#inspired certain policies in Apartheid in South Africa | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

What Is The Definition Of Republicanism

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-is-the-definition-of-republicanism/

What Is The Definition Of Republicanism

Democracy’s Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy

In this book, Sandel contrasts the tradition of civic republicanism with that of procedural liberalism in the US political history. The presentation is organized as the intertwining of philosophical and mostly historical analyses. Philosophically, based on LLJ, Sandel continuous his criticism of liberalism and argues for the idea of civic republicanism with the sense of multiply situated selves. Historically, Sandel shows, while both procedural liberalism and civic republicanism used to be present throughout American politics, American political discourse, in the recent decades, has become dominated by procedural liberalism, and has steadily crowded out the republican understandings of citizenship, which is important for self-government.

Sandel reminds us that the American Revolution was originally aspiring to generate a new community of common good. By separating from England, Americans attempt to stave off corruption and to realize republican ideals, to “renew the moral spirit that suited Americans to republican government” . Unfortunately, in the years following independence, leading politicians and writers started to worry the corruption of the public spirit by the rampant pursuit of luxury and self-interest. Nowadays, most of American practices and institutions have thoroughly embodied the philosophy of procedural liberalism. Despite its philosophical problem, it has offered the public philosophy by which Americans live.

Republicanism In The Thirteen British Colonies In North America

Republicanism in the United States

In recent years a debate has developed over the role of republicanism in the American Revolution and in the British radicalism of the 18th century. For many decades the consensus was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role.

The new interpretations were pioneered by J.G.A. Pocock, who argued in The Machiavellian Moment that, at least in the early 18th century, republican ideas were just as important as liberal ones. Pocock’s view is now widely accepted.Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood pioneered the argument that the American founding fathers were more influenced by republicanism than they were by liberalism. Cornell University professor Isaac Kramnick, on the other hand, argues that Americans have always been highly individualistic and therefore Lockean.Joyce Appleby has argued similarly for the Lockean influence on America.

In the decades before the American Revolution , the intellectual and political leaders of the colonies studied history intently, looking for models of good government. They especially followed the development of republican ideas in England. Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:

The commitment of most Americans to these republican values made the American Revolution inevitable. Britain was increasingly seen as corrupt and hostile to republicanism, and as a threat to the established liberties the Americans enjoyed.

Basic Principles Of Republican Government In The United States

The republican government in the United States has a few basic principles:

The power and authority of government comes from the people, not some supreme authority, or king.

The rights of the people are protected by a written constitution and through the vote of the people.

The citizens give power to elected representatives, based on majority rule, to serve their interests and act on their behalf.

The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.

The stability of government rests with the people and is dependent on civic involvement.

The Constitutive Notion Of Civic Republicanism: Pettit

Insofar as republican freedom is tied to power, it is essentially egalitarian. It is held to protect each individual against arbitrary power, and also to be a ‘communitarian good,’ allowing people to identify with a state that protects their freedom. This version of republican freedom is heavily influenced by Rousseau, purged of totalitarian accretions, and updated to the advanced capitalist societies of the late twentieth century. They are now explicitly inclusive, bestowing their benefits on all members of society, and also multicultural, displaying liberal neutrality toward different substantive conceptions of the good. How far such societies can provide a stable balance between the participatory core of republican freedom and the centrifugal drives of modern pluralism remains to be seen.

Andrew Tsz Wan Hung, inInternational Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2015

Understand The Factions Of Conservative Republicans

Understand the factions of conservative republicans. Conservative republicans are broken into different groups, based on the policy or issue at hand. A person might not be conservative on all issues, but is still considered a conservative republican based on his or her beliefs and practices in one certain area.

The British Empire And The Commonwealth Of Nations

In some countries of the British Empire, later the Commonwealth of Nations, republicanism has taken a variety of forms.

In Barbados, the government gave the promise of a referendum on becoming a republic in August 2008, but it was postponed due to the change of government in the 2008 election. A plan to becoming a republic was still in place in September 2020, according to the current PM, with a target date of late 2021.

In South Africa, republicanism in the 1960s was identified with the supporters of apartheid, who resented British interference in their treatment of the country’s black population.

Republicanism in Australia

In Australia, the debate between republicans and monarchists is still active, and republicanism draws support from across the political spectrum. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was a leading proponent of an Australian republic prior to joining the centre-right Liberal Party, and led the pro-republic campaign during the failed 1999 Australian republic referendum. After becoming Prime Minister in 2015, he confirmed he still supports a republic, but stated that the issue should wait until after the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. The centre-left Labor Party officially supports the abolition of the monarchy and another referendum on the issue.

Republicanism in BarbadosRepublicanism in the NetherlandsRepublicanism in Spain

Which Republican President Inspired The Teddy Bear

Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican U.S. president from 1901 to 1909, inspired the teddy bear when he refused to shoot a tied-up bear on a hunting trip. The story reached toy maker Morris Michtom, who decided to make stuffed bears as a dedication to Roosevelt. The name comes from Roosevelt’s nickname, Teddy.

See all videos for this article

Republican Party, byname Grand Old Party , in the United States, one of the two major political parties, the other being the Democratic Party. During the 19th century the Republican Party stood against the extension of slavery to the country’s new territories and, ultimately, for slavery’s complete abolition. During the 20th and 21st centuries the party came to be associated with laissez-fairecapitalism, low taxes, and conservative social policies. The party acquired the acronym GOP, widely understood as “Grand Old Party,” in the 1870s. The party’s official logo, the elephant, is derived from a cartoon by Thomas Nast and also dates from the 1870s.

Identify And Believe Like The Fiscal Conservatives

Identify and believe like the fiscal conservatives. The fiscal conservatives are based around money and government. They want the government to be smaller and to reduce its spending. The government will have less power over the people. The national debt will be repaid. Fiscal republicans are also for privatizing social security.

What Defined Republicanism As A Social Philosophy

What defined republicanism as a social philosophy? Citizenship within a republic meant accepting certain rights and responsibilities as well as cultivating virtuous behavior. This philosophy was based on the notion that the success or failure of the republic depended upon the virtue or corruption of its citizens.

Republicanism In The United States Facts For Kids

Kids Encyclopedia FactsRepublican Party republicRoman Republicelectedappointedvetoeschecks and balances

Republicanism in the United States is a set of ideas that guides the government and politics. These ideas have shaped the government, and the way people in the United States think about politics, since the American Revolution.

The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence , the Constitution , and even the Gettysburg Address were based on ideas from American republicanism.

“Republicanism” comes from the word “republic.” However, they are not the same thing. A republic is a type of government . Republicanism is an ideology – set of beliefs that people in a republic have about what is most important to them.

What Is The Definition Of Republican Government

The adjective republican describes a government made up of representatives who are elected by the citizens. If you live in the United States, you’re part of a republican system of government. In a republican government, citizens have a lot of power — their vote determines who is running the government.

So Is The United States A Democracy Or Republic

For all practical purposes, it’s both. In everyday speech and writing, you can safely refer to the US as a democracy or a republic. If you want or need to be more precise in referring to the system of the US, you can accurately call it a representative democracy. And should you need to be exacting? The US can be called a federal presidential constitutional republic or a constitutionalfederal representative democracy.

What you should take away in the confusion over democracy vs. republic is that, in both forms of government, power ultimately lies with the people who are able to vote. If you are eligible to vote—vote. It’s what, well, makes true democracies and republics.

Exercise that right to vote, whether by mail or in person. Want more information on what mail-in voting means? Read our article on absentee vs. mail-in ballots!

What Does Republicanism Mean In Your Own Words

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic with an emphasis on liberty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government.

Is The United States A Republic Or A Democracy

The following statement is often used to define the United States’ system of government: “The United States is a republic, not a democracy.” This statement suggests that the concepts and characteristics of republics and democracies can never coexist in a single form of government. However, this is rarely the case. As in the United States, most republics function as blended “representational democracies” featuring a democracy’s political powers of the majority tempered by a republic’s system of checks and balances enforced by a constitution that protects the minority from the majority.

To say that the United States is strictly a democracy suggests that the minority is completely unprotected from the will of the majority, which is not correct.

What Is The Best Definition Of Republicanism

Republicanism is a political ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it ranges from the rule of a representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty. … Republicanism may also refer to the non-ideological scientific approach to politics and governance.

Democracy Vs Republic: Is There A Difference

You probably hear countries like the United States or France referred to as democracies. At the same time, you probably also hear both of these countries called republics. Is that possible? Are democracies and republics the same thing or different?

We don’t blame you for confusing these two terms. With a major and heated US election underway, it’s the perfect time for some Government 101. Let’s brush up on these two words to see what they have in common—and what sets them apart.

Constitutional Republic Example In Obamacare

There are several examples of constitutional republic being under attack through lawsuits. These types of situations typically arise when the majority passes a law through their representatives, yet other citizens claim the law is unconstitutional. Perhaps one of the most prominent examples of this in recent history is the challenging of the Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court level.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act , which went into effect in March, 2010. The purpose of the ACA was to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who were not covered. It also sought to limit the extent to which citizens could seek health care services for which they could not – or did not – pay.

Shortly after the ACA was passed, several states and organizations – led by the state of Florida – brought lawsuits before the United States District Court in Florida, claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. Individuals Kaj Ahburg and Mary Brown also jumped on board as plaintiffs in the case.

The group’s claims were based on a number of grounds, among them was the claim that the requirement for employers to purchase health insurance for their employees interfered with state sovereignty, or the right of the state to remain independent and have control over its own decisions.

Constitutional Monarchs And Upper Chambers

Some countries turned powerful monarchs into constitutional ones with limited, or eventually merely symbolic, powers. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system, whether or not they were replaced with democratic institutions . In Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, and some other countries the monarch, or its representative, is given supreme executive power, but by convention acts only on the advice of his or her ministers. Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures, the members of which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these houses lost much power , or else became elective and remained powerful.

What Is A Republican Republican Definition

April 11, 2014 By RepublicanViews.org

This article fully answers what a Republican is and gives the definition of a Republican in a fair, unbiased, and well-researched way. To start the article we list out the definition of a Republican, then we cover the Republican Party’s core beliefs, then we list out the Republican Party’s beliefs on all the major issues.

