A Day Out at Royal Birkdale

The Open Championship, the 137th edition of which started today at Royal Birkdale, is golf's supreme test of shot-making, decision-making and intestinal fortitude, but the beauty of the Open Championship is a history rich with facts and stories, some more well-known than others. I was fortunate this morning to be heading to the shores of the Irish Sea, hoping to see some more of those very same memories being made. The weather was appaling up until 1100, at which point that rain and winds eased, leaving only the dark clouds as a reminder to the competitors of what the elements can do for your score.

The Claret Jug was first presented in 1873 to Tom Kidd, even though the first Open was held 13 years earlier at what is now Royal Prestwick in Troon, Scotland. Before the Claret Jug, winners received the Challenge Belt, made of red Moroccan leather with a silver buckle and adorned with emblems some described as "gaudy."

The first 11 Opens were held at Prestwick, with rules at the time allowing anyone who won the championship three consecutive years to keep the belt. That's why when Tom Morris Jr. won his third straight title in 1870 (he won a fourth in 1872), the belt was no longer available to be awarded. Prestwick members, trying to decide what to do for a new trophy, approached the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews and the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers with the idea of sharing the Open and the cost of commissioning a new prize between the three. But a delay in reaching an agreement resulted in no championship being played in 1871.

The clubs eventually agreed that the 1872 winner (Morris) would instead receive a medal and, at the same time, each club would contribute 10 pounds (a little more than $20 Canadian today), toward the cost of a silver claret jug, called the Golf Champion Trophy. The new trophy wasn't ready in time to be awarded in the wake of Morris's fourth Open title. But even though Kidd was the first winner to actually receive the trophy, Morris's name was the first to be engraved on it.

Another interesting British Open story involves Ivor Robson, the silver-haired Scot with the "sing-song" voice who has been the starter on the first tee for every British Open since 1975. Robson, who won't reveal his age, also has been the European Tour's official starter for just as long, but it's at the Open where he has taken on a superhuman persona by being able to go as long as nine hours without sitting, drinking, eating or going to the bathroom as he introduces the players in each group. Robson said the job "requires total and complete concentration" and noted a few years ago that he doesn't drink anything after 7 the night before and between rounds has only a sandwich and a glass of mineral water. He loses about 14 pounds during each Open. Robson played the Scottish pro tour from 1964 to 1974 and, ironically, it was the fear of hearing his own name announced on the first tee at tournaments that forced him to give up competitive golf.

I, for one, felt a pinge of excitement when he read out the names of those approaching the course. I followed Montgomerie, Weekley and Weir through the first 14 holes (before some lunch) - Montgomerie (+3) and Weir (+1) made some good shots, and Weekley (+10) had some flashes of brilliance in his short game in an otherwise forgattable round. I then followed Greg Norman (even) over 10-14, before relaxing at the killer 17th with my thermosflask of coffee. The championship hole was really impressive as well, with the art nouveau clubhouse gleaming a brillian white as the sun struggled to make its presence known towards the end of the day.

Are Knives Really a Problem in the UK?

I've tried to ignore the rather sensationalist reporting of the knife issue over the past couple of weeks. For those that don't know, most of the newspapers have carried cover articles on the recent fatal stabbings of five men in the space of 24 hours, the murder of two French biochemistry students (whose bodies were subsequently set ablaze) and the murder of two school-aged boys. Today there is more news of a stabbing at the "T in the Park" festival in Scotland, and a fatal stabbing at a pub in Bolton. For many it seems to be the scourge of our cities, with a new series of incidents apparently arising every day. But is knife crime really becoming an epidemic? Or does the sense of hysteria surrounding the cases say something about our national culture?

