ON THE ROAD AGAIN 

By Lionel Gayle

The above headline is not referring to Willie Nelson’s hit song. And I’m not trying to sing the line: “We deh pon street again,” from ‘Duppy Conqueror,’ by Bob Marley and the Wailers. But like all those revellers and masqueraders who strutted in the Grand Parade on Saturday (July 30, 2022), I too trod on the tarmac at Lake Shore Boulevard. 

Sorry, I can’t say if the Grand Parade — the highlight of the 55th renewal of the Toronto Caribbean Carnival—was a grand event in 2022. The truth is, I reached Lake Shore Blvd. near the end of the parade. My decision was deliberate. I wanted to conserve my strength and wellbeing for the Island Soul concert later in the night, at the Harbourfront Centre. It was brutal when I went to the concert a few years ago—straight from the parade. I felt like a Hollywood-zombie with a thinking brain. This time, my body told me I could’ve gone all day on Lake Shore Blvd. and then attend the concert. 

One great thing about the Grand Parade, things always happen after it’s officially ended. This post includes images from the aftermath of the parade.

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

 (Above): A tight squeeze     of revellers and                    masqueraders at the 

 after-parade jump-up.

 No one was reportedly 

 injured during the scene.

 

 (At left): A pair for                revellers took turn                sucking on a hookah           (waterpipe.) Nobody said     what they were smoking.

©2022 Lionel Gayle

             Hello! Hello! You have a million-dollar smile.

                                                 

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

(At left): Blue skies and skin tones.

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

(Above): Two Grenadian masqueraders share selfies. 

(At right): The Trini 

(Trinidad and Tobago) 

national flag droops 

large and broad. 

                                               

(Below): Is 

she a fairy 

or an angel?

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

© 2022 Lionel Gayle

(At Right): Daggering girls 

just wanna have fun!

WHERE IS GOD NOW?

Part 1

 

By Lionel Gayle

Does God really exist?  If your answer is “yes,” where is He or She now?  Who created Him or Her? 

It’s not my style to holler, “God is dead,” or “There is no God.”  Nevertheless, I remain open-minded that science and technology could unearth evidence to prove or disprove, conclusively, whether God is a real entity.  But that would be into the future, way beyond my time.

I have great doubt, though, that He or She exists outside the confused minds of liars, religious zealots, and fanatics.  However, you’ll have to wait for Part 2 of this blog to get my opinion on the creation of God, and where He or She is now.

 FAITH ISSUE

In the meantime, I admire the sentiments of people like the California Christian school administrator who believes “it’s a faith issue.”  That is, the tenuous argument surrounding the age-old discussion about “the existence of Jesus”—the Son of God.  Obviously, the evidence that supports the “Christ myth theory” and that against “a historical Jesus” seemed to have impeded Dr. Ronald Sipus in knowing if “what the scripture says is true.”  He was one of the subjects interviewed for the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn’t There.

The film was written and directed by Brian Flemming, a former fundamentalist Christian.

Another thing, I make no apologies for being so ambivalent when it comes to God’s gender, despite the fact that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each identifies God as an Alpha-male—the supreme deity who runs the world.

I’m certain of one thing, though: It is not Beyonce and her rambunctious divas “Who run this motha…world.”  Depending on the company you keep, you might think it’s Yahweh, or God Almighty, or Allah.  You can check their credentials in the Hebrew Bible, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an.

Did you know that Jews, Christians, and Muslims “were all called atheists by their pagan contemporaries?”  Ask theologian Dr. Karen Armstrong, author of A History of God.  She’ll tell you that it happened when those religions were “at an early stage of their history.”

It is clear that from way back in history, the three monotheist religions had decided, “This is a man’s world.”  To that, the late American soul singer James Brown would’ve added the line: “But it would be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl.”

Ancient Greece, it seemed, had no tolerance for misogyny among its deities, and obviously, had scoffed at the males-only rulership over its earthly and celestial affairs.  For instance, in Greek mythology, a number of gods had ruled alongside goddesses such as Aphrodite, Artemis, Hera, and Athena.  Their counterparts among the Romans would’ve been Venus, Diana, Juno, and Minerva, respectively.  And you can find similitude in other mythologies.