The Definition of a Republican: a member of the Republican party of the U.S.

Classical Republicanism And Natural Rights

Classical republicanism promoted the natural rights philosophy, which is echoed in the Declaration of Independence. Natural rights are those rights that are not dependent on, nor can they be changed by, manmade laws, cultural customs, or the beliefs of any culture or government. These rights include such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Other natural rights include the right to protect oneself from physical harm, the right to worship as one chooses, the right to express oneself, among others.

The reason why classical republicanism is so prevalent in the Declaration of Independence is because of the colonists’ recognition of the fact that they wanted their government to be vastly different from that of the British parliament. They believed that they were following their civic duty by separating from Britain for the purposes of preserving the “common good.”

Republican Liberty: Problems And Debates

The appeal of the republican conception of political liberty asindependence from the arbitrary power of a master is perhapsunderstandable. This is not to say, however, that this conception isuncontroversial. Before discussing its role in developing contemporarycivic republican arguments, we should consider various problems anddebates surrounding the republican idea of freedom.

What Is The Best Example Of An Oligarchy

Examples of a historical oligarchies are Sparta and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A modern example of oligarchy could be seen in South Africa during the 20th century. Here, the basic characteristics of oligarchy are particularly easy to observe, since the South African form of oligarchy was based on race.

What Does The Republican Party Stand For

The Republican Party was initially created to advocate for a free-market economy that countered the Democratic Party’s agrarian leanings and support of slave labour. In recent history, the Republicans have been affiliated with reducing taxes to stimulate the economy, deregulation, and conservative social values.

Examples Of Republicanism In A Sentence

republicanism CNNrepublicanismThe New Republicrepublicanism WSJrepublicanismCNNrepublicanism WSJrepublicanismThe New York Review of Booksrepublicanism The New York Review of BooksrepublicanismThe New York Review of Books

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word ‘republicanism.’ Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

What Is The Idea Of Republicanism Apush

the ideology of governing the nation as a republic, where the head of state is not appointed through hereditary means, but usually through an election , A philosophy of limited government with elected representatives serving at the will of the people. The government is based on consent of the governed.

Political Liberty Positive And Negative

It is notorious that there are several competing conceptions ofpolitical liberty. The now standard account was laid down mostinfluentially by Isaiah Berlin in his famous lecture on “TwoConcepts of Liberty” . According to the first,‘negative’ conception of liberty, people are free simply tothe extent that their choices are not interfered with. There are manyvariations on this conception, depending on how exactly one wants todefine ‘interference’, but they all have in common thebasic intuition that to be free is, more or less, to be left alone todo whatever one chooses. This idea of negative liberty Berlinassociates especially with the classic English political philosophersHobbes, Bentham, and J. S. Mill, and it is today probably the dominantconception of liberty, particularly among contemporary Anglo-Americanphilosophers. In Mill’s well-known words, “the only freedomwhich deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our ownway, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs”.

The troubling implications of the positive conception of liberty arewell-known, and need not be rehearsed at length here. For the most part, thesestem from the problem that freedom in the positive sense would seem tolicense fairly extensive coercion on behalf of individuals’allegedly ‘real’ interests—for example, coercivelyforcing the gambler to quit on the presumption that this is, in fact,what he really wants to do . Regardingthis danger, Berlin writes:

Republicanism Law And Legal Definition

Republicanism is the imaginary or visionary theorization of governing a nation as a republic. It refers to a form of government where the head of state is appointed for a specific period by means of elections. These leaders, rather than a select aristocracy make laws for the benefit of the entire republic. The exact meaning of republicanism varies depending on the cultural and historical context. However, in an ideal republic, head of the state are selected from among the working people; they serve the republic for a defined period, and then return to their work. The key conceptions of republicanism includes the importance of civic virtue, the benefits of universal political participation, the dangers of corruption, the necessity of separate powers and a healthy attitude for the rule of law.

The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. The duty was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there..

Republicanism Example In Rhode Island

An example of republicanism disputes involved the state of Rhode Island, and came about in 1841. At that time, Rhode Island’s government was still operating under the outdated terms established in 1663 by a royal charter. This charter placed a strict restriction on who was allowed to vote, and didn’t allow for amendments to the law. Groups who were protesting the charter held a convention to enforce the drafting of a new constitution, as well as to overthrow the state government and elect a governor. This movement was known as the “Dorr Rebellion.”

The rebellion started off as a peaceful political protest, but it ultimately turned violent. As a result, the old charter government declared martial law for the area, meaning that a temporary law was imposed and enforced by military forces. Martial law is typically only imposed when the civilian government has been declared broken, or during times of civil unrest.

The state legislature required that federal troops be dispatched to the area to break up the rebellion, but President John Tyler ultimately decided not to send the soldiers in because he felt that the threat of domestic violence was fading significantly as time went on. The rebellion was squashed when Dorr decided to disband the group, after realizing that he would ultimately be defeated in battle by the approaching militia.

Republican Freedom And The Human Good

So far we have assumed that, however ultimately defined, republicanfreedom is always a good thing. Some have wondered whether this is thecase, however. This objection is most often expressed via the exampleof benevolent care-giving relationships. On the republican view thatone enjoys freedom only to the extent that one is independent fromarbitrary power, it would seem that children do not enjoy republicanfreedom with respect to their parents. But surely, one might suppose,the parent-child relationship is an extremely valuableone, and so we would not want greater republican freedom in such acontext. Republican freedom is, perhaps, not always a good thing.

What Is Republicanism In Simple Terms

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic with an emphasis on liberty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. … More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government.

What Is The Significance Of Oligarchy

The people in this group do not have to be related and their power is most often based on wealth and/or power. The significance of an oligarchy is that these people are only able to get what they want through the formation of an oligarchy and these people hold absolute and unchallengeable authority.

Definition Of A Republican Government

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands… Most Americans grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school, but just what is a republic?

The word republic, comes from the Latin res publica, or public thing, and refers to a form of government where the citizens act for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler or king. A republican government is one in which the political authority comes from the people. In the United States, power is given to the government by its citizens as written in the U.S. Constitution and through its elected representatives.

Belief in republicanism helped bring about the American Revolution and the United States Constitution. The American colonists were influenced by the writings of Thomas Paine. In his 50-page pamphlet Common Sense, written in 1776, Paine made the argument for political independence from Britain, a representative government, and a written constitution for the colonies. Paine felt the monarch had no place in government and that the people themselves were the legitimate authority for government.

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

Advantages Of A Republican Government

Have you ever given up your own interests to do something that is good for everyone? In a republican government, selfish interests are given up for the common good of the country. Let’s take a look at more advantages of a republican government.

Laws made by elected representatives are meant to be fair. If people find laws unfair, they can elect other leaders who can change those laws.

A republic allows greater freedom and prosperity. Economic pursuit benefits the entire nation and people are able to live well.

When government serves the interests of the entire country, we say it is serving the common welfare.

There is wider participation in the political process. According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal; therefore, it did not matter if you were a small farmer or a powerful aristocrat. Ordinary people are welcome to participate in government.

Leaders emerge based on people’s talents, not their birthright.

Civic virtue is promoted. Civic virtue includes demonstrating civic knowledge , self-restraint, self-assertion, and self-reliance.

Change and reform come about by vote, not by force.

Attributes Of A Republican Government

Power and authority in the government come from the people

Rights of the citizens are protected through a constitution and voting

Power is distributed to representatives based on majority rule

Representatives are responsible for helping everyone in the country and not just a few people

The involvement of people in the government is what guarantees government stability

Rulers are chosen for their skills and do not gain power based on birthright

Civilians participate in the government processes

The country’s economic pursuits benefit the whole nation

Examples Of Republican In A Sentence

RepublicanRepublicansRepublican Partyrepublicanrepublicans National Reviewrepublican NBC Newsrepublicans NBC Newsrepublicans BostonGlobe.comrepublicansNBC Newsrepublicans WSJrepublicans The Economistrepublicans Indianapolis Starrepublican The New Republicrepublican The Economistrepublican Bloomberg.comrepublican The Atlanticrepublican Harper’s BAZAARrepublican BostonGlobe.comrepublican The New Republicrepublican BostonGlobe.com

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word ‘republican.’ Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

Key Takeaways: Republic Vs Democracy

Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.

In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.

In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”

In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain “inalienable” rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.

The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it is a hybrid democratic republic.

The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.

Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic:

Constitutional Republic Vs Democracy

Some believe that the United States is a democracy, but it is actually the perfect example of a constitutional republic. A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. In a republic, however, elected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people. The Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942 as the official pledge, even makes reference to the fact that the U.S. is a republic:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The Anti-Federalists and Federalists, as the new nation was being formed, could not agree on how involved the federal government should be in citizens’ lives; a decision on a pure democracy could never be reached. Alexander Hamilton, himself a Federalist, stated that the government being created was a “republican government,” and that true freedom would not be found in a dictatorship nor a true democracy, but in a moderate government.

The following table outlines some of the differences between a constitutional republic and a democracy:

Republicanism And Fundamental Rights

The foregoing discussion should not be construed as implying a necessary correlation between, on the one hand, liberalism and democracy, and, on the other, communitarianism and authoritarianism. Some versions of communitarianism approach a pure, popular democracy more closely than do some versions of liberalism, which would expressly renounce pure democracy. If a society is to be governed by a principle of collective welfare, and if notions of collective welfare are to be ascertained by consensus, then majority rule provides sufficient justification for deciding which acts should be penalized. No additional justification, with reference to the specific harm that would be caused by penalized acts, would be required. If the majority wishes to penalize gambling, alcohol consumption, flag burning, contraception, or homosexuality, then it may do so with no greater notion of harm than the sentiment that individuals and society would be better off without such things.

Ordinary right Putative harm caused by exercise of right Exercise of right may be penalized without special justification Exercise of right may not be penalized without special justification

Wilfried Nippel, inInternational Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 2015

Republicanism In The United Kingdom

Republicanism in the United Kingdom is the political movement that seeks to replace the United Kingdom‘s monarchy with a republic. Supporters of the movement, called republicans, support alternative forms of governance to a monarchy, such as an elected head of state, or no head of state at all.

