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.

Boxing needs to rein in the hype around Anthony Joshua until he's had an actual test

Most boxing fans would agree that inside and out of the ring, Anthony Joshua is a fine heavyweight prospect. He clearly grafts in the gym and seemingly doesn’t cut corners when it comes to his strength and conditioning. Despite the brevity of his professional bouts to date affording him little opportunity to showcase it, he’s shown himself to have good movement. And as fans of combat sports relish in a fighter, he’s got a nasty streak in the ring with explosive power. Outside the ring, he’s surrounded by a good promotional team, comes across as hugely personable and has certainly taken heed of his media training. The makings of a great fighter, ambassador for the sport and overall star are all there. But let’s not get carried away before Joshua has actually done anything to warrant the hype that is already being laden upon him.

Following every Joshua fight, the boxing media, Joshua’s promotional team, casual fans and even some hardcore ones, heap praise upon him. They declare him ready to beat any heavyweight in the world and deftly so (although with the current lacklustre state of heavyweight boxing, that isn’t the claim it might once have been). They pay no regard for the fact that Joshua hasn’t experienced a single test in any of his opponents as a professional.

I like Joshua and I’m optimistic for his future in the sport. Though the assessment many have of his current attainment in the sport is much exaggerated in contrast to reality.

Joshua has fought 14 professional fights, each one wining by way of KO or TKO. It’s an achievement that can’t be denied but one that needs to be put in context of who he’s fought. With no disrespect to Joshua’s opponents, to date he’s not fought anyone in what has been a 50/50 fight. For all intents and purposes, they’ve served the purpose of keeping Joshua active (thus keeping his promoter and broadcaster happy as they build his profile), padding his record and demonstrating his undeniably ferocious power. What they don’t provide is the slightest challenge. And to be candid, none have turned up to fight or shown any confidence that they can get the W, let alone survive the first few rounds, through anything other than luck. It’s not an attitude that can be credited. Therefore neither can Joshua’s record at 14-0 be given the acclaim many wish to bestow upon it. For Joshua’s opponents, Joshua merely represents a nice payday and a negligible puncher’s chance of derailing the hype train.

Joshua’s future opponent, Dillian Whyte, presents something different. While he’s still an underdog, as amateurs, Whyte handed Joshua an L and even a knockdown in the process. As a result, Whyte’s confidence is high and he doesn’t seem to fear Joshua or see his own defeat as a routine occurrence. It should make for a good fight with genuine needle which has already manifested itself in accompanying pre-fight friction between the two. Joshua was admittedly raw when they met as amateurs but it won’t change the fact that he’s tasted defeat at the hands of Whyte. I still expect a Joshua win but it’ll make for a different dynamic and hopefully a longer fight and a sterner test for Joshua.

Objectively speaking, some of the hysteria around Anthony Joshua is understandable. While his opponents haven’t turned up to fight, some have promised durability which was considered a test and a gauge for Joshua’s power. Yet he remains a juggernaut regardless of how teak tough the opposition has been billed as. Kevin Johnson went 12 rounds with Vitali Klitschko while Joshua despatched him in two rounds. Admittedly, Johnson’s fight with Klitschko was in 2009 and the former’s punch resistance can be expected to have taken a hit (no pun intended) since. However, power alone doesn’t maketh the boxer.

Cast your minds back a few years and David Price was being afforded a similar status, albeit not to the same lofty heights as is currently given to Joshua, and every opponent became a victim. Still, I recall remarking in the Matt Skelton fight that Price was caught a few times and didn’t react comfortably when in receipt of what seemed like fairly modest shots. That was proven in his subsequent two fights with Tony Thompson and his most recent fight with Erkan Teper. For everything his potent right hand was and probably still is, Price couldn’t take a shot and upon that being realised, mentally he’s not been the same fighter since.

Hopefully that won’t be the case for Joshua. But until we’ve seen he can take a shot, trade in a war and keep his mettle when the pressure is on, we only have one piece of the puzzle that is how complete a fighter Anthony Joshua is. Anthony Joshua could arguably stop any fighter given a clean shot. Nonetheless, in the heavyweight division, where there’s in excess of 200lbs behind a shot, most fighters could. The question is how they respond when taking a shot themselves.

The heavyweight division has always been considered the premier division within the sport. It appeals to our primal desire for gladiatorial battle between the biggest and strongest fighters with the most knockouts and knockdowns anticipated due to the sheer weight behind each punch thrown. Yet in recent years, the division has provided us with a plethora of borefests with so-called fighters who show little conditioning, mettle and athleticism and even less excitement. Every time a new prospect is able to rack up a few consecutive wins via fairly impressive knockouts, they’re therefore touted as a potential future star of the division. Although the desperation for a saviour of heavyweight boxing isn’t new. Indeed, the March 2004 issue of The Ring Magazine gave the cover to Audley Harrison, Dominick Guinn and Joe Mesi with the headline ‘who will replace Lewis, Tyson & Holyfield’.

In contrast to the current crop of heavyweight boxers, Anthony Joshua’s achievements are greatly overstated in a currently largely moribund division. Assuming he is the total package, which I think he will be, there are few heavyweights that wouldn’t be underdogs going into fights with him and even fewer that could overturn their underdog status within the fight. Wladimir Klitschko and a pre-layoff David Haye are probably the only two heavyweight fighters in recent years that many would opine to be able to able to wrest the W from Joshua. Like or loathe him, Tyson Fury would come to fight as would Deontay Wilder. Otherwise, most opponents in the division would probably go the same way as Joshua’s previous opponents. Before his defeat to Erkan Teper, David Price was touted as a potential live opponent for Joshua in a fight that would undoubtedly see someone knocked out (and early) with two huge punchers. Alas, given Price’s confidence is surely at rock bottom, and with the exposure of him seemingly being chinny, he’d likely crumble upon Joshua’s first clean landing shot. As a result, that fight’s now dead in the water.

