Category Archives: Government Oppression

Authorities reported on Monday that nearly 8,000 people in Kazakhstan were detained by police during protests that turned violent due to a sudden increase in gas prices in the region. Arrests began after President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev ordered the military to shoot and kill those who he deemed terrorists involved in the violence. Although the government lifting its cap on the price of fuel was the initial trigger of the protests, deeper reasons for the violence include long standing anger with government corruption and economic inequality according to CNN. The National Security Committee has announced that the situation has been neutralized, however wider unrest with Kazakhstans leadership has yet to be addressed.

Tokayev claimed the demonstrations were instigated by terrorists with foreign backing, saying that peaceful protests were hijacked by terrorist, extremist and criminal groups. In conversation with international media, protestors argued against this characterization, stating that the only thing flourishing here is corruption. From the humanitarian perspective, the protests are being viewed as a reaction to a widespread violation of basic human rights. Amnesty Internationals director, Marie Struthers, said for years, the government has relentlessly persecuted peaceful dissent, leaving the Kazakhstani people in a state of agitation and despair.

President Tokayev has rejected calls from the international community for a peaceful resolution, as he continued to incite more violence by calling for harsh dissent on the protests. His actions speak to ongoing concerns on behalf of organizations such as Human Rights Watch, who now urge Kazakhstan to respect and uphold international human rights obligations. Kazakhstan has a long history of restricting the fundamental rights of its citizens under a single, powerful ruler, and the nature of these protests must not be confused as merely a crisis over oil prices. Its deeper roots lie in ongoing discontent with government corruption and inequality within the region, making the crisis one of an economic and humanitarian concern as well.

The events that took place on Monday have been marked the worst point of unrest that Kazakhstan has faced since gaining its independence thirty years ago. However, even prior to 1991, the countrys politics have been overwhelmingly dominated by a single authoritarian figure. Prior to Tokayev, President Nursultan Nazarbayev ruled for three decades, and turned the international communitys head with his harsh crackdowns on dissent and frequent stifling of press freedoms. The U.S. State Departments 2018 human rights report noted that Kazakhstans 2015 election was marked by irregularities and lacked genuine political competition, adding to observations that there have never been elections of a free and fair nature in the region as judged by the international community.

In addition to the thousands detained earlier this week, 164 people, including three children, were killed during the demonstrations. While violence on both sides is not the solution to deep rooted corruption, it is ultimately the governments job to promote the well being of its citizens and protect the lives of those that are most vulnerable. When security forces are firing on protestors by order of the government, the question of a deep violation of human rights must be brought to the forefront of everyones minds. Long-standing international concerns should be vocalized now more than ever, and the outside world should be responsible for backing the reports of human rights organizations with action on behalf of those suffering from ongoing violent oppression.

Continued here:

Thousands Detained In Kazakhstan Over Violent Protests The Organization for World Peace - The Organization for World Peace

University of Pennsylvania law Professor Amy Wax.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax faces investigation and possible sanctions from her university, as a result of her statement that "as long as most Asians support Democrats and help to advance their positions, I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration." Her support for racial discrimination in immigration policy is not an isolated remark. At the 2019 National Conservatism conference, Wax said much the same thing about non-white immigrants generally, arguing for "the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites."

On the issue of sanctions, I largely agree with the Academic Freedom Alliance's letter about this case, emphasizing the principle that universities should not punish faculty for out-of-class political speech (I am a member of AFA myself, but was not involved in the drafting of this letter). Penn is a private university, so the First Amendment does not apply. Nonetheless, I don't think university administrators can be trusted to enact such speech restrictions or to enforce them fairly. Any attempts to do so is likely to undermine academic freedom, and reduce the quality of intellectual discourse.

That said, Wax's statements on immigration are deeply problematic, and deserve severe criticism. Worse, they are symptomatic of a broader pattern on the right. All too many conservatives support discrimination and injustice in immigration policy of a kind they would reject elsewhere.

Wax and her supporters defend her comments on immigration by emphasizing that her objections to Asian immigrants and non-white ones generally are not about biological race, as such, but merely about their political and cultural values. If Asian immigrants voted for Republicans, rather than Democrats, she would perhaps be happy to take more of them.

But this defense doesn't cut it. Wax is still advocating large-scale racial and ethnic discrimination. The fact that she wants to use race and ethnicity as crude proxies for other characteristics doesn't make it right. Conservatives, including Wax herself, readily see that when it comes to racial preferences in college admissions, defended on the grounds that African-American applicants, for example, are more likely to have been victims of racial injustice or to contribute to "diversity" on campus. The idea that blacks are, on average, more likely to have experienced racism in American society than whites, is likely true. Nonetheless, Wax rejects such rationales for racial preferences, on principle, and instead (correctly, in my view) advocates color-blind admissions.

The very same logic should dictate color-blindness - and rejection of ethnic and national-origin discrimination - in immigration policy, as well. Indeed, racial and ethnic discrimination in immigration policy is a far greater injustice than affirmative action preferences in university admissions. Most victims of the latter still get to go to college in the US, usually at universities only modestly less prestigious than the ones that rejected them. By contrast, many victims of racial and ethnic discrimination in immigration policy are consigned to a lifetime of poverty and oppression in their countries of origin.

If the reason to oppose racial and ethnic discrimination in college admissions is that government and university bureaucrats can't be trusted to craft such policies fairly, the same point applies in spades to immigration policy. Indeed, anti-Asian discrimination in the former is often motivated by the same sorts of crude stereotypes as the latter.

To the extent that (as in Wax's case) discrimination in immigration are based on generalizations about the political views of various racial and ethnic groups, they also run up against principles of freedom of speech. It is striking that many of the same conservatives who advocate viewpoint-based immigration restrictions are also deeply angry about "cancel culture" and government attempts to combat supposed "misinformation" online. If we can't trust government and university officials to properly regulate speech on social media or that of academics like Wax, why should we trust the government to decide which would-be immigrants' political views are acceptable, and which ones have bad cultural values?