Twenty teenagers have died as the result of violent attacks on the streets of London this year. Some were stabbed, others were attacked with guns, baseball bats and fists. Politicians are claiming that these attacks and those in Bolton and Perth suggest that violent crime is escalating across the UK. But is it really that bad now? A little research points to a past littered with groups such as the 1950s Teddy Boys (armed with flick knives and switchblades), a group that supposedly inspired the ultra-violence of Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange". What of the running battles between the Mods and Rockers in the 1960s, and the football holliganism of the 1970s and 80s. What about the uproar surrounding the murder of the 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool? He was shot. Once upon a time it was shootings such as this that were seen as the scourge of inner cities, but now it appears as though the blade has replaced the bullet in the headlines.

Knives have been a problem for many years in some cities in the UK. I remember going to Glasgow a few years ago, and during a stay of 48 hours there were three fatal stabbings within the city. Changes in the way in which crime statistics are recorded has helped to put a true figure on the proportion of violent crime that can be atributed to knives. And the surprising conclusion is that the reported incidence of knife crime in Metropolitan London has fallen on the level last year. So knives have been around for years. Why all the hysteria now? I think that there are two main reasons.

Firstly, more people are carrying knives as weapons. Indeed the BBC has been showing footage of a group of black-clad youths brandishing and posing with meat cleavers (rather delicately placed within their tracksuit waistbelt!). When more people carry knives, they are more likely to pull them out when they feel threatened. Violence ensues. According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has across England and Wales decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995. Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade. These figures do not, however, include figures for under 16s, something that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced would change from this month.

Secondly, and I feel more importantly in explaining this hysteria, is the role played by fear of crime. Recent reports in Liverpool and Manchester have actually concluded that gunshot wounds are the most common form of violence in these areas. According to the BCS, no child in the SE of the country (excluding London) received treatment for stab wounds, a figure that suggests that knife violence remains a predominantly urban problem. Also, media coverage has become more extensive and crimes are being reported in "real-time". A BBC News montage yesterday ran a series of news clips that had been placed together as highlights of the days news. All related to the knife crimes mentioned above, yet interestingly the temporal distribution of these horrible events had been collapsed together. There was no discussion of the individual causes and locations of the events, only another knife crime warning.

Whilst these events are terrible reminders of the power of gangs in certain communities and areas, I fear that the mass hysteria that is currently breaking out is misplaced. I think that we need to get some sort of perspective and understand that these crimes are events that have individual motivations and consequences. To solve the problem of knives (and guns, bats and fists) we need to try and block out these motivations, and hopefully never have to see the consequences again.

Blygt.

21st Birthday!

Hi all!

Friday saw me become an adult! It was a rather relaxing day. Thanks to all for the birthday greetings, cards and presents. You all made an old man feel happy for the day. Slightly strange that I also began to receive all of the information about the MPhil and PhD years on the same day. I think that my 22nd year may be rather eventful.

Blygt.

Memento

Wow! I just watched the film Memento (2000) and I have to say that it is one of the better films that I have seen recently (certainly beats that crude and unfunny Team America). It's the story of a man called Leonard, who is trying to find the man who murdered his wife. Except, he suffers from short-term memory loss and can't remember how he is trying to find him. He is unable to form new memories of events that occurred after the death of his wife. So he can't for example remember why he entered into a restaurant, which room is his at the motel etc. But he can remember how to write.

The amazing thing about this film is Leonard's "system". To deal with everyday tasks he goes about writing down key events, and takes pictures of people that he needs to remember. He goes as far as to have facts that he has learned tattooed to his body. But there are several key rules. Firstly: only trust your own handwriting. Secondly: really important things should be written on the body rather than on napkins. So his body is covered in clues and sayings: "memory is treachery", "consider the source" and "John G raped my wife". These texts are Leonard's world and without the texts, or the pens to write them, he is lost. So when someone wants to manipulate him, all they have to do is take the pens and the memory is obliterated. It is this potential for manipulation that is the fundamental nagging doubt in Leonard's mind, and he has to convince himself that there is a world outside of his brain:

I have to believe in a world outside my own mind. I have to believe that my actions still have meaning, even if I can't remember it. I have to believe that when my eyes are closed the world's still there. Do I believe...?