 WORD OF GOD

The Bible is still being touted as the Word of God.  If you believed in the Good Book, then the earth was created in six days.  But there’s overwhelming evidence elsewhere that it took science more than 3,000 years to discover that the universe started with what is called the Big Bang; that’s some 15 billion years ago.  So, for a very long time man has known that “time” began at the moment of the Big Bang.

Now, Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Let’s say it was God who had created it.  What was God doing during the preceding 10.5 billion years?  Could it be that God had entered the scene a mere 4.5 billion years ago just to enslave us with a multiple authoritative dogmas?

Just like how there’s no place south of the earth’s South Pole, “Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang,” theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says.  “So there was no time for God to make the universe in.” 

Check out his 2011 documentary, There Is No God, in which Professor Hawking, research director at the University of Cambridge, England, also says,  “No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.”

Some of Hawking’s publications, including Did God Create the Universe, and The Grand Design drew a lot of adverse criticisms, even from the scientific community.

One religious blogger who had objected to his pronouncement that “There is no God,” claimed “God lives outside of time and space.”  Unfortunately, he didn’t offer even one iota of evidence to support his preposterous claim.

Who created God?  Where is He or She now?  Look out for Part 2 of this blog.

Are we living in McLuhan's 

'Global Village?'

If a village, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “a small community or group

of houses in a rural area,” then think of McLuhan's new world as one helluva village.

By Lionel Gayle

There are widespread discussions that the world is smaller, or is dwindling in size. While some of the arguments might sound plausible, there is no known scientific reference that supports the possibility of a shrinking world. Yet, the ongoing speculation encourages us to think that, perhaps, we really aren't that isolated from one another, as people seemed to have thought as late as 25 years ago.

Back then—in the latter part of the 1980s—British computer scientist, Tim Berners-Lee (now Sir Tim) had been fine-tuning the mechanism of his colossal invention—the World Wide Web (WWW, or the Web, or W3). It's the fastest growing communication medium that runs on the Internet. In reality, the Web is “a virtual network of websites connected by hyperlinks,” and is the main tool people use to interact in cyberspace.

A partial view of the globe.

Like the World Wide Web, the ubiquitous Internet is a free social domain. It began in the 1960s as ARPAnet, a data transfer network developed for the US Department of Defence. Before it was decommissioned in early 1990, ARPAnet was the first network to use the “protocol suite” TCP/IP. That's the set of codes for the basic language computers use to connect and communicate on the Internet.

In a Wikipedia article, however, Sir Tim's work on the Web in the 1980s, is credited for “marking the beginning of the modern Internet.”

Sir Tim invented the Web in 1989 and published his first website on August 6, 1991 at CERN, the European nuclear research facility near Geneva, at the Franco-Swiss border. Interestingly, nearly 30 years before the Web, Canadian communication theorist, Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), had predicted its arrival.

Professor McLuhan, who spent his last days at the University of Toronto, had authored books such as, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, and The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. He was known to have coined the thought-inspiring phrase, “the medium is the message,” but it is his “global village” expression that still has people talking.

GLOBAL FAMILY

Twenty-five years ago, when the W3 was in its early stages, there were approximately 5.3 billion people on earth. The latest estimate says the world's population is 7.3 billion. In its 2015 Data Sheet, the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) has projected that by 2050, we will reach 9.8 billion people.

Take note that some two billion people have joined our global family in the last quarter century. Still, there is no change in the physical distance between, say, Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada. And the last time I checked, the flight distance from Kingston, Jamaica, to Heathrow, London, in the United Kingdom, remains the same—approximately 4,665 miles (7,520km).

What then could be the reason for the widely held perception that the size of the world is shrinking, or has contracted, in recent memories? Has anything really changed?

Perhaps the supernatural myth that is associated with some events during “the passage of time,” can create a sort of altered state of reality. However, even if such an anomaly were possible, hear the problem: time is a fixed entity, if we must believe some of our eminent scientists; and time has remained that way ever since it started in the Big Bang nearly 14 billion years ago.

In fact, British physicist Julian Barbour, author of The End of Time, says, “The passage of time is simply an illusion created by our brains.” And the greatest theoretical physicist, German-born Albert Einstein, once said, “... the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

EINSTEIN'S ILLUSION

I wouldn't hesitate to post a wager that Einstein would've also drawn a parallel between “time” (as a delusive entity) and “reality,” which he had described as “merely an illusion.” Now, if Barbour and Einstein are right, have some people—say millions, or even billions of us—been tricked by our own brains into confusing “reality” with “illusion,” and vice versa?