That's especially true if we are talking about excluding people not based on their actual views, but merely based on crude generalizations about the views of members of their racial or ethnic group. If Wax ends up getting punished for her statements, it will at least be for things she actually said. It would be much worse if she were sanctioned merely because she is white, and university administrators concluded that whites, on average, are more likely to have reprehensible views on racial issues than members of other groups.

Some argue that this kind of double standard is acceptable because would-be immigrants don't have a right to come to the US. I deny the latter premise. Indeed, most immigration restrictions are unjust for much the same reasons as domestic racial discrimination is, and standard rationales for a general right of governments to exclude immigrants collapse upon close inspection.

But even if you accept the conventional wisdom that governments have a general right to exclude migrants, it doesn't follow they can do so based on racial and ethnic discrimination. Racial discrimination in government policy is wrong even with respect to institutions from which the government can bar people for other reasons. For example, the government isn't required to admit any particular applicant to a public university, or even to establish such schools at all. But racial discrimination in state university admissions is still unjust (and outrages conservatives, including Amy Wax).

The same goes for discrimination based on political views. A state university that admitted only Democrats (or only Republicans) would be an affront to freedom of speech. Conservatives would be among the first to object to it.

There is no good reason to exempt immigration restrictions from moral constraints that apply to other government policies. And that especially goes for restrictions based on crude racial and ethnic stereotypes, such as lumping together all Asians and all non-whites, ignoring the vast diversity within both categories.

If these kinds of double-standards were unique to Wax, they wouldn't matter much. But, sadly, such views are common on much of the political right. Many of them cheered Donald Trump's stigmatization of Mexican immigrants, his advocacy of banning migration from "shithole countries" (all of them majority non-white), and his travel bans openly directed at Muslims, in a way conservatives rightly denounce as unconstitutional and unjust in the domestic context. More generally, all too many on the right support a jurisprudence under which immigration restrictions are largely exempted from constitutional constraints that apply to virtually all other government policies, including freedom of speech, and rules against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination.

The political left has its own flaws, when it comes to racial and ethnic discrimination, including anti-Asian bias in admissions at various elite educational institutions, which I have condemned. But their flaws are no excuse for egregious conservative double standards on immigration.

If you truly support principles like color-blindness and freedom of speech and religion, you can't chuck them out the window when the subject turns to immigration policy. Conservatives would do well to remember that.

Indeed, experience shows that promoting invidious discrimination in one area of government policy increases the risk that it will spread to others. Historically, racist immigration policies were closely tied to similar bigotry at home, with each feeding off the other. Anti-Asian immigration restrictions in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries coincided with discriminatory policies against those same groups within the United States; the two were mutually reinforcing. The same pattern could well recur today.

Excerpt from:

Amy Wax and the Problem of Right-Wing Double Standards on Immigration - Reason

[By Azwell Banda]

Before the people today called Zambians were colonised by the British, they lived in their own kingdoms, had their own systems of governments in their kingdoms, and the people in all the kingdoms were neither the same nor equal. Nor were neighbouring kingdoms always neighbourly!

Complex systems of kinship, patriarchal and matriarchal inheritance systems, family and clan proximity to the throne and ownership of wealth; and ultimately social history and status and whether one was a slave or not, and many such differences were present in all the kingdoms of present Zambia. Slaves were present in most kingdoms. And so, we would have a kingdom with all these divisions, including several languages in some kingdoms. Everyone in a kingdom paid homage and taxes to the king. The different divisions among the people were well known, knowledge of these differences was passed on from one generation to another through the spoken word. Every individual in the kingdom grew up learning and struggling to stay in their place.

The common thread running through the complex social systems in the kingdoms and determining the place of an individual, was power military and wealth ownership. Wealth could be husbands, wives, children, land, cattle, copper, gold, iron, or any valuables upon which the kingdom itself in fact was build. For example, slaves would be people who would have been defeated in war, captured, and their people, land and all wealth confiscated by the victorious kingdom.

In fact, kingdoms came into existence and were organised around an individual or individuals who would have successfully led a war against another kingdom and conquered it. Such an individual and her or his family would be rightfully feared, respected and recognised as the queen or king. With the passage of time and distance from the war of conquest, it became the duty of story tellers, medicine men and women, spiritual leaders and the loyal followers around the family of the queen or king to sustain the myths of the unique powers and sources of authority of the king if the kingdom was to survive. Of course, those who would oppose the queen or king and resist her or his authority would be dealt with harshly, including being killed.

Our kingdoms therefore, were not nice and peaceful villages in which everyone was free, equal, and lived happily! Slaves longed and struggled to be free. Women longed to be free from male domination and ownership, so did children. Those without land wanted their own land. Those without cattle wanted their own cattle, hence raids on cattle rich neighbours. We melted iron and made both knives and spears, not for fun, but also to kill others in order to protect ourselves from them and to raid them for their children, women, young men, cattle and other wealth. Our kingdoms had deep divisions and peace was sometimes secured by civil war!

What colonialism did was, in very cruel and spectacular fashion, destroy these African kingdoms and their independent economies, impose their legal systems, introduce new systems of government, and generally commit mass cultural genocide by relegating to the periphery and dustbin of history all cultural and traditional practices of what they called the native.

The Christian missionaries of course dully replaced our own spiritual and faith leaders, and consigned our complex systems of gods into the never to return recesses of our minds. As for our medicine women and men, the colonialists replaced them with their own medicines and systems of clinics and hospitals. It remained only for the missionaries to take the African children into their schools to start erasing our memories of our ancient knowledge and systems of belief. In less than a generation, the child who could speak crude English and read the Bible became superior to all natives who could not. And so, it has been, since then. It was from the missionary schools that our nationalists were educated, and whence Kenneth David Kaunda, first president of Zambia, got his education, at his fathers mission school.

These and many details about our past, with many rich variations in each kingdom, are absolutely essential to understand Zambia and Zambians today and to fashion a way out of the poverty, unemployment and extreme inequalities (triple crises) which are the burdens of the majority of Zambians today. Our past is very much our present!

