A scapegoat.

Merriam-webster dictionary defines the scapegoat as, a goat upon whose head the sins of the people were symbolically placed after which it is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur. It also defines it as one that bears the blame for others or one that is the object of irrational hostility. Based on the first definition any goat could be selected during the feast of Yum Kippur to be the scapegoat. Up till the point when the priest casts the lot in the Jewish tradition either of the two goats could end up being the goat on whose head everyone’s sins were cast. It is important to note that the goat did not commit any sin of its own. It was only culpable in so much as it was a member of the Jewish community, at the time of Yom Kippur. It was unfortunate for whatever arbitrary reason to catch the attention of the priest and thus selected as one of the chosen for the fast .

This unfair fate is not relegated to goats alone. As the second definition above demonstrates man has been known to make a scapegoat of his fellow man. Regardless, of status in life whether noble, serf, leader, follower, innocent, guilty, loner or life of the party. One can quickly find themselves under the confessing tongues of many accusers. In similitude to the biblical scapegoat it would take an act of God to alter the desired outcome set upon by the community in which the accused exists in at the time. For many goats and people, being a scapegoat has never been a threat, nor even something they have ever imagined.

There are two fundamental things required for a scapegoat system to thrive. First, the system must be in place. There must be a need to have someone or something to take the guilty, sins and scruples of the people away. A conduit between man and his conscience, a tool to make a man feel that his deeds are not as gruesome. Or that they have been erased/forgiven thus neither God nor karma can revisit those sins on them. Although we no longer live in the olden days, this system still prevails in society. A good example is the current situation in Nigeria, where the presidential candidate for the labour party Mr Peter Obi has been designated the saviour of the nation. Alas! I fear he is nothing but a scapegoat. Atonement for the many sins of the past and the present.

The system has certain characteristics, one , it excludes anyone that does not fit in with the exisrung modus operandi in place. Two, iy is a rootless as well as ruthless system. Devouring both the fruits (benefits) and seeds (foundation) of the system. It also celebrates results rather than methods. Mr Peter Obi from all indications is a man who does the opposite. He wants systems that outlast a class, a group, a tenure, or a generation. A system that does not want to wash its hands of its guilt or wrongdoing. But learn from it. It is completely impossible to rid the world of guilt or the process of placing guilt on someone else’s shoulder. However, it is possible to create a system where a scapegoat is not a desired option. This can only happen when a system has its resources and demands/expectations evenly paired. For instance, two managers, four general assistants and one receptionist are required to smoothly run a business every day of the week. We will assume that this number of staff is decided to run the business at the peak hours. This means that at a less busy time, less staff might be required. Regardless of this, it must be understood that the office or system would be set up to fail if someone decides to run it with either less staff or with a different mixture of skills. For example hiring one manager, four general assistants and two receptionists, might seem adequate as the number of staff is accurate, but it, unfortunately, leaves certain parts uninsured and others unduly fortified. Creating the perfect opportunity for a scapegoat to arise, should the system not run smoothly.

The above scenario creates room for undue or maladjusted interpersonal skills to thrive. One that has less to do with the overall objective of the system/business or organisation in view and more to do with personal likes, dislikes and opinions. This system would make it easy for cliques to arise and for other variables which should normally stay on the parameters of the system to become the heart of it. Thus, elevating the people above the system. Whilst this is not a bad thing, in so much as “things were made for man and not man for things”, it can, unfortunately, become dangerous if the wrong people are at the core. This sad reality is the sorry state of Nigeria and a lot of organisations around the world. Systems that bear no resemblance to the original sketch on which it was built, as piece by piece people have changed the original with alternatives that are more individual serving than having a wider reach in view. This makes it a different system; its expectations and resources are altered. This is why placing all hope in one man might not be the best approach. For if or when he fails another will replace him. It will remain fallible unless the people refuse to move the structures to suit personal gain. This brings us to the second factor that creates a thriving system for the emergence of scapegoats; people. Whether they are leaders or followers.