And, could such confusion incite us to down-size our 4.5-billion-year-old earth that is more than 196 million square miles big? Even if we think it could, perhaps we should revisit McLuhan's concept of the “global village,” just in case it offers some clarity into why, to some people, the world appears to be smaller or is getting smaller.

If a village, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “a small community or group of houses in a rural area,” then think of McLuhan's new world as one helluva village. Bear in mind, however, that his proposed “global village” is not created by a merger of land masses. “It's created by instant electronic information movement,” McLuhan told an audience in Sydney, Australia, in 1977. “The global village,” he elaborated, “is wide as the planet and is small as a little town where everybody is maliciously engaged, poking his nose in everybody else's business.”

In another instance, McLuhan told a CBC-TV program, “the world is now like a continually sounding tribal drum, where everybody gets the message all the time ...” And therein lies the essence of the “global village,” which a duo of nursing school educators once paraphrased as, “a global communication network that extends and connects people despite geographic distance.”

Put another way: In “a global village ... people are connected by easy travel, mass media and electronic communications, and [thus] have become a single community,” the website, yourdictionary.com explains.

Has the world become smaller, or is it shrinking in any shape or form? No, but with today's sophisticated communication systems and gadgets, it's uber easy to connect in an instant with almost anyone around the globe. And when you match such connectivity with the comfort and speed at which we travel by by air, land and sea, distance and time seem to collapse into an integrated entity.

So, to answer the question posed by the headline of this post: Yes, we're living in McLuhan's global village—almost.  

By Lionel Gayle
I am fuming with disgust over “the brutal slaying” of 17-year-old Wayne Jones in Jamaica, merely because he was dressed in drag and, allegedly, seen partying with another male at a dance in the Parish of St. James.

Could he have been my distant relative, or yours? Did he have many relatives and friends at home and in the Jamaican Diaspora? What role was he destined to play in the people-centred Vision 2030, Jamaica’s most ambitious national development plan? I guess we’ll never know the answer to the latter.

Obviously, members of the Montego Bay mob who battered the youth to death on July 22, 2013, had given no thought to their heinous crime, and so far seemed to have eluded crime-fighters. Judging Wayne by his cross-dressing, the homophobic miss-fits had concluded that he was a homosexual, therefore he deserved to die.

Perhaps he was gay. Even so, the Offences Against the Persons Act 1864 (“which outlaws sexual intimacy between two men,” privately or in public) is still on the statute book of Jamaica, and as far as I know, street justice or unsanctioned vigilantism against any minority group is a no-no in the land of reggae music and world-class athletes.

MISGUIDED HOMOPHOBES
Nevertheless, a group of citizens – including Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) and Jamaican Forum for Lesbians All Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) – while advocating for the repeal of the buggery act, “argues that the law encourages vigilante justice…against sexual minorities.” (http://constructedthoughts.wordpress.com/)

Honestly, I am scoffing at the line of reasoning that the buggery law “encourages vigilante justice.” This is the sort of irresponsible utterance that could easily incite a group of misguided homophobes to wreak havoc upon their fellow citizens.

I am a heterosexual man who has absolutely no likeness for, or interest in the gay lifestyle. But whether you’re gay or straight – or someone else within those boundaries – you are a member of my human family. You deserve the right to live without the fear of vigilantes who abhor you because of your sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Interestingly, while the no-buggery-law advocates are rearing their heads, there is a group of religious moralists who is equally vociferous in goading the Government of Jamaica to keep the sodomy law intact.

But whether the 148-year-old law is repealed or maintained, people who belong to the community of Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender – better known by its initialism LGBT – are here to stay. No vigilante force can purge them from the Jamaican populace or any other place.

COPULATING
If I were living in Jamaica, or anywhere else where the buggery law is still in vogue, I wouldn’t care a hoot whether it was repealed or upheld. If gay people are looking for leeway to practise their private business in the public, that’s a bad idea. It’s not going to happen in Jamaica.

The sight of two men necking and petting in a city mall would make me very queasy. And two gay men copulating on their front porch or in a bus shed after dark would be a repulsive behaviour. My emotional displeasure would be equally loathsome if I saw a pair of lesbians or a heterosexual couple performing the same act in public view. I believe that certain level of intimacy should always be conducted out of the sight of non-participants – behind closed doors.

Now, so what if young Wayne was gay? There is no law against gay people in Jamaica. And there is no indication that he had committed “the abominable crime of buggery,” either with human or animal. Such act would have earned him a prison sentence of up to ten years with hard labour, if convicted in a court of law.

Neither is there any complaint that he had attempted to commit the said crime for which punishment would have translated into a misdemeanor, with imprisonment of seven years maximum, “with or without hard labour.”

By Lionel Gayle

There is no hard evidence that strongman Samson had dreadlocks as portrayed by actor Nonso Anozie in the Downey-Burnett television series, The Bible, which aired on the History Channel in March 2013.



 This is a three-lock hairstyle assuming that the third lock is  on the other side. Samson's 7-lock style would've been similar. Yet some members of the Rastafari Movement have been steadfast in their belief that “Samson had dreadlocks” (Wikipedia). Why? Well, it is recorded in the Bible that during Delilah’s attempts to betray him, the Nazarene strongman spoke of “the seven locks of my head.” Bear in mind that locks (a cluster of hair) do not have to be “dread.” So how do we get dreadlocks? One school of thought is that, if the hair is left uncut, unkempt for a long period, it will become matted, discoloured and often acquired an appearance that is sometimes repulsive to the eye. Also, some people believe that some wearers of these dreadful head-mops have actually applied certain treatment to hasten the transformation. It seems that some look-alike locks-men (and women) had gone to great length to imitate the mannerisms and appearances of the Rastas. In Jamaica, at least in the ‘70s, members of the Rastafari community used to complain to the government about imposters whom they called rascals and false prophets.

                                                      

Today, I guess, the latter would include the designer dreads with their fictive philosophy and coiffed hairdos, and those with artificial tresses hanging down the sides of their heads.

Samson was one of the last judges (rulers) of Israel during the Philistine occupation. With his supernatural strength anchored in his locks, he ruled the land for some 20 years. But during his tenure he violated his commitment to God – that is, the Nazirite vow – on several occasions. The Bible even paints him as a whore-monger. In fact, Judges 16 tells the story of how he went to Gaza and spent the night with “a harlot there” while the Philistines waited “at the gate of the city to ambush him.”

DREADLOCKS & RASTA

Samson lived between 1200 and 1000 BCE (Before our Common Era) and words such as “dreadlocks” and “Rasta” would not have entered the Hebrew lexicon. These terms would've been nonexistent everywhere. And, there is no indication that the people of ancient Israel – especially in the little town of Zorah where Samson was born – would’ve used any word that could’ve been translated to mean dreadlocks or Rasta.

It’s crystal clear however, that Rasta and Rastafari are eponyms of Ras Tafari Makonnen who was born in 1892 in Ethiopia. Later when he was crowned Emperor Haile Selassie I, he ruled Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974.

A hideous dreadlocks



Even after his death at age 83 in 1975, Rastas throughout the world still referto the late emperor as Jah (Jehovah, God) and sometimes can be heard chanting: Jah Rastafar-I, ever living, ever faithful … or some mumbo jumbo like that.

One thing for sure, Selassie, or Jah Rastafari, or just plain Jah, didn’t wear dreadlocks. But as the reggae group Morgan Heritage sings, You don’t ha fi dread to be Rasta/This is not a dreadlocks thing.

When the Rasta movement started in Jamaica in the 1930s, the newly crowned Selassie was “revered as the returned messiah of the Bible.”

In fact, his imperial lineage (through Emperor Menelik I) is often traced to a sexual encounter between the great King Solomon of Israel and the mysterious Queen Makeda, Empress of Axum, who visited him in Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that King Solomon, obviously a known lothario, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (mistresses).

Makeda – also known as the Queen of Sheba – apparently had the hots for Solomon. She was the wealthy ruler of her own domain – the Kingdom of Sheba or Axum (now a city in northern Ethiopia). There’s no information to suggest she was ever included among the king’s permanent female conquests.

REAL PURPOSE

What’s the real purpose of a Rastaman’s dreadlocks? I can’t recall if the real reason has ever been publicly enunciated.

If we took a cue from the Bible, however, the wearing of long locks in ancient Israel would’ve been part of the Nazirite (or Nazarite) vow. (In his 1993 song Nazerite Vow Jamaican recording artist Tony Rebel claimed that he had taken the vow). Under the vow, a person would’ve been required to submit his actions and desires to the will of God, as indicated in the Bible at Numbers 6.

Back then, the conditions of such commitment would’ve included: abstention from alcohol, no cutting of the hair, no contact with dead bodies and adherence to a strict dietary regimen.

Samson was a Nazirite from birth, the Bible says, and the secret to his unbridled strength was his uncut locks, of course. But his downfall came after the Philistine warlords offered his live-in girlfriend Delilah 5,500 silver coins to divulge the secret to his strength. (Judas Iscariot got a measly 30 silver coins for the alleged betrayal of Christ). After she sold him out, the Philistines cut off his locks, gouged out his eyes and Samson became “as weak as any other man.”

Young Samson had a penchant for sexy Philistine women during his womanizing days. And, he got married to a Philistine woman from Canaan despite the objections of his parents. In his heyday he probably had worn his hair in different styles and fashion to attract the ladies. If he had taken the time and trouble to style his hair in seven locks, as the Bible says, I doubt very much that his coif would’ve been as hideous as the unsightly dreadlocks on the heads of some Rastamen.

By Lionel Gayle

 

SOMEHOW, I had expected the approach of Jamaica’s Golden Jubilee to conjure up an air of great expectations. But even after the official date, August 6, 2012, my spirit remains dormant. I’m finding it extremely difficult to visualize a likeness of Gabriel sounding his prophetic trumpet, thus heralding the dawning of a new Jamaica.

 

Vuvuzelas at Jamaica 50

Instead, I’m reflecting on the annoying sound of the primitive vuvuzela, used as a noise-maker by both the People’s National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) during the 2011 general election. It’s not a true signal or promoter of meaningful things in Jamaica. In fact, the South African contraption is no spiritual substitute for Gabriel’s horn, even when the archangel’s instrument is based on religious imagery.

 

Nevertheless, the South African president, Jacob Zuma and his wife seemed to have had a jolly good time in Kingston when Jamaican revellers pulled out their vuvuzelas and welcomed them to the island’s Golden Jubilee.  I am not aware of any particular Nigerian custom displayed when President Goodluck Jonathan and his wife arrived a few days earlier as guests at the 50th Independence celebrations.

 

The Bell
Jamaica’s ruling PNP has never been publicly identified with a noise-making emblem of its own; therefore, it would make a lot of sense if – for future fanfares of national importance – Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller could borrow the JLP’s Liberty Bell and ring the heck out of it.

 

At least, I believe, the high-pitched pealing of the bell would attract more attention than the raucous monotones of the colourful plastic-made vuvuzelas. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dissing the vuvuzela. I’m fully aware that the instrument has a similar historical purpose as the iconic abeng of the Jamaican Maroons.

 

In Jamaica, the vuvuzela is now a common feature at political rallies, football matches and reggae concerts, while in South Africa it is mainly associated with football games. Originated in East Africa, it was traditionally made from the horn of the kudu (antelope) while the abeng is made from a cow’s horn.

 

If I understand it correctly, the much touted Jamaica 50 celebration – that is expected to run to the end of 2012 – should be more than a time for jollification. So far, the celebratory activities seemed to have been overpowered by reggae events, both at home and abroad. And though admirable, the series of all-island activities just announced for September 13—29, 2012 to honour cultural icon, Louise Bennett Coverley (1919-2006), won’t change the way I feel.

 

In my anticipation, the moments similar to what must have been the prevailing ethos at the approach of the “Age of Enlightenment” in Europe and America in the 18th century would’ve been good omens. Any aspect of the cultural expression associated with The Enlightenment – also dubbed the “Age of Reason” – would’ve fit in nicely with Vision 2030 Jamaica, the island’s 20-year development plan.

Even in layman’s term, Fifty Years of political freedom after more than three centuries of colonial strangulation – with some of the worst treatment inflicted on humankind under slavery – is a very significant milestone.

 

The key thing is: in the next 17 years, will Jamaica become the place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business, as the country’s national development plan says?  In other words, will the 4,244 square-mile island, with its estimated 2.7 million people reach developed country status by then?

