An American's Love of Cricket

I recently read an article in the Financial Times by reporter Mark Damazer entitled “An Englishman’s love of baseball.” The piece recounts this journalist’s discovery of the great American pastime while he was traveling in the United States nearly thirty years ago. The title alone was enough to draw my attention, having experienced a similar transplanted passion – this one, for cricket.

As an undergraduate I decided in my final year to write my senior honors thesis on the development of cricket in South Africa, and the evolution of the sport in relation to changing values under the apartheid system. In particular I focused on how cricket was used (effectively) as a means of combating racial segregation within the country and garnering international attention without. When I would introduce this topic to my peers and professors at school, I nearly always received the same response: “How did you come up with that idea?” It is with this question that I begin my latest entry, appropriately titled, “An American’s love of cricket.”

When I lived and “worked” in Cape Town nearly three years ago, it was in the midst of the Commonwealth Games, hosted in Melbourne. Having very little responsibility and much time to spare, I spent many an hour on the couch watching SABC coverage of the Commonwealth Games. As a social studies major and a dabbler in post-colonial theory, I was astounded to see how many countries currently associate themselves as being members of the British Commonwealth – not “former commonwealth” as in the “former Soviet Union,” but contemporary members of a voluntary organization whose express economic and political purpose is to maintain the ties between formers colonies of the British Empire. As someone who understood colonial theory largely from the crevices of the library and the corners of my classroom, it baffled me completely that this type of archaic and pre-modern institution could still exist – and in fact, could be celebrated! From this perspective I began to gaze anew at the sporting institutions so revered in South Africa, perhaps one of the most complex and legatorial ex-colonies of the British crown.

From the Commonwealth Games and the Queen’s blessing it was only a small hop, skip and jump to asking similar questions about games like rugby, soccer, and cricket. From previous knowledge I understood that each of those sports had its origins in the British Isles, and had found their way around the globe by means of ships, schools, and armies. A little research began to reveal the details of cricket’s introduction to regions like southern Africa, the Caribbean (West Indies) and the Subcontinent. From there it took zero to point five seconds to catch a glimpse of the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic distinctions between each of these sports as currently carried out in a country like South Africa. Thus, and thence, my thesis’ guiding question was therein contained.

When people ask how it was that I became involved in cricket as a subject of academic study, I can only think back to the first test match I watched live in Cape Town. It was a bright summer’s day and my friend and I had arrived at Newlands Cricket Grounds just after lunch break to snag cheap or free tickets for the afternoon play. Upon entering the stadium, I was shocked by the general vacancy of the seats (it was a Thursday afternoon, after all), the pristine nature of the oval, the crispness of the linen uniforms, and the whiteness of the stands and players. This was no sport of mass-consumption. I later learned that more modern derivatives of the classic test match game of cricket have since become infinitely more popular with the masses, but it was test cricket that caught my attention. The precision of play, the duration of time and strategies employed, the patience of both the players and the fans – these were elements of this sport I immediately recognized as being uncommon amongst most modern games. In the age of 20 second shot clocks and 30 second commercial breaks, it seemed to me that proper test cricket truly “tested” the bounds of people’s attention spans, yet everyone in the stands seemed riveted by the play. Not only that, I was soon to learn that test cricket has also a substantial radio audience who listen to gaps of silence punctuated by commentary and an occasional cough or mutter. All of this is simply to say that despite its seeming endlessness and prolonged periods where nothing is happening aside from the occasional voluntary stretching session, test cricket has a substantial following in those nations into which it was introduced as a part of the colonial project.

Whether it was simply for academic and theoretical reasons, or perhaps because I actually enjoyed the comatose state into which cricket often pushed me, I continued with my obsession for nearly three months. I found myself eagerly awaiting Thursday match openers and hoping a draw would not be called by Saturday for fear that I would have to actively pursue Sunday plans rather than hope to camp out in the living room with my tea and a box of rusks, gazing wistfully as Andre Nel bowled a maiden or Polly came through in the clutch with 10 runs for 6 balls. Perhaps it was a substitute addiction for what I was missing of American college basketball season and opening day of Major League Baseball, or perhaps it was only because an outsider’s view of a game is necessarily fresher and more objective than a native, but I was hooked – totally and completely – on this new game I’d discovered. And though it was next to impossible to spread my newfound passion amongst the cynical and xenophobic American friends I had back at school, I managed to turn my interest into a (semi-legitimate) academic pursuit. It’s not every day, after all, that someone, Commonwealth citizen or no, can claim to have written nearly 200 pages on the history of cricket in South Africa… and live to tell the tale! (RIP Bob Woolmer!)

