos, by far the country’s most famous novelist, had said during an interview in exile in 1986: ‘Today, Paraguay is a republic of besieged citizens. Half of the population has been corrupted, and the other half domesticated.’ Almost forty years later, the phrase still fits. Sure, Paraguay is no longer a dictatorship, there are no longer arbitrary arrests, and people do not disappear from one moment to the next without any explanation, but the country still lives in a state of fear and fatigue. It would be much easier if Paraguay could start a blank page; however, in the real world, this is impractical. Paraguay must not fake dementia about its dark past, but recognise the damage inflicted by the Stroessner’s dictatorship. Individuals, like Federico Enciso, who refuse to be domesticated or corrupted, will be the protagonists in the next chapter of Paraguay’s history.

1...202122...2,436Page 21 of 2,436

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy