The Samurai culture has been captured in many films over the years but in my opinion film that best captures the spirit and culture of the Samurai is without a doubt, “Ghost Dog” starring the excellent Forest Whitakker. The film accurately reflects the cultural ways of the Samurai but transposes them from Japan to the urban environment that is modern day New York. The character Ghost Dog reflects the value the Samurai placed on education, honesty, sincerity and humility and even reads passages from the Hagakure. Moreover, the film is underscored by music from the eclectic Rza from the Wu-Tang Clan whose meeting with Whittaker’s character reflects the crossing of paths of two master warriors who respect each other’s skills and abilities.

The Samurai originally began as a dedicated warrior class, living a very disciplined life style and soon became a way of life that influences the country of Japan to this day.  The samurai followed a set of rules that came to be known as Bushidō (“the way of the warrior”). These Samurai teachings continue to exist in everyday life and can be found in martial arts such as Kendō, meaning the way of the sword.  Strongly Confucian in nature, Bushido stressed concepts such as loyalty to one’s master, self-discipline and respectful, ethical behaviour. After a defeat, samurai would often choose to commit ritual suicide (seppuku) by cutting their abdomen rather than being captured or dying a dishonorable death.
[read more..]

Check out this footage of Bruce Lee playing ping pong and lighting flying matches with is nunchucks that was used by Nokia to promote a phone in China last year:

The fact that it’s Bruce Lee allows us to suspend belief momentarily. Regardless of whether its a fabrication or not, the controversy is a true testament to the strength of Bruce Lee’s legacy (skill-wise) and an appreciation of his contribution (philosophically and as a ‘pop’ figure) to global society.

[read more..]

(Illegal) Immigration is quite understandably always a raw topic in the first world societies which have to host new arrivals who are widely regarded as a drain on social resources and opportunities. Even though illegal immigrants have no choice but pursue menial employment generally low paid “under the table jobs”; emigration from the third world is still regarded an aspirational pursuit towards greener pastures which is materially better than staying at home. In the last few years there has been a raft of news coverage chronicling an “exodus” of migrants (mostly African) to Europe via Libiya complete with pictures of packed boats and refugees crawling onto beaches European next to relaxing tourists.

The migrants fall into two categories, asylum seekers fleeing persecution (whom are more sympathetically received) and the economic migrants in search of greener pastures.  It is hard to fault the aspirational spirit that spurs them to risk their lives walking across the Sahara desert and attempt the voyage across to Europe’s “gold paved” streets but the realities are quite brutal. One could argue that, even at the best of times, illegal economic migrants will be lucky to find themselves warmly received in Europe and much less so in light the harsher economic conditions brought on by the recent financial crash. All this before they have time to learn to assimilate into new societies and (if necessary) have to learn a new language. And this is not confined to Europe as [read more..]

A blog post entitled Companies are not charities for The Economist magazine’s Schumpeter Blog endorses the opinion of one South African academic who believes that less developed countries cannot afford to hold multinational corporations to as high a standard of social responsibility as they would be subject to in the their richer home countries.

“Ann Bernstein, the head of a South African think-tank called the Centre for Development and Enterprise, thinks that advocates of corporate social responsibility (CSR) tend to miss this point. In her new book, “The Case for Business in Developing Economies”, she stresses the ways companies benefit society simply by going about their normal business. In a free and competitive market, firms profit by selling goods or services to willing customers. To stay in business, they must offer lower prices or higher quality than their competitors. Those that fail disappear. Those that succeed spread prosperity. Shareholders receive dividends. Employees earn wages. Suppliers win contracts. Ordinary people gain access to luxuries that would have made Cecil Rhodes gasp, such as television, air-conditioning and antibiotics. (emphasis added)

These are not new arguments, but Ms Bernstein makes them fresh by writing from an African perspective. Citizens of rich countries often fret about the occasional harm that corporations do, yet take for granted the prosperity they create. People in developing countries do not have that luxury...” (emphasis added)

She is effectively saying that people in poorer countries cannot afford to hold the large multinational corporations who go there primarily for their cheaper wage labour and raw material endowment, to the same standards of social responsibility that they are subject to at home because they are poor. There are a number of things that are wrong with this position in my view. [read more..]

Having just returned from a highly entertaining and extremely thorough lecture at Goldsmiths, University of London it feels only appropriate that I share some of the nuggets of wisdom that I have acquired this evening by my interactions with a group of diverse and intelligent young students. This lecture was part of the Great Debate Tour, organised by Elevation Networks, supported by Young, Black and Successful in association with Deloitte. The Great Debate is the largest ever tour of UK universities targetted at black students, hence the launch in October (which is Black History Month in the UK, whereas it is celebrated in February in the United States). The topics covered included the economy and forthcoming cuts, politics, media representation, role models as well as a discussion of black history itself.

As so often happens with these events, there are often more questions than answers. Firstly, what is black history? What differentiates it from non-black history? What is black anyway? Am I black enough or am I too black? Why is no one listening to me? Why does the media represent black youth in a negative light? How do I get involved in making a difference? During the two hours of debate (which involved an extremely high level of audience participation), these were just a few of the issues discussed and there were some real, valid concerns raised about the opportunities that will be available to these students when they graduate. Equally, the distinguished panel of speakers were able to highlight a number of areas where there are massive public misunderstandings about young people in the UK, such as youth crime where the public perception is that some 49% of youths are involved in criminal activity, whereas in reality the figure is actually 0.7%!!
[read more..]