|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
Posted on 07/10/2003 7:06:23 AM PDT by areafiftyone
As President Bush continues to wend his way through a five-day trip to Africa, we can see some things about our country and our special-interest groups and our ideologues as clearly as we have ever seen them.
On his first day in Africa, he gave a speech in Senegal from Goree Island, where slaves were gathered and sold to Europeans after being captured by other Africans (something self-righteous Negro Americans ignore at every turn). The speech shocked many because no Republican President since Lincoln has ever seriously addressed slavery or its consequences with such direct eloquence and depth of vision.
In fact, had a Democrat given such a speech, the civil rights establishment and our domestic left would have flipped. He would have been praised for facing up to the dark slave voyages of our history. He would have been commended for acknowledging the horrors of the plantation experience and for rightfully celebrating the ongoing struggle of black Americans that so fundamentally brought our nation closer to the ideals laid down in the Declaration of Independence. A march might have been organized in his honor.
But Bush is a Republican, which means the partisan civil rights establishment cannot acknowledge the greatness of his speech because he is not supposed to have given it, and, if he gave it, the motives could only be crass. That is why that establishment needs to reiterate the nonpartisan stance of the old leadership, which never would have sold out to the Democrats - or the Republicans!
In fact, facing up to the grandeur of the speech might begin building a bridge the civil rights establishment could cross into meetings at the Oval Office, where it could raise issues and concerns only if it ceased being committed to another party taking over in November 2004. That is, if Negro Americans and our very nation would not be better served by a generation of new black leaders who understand how important it is to voice their preferences in the ballot box, not on the campaign trail.
Where Bush goes from here is not anybody's guess. He seems to have a grand strategy both domestic and African. But black GOP insiders say that although the party is good at making promises, it has yet to create a bureaucracy focused on supporting black Republicans and getting real work done, such as fulfilling some of the promises made by the Republican National Committee to black Republicans gathered in January in Washington by Armstrong Williams.
In terms of Africa, Bush should avoid committing troops but focus on encouraging Africans to form a peacekeeping black African NATO comprised of soldiers from across sub-Saharan Africa. Any relief packages to fight AIDS must be monitored so the conventional demon of African corruption does not run off with all the money, or most of it. And that area of the world deeply needs a Radio Free Africa, which could supply people across the continent with real news, not propaganda.
If Bush gets those things done or gets them solidly started, he will have done one hell of a job in African policy. Given that speech, anything is possible.
I had no idea one didn't already exist. We must really and truly not give a fig about Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
Bush should avoid committing troops
He said that slavery was one of the great crimes of history.
Well... let's lookup history. If I'm not mistaken, slavery was quite common in history. In fact, slavery was quite common in most societies. One good example of slave owner was Abraham. Was Abraham a criminal? Maybe he was.
Then, there were other crimes in 'history'. As we all know, most Amer-Indian empires practiced mass killings of war prisoners and sometimes their own people. They were killed/dismembered by the thousands or tens of thousands and their blood was consumed by the survivors or offered to their diverse gods. Then, let's not forget Hitler - everyone is familiar with his accomplishments. Or Stalin - he too, responsible for tens of millions of dead bodies AND for millions being sent to slave labor camps. We then have Mao's re-education efforts that killed millions of Chinese. And the Cambodian death camps where about 25% of that country population was killed.
How does African slavery compare, given the historical record? Did George Bush knowingly exaggerate or were his speech writers ignorant of history?
It was imo a rather imflamatory speech ...
This coupled with an AIDS speech in Botswana
Does not put the onus of AIDS infection on the lifestyles of the infected/infectors..but promises tax payers money to fund treatment without really addressing the cause...
in any meaningfull way...they keep infecting/getting infected we pass out US tax dollars
Meanwhile muslims in Palestine blow up Israeli school children and get land and US tax dollars for their terrorism...
Of course this imo is merely trolling for votes with American sodomites and their pals
American muslims and their pals and American blacks and their pals...
All paid for by the US tax payer....
A tad too Clintonesque for my blood
Interesting term ... haven't seen it before. Is it the up-and-coming catch-phrase, or is it something Couch has coined as an alternative to "African-American"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.