Post Racial America? You Are Right!

Post Racial America? You Are Right!
After President Barack Obama’s landmark victory in the Presidential election’s last year, many pundits as well as ordinary Americans were eager to proclaim a new era in American history, “the post-racial era.” Many blacks, most especially those who were civil right activists sounded a word of caution which many people failed to listen to. It does not take the election of one man to change the whole history of people who for centuries were told they are sub-human or at best less than equal. There is no doubt that we have made a lot of progress as a nation in electing the first African American president, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. The recent event in which a Cambridge police officer arrested Henri Louise Gate, an African American professor reminds us that we have not reached a “post-racial” era yet. There is still a mutual suspicion that exists between both races. Most times, this is not conscious but there are plenty of incidents in which these cases are deliberate acts of racism.
It would be difficult to know what was going on in the minds of both the police officer and Professor Gate. It is possible that the police officer did not deliberately take into consideration race when he was dealing with professor Gate. That does not mean that race was not unconsciously a factor. I have many good friends who are White and believe that there is no atom of racism in their body and yet sometimes will do or say certain things that I feel uncomfortable with and consider to be racist. Do I fault them for it? No. We are all products of different histories. In our every day encounters, there is a conscious or unconscious “clash of histories.” Our individual histories is the prism through which we assess events that happen daily in our lives. Unfortunately for many black people, that history is shaped by many years of oppression and racial profiling. It is very easy to find a black person who has had negative experiences with the police. I still have nightmares from an incident in which two years ago a police officer pulled a gun on me, only to write me a warning ticket for my car’s left side brake light that was dead. As I shared my story that day with others, everyone told me I fit their “profile”: a tall black man, driving a black Mercedes Benz with tinted windows. It is possible that the police officer that stopped me did not “consciously” consider race but my history predisposed me to believe this action was racially motivated. The question is, could he have pulled a gun on a properly dressed tall white black man? I will never know the answer to that question.
We still have a long way to go in healing the divisions that exists between us and in “perfecting our union.” It would be stupid to delude ourselves that we are in a post-racial America. We need more education in race relations. The most some people know of Martin Luther King Jr. is that it is a public holiday. When Coretta Scott King died, a classmate in graduate school had no idea who she was. We will be in a post-racial America when we have all got it into our heads and sincerely believe those words in our declaration of independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Why African Leaders are Afraid of the International Criminal Court

In its recently concluded summit in Serta, Libya, African leaders decided not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court on the arrest and prosecution of Al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, who has been indicted by the court for war crimes. One of the reasons given for this resolution was offered by the Prime Minister of Rwanda, Bernard Makuza. He told the Associated Press, “We’re not promoting impunity, but we’re saying that Westerners who don’t understand anything about Africa should stop trying to import their solutions.” It is unfortunate that the “leaders” have come to this resolution. There is no Western solution being offered here than bringing a man who has murdered his own people to justice. Justice is not a Western value but a universal value. The resolution is another attempt by African leaders to protect one of their own. The issue here is not that Western solutions are being exported to Africa, but the question is, “who is next?”

All through the continent, we see similar situations as in Darfur but in a lesser degree. It is a matter of time before those situations would develop into genocide-like activities. There are dictatorships throughout the continent and innocent civilians are being murdered daily because of ethnic, religious or political affiliation. These killings are being directed by the leaders, or they are in some way complacent to the murders. We have seen the “Darfur story” before in the continent. Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Uganda, Sierra Leone, and Liberia are just a few countries in which genocide-like activities have taken place. Those killed are human beings, and they deserve a chance to live. Taking their lives prematurely is a deprivation of their most fundamental universal right and those who commit such crimes should face justice. This endemic circle must be broken and this is only possible when the “mighty” and the “untouchables” are subjected to the law. Makuza speaks of African solutions to the problem. In the past, such solutions did not work, and so we should not be under any illusion, they will work this time. The genocide in Darfur has been going on for years and African leaders have not been able to stop it nor have they shown any significant leadership in the issue. They have continued to give Al-Bashir’s government legitimacy. El Samany El Wasila, the Prime Minister of Sudan was quick to note to the AP after the resolution that, “It’s the confirmation of what we always said: The indictment is a political thing, not a legal thing.” According to the AP, he declined to comment on whether Al-Bashir would now visit freely the 30 African countries that are party to the IICC treaty.