Joshua needs to bank rounds, experience and credible tests via live opponents on his record before we can place him on the pedestal so many have already hoisted him upon amidst all the fanfare. Hopefully the Dillian Whyte fight will be the first to achieve that with an opponent that doesn’t seem to fear Joshua.

Given time, Johsua certainly has the attributes to eventually fulfil the hype many have accorded him. Boxing just needs to stop getting carried away before time and allow Joshua to build himself as the complete fighter many have prematurely declared him to be.

Life thru an Instagram lens

Recently over dinner with some friends, a mutual acquaintance came up in conversation as we enquired as to whether anyone had made recent contact with them. None of us had, but it quickly became apparent that our only awareness of said acquaintance’s life was through Facebook. We also realised that their posts assumed a very obvious trend of constant and crass humblebrags - casually made statements with the sole intention of really saying 'look how awesome and better than you I am; I'm so awesome that I'm practically nonchalant in telling you about it'. Indeed, most of their posts would be a blatant attempt to suggest that they’re living the most glamourous of lifestyles that are void of the mundane or regularity that most of us experience in our day-to-day lives.

Celebratory posts are an appropriate part of the social media experience and rightly so. After all, those who choose to should be able to upload photos from a great holiday or share news and achievements without it generating unwarranted resentment or disdain. However, this individual would periodically upload selective photos of holiday destinations captioned with a humblebrag that pleads for a comment of envy. Similarly, their attendance at an event or function that might support their purported ‘fabulous life’, would be captured by photos accompanied with cringeworthy captions with the same aim.

Given what I do know of said individual, they aren’t a member of the cast of Made in Chelsea or living a Kardashian-esque life. So one has to assume that their life isn’t the perfection they would have their online audience believe. But that’s just what they’re doing – creating a deliberate and highly selective portrayal of their life, void of any monotonies let alone negativity. And it’s all in the name of creating a character and a life that suggests they’re someone they’re not. What’s more, in an age of social media such depictions often can’t be refuted which is exactly what said individual is banking on. Conversely, those who know differently based on reality, are more likely to think they're just an attention seeking, pretentious braggart.

Such posts certainly aren’t limited to said individual; they’re actually widespread on social networks. They serve only to depict an individual in the way that they feel affords them laudable credibility, drip feeding us nuggets of their alleged lives in the hope that we'll use them to create a picture that they deem desirable. It's akin to an identity makeover that social media permits with the distance it facilitates us from reality and further into the realm of a digital world.

Social media allows users to project an image of themselves that doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. Sometimes that can be to selectively omit facts that we may not want to share with the wider world and there isn’t anything wrong with that. If anything, having some filter on what we project of ourselves online, where once it’s uploaded or posted is eternally in the ether as part of our digital footprint, is advice many social media users could learn from before sharing intimate details with all and sundry. Though that’s very different from creating a persona that’s merely a big lie. Yet the internet allows us to do this and successfully so. The internet has enabled us to negate reality to an extent that hasn’t been possible or with such ease in previous generations. Consequently, the term living a lie (in the online sense) is something that is reality (no pun intended) for many.

Take cyber bullies or trolls hide who behind the internet in the knowledge that their identity is safe and so are they (although as Curtis Woodhouse showed his troll, that isn’t always the case). Or those who choose to catfish others with the opportunity for deceit that the internet affords them. For all the advances that the internet has brought modern society, it’s also brought further opportunity for deception, disingenuousness and reinvention that isn’t mirrored by reality. On the latter, there’s the also the ever-present risk of the portrayals and lifestyles we see online creating a gauge of success that, unbeknownst to us, is a lie - and in most cases untenable.

Considering the human condition and the propensity for individuals to compare themselves to others in society, this also presents concerns within a mental health context. With the constant access and exposure so many of us have to social media, never before have we been faced with images of so-called success with such regularity. And for those who are unable to take what they see on online with a pinch of salt, it can be unsettling for one to feel that their life is below par or inferior in comparison. For the millennials who spend more time on social media than in their interaction with the real world, this surely has a damaging effect on a generation’s self-esteem and self-perception when considered in the context of wider society.

For millennials, the notion of creating their online persona as something they aren’t is an experience that wasn’t shared with generations before. Previously, reinvention for someone in their teens usually came with leaving school or college when they’d have a new and unwitting audience who couldn’t refute the credibility of a personality or backstory due to an ignorance of one’s past. Now, it only takes a new profile, selectively uploaded photos and the creation of an online presence that meets one’s desire for their reinvented self.

The ease and frequency of internet users claiming they’re someone they’re not is a casualty of the progress the internet has provided us. It’s also essentially given rise to a denial culture of who we are with the ability to dismiss any reminders of our identity on a whim, simply because we might not deem it credible to our online audience.

The advent of social media has brought with it a great and welcome opportunity to effortlessly share moments and appropriate aspects of our lives with those we chose to connect with. Births, birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, holiday photos, new jobs and other experiences and life milestones can all be shared using social media with ease. Although that needn't be with a pretentious and ostentatious post with the underlying message of 'I'm better than you or at least that's what I want you to think'. Nor does it need to be with the denial of one’s identity. Otherwise, we risk a society that blurs the lines between reality and the online world more than it already has. Not to mention, it merely promotes the steady erosion of self-worth as reality is eschewed for online reinventions and greatly embellished depictions of life.

