Traces of the Trade and it's Results

(Sorry for the delay, forgot all about posting last week's til I went to post this weeks)

Watching Traces of the Trade sparks mixed feelings for me. Yes, the slave trade was a horrible trade. However, for all intents and purposes, its been over for almost 100 years. Of course, there is still racism, but this is a seperate issue in my mind. Racism is something horrible that still goes on today, and still affects people. No one alive today has truly suffered from it, nor gained from it(except possibly some inherited money). But the idea of reparations, to me at least, is a bit ludicrous. It's people who haven't committed a crime paying victims for a pain they (essentially) have not suffered. There are no more people who were alive to be slaves, just as there are no people alive who were slaves.

The anger people still feel about it is slightly confusing, as illustrated by what happened to me. A friend of mine was horribly angry at all white people, insisting his ancestors had been enslaved and their (and his) live ruined because of it. Then, one day, he came to me with a sheepish apology. He had learned his family had freely immigrated to America, not forced over as slaves. This highlights one of the major problems with reparations. How do we determine who gets money? With the lack of records of slaves, will it really be possible to trace out who is descended from slaves and who isn't?

The idea of an apology is still a bit strange. This time, it's people who haven't committed crimes accepting responsibility for the suffering of people who haven't been victimized. Yes, they may be in a rough position in life, but this is more due to racism, and racism is what needs to be addressed and confronted. Bringing slavery back up is essentially avoiding what should be the main issue.

Reparations for something that happened hundreds of years ago is a very tricky subject. If accepted, reparations could have all sorts of other consequences. Could the descendants of a murder victim sue the murderer's ancestors 100, or even 200 years later? Yes, the two cases are drastically different, but the basic premise behind them is the same.

This is not to say I don't understand the troubles the DeWolf's face. They are much more closely linked to slavery. But for the majority of people, there might be no connection at all. Who's to say my ancestors considered slavery immoral and didn't own any? Or that they ran a "stop" on the underground railroad?

Slavery was indeed a terrible thing, but it is one that(for the most part) has been "defeated" throughout the world. I think people need to stop arguing about an issue of the past, and focus more on the issue of the present, racism.

Blog 2 (Racism Conference)

The debate over the UN Conference on racism is a bit confusing to me. With so little of the actual wording of the document released, it's hard to understand exactly why countries are boycotting the conference. All we hear are vague comments about "unacceptable references" to things like Israel and Palestine, reparations, and religious defamation.

When it comes to religious defamation, what exactly is this doing in a conference on racism? And what exactly do they mean by defamation? To some, religious defamation is not only insulting a religion, but also denying that it is true. If this is included, is it really the place of the UN to decide what religion is "right"? On the other hand, if they mean simply insulting a religion, this is an entirely seperate topic and does not belong in a conversation about racism. Race and religion are two seperate things.

I'm not surprised in the slightest that countries would be upset about reparations, especially the US. Our country has always been slow to, if they ever even do, admit they did something wrong. This extends beyond slavery - internment camps for Japanese citizens in WW2 for example. The wrongs committed by our country are quietly swept under the rug, and other things talked about instead. Forgot about what we did to our own citizens - we liberated the death camps!!! This sort of attitude is chronic in this country - ignore the wrong, focus on the good.

The same goes for the talk of Israel and Palestine, though without the actual language it is hard to figure out why. I would guess that the language did not describe Israel as blameless and Palestine as guilty, and that is why it was rejected. Several countries, including this one, have long turned a blind eye to wrongs committed by Israel. To suggest anything other than Palestine is the aggressor and Israel is blameless is always rejected by most of the Western world. (Of course, any suggestion that Palestine is not blameless is generally rejected by the Muslim world) What really needs to happen to achieve peace is for both sides to suck it up and admit guilt. Neither is blameless.

In short, I think the reasons for boycotting the conference come down to political pandering and nothing more. The elimination of racism is too important a task to let petty political squabbles interfere. But then again, this country has never let something like the good of all get in the way of politics, so why be surprised that it does now?