All our politicians today, in their quest to win the largest number of votes, conceal the divisions and differences among us, and sell us the supper lie of a peace loving and united one Christian country. Below are some five deadly lies they all promote, to fool the majority of us:

First lie: We are One Zambia and One Nation

Of course, the world has only one country called Zambia. But Zambia has rich people whose interests are violently opposite to, and against, those of the majority who are poor, as it has always been in human history. We have more than 70 different cultural and linguistic groups, each one with its unique history. Pretending they do not exist and our politicians do not exploit them for votes is fooling ourselves. Women and girls are treated as second class citizens of Zambia. Young people, especially from working class families suffer the most economic and social deprivations. Increasingly, rich people are raiding villages and turning peasants into their slaves, on their lands! We are one country with many different people!

Second lie: Zambia is a democratic country

Democracy is more than having political parties and voting; it is about economic equality and constantly improving quality of life, for the largest majority. We have been voting even before 1964, and the majority of Zambians have historically seen their poverty grow, especially after 1991. Politicians promise to abolish our poverty, increase jobs, and improve our lives. 58 years after 1964, it is not happening! Instead, the rich are getting richer as the majority get poorer. In reality, we are a true democracy for the rich, only.

Third lie: The majority of Zambians are poor and powerless

It is true that the majority of Zambians are poor, unemployed, and many survive in the harsher rural areas of the country. Are they powerless? As individuals, yes, and as organised large groups of people, no! Organised as voters, for example, they booted Lungu and his violent Patriotic Front from government. They can do that to Hakainde Hichilema too. Any number of unemployed youths properly organised can shut down Zambia, for as long as they want. As individuals, they are hopeless and destitute. Organised, our mothers who trade in markets across the country can starve Zambia to death if they choose not to sell their foodstuff for just 15 days. As individuals they are desperately poor, surviving from the little money they make every day. By spreading the lie that the majority of poor, unemployed Zambians are powerless, without explaining that this is true only if these poor and unemployed people are not organised, a deadly lie is spread, and Zambians die from this lie.

Fourth Lie: There is no alternative to capitalism

Apparently if the rich become richer, we shall all have our problems solved and be happy and united. All the rich became rich by corruption and violently robbing others and suppressing or killing them. This is why every country has armed police and soldiers to protect the wealth of the rich! Zambia has been a rich persons country all along, since even before 1964. Zambia is a perfect paradise for the rich and a hell for the poor!

Fifth Lie: Zambia is a peaceful country and Zambians are peace loving people

Peace is not just the absence of war; it is the absence of all discrimination, oppression and exploitation, it is full equality of human beings. Violence is not just physical force of any kind, or war. Violence is also psychological, social, economic and cultural oppression and deprivation! Mass poverty is violence. Mass unemployment is violence. Forced girl marriages are violence. Oppression of women is violence. The mere absence and fear of physical violence does not mean absence of other kinds of violence, and it does not mean peace. In Zambia, the threat of physical violence is used to hide all the other kinds of violence. We are a very violent country!

58 years after 1964, it is time to know and see the world as it is, not as we are lied to!

Send comments to: banda.azwell@gmail.com.

Read this article:

Our five deadly political lies that sustain mass poverty, mass unemployment and extreme inequalities The Mast Online - themastonline.com

Yemen is not Afghanistan, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote on his visit to Sanaa more than a decade ago, long before the start of the civil war that has torn the country apart since the Houthi rebel group seized control. Friedman was referring to the liveliness of Yemens capital city at a time when most in the West knew it for being a base for the terrorist group Al Qaeda.

Today, Sanaa is in the hands of the Houthis, a group ideologically unrelated to Al Qaeda but with a similarly extreme worldview. The city is now a hollow shell of its former self, paralysed by the civil war, which is now in its eighth year, and suffocated by Houthi oppression. And while Yemen is still not Afghanistan, where the Taliban terrorist group has won the Afghan civil war and conquered the entire country, the Houthis hope it may be.

The Talibans victory, in which it forced the Afghan government and its western allies out without compromise, is a template of sorts for what the Houthis are trying to achieve. The Saudi-led anti-Houthi coalition, which backs Yemens internationally recognised government and other local resistance groups, has repeatedly offered the group opportunities to negotiate, but all have been rejected. This week, after suffering major defeats on the battlefield in central Yemen, the Houthis doubled down, launching deadly drone attacks into Saudi and Emirati territory.

Sanaa is now a hollow shell of its former self

In May of last year, Martin Griffiths, who was then the UNs envoy to Yemen, said a peace deal appeared to be nowhere in sight. The sense of hopelessness has gradually driven the UN to adopt an appeasement strategy, in which it has sought to legitimise the Houthis as a future player in Yemeni politics albeit one among many in exchange for a chance at peace. It has not worked.

The UNs mission in Yemen is critically underfunded, and among the smallest in any major conflict zone. The Houthis have repeatedly denied UN representatives permission to conduct humanitarian operations, diverted UN aid money and refused access to the FSO Safer, a leaky oil tanker anchored off the port of Hudaydah that threatens environmental catastrophe. Two months ago, the Houthis detained two UN employees, who continue to be held without charge.

The group has also abducted dozens of local employees of the US embassy, in spite of Washington following the UNs lead by removing the Houthis from its formal list of terrorist organisations last year. On Wednesday, two days after a Houthi attack on Abu Dhabi, US President Joe Biden said he would consider reversing that decision.

Editorials from The National

There is a wilful self-deception on the part of both the Houthis and the international actors appeasing them that allows this dire situation to continue, and gives false hope that a peace deal lies at the end of the road currently being followed. For western countries and the UN, it is the notion, contrary to all evidence, that the Houthis are a rational actor willing to make concessions. For the Houthis, it is the delusion that they have a monopoly on power in Yemen; that the diverse array of armed forces resisting them are not strong enough to prevent their assertion of total control.

For a durable compromise to be achieved, this combination of naivety and hubris must be dispelled. The international community must be prepared to restore a sense of accountability in its dealings with the Houthis, and to extract, as well as entice, future concessions. It must demonstrate solidarity with the thousands of fighters and millions of civilians who are making sacrifices to stop Houthi advances in their tracks. To get the Houthis to stop fighting, the group must be shown firmly that it cannot win.