Monarchy has been the form of government used in the countries that now make up the United Kingdom almost exclusively since the Middle Ages. A republican government existed in England and Wales, later along with Ireland and Scotland, in the mid-17th century as a result of the Parliamentarian victory in the English Civil War. The Commonwealth of England, as the period was called, lasted from the execution of Charles I in 1649 until the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

What Are The Ideas Of Republicanism

It stresses liberty and inalienable individual rights as central values; recognizes the sovereignty of the people as the source of all authority in law; rejects monarchy, aristocracy, and hereditary political power; expects citizens to be virtuous and faithful in their performance of civic duties; and vilifies …

0 notes

blogbamnbyanymeansnecessary-blog · 6 years

Text

America Owes Us for the Ongoing Destruction of Afrikan Life! Reparations Now!

From the New Afrikan People’s Organization and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement

The New Afrikan People’s Organization is a revolutionary organization dedicated to independence and socialism for Afrikan descendants in the U.S. empire. NAPO is also committed to Pan-Afrikanism and anti-imperialist solidarity.

The Malcolm X Grassroots Movement is the mass association and political action wing of NAPO. MXGM is committed to self-determination, reparations, human rights for New Afrikan people and opposes sexism and genocidal policies of the US empire.

As Pan-Africanists and anti-imperialists, NAPO and MXGM stands firmly in solidarity with the struggle of Afrikan and indigenous peoples for reparations internationally as well as inside the United States. The following statement outlines our understanding of both the importance of an international struggle for reparations for our people’s and other people’s centuries long struggle to end colonial domination and slavery.

What are Reparations?

Reparations are compensation for damages inflicted on groups or individuals. The responsible party attempts to bring peace and justice by compensating the afflicted party. Reparations are an established principle in international law. The international community has held violators of human rights responsible to redress the damages it was responsible for. For example, Germany was forced to pay Israel because of its genocidal practices against Jewish people in the 1930’s and 1940’s and Iraq was forced to compensate Kuwait after the Gulf War. The United States government agreed to compensate Japanese Americans for internment in concentration camps and seizing their property during the second World Imperialist War (a.k.a. World War II).

Why Should Afrikans in the United States receive reparations?

The history of Afrikans in the United States (U.S.) is an indictment against the U.S. government in terms of violations of human rights and genocide. The U.S. government is responsible for compensating Afrikans who descendants of those Afrikans are who were held captive in North America. For twenty-five years (1783 to 1808), the United States allowed Afrikans to be legally brought into its borders. They received import duties on each captive Afrikan brought to its shores during that time. In winning its war of independence from England, the U.S. decided to maintain a system of slavery with Afrikans as its primary labor force. Despite continued individual and collective resistance by Afrikans, the American system of slavery created physical, psychological and social damage on the Afrikan population.

After slavery was declared illegal (except for punishment for “crimes”), the Americans institutionalized a system of colonial apartheid called segregation or “Jim Crow” which limited the life chances and the social and economic development of the Afrikan population in North America. From the 1870’s until the early 1920’s, the American government allowed terrorist violence against Afrikans to go virtually unchecked by its “law enforcement.”

While the American government has declared its brand of apartheid illegal, this system is so institutionalized it is maintained in most aspects of social life in the United States, including the economic system, health care, housing, and education. Afrikan people are disproportionately targeted for police harassment and mass incarceration. White supremacy continues to affect the political, economic, and social life of Afrikans in the U.S.

Is the Demand for Reparations a new issue?

After the American Civil War, Afrikans began to demand land as a form of compensation for years of unpaid labor. The slogan “Forty Acres and a Mule” is rooted in this aspiration. Fear of an Afrikan uprising for land existed throughout the southern American states. In Virginia, Tennessee and Georgia, American troops put down attempts by Afrikans to seize land.

In the 1890’s there were several efforts by Afrikans to achieve reparations. The National Ex-Slave Mutual Relief Bounty and Pension Association, headed by Callie House and Isaiah Dickerson, was a southern-based reparations movement possessed over 10,000 members. Henry McNeal Turner, a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church, called for reparations to allow our people to repatriate to Afrika.

Queen Mother (Audley) Moore represents the most tireless worker for Afrikan reparations in the Afrikan descendant movement in the U.S. A former member of Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association and the Communist Party of the U.S., Queen Mother began to advocate reparations in the 1950’s. She convinced Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X to include it in the program of the Nation of Islam. She also convinced other nationalists, including Imari Obadele, founder of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika, Oserjiman Adefumi, the founder of Oyotunji Village in South Carolina and leader of the Yoruba and traditional African religious revival movement in the U.S., as well as, Muhammad Ahmad (Max Stanford) of the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), to advocate reparations. Inspired by Queen Mother Moore, Black Power organizations like the Revolutionary Action Movement, Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, and the Black Panther Party advocated reparations. Most national Black Power gatherings endorsed the concept of reparations. After the Black Economic Development Conference called for reparations in 1970, activists like Jim Forman initiated a direct-action campaign targeting predominately white Christian churches demanding reparations. This forced white denominations to direct funds to Afrikan communities.

Since 1987, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA) has led the effort to achieve reparations for Afrikan descendants in the United States. NCOBRA is a united front of activists who advocate reparations. The Lost Found Nation of Islam, under the leadership of Silas Muhammad, has initiated efforts to gain international support for reparations. From 1989 until his tenure in the United States Congress ended in 2017, Representative John Conyers submitted H.R. 40, a bill to study reparations in the House of Representatives. The Conyers bill has never made it out of the Judicial committee to the floor of Congress. Several city governments, including Atlanta and Detroit have passed resolutions in support of reparations. The 2000 release of the book The Debt: What America Owes Blacks by human rights advocate Randall Robinson re-introduced the demand reparations in popular discourse. Journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates 2014 article “A Case for Reparations” invigorated the dialogue in the United States.

Global developments

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the movement towards the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa increased international momentum of African peoples towards reparations. The struggle resulted in a resolution in which the United Nations declared the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade “A Crime Against Humanity.” This was considered a significant victory for the reparations movement. Unfortunately, two events disrupted the forward motion.

First, three days after the conclusion of the conference, the attacks on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington D.C., overshadowed the victory at the WCAR for U.S. based reparations activists. Secondly, the follow up Conference Against Racism in Barbados was divided by a conflict over including people of white European origin in the conference. Despite these setbacks, Afro-descendant movements in South America, notably Brazil and Venezuela, have achieved momentum post-Durban.

Additionally, a significant blow to the international reparation movement occurred after the U.S. sponsored coup in 2004 of the Lavalas government headed by Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. The Aristide government had demanded twenty-one billion dollars in reparations from France, which had coerced Haiti to compensate the French government for its liberation from French colonialism. The demand for restitution remains a popular demand in Haiti despite the kidnapping of President Aristide and his seven-year banishment from Haiti.

The 2013 CARICOM countries 10 point-plan for reparations from European countries is an important development in re-asserting the demand for economic justice and for respect for the lives and humanity of our Ancestors. It also inspired reparations advocates inside the U.S. empire.

What type of redress does NAPO and the MXGM argue should be sought?

There are various proposals for reparations. The relationship between Afrikans and the United States has been an experience of conflict. The New Afrikan People’s Organization (NAPO) and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) argue that Afrikan people and the United States will never have peace until reparations have been achieved on certain fundamental levels. The U.S. is in denial in terms of its crimes against the Afrikan population within its borders. Just as individuals engaged in therapy, America must first recognize its role in the oppression. The United States must acknowledge its violations against Afrikan people. Admitting to its role and apologies are not sufficient acts of justice. Acknowledgment of its human rights violations is a prerequisite to action to resolve the conflict between the United States and Afrikans.

Most reparation proposals offer financial compensation to Afrikans in America in terms of monetary payments, tax relief, or support for education. While all of these are valid there are other elements of redress which NAPO/MXGM and other forces in the New Afrikan Independence Movement are concerned. We do not believe compensating individuals thousands of dollars is a meaningful way to heal the damages experienced by Afrikans in America. Given the current balance of power and capitalist economic arrangements, individual stipends would primarily stimulate the American economy not empower the Afrikan community. We are concerned with reparation proposals that encourage our collective development and enable our people to ensure our future. The first things that our enslaved Ancestors lost were their identity and freedom. After the end of chattel slavery, our Ancestors were never allowed to choose their national identity or their relationship to the government, which sanctioned their captivity and enslavement. We should be allowed to determine what a free existence is for us, through a plebiscite. A plebiscite is a vote taken by a people to determine their national will. Some of us would prefer to be U.S. citizens. Some would prefer to be repatriated to Africa. Those of us in the New Afrikan Independence Movement desire an Afrikan government in North America on territory that our Ancestors were enslaved on and forced to work without compensation. As part of our compensation, the United States should honor and respect our right to self-determination, our choices of how We want to be free. The United States should not deny us the right to organize a vote to determine how We wish to be free nor should the US attempt to manipulate that vote. After We determine our respective choices the United States should be obligated to fulfill our demands of freedom. This is real justice!

Another form of redress is for the United States government to release all political prisoners, and prisoners of war and allow all Afrikan political exiles to return to North America, if they choose to do so. The war the United States waged on the Afrikan freedom struggle in this country is the reason political prisoners, prisoners of war and exiles exist. No real redress can exist while there is captivity or isolation of Afrikan freedom fighters.

How does NAPO and the MXGM think reparations will be achieved?

Frederick Douglas once said, “power concedes nothing without a demand.” The United States will not give us anything unless it is forced to. We might still be in slavery if our Ancestors did not strike for their freedom during the American Civil War. Without active struggle, Afrikans would not be able to vote or enjoy other things now considered basic rights in the U.S. empire. Reparations will only be achieved through a massive movement by Afrikans militantly challenging the empire. If We don’t seriously fight for it, We will never get reparations or anything else important to our existence.

We must as a people reach a consensus on reparations. As We reach a consensus, We must challenge the imperialist state on reparations. If We are serious about reparations We will not allow business as usual to occur within the empire until We get it. Without reparations, we won’t have justice and without justice for our Ancestors, and ourselves, We shouldn’t allow the U.S. empire to live in peace. This is the only way We will achieve reparations.

FREE THE LAND! RESIST SETTLER COLONIALISM AND US IMPERIALISM!

