What of Black despotism?

Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:25 am

[quote]It seems TO ME that some Blacks get an easy pass, as long as they can invoke white slight, white prejudices, white devils and exploiters etc... I am looking at Zimbabwe's Mugabe and I don't see any ANN PALE'ERS raising the issues of Black crime, Black exploitation, Black despotism and tyranny, the BLACKS on BLACKS destruction. [/quote]
Roger, don't forget that, simply by virtue of writing on this forum, you are an AnnPale'er just like the the rest of us. That means that you should take the initiative to open new topics to discuss all the things that you mentioned. I know that this is not the first time you bring them up, but our forum etiquette is to bring each major subject under a brand new topic. Take the lead and we will follow.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:58 am

Roger, I was waiting for you to come back to the charge, since it is a serious one, but please do not stop there. Let me suggest however that we are most often writing from the perspective of Haitians living in Haiti and North America. The problems of Africa, of Robert Mugabe and the latest elections violence in Zimbabwe for instance, are very rarely brought up on this forum, due to possibly to the following factors: a) general ignorance of what's going on; b) a lack of interest because geographically speaking, Africa is very far away; c) a lack of identification with Africans and their issues, because we perceive ourselves as distinct; d) a lack of participation in any public discussion for a wide variety of personal reasons; e) any combination of the above.

However, do not assume that if we do not talk about some serious issues, it means that we do not care or that we feel that crimes committed by black people (whether on blacks or other races) are more forgivable because the perpetrators of the crime are black. We don't even have to go very far: though discussions of crime under Aristide, Preval, Latortue-Boniface, Cedras, Namphy, Avril (in other words, all post-Duvalier governments) tend to get bogged down by overheated partisan considerations, false identification and/or character assassination, the crimes committed under the Duvaliers (père et fils) are much more universally condemned.

Does this suggest that a crime committed under Papa Doc is more odious than one committed under Aristide? From the standpoint of the victim, it does not make a bit of difference. A beating is a beating. A rape is a rape. Torture is torture. A murder is a murder. And from an administration standpoint, corruption is corruption. It's just that it is easier to denounce the excesses of the Duvaliers (because there are relatively very few people who will defend them) than the excesses of the post-Duvalier governments, because a) it feels too raw to speak about them (I'll call that the Fallujah syndrome); b) people feel more defensive about speaking out against more recent crimes, due to the sting of political considerations (oh, you must be a lavalas! you must be a grenn nan bounda! you must be an elite! you must be a chimere! you must be a sell-out! you must be against the people!) It's no wonder that people often feel more secure keeping their feelings to themselves. It's not that they do not care about the crimes. When we criticize the criminal actions, we arouse suspicions and often invite undue criticism about ourselves. That becomes part of our general malaise.

However, we have to keep reminding ourselves that, from the standpoint of the victim, none of the political considerations really matter. When you are aggressed, you simply want it to stop. You will not care whether it's black-on-black crime, Haitian-on-Haitian crime, white-on-black crime, black-on-crime crime, native-on-blan crime, blan-on-native crime. It becomes simply a crime against your person, your integrity, your family -- and it simply must be stopped! The current wave of kidnappings in Haiti (which really started a long time ago) is just a case in point. It's hurting our country very badly. But, more importantly, it is sheer horror for those who fall victims to it, and by extension their families and friends, their loved ones. It simply must be stopped, by all means necessary.

Aside from all the reasons I have mentioned above, I think that often we do not speak about a situation when we feel that we have no influence or absolutely no control over it. Worse, speaking about it might even make you more of a target [most Jews or non-Aryans did note venture to speak against the barbarity of the Nazis, when they were at the height of power; similarly, most Americans did not venture to speak against the barbarity of the Bush-Cheney regime while their reign of intimidation was going on post-9/11. Now, and only now, has it become convenient to criticize the Bush administration and the neoconservatives who abused our freedoms. These days, even loyal Republicans seem eager to criticize other Republicans and the Bushies in particular. I am led to think "where the hell were they all along when our constitutional rights were being shredded to pieces?" If this keeps up, you will soon see moderate Republicans charging leading Democrats for their backing of the War In Iraq, and they will not be far off the mark. It's all extraordinarily ironic. But the general point that I am making here is that people do not speak when they are afraid, when they feel vulnerable, and when they feel completely powerless.

Yet, History has taught us that the the word is often stronger than the sword. We must be educated about the courage and necessity to speak out against injustices, regardless of their source. We must have as mentors international heroes like Nelson Mandela, local heroes like Jean Dominique, and family heroes (we know them) who have paid the price for speaking out (but were not necessarily killed) for defending our freedoms and denouncing the crimes that other people commit against us as well as the crimes that we commit against ourselves. Because, after all, a crime is a crime is a crime. Just ask any victim.

So, in lieu of addressing Black-on-Black crime generally as you propose (I am not sure that the discussion should be so racially polarized), I suggest that we bring some light instead on the specific situations that interest us (first, we must be educated about them; don't assume that everyone knows what you know, because we are all selective about what information we care to process or to commit to memory; someone must replace our filters once in a while). Then, let's have the courage to denounce all crimes of men on other men, including women of course. To a dying victim, a crime has no color but red is the color of his/her blood anywhere on the planet.

