As President Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, he was willing to take the political heat. He said that he was not concerned about the politics of the hand shake and more concerned about extending an open hand to nations hostile to the U.S. The open hand, it seems, is not so open after all. The President announced that, like the Bush Administration, the United States will boycott the world anti-racism conference (Durban II), which opens in Geneva today. According to the President, "I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe. We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that's not something we can sign up for. "Hopefully some concrete steps come out of the conference that we can partner with other countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the globe, but this wasn't an opportunity to do it."
He is not willing to take the political heat in this case because there is language criticizing Israel and the West in the final document. As the world celebrates the election of the first Black President, the United States boycotts the world conference against racism. Symbolism, it seems has met political reality.
On this issue, it is difficult to reconcile the President's rhetoric with his actions. The President has repeatedly said that his policy is to talk with those with whom he disagrees. He is talking to Chavez, to Ahmadinejad, to Medvedev and Kim but cannot talk to human rights defenders about the best way to address the continuing significance of racism world wide? Surely the message cannot be that the United States does not believe that the right to be free from racism is not a basic human right.
18 comments:
He is the President of the most free country in the world. A place where a black man can become the leader of an economic superpower. Is that the case in Europe, Asia, South America, or the Middle East?
I am not a Barack Obama supporter. However, when he does what is right, I am going to support him 100 percent. There is no need for the United States to be part of a conference on racism, where the the U.S and its ally, Israel, are subjected to the blame for all the problems of the world. At this so called conference on racism, the president of Iran went on a racist diatribe against Israel.
I find articles like these, which do not really address substantive issues, to be intellectually lacking.
Had you read the article and understood the issues, you would see that it is your comment that is intellectually bankrupt. First, as much as you wih to make this about Israel, it is not. Second, he was at The Summit of the Americas where America was blamed for the ills of the world.
So, before you talk about articles that are intellectually lacking, you might one to consider reading them and analyzing them not simply coming to an empty conclusion.
While I do not agree with all of the author's points, I do the article to be of intellectual heft.
Had you read the article and understood the issues, you would see that it is your comment that is intellectually bankrupt. First, as much as you wih to make this about Israel, it is not. Second, he was at The Summit of the Americas where America was blamed for the ills of the world.
So, before you talk about articles that are intellectually lacking, you might one to consider reading them and analyzing them not simply coming to an empty conclusion.
While I do not agree with all of the author's points, I do find the article to be of intellectual heft.
Another sudden black media star has mustered the courage to find fault with the President. Soon to be followed by finding fault with the First Lady.
What is disturbing about these sudden black media stars: they were/are silent when it comes to criticizing the Bush/Cheney administration and the republicans for the damage they have done, and continue to do, to this country, to black people, to all Americans. Now that a black guy is in the highest office of the land, the media has discovered that there are many black so-called Scholars, Intellectuals, Commentators, Authors, Professors, Pundits, Strategists, who would sell their first born in order to get on the tele to voice their criticism of this uppity n*****.
These suddenly discovered black media stars exhibits a characteristic that is PECULIAR to black people ONLY, a characteristic
that is NOT demonstrated by any other minority group in this country. When a black person achieves something unique, instead celebrating that achievement and working to help make thing better, some blacks immediately begin to
attempt to tear that person down and minimize those achievements. Next thing you know they are appearing on CBC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and their favorite, Fox. or they are writing Scholarly Tomes. It is of no concern to them that the hosts (white/republican) and usual guests (white/epublican) are making their best effort to try to undermine the President (black guy) and the only reason for these sudden black media stars are invited is to contribute to the effort. Which of course, they are happy to do.
Prior to the election of President Obama, these sudden black media stars were, except for Juan Williams, were not even allowed in the building.
You don't find any other minority group fighting over each other to get the chance to assist those who are attempting to undermine the President.
Intellectual?
More like sophistry.
What a sophomoric rant. Are you saying that Obama is above criticism? Or worse because he is black we don't need to be crabbing on him? White people have been criticizing white politicians since time immemorial. Why should we be any different?
Amen!!! This is the 21st century and Dr. Boyce and his ilk are running around like its pre brown v. Board. Lawd Jesus help us! Tribal politics will get you now where Dr. Watkins; we are too diversified a race to fall for the HNIC syndrome anymore.