4 notes · View notes

csrgood · 4 years

Text

Meet the Inspirational Leader of UN Women

HP Inc. Garage blog

By Angela Matusik

When Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka was a young girl in South Africa, she saw firsthand what fearless women could do. “The women in my community were leading in the times of apartheid, in very risky situations,” she recalls. “They were the ones that went out when the police were repressing people, and the men were running to hide.”

The South African politician, activist, and executive director of UN Women, Mlambo-Ngcuka has devoted her career to issues of human rights, equality, and social justice, both in the public and private sectors. She has declared 2020 “a year for women” with her “Generation Equality” initiative. The intent is to focus on the benefits of gender equality, not only for women and girls, “but for everyone whose lives will be changed by a fairer world,” she says.

If governments, humanitarian organizations, and global activists could wave a magic wand and drastically change the fates of millions of women all over the world, they would have to wish for one thing: an education for each of them. It’s the biggest game-changer for women in the developing world, beyond access to basics such as safe housing, clean water, and healthcare.

“When you create opportunity for women, you actually unleash a force for good,” Mlambo-Ngcuka says. “Working with women introduces additional power that makes the world a better place.”

Mlambo-Ngcuka reflected on the recently-opened HP LIFE Centers in the municipality of Huixquilucan in greater Mexico City, and the municipalities of Zapopan and Jocotepec in Jalisco state, the fruition of a key partnership announced last fall between HP and the United Nations. HP provided technology grants to these centers, where women can learn digital literacy and job-building skills through the HP Foundation’s free online learning platform, HP LIFE.

“Education is a fundamental human right and essential to achieve gender equality,” says Michele Malejki, global head of sustainability and social impact programs at HP. “The collaboration with UN Women’s Second Chance Education program will empower thousands of women and girls by providing direct access to 21st Century skills that support employment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunities.”

This month, the world marks International Women’s Day on March 8 and brings into the spotlight the disparities in access to education, training, and jobs that billions of women still face.

It’s one of the reasons that HP is also partnering with UN Women under UN Women’s Second Chance Education Initiative, with support from BHP Foundation, to expand digital learning opportunities for women and girls in five African countries: Senegal, South Africa, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Morocco.

Mlambo-Ngcuka is a committed partner of HP and is helping the company make progress toward its goal of enabling better learning outcomes for 100 million people by 2025.

“When you think of a leader, certain qualities often come to mind: focused, intelligent, and impactful, to name a few,” HP’s Malejki says. “Executive Phumzile embodies all of these and brings purpose-driven, authentic leadership to UN Women. We couldn’t be more proud to partner with her and are excited by what’s to come.”

The Garage caught up with Mlambo-Ngcuka in New York.

You’ve had such an amazing life as an advocate, politician, leader — always advancing equality and opportunity. How did this come to be your passion and purpose?

At a very young age, I was exposed to the power of community work. My mother was a community worker, and she ran literacy classes at home. I was surprised to see that the women, which I had known in my community, could not read or write. Because for me, they were already role models. I wanted to help provide them with additional skills so they could become more impactful people in society.

Growing up in South Africa, what role did women play in the leadership you witnessed?

Women’s leadership was always something to marvel, especially when you see it happen in very risky situations in South Africa. They were the ones that went out when the police were killing and repressing people… The women would just go out there and stand in front of the police fence and face them, and demand for the police to leave their children. That courage was just amazing and it made you feel that, ‘When I grow up, I want to be that woman too.’

Tell us about the organization you lead now, UN Women.

Well, UN Women is the agency of the United Nations that is responsible for advancing gender equality. We work with member states to help them either deal with the laws that discriminate against women or put in place laws that will advance gender equality. We deal with the whole United Nation system in order to ensure that our sister agencies are doing their bits because they also have expertise that we don't have. We pilot programs in the field to check that the policies that we're pushing on member states actually work. We test them and we are then able to promote them because we have seen for ourselves that the policies are working.

What sort of challenges do women face when it comes to being able to pursue the career of their choice?

I have to say, first, that in the last 25 years, especially, girls’ education has advanced a lot. Member states have invested a lot in girls’ education, especially, in the countries that started at the bottom. In most countries, we saw girls enrollment and presence in school reaching parity with boys. In some it even exceeded it.

However, even with all that effort, there are 263 million girls who are out of school. That means that they are likely to marry too early, because if they are not at school, they are likely not just to be at home. There are girls who are unable to take care of their health needs and the health needs of their family who do not have the means to contribute to the economy to support themselves. As a result, they depend on partners who sometimes, and most of the time, actually, abuse them.

How do your programs help?

One of the reasons why we appreciate the partnership that we have with HP is that it brings investment. It provides second chance education for girls who otherwise would have dropped out of school. It provides learning to earn because in some cases, the girls are already young women and not children that can sit in a classroom. We also are able to introduce and expose girls to technology.

What role does technology play?

Well, technology can be an equalizer, but it’s not automatic. Technology also can be a discriminator. Those who have it will advance much further and widen the gap between the technology haves and the technology have-nots. If you just introduce technology without hand holding those who are likely to be left behind, there's always a risk that you’ll make the inequality worse.

How do the HP LIFE Centers help with that?

They provide us with an opportunity to leapfrog women into the 21st Century in a place where we can use content that is already tried and tested. We are seeing that, especially, in the program in Mexico. The women who are participating in the program are really gaining power. And because HP LIFE is also online, it can be accessed by many people all over the world. It gives us the potential to scale much more quickly and creates a community of best practices. Our responsibility is then to organize people, women, and to make them aware of this opportunity, to support and accompany them in their journey.

Why is it important to invest in this work?

There are as many as 500 million women between the ages of 15 and 24 who are illiterate. They are young enough to have a long life ahead of them, so you cannot give up on them. It's important to invest in them. I have seen women who have had a second chance education become community workers, learning to move in their community with newly gained skills that help other mothers to look after their own children. For example, they can teach people in the community about nutrition and the importance of boiling water.

Read about six more inspiring leaders who are making human rights their everyday mission.

source: https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/43946-Meet-the-Inspirational-Leader-of-UN-Women?tracking_source=rss

#CSR #corporate social responsibility #social good #philanthropy #employee engagement #workplace givi

0 notes

clusterassets · 6 years

Text

New world news from Time: ‘We Now Stand at a Crossroads.’ Here’s What Barack Obama Said During His First Big Speech Since He Left Office

Former President Barack Obama gave his first significant speech since he left the Oval Office on Tuesday, commemorating the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth.

Speaking to a crowd of around 15,000 people at the 16th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg, Obama called the South African political leader “one of history’s true giants” and someone whose “progressive, democratic vision” helped shape international policies.

Obama touched on numerous topics ranging from the need to stand up for democracy and believe in facts to the current state of politics, though he never mentioned President Donald Trump by name.

“I am not being alarmist, I’m simply stating the facts,” Obama said. “Look around — strongman politics are ascendant, suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained, the form of it, but those in powers seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.”

“Too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth,” Obama said. “People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up.”

Obama also made a reference to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, saying social media “has proved to be just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda and conspiracy theories.”

You can read the full transcript of Obama’s speech in South Africa below:

Thank you. To Mama Graça Machel, members of the Mandela family, the Machel family, to President Ramaphosa who you can see is inspiring new hope in this great country – professor, doctor, distinguished guests, to Mama Sisulu and the Sisulu family, to the people of South Africa – it is a singular honor for me to be here with all of you as we gather to celebrate the birth and life of one of history’s true giants.

Let me begin by a correction and a few confessions. The correction is that I am a very good dancer. I just want to be clear about that. Michelle is a little better.

The confessions. Number one, I was not exactly invited to be here. I was ordered in a very nice way to be here by Graça Machel.

Confession number two: I forgot my geography and the fact that right now it’s winter in South Africa. I didn’t bring a coat, and this morning I had to send somebody out to the mall because I am wearing long johns. I was born in Hawaii.

Confession number three: When my staff told me that I was to deliver a lecture, I thought back to the stuffy old professors in bow ties and tweed, and I wondered if this was one more sign of the stage of life that I’m entering, along with gray hair and slightly failing eyesight. I thought about the fact that my daughters think anything I tell them is a lecture. I thought about the American press and how they often got frustrated at my long-winded answers at press conferences, when my responses didn’t conform to two-minute soundbites. But given the strange and uncertain times that we are in – and they are strange, and they are uncertain – with each day’s news cycles bringing more head-spinning and disturbing headlines, I thought maybe it would be useful to step back for a moment and try to get some perspective. So I hope you’ll indulge me, despite the slight chill, as I spend much of this lecture reflecting on where we’ve been, and how we arrived at this present moment, in the hope that it will offer us a roadmap for where we need to go next.

One hundred years ago, Madiba was born in the village of M – oh, see there, I always get that – I got to get my Ms right when I’m in South Africa. Mvezo – I got it. Truthfully, it’s because it’s so cold, my lips stuck. So in his autobiography he describes a happy childhood; he’s looking after cattle, he’s playing with the other boys, eventually attends a school where his teacher gave him the English name Nelson. And as many of you know, he’s quoted saying, ‘Why she bestowed this particular name upon me, I have no idea.’

There was no reason to believe that a young black boy at this time, in this place, could in any way alter history. After all, South Africa was then less than a decade removed from full British control. Already, laws were being codified to implement racial segregation and subjugation, the network of laws that would be known as apartheid. Most of Africa, including my father’s homeland, was under colonial rule. The dominant European powers, having ended a horrific world war just a few months after Madiba’s birth, viewed this continent and its people primarily as spoils in a contest for territory and abundant natural resources and cheap labor. And the inferiority of the black race, an indifference towards black culture and interests and aspirations, was a given.

And such a view of the world – that certain races, certain nations, certain groups were inherently superior, and that violence and coercion is the primary basis for governance, that the strong necessarily exploit the weak, that wealth is determined primarily by conquest – that view of the world was hardly confined to relations between Europe and Africa, or relations between whites and blacks. Whites were happy to exploit other whites when they could. And by the way, blacks were often willing to exploit other blacks. And around the globe, the majority of people lived at subsistence levels, without a say in the politics or economic forces that determined their lives. Often they were subject to the whims and cruelties of distant leaders. The average person saw no possibility of advancing from the circumstances of their birth. Women were almost uniformly subordinate to men. Privilege and status was rigidly bound by caste and color and ethnicity and religion. And even in my own country, even in democracies like the United States, founded on a declaration that all men are created equal, racial segregation and systemic discrimination was the law in almost half the country and the norm throughout the rest of the country.

