And this article is buried low on the New York Times homepage. This weekend’s horrifying terrorist attacks in India received appropriate media coverage. Why is an Indian life more significant than a Nigerian life?
Here is a pretty good article with video on BBC.
More on this later this week.
Ezra Klein asks whether we should refer to African countries as “African.” The basic arguments are as follows.
- It is ridiculous to refer to all countries on the continent as similar. The continent is infinitely larger than the United States, and we barely speak of people from California and Oregon as the same nationality. Referring to it all as “Africa” instead of the name of the specific country being discussed reinforces the idea of Africa as the Dark Continent, a large mass of indistinguishable land.
- There is a really powerful connection to be drawn between the African countries. Even though each has its own distinct history, countries as diverse as Ghana, South Africa, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have a similar post-colonial identity because of the shared legacy of European colonization. Speaking about “Africa” is useful to study this connection.
I see both sides. While living in Ghana for a semester, I saw that people definitely think of themselves first as their individual ethnic group – Ga, Ibo, Ewe – and second as Ghanaian or African. But there was still a certain pride in being African. My roommate Derek was thrilled by the success of Senegal’s Akon and the prospect of Kenya’s Obama being President of the United States. Their success showed that success for Africans in the United States was possible.
So I don’t think that we should unilaterally say that the “African” connection should be used or avoided. But I think that we need to be careful about how we talk about African countries on a cas-by-case basis.
Sorry for the previous downer of a post. Really, I love Thanksgiving. Like many things American, its got a shady past, but thats what is so encouraging about all things American. We’ve still got a long way to go to live up to the potential for American greatness. And I sincerely hope that we will reach such greatness during my lifetime.
ThinkProgress has a pretty good list of things they are thankful for. Some of those are provided below.
We’re thankful we’ll soon have a president who will hit the ground running instead of a president who is running the country into the ground.
We’re thankful Sarah Palin has more time to watch over Russia and warn us in case Vladimir Putin ever “rears his head.”
We’re thankful that we’re moving closer towards a complete withdrawal from Iraq.
We’re thankful for the thousands of protesters who took to the streets across America to push for marriage equality.
We’re not thankful for neo-McCarthys, neo-Hoovers, neo-Nazis, and neocons.
We’re thankful for Tina Fey.
We’re thankful to be liberal hacks.
We’re thankful that our troops will be able to get the education they so richly deserve.
We’re thankful that reality still has a liberal bias.
We’re thankful that there are only 54 days left until the end of the George W. Bush presidency.
We’re thankful for the progressive mandate to govern.
Filed under: Race, Random | Tags: Genocide, Native American, Thanksgiving
In 1852, Frederick Douglas was asked to speak at a convention in Rochester, NY to commemorate the 4th of July. At this point, the ownership and mistreatment of slaves was still accepted throughout the United States.
Douglass’ speech, “What to the American Slave, is the 4th of July” was a brief but well-reasoned rebuke against the (lack of) logic of asking him to speak. Pointing out the hypocrisy of American independence day, Douglass said:
Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.
I wonder if Native Americans feel the same way about Thanksgiving. The revisionist history of Thanksgiving is that we Europeans jumped off the boat and were graciously welcomed by America’s original inhabitants so everyone shared a massive feast to commemorate their great partnership in this great country.
We now know that this story is entirely false. In reality, Europeans stole their land, and massacred the vast majority of the Native American population. The discrimination of America’s native population was official government policy for the vast majority of our history, just as slavery and racial segregation was official U.S. policy for more than two hundred years. And we have yet to repent properly.
So what, to the Native American, is Thanksgiving? It is a farce that highlights the government’s selective amnesia in its darkest hours. It is a mockery of the beautiful and well-maintained land that was stolen in return for the dusty reservations that white people did not want.
Thanksgiving should make us think about what we are thankful for. But it should also make us think about our failings and how we can improve upon them. And I would like to see a more whole-hearted attempt by the United States government to apologize for its original sins of slavery and Native American relocation, even if this attempt is only in the form of words.
That would finally make days like the 4th of July and Thanksgiving fully inclusive holidays that represent national cohesion rather than ignore past oppression.
Jonathan Rauch of The Advocate writes about the gay rights agenda in an Obama-Biden world, which is more accepting of minorities and oppressed populations than, well, the Bush-Cheney world.
He cites Hillary Clinton’s concession speech as an example of the United State’s new accepting stance towards gay rights. Each mention of extending equity to gays and lesbians was met with thunderous applause, and mostly from young people. The gay cause is now a rallying-cry for the Democratic Party’s liberal base, not an ashamed aside. And when my generation is in charge, the right wing’s homophobic agenda will be a fringe issue, not the norm for the Republican Party.
(Clearly we aren’t yet an entirely accepting nation, which is proven by the anti-gay marriage amendments passed this month in California, Arizona and Florida. But we are definitely moving that way.)
So Rauch presents the necessity to alter gay advocacy for our more accepting times. He writes, “the time has come to pivot away from the culturally defensive pariah agenda — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for instance — and toward the culturally transformative family agenda.” Andrew Sullivan calls this “Gay Rights 3.0”.
