Mr. Kaus,

I don't see what's so objectionable in the sermon you mention. I'm as white as they come - I'm from Ireland, Europe - and I have no problem with someone saying that the basic injustice in the world at this point in time still has a lot to do with the greed of white men.

I might put it in terms of the North-South divide, rather than saying black or white. But the facts are indisputable. We are still living in the aftermath of the classic colonial period. I don't dispute that development economics is a complex business; that some white people in the relevant agencies don't do a better job, for example, than some leaders in developing countries; or that African or Latin American countries don't have some of their own particular brands of greed, corruption, sometimes genocidal violence and all the other things that make it difficult to get certain countries functioning in such a way that their citizens have decent chances in life.

But overall, the broad sweep of history of the last 400 years is summed up in just two or three Randy Newman songs: "Political Science" and "The Great Nations of Europe". It's only a short time since white people eased off on raping, pillaging, torturing, killing, enslaving and burning their way across the globe, and the fact that the economic balance of power is now shifting away from the "West" to some extent has been more of an accident rather than anyone's altruistic plan to give the rest of the world a fair break.

"White man's greed" is an only slightly politically incorrect term for an obscene collection of historic facts, and I can live with it.

This kind of picking around at individual phrases in Mr. Obama's speech makes me worried about the USA. One thing strikes me about the speech and it has nothing to do with the particular issue being addressed. This speech was simply the first time in several years that the world has heard someone on the presidential level of American politics address any kind of complexity or ambiguity. The world is groaning under the weight of the "Mission accomplished" style of analysis and rhetoric. This was breath of fresh air: someone at that level admitting that things ain't so easy, and (big taboo for election campaigns everywhere!) that certain issues are not going to be fixable in one term of office!

I don't know for sure whether Barack Obama would be a better President than the last two. But this speech proves that at least he fulfils one basic requirement: he's prepared to see that not everything is as it looks on its surface. A good and inspirational man may often be flawed, and both parts are real (whether its Obama's Jeremiah Wright or Spielberg's Oskar Schindler); a grandmother may talk one way and act another; and by extension, trying to "spread freedom and democracy" could end up achieving the opposite. I like the idea of a POTUS who can accomodate such thought between his ears, and who doesn't mind being seen to do so.

Just my two cents!

yours sincerely,

Ben Hemmens

""White man's greed" is an only slightly politically incorrect term for an obscene collection of historic facts, and I can live with it." - BenHemmens

Any selective account of history can be obscene. Colonialism didn't create slavery, it created the conditions for ending it. That slavery is most likely found in non-colonial/non-white countries today attests to the origins of the anti-slavery movement (namely, England). Pluralism, secularism, self-determination and multiculturalism, all came out of colonialism.

The real problem is that if white people can be held responsible for the tragedies of colonialism past, the same means of collective responsibility can be applied to other races, and I assure you, non-whites wont fair as well in the comparison.

Even George Bush looks like a saint compared to Robert Mugabe. Should I describe Robert Mugabe as an example of black barbarity? I don't think that's particularly "ok", and neither is the idea that "white greed" has any substance whatsoever. White people are neither homogeneous in character, but even if they were treated as if they were, they wouldn't come off as particularly greedy.

Great post, thank you. It is amazing to me that so many take offense at the anger reflected by some blacks towards whites. It is as if they are surprised! Have we forgotten the role America and England played in the subjugation of blacks? Have people forgotten what it was like just 40 years ago in this country?

It wasn't an "account" of history I called obscene, It was the history itself.

Colonialism didn't create slavery, it just made more systematic use of it than the inventors.

Kind of like Hitler didn't invent poison gas or Eichmann didn't invent the railway. 

And to actually claim that colonialism had some unique role in ending slavery is grotesque.

Every civilisation has had its Wilberforces as well as its Bagosoras and Bizimungus. 

I don't believe that black people are less greedy or more saintly than white people. What one can say is that in the last couple of centuries they haven't, on average, had anything like the same chance to be greedy.

 

 

 

Great post, thank you. It is amazing to me that so many take offense at the anger reflected by some blacks towards whites. It is as if they are surprised! Have we forgotten the role America and England played in the subjugation of blacks? Have people forgotten what it was like just 40 years ago in this country?

----------

Oh fuckin' please, this "anger" is manufactured and stoked by the race-baiters like Wright, Farrahkan, Jackson, Sharpton etc, to not only make money but to get the government (and whites) to continually roll over and cave in to every demand made by these frauds. How gullible you white liberals truly are.

"It wasn't an "account" of history I called obscene, It was the history itself." - BenHemmens

You've got a problem with pluralism? Or are you excluding that part of history? What about abolition and suffrage?

"Colonialism didn't create slavery, it just made more systematic use of it than the inventors." - BenHemmens

More? Really? By what measurements are you deriving this "more"? Certainly not records. Thousands of years of slave records spanning every nation on earth are not, as far as I know, readily available. Records aren't even available for the modern slave trade. But what's most important is that slavery is an ethical problem, not a problem of volume.

"Kind of like Hitler didn't invent poison gas or Eichmann didn't invent the railway." - BenHemmens

Yeah, because the railway is ethically equivalent to slavery. Slavery has been common throughout the world. "White people" have never had a special monopoly on it, nor did they invent it. The only generalization you can make is that the people who ended slavery were mostly white.

Though, I seriously doubt this ethical position was the result of genetics.

"And to actually claim that colonialism had some unique role in ending slavery is grotesque." - BenHemmens

I guess reality is grotesque then. The anti-slavery movement began in England during the colonial period. England's isolation from its colonies, combined with the rareness of slaves in their homeland, created the conditions where a anti-slavery movement could gain ground. England ultimately went on to not only prohibit slavery (when most of the world did not), but actively policed it internationally in an effort to shut down other nations who still readily participated - mostly Africa, the Americas, and the Middle East. There's a reason why modern slavery is least likely found in former colonial powers and former colonies.

Colonialism also gave rise to pluralistic governance, the most notable, in my opinion, is the development of multiculturalism in Canada. Obviously, the problem of radically divergent populations co-existing reached a feverish pitch in colonies. These conditions prepared the ground for the development of the ethical position that recognizes racism as something that's even bad.

"What one can say is that in the last couple of centuries they haven't, on average, had anything like the same chance to be greedy." - BenHemmens

I reject the notion that the successes and failures of the West can be summed up as "greed", as I reject the notion that greed becomes more ethical when there's less to be greedy over.

Care to clear up how colonialism ended the slavery? While it is quite clear that while slavery was not a creation of sixteenth-century European Colonialists, the institutions of slavery expanded into new areas at unprecedented scales under with their colonial agenda. Yes, societies with slaves have transcended human history, but it was not until the sixteenth century that entire slave-based societies were born. Not only is it historically inaccurate to claim that colonial abolitionists ended slavery, it is a heinous and egregious misrepresentation to turn the oppressors into the liberators. This shows not only a lack of understanding about colonialism and slavery, but liberalism and abolitionism as well.

"You've got a problem with pluralism?"

No, but I sure got a problem with the idea that freedom of opinion means being able to say any damn crap that happens to be floating around between your ears and expect not to get contradicted.