An upcoming PBS special "Traces of the Trade: a Story from the Deep North" chronicles the trip taken by 10 members of the DeWolfe family to visit the slave castles in Ghana
and places in Cuba. Their family had traded slaves from Ghana and used them in their Cuban sugar plantations in the 19th century. The documentary is based on a book written by one of the members of this family, Katrina Browne, uncovering the family's history in the trafficking in human beings.
According to one man who went on this journey, James DeWolfe Perry V, people who had read the book or seen the documentary asked him whether he felt any guilt because his ancestors were slavers. He responds: "I don't feel guilty about what my ancestors did, because I didn't do it."
That seems right. It is unreasonable to feel guilt about things one did not do. What is more, guilt often paralyzes people. The guilty indulge in endless self accusation that keep them from taking action to repair the damage done, wherever possible. Guilt can, however, take more positive forms. Instead of an emotion that paralyzes, guilt, at its best, is an eagerness to make amends, to help those one has harmed, and to improve oneself to do better in the future.
The slave trade is a thing of the past -- or almost so. Last week a very rich couple in New York was convicted of keeping their undocumented household help as virtual slaves. There is still a trade in women destined to end up as prostitutes. They, too, are virtually enslaved.
But the slave system as it existed until the Civil War and, for all practical purposes, for another hundred years after that, it is now no longer with us. Feeling guilt about what is past is unproductive.
But to the extent that the after effects of the slave system are still with us, all of us deserve to feel guilt -- not the guilt that paralyzes by self accusation, but the guilt that wants to change the world and also ourselves for the better.
Yes, to be sure the Democratic party has nominated a black man to be its presidential candidate. Other black men and women hold positions of leadership in business, in government, in the arts and in local communities. At the same time, average black Americans earn less, own less wealth, and are more likely to end up in prison, or to receive second-rate medical care when they are sick than many white people. Slavery may be a thing of the past but its effects are still with us.
Its effects are with us in a second way. The descendants of the DeWolfe family travels to Africa and to Cuba to retrace some of its family history. People on welfare usually don't undertake that kind of travel. That family and many others still profit from the slave trading of their ancestors. So do American institutions. Another Rhode Island family, the Browns, became wealthy in the slave trade and endowed a college which is now known as Brown University. The students and faculty at that college are still the beneficiaries of the slave trade.
The effects of the slave trade remain are very much with us in the well-being of some and the difficult lives of others.
All of us, including James DeWolfe Perry V, should acknowledge that these inequalities are an important heritage from our slave owning ancestors. We may let them suffer the punishment of a just God. But those of us who profit from the after effects of the slave trade must take responsibility for that and work as hard as we can to end racial discrimination and its many injustices.
Some examples: schools in low income -- and that means frequently black or Hispanic -- neighborhoods often have fewer resources than schools in more affluent neighborhoods. As taxpayers we must resist the agitation for lowering taxes and instead be willing to pay for giving a good education to all children, especially those whose ancestors were enslaved by the ancestors of some of us. We must be willing to provide a halfway decent standard of living to everyone and that involves food, shelter, medical care and access to education.
As long as the effects of slavery endure we must redouble our efforts to overcome them.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Terrorism and Torture
A brief item in the newspaper reports that, according to a recent opinion poll, "the number of Americans who would condone torture, at least when used on terrorists in order to save lives, has risen in the past two years to 44%." Another 53% disapproved of torture under all conditions.
Imagine the police bringing in a disheveled young man, first name Mohammed, born in Saudi Arabia (like Osama bin Laden) who is said to belong to a group threatening to blow up the school where your child is learning to read and write. Would you not be willing to do anything to this young Mohammed in order to prevent harm to your child? If we are honest, most of us would answer that question with a "Yes."
What then is wrong with those 53% who oppose torture? Don't they have children? Or do they have children they don't care for? Don't they know at least how precious their children are to most people?
