Washington Post: McDonnell's Confederate History Month proclamation irks civil rights leaders
Some 150 years after the end of our Civil War it continues to deeply impact our politics and exerts a powerful tug on many. This story is a reminder that conflicts simply do not vanish when one side triumphs militarily over the other or a peace agreement is made.
The long and the short of this article is that McDonnell was reaching out to part of his base- Sons of Confederate Veterans and their ilk, but neglecting to mention that the Civil War involved slavery. Richmond, the capital of Virginia was also the capital of the Confederacy and was site of a large slave market.
For Virginians and many other people in the southern states it would make sense that the war has a much stronger legacy- the battles were fought on their land and they were on the losing end of the war. Also the ancestors of a considerable number of people in these states were owned by the ancestors of other people living in these states. Altogether that's a considerable amount of resentment to overcome.
Its not so much that McDonnell is talking about commemorating fallen soldiers as much as he chose to ignore the experiences of another large chunk of his state. It seems to me rather unnecessary and backwards to have done this. Both groups of people have valid histories. Virginia's history is in all of their stories, not just in that of fallen Confederate soldiers or freed slaves. McDonnell was elected as the governor of all Virginians, he really ought to seek to honor the histories of and lead all Virginians. History does not need to be a zero sum game- especially 150 years after the end of a war.
I must confess that as a Michigander the Civil War is somewhat academic to me. It was a war that happened a long time ago and its battlegrounds were hundreds of miles away. In my particular hometown the War of 1812 and the Indian Wars loom larger (Monroe, Michigan was the site of the Battle of Frenchtown, which was made notorious when 68 Kentucky militiamen were massacred in the aftermath of the battle). Monroe was also home to General Armstrong Custer who fought in the Civil War (and advocated a moderate approach towards the South in the post war era), but is better known today for his bloody battles against the Cheyenne and Lakotah and his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
The racial dynamics are somewhat different in this part of the country than back home. People mix quite a bit more in Washington DC than they do up in the de facto segregation that is Michigan. Virginia too, is quite a different sort of place.
I attended a panel discussion last month on the subject of race and conflict in the United States, one of the panelists, Rob Corcoran, national director of the US chapter of Initiatives of Change works on racial reconciliation in Richmond, Virginia. In his work, he's worked alongside group on both sides of the divide mentioned in this article. I'm certain this event will give his organization quite a bit more work to do in the near future.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Afghanistan gets murkier
Article: Karzai Criticized Over Afghan poll watchdog move
President Hamid Karzai "won" last year's elections amidst wide spread allegations of vote fraud- many of which were documented by the country's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). It ended up that about a third of Karzai's votes were illegal.
He managed to keep his job, but has now fired all the internationally appointed members of the EEC. Its likely that Karzai will continue to keep his job for quite some time, as long as he can continue to keep the international community engaged. Its a stupid move all around designed to "win" some elections for Karzai's allies.
This doesn't work well for the people of Afghanistan- who already have to deal with grinding poverty and chronic insecurity, and now have a leader that is transparently crooked. It doesn't work terribly well for the United States, whose troops are fighting the Taliban and whom has poured billions of dollars into the country to build something lasting. Its a serious step backwards for the country, and legitimatizes its fledgling institions.
Does it even really work well for Karzai? The timing is rather good for people in the international community not to notice- with much of the world's focus on the Olympic games. If last year's elections were not an Emperor has no clothes moment, then firing the truth tellers certainly is. In the short run it will probably help Karzai win elections. In the long run, it is self destructive. It undermines his international backers will to continue to supply money and troops.
One group it does work out rather well for the Taliban. Karzai really shouldn't be doing their propaganda work for them.
There needs to be accountability for this behavior. Otherwise the effort is little more than putting up a strawman (not even a strongman, as the government's influence is limited) and calling it a day. This will do nothing to make the country safer for anyone, will do nothing to make the country more just. It does nothing to save the lives of civilians or soldiers. All it serves to do is aggrandize Karzai and delegitimze his government. The Afghan people deserve better than this.