RUSSIA IS ENORMOUS

another rather cryptic post. enjoy.

Yesterday I attended a lecture hosted by the South African Institute for International Affairs (SAIIA). The guest for the evening was Irina Filatova – concerning her rank, position, and background I have no information. She was speaking on Vladimir Putin’s legacy in post-Soviet Russia and the trajectory of Russia’s role in global affairs in the next decade or so. Not knowing exactly what to expect from the lecture, and not knowing from what perspective the speaker would arrive, I entered the salon with quite an open mind and few presuppositions as to her slant or purpose – thankfully, in the end, for her lecture was both incendiary and thought-provoking. Many of the broader topics she broached in her discussion of Russia’s current state and the direction in which the country is headed have parallels with both South Africa and the United States; in this so-called “multipolar” post-Cold War world the interaction between nations and their leadership systems has become increasingly tenuous and unpredictable – no thanks to the likes of the Russians, as it were.

Filatova’s lecture brought up several vital points of discussion concerning Russia’s role and ideal position in today’s global economy. The following points are not her thoughts but mine, as inspired by her argument and what she revealed about the Russian national ethos, mentality, psychology, and its effects on the larger international picture.

Point 1: Putin is popular. According to Filatova, statistics showed that Putin’s approval rating hovered around 85% for the majority of his time in the office of the presidency. Furthermore, this indicates (according to Filatova), that the post-Soviet government under Yeltsin was seen as being too weak, too conciliatory, and too subservient to Western interests. Putin, on the other hand, recalled more of the tsarist legacy of recreating the Russian self-images as an independent, sovereign, and ultimately powerful state. He achieved this by doing several things: first and foremost, despite his unimposing physical stature and his generally antagonistic relationship with the Russian press, Putin established himself as a strong executive unwilling to cooperate in all cases with the US and NATO (thereby reestablishing Russian sovereignty). Filatova pointed to the US’s intervention in Kosovo as the greatest infringement on Russian sovereignty in the post-Soviet world, and one that pushed Putin to criticize the West, thereby polarizing the largest former Soviet state and positioning it in a clearly anti-American stance. Second, Putin managed to neutralize nearly all internal resistance by --- According to Filatova, the current multiparty system (and thereby Kremlin representation) is actually a product of a realignment of party loyalty after the fall of the Soviet Union, and particularly after Yeltsin’s rule. In other words, in order to neutralize the greatest threat, that of the Communist Party, Putin encouraged the formation of a leftist party (the United Russia Party) which diluted far-left opposition by providing a more moderate platform. Similarly, Yeltsin’s young reform party on the liberal, right-wing side, most sympathetic to the West, actually had the only real power aside from Putin’s party itself. Basically by simultaneously splintering existing party structures and reorganizing party delineation Putin “neutralized” (not “suppressed”) opposition. Filatova’s clincher? The Kremlin created its own, largely controllable and domesticated, opposition.

The parallels in the current South African political structure are incredible. From her description, Putin’s ruling party most closely resembles the structure of the ANC, which has itself neutralized leftist opposition by working closely with the South African Communist Party, agreeing to acquiesce to some of their demands without compromising a more mainstream party line (and vision of a socialist, but not too socialist, South African society). Yeltsin’s opposition party, on the other hand, could see its twin in the Democratic Alliance, the party that is threatening ANC domination in some specific sectors (or regions) in SA – namely the Western Cape. Furthermore, Putin’s constitutional liberalism (loose constructionism, if you will) which allowed him to remain in power in a new position of “prime minister” while also hand-picking his own replacement in the presidency (Medvedev) strongly recalls Jacob Zuma’s positioning within the ANC power structure, and his influence in recalling president Mbeki and hand-picking his temporary replacement – Kgalema Motlanthe. Talk about constitutional liberalism – “uh, yeah, about that whole ‘election’ requirement – let’s just insert some fine print here.” The workings of democracy in transition astound those of us who take for granted that our democratic system is relatively set in stone.

This brings us to Point 2: If nothing else, Filatova’s discussion of the current perception of Putin’s role, his popularity, and the Russian reaction to international criticism demonstrates the difficulty and ultimate failures of superimposing democracy on nations and states without a tradition in expecting democracy. Both in terms of institutional democracy (free press, independent judiciary, legitimate lines of intra-governmental communication and accountability) and literal democracy (free and fair elections, voter choice, and an educated and informed populace) Russia’s loyalty to Putin indicates a lack of experience. Here the parallels to South Africa are less clear – generally the press in this country has bigger bite than even the States, and the people, though perhaps uninformed and tending toward the emotional in the ballot box, are vocal and critical. Russia remains closed to a close analysis of people’s freedom in choosing candidates or voicing criticism against their government.

Point 3: Despite the apparent lack of popular criticism of Russian governmental systems and figures, the Russian people are happy to criticize other governments for their treatment of Russia. Apparently the general reaction of the Russian people to the international uproar against perceived Russian aggression in Georgia led the majority of Ruskies to cry “foul, no fair!” – the general sentiment being, “If the United States can do it, why can’t we?” Well, holy Cold War Part Deux, Batman! If every country thought that way (and probably almost every country does think that way) we’d be in a perpetual Orwellian state of war! Luckily for international affairs, at some point only the US can both talk the talk and walk the walk, though Russia’s display in Georgia is certainly an attempt to demonstrate some newfound strength – or renewed sense of imperial purpose. We all knew a second Cold War was coming around, but I’m not sure if anyone thought Russia would be involved. My impression is that we’ve got a couple of fighters unwilling to let the last round of knockouts die – Russia’s swinging at air in Georgia and the States are blinking through the pain of a debilitating financial crisis. The only one left standing will probably the Asian countries happily drinking their imported beer and digging through the goldmines of Africa in the casino next to the arena floor. Extending this metaphor further is probably not a great idea, so I’ll leave it at that.

Afterword: After Filatova’s address, one audience member stood and thanked the speaker for her “informed” and “thrilling” discussion. He then proceeded to admit that basically everything she had said about the Russian people, their mentality, their loyalty to autocratic rule and their apathy toward constitutional democracy, combined with their bitterness towards the West and their feeling of unfair play, “scared the living daylights out of him.” Why? Because, he argued, that is the exact description of interwar Germany under Hitler’s Third Reich. This comparison, though incendiary, is still instructive, and Filatova’s reaction was impressive. She agreed that on the surface the similarities are frightening, but that the bottom line, in her educated opinion, was that Russia is overestimating its own strength. That in general, the tragedy of Russian history, from Peter to Catherine to Lenin to Stalin, is that Russia always overestimates its own importance in world affairs. That is bets too high on what it has to offer, when at some point, if the Chinese want Russian oil, they’ll take it, and if the US wants to intervene in Russian spheres of influence, they will, and if Georgia wants to declare independence and fight for it, it will do so with international support. And that the Russian complaints against the unfair, hypocritical West are meaningless because the world will keep on spinning whether Russia stamps her feet or not.

Yet maybe if Russia’s mistake is overestimating its own strength, the easiest trap for the West (or the East, for that matter) to fall into is to underestimate Russia’s strategic importance in terms of natural resources and historic military might – in other words, disarmament. Russia may not be able to fight this fight on their own, but they won’t have to once they’ve positioned themselves favorable in a coalition with other marginalized by collaboratively powerful countries: Nicaragua, Venezuela… China? And maybe that’s the card they’re playing closest to the chest.

cosmic crisis! EEK!

prepare yourself for a doozie of a post -- if you can decipher any of it i'll be impressed. please comment, all 4 of you that know this blog exists. (:

-sm

Maybe it's the uninterrupted sunshine ... maybe it's the beginning of real summer warmth... maybe it's vacation, or maybe it's the fact that I'm sitting in a tiny cafe in Wynberg where a cappuccino is just a filter coffee with whipped cream on top -- for whatever reason, it seems the curtain of winter is finally lifting. There's a chance what looked very much like a deep, dark cavern may actually be a tunnel after all.

The world has been in crisis mode for quite some time now. I can't tie it back to an exact moment -- I suppose you could argue it dates back as far as the terrorist attacks of the 90s and even 2001. I think rather those events, and the wars and violence that ensued, were really a preamble to the great crescendo that is now erupting in all segments of society. Economically, politically, even socially, people around the world seem to be asking different versions of the same question -- who's in charge? Where are we headed? How can we slow our tumble and avoid the cliff at the end of the road? Not that all of these questions haven't been asked before, but for the first time in my admittedly short memory, they are begin asked by everyone about everything -- and there are no true leaders granting satisfactory answers anywhere. The image that comes to mind is a series of snapshots of George Bush, Kgalema Motlanthe, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, Henry Paulsen and Larry Summers, Angela Morkel and Nicholas Sarkozy, shrugging their shoulders and looking left and right for ideas.

The only people who seem to be benefiting from the current chaos are the powers that be in the East. and even they may begin to find that hubris hits the hardest in hindsight.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the latest series of crises, which I first felt the ripples of in June of this year, is that it affects people on both the micro and macro levels in both obvious and subtle ways. On the ground, it seems the socio-politico-economic storm has permeated even the realm of interpersonal relations. Much like the weather affects the way people interact with each other and their environments, so this "tsunami" of perpetually down-turned events seems to lend additional anxiety to everyone's lives == from retirees who are watching their pensions and retirement funds dwindle under the caving pressure of a recession economy, to children who find that their parents are stressed, their teachers are stressed, and they themselves are manifesting symptoms of anxiety that they cannot comprehend. I see it in my students, both young and old. The weather might not be helping, either, but generally I think there's something bigger than just geologic forces at work.

On the macro level, of course, the ripples and consequences of the Wall Street downturn, political instability, continued threats of social upheaval and religious fundamentalism -- those are the flags that everyone can see flying up ad infinitum -- but few are capable, I think, of comprehending or foretelling exactly what any one of these flags might indicate about the future of our world.

And yet, in the face of what seem to be unstoppable forces of negative change, it runs contrary to the human spirit, or the human condition, to be fatalistic -- if that were the case our civilizations would never have survived infancy. I refer once again to Sisyphus and his unenviable task -- Camus got it right when he pointed to the absurdity of the human will to survive, and the inevitable tragedy it brings.

This tangent, however obscure and esoteric, convinces me that not only will we never stop searching for a solution to the insurmountable task of recreating our world before us, but that at some point we will reach a tipping point at which this crisis will have been overcome, and we can float happily downstream until another crisis inevitably forms from the depths of what we've created.

According to Clem Sunter, what we need to escape from this quagmire boils down to leadership -- when discussing South Africa in the next decade, Sunter described good leadership as being brave, innovative, inclusive, focused on management, strategic... I would imagine that the leadership we need for the next decade must also be selfless, strict, intuitive, certainly inclusive, transnational, international, vocal; the leadership of this century must guide from ahead and behind; it must enable and inspire people to make decisions, both good and bad, that reflect individual and group consciousness -- in other words, the new global leadership must educate and empower, but without being too democratic. Unlike many of my compatriots at school, but much like the political architects of the America I (reluctantly?) call home, I too am wary of pure democracy -- at least when educational systems are compromised by systems which promote and sustain bad leadership and unhealthy institutions and entrenched poverty .

The greatest challenge to finding, channeling, and utilizing the resources of leadership that naturally exist throughout the world, but that must be nurtured in order to flourish, is connecting the macro with the micro. The disconnect between local systems of social, political and economic interaction -- which exist without a sense of greater purpose within the larger global framework -- that frames the challenge facing all people who are desperate to save the planet. Do we think globally and act locally? Or do we jump the gun and go straight to world-wide administration? Do we build up from the grassroots or down from the international? How can we vertically integrate systems of leadership and initiative?

Anyone who has ever entered the world of non-governmental organizations or public service or international volunteerism will recognized this challenge. The old system, of both nurturing leadership at the bottom and the top and hoping that eventually they will come together somewhere in the mezzanine of global systems has produced some outrageously successful results. Partnerships between the United Nations or the Global Fund or Medicins Sans Frontieres and communities on the ground which are desperate for guidance, aid, and recognition -- there are many examples of great successes. But often, in each of these cases, the effort centers around leadership of martyrdom -- someone like Paul Farmer, both a visionary and a fanatic -- is needed to keep the momentum of such relationships going. This is not a sustainable way of approaching development.

Conclusions (or, the "chew on this" part of the post):

-- Leadership of the martyrs is limited in its reach and sustainability.

-- The current systems of pairing transnational and international groups with local organizations on the ground in order to yield productivity and development moves slowly and inefficiently in the best of cases. Despite successes, it is also severely limited.

-- The disparity between the global and the local is not going away, but it can probably be reduced by properly employing technologies of communication.