Should a woman have to change her surname once married?

As a man, there’s little that I anticipate changing in my identity throughout my life. Regardless of my marital status, my title will remain as ‘Mr’ and my surname will remain unchanged (unless I choose to change it by deed poll). Although, for women, both identifiers are typically subject to change for those who subscribe to the tradition of doing so once married.

For some women, not changing their surname once married is unthinkable given their connection, willing or otherwise, to tradition or indeed their respective culture. On the other hand, there are an increasing number of women who retain their maiden name and not doing so is non-negotiable. But the majority of married women do decide to change their surname almost as a matter of course. Moreover, some women even relish changing their surname as a hollow (and foolish) badge of ‘success’ in being married.

The issue of a woman changing her surname is a relevant one for me as my partner falls into the group of women who feel an unease with the social expectation of adopting their partner’s surname once married. And initially, I was in agreement with her. In fact, I probably articulated my opposition to her changing her surname to mine more than she did.

It's tradition within my partner’s culture that when a child is born their middle name is that of their father’s first name. For example, if their father’s name is Joe Bloggs, their full name is X Joe Bloggs. For women though, that changes once they’re married when their middle name (being their father’s first name) is replaced with their husband’s first name. And as with western culture, their surname is also replaced so that it’s shared with their husband. Given the historical context of marriage and gender relations within my partner’s culture, I perceived this as hugely patriarchal.

While some may argue this is reading too much into a tradition, it can be perceived that where a woman (once ‘owned’ and labelled with the name of her father) is married, her ‘ownership’ is transferred from her father to her new husband. She consequently becomes the property of, and is accordingly labelled with the name of, her husband.

Conversely, it has to be recognised that there is an aspect of the tradition reflecting the woman being welcomed into and embraced by her husband’s family by assuming his surname. Although, with my awareness of my partner’s culture and its often still antiquated and misogynistic perception of women, it didn’t sit well with me. Hence I was nonchalant when it came to the idea of her taking my surname once married.

However, my stance eventually had a fairly sharp change. When my partner was questioned by a relative of hers who asked if she’d change her surname when married, her response was a firm “no”. She elaborated on this by explaining that she was “a [her current surname] and not a [my surname]” and her identity was that of a [her surname]. She also returned with her own question of “why should a woman have to change her surname when a man doesn’t?”. On the latter, I agreed with her. Yet on the former, my stance on the matter went from indifference to a burgeoning feeling of rejection toward the idea of a shared identity via my surname. I didn’t perceive it as a rejection of my family per se, but a rejection of the notion of establishing a unit with me that would, by default, share my surname.

As we spoke about this further, she explained that particularly in an interracial relationship, preserving her cultural identify both for herself and within our relationship, was hugely important. To lose her surname, which bears cultural significance for her, would be to relinquish some of that identity and she felt it was important that her surname reflected who she was. And in spite of any resentment I held toward her stance, I had to acknowledge that she made a valid point with regard to her identity; one that as a man I could not fully empathise with. Being a man, my surname, and the reflection of my identity within it, would remain intact in marriage. Furthermore, tradition and society suggests that any assumption of culture and identity in marriage would by default be her assuming mine. While it wasn’t by my design, the status quo was certainly in my favour for who would need to make any cultural compromises.

From my androcentric perspective, I argued that her culture was already visible within our relationship as both of us valued and immersed ourselves in our own and each other’s culture. I also felt that as I had integrated myself into her family to an extent that no claim could be made of me stifling or even diluting her culture within our relationship. But regardless of this, her most personal identifier, her name, wouldn’t reflect that and this was an experience that I would never be able to fully appreciate.

So should women have to change their surnames once married? It’s a tradition within marriage that has broadly endured along with women receiving a diamond engagement ring to signal their impending marriage. The latter isn’t rejected by many women – but it isn’t one that reflects their identity or lack of. The undertones of patriarchy behind women changing their surnames is also undeniable. Society preserves this in many relationships where a woman assuming her husband’s surname is merely a subtle indicator of the subservience and unequal status she may be subject to.

For a woman to change her surname can be a relinquishing of her identity and the trappings of said identity such as her culture or apparent ties to her family and community. Being known as Miss or Ms X, particularly in a professional context, and to suddenly be known as Ms or Mrs Y is also a shift of varying degrees depending on the change in surname. Nor is it a change men are subject to. Despite her rationale, it further explains the indignation of my partner on the matter.

In a modern context, the tradition of a woman taking her husband’s surname as her own needn’t be seen as patriarchal. Rather, it can be seen as the husband welcoming her to his family. Or, as I see it, creating a new entity comprising the couple that share a surname as their shared identity. Many would counter that by saying why not instead take the woman’s surname, a double-barrelled surname comprising both those of the man and woman or even a completely new name? To that, I can only offer the illogicality of tradition as explanation.

Despite my jesting with her, I have returned to my earlier nonchalance on my partner changing her surname. I continue to acknowledge the patriarchal roots of the tradition and how unwittingly or otherwise, these have undoubtedly been used as a vehicle for misogyny throughout the ages. In addition, the relinquishing and dilution of identify in changing one’s surname is one that I can appreciate if not fully empathise with as a man. Where a surname has cultural significance, the loss of identity is even more prevalent when the new surname erodes that. This therefore has further connotations that probably can’t be appreciated when changing a Greene for a Brown or a Clarke for a Jones compared to changing a Yeboah or an Ibrahim for a Williams or an Edwards. As a result, it’s arguably more of an issue for some women than others.

There is an unfairness that must be admitted in the status quo where society has not only expected women to change their surnames but social conditioning has also made it a default position. Though regardless of one’s stance on the matter, there should be a social and cultural debate on the validity and fairness of such an enduring tradition.