Published: January 21st 2022, 4:00 AM

See the rest here:

Can the Houthis be driven to compromise? - The National

Cautioning that in celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., people often domesticate and water down his message, Pastor Drew G.I. Hart, a theology professor at Messiah College, urged people instead to affirm the dignity and worth of every person to honor King.

Its important to find times to really learn from him. So often we rehearse or almost freeze Dr. King in 1963 at the giving of his I Have a Dream speech, Hart said.

I think now we have the great urgency in our moment to deepen our commitments to truth telling, to compassion, to an unwavering focus on deepening injustice and an attentiveness to the liberating and healing presence of God in our world. And so, Dr. King modeled that kind of life in his public witness, Hart said.

In memory of Dr. King, now is the time to stand up and speak up against injustice near and far. Now is the time to hold tight to love in our struggle against hatred, apathy and greed, he added.

Hart was the featured speaker on the first day of events scheduled for Dream Week to honor Kings birthday and life. Because of the weather, Hart delivered his presentation, titled a Revolution of Values, virtually.

In his talk, Hart addressed what King called the triple evils of racism, materialism and militarism.

Over the past couple years, many people in our nation have once again, been confronted with the way systems of policing in the United States often steal, kill and destroy Black life, he said.

In the summer of 2020, some Americans began awakening to the racist systems and patterns that exist in our country, as they witnessed the racial violence and the response of uprisings and activism. For a few, this moment pulled the curtain back on the anti-Black cycles of death that have plagued our society for centuries, Hart stated.

The global pandemic, according to Hart, also revealed a lot about how our nation addresses the needs of our most vulnerable population.

It was a moment when our interconnectedness seemed to be so obvious because of what we do as individuals affects others and not just ourselves. And yet, we have been unable to work together communally and some have even refused to consider the well being of their neighbor, he said,

Despite having enormous economic resources as a nation, our government stumbled, conspiracies thrived, faith leaders stumbled and too many people have avoided prioritizing the needs of those who are most vulnerable, he stated.

Our response reveals a moral bankruptcy and a hard-heartedness deep in the soul of the nation, Hart added.

Hart cited statistics that revealed there are half a million people without homes in this country, not, he contended, from a lack of resources, but from a lack of regard for the well being of our neighbors.

The animosity towards redistributing the abundance of resources our nation has for the well being of all, always seems especially striking when considering our unwavering commitment to funding things like the war machine and the military-industrial complex. Our nation has budgeted close to $800 billion so we can dominate the globe to our advantage, he said.

This disparity between funding militarism and finding support for eradicating poverty was addressed by Hart.

These were the kinds of issues that Dr. King in his latter years of his life was addressing, especially in terms of how they were interrelated with one another. He understood that racism, materialism and militarism were bound up together and were degrading our efforts towards mutual thriving, he said.

He defined what he called thin racismpersonal prejudice and hatredand thick racismhow we structure policies and practices of society to provide advantages to some and disadvantages to othersand how the latter has shaped history.

Weve actually had policies and practices in place that go back decades or sometimes centuries that shaped peoples lived experiences even in the present, he said.

Police discrimination as one dimension of a centuries-long history of oppression of racial minorities has been humiliating, degrading and at times, death-dealing, Hart said.

Statistics show that Black people are three times more like to be killed by police and 98.3% of all police killings occurred without any charges being brought, Hart stated.

Police are often used for social control of people of color, poor people and to suppress social movements for change. This has become the norm for how many vulnerable neighborhoods experience policing systems, he said.

Nevertheless we continue to pour and invest more and more economics resources into the same systems expecting different results, he added.

The issue of racism in American can only be solved with what King called the revolution of values and practice, before any policies can be changed.

We will need to be able to recognize that everyone is made in the image of God and therefore have inherent dignity and worth, Hart said.

Part of bringing about this change is receiving the stories of those who have suffered discrimination and allowing their experiences to transform society.

We will have to confront, challenge and transform the systems and policies that perpetuate so much violence. But more broadly, if were going to tackle racism as it manifests in a variety of dimensions in our society, it will require telling a more true full story of our nations history, he said.

Hart cautioned against allowing those who oppose Critical Race Theory to shut down any attempt at teaching our racist history and contemporary challenges.

He addressed the fact that people have been deprived a share of the nations wealth because of the color of their skin through intentional discrimination and commission.

We could go on and on about all the different policies and practices at the national, state and local levels that contributed to turning Black neighborhoods into economic resource deserts, he said.

Thats why we need to heed Dr. Kings invitation and undergo a radical revolution of values practice, Hart said.

He noted that the Poor Peoples Campaign begun by King has been revived.

This is a movement inviting us to link arms in solidarity with vulnerable people across the nation and across the globe. he said.

Like us, the theology of Shalom or mutuality and harmony, Hart said that the current manifestation of the Poor Peoples Campaign all of creation interdependently thriving and living into the divine dream for all of us.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more from the original source:

Speaker affirms Dr. King's message; 'Now is the time to stand up against injustice' - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

In November 2017, the world watched in utter disbelief, some cringed-worthy footage aired by CNN where dozens of men in detention facilities were being auctioned off for as little as $400 each in Libya. If you think that was a fluke, the crew was also told of the existence of similar auctions taking place at nine other locations in the country. The victims? People that look like me that belong in the melanin-rich subset of Africans. The traffickers were our brothers, a shade or two lighter from the north. But thats just a tip of the proverbial iceberg. Slavery is alive and thriving in Africa by Africans.

What if I tell you that the last country in the whole wild world to outlaw slavery is a country in the continent of Africa. Yes, that is Mauritania, in 1981. To put it in perspective, that was some 116 years after the US Congress ratified the 13th amendment which stated that Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States. Now, understand that there is a huge difference between having a paragraph or two in the statute that says its illegal to own slaves and the actual practice of enforcing it. For in Libya, Mauritania, and some other North African nations, setting free our other African brothers and sisters of darker hue commonly referred to as Haratins is one luxury they just cannot afford. After all, less melanin in the skin means that one is automatically on top in the value chain.

