Travel broadens the mind

Recently, I was fortunate to travel throughout Central America and the Caribbean. There was much I learned about the cultures of the respective countries I visited and each experience undoubtedly added to my awareness of the world. While travelling, I met several travellers who sought to do the same; to enlighten themselves with broader experiences and an appreciation of the lives of others. Though this isn’t a viewpoint that is universally shared and for some it can be very much to the contrary.

Travelling is an activity that is met with mixed perceptions. For some, it’s an opportunity to expose themselves to new experiences and cultures in an environment void of everyday stresses. For others, travel offers little benefit. Instead, it’s a pointless and often expensive exercise of inconvenience in being taken out of one's comfort zone; one where familiarity is unnecessarily eroded with no discernible rationale or benefit. Indeed, even for some who do welcome travelling, they seek to avoid as much of that unfamiliarity as possible.

I would place myself very much within the former category. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I seek to travel. Whether it be domestically or abroad, experiencing different cultures and broadening one’s awareness is something that I would promote. It widens our perspective of the world and our appreciation of just how diverse the world is. For this to be something that one would be averse to is therefore a stance that some would struggle to understand. For many, rather than this being something that is rejected, travel isn’t an opportunity they’re afforded.

Speak to many inner city youth in deprived areas and you’ll be astounded at how insular their world is. They know their immediate community and the surrounding areas but they’ve rarely ventured beyond it. The same goes for travelling outside of their respective city let alone abroad. If their family are originally from another country where some of their extended family still reside, they may have made trips there. Otherwise, their world is incredibly small and consequently one of ignorance when it comes to being remotely worldly but this isn’t their fault. Travel isn’t an inexpensive activity and when your existence and that of your family is concerned with the here and now, going abroad is very much secondary. With airlines increasing the price of airfare during school holidays, for many families exposing their children to new places is therefore impossible (hence the number of parents who consider a fine for taking their children out of school during term time to be more favourable than paying peak fares).

Broadly speaking, I shared the aforementioned perspective in my own youth. Before going to university, some of my friends took a gap year. Yet that was largely to work and save money for the subsequent year when they would attend university themselves. Taking a gap year to travel was deemed a middle class activity that I couldn’t identify with. Not to mention, I felt doing so was something that wasn’t financially viable with other commitments. But the reality is, at the time I didn't possess the worldliness or maturity to appreciate what such a trip might afford me. Thus, it was never really up for consideration.

An opportunity to discover new places and cultures, to meet and interact with locals and fellow travellers alike and to remove myself from familiar surroundings that arguably moulded a somewhat narrow perspective at the time, is one that the more mature me laments at not having seized. Not doing so is something I long regretted and still do. In fairness, I have since attempted to make up for this by travelling whenever possible in a quest to create a gap year experience of sorts that is punctuated by annual leave and subject to the commitments of adult life.

The cost of travel is certainly a valid barrier for many. Taking a gap year to travel before university is often restricted to those from middle class backgrounds where their parents are able to bankroll the trip or at least mitigate the concern of spending what can be a huge amount of money. Alternatively, some decide to take a career break to travel where they've been afforded the opportunity to accumulate the necessary funds once working. In both instances the opportunity to travel is subject to socio-economic circumstances which creates an unfair access to the diverse experiences travel can afford. Furthermore, this merely allows the experiences and worldliness within middle class communities to blossom while within the working classes it remains narrow and stagnant. It's all the more reason why travel is so important, particularly for those whose perspective is already restricted by circumstance. Although even without the focus on the cost of travel, some would still question the validity of travelling.

I recall discussing the popularity of gap years in the UK and Europe with some American family for whom the purpose was completely lost upon. Instead of an opportunity to broaden one's mind, it was perceived as an expensive, prolonged and unnecessary ‘vacation’ that merely added to the debt that most leaving university or college are straddled with. Many would opine this to be an attitude inherent to American society given the aversion of many Americans to travel even beyond their respective state and consequently the insular perspectives of so many Americans. That said, I know worldly Americans who do refute this but it does highlight the varied appreciation of travel and how this can differ between class and culture.