In the series ‘The Last Kingdom Cnut answers Ragnar the fearless’s question regarding the worth of Æthelwold’, saying “his worth is in his ability to drip poison into every ear”. As simple or as mindless as it sounds, the aforementioned is the very backbone on which systems are re-engineered, broken or simply destroyed. As earlier mentioned, a system is made for man, but man is the only thing that can determine if the system will stand and endure. According to Winston, B. and Patterson, K. (2006), leadership is a major factor that determines how people fit into a system. But for this to materialise the leader must thoroughly know the system and uphold the system. This perhaps is the bases for which many people herald or advocate for Mr Peter Obi to become president. The hope is that a good leader will spearhead a good system. This is an ideology shared by Winston, B. and Patterson, K. (2006), in their definition of a leader, they assert that not only does a leader know how people should fit into the system, but a leader also deals equitably and supports diversity amongst his followers. This type of leadership also fosters the individual growth of each follower, encouraging them to take risks and innovate, (Winston, B. E. and Patterson, K. 2006). Under such leadership, when properly executed the chances of a scapegoat emerging is slim.

In addition to the above, (a good leader), there must be good followers. People who refute the “dripping of poison into ears”. People who hold the system above the individual. The task is not an easy one, it is often even difficult to identify when one has become caught up in the words that start the rot in the foundation of every system. From the above example regarding the number of staff required to run a business to the example of Æthelwold who exemplifies the spread of rot that destroys the system. Both show that a failure on one side or a gap on one side creates lapses and births a new system in place of what should be. There must first be a lapse in the system, an unbalancing of the scales. This creates the room through which the oil that destroys everything starts to drip, slowly but surely. But to achieve its maximum effect it must have willing vessels; leaders who through direct or indirect means encourage the spread. Followers who revel in the safety provided in the number of shared drips that oil the ear.

In summary, it is my opinion that the scapegoat system was replaced with Christ, to ensure that the corruptible and fallible arms of man do not taint the new system. Each man under Christ is given access to admit his guilt, ensuring that his heart and God alone know the truth of his intent. Similarly, systems need to be built in a way that safeguards the system as much as possible from man’s fallible nature. Every man is much the same as the other, fallible in different ways and through different means. Often, in need of a scapegoat to justify his actions. If he is also allowed to buy the conscience of others over then a new system emerges and the scapegoat system becomes successful. And will often find a head to fit into a noose.

Tides

PHOTO PROMPT © Carole Erdman-Grant

The snipping sound of the scissor was lost in the background of celebratory jeers and claps.

For some it was the triumphant ending to a remarkable project.

For others it was the beginning of new adventure, the chance to start again.

And for some it was just another tick box exercise for the state. An effigy to dissuade a guilty and blood stained conscience from losing all it’s humanity. It was always the same, the politicians could never sustain their quick fixes to deep seated problems. Like a drug addict high on new fix, there was no doubt in their minds the building would fall into disarray a few years, when it’s shinning surface no longer impressed the media. When ghosts buried behind the walls rose to life again.

For Eloise it was already a little too late.

Her flesh was the foundation for all this hope. Her blood, the current surging through the light bulbs.

Alba would never understand a society that indulged it’s appetite voraciously, then plugged it’s rectum just as tight with asphalt. It never led to much.

The old build dubbed “iuventus seditio” Vesna’s altar, by the teenagers, had been torn down. In its’ place stood a new structure christened “youthful springs” by the adults who wanted a new life for all these teenagers who wandered lost through the street with nothing to do.

Thanks Rochelle for hosting the writing event Friday Fictioneers.

Quotes related to the story:

“There are two hundred million idiots manipulated by a million intelligent men.” PE

“Every positive value has its price in negative terms… the genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshima.” PP

“so I wait for you like a lonely house
till you will see me again and live in me.
Till then my windows ache.” PN

The view

1999: A home with a view that’s all I wanted, was that too much to ask for? 

2005: my life changed, my view was altered; I was thankful to be alive.

I hope to never witness another dialogue between the concrete jungles of a neighbourhood and the weapons of mans struggle to subjugate another, I hope my view stays the same.

Picture by Tyler Nix via unsplash

---

Written for three line tales challenge hosted by Sonya. Click on this link to join in.