Treatises are formal agreements between nations. 30 African countries signed the ICC treaty. They were not forced into signing it. The resolution from the African Union summit does not nullify formal agreements they have made with nations outside Africa. They must continue to keep those agreements. This means that if Al-Bashir should travel to any of these 30 African nations, they are obliged under the agreement to arrest him and turn him over to the ICC. Countries such as Ghana, Chad and Botswana have disagreed already with this resolution. The Ghanaian foreign minister, Mohammed Mumuni said to reporters, “Certainly that’s not the position that we take … for us in Ghana there is absolutely no equivocation at all about our acceptance and respect for the jurisdiction, the integrity and high honor of dignity of the ICC.” Ghana is taking a new democratic leadership role in Africa. We hope other emerging democracies in the continent such as Nigeria and Liberia would follow suit by making strong statements in defense of the ICC indictment of Al-Bashir and stop politicizing it.

Iranian Leaders and the Watching World

President Barack Obama in a public statement last week, reminded the leaders of Iran that the world was watching the unfolding events in their country. He wrote, “The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost, …” Prior to this statement, Congress had taken a non-binding resolution condemning the violence against the peaceful protesters in the streets. Why would oppressive leaders be concerned about the eyes of the world? History has shown that oppressors have always gotten away with their barbaric actions against their own people without any severe consequences for their actions.
I grew up in an era of military dictatorship in Nigeria. Those who disagreed with the government were either killed or imprisoned without opportunity for a fair judicial process. The economic sanctions that were placed on Nigeria by the West did not deter the dictators from continuing their inhumane treatment of citizens. Those who suffered these sanctions were the common people. Top government officials continued to travel around the world for pleasure at the expense of tax payers. Many prominent critics of the government went on self imposed exile because they were no longer safe in the country. Throughout this time of oppression, Nigerians waited in vain for the intervention of the international. The IMF/ World Bank continued to legitimize these dictators by giving them billions of dollars in loans that future generations of Nigerians would continue to pay. These monies were stolen and deposited in Swiss accounts.
It is not enough for the world to watch but the world must act whenever innocent lives are being taken by oppressive regimes. As President Obama rightly said in his statement, “The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, …” The United States must not be a lone voice that seeks to promote freedom, justice and equity in the world. The freedom of people everywhere must be the business of the United Nations. Too often, the United Nations does not enforce the rights that have been agreed upon by member nations. The organization has become a toothless bulldog. Economic Sanctions against member countries do not work but only go a long way to impoverish the common people who are themselves victims of these repressive governments.
Let me conclude by offering four modest proposals:
1. Travel restrictions should be imposed on leaders who are oppressive to their own people. This should not only be enforced by members of the G8 but all member countries of the United Nations. This should not only be limited to the President only but also his immediate family, friends and cabinet members.
2. International organizations or member countries should not extend loans or loan guarantees to both military and civilian dictators. They do not represent the will of the people and should not incur debts on behalf of the people.
3. Where there is genocide against any particular group of people, the international community must intervene, militarily when necessary. Rwanda was a shame to the international community and it is unacceptable.
4. The international community must pressure Switzerland and other countries with clandestine banking systems to make transactions more transparent. An international body of monitors should be set up to inspect international cash flows from dictatorial governments.

A DAY NIGERIANS AND IRANIANS WOULD NEVER FORGET

It was June 12, 1993. Millions of Nigerians went to the polls to cast their votes in an election that to this date has been judged to be the freest and fairest election that has ever taken place in Nigeria. I was only 15 at the time but I was engaged in the political process. After many years of military dictatorships with failed promises, Nigerians were ready for a change. We were all excited about the change that was coming with the election of a democratic president. In my lifetime, I had seen prosperity that I had enjoyed as a child being robbed from me by notorious military dictators. Through the years of military rule, my family had moved from upper middle class to lower middle class and there were reasonable chances that we were going to slip into poverty if the tide of corruption and inflation was not halted. While the two candidates representing the two national parties were not saints, there was reasonable hope that either of them would halt the depression and put the country back in the path of progress. We looked forward to June 12 so much that we named our cat, “June 12,” the last cat I would ever love.