That was the world just 100 years ago. There are people alive today who were alive in that world. It is hard, then, to overstate the remarkable transformations that have taken place since that time. A second World War, even more terrible than the first, along with a cascade of liberation movements from Africa to Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, would finally bring an end to colonial rule. More and more peoples, having witnessed the horrors of totalitarianism, the repeated mass slaughters of the 20th century, began to embrace a new vision for humanity, a new idea, one based not only on the principle of national self-determination, but also on the principles of democracy and rule of law and civil rights and the inherent dignity of every single individual.

In those nations with market-based economies, suddenly union movements developed; and health and safety and commercial regulations were instituted; and access to public education was expanded; and social welfare systems emerged, all with the aim of constraining the excesses of capitalism and enhancing its ability to provide opportunity not just to some but to all people. And the result was unmatched economic growth and a growth of the middle class. And in my own country, the moral force of the civil rights movement not only overthrew Jim Crow laws but it opened up the floodgates for women and historically marginalized groups to reimagine themselves, to find their own voices, to make their own claims to full citizenship.

It was in service of this long walk towards freedom and justice and equal opportunity that Nelson Mandela devoted his life. At the outset, his struggle was particular to this place, to his homeland – a fight to end apartheid, a fight to ensure lasting political and social and economic equality for its disenfranchised non-white citizens. But through his sacrifice and unwavering leadership and, perhaps most of all, through his moral example, Mandela and the movement he led would come to signify something larger. He came to embody the universal aspirations of dispossessed people all around the world, their hopes for a better life, the possibility of a moral transformation in the conduct of human affairs.

Madiba’s light shone so brightly, even from that narrow Robben Island cell, that in the late ‘70s he could inspire a young college student on the other side of the world to reexamine his own priorities, could make me consider the small role I might play in bending the arc of the world towards justice. And when later, as a law student, I witnessed Madiba emerge from prison, just a few months, you’ll recall, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, I felt the same wave of hope that washed through hearts all around the world.

Do you remember that feeling? It seemed as if the forces of progress were on the march, that they were inexorable. Each step he took, you felt this is the moment when the old structures of violence and repression and ancient hatreds that had so long stunted people’s lives and confined the human spirit – that all that was crumbling before our eyes. And then as Madiba guided this nation through negotiation painstakingly, reconciliation, its first fair and free elections; as we all witnessed the grace and the generosity with which he embraced former enemies, the wisdom for him to step away from power once he felt his job was complete, we understood that – we understood it was not just the subjugated, the oppressed who were being freed from the shackles of the past. The subjugator was being offered a gift, being given a chance to see in a new way, being given a chance to participate in the work of building a better world.

And during the last decades of the 20th century, the progressive, democratic vision that Nelson Mandela represented in many ways set the terms of international political debate. It doesn’t mean that vision was always victorious, but it set the terms, the parameters; it guided how we thought about the meaning of progress, and it continued to propel the world forward. Yes, there were still tragedies – bloody civil wars from the Balkans to the Congo. Despite the fact that ethnic and sectarian strife still flared up with heartbreaking regularity, despite all that as a consequence of the continuation of nuclear détente, and a peaceful and prosperous Japan, and a unified Europe anchored in NATO, and the entry of China into the world’s system of trade – all that greatly reduced the prospect of war between the world’s great powers. And from Europe to Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, dictatorships began to give way to democracies. The march was on. A respect for human rights and the rule of law, enumerated in a declaration by the United Nations, became the guiding norm for the majority of nations, even in places where the reality fell far short of the ideal. Even when those human rights were violated, those who violated human rights were on the defensive.

And with these geopolitical changes came sweeping economic changes. The introduction of market-based principles, in which previously closed economies along with the forces of global integration powered by new technologies, suddenly unleashed entrepreneurial talents to those that once had been relegated to the periphery of the world economy, who hadn’t counted. Suddenly they counted. They had some power; they had the possibilities of doing business. And then came scientific breakthroughs and new infrastructure and the reduction of armed conflicts. And suddenly a billion people were lifted out of poverty, and once-starving nations were able to feed themselves, and infant mortality rates plummeted. And meanwhile, the spread of the internet made it possible for people to connect across oceans, and cultures and continents instantly were brought together, and potentially, all the world’s knowledge could be in the hands of a small child in even the most remote village.

That’s what happened just over the course of a few decades. And all that progress is real. It has been broad, and it has been deep, and it all happened in what – by the standards of human history – was nothing more than a blink of an eye. And now an entire generation has grown up in a world that by most measures has gotten steadily freer and healthier and wealthier and less violent and more tolerant during the course of their lifetimes.

It should make us hopeful. But if we cannot deny the very real strides that our world has made since that moment when Madiba took those steps out of confinement, we also have to recognize all the ways that the international order has fallen short of its promise. In fact, it is in part because of the failures of governments and powerful elites to squarely address the shortcomings and contradictions of this international order that we now see much of the world threatening to return to an older, a more dangerous, a more brutal way of doing business.

So we have to start by admitting that whatever laws may have existed on the books, whatever wonderful pronouncements existed in constitutions, whatever nice words were spoken during these last several decades at international conferences or in the halls of the United Nations, the previous structures of privilege and power and injustice and exploitation never completely went away. They were never fully dislodged. Caste differences still impact the life chances of people on the Indian subcontinent. Ethnic and religious differences still determine who gets opportunity from the Central Europe to the Gulf. It is a plain fact that racial discrimination still exists in both the United States and South Africa. And it is also a fact that the accumulated disadvantages of years of institutionalized oppression have created yawning disparities in income, and in wealth, and in education, and in health, in personal safety, in access to credit. Women and girls around the world continue to be blocked from positions of power and authority. They continue to be prevented from getting a basic education. They are disproportionately victimized by violence and abuse. They’re still paid less than men for doing the same work. That’s still happening. Economic opportunity, for all the magnificence of the global economy, all the shining skyscrapers that have transformed the landscape around the world, entire neighborhoods, entire cities, entire regions, entire nations have been bypassed.

In other words, for far too many people, the more things have changed, the more things stayed the same.

And while globalization and technology have opened up new opportunities, have driven remarkable economic growth in previously struggling parts of the world, globalization has also upended the agricultural and manufacturing sectors in many countries. It’s also greatly reduced the demand for certain workers, has helped weaken unions and labor’s bargaining power. It’s made it easier for capital to avoid tax laws and the regulations of nation-states – can just move billions, trillions of dollars with a tap of a computer key.

And the result of all these trends has been an explosion in economic inequality. It’s meant that a few dozen individuals control the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of humanity. That’s not an exaggeration, that’s a statistic. Think about that. In many middle-income and developing countries, new wealth has just tracked the old bad deal that people got because it reinforced or even compounded existing patterns of inequality, the only difference is it created even greater opportunities for corruption on an epic scale. And for once solidly middle-class families in advanced economies like the United States, these trends have meant greater economic insecurity, especially for those who don’t have specialized skills, people who were in manufacturing, people working in factories, people working on farms.

In every country just about, the disproportionate economic clout of those at the top has provided these individuals with wildly disproportionate influence on their countries’ political life and on its media; on what policies are pursued and whose interests end up being ignored. Now, it should be noted that this new international elite, the professional class that supports them, differs in important respects from the ruling aristocracies of old. It includes many who are self-made. It includes champions of meritocracy. And although still mostly white and male, as a group they reflect a diversity of nationalities and ethnicities that would have not existed a hundred years ago. A decent percentage consider themselves liberal in their politics, modern and cosmopolitan in their outlook. Unburdened by parochialism, or nationalism, or overt racial prejudice or strong religious sentiment, they are equally comfortable in New York or London or Shanghai or Nairobi or Buenos Aires, or Johannesburg. Many are sincere and effective in their philanthropy. Some of them count Nelson Mandela among their heroes. Some even supported Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States, and by virtue of my status as a former head of state, some of them consider me as an honorary member of the club. And I get invited to these fancy things, you know? They’ll fly me out.

But what’s nevertheless true is that in their business dealings, many titans of industry and finance are increasingly detached from any single locale or nation-state, and they live lives more and more insulated from the struggles of ordinary people in their countries of origin. And their decisions – their decisions to shut down a manufacturing plant, or to try to minimize their tax bill by shifting profits to a tax haven with the help of high-priced accountants or lawyers, or their decision to take advantage of lower-cost immigrant labor, or their decision to pay a bribe – are often done without malice; it’s just a rational response, they consider, to the demands of their balance sheets and their shareholders and competitive pressures.

But too often, these decisions are also made without reference to notions of human solidarity – or a ground-level understanding of the consequences that will be felt by particular people in particular communities by the decisions that are made. And from their board rooms or retreats, global decision-makers don’t get a chance to see sometimes the pain in the faces of laid-off workers. Their kids don’t suffer when cuts in public education and health care result as a consequence of a reduced tax base because of tax avoidance. They can’t hear the resentment of an older tradesman when he complains that a newcomer doesn’t speak his language on a job site where he once worked. They’re less subject to the discomfort and the displacement that some of their countrymen may feel as globalization scrambles not only existing economic arrangements, but traditional social and religious mores.

Which is why, at the end of the 20th century, while some Western commentators were declaring the end of history and the inevitable triumph of liberal democracy and the virtues of the global supply chain, so many missed signs of a brewing backlash – a backlash that arrived in so many forms. It announced itself most violently with 9/11 and the emergence of transnational terrorist networks, fueled by an ideology that perverted one of the world’s great religions and asserted a struggle not just between Islam and the West but between Islam and modernity, and an ill-advised U.S. invasion of Iraq didn’t help, accelerating a sectarian conflict. Russia, already humiliated by its reduced influence since the collapse of the Soviet Union, feeling threatened by democratic movements along its borders, suddenly started reasserting authoritarian control and in some cases meddling with its neighbors. China, emboldened by its economic success, started bristling against criticism of its human rights record; it framed the promotion of universal values as nothing more than foreign meddling, imperialism under a new name. Within the United States, within the European Union, challenges to globalization first came from the left but then came more forcefully from the right, as you started seeing populist movements – which, by the way, are often cynically funded by right-wing billionaires intent on reducing government constraints on their business interests – these movements tapped the unease that was felt by many people who lived outside of the urban cores; fears that economic security was slipping away, that their social status and privileges were eroding, that their cultural identities were being threatened by outsiders, somebody that didn’t look like them or sound like them or pray as they did.

And perhaps more than anything else, the devastating impact of the 2008 financial crisis, in which the reckless behavior of financial elites resulted in years of hardship for ordinary people all around the world, made all the previous assurances of experts ring hollow – all those assurances that somehow financial regulators knew what they were doing, that somebody was minding the store, that global economic integration was an unadulterated good. Because of the actions taken by governments during and after that crisis, including, I should add, by aggressive steps by my administration, the global economy has now returned to healthy growth. But the credibility of the international system, the faith in experts in places like Washington or Brussels, all that had taken a blow.

And a politics of fear and resentment and retrenchment began to appear, and that kind of politics is now on the move. It’s on the move at a pace that would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago. I am not being alarmist, I am simply stating the facts. Look around. Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained – the form of it – but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning. In the West, you’ve got far-right parties that oftentimes are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders, but also on barely hidden racial nationalism. Many developing countries now are looking at China’s model of authoritarian control combined with mercantilist capitalism as preferable to the messiness of democracy. Who needs free speech as long as the economy is going good? The free press is under attack. Censorship and state control of media is on the rise. Social media – once seen as a mechanism to promote knowledge and understanding and solidarity – has proved to be just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda and conspiracy theories.

So on Madiba’s 100th birthday, we now stand at a crossroads – a moment in time at which two very different visions of humanity’s future compete for the hearts and the minds of citizens around the world. Two different stories, two different narratives about who we are and who we should be. How should we respond?

Should we see that wave of hope that we felt with Madiba’s release from prison, from the Berlin Wall coming down – should we see that hope that we had as naïve and misguided? Should we understand the last 25 years of global integration as nothing more than a detour from the previous inevitable cycle of history – where might makes right, and politics is a hostile competition between tribes and races and religions, and nations compete in a zero-sum game, constantly teetering on the edge of conflict until full-blown war breaks out? Is that what we think?

Let me tell you what I believe. I believe in Nelson Mandela’s vision. I believe in a vision shared by Gandhi and King and Abraham Lincoln. I believe in a vision of equality and justice and freedom and multi-racial democracy, built on the premise that all people are created equal, and they’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. And I believe that a world governed by such principles is possible and that it can achieve more peace and more cooperation in pursuit of a common good. That’s what I believe.

And I believe we have no choice but to move forward; that those of us who believe in democracy and civil rights and a common humanity have a better story to tell. And I believe this not just based on sentiment, I believe it based on hard evidence.

The fact that the world’s most prosperous and successful societies, the ones with the highest living standards and the highest levels of satisfaction among their people, happen to be those which have most closely approximated the liberal, progressive ideal that we talk about and have nurtured the talents and contributions of all their citizens.

The fact that authoritarian governments have been shown time and time again to breed corruption, because they’re not accountable; to repress their people; to lose touch eventually with reality; to engage in bigger and bigger lies that ultimately result in economic and political and cultural and scientific stagnation. Look at history. Look at the facts.

The fact that countries which rely on rabid nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial or religious superiority as their main organizing principle, the thing that holds people together – eventually those countries find themselves consumed by civil war or external war. Check the history books.

The fact that technology cannot be put back in a bottle, so we’re stuck with the fact that we now live close together and populations are going to be moving, and environmental challenges are not going to go away on their own, so that the only way to effectively address problems like climate change or mass migration or pandemic disease will be to develop systems for more international cooperation, not less.

We have a better story to tell. But to say that our vision for the future is better is not to say that it will inevitably win. Because history also shows the power of fear. History shows the lasting hold of greed and the desire to dominate others in the minds of men. Especially men. History shows how easily people can be convinced to turn on those who look different, or worship God in a different way. So if we’re truly to continue Madiba’s long walk towards freedom, we’re going to have to work harder and we’re going to have to be smarter. We’re going to have to learn from the mistakes of the recent past. And so in the brief time remaining, let me just suggest a few guideposts for the road ahead, guideposts that draw from Madiba’s work, his words, the lessons of his life.

First, Madiba shows those of us who believe in freedom and democracy we are going to have to fight harder to reduce inequality and promote lasting economic opportunity for all people.

Now, I don’t believe in economic determinism. Human beings don’t live on bread alone. But they need bread. And history shows that societies which tolerate vast differences in wealth feed resentments and reduce solidarity and actually grow more slowly; and that once people achieve more than mere subsistence, then they’re measuring their well-being by how they compare to their neighbors, and whether their children can expect to live a better life. And when economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, history also shows that political power is sure to follow – and that dynamic eats away at democracy. Sometimes it may be straight-out corruption, but sometimes it may not involve the exchange of money; it’s just folks who are that wealthy get what they want, and it undermines human freedom.

And Madiba understood this. This is not new. He warned us about this. He said: “Where globalization means, as it so often does, that the rich and the powerful now have new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and the weaker, [then] we have a responsibility to protest in the name of universal freedom.” That’s what he said. So if we are serious about universal freedom today, if we care about social justice today, then we have a responsibility to do something about it. And I would respectfully amend what Madiba said. I don’t do it often, but I’d say it’s not enough for us to protest; we’re going to have to build, we’re going to have to innovate, we’re going to have to figure out how do we close this widening chasm of wealth and opportunity both within countries and between them.

And how we achieve this is going to vary country to country, and I know your new president is committed to rolling up his sleeves and trying to do so. But we can learn from the last 70 years that it will not involve unregulated, unbridled, unethical capitalism. It also won’t involve old-style command-and-control socialism form the top. That was tried; it didn’t work very well. For almost all countries, progress is going to depend on an inclusive market-based system – one that offers education for every child; that protects collective bargaining and secures the rights of every worker – that breaks up monopolies to encourage competition in small and medium-sized businesses; and has laws that root out corruption and ensures fair dealing in business; that maintains some form of progressive taxation so that rich people are still rich but they’re giving a little bit back to make sure that everybody else has something to pay for universal health care and retirement security, and invests in infrastructure and scientific research that builds platforms for innovation.

I should add, by the way, right now I’m actually surprised by how much money I got, and let me tell you something: I don’t have half as much as most of these folks or a tenth or a hundredth. There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough. You don’t have to take a vow of poverty just to say, “Well, let me help out and let a few of the other folks – let me look at that child out there who doesn’t have enough to eat or needs some school fees, let me help him out. I’ll pay a little more in taxes. It’s okay. I can afford it.” I mean, it shows a poverty of ambition to just want to take more and more and more, instead of saying, “Wow, I’ve got so much. Who can I help? How can I give more and more and more?” That’s ambition. That’s impact. That’s influence. What an amazing gift to be able to help people, not just yourself. Where was I? I ad-libbed. You get the point.

It involves promoting an inclusive capitalism both within nations and between nations. And as we pursue, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals, we have to get past the charity mindset. We’ve got to bring more resources to the forgotten pockets of the world through investment and entrepreneurship, because there is talent everywhere in the world if given an opportunity.

When it comes to the international system of commerce and trade, it’s legitimate for poorer countries to continue to seek access to wealthier markets. And by the way, wealthier markets, that’s not the big problem that you’re having – that a small African country is sending you tea and flowers. That’s not your biggest economic challenge. It’s also proper for advanced economies like the United States to insist on reciprocity from nations like China that are no longer solely poor countries, to make sure that they’re providing access to their markets and that they stop taking intellectual property and hacking our servers.

But even as there are discussions to be had around trade and commerce, it’s important to recognize this reality: while the outsourcing of jobs from north to south, from east to west, while a lot of that was a dominant trend in the late 20th century, the biggest challenge to workers in countries like mine today is technology. And the biggest challenge for your new president when we think about how we’re going to employ more people here is going to be also technology, because artificial intelligence is here and it is accelerating, and you’re going to have driverless cars, and you’re going to have more and more automated services, and that’s going to make the job of giving everybody work that is meaningful tougher, and we’re going to have to be more imaginative, and the pact of change is going to require us to do more fundamental reimagining of our social and political arrangements, to protect the economic security and the dignity that comes with a job. It’s not just money that a job provides; it provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose. And so we’re going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income, review of our workweek, how we retrain our young people, how we make everybody an entrepreneur at some level. But we’re going to have to worry about economics if we want to get democracy back on track.

Second, Madiba teaches us that some principles really are universal – and the most important one is the principle that we are bound together by a common humanity and that each individual has inherent dignity and worth.

Now, it’s surprising that we have to affirm this truth today. More than a quarter century after Madiba walked out of prison, I still have to stand here at a lecture and devote some time to saying that black people and white people and Asian people and Latin American people and women and men and gays and straights, that we are all human, that our differences are superficial, and that we should treat each other with care and respect. I would have thought we would have figured that out by now. I thought that basic notion was well established. But it turns out, as we’re seeing in this recent drift into reactionary politics, that the struggle for basic justice is never truly finished. So we’ve got to constantly be on the lookout and fight for people who seek to elevate themselves by putting somebody else down. And by the way, we also have to actively resist – this is important, particularly in some countries in Africa like my own father’s homeland; I’ve made this point before – we have to resist the notion that basic human rights like freedom to dissent, or the right of women to fully participate in the society, or the right of minorities to equal treatment, or the rights of people not to be beat up and jailed because of their sexual orientation – we have to be careful not to say that somehow, well, that doesn’t apply to us, that those are Western ideas rather than universal imperatives.

Again, Madiba, he anticipated things. He knew what he was talking about. In 1964, before he received the sentence that condemned him to die in prison, he explained from the dock that, “The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.” In other words, he didn’t say well, those books weren’t written by South Africans so I just – I can’t claim them. No, he said that’s part of my inheritance. That’s part of the human inheritance. That applies here in this country, to me, and to you. And that’s part of what gave him the moral authority that the apartheid regime could never claim, because he was more familiar with their best values than they were. He had read their documents more carefully than they had. And he went on to say, “Political division based on color is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one color group by another.” That’s Nelson Mandela speaking in 1964, when I was three years old.