Can a British rap act break America?

With Krept & Konan having signed to Def Jam in America, it signals another UK rap act hoping to make their mark in the nation that birthed the genre. Despite The Long Way Home being their debut major label album (it’s been released by Virgin EMI in the UK), the duo has already garnered a growing fan base that has seen an increasing rise since their earlier Gipset days. Consequently, releasing their music in America is a sound decision given their momentum to date.

Krept & Konan present a viable act for success in America. Credibility, compounded by a harrowing backstory involving Konan, highly proficient rappers and a cross section of support in the UK amongst their fans and industry peers alike, all point towards the basis for success outside their own territory. Furthermore, the American collaborations on The Long Way Home suggest a burgeoning welcome from those American rappers who stay abreast with rap outside of their own country.

Krept & Konan aren't the first British rap act to attempt to conquer the US. However, few have had an impact on par with their American counterparts. Slick Rick, Monie Love and Derek B are exceptions but they're a minority and similar success hasn't been seen in the last 20 years.

Tinie Tempah gained some attention, largely due to Written in the Stars being picked up by WWE for Wrestlemania, but it's not close to anything achieved by Slick Rick. Similarly, Chip sought to break America under TI's Hustle Gang label but to no avail. He’s since returned to the grime scene in the UK with little impact having been made in America. Dizzee Rascal, albeit not originating from the rap scene, has had an impact in America but it's been less associated with rap and more the alternative scene that appreciates his often leftfield production and rapid, skippy flow that American rap audiences typically aren't accustomed to. On reflection, a UK rap act hasn't really made its mark on America for the best part of two decades. But with a better product typically coming from the UK in contrast to American rap, it's hard to see why.

In the early days of UK rap, it was always destined to fall short as an imitation of the US scene. Not to mention, as a relatively insular nation, Americans were (and largely still are) reluctant to embrace much that was unfamiliar. For UK rap, that meant unfamiliar accents (that perhaps didn't seem suited to rap) and unfamiliar colloquialisms and cadences. Though it could still be argued that a non-American accent still isn't wholly accepted by American audiences. Indeed, despite her commercial popularity, Australian rapper Iggy Azalea has still felt the need to don a faux southern accent in place of her own (which is more than apparent in her speaking voice). And given her popularity, she might argue it's paid off.

The unfamiliarity of British colloquialisms and vernacular could have contributed to American audiences being unable to embrace UK rap. Although looking at it from a non-American perspective, rap audiences around the world have managed to understand American rappers for decades. Many American colloquialisms have even managed to permeate the vernacular of other territories through the medium of rap. Therefore it's difficult to wholly accept this as a valid explanation. After all, hearing British vernacular from British rappers surely adds to the authenticity of what is being listened to. The same goes for the British accent that has found its voice within rap and no longer sounds awkward and out of place. Instead, it’s credible and quintessentially inner-city British.

The aforementioned insularity of many Americans also questioned the credibility of British rappers through the idea that the 'hood' only existed in America and couldn't possibly exist in the UK let alone anywhere else. Rather, many Americans erroneously thought (and many still do) we all speak the Queen's English and spend our days eating scones and drinking cups of Earl Grey with our pinky fingers at a suitably quaint angle. The idea of social deprivation, and the social ills that accompany it, existing in the UK was unthinkable to American audiences.

While it certainly isn’t something to glamourise, many American rappers and their entourages, bragging of their so-called 'hood' credentials, have toured and visited the UK and mainland Europe only to return home having found themselves involved in physical altercations and relieved of their jewellery and other possessions. And it’s been as a result of running into guys that really are from the 'hood' - and not the cinematic one that so many commercial American rappers seemingly originate from. If the street credibility of the UK and its rappers was once questioned by American audiences, it really shouldn't be now. Nonetheless, it's been an obstacle to American audiences embracing British rappers as credible acts.

There have been contemporary British rappers who have seemingly been able to address all the answers to a British rap act succeeding in America. Since Slick Rick et al, perhaps none more so than SAS. With huge street and rap credibility in the US and the UK, their success should have been a given. Their Hot 97 Special Delivery freestyle was subject to huge acclaim and subsequently they were affiliated with Rocafella and Diplomats but neither relationship ever came to fruition in the form of mainstream success . Even with widespread critical acclaim from many American rappers, it never seemed to translate into a situation that could take them to new levels of commercial success.

More recently, K Koke was signed to Roc Nation/RCA. Similarly to SAS, his street and rap credibility was undeniable and the label stuck with him even while he spent 7 months in prison on a murder charge that he was later cleared of. Alas, he was subsequently dropped from the label and his relationship with Roc Nation/RCA never came to anything by way of his debut album which is still yet to be released. Despite both acts being an A&R and marketing dream in breaking the American market, it's yet to be realised. If acts like SAS and K Koke haven't broken the American market, or at least haven't been given the platform to do so, it could be deemed questionable if other acts can.

Krept & Konan signing to Def Jam isn't a sure fire route to success in America and Def Jam isn’t the label it was during hip hop’s golden eras. Yet Krept & Konan present the attributes that a UK rap act would need to break America. Moreover, in contrast with the experiences of UK rap acts before them, the American rap scene is paying more attention to the UK rap and grime scene than ever before which is likely to bode well for their stateside endorsement. Only recently at Wireless did Drake (albeit a Canadian) bring out Skepta to perform Shutdown and French Montana featured on Krept & Konan's Don't Waste My Time as does Rick Ross on Certified.

The lack of stateside success for British rappers has been largely inexplicable of late. With broadly speaking better rappers, original content, credibility and a British swagger that most should find refreshing in contrast to the hackneyed and formulaic American approach, their success is seemingly overdue. Though as American labels and American rappers begin to pay more attention to the UK, and as the internet rapidly makes the British rap scene and its acts accessible to American audiences, it remains to be seen if the tide can finally turn for British rappers' commercial and critical acclaim in America.

The black barbershop and hairdresser experience

A few years ago, my brother-in-law got married. In the preceding days, it had been a hectic week at work for me. Travelling to different parts of the country and long hours meant getting to the barbers during the week was therefore proving near impossible. Consequently, I made a calculated risk and went against a principle that I’ve always kept. I decided to go to the barbers on a Saturday morning, the very morning of the wedding.

On the Saturday morning I woke up early, with several hours to spare before needing to depart for the wedding, and went to my barber. Others had had a similar intention and there were a small number of customers ahead of me. However, this woefully and illogically equated to hours of waiting for my respective barber (fortunately I lived locally to the barbershop and was able to return home and continue with my pre-wedding preparation before my haircut). This wasn’t due to the number of customers ahead of me, but the lackadaisical attitude of my barber.

As time passed and the shop began to fill with customers seeking an early Saturday morning haircut, there was no sense of urgency whatsoever. Haircuts would be punctuated by long pauses for jokes, animated and gesticulated conversation that didn’t permit multitasking of simultaneously cutting hair, personal calls and smoking breaks. Not to mention, the complete lack of an appointment system meant if like me you needed a haircut as a matter of urgency, you were subject to the fate of when you arrived. Fortunately I managed to get my haircut and make the wedding but I was underwhelmed to say the least.

I expect this is a story that resonates with many black men. A simple activity such as a haircut is complicated by a flawed and inefficient business model that exudes unprofessionalism. I’ll often call my barber before planning a visit to advise that I’ll be coming and to gauge how busy it is. But it’s no appointment system. I find myself strategically planning my haircuts to ensure I can be in and out within an hour – inclusive of any waiting time. Do I have a day off? Will I be able to leave work at a reasonable hour? Can I avoid a Friday and Saturday if I need a haircut for a function or event? All this for a haircut. I used to have slight envy for my non-black colleagues who, having made an appointment, or just not expecting an excessive wait because of lollygagging barbers, would often go for a haircut during their lunchbreak. In contrast, the unreliability of black barbershops would typically not present that as a viable option.

For black hairdressers, the experience is similar if not worse. Black female friends and family succumb to the fact that time is typically not an entity that is observed at the hairdressers. Indeed, when I had corn rows, my hairdresser would have no concept of time, no urgency and little professionalism. Initially, I would naively make an appointment but that wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. And given how long some black hair treatments can take, the experience at black hairdressers simply compounds how much of their time customers are expected to give up and unnecessarily so.

So why do we as the black community accept this and how has this situation managed to present itself as such a widespread feature of black barbers and hairdressers?

As black people, we have traditionally taken much pride in our appearance and have very high regard for grooming. And hair is probably at the forefront of this. Just look at old photos of post-war black immigrants arriving in the UK. Not an unkempt man or woman amongst them. Although this high regard has perhaps resulted in us accepting the aforementioned experience as a necessary obstacle to maintaining our appearance.

Within the black community, our attitude is effectively ‘if I have to wait hours and plan my day around a trip to the barbershop or hairdressers, then so be it. As long as it results in my hair looking good then that’s just the price I’ll have to pay’. It’s ridiculous and we’ve made a rod for our own back by accepting it. Furthermore, it’s now become ingrained in the experience of many within the black diaspora. Pass most black barbershops on a Saturday and they’ll be rammed. But the countenances of customers are more those of acceptance than frustration and annoyance.

There’s also our reluctance to move away from our regular establishment because of a belief that our barber or hairdresser is the best or the one that ‘knows our hair’. As a result, a good haircut in exchange for a few hours out of our schedule irrationally seems like a fair deal. And just as people are reluctant to change their bank accounts or the political party they vote for, we’re seemingly reluctant to change our barber or hairdresser. Whenever I’ve changed barbers, the decision has admittedly always been long overdue and at the expense of hours upon hours of wasted time.

Black barbershops and hairdressers are also of cultural significance. The banter, the atmosphere and a source for local going-ons are all valued features that should be enjoyed and preserved. Popular sitcom Desmond’s illustrated all the aspects of the black barbershop experience that should be celebrated. Yet the experience needs to be measured and in keeping with modern society. And that includes a drive on professionalism. In few industries would it be acceptable for someone to take or make personal calls while with a customer or interrupt their jobs because the banter meant they couldn’t multitask. My previous barbershop would also seemingly operate ad hoc hours which made it difficult to plan a trip to the barbers. On occasions, I would even find them closed despite every other shop on the high street still open for at least a few more hours. It’s actually embarrassing that there are black businesses in the form of black barbershops and hairdressers that are run like this.

I’m certainly not suggesting that black barbershops and hairdressers should imitate or reflect that of those found in other communities. I like the banter and atmosphere of the barbershop. I just want it within an environment that is befitting of modern society. That means appointments that are kept to, more professionalism and barbers who don’t take their sweet time as if their customers have nothing better to do than sit in their chair all day. People have commitments that don’t permit such a strain on their time and schedules and that needs to be reflected in how black barbershops and hairdressers are run.

There is a counter argument to appointment systems that customers, in their own tardiness, may not keep to them, thus perpetuating the situation we currently have. That says much about the black community and how we have fed the status quo ourselves. Within a modern society, a lack of an appointment system portrays us as backwards and reflects a microcosm of a community that has no regard for time.