Those 53% see the problem in this story about Mohammed. Told the story about terrorists threatening your child, your first reaction is to say: do anything to protect my child, including torture. But after a moment's thought the problem is obvious: how do we know Mohammed is a terrorist? One possible scenario is that he has confessed (without torture.) He has changed his mind, he does not want children to be hurt, he wants to help to prevent that terrible disaster. In that case no one needs to torture him because he is willing to tell all.
Suppose Mohammed denies the charge of terrorism. He claims not to know any of the other people suspected of plotting against the school. Should we torture him because he is a terrorist? How do we know that? Surely, we are committed to saying this: he is innocent until proven guilty. Unless a court case is brought against him that shows that he is indeed a terrorist, it is illegitimate to even consider torture.
Our legal system is a great human accomplishment. It demands that guilt must be proven, that accusations from third parties are not sufficient to label anybody a criminal or a terrorist . We should be proud of that legal principle of persons being innocent until proven guilty and should do everything to support it. Fortunately, US Courts are beginning to insist that our government accord fair treatment to its prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Recently a three judge Court of Appeals sharply criticized the government for holding a Chinese man for six years on no better evidence than that he had been accused of terrorism by the government in three separate documents.
We have not always adhered to these principles. In earlier days women were tortured and killed as witches on the mere say-so of some hysterical child. Black men and women, and some whites, were dragged from jails, without trials, hung, burned and mutilated by angry mobs. People used to be punished for actions they had not committed; rumors were sufficient (together with the victim's black skin). We now try to avoid those kinds of injustices.
We, therefore, may not call anyone a terrorist until a proper court proceeding has proven that. We may not torture anybody simply because someone has called him a terrorist, even if that someone is the US government, the FBI, the CIA, or his best friend. Without a trial in which he is convicted, Mohammed may not be called a terrorist or be treated as one.
The poll cited earlier shows that 44% of our fellow citizens are willing to torture terrorists "in order to save lives." This raises another worrisome question: do we know that torturing people saves lives? Many people point out that inflicting intense pain on someone is not likely to make him terribly truthful or a reliable witness. How reliable is information gained by torture? The answer to that question is not clear at all.
So why are 44% of our fellow citizens prepared to torture persons whose identity as terrorists has not been proven and whose possible torture has not been shown to save lives?
Frightened human beings do not think clearly and effectively. For the last eight years the government and many politicians have maintained a steady drumbeat of fear mongering.
They have resorted to a technique regularly used by governments ( and powerful private groups) to manipulate citizens. At the beginning of the war with Japan, the government created hysteria about a possible Japanese invasion of California, putting Japanese Americans--most of them American citizens whose sons and daughters were serving in the US military--in concentration camps. In the 1950's, at the beginning of the Cold War, paranoid anti-Communists instigated a new hysteria about internal subversion. Many lives were seriously disrupted by illegal and coercive inquisitions into political beliefs or membership which the Constitutions is supposed to protect. Today, our government, having woefully mismanaged the response to 9/11 is trying to distract us by fanning the fear of secret dangers that lurk everywhere--the "terrorists."
They do not serve us well. They do not serve our institutions well. It is not clear that they even enhance our safety. It is high time that we stopped talking as if our life was constantly in danger. It is high time to try to think clearly and calmly about terrorism and about torture.
Imagine the police bringing in a disheveled young man, first name Mohammed, born in Saudi Arabia (like Osama bin Laden) who is said to belong to a group threatening to blow up the school where your child is learning to read and write. Would you not be willing to do anything to this young Mohammed in order to prevent harm to your child? If we are honest, most of us would answer that question with a "Yes."
What then is wrong with those 53% who oppose torture? Don't they have children? Or do they have children they don't care for? Don't they know at least how precious their children are to most people?
Those 53% see the problem in this story about Mohammed. Told the story about terrorists threatening your child, your first reaction is to say: do anything to protect my child, including torture. But after a moment's thought the problem is obvious: how do we know Mohammed is a terrorist? One possible scenario is that he has confessed (without torture.) He has changed his mind, he does not want children to be hurt, he wants to help to prevent that terrible disaster. In that case no one needs to torture him because he is willing to tell all.