All our hopes were lost and our dreams shattered when that election was annulled without any reason shortly after June 12. Given the intense pressure from both the international community and citizens, the then military dictator General Ibrahim Babangida stepped down and handed power to a transitional government which was overthrown within 100 days by General Sani Abacha, one of Babangida’s military cronies. That coup set democracy in Nigeria back another five years. On the 29th of May, 1999, Nigerians went to the polls to elect a democratic President after the mysterious death of General Abacha. Last month was the 10th anniversary of this new democratic experiment in Nigeria. While there are still fundamental problems in the Nigerian polity, the bleeding has stopped and the country is gradually heading the right direction. What is required of all Nigerians is patience.

The people of Iran on June 12, 2009 went to the polls to elect a president. The deteriorating economy together with the further isolation of Iran from the international community propelled millions of people to go to the polls and demand for change. Unfortunately, the Iranian establishment had their own anointed candidate. In the last few days, we have seen the streets of Iran filled with hundreds of thousands of protesters who are demanding that their votes be counted. Many of these people stood in lines for hours to cast their votes. In their peaceful demand for what is fair and just, they have been harassed, bruised and some even killed by the government that is suppose to look after their interests.

The problem in Iran is the problem of people everywhere in the world. We share not only a common citizenship, “citizens of the world,” but we are all created in the image and likeness of one God. While the US government needs to walk a delicate path, lest the Iranian leaders accuse them of being behind the crisis, the citizens must stand in solidarity with the peaceful marchers in the streets. If the millions of people in Iraq marching know that the rest of the world is behind them, they will continue peaceful demonstrations until their voices are heard. This is our opportunity to help the people of Iran build an effective democracy. Sending solidarity tweets would go a long way to encouraging them in their demand for true democracy.

On Obama’s Commencement Speech at Notre Dame

I had no interest discussing this topic in a blog post but since some of you have asked me my opinion, I feel I should share it with you. One question I received goes like this:

“Father, I am interested in your opinion on this matter. Should we not stand up and speak out against pro-abortion politicians using our universities as a platform?”

Sure. No politicians should use our universities as a platform for pro-abortion. The issue is that abortion should not be singled out. Catholic pro-life teaching extends beyond abortion. Our Catholic universities should not be used as a platform to promote torture, capital punishment, unjust wars or to deny global warming which has consequences for the wellbeing of the next generation.
It is an honor to have the President of the country give a commencement speech at a catholic university. The purpose of his commencement speech is not to tell the audience that it is okay to have an abortion. He is not there to promote pro-abortion policies. Barack Obama has repeatedly said that he is in favor of limiting the number of abortions in the country. As a church, we may disagree with him on abortion and stem cell research but there are many other policies that we do agree with him. Example: environment, poverty alleviation, torture, universal healthcare etc. These policies promote human life and dignity.
Other Republican politicians who have spoken in the past in Catholic Universities across the country do not necessarily agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church either. I did not see any negative reaction. Two notable examples: George Bush spoke at St. Vincent College in 2007. You want to know how pro-life he is and how he agrees with Catholic teaching? As governor of Texas he approved the killing of over 150 people on death row. How prolife can that be? Remember the Iraq war? Pope John Paul II told him that was an unjust war, yet, he ignored the pope and went on ahead to fight a war in which over 4000 American servicemen excluding contractors and coalition forces have died and over 600,000 Iraqis have died. While still a graduate student at The Catholic University of America, Washington DC in 2005, Dick Cheney came on campus and gave a presentation on Social Security. I did not see any protest from any group. Dick Cheney is someone who approves of Enhanced Interrogation Methods, aka, torture. Dick Cheney also does not approve of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. How Catholic are these teachings? I leave you to decide.
The church must stop being political and focus on its central mission which is to change the hearts and minds of its members.