Mauritania, officially referred to as the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, is a sovereign state in Northwest Africa. About 90 percent of its territory is situated in the Sahara. Mauritania is a bridge between the Arab Maghreb of north Africa and darker-skinned sub-Saharan Africa. Of its 4.4 million population, about 40% is made up of indigenous dark-skinned Africans called the Haratins, a pejorative term that speaks to the dark color of their skin. But being referred to as such is the least of the problem of one of the most unfortunate people in the face of this planet. The same people who in Tunisia and Libya are called Chouachin, Chouachine or Chouchan.

Haratins in Mauritania are considered full property of their lighter-skinned Arab-Berbers who are their Masters. They dont own land, live in poor, segregated communities and are only allowed to work in certain professions specifically designated for their caste alone, such as rubbish collection and butchery. They may be bought and sold, rented out and given away as gifts. Haratins are slaves.

There is a long history of slavery in Mauritania. Centuries ago, Arabic-speaking Moors invaded African villages, resulting in an immutable caste system where darker-skinned Africans are beholden to their lighter-skinned Masters. Like inheritance, slave status is also passed down from mother to child.

Slavery has been banned in Mauritania many times in the past but the problem persists because the enforcement has been in the breach. In 2014, UN Special Rapporteur reported that an estimated 50 per cent of Haratins face some form of slavery including as domestic servants and bonded laborers. Even with the adoption of a stronger anti-slavery law in 2015, there have been very minimal convictions and the sentences passed often lenient.

Mauritania is consistently ranked as the worst place in the world for slavery and it seems that the government in Nouakchott is more interested in concealing the atrocity instead of rooting out this evil. The regime will like to show you how a Haratin like Messaoud Ould Boulkheir got elected speaker of the National Assembly as a proof that slavery in Mauritania is only but a Jewish propaganda against an Islamic state.

The Islamic Republic of Mauritania joined the Organization of African Unity, the precursor of the African Union in May 25th, 1963. That means that every so often, the President of Nigeria will sit across the table, in fellowship with another in whose country, a Nigerian from a different generation is being held as a slave in the most inhumane condition. Then I ask again, of what value is the African Union if the body has the likes of Mauritania within her rank, pretending to subscribe to the ideaof an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa eloquently stated as her motto?

There is something to be said about black people and our response to oppression and injustice. Just imagine for a moment that a certain European nation is holding some African slaves in the 21st century. I can bet you with my life that it would attract worldwide condemnation and inspire a new breed of freedom fighters. Okay, granted there has been some effort in that direction but too little, too late. Here we are, giving Mauritania a free pass to commit atrocities worse than apartheid against fellow Africans. It does seem that black people find injustice less egregious when committed by one of our own. Does it mean that the burden of it on the victim is made lighter upon the realization that pain is being inflicted from the home front?

If you think this piece is just some random musing about a foreign land far removed from home and with no bearing to the situation in Nigeria, think again. Its been often said that every 2 out of 10 persons in the North are first generation immigrants, who might have come from Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Chad, Senegal, Niger like the father of President Buhari allegedly and yes, Mauritania. It was reported in one piece that the fire spitting Hakeem Baba-Ahmed of the Northern Elders Forum still has living relatives in Mauritania. Going by the color of his skin, his family most likely belong in the Masters category in that country. And so, when you analyze the speech and body language of the man regarding what he believes should be the relationship between northern and southern Nigeria, it makes you wonder if his worldview is a reflection of that background.

A country where a big percentage of her citizens own slaves should not be admitted to an assembly of civilised people. Mauritania should be banned from African Union and the later push the campaign all the way to the United Nations to do same. African and African-American celebrities should beam a searchlight on this mans inhumanity to man thriving in Mauritania and take up the cause of fighting for our brothers and sisters held in bondage for centuries. Western countries like the United States, European Union should apply tough economic sanctions against this shame of a country. Mauritania like Apartheid South-Africa should be treated as a pariah state, till she learns to treat every human being with dignity. Slavery has no place in the 21st century. Not even in Africa by Africans.

Osmund Agbo, a public affairs analyst is the coordinator of African Center for Transparency and Convener of Save Nigeria Project.Email:Eagleosmund@yahoo.com

Donate

TEXT AD: To advertise here . Call Willie +2347088095401...

Excerpt from:

Slavery in Mauritania and the shame of a continent, By Osmund Agbo - Premium Times

"Uniquely Alabama" is an occasional series where Patch tries to find the answers to questions about life in Alabama. Have a question about the Yellowhammer State that needs answering? Send it to michael.seale@patch.com.

I have been a media professional for about a quarter of a century, and one of the aspects of my job I enjoy the most is covering elections. Yes, I know, that seems almost masochistic, but I love the political process and love reporting on it, even in today's climate.

So, 2022 is an election year and in Alabama we have a bunch of important decisions to make. We will vote for members of Congress, governor, state legislators and a bevy of measures, laws and local officials. But I was thinking about it this morning and realized something has to change.

Our democratic process, thankfully, is all about change. If we don't like what our elected officials are doing, we can change that by voting for someone else. Seems simple, doesn't it? So then, how is it that Alabama has so many of the same problems decade after decade? Is it complacency? Lack of good candidates running for office? Is it just a result of being so overwhelmed by our problems that we just plug our ears and close our eyes? Maybe all, maybe just some of those things.

Look, I know that corrupt and/or ineffective politicians are not unique to Alabama. Nor are they unique to any one political party. But in 2017 alone, the heads of all three of our government branches were removed because of corruption. We as Alabamians have a deep and embarrassing history of bad politics, and bad politicians.

This year needs to be different. It is time we look at our elected officials in a different way. It is time that we see them for what they are: they are our employees. Think about any job interview you have been on. If you are a hiring manager, think about job interviews you have conducted. What kind of questions did you ask? How did you answer questions asked to you? And why the heck aren't we treating political candidates the same way?