What change?

“On a micro and macro level, bad leadership gives birth to two individuals; imitators or dissenters. Both with a deeply seated weariness of leadership (good or bad), both unable to trust themselves or endure the reformative abilities of good leadership.” 

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want to be done because he wants to do it.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

An effective leader should aim to achieve the following:
1.Visualize the future i.e. have an inspiring vision of the future.
2.Communicate and inspire people to engage with his/her vision.
3.Strategize/structure the delivery of the vision.
4.Motivate and build a team, that can achieve the vision. 

2017 was an entertaining year, a year for re-defining leadership. Political, religious, business and cultural leaders were questioned, challenged on different platforms. Some leaders fell beneath the bar, while others excelled. However, I found their response to scrutiny more interesting than their actual performance, equally entertaining was the public reaction to these responses.

From the oval office to its North Korean equivalent, a better demonstration of tyrannical, unstable leadership cannot be found. In the past, tweets from the oval office were anticipated for a profound understanding of societies ills. Presently, however, they are anticipated for a horrendous display of insensitivity to global issues and at best for satirical humor and comic relief. On the other hand we wake up each day dreading to discover an entire country has been decimated by a leader whose ego supersedes his office. Here I was thinking, wonderful things come in small sizes.

While citizens governed by the oval office are divided into three camps; those disappointed by the lack of basic leadership etiquette, those who celebrate it as they had no faith in past leadership modules and those disillusioned by any form of leadership. A different populace exists across the globe in North Korea, citizens restricted from expressing their displeasure for a fear of bodily harm. Both leaders have received cautions and sanctions from the united nations, it’s populace, neighbours, friends and enemies alike, but, all to little or no avail. When we scream for change what do we mean? A departure from the norm, a drastic departure from altruistic leadership? Change on a one-way lane powered by a one size ego, headed to fulfil a single dimension fantasy. Is that what we mean?

Going back a few years to 2015, we cried for change in Nigeria, moving forward to 2017 one cannot help wondering if we got short-changed. The year saw Aso rock riddled with bio-hazards, long periods of sick leave, blatant disregard for certain regions in the country and projection of another regions agenda. Despite public outcry on several platforms decrying the poor state of leadership, the incumbent leader seeks to project himself for leadership in 2019. Is this the change we sort? Change which produced four members of parliament earning post-humus income; if we earn a living what are they earning? A dying?

What you see, determines what you demand from tomorrow.

Religious leaders weren’t spared, people challenged the need for tithes and general giving to the church. Tithe and offerings of some form has been a part of most religious bodies, a way of sustaining  their physical edifice and structural representative.   However, this act of giving has been abused with some leaders making demands on members regardless of their economic status or wellbeing. Others disburse of said funds without proper transparency or accountability. 

Equally disturbing is the seeming indifference of these leaders to societies ills especially when opportune to speak up or make impact. The lifestyle and speech of some of these leaders often contrasts with the teachings of contentment found in the scriptures.  Thus, I am not surprised by those who view the church as a fraudulent business run by expert con men. With many of them demanding a review and change to the status of the church. What change I ask? That members stop giving? That ministers live in penury? Should we re-evaluate the principles of giving? Where does faith come in?

From the streets of Hollywood to the doors of Sub Sahara Africa, women made their opinions known. A male dominated world wasn’t the way forward anymore, it wasn’t enough to set the table, it wasn’t enough to sit at the table, women want  the right to; restructure the table, populate the table, or simply change the entire setting. Feminism was redefined, sexual harassment was re-evaluated and the merits of marriage scrutinized. Once again the echo of change reverberated through the world, should we be weary of every man? Are all women innocent? If we are equals why are men still largely expected to propose? Why do we silently expect women to back down when an impasse occurs in relationships. Why not stick to merits? Why not take gender off the table?

When we cry for change we must consider the impact of such movements on the future. We must consider the goals of those against us but most importantly we must consider those who are with us, else we wake up to find the prize stolen by another. Must we pull down the entire system, isn’t there something to salvage? Perhaps more importantly we should give our best to understand the system, walking in the shoes of those held by the system before attempting to reform the system, lest we become armchair critics. People who speak for change but do not work for change, either have nothing to lose or have a lot to gain indirectly.