Suppose Mohammed denies the charge of terrorism. He claims not to know any of the other people suspected of plotting against the school. Should we torture him because he is a terrorist? How do we know that? Surely, we are committed to saying this: he is innocent until proven guilty. Unless a court case is brought against him that shows that he is indeed a terrorist, it is illegitimate to even consider torture.
Our legal system is a great human accomplishment. It demands that guilt must be proven, that accusations from third parties are not sufficient to label anybody a criminal or a terrorist . We should be proud of that legal principle of persons being innocent until proven guilty and should do everything to support it. Fortunately, US Courts are beginning to insist that our government accord fair treatment to its prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Recently a three judge Court of Appeals sharply criticized the government for holding a Chinese man for six years on no better evidence than that he had been accused of terrorism by the government in three separate documents.
We have not always adhered to these principles. In earlier days women were tortured and killed as witches on the mere say-so of some hysterical child. Black men and women, and some whites, were dragged from jails, without trials, hung, burned and mutilated by angry mobs. People used to be punished for actions they had not committed; rumors were sufficient (together with the victim's black skin). We now try to avoid those kinds of injustices.
We, therefore, may not call anyone a terrorist until a proper court proceeding has proven that. We may not torture anybody simply because someone has called him a terrorist, even if that someone is the US government, the FBI, the CIA, or his best friend. Without a trial in which he is convicted, Mohammed may not be called a terrorist or be treated as one.
The poll cited earlier shows that 44% of our fellow citizens are willing to torture terrorists "in order to save lives." This raises another worrisome question: do we know that torturing people saves lives? Many people point out that inflicting intense pain on someone is not likely to make him terribly truthful or a reliable witness. How reliable is information gained by torture? The answer to that question is not clear at all.
So why are 44% of our fellow citizens prepared to torture persons whose identity as terrorists has not been proven and whose possible torture has not been shown to save lives?
Frightened human beings do not think clearly and effectively. For the last eight years the government and many politicians have maintained a steady drumbeat of fear mongering.
They have resorted to a technique regularly used by governments ( and powerful private groups) to manipulate citizens. At the beginning of the war with Japan, the government created hysteria about a possible Japanese invasion of California, putting Japanese Americans--most of them American citizens whose sons and daughters were serving in the US military--in concentration camps. In the 1950's, at the beginning of the Cold War, paranoid anti-Communists instigated a new hysteria about internal subversion. Many lives were seriously disrupted by illegal and coercive inquisitions into political beliefs or membership which the Constitutions is supposed to protect. Today, our government, having woefully mismanaged the response to 9/11 is trying to distract us by fanning the fear of secret dangers that lurk everywhere--the "terrorists."
They do not serve us well. They do not serve our institutions well. It is not clear that they even enhance our safety. It is high time that we stopped talking as if our life was constantly in danger. It is high time to try to think clearly and calmly about terrorism and about torture.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Olympics and Politics
A recent editorial in the New York Times deplores the worsening human rights record of the Chinese government. Latest examples are a long list of instructions for foreign and domestic visitors to the upcoming Olympic games forbidding anything remotely political; the persecution of Chinese lawyers defending Tibetans; the arrest of Chinese parents protesting peacefully against a corrupt government whose shoddily constructed schools collapsed during the recent earthquake. Hundreds of children died in these schools.
In the same editorial, the Times approves of the Olympic Committee's prohibition against political demonstrations during
the games. "We respect the goal of trying to put aside divisions while celebrating a common humanity" says the Times editorial writer.
Many people think that the Olympic games are not the place for politics. They should be all about sport and nothing else.
But think of what we put aside when we "put aside divisions" or when we refuse to engage in politics. We refuse to look at the real human misery in China. The government keeps close watch on its people; protesters end up in prison. It arrested the parents whose children died during the earthquake because of poor quality construction of school buildings. Corrupt government officials pocketed some of the money destined for school construction. The shoddy buildings they did erect were not earthquake proof and children died. The grieving parents protested and were jailed.
All of this is terrible enough but think about the wider effects of this massive repression: the millions of Chinese who are intimidated and do not protest poor wages, poor working conditions, or the tyranny of petty government officials.
