Post-racial my Rican culo. It’s disturbing enough that the only time we have heard the Obama administration speak of immigration reform it has been in the Spanish language media, where it is perceived that English speaking eyes aren’t watching or in reaction to an ICE raid. Then the Obama administration announces that it is boycotting the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
The Administration will boycott the conference to protest what it deems the unfair equation of Zionism with racism in the outcome documents of the first conference held in Durban, South Africa, and now the second conference, also known as “Durban II, as well .” Other concerns cited by Administration officials, some of whom recently attended preparatory meetings in Geneva,in their justification of the boycott include a proposal to place restrictions on the defamation of religions and any language calling for reparations for slavery.
Looking at it from the perspective of a Latina whose community has seen an increase of hate crimes, I want to ask Obama, where is the change? As more and more communities of color live in dire economic conditions, not just because of the current economic crisis but because of pre-existing conditions of inequality built into the economic system, where the hell is the change? While the Department of Homeland Security is all too willing to send more militarized police to the U.S. Mexico border to help fight a drug war that the U.S. helped to create and whose enforcement is racist (not to mention imperialist) the U.S. is not going to talk about race?
Roberto Lovato:
Rather than join the rest of the world in Durban and in condemning the killing and discrimination on the part of the Israeli and other governments-including our own-, Obama’s boycott reflects his choice to pursue the more dangerous path to dealing with race, racism and discrimination: symbolism at the expense of real changes to very devastating policies. Such are the perils of our increasingly post-racial presidency in a racially-troubled world.
Political choices like the Durban decision or the blind eye turned to the indiscriminate killing of and discrimination against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank make one wonder if the Obama Administration has also chosen to become the black face of empire.
Check please and keep the change.
3 Responses to Why Obama Proves A.G. Eric Holder’s Point of Cowardice in the Face of Racism
James
March 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I don’t quite understand the point here, either.
Surely there’s nothing wrong with taking a stand in favor of not discriminating against Israel or the Jewish people, is there? I’m not opposed to being honest about discrimination in Israel or anywhere else, but it seems strange that in the whole world, only nation or group would be singled out like that.
The Obama administration agrees that much good could come from a conference against racism, which is why it sent delegates to the meeting two weeks ago and why it has urged the conference to alter language on three issues to allow all nations to participate.
It’s also important to note that Lovato exaggerates when he talks about joining “the rest of the world” at the conference. In fact, Canada has already joined Israel in a boycott of the talks, and the nations of Europe are considering doing so, as well.
Maegan La Mala
March 4th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
My understanding is that the language opposed has to do with recognizing zionism as racism against Palestinians. Surely there’s nothing wrong with a country being called out for racism related to colonialism and war crimes. That’s not about being Jewish, it’s about enforcing a state while oppressing another whole group of people.
So the rest of the world only includes first world nations like the U.S., Canada, Israel and Europe, nations built on racism (i.e. slavery, imperialist conquest, decimation of Native populations.
No racism to see here. Move along
Brotha'No
March 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I don’t think this is about cowardice at all, but about using a more pragmatic approach.
How does a new president ‘of color’ go about reshaping a conversation that he knows involves colonialism and racism in such a way that both addresses the problem constructively WITHOUT putting his administration in peril (thus closing this unique window of opportunity for how many years)?
Seriously. Obama doesn’t have the ability to instantly denounce, change and rectify every instance of oppression during his first month and a half in office. Like you said, much of the riches of the West are built upon that colonial/racist past and the true cowardice is in countries not being willing to look into the mirror at themselves. He can (and I think will) enter into the conversation in a way that is reflective first; that way everyone involved will be compelled to do the same. I think ultimately it’s a better long-term approach for a country like ours that needs to get its own house in order.