What change do you want?

Always a headline piece

God bless women!

No matter what we do, we never seem able to escape the news or silly jokes. There’s always someone out there telling us what to do or describing in great detail something we should be doing.

From a presidential candidate declaring his personal description of the perfect job role/place for  women in society in a not so secret meeting. You know those kind of secret meetings they have after an interview where they decide not to give you the job just because they don’t like your shirt or your smile. Sadly they forget you’re still in the reception and they come back out with some corporate acceptable reason for not employing you.

To a president’s wife rally up the troops for battle, encouraging women to take a stand, to shape history. To do what women are designed by nature to do, birth something awesome, only this time she’s asking for a communal birthing experience. The birth of the next American president. With every speech, the groans of labour grow louder, contraction lengths increase, and deep breathes decrease.

And we make a full cycle back to an incumbent president demanding his wife goes back to all the rooms allocated to her by virtue of her sex. Rooms where the tremor and strength in her voice alludes to the largesse of his love and place in his life.

God bless women!

It’s no wonder we can never get it right, cos we can’t please all of the people all of the time. Like a learner at a T-junction facing the traffic light, a yellow box in front, speed limit and a speeding camera in place, is the woman who hasn’t learnt to put her earphones on and drown the noise in tunes that get her dreams dancing.

Not everything will make sense in this minute. Not everything will make sense in time, but one thing/ something will make a little sense each time. Hold unto it, give it your best, it might not be what you need but it will build your confidence. Give you that little humph to stand and gaze a little further a field.

Should we all hate Trump? Should we all love him? Should all women wear skirts only? To each his own, if his job description for a woman suits your ambitions or ties in with your principles by all means do as you please and follow his path.

Where are our weapons for mass reproduction? The clarion call has been made and Michelle’s call is a dignified one; or is it? Depends on which way the world stands to you, in need of redemption or just wasted so stuff it in the bin, it’s all going down in flames after all.

And we’ve all had dreams of steamy rooms, filled with smoke, groans and sweat. So why frown at the kitchen when sent in there, Buhari has spoken who dares question his excellency in his palace, certainly not me. The piper has set the tune, the lyrics of Ewedu, gbegiri ati amala from Iya Bose’s kitchen re-vibrate through the house. Oya get cooking!

As for me, well I am just sitting quietly in my corner in a room, doing the job life has given me, fighting battles (some I started, some others started, some I got  roped into) I hope some day would birth something awesome. 

God bless the world!

 

Binding divides

Standing on our side of the divide it’s often difficult if not impossible to see across the corner at the other side. Like when my husband decides to have his rice prepared in a certain way and I think it can be done in another way, a simple situation right? No, especially not after his said something that ticked me off and I consequently reacted in a way that got his back up. Previous words like resurrected ghosts hold court over the new situation. Sadly they never sway in the cause of mercy, they scream for a bloodletting. 

A few weeks ago I listened to a discuss on the absence or low representation of minor ethnic groups within the British movie industry. A valid discussion, one that needed to be had, we live in a world that has changed a lot over the years, it’s only reasonable that we seek to see this changes represented on our everyday media, but in so many ways the world still stays the same. That is not altogether a bad thing as a sense of familiarity has a way of maintaining our sanity, gives us a feeling of ownership and control, however, I digress. The first step to making a movie starts with picking a script or a story line, thus a writer(s) produces a script and the movie producer adapts it to the screen, picking a cast that matches the characters in the story.

 How absurd would it be to find Harrison Ford playing the role of *‘dibia anya nzu’* or Orlando Bloom the role of a poor farmer in a village deep within ‘Ijebu Ode’. Don’t get me wrong both actors are of the best stock, however, cast in a role portraying an African man and his deeply held sentiments they would fail woefully as their pale skin alone betrays the absence of a blood linked intimately with the harsh rays of the Africa sun. 