Why the Catholic Church may lose the Abortion War

I am a pro-life Catholic and all through my life I have believed that abortion is the killing of an innocent life. I was only about 14 years old when I had the opportunity to see a video on abortion showed by my local parish. The video showed the procedure and the leaflets that were distributed afterwards showed the different growth stages of the baby in the womb. Those graphic images are still in my mind 15 years later and it is unimaginable for me that someone will perform or have an abortion. The issue of abortion is one that is of great interest to me, perhaps, because of this childhood education. As a college philosophy major, I wrote a 120 page graduation essay on the morality of Euthanasia and abortion.

            The abortion war is one that is hotly fought whenever there is a Supreme Court nominee or a democratic gets voted President. It is a war that some Catholic bishops have chosen to fight in sensational press statements and articles in diocesan newspapers. It is also a war that is fought from pulpits, in some churches, every Sunday. This war has been stepped up since Barack Obama became the democratic nominee for President and eventually was elected and sworn in as the 44^th President. They were bishops and priests who told their parishioners that if they voted for Barack Obama, they have committed a mortal sin. (I have addressed that in an earlier blog post.) More than half of all Catholics in the United States voted for Obama. This means Catholics did not even listen to their priests and bishops.

            What is more worrisome to me today is the level of militancy that is associated with the whole abortion war. You have people collecting petitions to stop Vice President Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion; Archbishop Burke saying that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius should not present herself for communion anywhere in the nation; then there is the group campaigning against Fr. Larry Snyder, the President of Catholic Charities USA serving in the President’s advisory council for Faith based initiatives. What has Fr. Larry’s service in this council got to do with abortion? In the opinion of these anti-abortion extremists, no Catholic should serve in the administration of President Obama because he is Pro-choice. People who accept public service do not serve because of the President but they serve their country.

            The church cannot win the war on abortion by taking a militant attitude in which Catholics must boycott everything Obama administration. While we disagree with his policy on abortion, there are many other good policies he has that we must use as a common ground to work for the advancement of the wellbeing of all human life. It is a mistake to look narrowly at the Catholic ethic of life only as abortion. Abortion is only one part of the church’s teaching on human life. To be Pro-life means standing against abortion, capital punishment, torture, unjust wars, hunger and disease in the world.  

Bailouts and Corporate Irresponsibility

In the last year, tax payers have been made to pay almost a trillion dollars in bailouts to Wall Street banks and corporations. The alarm was sounded that if this money is not given to them, the markets will collapse and we will experience the great depression again. Granted that I still existed in the mind of God during the great depression, I have grown up reading about this period as with most people in my generation. I have also had the privilege of knowing people who lived during that time. Hearing them tell their stories, it is the worst thing that could ever happen to my generation. While almost everyone I know was displeased with the fact that the government has to spend millions of dollars bailing out these companies, we let it happen because we did not want Great Depression 2.0. As the saying about money goes, “Money comes easy, goes easy.” The banks did not have to suffer to get this money. All they had to do was to fill a one page application form and behold they got the money. Ever tried getting a car loan or a mortgage loan from these banks before? You fill a lengthy application form and they deal with you at their own terms and most times taking advantage of your desperate situation to slam you with high interest rates. Though they were in a desperate situation, it was like the government was begging them to take the money so that they will save us. What did they do with the money? They hoard it and continued to reward themselves with billions of dollars in bonuses. Little wonder President Obama described them as “shameful” and Senator McCaskill calls them “idiots.” I will describe them as stupid and foolish. I was taught you only get a bonus when you over perform the limits set for you. My parents did not give me a bonus for being top five in class; I only got a bonus when I had A’s in all my classes. It is just plain stupid and foolish for these Wall Street executives to reward themselves for running banks and corporations to the ditches.

            You know what I think? All executives of any corporation that did not make a profit in the last year should be made to refund all bonuses that they received. The government should limit the salaries of all corporate executives to $300,000 a year. I do not think they do more work than the President of the United States, so their salaries should not be more. Employees at Citibank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America (these banks are almost Federal Government Banks) should receive Federal Civil service salaries and compensations. Given that many people invest their 401 (K)’s and pensions in Wall Street corporations, government should have regulations that control the compensation of all Wall Street executives. I know these ideas may be branded “socialism” by some. What is more socialist than a country like ours built on the principles of Capitalism and Free Market spending billions of dollars to liberate private companies?