Moving towards a more culturally transformative approach is smart because we are going in that direction just by virtue of progress. So it makes sense for the gay rights movement to evolve to reflect those changes, as Rauch suggests.
True acceptance of homosexuals might take a little while, but it will happen. We just need to wait for people to grow up a little bit, both literally and symbolically.
Unfortunately, it seems to me like the rebel army’s fight is not so much with the DRC government, but more with the Hutu genocide perpetrators who fled to the rural areas of the DRC after Rwanda’s genocide. So anything short of helping Nkunda’s army round up the alleged perpetrators might not appease the rebels.
Also, Sarah pointed out this story (with video and photos) on the front page of CNN yesterday.
Interview Transcript:
SPIEGEL: Why hasn’t your government succeeded in bringing peace to the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Vital Kamerhe: After the peace agreement of 2002 the rebel organizations were absorbed into the army. Because of this, our troops now consist of regular soldiers as well as former militia members. The army is fragile and frustrated, and it has been infiltrated. It makes it difficult to enforce peace.
SPIEGEL: The soldiers are attacking civilians, plundering, and raping.
Kamerhe: Anyone responsible for massacres belongs in front of an international court. Because of the war in the east, we have had no time to reform our security forces or justice system.SPIEGEL: Rebel leader Laurent Nkunda, your main enemy, says he needs to protect the Tutsis in the eastern part of the country from the Hutu-killers who fled to Congo after the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
Kamerhe: This is just a pretext. Today we have Tutsi generals in the Congolese army and Tutsi workers at state enterprises. Their best source of protection are the institutions of the Republic, not a rebel army.
SPIEGEL: Isn’t the war really a fight over natural resources?
Kamerhe: Our country is a special case geologically. We possess valuable minerals like coltan, gold and diamonds. Our natural resources are being exhausted by the Nkunda rebels, who conduct their sales through Rwanda. Big companies in China, Russia, Europe and the US are the recipients. They share the guilt for this exploitation. We prefer that the resources be used legally.
SPIEGEL: The UN Security Council wants to strengthen its 18,000 blue helmet force with 3,000 additional men. Is that enough?
Kamerhe: We need international troops to protect the populace. There also needs to be political talks with Nkunda and diplomatic efforts to restore the relationship between Congo and Rwanda. That will take time. To begin with we hope for an EU-contingent — 850 men can help stop a humanitarian catastrophe.
Congressional Democrats: Stop acting like children. Martin Kady II of Politico reports today that there will be numerous divisions among the Democrats even if they win the filibuster-proof 60-seat majority. Most likely, after the Minnesota recount and Georgia runoff election, Dems will have 58 or 59 seats, but 60 is still possible.
Regardless, there is a chance that, enjoying a mandate to make a huge impact in the first two years, the Democrats will revert to infighting and squander their opportunity to change. From Politico:
Unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can whip their caucuses into unity, numerous fault lines will be revealed: Southern Democrats vs. Northern liberals on labor law; California greens vs. Rust Belt Democrats on global warming; socialized medicine adherents vs. go-slow health care reformers; anti-war liberals vs. cautious centrists on national security. And don’t forget the anti-bailout crowd vs. the powerful Michigan Democrats in both chambers when it comes to money for Detroit.
I sincerely hope this is not what the next two years of Democratic control looks like. But I don’t quite trust members of congress to protect against that inevitability. Each Senator and Representative has his or her own constituency that they (understandably) need to look out for and will therefore continue to pursue pet issues.
So it is important for Democrat-in-Chief Barack Obama to lay out a clear Congressional agenda for Democrats to unite behind. That agenda should include:
1.) Passing a massive and efficient economic stimulus plan.
2.) Reforming the health care system with Universal Health Care as the ideal.
3.) Starting to bring troops home from Iraq. Remember Iraq?
I would also put broadening environmental policy on that list, but that could be a hard-fought battle within the Democratic Party between environmental champions like Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer (both from California) and pro-labor, business-focused Democrats like Evan Bayh (Indiana), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan). Though both sides are looking out for important goals, those objectives will directly clash in this case.
So in order to get something done and maintain the Democratic control of Washington in 2010 and 2012, Democrats need to stick to the basics and what they can agree on early: Economic stimulus, health care reform, and stopping the war in Iraq.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Congress | Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Senate
The new Obama administration has promised to change Washington. Whether they succeed in changing the bitter partisanship and menial bureaucracy, one thing is sure: the group of Senate Democrats will change a great deal.
For the past four years, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have been three of the most prominent Democratic voices and critics of George W. Bush in Washington. They have all stood out for different reasons.
Obama, the charismatic and sole African American in the Senate has been lauded since his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention as the Democratic Party’s next Visionary. Joe Biden has been a Senator from Delaware for 36 years. He, along with Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (though Biden to a lesser extent) is one of the party’s most consistent progressive voices. Holding stints as chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, he is one of his Party’s most experienced leaders. Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding, though moderate, Senator from New York for the past six years. And as the former First Lady, Clinton has more clout in Washington than most of her Democratic colleagues.