Despite the popularity of travelling, for many it represents escapism from regular life that is nonetheless void of the experiences unique to the location of their respective destination. Essentially, their aim is to replicate familiar circumstances such as food and culture, albeit in different surroundings that perhaps provide a more favourable climate. It's an approach that irks me and I find somewhat offensive.

To travel to another country, with its culture awaiting to be immersed within, is a great opportunity and privilege. Nevertheless, many will reject this and would prefer to stay on a resort while declining the opportunity to interact with locals, eating local food and experiencing a culture other than their own. To go abroad and seek cuisine of your own country, rather than sample that of where you’re visiting, seems absolutely pointless but it’s a common observation. Sadly, this is something many tourist industries have cottoned on to and it’s regrettably something they’re catering for.

During my aforementioned trip, I spent time in Jamaica and opted to stay in an all-inclusive resort. The beach and overall resort was beautiful and every bit as picturesque as has been promised by the images on the website. Similarly, the service was impeccable. However, being of the Jamaican diaspora, it didn’t sit well with me that the experience being offered was one that sought to overly cater to European and North American guests in lieu of providing a quintessentially Jamaican experience. There was also a whiff of colonialism in the attempted relationship between staff and guests such as my partner and other women being referred to as “m’lady”.

It was also noticeable that guests would rarely leave the resort and opportunities to interact with locals were largely advised against by the resort staff. Conversely, a highlight of our trip for my partner, who isn’t of the Jamaican diaspora, was when I took her downtown to see the ‘real’ Jamaica with its rich vibrancy. It begs the question if tourists seek these somewhat sterile holidays. Though based on the popularity of such resorts, sadly the answer is probably yes.

To travel is to broaden one’s mind. Although it’s sadly a privilege that many aren’t able to access. But with the cultural diversity within the world, the more exposure to these experiences, the less homogenous perspectives become and the more our appreciation of the world around us is heightened. Nonetheless, the benefit of this is one that is often and regrettably overlooked by those unable to appreciate its value.

The effrontery of David Cameron's visit to Jamaica

David Cameron’s recent visit to Jamaica was the first for a British Prime Minister in 14 years. Cameron claimed that his visit was with the aim of restoring and renewing the relationship between Jamaica and the UK; a relationship that was born out of the British Empire and latterly the Commonwealth. In both instances, there is still a reciprocated affinity between some sections of the respective nations. Though for many, this is a relationship characterised by slavery, pillaging and a legacy of disdainful colonial attitudes that have permeated the diaspora and beyond.

Slavery and colonial empires will always be considered with contention and contempt by the nations that were subject to it and the subsequent generations of colonial oppressors. On the latter, this has been the basis for much of the reluctance for reparations to be paid for slavery so long after the system was abolished. After all, can generations that are indirectly connected with the ills of several generations ago be expected to atone for their ancestors? And if so, where does the recrimination stop? Looking at contemporary history, how would post-Apartheid black South Africans or the post-war Jewish Diaspora have begun the process of healing and reconciliation had they continued to seek atonement in perpetuity? Arguably, they wouldn’t be able to. However, the difference is the respective groups have received reparations and unreserved apologies from the governments of the day for the plights that have been inflicted upon them.

In 2003 Thabo Mbeki, then President of South Africa, announced that the families of Apartheid victims would receive the equivalent of $3,900. Similarly, in addition to the culturally inherent contrition many Germans hold for their country’s role in the war and the Holocaust, the German government has made reparations towards Israel and Holocaust victims, most recently €772 million for the care of elderly Holocaust survivors.

Reparations and apologies do not erase the pages of history. Nonetheless, with sincerity and acknowledgment of a country’s role in heinous transgressions, they go some way to beginning the healing process and progress for all concerned. It begins to draw a line under such events while attempting to address wrongdoings in the here and now. Alas, this seems to be something lost on David Cameron as evidenced on his visit to Jamaica.

In addressing MPs in Jamaica’s Parliament, Cameron made clear that while slavery was a regrettable event in history, the British government was unwilling to pay reparations nor make a formal apology for the UK’s role in the slave trade. But it was his language that was most telling about how unempathetic he is when it comes to the legacy of slavery –

“That the Caribbean has emerged from the long shadow it cast is testament to the resilience and spirit of its people. I acknowledge that these wounds run very deep indeed. But I do hope that, as friends who have gone through so much together since those darkest of times, we can move on from this painful legacy and continue to build for the future.”

