Comments on: The U.N. Conference on Racism – WHY AREN’T WE GOING TO BE THERE?

By: heartsandflowers

heartsandflowers — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:28:29 +0000

The question that must be asked is: Who is loyal to whom and whose interests are being served? Black people had better be paying attention…..and act accordingly. Unless the preferred position is to be passed over there's work to be done.

By: rikyrah

rikyrah — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:28:58 +0000

I don't know if he has written it in a column yet, but I was listening to the radio, getting angrier by the second when he said it.

By: babyming

babyming — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:17:36 +0000

I must agree with Rikyrah. A month ago, we all saw AIPAC stop the nomination of Chas Freeman to advise the President. As it happens, I don't agree with everything that Chas Freeman has said. But Freeman is considered brilliant, creative, and an out-of-the-box thinker, exactly the kind of person who should be giving input to the President. I found AIPAC's fight against Freeman to be quite disgusting.

I don't know anything about this UN Durban II. conference. I remember back in 2001, the Durban I. conference was incredibly racist (which was odd, since it was supposed to be a conference against racism). So I'd like to look at the details. (I kinda figure that Durban II.'s top focus is not going to be stopping the geonicide in the Sudan… but I could be wrong.)

By: khrish

khrish — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:56:11 +0000

Not only should we (United States)go but we should be heading up some special seminars. We should also be on the big list of Human rights meetings. Malcolm told us that years ago and we just refused to push for if. In the temperature of America today, with all the nuts running around this country acting like rabid animals, we really need to be a part of anybody's conference of Racism. I really don't understand that decision.

By: texascowgirl

texascowgirl — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:17:38 +0000

I'm going to have to be contratian here, but I can't get upset about this because I generally don't like the UN. They put the China and Sudan on their human rights counsel for goodness sake. How can they be taken seriously about racism or anything else for that matter? I wonder how many countries would show up to a UN meeting about sexism or the oppression of women? Would Saudi Arabia show? I doubt it. If their was a conference about child rape I doubt South Africa would feel comfortable hosting it, given they have the highest rate of it. If the US doesn't want to participate in watching Arab countries, that oppress half of their populations bash Israel all day I understand. It's not like they have called out their Arab brothers in the Sudan for their racist genocidal campaign against black Sudanese and continued practice of slavery. They won't do it at this conference either. This UN conference like just about everything else the UN does (with the exception for some good humanitarian work) is a joke. Even without our kneejerk defense of the 51st state, this conference would be bullshit. It's a bunch of countries that are full of shit bashing other countries for whatever shit they are full of. This conference was conducted before, can anyone name anything good that came out of it? If you can't, what's the big deal?

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:05:59 +0000

The CBC did not endorse their own member for the Presidency in 2008, that is when I lost all respect for them. The only US Senator of color and the first in over thirty years and the CBC backed HRC.

Which proved as you said they have cater to their own individual interests and not the interest of their constituencies….which makes one wonder what then is the purpose of the group…just what is their mission statement?

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:03:09 +0000

I sooooo agree with you Rikyrah!!

The United States has permanent interests there is no such thing as a permanent ally…whose interests typically conflict with those of America.

By: CPL

CPL — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:50:01 +0000

Rikyrah, this is PAR FOR THE COURSE regarding the CBC and taking orders from Miss Nancy.

When Cynthia McKinney began to be a "nuisance" to Congress, and the Capitol Hill Po-Po harassed her, Miss Nancy "ordered" Mel Watt and crew to sling McKinney under the bus and they did so, willingly.

They get "ordered" to vote corporate on shyt they should be voting Progressively on behalf of their districts.

They do anything Miss Nancy tells them to, and a check of Ms. Nancy's donations demonstrate she is a willing conspirator with the 51st State.

I thought Barbara Lee would be a refreshing change from Carolyn Kilpatrick, but once again, I STAND CORRECTED. The leaders of the CBC change - their willingness to subvert the best interests of their OWN CONSTITUENCIES for less than a two-piece hasn't changed since the Clinton Administration.

By: EdnaMae

EdnaMae — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:29:52 +0000

I'll be the odd one out here, while I would like to see a delegation go to this conference, I just don't want anyone from the CBC, they are too out of touch with the pulse of real black people in my opinion. I saw them talking about the trip to Cuba, and, the way they were fawning over Castro was ridiculous, when the average black Cuban could tell them what life is really like in Cuba for blacks, and, its not the utopia that they think it is.

By: RobM

RobM — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:38:02 +0000

HEH, HEh, Heh, heh.
Ordered not to go by Pelosi! Is Bush back in charge and I missed it?
Do you have a quotation for Pelosi? When did being a private citizen end when you became an elected offical?

By: Wordsmith

Wordsmith — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:05:56 +0000

So the Black Caucus could go to Cuba, but they can't go to the U.N. Conference on Racism.

We aren’t going because of our 51st State, because they were critical of Israel-That Zionism is racism. Israel doesn’t want the language in there, then they shouldn’t have left the table in Durbin. But, you did, and they issued it, so if you disagree, come to the table and discuss things.

Maybe Israel shouldn't be doing such things as to be called out for their racist policies. You can't do shit if you're not part of the discussion at THE TABLE.

By: Miranda

Miranda — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:44:46 +0000

“ordered”?? WTH??

By: Justice58

Justice58 — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:44:18 +0000

Humph

Nancy Pelosi ordered them NOT to go! Ain't that a _________!

By: Angelar

Angelar — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:42:22 +0000

Hey, I'm with you on the 51st state thing and AIPAC….gheez!

BUT….I do believe that our President has so many guns fired at him, that this is not the time for him to act in making racism a major issue.

As I paraphrase another poster from some where else. “President Obama is playing chess, while others are playing tag”.