As a matter of urgent attention, let us scream "NO" to the wave of kidnappings in Haiti and entrust our intelligent civic leadership to put a stop to it by all means necessary. No Haitian should feel unsafe walking in his own neighborhood. No foreigner or diasporic citizen or national of Haiti should feel unsafe when visiting our sacred heritage, the land bequeathed by our ancestors to all lovers of freedom and racial equality.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Mugabe rival quits election race

Post by Guysanto » Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:51 pm

Roger, the following report merely confirms some of your observations about Robert Mugabe. You were right to denounce him. Mugabe's excesses have not been part of our focus on this forum, but you made the right call: he is a fool who deserves our condemnation. I hope that this does not presage yet another genocide in Africa. Shame, shame, shame!

[quote] Mugabe rival quits election race

Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai says he is pulling out of Friday's presidential run-off, handing victory to President Robert Mugabe.

Mr Tsvangirai said there was no point running when elections would not be free and fair and "the outcome is determined by... Mugabe himself".

He called on the global community to step in to prevent "genocide".

But the ruling Zanu-PF said Mr Tsvangirai had taken the decision to avoid "humiliation" in the poll.

Code: Select all

Violence: 86 killed, 200,000 displaced
MDC rallies banned
MDC leaders arrested, harassed
Food aid not given to opposition areas
State media refused MDC adverts
Zanu-PF supporters to be used as election officials
The opposition decision came after its supporters, heading to a rally in the capital Harare, came under attack.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change says some 86 supporters have been killed and 200,000 forced from their homes by ruling party militias.

At a press conference in Harare on Sunday, Mr Tsvangirai said: "We in the MDC cannot ask them to cast their vote on 27 June, when that vote could cost them their lives."

"We have resolved that we will no longer participate in this violent, illegitimate sham of an election process."

"We will not play the game of Mugabe," he added.

He called on the United Nations, African Union and the southern African grouping SADC to intervene to prevent a "genocide" in Zimbabwe.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Zimbabwe's Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu told the BBC that Mr Tsvangirai pulled out the vote because he faced "humiliation and defeat" at the hands of President Mugabe, who he said would win "resoundingly".

"Unfortunately," he said, the opposition leader's decision was "depriving the people of Zimbabwe of a vote".

BBC Africa analyst Martin Plaut says the key question now is what Thabo Mbeki, president of Zimbabwe's powerful neighbour South Africa, will do.

He is in the best position to step up the pressure on Mr Mugabe, since Zimbabwe is so economically dependent on South Africa, our analyst says.

South Africa immediately responded to the news by calling on the MDC to continue talks to try to find a political solution.

"We are very encouraged that Mr Tsvangirai, himself, says he is not closing the door completely on negotiations," said a spokesman for Mr Mbeki.

On Sunday, the MDC was due to stage a rally in Harare - the highlight of the campaign.

But supporters of Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF occupied the stadium venue and roads leading up to it.

Witnesses reported seeing hundreds of youths around the venue wielding sticks, some chanting slogans, and others circling the stadium crammed onto the backs of trucks.

Some set upon opposition activists, leaving a number badly injured, the MDC said.

It said African election monitors were also chased away from the rally site.

The United States reacted to Sunday's developments by saying: "The government of Zimbabwe and its thugs must stop the violence now."

The MDC says Mr Tsvangirai won the presidential election outright during the first round in March.

The government admits he won more votes than President Mugabe, but says he did not take enough to win outright.

But in recent weeks, as the run-off approached, the MDC said it had found campaigning near impossible.

Its members have been beaten, and its supporters evicted from their homes, forcing it to campaign in near secrecy.

Mr Tsvangirai was arrested several times, and the party's secretary general, Tendai Biti, has been held and charged with treason.

The BBC's Peter Biles, in Johannesburg, says Mr Mugabe has made clear he will never relinquish power, saying only God could remove him.

While Mr Tsvangirai's move will hand victory to Mr Mugabe, it is unclear whether the international community or election observers will confer any legitimacy on the process, our correspondent says.

Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the BBC: "Robert Mugabe has certainly not won the election, in fact the only people who can claim that are the opposition," which won the parliamentary vote in March.

Zimbabwean ministers said the run-off vote would go ahead, unless Mr Tsvangirai submitted a formal letter of withdrawal.

But Levy Mwanawasa, president of neighbouring Zambia, said the run-off should be postponed "to avert a catastrophe in the region".

He said Zimbabwe's economic collapse was affecting the whole region, and he called on SADC to take a similar stance.

"It's scandalous for SADC to remain silent on Zimbabwe," he said.

"What is happening in Zimbabwe is embarrassing to all of us."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/a ... 467990.stm
Published: 2008/06/22 17:10:02 GMT
© BBC MMVIII[/quote]

Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:36 pm

Post by Barb » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:56 pm

I think the answer is that it is human beings that are capable of great good and great evil. Maybe race is the wrong question here.

I have often wished that we could take these loonies off somewhere to some nursing home and let them work out their paranoia and epic plans for vengeance and greed by fighting their wars and imposing their brutalities on make believe populaces only in cyberspace. Give them all the food and comfort they need but keep them plugged into their video games and away from having any consequences to the poor people who have to live under them.

Post Reply