The film has extra significance for me. It was through a commentary of this film that I came to understand a fundamental concept in the academic world: that of Derrida's "deconstruction" approach to texts. The link between the film and the theory is the central importance of text in communicating our experience of the world. So like Leonard we all need little crib notes to make our way. This was summarised by Derrida in his famous saying: "il n'y a pas de hors-texte" ("there is nothing outside the text").

Jean-Jacques Rousseau famously argued that language 'got in the way' of human attempts to describe the world. It is a lens that stands between us and the world, and is therefore a (admittedly slight) distortion of true experience. Therefore, when language was invented we lost a bit of real nature and instead have to interpret the world. But Derrida differed here. He argued that people read all of the time, but they do not interpret, that is they do not look beyond the text to examine its meanings, but instead see a text as some sort of transparency that we can supposedly see as genuine. Rousseau assumes that Leonard is a freak and that we are normal. Derrida instead sees texts everywhere, none of which are currently recognised as things that require interpretation. If I lift up a cup, this action is mediated by my interpretation of the things as "a cup", with this interpretation informed by context, history, experience - an entire set of presuppositions. It is the all-conquering nature of this idea that I think resonates through the film, and the texts that Leonard needs are therefore only slightly more material versions of the texts that we use everyday.

What a film!

Blygt.

Arrogance is our only flaw...

I have to say that I've actually enjoyed the past couple of days. Coverage of the annual Church of England Synod has been extensive in the media, and coverage of the debate over women bishops proves to be somewhat of an interesting insight for what may occur at the Lambeth Conference (where homosexuality is believed to be the key point of debate). I welcome this opportunity to discuss elements of the church's theology and maintenance in public, and I think that the views expressed from both sides have been very considered and founded in biblical wisdom. But today I was slightly set back by a comment in The Times today in which a 'traditionalist' priest accused the 'liberal' (and therefore automatically pro-women!) group of lacking Christian compassion and gloating over what he saw as a victory for elements that would destroy the Church of England:

"The synod has no legitimacy, and it should be dissolved forthwith, and an emergency steering body should be formed by the moderates on both sides, simply to save the Church from those these people who presume to speak for it"

The real controversy that I see on the ground is not surrounding the ordination of female/gay people within the Church. It is instead a refusal to see others as "real Christians". This is a pet hate of mine, and something that has challenged me fundamentally during my time at university. During a college Christian Union meeting, I was encouraged to pray that a friend would come to know Christ. However, I knew that she was a regular chapel-goer (if not a church-going evangelical!) and a self-confessed follower of Jesus Christ. My attempt to rectify this call for prayer however fell upon deaf ears. She was not "one of us", not a "real Christian". Our decision to dismiss and objectify people that we don't agree with theologically is the real challenge to the church in this country. I say "our decision" as this is something that I too am guilty of at times. We cannot assume that we have and understand "the truth" sufficiently, that we do not need to engage and converse with others. Nick Knisely argues that "conversation that is entered into with the presumption of knowing the final result is not conversation, but attempted conversion".

Over the past couple of years, people have tried to put labels on where I stand in the great Christian spectrum. I'm orthodox in some, liberal in others and borderline heretical at certain points! It was a strange experience being part of several Christian groups whilst at university. The groups differed in praxis and politics, despite sharing a similar doctrinal basis. I think that my rather strange views made it difficult for me to fit in/be accepted entirely by elements in both groups. In truth, this is because I am a moderate with a penchant for building community between groups. I think that we are all in the process of being transformed by God through the Holy Spirit, and as a result I believe that our futures and the ways in which these futures are to be attained should not to be limited by political views, but instead opened up to the Spirit.

For many I appear to be a "lukewarm" Christian, unwilling to really attach my flag to either of the two camps. The wisdom in the Church at the moment is that there are two camps within the Church of England, and that because these groups are deemed to be irreconcilable the only possible solution is the division of the Church - in to two distinct churches, a process that would completely isolate them and therefore avoid any sort of dialogue or cooperation. In other words, the current church happens to be a convenient container of radically distinct groups - a form, rather than a meaning.