What was true then remains true today. Basic truths do not change. It is a truth that can be embraced by the English, and by the Indian, and by the Mexican and by the Bantu and by the Luo and by the American. It is a truth that lies at the heart of every world religion – that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. That we see ourselves in other people. That we can recognize common hopes and common dreams. And it is a truth that is incompatible with any form of discrimination based on race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. And it is a truth that, by the way, when embraced, actually delivers practical benefits, since it ensures that a society can draw upon the talents and energy and skill of all its people. And if you doubt that, just ask the French football team that just won the World Cup. Because not all of those folks – not all of those folks look like Gauls to me. But they’re French. They’re French.

Embracing our common humanity does not mean that we have to abandon our unique ethnic and national and religious identities. Madiba never stopped being proud of his tribal heritage. He didn’t stop being proud of being a black man and being a South African. But he believed, as I believe, that you can be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage. In fact, you dishonor your heritage. It would make me think that you’re a little insecure about your heritage if you’ve got to put somebody else’s heritage down. Yeah, that’s right. Don’t you get a sense sometimes – again, I’m ad-libbing here – that these people who are so intent on putting people down and puffing themselves up that they’re small-hearted, that there’s something they’re just afraid of. Madiba knew that we cannot claim justice for ourselves when it’s only reserved for some. Madiba understood that we can’t say we’ve got a just society simply because we replaced the color of the person on top of an unjust system, so the person looks like us even though they’re doing the same stuff, and somehow now we’ve got justice. That doesn’t work. It’s not justice if now you’re on top, so I’m going to do the same thing that those folks were doing to me and now I’m going to do it to you. That’s not justice. “I detest racialism,” he said, “whether it comes from a black man or a white man.”

Now, we have to acknowledge that there is disorientation that comes from rapid change and modernization, and the fact that the world has shrunk, and we’re going to have to find ways to lessen the fears of those who feel threatened. In the West’s current debate around immigration, for example, it’s not wrong to insist that national borders matter; whether you’re a citizen or not is going to matter to a government, that laws need to be followed; that in the public realm newcomers should make an effort to adapt to the language and customs of their new home. Those are legitimate things and we have to be able to engage people who do feel as if things are not orderly. But that can’t be an excuse for immigration policies based on race, or ethnicity, or religion. There’s got to be some consistency. And we can enforce the law while respecting the essential humanity of those who are striving for a better life. For a mother with a child in her arms, we can recognize that could be somebody in our family, that could be my child.

Third, Madiba reminds us that democracy is about more than just elections.

When he was freed from prison, Madiba’s popularity – well, you couldn’t even measure it. He could have been president for life. Am I wrong? Who was going to run against him? (Laughter.) I mean, Ramaphosa was popular, but come on. Plus he was a young – he was too young. Had he chose, Madiba could have governed by executive fiat, unconstrained by check and balances. But instead he helped guide South Africa through the drafting of a new Constitution, drawing from all the institutional practices and democratic ideals that had proven to be most sturdy, mindful of the fact that no single individual possesses a monopoly on wisdom. No individual – not Mandela, not Obama – are entirely immune to the corrupting influences of absolute power, if you can do whatever you want and everyone’s too afraid to tell you when you’re making a mistake. No one is immune from the dangers of that.

Mandela understood this. He said, “Democracy is based on the majority principle. This is especially true in a country such as ours where the vast majority have been systematically denied their rights. At the same time, democracy also requires the rights of political and other minorities be safeguarded.” He understood it’s not just about who has the most votes. It’s also about the civic culture that we build that makes democracy work.

So we have to stop pretending that countries that just hold an election where sometimes the winner somehow magically gets 90 percent of the vote because all the opposition is locked up – or can’t get on TV, is a democracy. Democracy depends on strong institutions and it’s about minority rights and checks and balances, and freedom of speech and freedom of expression and a free press, and the right to protest and petition the government, and an independent judiciary, and everybody having to follow the law.

And yes, democracy can be messy, and it can be slow, and it can be frustrating. I know, I promise. But the efficiency that’s offered by an autocrat, that’s a false promise. Don’t take that one, because it leads invariably to more consolidation of wealth at the top and power at the top, and it makes it easier to conceal corruption and abuse. For all its imperfections, real democracy best upholds the idea that government exists to serve the individual and not the other way around. And it is the only form of government that has the possibility of making that idea real.

So for those of us who are interested in strengthening democracy, let’s also stop – it’s time for us to stop paying all of our attention to the world’s capitals and the centers of power and to start focusing more on the grassroots, because that’s where democratic legitimacy comes from. Not from the top down, not from abstract theories, not just from experts, but from the bottom up. Knowing the lives of those who are struggling.

As a community organizer, I learned as much from a laid-off steel worker in Chicago or a single mom in a poor neighborhood that I visited as I learned from the finest economists in the Oval Office. Democracy means being in touch and in tune with life as it’s lived in our communities, and that’s what we should expect from our leaders, and it depends upon cultivating leaders at the grassroots who can help bring about change and implement it on the ground and can tell leaders in fancy buildings, this isn’t working down here.

And to make democracy work, Madiba shows us that we also have to keep teaching our children, and ourselves – and this is really hard – to engage with people not only who look different but who hold different views. This is hard.

Most of us prefer to surround ourselves with opinions that validate what we already believe. You notice the people who you think are smart are the people who agree with you. Funny how that works. But democracy demands that we’re able also to get inside the reality of people who are different than us so we can understand their point of view. Maybe we can change their minds, but maybe they’ll change ours. And you can’t do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponents have to say from the start. And you can’t do it if you insist that those who aren’t like you – because they’re white, or because they’re male – that somehow there’s no way they can understand what I’m feeling, that somehow they lack standing to speak on certain matters.

Madiba, he lived this complexity. In prison, he studied Afrikaans so that he could better understand the people who were jailing him. And when he got out of prison, he extended a hand to those who had jailed him, because he knew that they had to be a part of the democratic South Africa that he wanted to build. “To make peace with an enemy,” he wrote, “one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes one’s partner.”

So those who traffic in absolutes when it comes to policy, whether it’s on the left or the right, they make democracy unworkable. You can’t expect to get 100 percent of what you want all the time; sometimes, you have to compromise. That doesn’t mean abandoning your principles, but instead it means holding on to those principles and then having the confidence that they’re going to stand up to a serious democratic debate. That’s how America’s Founders intended our system to work – that through the testing of ideas and the application of reason and proof it would be possible to arrive at a basis for common ground.

And I should add for this to work, we have to actually believe in an objective reality. This is another one of these things that I didn’t have to lecture about. You have to believe in facts. Without facts, there is no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and you say this is an elephant, it’s going to be hard for us to cooperate. I can find common ground for those who oppose the Paris Accords because, for example, they might say, well, it’s not going to work, you can’t get everybody to cooperate, or they might say it’s more important for us to provide cheap energy for the poor, even if it means in the short term that there’s more pollution. At least I can have a debate with them about that and I can show them why I think clean energy is the better path, especially for poor countries, that you can leapfrog old technologies. I can’t find common ground if somebody says climate change is just not happening, when almost all of the world’s scientists tell us it is. I don’t know where to start talking to you about this. If you start saying it’s an elaborate hoax, I don’t know what to – where do we start?

Unfortunately, too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up. We see it in state-sponsored propaganda; we see it in internet driven fabrications, we see it in the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, we see the utter loss of shame among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just double down and they lie some more. Politicians have always lied, but it used to be if you caught them lying they’d be like, “Oh man.” Now they just keep on lying.

By the way, this is what I think Mama Graça was talking about in terms of maybe some sense of humility that Madiba felt, like sometimes just basic stuff, me not completely lying to people seems pretty basic, I don’t think of myself as a great leader just because I don’t completely make stuff up. You’d think that was a base line. Anyway, we see it in the promotion of anti-intellectualism and the rejection of science from leaders who find critical thinking and data somehow politically inconvenient. And, as with the denial of rights, the denial of facts runs counter to democracy, it could be its undoing, which is why we must zealously protect independent media; and we have to guard against the tendency for social media to become purely a platform for spectacle, outrage, or disinformation; and we have to insist that our schools teach critical thinking to our young people, not just blind obedience.

Which, I’m sure you are thankful for, leads to my final point: we have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope.

It is tempting to give in to cynicism: to believe that recent shifts in global politics are too powerful to push back; that the pendulum has swung permanently. Just as people spoke about the triumph of democracy in the 90s, now you are hearing people talk about end of democracy and the triumph of tribalism and the strong man. We have to resist that cynicism.

Because, we’ve been through darker times, we’ve been in lower valleys and deeper valleys. Yes, by the end of his life, Madiba embodied the successful struggle for human rights, but the journey was not easy, it wasn’t pre-ordained. The man went to prison for almost three decades. He split limestone in the heat, he slept in a small cell, and was repeatedly put in solitary confinement. And I remember talking to some of his former colleagues saying how they hadn’t realized when they were released, just the sight of a child, the idea of holding a child, they had missed – it wasn’t something available to them, for decades.

And yet his power actually grew during those years – and the power of his jailers diminished, because he knew that if you stick to what’s true, if you know what’s in your heart, and you’re willing to sacrifice for it, even in the face of overwhelming odds, that it might not happen tomorrow, it might not happen in the next week, it might not even happen in your lifetime. Things may go backwards for a while, but ultimately, right makes might, not the other way around, ultimately, the better story can win out and as strong as Madiba’s spirit may have been, he would not have sustained that hope had he been alone in the struggle, part of buoyed him up was that he knew that each year, the ranks of freedom fighters were replenishing, young men and women, here in South African, in the ANC and beyond; black and Indian and white, from across the countryside, across the continent, around the world, who in those most difficult days would keep working on behalf of his vision.

And that’s what we need right now, we don’t just need one leader, we don’t just need one inspiration, what we badly need right now is that collective spirit. And, I know that those young people, those hope carriers are gathering around the world. Because history shows that whenever progress is threatened, and the things we care about most are in question, we should heed the words of Robert Kennedy – spoken here in South Africa, he said, “Our answer is the world’s hope: it is to rely on youth. It’s to rely on the spirit of the young.”