By Lionel Gayle

No group of workers should ever have “the right to strike,” unless the majority of citizens – those who suffer when the production and distribution of goods or services are interrupted – have the recourse to stop a strike in its tracks.

I call that “equal rights and justice.” And since our most common system of government is based on “parliamentary democracy,” every “egalitarian form of government” must strive to ensure fair play for all its citizens. It can be done.

But who will make the first move in banning industrial actions such as disruptive strikes? It certainly won’t be the unions – the main instigators of workers’ disruptions. This should be an easy task for any modern-day government, but I doubt anyone will attempt to bring some comfort and security to the masses of strike victims. Meanwhile, workers’ strikes have become the scourge of communities around the world.

The constant assaults on consumers by workers and their unions – which sometimes appear to include governments and employers as consorts or enablers – can be likened to a series of prolonged civil wars happening simultaneously. The big difference is that while a war uses firepower and ends with countless human casualties, the workers’ action ceases at the signing of a new contract. Then it resumes as the time for contract renewal approaches. And this goes on in perpetuity.

Whether it’s a strike, a work-to-rule, a go-slow, a sit-in or overtime ban – just to get higher wages or better working conditions, or to have a colleague reinstated – everything is in favour of the unions and their members. It’s always zilch for the consumers who, often, have to pay more for goods and services to satisfy the demands of those gullible and unreasonable bastards.

Meanwhile, we have some brilliant minds on earth. Among them are experts who can send rocket ships to outer space and explore the depths of the oceans. They can build bombs to obliterate an entire city and they have the capabilities to provide the necessities of life for every living person on the planet.

Yet, nobody seems willing to institute a workable plan to stop any brewing dispute between workers and employers. In fact, there shouldn’t even have to be any disagreement at the workplace. With no-nonsense guidelines entrenched in contracts, bosses and employees should be able to anticipate each others’ needs and requirements. It can be done.

To me, any 21st Century government who allows a clique of disgruntled employees to hold an entire city to ransom – by disrupting vital goods or services to masses of needy people – is a failure.

We don’t need a third eye to see that the present democratic system – the preferred organization of most enlightened countries on earth – has not been working for a long time. If a democratic government really is, as they often say: a government of the people, by the people, for the people, then we have a major problem.

Perhaps it really means: a government for the people, by some people; a government that allows unionised workers to abuse the majority. It’s like saying: all citizens are equal, but some have more rights than others. Isn’t that a classic reflection of the Orwellian school of thoughts?

It’s time to revamp trade unionism – one of the vestiges of European socialism. Long before Benito Mussolini became Italy’s 40th Prime Minister in 1922, the former socialist leader and newspaper editor had expressed his dislike for socialism. As a doctrine, socialism “had largely been a failure,” he was quoted as saying.

So under his one-party dictatorship, Il Duce crushed Italy’s socialist parties, banned trade unions and strikes and created a series of “fascist labour unions.” It was during that same period he declared his famous slogan: “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

And over in Germany, his good friend Chancellor Adolph Hitler, in May 1933 banned trade unions and grouped the working class labour force under his Nazi Party’s German Labour Front.

Nearly 50 years later (in August 1981), President Ronald Reagan of the United States dismissed more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers “who ignored his order to return to work.” Earlier that summer, some 13,000 controllers had walked off the job, thus grounding nearly 7,000 flights across the United States.

Reagan called the strike illegal and “imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring the strikers” who were members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). Later in 1981, the Federal Labour Relations Authority decertified the union.

Now, based on the forms of governments headed by despots Mussolini and Hitler, I’m not advocating the Italian and German styles of union-busting played by those infamous leaders. But let us take note that trade unionism started in Europe in the 18th Century and seemed to have been a destabilising force from the very beginning.

Think carefully and you will understand that we don’t need trade unions anymore.

By Lionel Gayle

If you checked Wikipedia’s main page, and subsequent pages on its website, you’ll find a sub-head that says, “We’re not done yet.” This is a bit scary because when the organization blacked out its English Wikipedia for twenty-four hours on Wednesday, January 18, 2012, I was deprived of “a free and open Internet” service.

The Wikipedia landing page that was visible during the
January 18, 2012 blackout protest.

Even though the free online encyclopedia says “The Wikipedia blackout is over,” I don’t believe it. That sub-head mentioned above clearly indicates that it has more plans to screw its users out of the so-called “free service” if the United States law-makers refuse to kill two controversial anti-piracy Bills.

One is the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), introduced in the House of Representatives October 26, 2011 and the other, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), introduced in the Senate on May 12, 2011.

Although SOPA and PIPA “differ slightly,” one online source says that as laws they would “grant the Justice Department the power to order websites to remove links to sites that are suspected of pirating copyrighted materials.”

Advocates such as Movie studios and recording companies have hailed the proposed laws as safeguard for “American intellectual property” while protecting “consumers against counterfeit goods.” But opponents foresee “a form of Internet censorship” as the move would give the federal government too much power.

Following the January 18 protest, House Bill 3261 (SOPA) and Senate Bill 968 (PIPA) have been put on hold and are being revised, but even Wikipedia knows that it’s not over yet. However, I find its declaration that “We are protesting to protect your rights” highly suspicious.

A quarrel between Wikipedia and the US Congress, or any other party, shouldn’t be the concern of the users and supporters who have transformed this organization into the megalithic repository and disseminator of information that it is today. In addition to fighting its own battle, it should simultaneously deliver the “promised goods.”

If the Bills become laws, it seems there are some complex provisos that could change the way we use the Internet today. If something can be done to change the course of things, I vote in favour. But I object to Wikipedia using its millions of users and supporters as pawns with a view to overpower the decision of a third party, namely, the US Congress. That’s strictly Wikipedia’s impolitic approach to getting even with an adversary.

It is so ironic that, like some 7,000 other websites, Wikipedia interrupted its normal flow of service to protest the Bills that, allegedly, threaten “a free and open Internet.” That action doesn’t reflect the intention of one practising that which he or she preaches. And that’s a sad state of affairs.

Now Wikipedia is boasting how “more than 162 million saw” its blackout page. Depriving users of its service is nothing to gloat over. It’s like a dirty paradox in which it screwed me out of “a free and open Internet,” purportedly to muzzle the two bills it alleges threaten “a free and open Internet.”

Even if it’s only for twenty-four hours, Wikipedia – or any other website – shouldn’t have to screw its users and supporters in order to stick it to Congress for the proposed laws.

By Lionel Gayle

When I first heard of a Patois Bible being published in Jamaica, I got the impression that the diction would be based on the Louisean Flair of the English patois spoken in Jamaica. That’s the style popularized by the late Hon. Louise Bennett-Coverley – Miss Lou, the Jamaican writer and folklorist whom the country had honoured as its Cultural Ambassador at Large.

Louise Bennett-Coverley
  (C) Lionel Gayle

My preference is that in most cases, the written presentation of the dialectic substitutes should bear some resemblance to Standard English words and idioms. Check how Miss Lou used “jus” for just, “wat” for what, “de” for the, “mout” for mouth, and “islan” for island in her hit poem, Colonization in Reverse. (http://louisebennett.com/newsdetails.asp?NewsCat=2&NewsID=8)

It supports my belief that patois, or a dialect, is mainly phonetic and evolved out of the need to simplify the complexity of a mother tongue. So although the spellings of some of the words from the Patois Bible may be linguistically sound, I believe they lack the percept that would attract voluntary interaction with most traditional patois-speakers in Jamaica.

For example, I see words such as “Jiizas” for Jesus, “riili” for really, “ienjel” for angel, “Mieri” for Mary, “nyuuz” for news and “taim” for time. And take a look at this cover title of the Gospel of Luke from the New Testament that is slated for publication by time Jamaica celebrates its 50^th independence anniversary, August 6, 2012: Jiizas - di buk we Luuk rait bout im. In translation it is: Jesus – the book that Luke writes about Him.

Just as I was getting comfortable with the unusual spelling of those simple words, I’ve been disappointed by the mention of “Jamaican Patois.” This came up in a BBC story about the project and the West Indies Bible Society who is managing the translation.

What is “Jamaican Patois?”

I’m guided by the credibility of an online source that defines patois as “a characteristic language of a particular group.” It also says it’s “a regional dialect of a language” and that it is “usually considered substandard.”

While I wouldn’t call Jamaicans “a particular group,” it seems correct to label patois “a regional dialect,” and that region is the Caribbean. As for “language” it’s no secret that many people in the former British colonies of this region speak English patois. And those who were colonised by the Spanish, the French and the Dutch, in addition to their official languages, also speak dialects based on their mother tongues.

By that token, there’s no such thing as “Jamaican Patois” because, strictly speaking, there’s no language called “Jamaican.” I based this conclusion on the fact that patois, or a dialect, must be the off-shoot or working simplification of another language, preferably a dominant tongue.

“It’s not bad English, it’s not poor English,” said Rev. Courtney Stewart, General Secretary of the West Indies Bible Society, in a video clip from the BBC News Magazine (December 24, 2011) as he gloats over the pending publication of the book.  He added, “It’s not [even] English, it is patois.”

Surprisingly, even the least educated, patois-speaking Jamaican can converse with a person who is well schooled in the English language. And every Jamaican who spends most of his or her time using Standard English is fluent in the patois lingua.

My experience and observation are supported by an Associated Press story, carried by Fox News (December 19, 2010): “Nearly all Jamaicans, regardless of class, speak patois – a mixture of English and West African tongues spoken by slaves who were brought to this Caribbean island by European colonizers.”

Have you ever listened to the English patois spoken in Jamaica? Is it all dialect or is it a mixture of Standard English words – and even whole English sentences – and Creole grammar? Let us discuss this in another blog.

Happy New Year!

By Lionel Gayle

My Facebook landing page is like a well-traversed jungle or an active meeting place in a large city. At any given time, it provides accommodation for a plethora of information that reflects the heartbeat of a multi-cultural community.

My Profile Image

It’s the platform on which I connect with my friends daily and observe the antics of others as they express their feelings of sadness, joy and happiness. And I must admit that I’m often stirred to the very core of my soul as my fellow Facebookers convey their emotions through poetry, prose, photographs and YouTube videos.

I don’t mind the religious fanatics who often quote verses from the Bible, obviously to scare their friends into submission to the bosom of God, or Allah or Jah. And I welcome those who provide newspaper and video links to televangelists and other Bible-thumping revivalists. I firmly believe there’s enough room for all sorts of us on Planet Earth, even as the global population reaches its 7-Billionth mark in the next three months.

Aha! And here’s my special breed – the picture-takers. I’m glad to know that there are others who are still guided by the maxim that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” However, to some of you, drop the over-bearing narcissistic behaviour in your photo posts. Even as you like to see yourselves in pictures all the time, give a little respect to the others posing beside you.

Did I hint that I like to see your friends and families in those photos too, in addition to outdoor sceneries and party camaraderie? But, I think members of the Facebook fraternity would find them more interesting and believable if you say who’s who and where’s where in these photographs, even if you borrowed them from your grandmothers’ family albums.

In the journalism business there’s a term called caption. This is the act of saying what’s going on in the photo and naming the people exactly as they appear from left to right or from right to left. As for place names, just don’t write Kingston, Quebec or Montreal with Canada on your mind if you don’t know the facts.

By doing so you could offend a Jamaican citizen from Quebec, a district (or village) close to Port Maria, the capital of the island’s northeast parish of St. Mary. Or you could earn the wrath of another Jamaican from Montreal, a district near the town of Carron Hall on the opposite side of the same parish, close to the northeast end of St. Catherine, an adjoining parish. And you wouldn’t want to insult Jamaica whose capital, Kingston, has the world’s seventh largest natural harbour.

In its rich and confined state, my Facebook page reminds me of a junk box I kept when I was a young man. To me, it was a sort of repository for useful things such as: transistor batteries, bits of electrical wires, cute pieces of plastic and other pocket-size radio and mechanical parts I had picked up on the streets or in waste bins. If they hadn’t disappeared, I have a strong feeling they would’ve come in handy one day for one of my mechanically or electrically contrived projects.

Even earlier, as a teenager, I had a bunch of keys, but I discarded them when I found out that hoarding a dozen or so keys (or even one), particularly without the matching locks, could’ve landed me in jail on some charge like: intent to break and enter. What was I thinking? I don’t remember harbouring any interest in key-making or lock-smithing.

I think I’ll check my page now to see who is sharing useful information, fund-raising for Christmas, announcing a concert or posting photos from their six-year-old albums. Then I’ll check through the clutter of newspaper links shared by a certain voracious reader.

And I hope there’s no obituary as I send best wishes to a friend who is celebrating her birthday today (December 9, 2011).