Political candidates have realized that in this state, you really don't need much of a platform to run and get elected to office. I mean, our own governor won in a landslide in 2018 without debating anyone, without really campaigning at all, and without letting any voters know what she was going to do if elected. And I am not picking on Kay Ivey alone. Most politicians, especially incumbents, figure (correctly in most cases) that debating or giving speeches or saying too much can actually cost them their jobs. And that is sad and unacceptable.

I remember the 1998 Alabama gubernatorial race between Fob James and Don Siegelman, and how their public debates and campaign rhetoric involved little more than the two of them trying to out-Christian each other. No word on how to improve public education, fix our roads, fight crime and poverty (all issues that prevent Alabama from being the best it can be). Instead the entire election focused on who was more Christian than the other.

Listen, my grandmother was a good woman, a church-going Christian who was devout in her faith. But that in no way qualified her to be the governor of Alabama.

Don't get me wrong. I have lived in Alabama my whole life, and I know how important faith is to the people of this state. And of course we want to elect public officials who share our ideologies. But I go back to the job interview analogy. If you are interviewing for a job and the only thing on your resume is where you go to church and how often, chances are you are not getting hired. And nor should those candidates vying for political office in essence job candidates applying for a job where WE are the hiring manager.

Buzz words scattered throughout some ambiguous rhetoric have become the norm for politicians these days. They toss around terms that they know resonate with voters, but the words around those terms are just gibberish.

Look at just about any political ad. It is essentially a word salad with key words tossed into it. "Gibberish gibberish gibberish SOCIALISM, gibberish gibberish gibberish GUNS, gibberish gibberish gibberish FREEDOM," or "Blah blah blah INFRASTRUCTURE, blah blah blah RACISM, blah blah blah OPPRESSION," and so on.

And all of those things are important issues. But just identifying the issues does not make a person a good candidate for office. Again, if you went into a job interview and just told your potential employer that you know what the company does, that hardly makes you qualified for the job. And any hiring manager is going to have followup questions to get you to elaborate on HOW you would perform the job, not just that you know what the job is.

A candidate just saying, "We need to get guns off the streets," is merely identifying a problem one that most voters are well aware of and is not in any way giving a good job interview. A hiring manager would undoubtedly follow up with, "And how are you going to get that done?"

But instead, we as voters do not act as hiring managers and just take statements like that to mean that they will do something about whatever problem they identify in their campaign speeches and ads. And that is not how this should work.

Our state legislators make on average more than $50,000 a year. And that is a part time job, by the way. Our congressional delegates in Washington make a minimum of $175,000 a year. The governor of Alabama makes $127,000 a year. Paid for by us. By a population whose average annual income is a paltry $27,000.

In essence, let's hold our political candidates accountable in the same way that a manager holds employees accountable. It's not enough that they just identify our issues. Make them tell us HOW they will address those issues. Make them tell us in detail how they will work for us. Because we are absolutely the boss. And we don't have to employ them if they aren't earning their keep.

See the article here:

Uniquely Alabama: 2022 Doesnt Have To Be Politics As Usual - Patch.com

Young, I. M. (1990). Five Faces of Oppression. (E. Hackett, & S. Haslanger, Eds.) Theorizing Feminisms, 3-16.

Five Faces of Oppression by Iris M. Young (1990) attempts to create an objective criteria by which we can judge the existence and levels of oppression of different groups. Young argues that oppression is a structural concept, preserved institutionally. In other words, oppression cannot be fought by replacing the ruler, but by overthrowing the system that keeps the ruler in place. Privilege and oppression are two sides to the same coin. For every oppressed group, a privileged group exists that benefits from their oppression, knowingly or not. Oppression is categorized into five different types: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence (Young, 1990). By breaking down each type of oppression, we can demonstrate the State to be an objectively oppressive institution that fosters and benefits from the oppression of its citizens.

Exploitation

Marxs theory of exploitation identifies the injustice of wage labor in that some people exercise their capacities under the control, according to the purposes, and for the benefit of other people. (Young, 1990, p. 6). Not only does the State perpetuate the existence of wage labor, but also the State itself relies on other people exercising their capacities under its control, according to its purposes, and for the benefit of the State.

The State perpetuates wage labor by making it difficult for people to seek alternatives, such as self-employment. State regulations create barriers to entry through zoning laws, licensing requirements, and special privileges awarded to large corporations with large political lobbies. Because the State makes starting and maintaining a business so difficult, those without large amounts of capital or political power have little choice but to work for those benefiting from the States policies.

The State also functions using money taken by force from workers in the form of taxation. When workers contract with their employers or earn money by working for themselves, they do not get to profit fully from their labor, having to hand a portion of their income to the State or face legal penalties. The State, therefore, systematically exploits its citizens in the form of expropriation. Without institutionalized theft, the State would not have the means to continue its daily operations.

Marginalization

According to Young (1990, p. 8), Marginals are people the system of labor cannot or will not use. For much of its history, the State has explicitly excluded marginalized people from citizenship through laws that discriminate against the poor, women, children, racial minorities, and the disabled. Although in the United States many of these laws are gone, the social effects of such laws remain. Groups that have historically been legally excluded from citizenship continue to remain in poverty and are most affected by other forms of oppression (Young, 1990).

This is not to say, however, that legal marginalization ceases to exist. The elderly, the poor, and the disabled rely on bureaucratic institutions for aid, while laws prevent unregistered charities from feeding the homeless or offering other services to those in need. The State forces children to stay in schools reminiscent of prison until their later teen years. Children cannot make most legal decisions for themselves without being emancipated. The mentally ill are involuntarily hospitalized in prison-like institutions when the State considers them to be a danger to themselves or others. The State deports poor immigrants for failing to fall in line with difficult and discriminatory immigration procedures, treating them as no more than criminals. Even today, the State marginalizes and excludes classes of citizens and treats them as less than people.

Powerlessness

Powerlessness, according to Young (1990), refers to the inability of an oppressed group to make decisions about their own lives. The State makes decisions daily for its citizens, removing them from the decision-making process, and rendering them powerless. For citizens who want to get involved in the political process, the only options are voting, lobbying, or running for political office. Voting is ineffective and lobbying and running for political office are expensive, so the average citizen has little ability to affect political decisions.