One might argue that we change the script that in itself is a quick fix. A script is more than a reflection of the writer’s mind; it’s a reflection of the society the writer finds themselves in. There is also the fact that movies need to be sensational in order to evoke an enlightening response from the viewer, except in the case of trashy or pornographic films which on some level still evoke a primal response from the viewer. This might sound offensive but in order to produce movies which showcase the minority groups in a balanced percentage of the cast we might be digging up stereotypes and cultural differences which might be subject to miss interpretation and might offend people. Is it possible to dictate the tune without paying the piper? 

Today I heard about the ban of the burkini in France, I can’t help wondering when we advocate for acceptance are we also accepting of others. Like the story in the first paragraph, we often fail to hear the other side of the story, deafened by our demand to have it our way. Europe is very accommodating in its view of people’s freedoms and rights, in other societies people are merely tolerated for the length of their visits, their views are not discussed much less accepted. Their presence is evaluated based on cash returns. This is not to say that everyone who is affected by this ban is un-accepting or rigid in their stance. Saying I am not racist isn’t enough, standing up against any injustice due to racism affirms your stance. Saying I am accepting of others isn’t enough, dissuading others from taking a heated stance is required in today’s society. Is it possible to embrace another while standing at akimbo?

Life in the Serengeti

‘A niche for you, a niche for me in a world big enough for us all,’ cries the soul of a starving child in a land where no one wants to abide. 

We all want a piece of Serengeti to call ours, a warm endless plain rich with all we can imagine for a lush life. Private spa’s, luxurious dishes and peep holes for observing the Jones next door while someone else’s observes us, observing them. The ridiculous nature called self, making a mockery of all we preach from the hill tops.

Ask the black men in America killed by the police, ask their family members and they would all say the same. All we wanted was somewhere to call home, to dream dreams and harvest hopes of a brighter tomorrow for the young ones.
Ask the policemen in America killed by a black sniper, ask their family members and they would all say the same. All we wanted was to do our jobs, to keep the peace and guard the properties, to diligently keep the creed to guard the world for the young ones. 

Perhaps the world they sort was not the one they had, who knows. Perhaps the mind was imbibed with a faulty lens through which it viewed the world, who knows. Perhaps they have twisted souls walking around in shells with faulty labels; perhaps they were angels walking around covered in faulty shells, who know. 

Perhaps we should ask another.

Ask the celebrants of Bastille Day, mauled over by a wrecked soul, ask their family members and they would all say the same. All we wanted was to celebrate life, to smile in spite of our fears, to bestow the gift of hope and strength in spirit to the young ones.
Ask the priest going about the daily worship, ask his parishioners and they would all say the same. All we wanted was a world at peace with itself and everyone, where self, gets buried in a quest to discover the eternal father.

We will never know if the world they departed was close to the one they sort, we will never know if those who booked their flights sort  to create a monochrome world or simply scared of other colors outshining the glow of an ideology painted within shuttered minds. Who can we ask? Who has the answer?

Perhaps the woman in Germany, or the teenagers in America?
Perhaps the disabled victims in Japan?
Do they have the answers? Do they understand the great paradigm that is our crazy world now? Do they know where we lost the map to Serengeti?
Perhaps we lost it at the gates of Eden. Perhaps we buried it as we dug a pit to capture our ‘brothers’ on the way to Serengeti. Perhaps we conquered the world but forgot to conquer self the biggest world of them all.

… And so we set up the game with the certainty of victory but we forgot that sage referee called Time and his able assistant Karma, we underestimated their antics and quest for balance. Alas, we are living in Serengeti, it is not elusive.  Sadly we forgot to ask the hare how it feels to watch the lion eat her brother. We forgot to ask the lion how it feels to watch the hyenas devour its mate. We live in Serengeti, beautiful endless plains with stories of horror at night and terrors by day.

 

Mum! The boys made a mess …

Source: Scarymommy.com

Every mom, new or old has gone through the process of answering a high pitched or calmly bemused voice beckoning them to carry out some form of the rescue operation. It often varies from a spouse holding the baby with a biologically armed diaper at arm’s length to an older sibling at the brink of their patience. In each scenario, mom is expected to save the day with little or no trace of the previous impending danger. The scene seems pretty much the same in Great Britain, with Theresa May coming to the rescue. Who knows if she will succeed and at what cost?