My criticisms aren’t widespread and there are some black barbershops and hairdressers that have moved towards more professionalism and a sensible business model. Though regrettably, they’re in a minority and the black diaspora cannot continue with such a poor representation for the majority. It’s not befitting of where we are as a community and it’s embarrassing that many black barbershops and hairdressers don’t seem to see anything wrong with their representation and projections of the diaspora.

I don’t want to see the banter and atmosphere disappear from black barbershops and hairdressers but nor do I want the palaver that getting a haircut can sometimes involve. And when it’s simply because some black barbershops and hairdressers can’t bring themselves to have a professional and modern attitude in running their establishments, it doesn’t seem like a valid obstacle at all.

A celebration of marriage or an ostentatious pantomime? - the social dichotomy of weddings

For many, marriage is a social and often cultural rite of passage. While I don’t agree with the pressure that places on an individual as an unwarranted measure of success, I’m certainly not anti-marriage. Nonetheless, my personal views are that there are much bigger commitments a couple can make to each other than a wedding. Having children, jointly buying a property and above all consciously making the decision to coexist in a shared life, all represent bigger commitments to each other than a ceremony. Furthermore, that stance and decision to share a life together should precede any proposal, engagement or indeed wedding. For that reason, a wedding and subsequent marriage is really a formalising of the aforementioned rather than the key to a long and prosperous relationship. And by that token, one could question the sanctity of marriage versus the commitment a couple make to each other regardless of a wedding.

As a result, for anyone that feels a significant difference in their relationship once married, or hopes for one, they’re probably not onto the most secure start in married life. Though many marriage proposals are fuelled by just that. The sentiment that a gesture as romantic as a grand proposal, an ornate ring, an engagement, a lavish (and often extravagant) wedding and a subsequent honeymoon will revitalise a relationship is folly to say the least. Yet I’ve seen couples make that very mistake in perceiving a wedding as a tool of denial for a relationship that isn’t working. It’s a sad reality and one that I’ve seen more so from women (and less so men due to fewer social pressures upon them), that feel they need to be married. So they find a partner who seems ‘decent enough’ and despite there being no spark whatsoever, they pursue marriage as a distraction from a void and contrived relationship with an equally obliging companion.

I know women that are desperately chasing marriage, some that are even engaged and planning weddings, because of the unfair and antiquated social pressure placed upon them to do so. Admittedly, I cannot fully empathise as a man and from a culture where such pressures are not as acute as those placed on others. Yet said women are sadly in denial. Conversely, I’ve seen women break off relationships that aren’t going anywhere despite the pressures upon them to promptly get married. It takes serious cojones to make that decision and they deserve major kudos. But understandably it’s easier much easier said than done.

Similarly, I’ve seen men seek to inject life into a crumbling relationship, that seemingly has no longevity, with a proposal. The idea of getting married and the trappings of a wedding become what the couple are in love with rather than each other. If your relationship is showing no signs of compatibility and longevity, a ring and party in the form of a wedding is hardly likely to make a difference.

The apparent dichotomy of weddings therefore begs the question of what weddings represent. Not to be confused with marriage as a commitment between two people, weddings can crudely be considered as little more than a pantomime. A party to celebrate a marriage where the reason behind it can often get lost in the wedding itself. Regardless, weddings are great events and the celebration of two people’s union is one deserving of such festivities. Though when used as a vehicle for blocking out the fact that one is in an ineffectual relationship, it’s often a case of the bigger the diamond, the bigger the wedding and the more ostentatious the event, the bigger the distraction being sought.

Multiple events, exorbitant spending beyond one’s means and pomp and splendour that could rival the coronation of a new monarch, can often signal the lack of belief in a relationship being masked by such opulence. But when the hype has ended, the guests have gone home and you return to reality, what happens when the sheen has become sullied by the reality of an empty relationship? Do you seek further distraction via an equally flamboyant honeymoon? Perhaps consequently children? In a relationship that needs such distractions, it’s merely the prolonging of living a lie. However, said individuals certainly shouldn’t necessarily be besmirched without exception. Rather society and the pressures that they succumb to should be rebuked.

Just as a dog isn’t just for Christmas, a marriage isn’t intended to be just for the duration of a wedding. The hope and intention with every marriage is that it is a lifelong union. And that realisation needs to come before a wedding itself. A relationship needs to be realised as successful, not contrived. Although that can’t be achieved when the focus is on having a wedding rather than a marriage.

In an era that is increasingly liberal and gradually freeing itself from some of the more archaic shackles of tradition, weddings have surprisingly managed to weather the storm of social modernity. Married couples to be want their friends and families to share in the celebration of their marriage and rightly so. Although the focus on this has shifted. Instead of a celebration of marriage, weddings have become an opportunity to showcase social one-upmanship. Couples and their families often seek to put on an event that is grander than the one they attended previously. No expense is spared, even at the risk of unmanageable debt, just so that couples can out-do the perceived competition.

Weddings have become increasingly about keeping up with the Joneses. And not only with those that crassly seek to flaunt their socio-economic prowess and spending power but also those that are clearly punching above their weight in trying to do the same. If the celebration of marriage was the primary aim of all weddings, perhaps for many they’d be slimmed down and more appropriate affairs. After all, what is there to prove unless you’re trying to prove the viability of your relationship to yourself and others?

Friends fans and aficionados will recall when Monica’s parents spent her ‘wedding fund’ on their beach house, leaving Monica’s vision of her dream wedding in tatters unless Chandler was willing to imprudently spend all of his savings to fund it. Monica was so in love with the ideal of her dream wedding that it took Chandler articulating the joint future he saw for them for her to realise what was really important and that it wasn’t a grandiose wedding. If others could do the same, they’d have a renewed sense of perspective when it came to their own weddings.