Reading is fundamental. Tired. Instead of responding to the critique you throw a temper tamtrum that is both race based and ill-informed. The long and short of it, shut up and let the brother be. How is the hypocrit here?
Reading is fundamental. Tired. Instead of responding to the critique you throw a temper tamtrum that is both race based and ill-informed. The long and short of it, shut up and let the brother be. Wow is the hypocrit here?
Obama should be criticized if he is fucking up. It's crazy that we think that any political figure is perfect and always making the right decisions. If you do not force your politicians to answer for their decisions, you are asking to be victimized.
Is this the same Big Earl, who in the other post was going before Obama with bended knees?
Amen!!!
"girlEarl"
I like that babee!
At first, I was conflicted by the Obama administration's refusal to attending this conference, because this professor's arguments are right on point. There shouldn't be anyone within the Black community above criticism, and that includes President Obama and his administration, and, on this issue, they've been skewered in our community for their seemingly gross negligence on this issue.
However, having seen the fiasco that the Geneva conference turned into thanks to President Admadinejad, the president has dodged yet another bullet in my opinion. If there was a high level delegation at the conference, they would've been compelled to react as many other countries did, during the Iranian president's speech. Unfortunately the conference was turned into a circus because there were not checks and balances to keep those types of outburst, but, in reality, who could have kept the lid on the crazy man from Iran.
In all fairness, Dr. Metzler hit the ball out of the park on this one with his analysis, especially tying in past administration's attempts to keep certain human rights issue off of the UN agenda. This is what intellectuals should do; that's why we have them in our lives. Then, it's for fair-minded people to come to their respective opinions.
However, to devolve into the name calling only shows the group how limited ones own speech and intelligence is. Find other slow and limited skilled folks to participate in that sort of behavior.
Oh, Shut Up!, Sponge Bob Square Pants. You are an Obama apologist. It's that simple. Admit it. C'mon, don't be scared!!!
You can never fully criticize him for anything, can you? Obama says we're militarizing Brooklyn tmrw, and Sponge Bob Square Pants responds: "Whatever you say, leader. You are God's gift to the free world! In you, I can find no fault. With you, I am well pleased!"
I agree with this analysis also. Dr. Metzler is not someone who seems to dislike Obama. He comes off as someone who simply makes sure that politicians do what they are supposed to do. Even if you vote for a political figure, they still expect you to hold them accountable. Unlike Tavis Smiley, however, this critique is coming from a reliable place. Tavis just seems to be jealous.
Black people have let Obama have a major ghetto pass. It's crazy.
I don't believe that any Black people are giving President Obama a "ghetto pass". A main theme of his during the campaign was that everyone should have transparency in their organization, the president included. He obviously meant that to imply to himself, if he were to be elected. With his huge popularity and progressive agenda, the president has started an agenda that's supported by a great majority of African-Americans. That would explain the lack of dissent from our community, because most of the policy statements and agenda is what we want to see pursued; not because of some "ghetto pass". As we see with this racism conference, there have been many voices of dissent from our community, and I firmly believe there will be others when appropriate.
As far as Tavis Smiley is concerned, it's my position that he has taken a bad rap as far as President Obama is concerned. A lot of people have accused him of jealousy towards Barack or envy towards the man. I just cannot bring myself to judge him in that manner. He has done a lot of good reporting and analysis for far too long to be rooted out of the public discourse, because of what appeared to be a spat started by then candidate Obama's refusal to attend the annual State of the Black Union Tavis hosts. He argued his position in the same manner that those who are concerned about our country's absence at the UN racism conference. Unfortunately, Tavis raised his concerns when people were trying to coalesce support for candidate Obama, because it looked as though he had a legitimate chance at pulling off what had seemed to be impossible. For his part, Tavis didn't do anything to allay the criticism directed at him but dug his heels in in a way that lent it to seem as if it was more envy or jealousy, than constructive criticism.
The problem though is that Tavis was working with Hillary Clinton and I think that was why he wanted to attack Obama so bad. If Clinton had been elected, I guarantee you that Tavis would have had a place in her cabinet as press secretary or something else.
Post a Comment