The above description is not designed to imply that men haven’t been elected into power in the midst of socio-economic mayhem, however, if history is to be relied on, one could imply that the corridors of power only makes room for female leadership only when hard pressed. Perhaps it is an indication of the female politicians’ physique narrow enough to pass through the camels’ eye or a reflection of her male counterparts’ physique; too robust to withstand a squeeze.

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher became the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom, taking over from James Callaghan after what is referred to as the winter of discontent. The mandate before her was difficult: to rescue the economy from an ongoing recession, high inflation rates, frequent trade union strikes and a disgruntled public.

Some strike action by sectors of public service included:
• Picket line blockades by nurses and ambulance drivers this resulted in hospitals attending only to emergency patients.
• Railways shut down to the public.
• Disruption of broadcasting services by the electricians’ union towards Christmas in 1978 taking both BBC One and BBC Two off the air, subsequently in August 1979 they switched off ITV for 75 days.
• Picketing of cemeteries by members of the GMWU union in Liverpool and Tameside, this proved very distressing as a factory in Liverpool was converted to a storage space for corpses.
• Equally disturbing was the piling of rubbish in the streets, a health hazard created by the rubbish collectors strike.

The odds were stacked against her, under public evaluation, she was bound to either fail on a monumental scale or succeed on a mediocre scale. This had less to do with her as a person and more to do with the changes needed to pull a society back from the brinks of economic depression. The changing economic climate across the western world, a move away from a labor intense to services/skill intense economy also played a major part in shaping Mrs. Thatcher’s economic reforms. Depending on whom you asked Margaret Thatchers time in office might be considered a blessing or ban on the British population. However certain factors remain true of her regime, and government, they managed to

• Tackle high inflation rates
• Re-position the country economically – it was no longer seen as the sick man of Europe
• Increase privatization leading to more efficiency in service.
• Pull back power from organized labor unions, ensuring they could no longer grind the country to a halt.
• Increased home ownership.
It is true that many of her policies crippled and in cases totally destroyed sectors of the economy (for example the closing down of mines and other industries dependent on state funds), increased social divides and fragments. These outcomes perhaps in hindsight could have been handled better, and impact on society curtailed, that being said it would be a dream for anyone to except positive socio-economic change without feeling the pinch in some way.

Stepping into July 2016, the United Kingdom embraces its second female prime minister after twenty-six years. Once again she is handed a mandate that would give Goliath mental fright, she and her government are required to
• Bridge peace both home and away
• Solicit new economic investors
• Mend fences with formal allies, reassuring them the nation isn’t a fickle friend to have.
• Build new fences with new allies
• And sustain the daily working of the country with austerity in view.

This might seem nothing like the mandate before Margaret Thatcher because it’s not, this time, Theresa May is fighting a battle on two different scenes home (Scotland’s hopes of leaving) and away (EU and all the other issues). Like Margaret, Theresa is bound to excel on certain fronts and doomed to hopefully attain mediocrity in some, we can only hope that she excels in the key areas that in hindsight leaves no doubt about the wisdom of taking such a path. Similar to the mum in the first paragraph, Theresa May will have to deal with a baby with soiled diaper (Brexit), a toddler on the potty (The EU), and a disgruntled but equally amused teenager (Scotland and the rest of the world), let’s hope she’s able to stop the chaos before it smears itself around the house.

‘One newspaper welcomed in the new year of 1977 with the observation that “Britain is a country that resents being poor, but is not prepared to make the effort to be rich.” It was a sentiment shared by the Sex Pistols’ snarl, “There’s no future, in England’s dreaming.” ‘ This was a sentiment shared in Margret Thatchers time and I sense it is similar to that going around now.

Source google free images

Finally, I can’t help but wonder once more, why these women never made it into Number 10 prior to these moments. Did they not have these ambitions before? Was a calmer political atmosphere not conducive for them? What made it possible at the time and not before? Are they truly the most qualified, scapegoats or willing sacrifices?