So, young people, who are in the audience, who are listening, my message to you is simple, keep believing, keep marching, keep building, keep raising your voice. Every generation has the opportunity to remake the world. Mandela said, “Young people are capable, when aroused, of bringing down the towers of oppression and raising the banners of freedom.” Now is a good time to be aroused. Now is a good time to be fired up.

And, for those of us who care about the legacy that we honor here today – about equality and dignity and democracy and solidarity and kindness, those of us who remain young at heart, if not in body – we have an obligation to help our youth succeed. Some of you know, here in South Africa, my Foundation is convening over the last few days, two hundred young people from across this continent who are doing the hard work of making change in their communities; who reflect Madiba’s values, who are poised to lead the way.

People like Abaas Mpindi, a journalist from Uganda, who founded the Media Challenge Initiative, to help other young people get the training they need to tell the stories that the world needs to know.

People like Caren Wakoli, an entrepreneur from Kenya, who founded the Emerging Leaders Foundation to get young people involved in the work of fighting poverty and promoting human dignity.

People like Enock Nkulanga, who directs the African Children’s mission, which helps children in Uganda and Kenya get the education that they need and then in his spare time, Enock advocates for the rights of children around the globe, and founded an organization called LeadMinds Africa, which does exactly what it says.

You meet these people, you talk to them, they will give you hope. They are taking the baton, they know they can’t just rest on the accomplishments of the past, even the accomplishments of those as momentous as Nelson Mandela’s. They stand on the shoulders of those who came before, including that young black boy born 100 years ago, but they know that it is now their turn to do the work.

Madiba reminds us that: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart.” Love comes more naturally to the human heart, let’s remember that truth. Let’s see it as our North Star, let’s be joyful in our struggle to make that truth manifest here on earth so that in 100 years from now, future generations will look back and say, ‘they kept the march going, that’s why we live under new banners of freedom.’ Thank you very much, South Africa, thank you.

July 18, 2018 at 01:43AM ClusterAssets Inc., https://ClusterAssets.wordpress.com

#Time #world #news #ClusterAssets #ClusterAsset #Cluster Asset Inc.#ClusterAssets Inc.

0 notes

circlesfitness-blog · 6 years

Text

White anxiety

The rise of the black intellectuals

Fear can be caused by a lot of threats and often than not people are never knowledgeable of the best action to take when confronted by it. Different people deal with fear in different ways. When fear presents itself, the natural reaction is to either fight or flight. Even so there are school of thoughts that suggest that fear is nothing but an illusion, an emotion of nothingness. In this post I will be reflecting on the content of the course discussing my opinions about responses to and experiences of digital media as it relates to the cultural life. I will be looking specifically at ‘White Anxiety’ and I will substantiate my discussion with reference to examples from my own knowledge as well as from the course material. My blog will include links, memes, gifs, images and other digital content, as well as citations from academic books and articles to further support my point.

White anxiety is a term used to describe the fear and panic experienced by white people in contemporary South Africa. When talking about ‘White’ here we are referring to the structural notions of race and not necessarily people or individuals. The anxiety is mainly caused by the rhetorical discursive statements and ‘white talk’ repertoire of conversation amongst white South Africans. The sense is that they are permanently at risk, and under some sort of threat. Generally crime rates in South Africa are very high, and poor black people who live in rural areas and townships are the most susceptible to it. Statistically the idea that only white people are under threat or some sort of attack is unfounded and data does not back it up. White anxiety comes from the racial discourse from years of apartheid and colonialism “black South Africans suffered social and economic discrimination for many years under the apartheid regime. White South Africans occupied a position of privilege in the socio-economic arena by virtue of their colour” (Wambugu, 2005:57). That is no longer happening, and that is the true source of the anxiety.

According to Wambugu (2005) the tables turned in favour of the previously marginalised and racialized group when the apartheid regime was replaced by a democratically elected black government in April of 1994. The general fear is that black people can oppress them as apartheid did to black people. To some extent the fear has become some sort of a reality to them, according ‘white talk’, as in, instead of confronting the aftermaths of apartheid, let us redirect fear by distorting reality and cry foul. Well, Steyn (2001) as cited in Wambugu (2005) further states that in the new South Africa, whiteness is perceived as a disadvantage since the privilege that accompanied it has been suspended (Steyn, 2001 as cited in Wambugu, 2005). The manifestation of this frustration has turned into fear and distortion of reality. Hence they want to believe that they are under some sort of attack and their lives are at risk instead of addressing the impact apartheid had on black people.

Truth is, the power of whiteness seems to be diminishing with time and the dominance of whiteness is becoming unclear. The line is blurring out. Which means that white people are loosing control and power they’ve enjoyed in the past and that frustrates them in that all that privilege is no longer there for them to enjoy. The hegemonic power systems and policies such as apartheid are no longer there to help maintain their power. Their ideological ideas that whiteness is pure and classy are no longer dominant in black peoples psyche and that creates the anxiety. So within the digital space whiteness is trying to strengthen itself through discourse and displaying racial protests using ideological cross dressing. Examples online campaigns like #Red October & #BlackMonday. Even though a lot of them still enjoy the generational wealth gained from exploitation of black people.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, says that defence mechanism redirects anxiety by distorting reality. According to Freud, an individual’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviours are the result of the interaction of the id, the superego, and the ego (what makes up the personality of an individual). Santosa further explains that they are continually in conflict with one another. This conflict generates anxiety. If the ego did not effectively handle the resulting anxiety, people would be so overwhelmed with anxiety that they would not be able to carry on with the tasks of everyday living. The ego tries to control anxiety (i.e., to reduce anxiety) through the use of ego defence mechanisms. Furthermore Santosa states that defence mechanisms operate at an unconscious level. We are not aware of them during the time that we are actually using them. However, we may later become aware of their previous operation and use. Agreeably “fear is the screaming physical response to the threats of injury or to threats to survival, it is a response to the obscurity of the unknown. Or fear is an ideological formation, an affect we learn in response to cultural and political prompts” (Coole & Frost, 2010:158).

Indeed this anxiety is out of fear posed by cultural and political discourses. The ideological notion of whiteness and westernised ways of life seems to be diminishing a lot when it comes to black people in contemporary South Africa, particularly black intellectuals. Historically black intellectuals are key players in the transformation of the country, in his book Gerhart (1978) recounts events of historical importance, but primary emphasis is on the intellectual dimension of black political history and in particular on the interplay of ideologies which has marked the post-war era and which has brought many present-day African intellectuals to their current Black power perspective.

Robert Sobukwe is a major figure with an international reputation. Ditshego (2012) wrote in his article about how Sobukwe was totally against white supremacy and stated so in no uncertain terms, quoting Robert Sobukwe: “In Africa the myth of race has been propounded and propagated by the imperialists and colonialists from Europe, in order to facilitate and justify their inhuman exploitation of the indigenous people of the land. “It is from this myth of race with its attendant claims of cultural superiority that the doctrine of white supremacy stem” (The Star). Robert Sobukwe like Steven Bantu Biko are the black intellectuals who have inspired a lot of the rising intellectuals in contemporary South Africa today, and that I feel is what is most contentious with white people in South Africa. Black people are waking up to education and many of them building their own businesses and taking their rightful place in the economy of the country. They are no longer that submissive garden boy who slaves away all day in the sun or that submissive helper who is raising white people’s children, while her own children are left alone at home without their mother. Black people are now educated and informed and passing on the knowledge to other black people. There is a silent black intellectual movement.

The rising black intellectuals are unapologetically pro-black and understand what apartheid was and what it did to the black nation and swear not to go back there. The black nation is slowly and surely building a space where black people can flourish without the dependency on white people. For example Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), rising South African political party, “members are expected to study and apply the theoretical line of the organisation being Marxist, Leninist and Fanonian philosophical thought and tools of analysis in a living way” (EFF online constitution), which means you have to be registered with a higher learning institution to be a member.

When it comes to business in relation to digital media. A lot of black businesses are using social media to promote and market their businesses and build a rich network of black intellectuals and likeminded ‘brownies’. Brownsense is one such platform for black entrepreneurs “it is about the promotion of Black business, creating an easily accessible database of Black owned businesses and professionals, and building and enhancing a community of like-minded people” (Brownsense). If ever there was a time for black people to stick together and pursue their dreams, it's now. Mzuzukile Soni, CEO and founder of Brownsense, shares why he created a platform that empowers and celebrates black business owners “SA is budding with young black entrepreneurs who have decided to take control of their financial freedom and are part of the ‘vukuzenzele’ phenomenon. Hashtags like #BlackExcellence and #unapologeticallyblack, have seen the deliberate celebration of black pride, something we reckon is long overdue” (Mbhete, 2016). Futhermore “With a membership of over 17 000, Brownsense is a growing platform that enables anyone who wants to buy black to do so. On the Facebook group, also named Brownsense, one will find black-owned businesses as well as customers who are in search of certain products or services” (Mbhete, 2016).

Initiatives like these are popping up everywhere around black communities, ideas of buying black are becoming an everyday narrative amongst black communities. Blacks are becoming more and more conscious of who they are and are expressing it through their everyday life in everything they do while also claiming their place in the economic landscape of South Africa through flourishing in business. White anxiety is just the heat felt from the rising black intellectuals. It is a defence mechanism that is meant to redirect by distorting reality and rather play victims instead of confronting the real issues underlying the aftermaths of apartheid and the impact it had on black people.

Bibliography

Brownsense. http://www.brownsense.co.za/.

Ditshego, S. 2012. Intellectual with a vision for Africa. The Star. February 29.

Economic Freedom Fighters. http://www.effonline.org/constitution.

Frost, S. 2010. Fear and the Illusion of Autonomy. In: Coole, D. & Frost, S. (eds) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Duke University Press.

Gerhart, G. M. 1978. Black Power in South Africa: The Evolution of an Ideology. University of California Press.

Mbhete, B. 2016. Brownsense founder on why he created a platform for black people. Destiny Connect.com. October 12

Wambugu, j. 2005. ‘when tables turn: discursive constructions of whites as victims of affirmative action in post-apartheid south Africa’. Psychology in Society 31, pp. 57-70.

Santosa, E. T. Theories Personality & Assessment

x��2^p

0 notes