So as Obama, Biden and Clinton begin their new roles as President, Vice President, and Secretary of State (rumored), Senate Democrats will begin the search for replacements for these candidates. And that is a difficult undertaking.
Barack Obama, Illinois
Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) must choose Obama’s replacement. And since Obama has already resigned his seat, the pressure has begun for the second-term governor.
There are a lot of factors to consider. First, as holds true for all of these replacements, Governors must choose a candidate who would be a strong contender for reelection in only 2 years – all three Senate replacements will face Republican challengers in 2010. So Blagojevich should not choose a political neophyte who could appear vulnerable to the Illinois GOP.
There are also demographic concerns. Obama, as the Senate’s only African American, occupies an essential seat. His election as President, a momentous occasion for African Americans, once again made the U.S. Senate 0% black. So should Blagojevich appoint an African-American replacement? If he chooses to, then Jesse Jackson Jr. would be the obvious choice. Jackson Jr. represents an urban area including Chicago’s south suburbs in the Illinois House of Representatives. Though he holds high favorability ratings, it is reported that Blagojevich and Chicago’s six-term mayor Richard M. Daley do not like him.
I’m hoping that Jackson gets appointed because, though it is not the only or most important qualification, I think it is imperative that we maintain an African American presence in the Senate. Even if that presence is negligible, it sets a foundation that will undoubtedly strengthen before long.
The other leading contender for Obama’s seat is Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran and Illinois Veterans Affairs Director who is a close Obama ally. Duckworth is an Asian American and would add an invaluable minority and female voice to the Senate. From what I can tell, both Jackson Jr. and Duckworth are incredibly worthy of Obama’s seat.
Joe Biden, Delaware
Joe Biden has held this seat for 36 years, since he was 30 years old. The only way that Biden could have lost this seat was to give it up himself or by some tragedy. But with Biden’s election as Vice President, current governor Ruth Ann Minner or Governor-elect Jack Markell – both Democrats – will be charged with filling this legendary seat.
The immediate front-runner was Biden’s son Beau, the state’s current Attorney General. But Beau Biden has recently said that he would not accept the position if appointed because he must fulfill his commitment to a yearlong tour in Iraq.
So likely choices are the state’s Lieutenant Governor John Carney, Secretary of State Harriet Windsor, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Myron Steele. As these candidates are relatively unknown, I’d expect the Delware GOP to mount an all-out offensive for this seat in 2010.
Hillary Clinton, New York
Keep in mind, Clinton has not yet formally accepted Barack’s nomination for Secretary of State. And that nomination has not yet been formally given. This is also interesting because if she does not accept the nomination, she could probably hold this Senate seat for life. But being a Clinton means you seek the highest position possible when it is offered. And service is not an option. I think that Hillary will definitely accept both out of ambition and out of duty.
New York Governor David Patterson will choose her replacement if she accepts the nomination. There are anywhere between 10-20 possible selections for this seat. Patterson has vowed that he would not appoint himself, as he hopes to seek re-election for Governor in 2010.
The leading contender is Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General. In a nearly worthless poll, 43% of New Yorkers said that they would prefer Mr. Cuomo. 42% were unsure, and the remainder – 15% – were split between state reps Nydia M. Velázquez, Steve Israel, Nita M. Lowey and Gregory W. Meeks. Update: Chris Cilliza of Washington Post lists the probabilities of each potential NY candidate.
This is the seat that I am most excited to see filled because the list of potential Clinton replacements is incredibly diverse, including women, African Americans, Latino Americans, and of course, white men. Patterson could go with the safe, and likely smart choice, Andrew Cuomo, or a risky and dynamic unknown future Senator.
The Power of Vision
By virtue of filling powerful senate seats with new appointments, experience and clout is difficult to replicate. But vision can certainly be reintroduced. Remember, Barack Obama was elected to the Senate only four years ago. And he has already become one of the greatest American visionaries of the past half-century.
So I hope that Governors Blagojevich (IL), Minner (DE) and Patterson (NY) will appoint exciting candidates that will bring powerful visions to the Senate. Such vision could have three results. 1.) Vision can inspire a massive movement; 2.) Vision can turn into steady and effective governance, and therefore translate to experience; and 3.) a powerful Vision can create the clout needed to usher in a new post-partisan era in Washington.
Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe has just forbidden a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize from entering his country. I’d say that sends a message. Carter was going to visit on a humanitarian mission with former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and former South African President Nelson Mandela, also a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
This is an indication of Mugabe’s contempt for peace and a “measure of the Zimbabwean leader’s disdain for international opinion at a time when deepening hunger, raging hyperinflation and the collapse of health, sanitation and education services have crippled Zimbabwe.”
Filed under: 2008 Election, Random, Republicans | Tags: Sarah Palin, Turkey Slaughter
This is hilarious. Palin completes an interview while Turkeys are brutally killed behind her. It is like something out of a National Lampoon’s Family Vacation movie. I think it gets best around minute 2:30.
Ben Buchwalter 