Reference sources:

The Telegraph – How Thatcher brought UK back from the wilderness

The Telegraph – Margaret Thatcher: never forget the chaos of life before her

The BBC – Margaret Thatcher: How the economy changed

 

The EU referendum 1975 versus 2016.

For seventeen years Nigel Farage nurtured a dream; an ambition to take Great Britain out of the European Union and on Thursday the 23rd of July, 2016 his dream became reality. A dream founded on the dissimilarities that existed between the present European Union and that of 1975, it had slowly become a political dynasty in Brussels with overreaching effects on the common man without an in-depth understanding of his individual, cultural or national needs. The interference of ECHR (European court of Human rights) on British court rulings and the inability of individual countries to negotiate individual favorable economic deals would suggest that there are elements of truth in Nigel Farage’s arguments. But it could also be seen as an attempt by the EU to maintain the status quo for every member and citizen.

Regardless of these facts, the process of achieving his dream was flawed, a total betrayal of true democracy. The present electorate unlike those during the 1975 referendum was not adequately or honestly informed, they were bamboozled by an array of doomsday forecasts and accused of being unpatriotic should they vote differently. The blame, in my opinion, rests with Nigel Farage, David Cameron, and their respective cohorts, they made costly assumptions on behalf of the electorate. The least they could have done was replicate the 1975 referendum format.

Prior to the 1975 referendum, a seventeen-page pamphlet (document) with detailed information was sent out to the electorate. The document had the single purpose of educating the electorate. Below are some relevant quotes from the pamphlet (italicized by me):

Page 2:

DEAR VOTER

This pamphlet is being sent by the Government to every household in Britain. We hope that it will help you to decide how to cast your vote in the coming Referendum on the European Community (Common Market). Please read it. Please discuss it with your family and your friends.

We do not pretend, and never have pretended, that we got everything we wanted in these negotiations. But we did get big and significant improvements on the previous terms.

Page 5:

Aims of the common market:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
• To help maintain peace and freedom.

Page 11 & 12 

Will parliament lose its power?

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.

Page 13 :

If we say No:

The Common Market will not go away if we say ‘No’.

The countries of the Common Market would still be our nearest neighbors and our largest customers. Their policies would still be important to us. But Britain would no longer have a close and direct influence on those policies.

Page 14:

If we say Yes:

Whether we are in the Market or not, Common Market policies are going to affect the lives of every family in the country.

Inside the Market, we can play a major part in deciding these policies. 

Outside, we are on our own.

Page 15:

AND NOW – THE TIME FOR YOU TO DECIDE

Your vote will not only affect your life and your neighbors’ lives. It will affect your children’s lives. It will chart – for better or for worse – Britain’s future.

To read the entire document click here.

It is interesting to find that the electorate back in 1975 shared similar fears and concerns regarding the future as those in 2016. The similarities, however, end there as the political class did nothing to elevate those fears if anything they fanned the flames harder, inciting old wounds and hidden prejudice. If an educated choice had been made by a majority of the masses, perhaps the racist attacks and bigotry which has reared its ugly head post-referendum would not be minuscule. If all parties including the European Union had laid aside their egos, gone back to the drawing board and retraced their roots perhaps we would not have found ourselves living the chaos that is Brexit. 

Like the story of the three little pigs, the electorate is waking up to find its house blown away by the big bad wolf called reality.

They are left clutching at straws … by what percentage will immigration be cut?

They are left picking up sticks … Turkey will probably not become an EU member for a long time.

They are left with an unfinished brick house … the amount of money going to the NHS as savings from EU expenses has slowly dwindled from £350 million to £161 million.

The agenda of the 1975 referendum was to empower the people to make a decision in favor of their future, in favor of Great Britain, in favor of democracy. The agenda of the 2016 referendum was to topple a political sect, to embolden an ideology with no informed regard for the future.

Nigel Farage got his dream, but he hypnotized the country into a frightful dream. 

Source: Pixabay free images

Brexit; a case for the eldest son.