At issue is not merely the "poor human rights record of the Chinese government;" at issue are the suffering and misery of large numbers of ordinary people. If most Chinese were happy with their lives, if they were hopeful for themselves and the future of their children, why would the government need to employ a large army of secret police to supervise citizens? The reign of terror imposed by authoritarian governments, like that of China, is made necessary by the misery of large numbers of ordinary people.
The advice to put aside politics during the Olympics says "forget about the parents who lost their children in shoddily constructed schools. Forget about millions of people deprived of even half-way decent lives. Forget unsanitary slums and their diseased and malnourished inhabitants.What matters now is who can run faster, jump higher or throw the javelin farther. Don't think about freedom loving men and women, languishing in prison. Don't think about millions of families overworked and undernourished. Let's just celebrate a common humanity."
Yes, by all means, let's celebrate a common humanity. How do we do that? By ignoring fellow humans whose lives are made miserable by their government? The poverty and misery of millions of Chinese are not suspended for the Olympics. Most of them will have to go to their workplaces and work long hours under hard conditions for very little money. Should we ignore their pain while we cheer for our team?
The truth is, of course, that ignoring oppression and suffering in China has nothing much to do with "celebrating a common humanity." US and other foreign corporations are making money by the bushel basket in China because wages are miserably low and workers who protest end up in prison. The human rights record the NY Times deplores makes lots of money for US corporations. They like the human rights record of the Chinese government because it maintains low wages.
And the NY Times, always on the side of business, may deplore that human rights record of the Chinese government but is quick to add that we should not do anything about it. After all the misery of the Chinese is the price they must pay for our prosperity.
In the same editorial, the Times approves of the Olympic Committee's prohibition against political demonstrations during
the games. "We respect the goal of trying to put aside divisions while celebrating a common humanity" says the Times editorial writer.
Many people think that the Olympic games are not the place for politics. They should be all about sport and nothing else.
But think of what we put aside when we "put aside divisions" or when we refuse to engage in politics. We refuse to look at the real human misery in China. The government keeps close watch on its people; protesters end up in prison. It arrested the parents whose children died during the earthquake because of poor quality construction of school buildings. Corrupt government officials pocketed some of the money destined for school construction. The shoddy buildings they did erect were not earthquake proof and children died. The grieving parents protested and were jailed.
All of this is terrible enough but think about the wider effects of this massive repression: the millions of Chinese who are intimidated and do not protest poor wages, poor working conditions, or the tyranny of petty government officials.
At issue is not merely the "poor human rights record of the Chinese government;" at issue are the suffering and misery of large numbers of ordinary people. If most Chinese were happy with their lives, if they were hopeful for themselves and the future of their children, why would the government need to employ a large army of secret police to supervise citizens? The reign of terror imposed by authoritarian governments, like that of China, is made necessary by the misery of large numbers of ordinary people.
The advice to put aside politics during the Olympics says "forget about the parents who lost their children in shoddily constructed schools. Forget about millions of people deprived of even half-way decent lives. Forget unsanitary slums and their diseased and malnourished inhabitants.What matters now is who can run faster, jump higher or throw the javelin farther. Don't think about freedom loving men and women, languishing in prison. Don't think about millions of families overworked and undernourished. Let's just celebrate a common humanity."
Yes, by all means, let's celebrate a common humanity. How do we do that? By ignoring fellow humans whose lives are made miserable by their government? The poverty and misery of millions of Chinese are not suspended for the Olympics. Most of them will have to go to their workplaces and work long hours under hard conditions for very little money. Should we ignore their pain while we cheer for our team?
The truth is, of course, that ignoring oppression and suffering in China has nothing much to do with "celebrating a common humanity." US and other foreign corporations are making money by the bushel basket in China because wages are miserably low and workers who protest end up in prison. The human rights record the NY Times deplores makes lots of money for US corporations. They like the human rights record of the Chinese government because it maintains low wages.
And the NY Times, always on the side of business, may deplore that human rights record of the Chinese government but is quick to add that we should not do anything about it. After all the misery of the Chinese is the price they must pay for our prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)