Those who run for political office are an economic elite. Politics is a career for the haves, not the have-nots. Even political activism takes a person away from their job, making the opportunity cost of getting involved much too high for the average worker. Voting takes very little time itself, but educating oneself on the options takes a substantial amount of time, making rational ignorance much more cost-effective. Government-hired bureaucrats, not elected officials, make many political decisions that affect citizens. Citizens have no say in who the FCC hires or who is in charge of the FDA. They must simply hope for the best.

Violence

Violence is perhaps the most obvious and easy to detect face of oppression. The State thrives on violence against its own citizens and the citizens of other countries. The State relies on violence and coercion to enforce its laws by creating a monopoly of force in the form of police and military. Through violence and the threat of violence, the State maintains its policies, which exploit, marginalize, and render powerless the States subjects.

Police officers are above the law, killing unarmed citizens without any form of recourse. Police get away with murder, assault, corruption, and other crimes in a system of justice designed to protect those in power. Rarely are police examined with legal scrutiny despite rampant misconduct. The State places citizens who commit nonviolent crimes in cages where they are subject to rape and other violence by their fellow inmates and by prison guards. Prisons do nothing to reform prisoners, making them more likely to continue to commit crimes and end up back in prison.

State violence also rears its ugly head in wartime. Even if war were ever justified, civilian casualties are an inevitable result of military action. The U.S. government spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the military, despite not having declared a war since 1942. The military gives people with a passion for killing a legal outlet, and fosters a community where sexual assault runs rampant.

Cultural Imperialism

Cultural imperialism refers to the universalization of a dominant groups experience and culture, and its establishment as the norm. (Young, 1990, p. 12). The State relies on a dominant nationalist culture to legitimize its practices. Through propaganda and popular culture, the State generates loyalty among its citizens. One of the most obvious cases of the United States cultural imperialism is Cold War era propaganda that made acceptable massive increases in State power such as McCarthyism. After the Cold War, the U.S. continues to use propaganda to generate support for war and other rights violations. In the last four years, the U.S. government paid the NFL 5.4 million dollars to honor soldiers at football games.

The culture of patriotism is a culture that places decision-making power in the hands of rich, old white men in Washington. Cultural imperialism makes every other face of State oppression possible. Patriotism, or loyalty to the government, leads average citizens to accept their own exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, and violence.

Overcoming State Oppression

Perhaps the most important takeaway from Youngs essay is the notion that oppression is structural. In other words, oppression is rooted in unquestioned cultural norms and practices, not individual choices. Young says, We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid of the rulers or making some new laws, because oppressions are systematically reproduced in major economic, political, and cultural institutions. (1990, p. 4). The State systematically reproduces oppression in all its faces, and we must oppose it as an institution. Changing the law or voting in new politicians will not make the State less inherently oppressive, as the State relies on exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, violence, and cultural imperialism to thrive. In order to overcome State oppression, the only option that remains is to overthrow the State.

View original post here:

Five Faces of State Oppression - Center for a Stateless ...

"The last thing I wanted to do is hurt people. So, it was a very troubling time," Northam said.

RICHMOND, Va. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) ran on the promise of moving the commonwealth forward, but quickly realized, he had to first address Virginia's past.

Northam had to respond to the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, just months before taking office and the perpetual protests for racial equality in the wake of George Floyds death at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis.

On top of those issues, the governor had to address his own controversial past.

"The last thing I wanted to do is hurt people. So, it was a very troubling time, Northam said in and interview with WUSA9.

In early 2019, an image surfaced from the governors 1984 medical school yearbook page showing someone in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan robe.

Northam still denies appearing in that photo, but did admit to moonwalking once as Michael Jackson in blackface.

It was a dance contest. I had always liked Michael Jackson. I actually won the contest, Northam said during a press conference in 2019 explaining his past actions.

The eyes can't see sometimes what the brain doesn't know," Northam said. "My brain knows a lot more than it did four years ago and I think that's a good thing and I'm a better person because of it."

If Northams opponents and even his closest allies had their way, the governor would've resigned in February 2019 after the racist image circulated, but, he decided to stay toas he put itlisten and learn.

"Oh, I've learned a whole lot. I'll tell you one thing I've learned. When we talk about racial issues, I've learned Black oppression. We talk about that a lot. It's alive and well, just in a different form," the governor said. "I think a lot of people that look like me think that Black oppression ended with slavery, but then we had Jim Crow, then we had massive resistance and then mass incarceration."

For those lessons, Northam decided to put racial equity at the forefront of his agenda for his remaining time.

He established a commission to bring to light any laws that gave way to racial discrimination.

Northams administration legalized the recreational use of marijuana, repealed the death penalty, and also eliminated holidays and statues honoring Confederate generals.

"The last thing that we need are statues that glorify the people that fought for the institution of slavery, he said. "We don't need them. Not everybody agrees by the way, but they're gone."

Northam also got rid of a few items in the executive mansion and added items to uplift Black history. "When we moved in here, I had a sofa, a TV, a treadmill and some weights and it's all gone."

The governor and first lady began transforming the executive mansion to prominently feature the stories of Virginians of color, along with their contributions to the commonwealth, including the painful tales of those who were enslaved and worked in that house.

"We need to tell the truth," Northam said. "I went back interestingly and looked at my 4th grade history book. There are pictures in that 4th grade history book of enslaved Africans landing on the shores like they were having a big party. Everybody was happy. Well, that's not accurate information. We need to make sure what we're teaching our children is accurate and adequate."

Northam said without question, his administration's agenda concerning race and equality likely contributed to the politicization of Critical Race Theory during the 2021 gubernatorial race.

CRT, more broadly, examines how racism has shaped and impacted public policy, laws and modern life well beyond slavery.

"We will absolutely remove, rid the political agenda that has made its way into our classrooms by banning Critical Race Theory on day one, Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin (R) said during a campaign rally in 2021.

Critical Race Theory is not taught in Virginia Public Schools.