On balance, some of the healthiest relationships I’ve seen have been within unmarried couples. And if and when they decide to tie the knot, it’s really a formality symbolising where they and others know their relationship is. There’s isn’t anything wrong with the pantomime of a wedding, but that’s ultimately all it is. After all, the marriage a wedding celebrates is intended to continue and grow long after all the guests have gone home.

Voyeurism of the rich, untalented and unjustifiably famous

With the digital age and the accompanying proliferation of social media, we’ve seen the cult of the celebrity expand. Media outlets such as E!, TMZ and a plethora of celebrity bloggers, have met an increasing demand for celebrity news with often sensationalist but digestible entertainment. However, with this, the scope of who constitutes a celebrity has also broadened. Where celebrity status previously referred to those whose fame was derived from their talent or skill within areas such as entertainment or sport, an apparent skill set of any kind is increasingly less of a prerequisite. Rather, these individuals have been allowed to rise to the heights of celebrity in making a career of fame derived from… well, nothing.

With the rise of reality television, television audiences have been exposed to the goldfish bowl of on-air people watching. With what initially started with shows like The Real World and Big Brother, the genre offered an intriguing premise for shows of social and behavioural observation and analysis. Although they quickly created celebrities of their respective casts and began to shape the world of reality television. The notion of watching a show that wasn’t actually about anything but insignificant people’s lives was then taken further. What if we watched people whose lives were so farfetched and materialistically distanced from our own, that our intrigue is instead moved to the ostentatiousness of their lives? This would be in spite of how banal their lives and personalities might actually be once stripped away of the so-called glamour of what appeared to be their reality. And with that, a cornucopia of such shows were born.

The Hills, The Real Housewives of… franchise, The Only Way is Essex, Made in Chelsea and arguably the biggest, Keeping up With the Kardashians, and their various spinoffs, have all followed the same template. Watching rich people who appear to spend their days socialising at high-end establishments, shopping and living lives that would appear to be unattainable for most. It hardly sounds like riveting television but it’s a hugely successful format that doesn’t look like it’s ready to disappear just yet. Consequently, we’ve created celebrities out of individuals who already have the money; we’ve just given them the fame to boot. But why? Are they not just simple players in a trite observation? Why have these people gained our attention and our acclaim for effectively not doing anything remotely notable?

Consider the Kardashians. Hugely popular, they have converted their celebrity into spinoff shows, clothing lines and a variety of merchandise. Although what is their talent? Media personality Charlamagne tha God rightly said that the Kardashians’ talent is being able to keep our attention. And I’d be inclined to agree. Kim, Khloe and Kourtney are certainly easy on the eye but that should only get one so far without any discernible talent. Kim, the most famous of the Kardashian sisters, is known more for her sex tape with Ray J than the fact that her father was on OJ Simpson’s legal team or that her stepfather was an Olympic athlete. The latter shouldn’t be reasons for her celebrity status either. But the fact that even they are overlooked when awarding her and her sisters with their fame, demonstrates just how baseless the Kardashian family’s celebrity status actually is. Nonetheless, they are instantly recognisable and international household names.

The Kardashians are also, at face value, not the sharpest tools in the box (I say at face value as they’re obviously savvy enough to have built a brand based on no talent so perhaps it’s more fool me). I’ve watched their show aghast with their foolishness and bizarre life decisions. Furthermore, there seems to be a trend of stupidity as the hallmarks of personalities within said shows.

In his Never Scared show, Chris Rock spoke of magician David Blaine’s then recent ‘challenge’ to go without food for 44 days while living in a suspended perspex box. In referring to Blaine’s efforts, Rock mockingly poses the rhetorical question “are we so desperate that we fall for a trick-less magician?” Similarly, have we become so thirsty for entertainment that we’ve effectively reduced ourselves to people watching of morons? It would appear so.

The rationale for our attraction to this new type of celebrity is not immediately apparent. Could it be escapism to watch uncomplicated lives that appear to be perfect without the stresses of everyday life? Conversely, perhaps we see these individuals as a reflection of our own materialistic aspirations but without the graft and hard work in achieving it. Essentially, if we were to be gifted with the fame, the money and success, without any effort whatsoever, our lives would likely mirror theirs. It’s a departure from the traditional notion of a celebrity where to achieve the fame, a significant talent and accompanying work ethic would be required. As a result, the lives of the Kardashians et al represent a utopia of the highs without the lows of the celebrity lifestyle. In addition, there is also a fascination with the lives of others that are so far removed from our own.

This fascination has led to shows that seek to show the contrast of how the rich live against our own lives. Why are we therefore entertaining projections of lives that indirectly and audaciously seek to belittle ours as inadequate because they do not live up to the standards we see on screen?

Made in Chelsea follows a group of rich twentysomethings residing and socialising amidst juvenile ‘he said, she said’ squabbles in the expensive London area of Chelsea and its wider vicinity. It epitomises the images of rich people who show no sign of having worked for their lifestyles or any intention of doing so. There’s also a somewhat incestuous circle of romantic liaisons within the same circle of friends. Had this been a programme about the working classes, they’d all surely be branded as highly promiscuous for sleeping their way through the friendship group and workshy for not having a job. Though with money and their social class, the cast of Made in Chelsea are free of judgement. Indeed, aside from seeking to show its audience how glamourous the lives of the cast are, it also exudes class prejudice. Yet it’s given a warm reception as it dumps on the lives of the very people who comprise its audience.

Being a celebrity is no longer defined as it once was. Airtime is freely given to those without a backstory or a talent and society seemingly endorses this. Nevertheless, it’s another erroneous measure of success that society is placing upon itself in putting such individuals on the pedestal once reserved for celebrities. For many, the Kardashians et al represent a lifestyle of success and glamour achieved through nothing but privilege and status. And as for celebrities in the traditional sense of the word, with trifling attributes such as talent, they’ve been relegated to make way for the illogical obsession of those who really don’t deserve celebrity status at all.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao II - the only fight that makes sense for Mayweather

With the exception of Manny Pacquiao, the consensus of his fight with Floyd Mayweather was that the judges were right to award Mayweather the W. Even with Pacquiao's seemingly retrospective complaint of a shoulder injury (which he failed to disclose beforehand), there wasn't any controversy surrounding the result. While I expected Pacquiao's work rate to be higher, I still predicted a chess-like victory for Mayweather (admittedly I thought it would be via a split rather than unanimous decision). Overall, it was a clear win for Mayweather, successfully taking him to 48-0.

So what now for Money? Mayweather has one more fight under his contract with Showtime after which he's claimed he'll retire. But of more interest is who his 49th opponent will be. And there is no one other than Pacquiao who makes sense for Mayweather to fight in what would be a money-spinner (no pun intended) rematch.

Mayweather initially seemed open to the idea of a rematch but he’s since gone back on that, claiming he has no interest on account of Pacquiao using his shoulder injury as an excuse for defeat and being a sore loser. Nevertheless, despite his utterances (which I suspect could just be hyperbole), a rematch is the sensible route for Mayweather.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao was billed as the fight of our generation. It was never going to be akin to the ferocious, epic battle that was Hagler vs Hearns – arguably the most exhilarating three rounds in contemporary boxing history. Rather, it was always going to be a defensive masterclass from Mayweather that would be appreciated by boxing purists but perhaps leaving more casual fans with their thirst for a legendary barnstormer unquenched. Though would that stop the rematch generating huge amounts of revenue? Absolutely not.

Commercially and for credibility, Mayweather has few options if he wants another huge fight. Imagine the press conference for a subsequent fight that isn't against Pacquiao. Mayweather's sat at the dais flanked by his father/trainer Floyd Mayweather Sr and Leonard Ellerbe. Then, the inevitable question from a journalist: "is this fight harder than your fight with Pacquiao?". Whatever his response, Mayweather will know the answer is no. Fighting a lesser opponent for his swansong fight provides little credibility for Mayweather and will merely add to the common assertion that he cherry picks his opponents to fight on his terms when and how it suits him. That isn't to say there aren't top draw opponents for Mayweather as there are. Nonetheless, if there's a risk they might take his '0', he'll undoubtedly give them a wide berth.

Amir Khan would be a big name opponent who Mayweather could KO with his reckless defence when drawn into a scrap and on account of him being notoriously chinny. Although his speed could cause Mayweather manageable yet unwanted problems. Despite being solidly legitimate opponents, Kell Brook and Keith Thurman aren't quite big enough names internationally and beyond boxing circles. And neither is another mooted fighter, Gennady Golovkin (it's a match-up I find highly unlikely). In the case of the latter, Mayweather would only take that fight if GGG dropped to a disadvantageous catch weight and even then GGG would be an incredibly dangerous opponent which we know Mayweather is averse to. Who else provides a fight that provides credibility and a reduced risk (in the knowledge that he’s already defeated him)? Only Pacquiao himself. Furthermore, he also provides the most commercially sensible option which is a huge factor for Mayweather.

Throughout his career, Mayweather has earned gargantuan amounts of money from his fights; none more so than his fight against Pacquiao. Mayweather has an often crass penchant for money that gave rise to his moniker ‘Money’ and his spending habits match that. After his return to the sport in 2009 following his ‘retirement’, it was rumoured that Mayweather had racked up huge gambling debts and by his own admission, he has a penchant to 'bet heavy' on sports. Like any gambler, he’s sustained some loses – and Mayweather’s gambling loses aren’t going to be insignificant with the way he gambles. After all, that wouldn’t be The Money Team way.

Based on his ostentatious and extravagant spending, and his gambling to boot, Mayweather needs to maximise his income before retirement. Beyond boxing, he has no apparent revenue streams that even come close to his fight income. Mayweather Promotions, like many vanity promotion outfits that went before them, may struggle to garner the same attention once Mayweather has retired. Despite his huge popularity amongst boxing fans, Mayweather’s history of domestic violence and his crass materialism doesn’t make him an obvious choice for big brand family friendly endorsements either. And given his spending habits, prudence seemingly isn’t an attribute he possesses either.

Mayweather needs to decelerate his haemorrhaging of cash to at least stave off financial problems in retirement. And if Mayweather’s final fight in his contract with Showtime will indeed be his final fight, he therefore needs an epic payday. Commercially, no fight can top his fight with Pacquiao.

Admittedly, a rematch wouldn’t bring much new to the table in terms of the fight and probably the result. Nor would it necessarily generate the same levels of interest given the first fight was a masterclass rather than a tear-up. But any other fight for both Mayweather and Pacquiao would be a retrograde step in terms of opponent and revenue.

Pacquiao recently had his surgery for his shoulder injury and is reported to be out of the ring until mid-2016. By then, he will not have fought for the best part of a year and may want a warm up fight to lose any ring rust. That’d mean a fight with Mayweather might not be for up to 18 months and Mayweather may not be willing to wait that long. However, if Mayweather fights on, a rematch with Pacquiao is the fight that makes the most sense before he finally hangs up his gloves.