What about Afghan accountability for this? What about the country's civil society and the opposition parties? The future will tell if they will be able to use this power grab to hold the government to account. However with the election commission under the president's thumb, loudly boycotting the elections may be the best choice.
Its tragic that our country is supporting a vote rigging leader in Afghanistan while condemning one next door in Iran.
President Hamid Karzai "won" last year's elections amidst wide spread allegations of vote fraud- many of which were documented by the country's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). It ended up that about a third of Karzai's votes were illegal.
He managed to keep his job, but has now fired all the internationally appointed members of the EEC. Its likely that Karzai will continue to keep his job for quite some time, as long as he can continue to keep the international community engaged. Its a stupid move all around designed to "win" some elections for Karzai's allies.
This doesn't work well for the people of Afghanistan- who already have to deal with grinding poverty and chronic insecurity, and now have a leader that is transparently crooked. It doesn't work terribly well for the United States, whose troops are fighting the Taliban and whom has poured billions of dollars into the country to build something lasting. Its a serious step backwards for the country, and legitimatizes its fledgling institions.
Does it even really work well for Karzai? The timing is rather good for people in the international community not to notice- with much of the world's focus on the Olympic games. If last year's elections were not an Emperor has no clothes moment, then firing the truth tellers certainly is. In the short run it will probably help Karzai win elections. In the long run, it is self destructive. It undermines his international backers will to continue to supply money and troops.
One group it does work out rather well for the Taliban. Karzai really shouldn't be doing their propaganda work for them.
There needs to be accountability for this behavior. Otherwise the effort is little more than putting up a strawman (not even a strongman, as the government's influence is limited) and calling it a day. This will do nothing to make the country safer for anyone, will do nothing to make the country more just. It does nothing to save the lives of civilians or soldiers. All it serves to do is aggrandize Karzai and delegitimze his government. The Afghan people deserve better than this.
What about Afghan accountability for this? What about the country's civil society and the opposition parties? The future will tell if they will be able to use this power grab to hold the government to account. However with the election commission under the president's thumb, loudly boycotting the elections may be the best choice.
Its tragic that our country is supporting a vote rigging leader in Afghanistan while condemning one next door in Iran.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Trading Women's Rights for an Agreement in Afghanistan?
Article
What will deal with Taliban mean fo Afghan women?
An excellent article addressing some of the difficulties of potentially making peace with the Taliban.
The gist of the warning in this article is this.
That being said the effort to build strong institutions in Afghanistan has a long way to go before they'll be strong enough to remain intact after the departure of western troops. A good place to start would be getting the government to influence events outside of the capital.
What will deal with Taliban mean fo Afghan women?
An excellent article addressing some of the difficulties of potentially making peace with the Taliban.
The gist of the warning in this article is this.
This issue will become increasingly pressing as the discussion of exit strategies and end states come to mind. If Afghanistan is going to have any sort of peaceful future it will have to be one in which women can contribute to society. NATO and the United States will be working against themselves if they decide to sell out Afghanistan's women to save face.
"A recent law has undermined Shia women's rights, a warning to others that political expediency can trump their promised equality, and an unsettling hint for the future. Under international pressure, Karzai allowed the law to be amended. But doubts remain about how far the West would be prepared to support women's rights once its troops have departed."
That being said the effort to build strong institutions in Afghanistan has a long way to go before they'll be strong enough to remain intact after the departure of western troops. A good place to start would be getting the government to influence events outside of the capital.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Importance of the Haitian Children.
Story: Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself
On the surface this story is about some Americans who ran off with Haitian children and tried to take them across a border in a bus. While they claimed that the children were orphans, this was not the case for all of the them. Regardless, it is bizarre that they expected to (as complete strangers and English speaking foreigners) just drive into a French-speaking country, round up a hundred children and then call it a day.
It's a bit surreal to read their plan for finding the children:
I'm not quite sure what the thought process was there. Between this agenda item and some of their quotes they really thought it was just that simple. In reality things weren't quite that simple.
Here is where things get relevant to the subject matter of this blog. Regardless of their intentions these outsiders (blancs in Haitian parlance) they were tone-deaf culturally and politically. These people unknowingly played into many of Haiti's well-founded fears about outsiders meddling in its affairs- and at a time when its especially vulnerable.
While most of us don't know it in the United States we have a long and checkered history in Haiti . The point here is not to point fingers, but to highlight that this regrettable history still shapes Haitian perceptions of the United States. When Haiti rarely emerges in the American consciousness it is seen through the lens of our own race relations. Mostly Haiti emerges as an issue once every decade (usually as a problem to be bandaged) or so and then falls back out of its perception. Indeed; the United States' last dealings in Haiti were hardly noticed here. For Haiti, the effect of previous US actions weighs heavily.
In responding to this orphan incident Haitian officials have to navigate this legacy. They are not simply responding to a specific incident but they are responding to the history between our countries. They have to do something- especially since there are few things they can do about it.
The challenge is to do justice for everyone involved while navigating the difficulties posed by this history. It will be extremely difficult to try this case in Haiti- given the state of the country's courts. Officially at least the US government has deferred to Haiti on the matter- which is the right thing to do in the meantime. The Haitian government does have the right to prosecute.
The underlying difficulty exposed by this problem will not go away. Americans have the luxury of forgetting the past, Haitians do not. Thus Americans will likely continue to do things that evoke its past in Haiti- regardless of their intentions. Navigating these difficulties is crucial if the United States wishes to play any sort a positive role in Haiti.
It would also help to come to terms with this history as well-- but that may be a bit overly optimistic.
On the surface this story is about some Americans who ran off with Haitian children and tried to take them across a border in a bus. While they claimed that the children were orphans, this was not the case for all of the them. Regardless, it is bizarre that they expected to (as complete strangers and English speaking foreigners) just drive into a French-speaking country, round up a hundred children and then call it a day.
It's a bit surreal to read their plan for finding the children:
"Sun Jan 23rd: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR [Dominican Republic]"
I'm not quite sure what the thought process was there. Between this agenda item and some of their quotes they really thought it was just that simple. In reality things weren't quite that simple.
Here is where things get relevant to the subject matter of this blog. Regardless of their intentions these outsiders (blancs in Haitian parlance) they were tone-deaf culturally and politically. These people unknowingly played into many of Haiti's well-founded fears about outsiders meddling in its affairs- and at a time when its especially vulnerable.
While most of us don't know it in the United States we have a long and checkered history in Haiti . The point here is not to point fingers, but to highlight that this regrettable history still shapes Haitian perceptions of the United States. When Haiti rarely emerges in the American consciousness it is seen through the lens of our own race relations. Mostly Haiti emerges as an issue once every decade (usually as a problem to be bandaged) or so and then falls back out of its perception. Indeed; the United States' last dealings in Haiti were hardly noticed here. For Haiti, the effect of previous US actions weighs heavily.
In responding to this orphan incident Haitian officials have to navigate this legacy. They are not simply responding to a specific incident but they are responding to the history between our countries. They have to do something- especially since there are few things they can do about it.
The challenge is to do justice for everyone involved while navigating the difficulties posed by this history. It will be extremely difficult to try this case in Haiti- given the state of the country's courts. Officially at least the US government has deferred to Haiti on the matter- which is the right thing to do in the meantime. The Haitian government does have the right to prosecute.
The underlying difficulty exposed by this problem will not go away. Americans have the luxury of forgetting the past, Haitians do not. Thus Americans will likely continue to do things that evoke its past in Haiti- regardless of their intentions. Navigating these difficulties is crucial if the United States wishes to play any sort a positive role in Haiti.
It would also help to come to terms with this history as well-- but that may be a bit overly optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)