This week, I witnessed what I considered two controversial presentations, one of interest only to a few and the other a spectacle viewed by a world audience. Maybe I will chat about the larger first; like many, Rozanne and I switched on the TV for the opening of the Olympic Games. We thought it would take place in a stadium where the paying audience, guests and the athletes would benefit and witness the full show. No, this was to be a series of events set along six kilometres of the River Seine. In the early stages, it seemed innovative and interesting, but after four hours, it had become both boring and confusing. Maybe the meanings were obvious to academics who know French folklore and Greek mythology, but unfortunately, they made little sense to a man brought up as a Protestant on a Hebridean island.
“I believe the organisers of the event failed to consider the possible interpretations of the enactments from the perspective of the lesser educated wider audience in the classics and history of France.” - Peter McSporran
Even a rugby game would become boring after four hours, never mind an opening whose garish figures only added to our confusion rather than entertainment. From the start, it was obvious TV viewers would see more than the attending audience; in fact, much was purely for a TV audience, although it is said some three hundred and twenty thousand people lined the Seine. For me, it was hard to discern where they were and how they could possibly see some of the individual cameos on the far side of the river. One such character, generally only visible on the TV screen, on his travels, was the sinister hooded torch bearer. I am told that he or she represented a myriad of characters from French historical culture. To me, he seemed sinister, as was the phantom woman on the robotic horse who seemed to gallop forever.
Seemingly it was meant to represent Sequana, the Goddess of the Seine. Once again being one of the under-educated, it seemed closer to the ‘Pale Horse of Death’ from the bible. I must say the robotic horse was impressive and yet, the actual figures carrying the torch and flag for me bordered on the macabre rather than in promoting the spirit of the games. At least I knew Bacchus, having been given a pencil drawing of him by Lady Daphne Powell as a representative of me during my ‘born again bachelor days.’ He still has pride of place on the back of my bathroom door, a picture of which I will share in this blog. I must say the picture is not very complimentary, to say the least, despite not being blue. Yes, confusion rained, many Christians and others thought the feast depicted the Last Supper. Finally, to be inclusive, the majority of the dancers and revellers seemed to be gay and transgender. Rozanne and I could not determine many of their genders. Were the beards real on those dressed as women?
“In this modern world, demanding inclusiveness is exclusive to the minorities, to the exclusion of the majority.” - Peter McSporran
Some parts were fantastic, such as the lights on the Eiffel Tower, which I am sure all and sundry saw, unlike Celine Dion who was fantastic but like too many once again limited to the screen. The rest made me feel sorry for the athletes and audience, who had limited vision of the individual pieces despite braving the torrential rain. I would have felt disappointed if I had attended, no less so than watching it on TV. Much of the meaning was beyond me, especially without commentary to explain what each part or character represented.
“The final nail in the coffin for the Olympic opening for me was the post explanations on the internet by those with a self-exaggerated intellectual superiority giving their explanations in a willfully condescending manner aimed at lowering the self-esteem of us lesser mortals. Sort of sums up the world we live in.” - Peter McSporran
The second event, which took place with a very much more limited audience, was the awarding of the CFU Farming Oscar at this year's Congress. It was traditionally given to people who had contributed to Zimbabwean and, before that, Rhodesian agriculture either in service or through some unique action, often at their expense in time and money. It was, in my time, the role of the VP to coordinate an independent sub-committee to select and consider possible winners for the said year. This committee consisted of leading lights in agriculture, including some past recipients. Seems straightforward, but when two members had strong views on who should receive the reward it took diplomacy from the VP to come to a compromise. Hung juries in something as serious as this were unacceptable, I remember having to calm a very upset Jill Laurie, who won the award jointly with John in 1986, not about the candidate, but about the procedure in having missed a meeting due to my organisation. Choosing the Farming Oscar Winner was not one of the easiest tasks I helped do while VP of the Union. In the end, the two recipients that received it in 1993 and 1994 were clear favourites with all the committee members, the first being Dr Penny Grant in 1993 and the following year Richard Winkfield, Director of the Agricultural Research Trust.
To my surprise, and I do not pretend to have heard the presentation speech, Andy Pascoe won it this year. There is no doubt Andy gave much time to the Union, but in the last few years, there have been questions about transparency and his closeness to the Government, especially in his support of the Global Compensation Deed, which has become almost a swear word to many Title Deed Holders (TDHs). It was also a struggle, despite his claims otherwise, to remove him from office for the larger good. A clear indication when it happened, he had lost the support of the majority of us dispossessed. Perhaps the biggest cloud is the question of what happened to the promised Kuvimba shares and the dividend which was to be held in trust for the farmers. Personally, I think all three are like many of the characters featured in the opening of the Olympic Games, just myths. As with all tales about myths, there is rarely little substance to them, thanking their origin to a clever storyteller, in this instance, the Government. If they lied about the existence of the shares to be donated to the CFU under trust, it should raise a red flag about the credibility of the FCA, which they are selling on the back of their existence.
In August 1994, I took over the presidency of the CFU, which was unopposed at the annual congress. Nick Swanepoel took over as VP and was to prove worthy of the job, happy to work under my leadership and supported me in my endeavours in serving the farmer. Around that time, Mugabe had a ‘Meet the President’ inviting the business leaders of the country to discuss, among other things, the economy. At that meeting, the land was one of the hottest issues raised by farming leaders and the banks and agro-related service and processing industries. At that meeting, he gave assurances, which were later proven false, that it was not the plan to take productive land, and he even praised commercial farmers. In the same week, Henry Elsworth, one of those farmers fighting their farm's designation in court, was delisted. For the next two years, we tried to work with the Government but at the same time insisted on following the rule of law and sticking to the legal process. I think that, at that time, while talking much about taking the land, the Government, especially Mugabe, was hoping to entice further funding from the British. They were playing a cat-and-mouse game with us, the farmers being the pawns in a larger game. Strangely enough, despite the challenges, it allowed us to prosper until all that changed a year after my term with the change of Government in the UK in May 1997 and the appeasement of the War Vets in November of that year.
I am ahead of myself now. On flipping through my bound copies of ‘The Farmer, ’ I found a page informing all and sundry who the new president of the CFU was, mostly very complimentary. That is except for one paragraph, which I found amusing. Maybe it summed me up in those days; I am not one to judge.
“Although in some ways a reckless man, he is also conscientious and, during his time as vice president, spent a great deal of his time sorting out boring but essential details for farmers.” - The Farmer Magazine August 4th 1994
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comments