I think that this description of the church goes against the many messages of St. Paul (think in particular of the idea of the church as a body made up of many parts, in 1 Corinthians 12). Indeed it is the deep foundation in biblical theology that shaped and allowed the church to grow across the world, reaching all continents and peoples. Yet Christians continue to be mocked and derided for what is seen to be a limited intellectual horizon, and sometimes an ill-defined authoritarianism. This same language is however evident WITHIN the church, reflecting our arrogance and contempt for some of those that we are currently in communion with. This lack of humility within our own internal dialogue results from our continued belief that we have no need for those with whom we do not agree.

This arrogance I fear is the deeper cause of any spiritual split within the Church of England. I am also guilty of it - my own "moderation" partly results from my belief that it is somehow a better place to be, a place from which I can point out and comment on the flaws of the others, without necessarily looking at my own (how many times I have wondered, "why can't they just be sensible?"). Maybe we should stop wondering about how "we" can make "them" see what we want, and maybe we should instead put our eyes and ears to the heavens to listen to what God actually wants of us.

Blygt.

Colonial Rhetoric Diverts Attention from the Real Problems

Since last I wrote on this blog, things have taken a turn for the worse in Zimbabwe. Elections held last week were boycotted by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), with their leader Morgan Tsvangirai citing a campaign of violence (inc. murder, rape and torture) and intimidation against his party. Unopposed, President Robert Mugabe won a landslide victory. Scores are internally displaced, others have fled to neighbouring Zambia and South Africa. A once economically prosperous state has become a shell.

One would think that the many Africans who live under oppressive regimes might have seen this moment as an opportunity to rally behind their brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe. The continent, has however, remained eerily silent. Despite movements by the Kenyan prime minister (himself the victim of a stolen election) and the Botswanan vice-president to have Zimbabwe expelled from the African Union at its recent meeting in Egypt, the main heavyweights on the continent refused to be drawn. The African Union, and especially South Africa, merely shrugged at what has been called a "Munich Moment" for the continents fight against authoritarianism.

But how can this indifference be explained? It appears that Mugabe and many of his supporters have been brought together through the use of a post-colonial rhetoric. There is no love lost between Mugabe and the West (an adviser recently declared that the West could "go hang a thousand times"), and it appears that some African leaders would rather support an African dictator than be seen to be supporting the Western governments that have rejected his election. Mugabe knows this very well, and he draws upon his past as a leader of the colonial resistance movement, drawing in political support from other nations where his Zimbabwean "war veterans" helped to further the Marxist cause in the 1970s.

It's true that colonialism does have "legacy issues". The poverty, exploitation and structural violence found across the world so obviously highlights this. It was a blight to many nations across the world, and in neo-colonialist wars it continues to be a problem. But I think that there needs to be a moment of change in thinking regarding European colonialism in Africa if leaders like Mugabe are to be silenced. There is a sharp difference of opinion developing across the continent between the old-school revolutionaries who fought in the wars of independence, and a new generation. Unlike the previous generations of politicians, these new leaders see the "sovereignty" argument for what it really is: a legitimating discourse, that references racism and neo-colonialism to deflect attention away from the shortcomings of the political elites and the orgies of violence that usually follow.

When the electorate and leaders are whipped up into a political frenzy around the issue of colonialism, their attention is distracted from the real issues at hand. Why is it that food has become so scarce in a state that was once the bread-basket of South Africa? Why has inflation reached frankly laughable levels? The indignities endured by large sections of the Zimbabwean population, under black rule for more than 30 years, have little to do with Britain. Perhaps this is the moment that the continents leaders examine the real causes of their poverty today. Once freed of this obsession with small islands off the coast of Europe, Zimbabweans and Africans may have a greater opportunity to scrutinize their own leaders.