THE RACISM CONFRENCE IN DURBAN

MELANET UnCut Chat and Discussion: MelaNet UnCut Talk: THE RACISM CONFRENCE IN DURBAN
By $$$ ( - 211.183.180.163) on Tuesday, September 4, 2001 - 08:12 pm:

Cape Town

The highest concerns of the South African government are the Three Rs: race, race, race. Our appalling levels of violent crime, our calamitous unemployment, the Aids epidemic decimating our population — all of these are very low on the African National Congress’s priorities. Indeed, on the rare occasions when a local journalist dares to ask President Mbeki about them, he brushes them aside with a look of irritation. His highest priority is always the question of skin colour. Like the apartheid regime before it, the ANC government is completely obsessed with race.

The UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in Durban next week therefore takes precedence over everything else for the South African government. For months our newspapers have been promoting it with solemn excitement. We shall see whether it achieves anything. Meanwhile, a problem has arisen about whether or not the conference should discuss reparations for slavery. This is a fascinating moral question. Europe has indeed played a unique role in the history of slavery. Slavery has been a universal feature of all societies throughout most of history. Blacks and whites; Africans, Asians and Europeans; Christians, Muslims and pagans — all of them kept slaves. Every person alive today has ancestors who were slaves or slave owners. What makes Europe unique is that it ended slavery. Western civilisation alone — the white man alone — decided that slavery was wrong.

For thousands of years black Africans had been enslaving other black Africans. Then black Africans began selling black Africans to Arab slave dealers. The black slaves were force-marched across the Sahara Desert to North Africa and the Middle East. Black male slaves were castrated to work in Arab harems. Much later the white man arrived, wanting slaves for the American colonies. The black slave traders in West Africa were delighted to oblige. It meant a lucrative expansion of their traditional business. An African chief explained the deal as follows: ‘We want three things: powder, ball and brandy; and we have three things to sell: men, women and children.’ West African nations prospered mightily under the slave trade.

Then something most strange happened. Prompted by Christian conscience, beginning towards the end of the 17th century, white men in Europe began to campaign against the notion of slavery. Nothing like this had ever happened before. In Africa blacks who were enslaved did not like it, but blacks who were not enslaved had no objection to it. Both accepted it as part of African culture. In the United States many of the blacks were free men and some of them owned black slaves; they, too, had no objection to the concept of slavery. Asians and Africans alike continued to think that slavery was perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable. It was only among white Europeans that opposition to slavery grew.

In 1772 slavery was abolished on English soil, and in 1833 it was outlawed throughout the British empire. France followed suit. The West Africans were horrified. Their centuries-old enterprise was threatened. Countries such as the Gambia, the Congo and Dahomey sent delegations to London and Paris to protest strongly against the abolition of slavery.

Now here is a moral dilemma. If you believe in the new ethics of ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘moral relativism’, you will say that all morality is relative to culture. People of one culture should not criticise people of another. Therefore, if slave dealing was part of West African culture, the white man had no right to oppose it. In doing so he was guilty of cultural imperialism. Indeed the use of main force by the Royal Navy to stop Africans exporting other Africans to America might well be considered the most arrogant act of cultural imperialism ever performed.

On the other hand, if you believe in absolute morality, you will believe that slavery is simply wrong and must never be allowed regardless of culture. Then you will congratulate the Royal Navy.

I am of the latter persuasion. I believe there is an absolute morality on all important matters. I believe the white imperialists were sometimes absolutely right in their moral prescriptions to black Africa (such as the ending of slavery and the censure of female circumcision) and sometimes absolutely wrong (such as in promoting legal abortion over a wide range of circumstances).

Among the descendants of the parties concerned, the big winners are the descendants of the slaves in the United States. They are far better off than black Africans, which is why black Americans do not want to live in Africa but black Africans would love to live in America. The losers are more difficult to identify, but it is to them we must look for answers to the question of reparation for slavery.

If you believe in moral relativism, you will hold that the great damage done was to the West African slave owners, whose business was ruined by the white imperialists. In this case, you should urge the Durban Conference to pay compensation to the descendants of the slave owners.

If you believe in moral absolutism, you will say that the great damage done was to the African villages from whom the slaves were drawn. In this case, you should want the Durban Conference to demand compensation to the descendants of these villagers from the descendants of the two parties responsible for the Atlantic slave trade: the white men from Europe and the black men from West Africa. In other words, moral relativism says that the descendants of West African slave dealers should receive compensation; moral absolutism says that they should pay it.


By cozmikfaro - Nai Benu Amen ( - 63.44.182.53) on Tuesday, September 4, 2001 - 10:57 pm:

The first slaves were Sumerian, captured by European/western tribes. They arrived from the north, stormed Sumeria, Mesopotamia, and then descended into Africa. There is no record of slavery in Nubia, Ethiopia, Kmt, or any other ancient civilization throughout Africa until after the descension of the westerner into these areas. Further, European slavery was not ended, but encrypted as "colonization". Europe may have ended slavery within its own boundries, but slaves (physical and mental) were made of the original inhabitants. Whether it was the assimilation into Catholicism or Christianity, or literal chains and bonds, slavery is/was continued. On an adverse note, I do not believe that we, Blacks, should be copensated in currency form. Money is worthless to an enlightened mind. But, Blacks, as well as other "minorities", should be compensated in the form of their former Knowledge, ritualistic rites, their TRUE history, and their land, as these are what was stolen from us to degrade our state of mind.


By RT ( - 64.210.241.103) on Wednesday, September 5, 2001 - 12:01 pm:

A brilliant addition to world history by yet another afro-american genius--cosmic pharoah! I'm curious, cosmic, at which august institution of higher learning did you gain such vast erudition? Was it the federal or state pen?


By DIVERSITY, HELL! ( - 211.183.180.163) on Wednesday, September 5, 2001 - 09:09 pm:

NAS Releases Study Refuting University of Michigan Diversity Theory

Contact: Stephen H. Balch, President, National Association of
Scholars (609) 683-7878

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PRINCETON, NJ -- 2001 -- The National Association of Scholars today
released a detailed study titled Is Campus Racial Diversity
Correlated with Educational Benefits? demonstrating that the
University of Michigan has misrepresented critical research findings
in order to defend its racially discriminatory admissions policies.
The University is defending these policies in Gratz v. Bollinger and
Grutter v. Bollinger, two high-profile cases challenging the
constitutionality of racial preferences in public university
admissions. The University contends that its database shows a
positive connection between a racially diverse student body and
positive educational outcomes. In fact, as the National Association
of Scholars' study reveals, that database clearly demonstrates the
contrary--there is no connection between campus racial diversity and
the supposed educational benefits.

"The University's analysis is simply based on a sleight of hand,"
said Thomas Wood, coauthor of the NAS report. "Unable to show a
connection between the racial diversity of a student body and
alleged educational benefits, the University resorts to a
methodological confusion, arguing first that racial diversity is
positively related to four intermediate "campus experience
variables" (i.e., enrollment in ethnic studies courses, attendance
at a racial/intercultural workshop, discussion of racial issues,
and interracial socialization) and, next, that these are in turn,
(though rather weakly and inconsistently), related to the claimed
educational benefits."

"The University falsely concludes from this that a positive
relationship has been established between racial diversity and
supposedly beneficial educational outcomes," said Mr. Wood, "but
because the Cooperative Institutional Research Program database on
which the University relies took account of the four intermediate
variables and still found no relationship between racial diversity
and educational outcomes, the inference is patently false, as the
University and its spokesmen should know."

"It is unfortunate," said Malcolm Sherman, Professor of Mathematics
at the State University of New York/Albany and the report's other
author, "that a world-class university like the University of
Michigan would twist data that refute its own claims about the
educational value of diversity."

Among the other points made in the study are the failure of the CIRP
database to be made available to critics of race preferences, the
trivial nature of the correlations Gurin does report, and the
inadequacy of her measures of educational outcomes.

NAS President Stephen H. Balch observed that "the consequence of
this issue for America's future is so great that anything short of
a fully candid treatment of the relevant facts is a profound
disservice to the public interest. Our report clarifies the terms
of debate."

This National Association of Scholars' study enlarges on the
methodological critique of the University of Michigan's case first
made in the brief filed by the NAS in July 2000 in Gratz v.
Bollinger.

The National Association of Scholars is America's foremost higher
education reform group. Located in Princeton, it has forty-six state
affiliates and more than four thousand professors, graduate
students, college and university administrators and trustees as
members.


By cozmikfaro ( - 63.24.126.114) on Wednesday, September 5, 2001 - 10:32 pm:

RT:
Addressing you in an equally negative manner is against my codes of Law and Order. However, it is my freedom to tell you that saracasm is the way of a coward, one that cannot be direct in his manner of accusation. Also, assuming that I'm a "born again Muslim" who has found his path within the confinds of a prison cell is just an example of how ignorance is all you can spew, as that is all that you know. Your use of the word "genius" shows your lack of understanding the difference between intellect and Knowledge, since one is a measurment and the other is a constant experience, something in need of constant response. You responded the only way you know how, ignorantly. For that, I apologize for your state of mind.


By RT ( - 216.34.56.12) on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 05:22 am:

Cosmic--what? No sense of humor? And, just so you know, sarcasm is one of the best ways to deal with pompous, pretentious assholes like you. Direct enough for you?


By SHaking my head! ( - 211.183.180.163) on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 07:50 am:

"Addressing you in an equally negative manner is against my codes of Law and Order............."


Jeezus, another nigger-boy convict Malcolm X wanabe! So what's your code of law and order, knocking over a bank or selling crack?!?!

What about the slaves in the New World? The indians had slaves and had no outside contact until 500 years ago? So where did they get it, •••••••?!? You should get away from your comic book Mo-slum bullshit. Tell me, have you met the space niggers like Greg and Ferraklown has?!?


By cozmikfaro-Nai Benu Amen ( - 63.24.127.127) on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 10:59 am:

One, I'm not Islamic! Two, both of you are very sad members of "humanity", as your only way to confront a challenge is to make your strongest attempts to degrade it (I'm not impressed). Three, did the Native Americans have slaves or prisoners of war (do your research)? Besides, we're talking about Africa, not America-which was hardly a "New World" only 500 years ago. And lastly, thank you both for proving to the internet audience that you have no means to respond to a knowledgable Black man without negativity. The reason you refered to me as a "Malcom X wannabe" is because when Malcom spoke it rang Truth and caused Blacks to respect themselves and eachother on a higher level. So the westerners of America got scared and had to shoot him. What I say is beyond you, yet still rings Truth (if you do have common sense), so you call me an "•••••••" and proceed to throw out stereotypes, hoping I'll fit one of them. I don't, but you can keep trying to conversate in your child-like manners if you wish.


By Shaking my head! ( - 211.183.180.163) on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 01:58 pm:

Good God, do you have a fucking high opinion of yourself! You make this typical nigger blanket statement about slavery, I point out just on bullshit aspect and you go on a pointless nigger tangent. There has not been any culture that has not had slavery and long before the Sumerians.

What about slavery today, shithead?!? There are more slaves in Africa today than at any time in history, do you hear Jessie or any of the other "race card pimps" whining aobut that?!? As for Malcolm X, his own fucking people shot him! Like I said, more nigger bullshit!


By cozmikfaro-Nai Benu Amen ( - 63.16.12.251) on Thursday, September 6, 2001 - 11:16 pm:

Hahahahahahaha!!!!
Do me a favor; stop talking to me! You obviously have no idea how to have a conversation without bringing your personal feelings into it. Let me know when you've gotten a grip on those emotions. Until then. . .peace to you, westerner.


By cozmikfaro-Nai Benu Amen-And she-it ( - 211.183.180.163) on Friday, September 7, 2001 - 06:55 pm:

By the way, nigger what's with the stupid name?!? ........"cozmikfaro-Nai Benu Amen" why don't you add -and she-it to it too? Why do you apes learn a word or two of nigger jibberish and suddenly you're an expert on African languages. No wonder even the niggers in Africa look down on American niggers, there can't be anyone stupider collectively than you apes!!!


By bubba's mama ( - 152.163.194.194) on Sunday, September 9, 2001 - 11:52 pm:

the above rant is evidence that 211 is
a prime canidate for stem cell research,
a poor deprived white boy with no life,
no woman (all da brothers got da white
women now), no manhood, no education and
last but not least-no cable t.v., his only
venue to the outside world...a poor inbred
unick with too much time on his hands


By mALCOLMx ( - 211.183.180.163) on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 07:59 am:

BETTER STAY IN YOUR GHETTO INCASE THE PO-LEECE ARREST YOU AND YOU BECOME LIKE ONE OF THE 1 IN 8 NIGGERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN PRISION!!

OF COURSE, IN THE GHETTO, THEY'D JUST SHOOT YOUR NIGGER ASS LIKE THEY DO IN CINCINNATI!


By EAT THAT NIGGER ( - 211.183.180.163) on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 08:00 pm:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, one of the most influential blacks in the Bush administration, said Sunday she did not think African-Americans should be compensated for the past wrongs of slavery.

Rice said the United Nations conference on racism, which ended in Durban, South Africa, Saturday without U.S. participation, looked too much at the past by focusing on the issue of reparations for slavery and on finding ways to condemn Israel.

Slavery ended in the United States 138 years ago with the stroke of Abraham Lincoln's pen and civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson have demanded that blacks be compensated for the injustices of slavery.

Pressed on whether she agreed with Jackson, Rice told NBC's ''Meet the Press'' television program it was more important to focus on current problems than dwell on the past.

``I would hope that we would spend our time thinking about how to deal with today. I would hope we would spend our time thinking about how to educate black children, particularly black children who are caught in poverty.

``I would hope that we would spend our time, as the president has said, turning back the soft bigotry of low expectations against our children,'' she said.

SLAVERY IS ``AMERICA'S BIRTH DEFECT''

Calling slavery ``America's birth defect,'' Rice said she hoped all leaders -- blacks, whites and immigrants -- would try to grapple with the problems ahead.

``I think reparations, given the fact that there is plenty of blame to go around for slavery, plenty of blame to go around among African and Arab states and plenty of blame to go around among Western states, we are better to look forward and not point fingers backward,'' she said.

Many African nations at the Durban race conference wanted reparations for nearly four centuries of the slave trade but the final conference declaration fell far short of this demand, instead agreeing to fight racism ``wherever it can be found.''

Rich nations strongly resisted African demands for an apology for the slave trade and other past injustices because of fears this could trigger a wave of lawsuits.

Rice said slavery still existed in the world, such as in Sudan, and that the conference should have roundly condemned this rather than focusing on the past.

``I think a lot of time was wasted on issues that were extraneous to the questions that should have been preeminent in the conference and that is how to acknowledge the past, but especially how to move on in the future,'' she said.

Rice reiterated Washington's view that the United States had made the right decision to walk out of the Durban conference and said the meeting was ``hijacked'' by those bent on criticizing Israel.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, the first African American to hold this key post, boycotted the conference altogether over the Israeli issue and ordered a low-level delegation to leave the meeting last Monday.

``This conference spent far too much time in trying to condemn Israel and single it out. I think the United States made the right decision to leave,'' Rice said.''

Arab and Islamic countries had demanded Israel should be branded as racist, language that did not find its way into the final statement when the conference ended Saturday.


By FuManChu ( - 209.255.91.188) on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 - 07:27 am:

wow, you guys still waste time at this eh. interesting...... Cause you know that nobody is going to convice the other that they are better. Seems all of ya have no life or job. Although im sure most of you are all schoolboys anyway. Except Greg,.... and maybe hell realize it to


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: