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 politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A broadening of political debate in Bosnia?
Yesterday I attended this event hosted at the US Institute of Peace;
Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not
The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.
So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.
The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.
He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.
Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.
Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.
In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.
My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.
Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.
Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not
The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.
So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.
The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.
He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.
Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.
Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.
In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.
My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.
Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)