Without context, his utterances read as if he were referring to a playground falling out between two youths. One had got the better of the other in a largely one-sided fight and subsequently their relationship was characterised by undertones of bitterness that needed to be put behind them. Yet this was all without any meaningful restorative conversations or acknowledgment that their fracas left one black and bruised with permanent injuries. While the other went home with the other’s lunch money and unscathed beyond a slight dent to their image based on a perceived lack of ethics. And that is exactly how Cameron sees slavery.

The rhetoric of “move on” was most suggestive and indicative of how removed Cameron and his Conservative government are from the issue of slavery and how it continues to permeate the black diaspora worldwide. ‘Move on’ suggests there’s nothing to dwell on or reason to continue with a respective conversation as it’s run its course. Although would anyone expect the Jewish Diaspora to ‘move on’ from the Holocaust and its legacy? Absolutely not. Were anyone to suggest so, it would be met with anger and vitriol. Therefore why should the nations that were victim to a policy from which the scars are still present ‘move on’?

Perhaps the issue of an apology and reparations for slavery is too close to home for Cameron. Indeed, both his family and that of his wife are known to have been slave owners who were handsomely compensated for their former ‘property’ when slavery was abolished in 1833. And given both come from ‘old money’, one can make of it what they will about how much those payments indirectly contributed to their current status within Britain’s elite and privileged.

One of the legacies of slavery is the negative impact on a nation’s social progress. That can be manifested in education, economic growth and democracy amongst other factors due to the vacuum that slavery and colonialism left. In turn, that leads to crime, debt and societies of restricted growth of which Jamaica is subject to. It’s therefore ironic that Cameron announced £25 million of British aid (that’s right, aid) would be used to build a prison for Jamaican criminals in the UK to be transferred to.

Given the money is coming from the British aid budget, surely a better (and more importantly appropriate) use of aid would be to build a school, a library, a hospital or even cancel debt. But instead, it’s being used to build a prison. Not only does this illustrate how blind Cameron is to the legacy of slavery that the UK has found itself home to Jamaican criminals (just as it’s found itself as home to criminals from non-black nations but the right wing media won’t suggest that), but it’s also lost on him that there was enough imprisonment during slavery. Spending British aid money on something else would have provided an opportunity to move away from a marred feature of the historical relationship between the two countries.

Cameron also announced a £300 million development package for infrastructure in Jamaica. This was probably announced within the same visit to take the sting out the colonial undertones of ‘here’s some aid to build a prison to take your criminals’. Consequently, the Jamaican government has not been as vocal as it could be on the issue of reparations and an official apology. CARICOM has established a reparations commission to push the issue of addressing the legacy of empire – something Cameron has made plainly clear isn’t on his agenda.

Reparations, apologies and resetting of ties don’t undo the legacy and the ills of slavery and empire but it’s a start in addressing them. André Wright, comment editor of the Gleaner, wrote in the Guardian that Jamaica, as is the case for other former colonies, cannot solely place blame for its misfortune at the feet of the British or their respective former colonial powers. He’s right but it’s not as simple as that.

Being of the Jamaican diaspora and the wider black diaspora, I’m acutely aware of the mismanagement of economies, acceptance of polarised wealth, corruption and neglect of education and socio-economic standards since independence in Jamaica and many former colonies. And without the necessary caveats, many would argue that it is a bed we’ve made for ourselves so we must now lie in it. While we must make the necessary efforts to address it ourselves, we cannot forget the foundation of this predicament and it squarely sits with the respective former colonial powers. Can one shoddily raise a child, neglecting and abusing it as it grows while taking what riches it has, only to abandon it when this flawed custody is no longer tenable and expect the child to do much more than survive let alone prosper? The situation is no different for the former colonies that several decades later are still struggling to fully shake off the shackles of their oppression.

David Cameron has shown on countless occasions that he is out of touch with most of the British public and now also his awareness of British history and its legacy. His perception and lack of realisation of how deep the scars of slavery run shows just that. Although his chutzpah in ‘addressing’ them suggests he either doesn’t care or is even more ignorant to the sentiments around the matter than might have previously been assumed.