The story of the prodigal son in the bible is a very interesting one, a story laced with many silent lessons. In the story, we find four major characters in play; a wealthy father, two sons and a landlord. For some unknown reason the youngest son suddenly demands to have his share of the inheritance, he leaves home with it and squanders it. When he finds himself broke and destitute he takes up a low paying job as a stall boy for a foreign landlord. On a certain day while working he has an epiphany and decides to go back home with no expectations except to have a home under his father’s roof once more. And on his return home everything goes better than he hoped for with his father, his brother, however, is not so excited to have his disrespectful, disloyal, lazy brother back home. Sensing his eldest sons displeasure, the father goes on to settle his worries, he assures each of his sons of their place in his life and encourages oneness.

Why has this story suddenly come to mind and why does it matter?

The Brexit situation and the wave of opinions tossed about on the internet encouraging Americans to follow suit brings the eldest son in the story to life.

A son who isn’t really aware of all he has, who doesn’t know how best to maximize/manage new opportunities.

A son who felt the way of life was changing too fast to accommodate a brother who dressed and sounded more like a stranger from many years of being away.

A son who felt disenfranchised by the celebration held to welcome a disloyal, arrogant, lazy brother, while no feast had  ever being held in his honor.

A son who thought he would never have to share anything with anyone except he chose to.

A son who didn’t know that his cousins whom he had worked side by side had only stayed because they had not seen a way out before.

A son who at that point desperately needed his father’s reassurance and clear guidance concerning his future.

Sadly unlike the father in the story, we find UK citizens driven into a hurricane of harsh prospects, finger pointing, horror stories and forecasts of greater storms by the politicians’ on both sides of the divide. But since they’re not the founding fathers, merely surrogates on a quest for personal gain one can hardly blame them for misguiding the people, using them to achieve hidden agendas. Or how else do you explain Nigel’s retraction/rephrase of a crucial statement hours after victory or Sturgeons move to take Scotland out once the die was cast (by the way I respect her a lot, she’s playing the game with the same poker face the boys use and I think she does it better.). And let’s not forget the foreign landlord, the EU leaders who underestimated the referendum, perhaps they doubted the stories of the prodigal son, stories of his father’s wealth, stories of a brother who was no longer receptive of their offers. With everyone clamoring for their own rights and demands for immediate actions to initiate the exit process, one wonders if the eldest son made the right choice.

Did he?

In all fairness his demands were not unreasonable, he had put in blood and soul to build that land and so had his ancestors before him. He has a fair idea of how many people the land can care for, how it can be enlarged. He trusts in the safety of his customs and daily rituals, the unseen things that bring comfort on a hot day. So when a visitor comes in with stories of various sorts, makes a home and starts to procreate both in assets and liabilities one can understand the eldest sons need to ensure the scales don’t tip him out of the equation. On this premise, his choice wasn’t wrong, but his forecast of what the future holds as a result of this choice has neither been true or clearly explained.

They said you will have all this, but failed to explain what ‘all’ encompassed.

They said to do this for you and your children but failed to explain that others will seek to protect their own offspring through the same channel (Scotland, Northern Ireland).

They said preserve your culture hold it sacrosanct, forgetting that this action will raise the ghosts of cultures desecrated, borders obliterated and normalcy ruined as their ancestor’s sort to conquer and sometimes misguidedly save the world.

Have they made the worst choice?

I don’t think so but that depends on who they decide to listen to from here onwards and the way they choose to handle future issues. I know there are many who understand what this was really about (self-preservation) not anti-globalization or xenophobia although the lines sit pretty cozy with self-preservation.  There are those who thought it was simply anti-immigration, that message is one that really needs redressing as the world is really blood thirst these days.

The decision has been made it’s time to discontinue the fear driven forecasts and rhetoric’s; it’s time to forge ahead. As a migrant, I am under no illusion that the days ahead will be easy, but I don’t know if they will be horrendous, thus I have decided to grin and bear whatever comes one day at a time.

“For every step we take to defend ourselves, those who would attack are going to take a step further.” Jonathan James Olivier.

This is by no means a threat, but a reminder that every action gives rise to a reaction from the observer. It is to stress the importance of reinforcing the positive message behind Brexit.