"I think the governor-elect and the next administration, they have a great opportunity to build on our progress and also a responsibility, Northam said.

When asked if he believes they will, Northam responded, "If any of what, the progress we've made is taken back, I think that the people will speak and say no, this is not what we wanted."

With hours remaining at the helm of Virginia's government, Northam said his experience leading was humbling. He admits that he and the commonwealth still have a lot more to learn. "I'm glad that Virginians stuck with me."

Northam is a pediatric neurologist and plans to return to his private practice in Norfolk.

Macaulay Porter, a spokesperson for Youngkin, said, A broad coalition of Virginians elected one of the most diverse statewide tickets in Virginia's history. And on Day One, Governor Youngkin will get to work on delivering for ALL Virginians.

Read the original here:

'We need to tell the truth' | How a racist photo lead Northam to reckon with racial injustice as governor - WUSA9.com

A bill to explore reparations for slavery in the United States has been sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives for nearly a year, with no signs that legislators will take it up any time soon. But policymakers in many communities arent waiting for the federal government to take actiontheyre taking matters into their own hands. And a new reparations lab at Northeastern aims to give them the tools to do so.

The Racial Redress and Reparations Lab, a part of the universitys Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project (CRRJ), is designed to provide community education and engagement that paves the way for successful repair and recognition projects.

Broadly, reparations represent a system of redress for egregious injustices. So, what would they look like in 2022?

When a lot of people think about reparations, they think only about money, says Katie Sandson, program director for the Racial Redress and Reparations Lab.

Katie Sandson is an attorney and the program director for the Racial Redress and Reparations Lab at Northeastern. Photo by Matthew Modoono/Northeastern University

The money is important: The first instance of reparations in the U.S. was an (unmet) promise of 40 acres and a mule to former slaves as the Civil War drew to a close. And today, the average white family in the U.S. has 10 times the amount of wealth as the average Black family, according to The Brookings Institute. But the systemic oppression of Black people in the nation goes far beyond cash. The federal government redlined Black families out of fair housing opportunities for generations, and excluded Black students from educational opportunities.

From a restorative justice perspective, reparations can be a lot broader than that, Sandson says, although financial compensation can and should be an important piece of it.

Indeed, while H.R. 40, a bill that would establish a 13-person federal commission to study the effects of slavery and racial discrimination in the country and recommend appropriate remedies languishes in Congress, policymakers throughout the country are exploring local options for redress.

In March 2021, city councilors in Evanston, Illinois, voted to make reparations available to Black residents for harm caused by discriminatory housing policies and practices and inaction on the part of the City, according to the program guidelines. Black residents who experienced housing discrimination in the city can apply to receive $25,000 in housing benefits.

The benefit of state or local programs, such as Evanstons, Sandson says, is that policymakers can tailor the response to the particular needs of their communities. She explores how else communities might begin to repair historic inequities in a conversation with News@Northeastern that has been lightly edited for clarity.

Its been pretty well established that state-sanctioned racism in the U.S. dates back to, but certainly didnt end with, slavery. The CRRJ provides a small piece of evidence for that history, with a focus on 1930-1970, particularly the extent of racial violence during this time period and the role of governmental institutions enacting and upholding discriminatory and violent practices.

Even though we at the CRRJ are focused on the southern and border states, we understand that this history is both national and local, and affects communities in different ways. The work by CRRJ provides irrefutable evidence of the wrongs that have been committed and it provides evidence for the legacies of intergenerational trauma and wealth-loss that continue to affect families today.

From a restorative-justice perspective, its important that the same institutions are acknowledging this history and the ways in which it affects the present, but also taking tangible steps toward repair. Reparations, broadly defined, can be an important piece of that restorative process and of our larger national reckoning with that history.

At CRRJ in particular, we approach this idea of redress by drawing on principles from the fields of restorative and transitional justice that center on the affected individuals and communities, and prioritizes accountability, healing, and repair.

I think when a lot of people think about reparations, they think only about money. But, from a restorative justice perspective, reparations can be a lot broader than thatalthough financial compensation can and should be an important piece of it. For example, a reparative project might also include components like apology, acknowledgement, and truth-seeking processes, as well as compensation. Most importantly, reparative processes should be driven by the communities that are most affected.

What were seeing right now is a lot of movement at the state and local levels. Legislators introduced H.R. 40 at the federal level, and state and local efforts are not a replacement for federal action, but they can and should complement these federal efforts. We believe this is something all policymakers can and should be involved in, and what were seeing (and what we hope well continue to see in 2022) is that the urgency of the calls for reparations at the community level is being reflected in the responses by policymakers, and seeing that momentum continue to grow.

One benefit of state or local programs is that policymakers can tailor the response to the particular needs of their communities. For example, were seeing Evanston, Illinois, get a lot of attention as one of the first local governments in the country to move forward with a reparations programtheyve decided that their first initiative is going to target the history of housing discrimination in the city. That doesnt mean its the only thing theyre going to do around reparations, but its where theyre starting because of the particular history of the city.

A lot of these challenges are similar to the challenges that state and local governments face with many other policies these days. Funding is always a big one: Where is the money going to come from, and whats feasible in a given jurisdiction? Political will can be challenging too, especially when youre dealing in a society thats very divided and a topic thats very divisive. Community engagement is a big piece, too: Policies should be shaped by the people whove been most affected by this history and will be most affected by the policies. How can policymakers most effectively get those voices in the room and ensure theyre helping to drive the process?

Calls for repair arent new, they date back to the post-slavery moment, but I think were in a moment now where the topic is gaining unprecedented public and governmental support, and that momentum is playing out in public debate, private institutions, universities, and in government. This is happening all across the countrywere seeing these conversations in big cities, small towns, in the Midwest, the South, the West. Theyre small steps, not all of these efforts have passed or will pass, but its movement, and thats hopeful.

For media inquiries, please contact Marirose Sartoretto at m.sartoretto@northeastern.edu or 617-373-5718.

Originally posted here:

Reparations Legislation is Stalled. Can Local Governments Fill the Gap? - News @ Northeastern - News@Northeastern