The UBP's new vision

I've just got back from tonight's UBP shindig at the Southampton Princess, at which Wayne Furbert made one of his first public speeches since becoming leader. Here's what he had to say.

Some of the highlights: the UBP would create a Tourism Authority; measure the performance of schools and publish the results; liberalise height restrictions for certain housing developments; and provide free basic healthcare, prescription drugs and glasses for seniors.

In addition, the UBP committed itself to democratic reform, having apparently taken on board many of the ideas raised at the recent public forum on the subject. In a short speech earlier in the evening, which stole some of Mr. Furbert's thunder, David Dodwell expressed the party's support for fixed term elections, increased use of referenda, more bipartisan committees, a code of conduct for MPs, more conscience votes, having a member of the Opposition in Cabinet, and even the ability for the public to recall an MP (although he was uncertain about how the latter would work). I was impressed.

Comments

[Combat Banker on 24.03.06 at 00:28]

Amazing. I actually agree with all of those. Well Wayne seems to have a pulse on what the people want.. or at least what posters on this site want (Which are not necessarily always the same thing!).
Its a bold platform & I hope either they get a chance to impliment, or P steals them all. Either way we'd all win.

[Lost in Flatts on 24.03.06 at 05:27]

Speeches and plans are great, but until the UBP can show they're actually about action, they won't get the majority listening. Let's face it, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to oust the PLP based solely on what they've accomplished (lack thereof) in their first 2 terms, but I doubt that will be the case. Instead the UBP need to step up and start creating tangible examples of their commitment and principles, because without those, I just can't see people beginning to look past the UBP of old.

If Wayne can really lead the party in the direction that speech implies, and the voters take notice, who knows, maybe we'll all be alright after all.

[observor on 24.03.06 at 06:53]

Limey I agree. They certainly have provided some concrete commitments to accountability, performance & transparency. The proof of the pudding, of course, will be in the eating.

Too bad the current government have been such little piggies at the trough of the public purse and have no more room for pudding!

[silencedogood on 24.03.06 at 08:08]

It's a step in the right direction. Promising...

[J Starling on 24.03.06 at 08:34]

As per Mr. Furbert's New Vision, I am not opposed to them. Not everything the opposition comes up with is worthless, just as not everything the government comes up with is gospel (or rubbish depending on ones party :) ). I am suspicious about how committed they really would be to carrying out these reforms, and whether they would be implemented in substance and not simply cosmetically. How ironic though that the UBP is forced to out PLP the PLP while the PLP tries to out UBP the UBP. Politics does make strange bedfellows afterall.

[The Limey on 24.03.06 at 09:14]

There was very little direct criticism of the PLP at last night's "celebration". The focus was instead on what the UBP wants to do. I'd appreciate it if comment on this thread was the same.

[Rev. Goat on 24.03.06 at 09:36]

Limey thats good news, all to often Bermuda politics is about blaming the other side. I remember the election campaign that the PLP ran in 1998. For two years before that they actually stopped all the accusations and paranoid conspiracy theories they always used as campaign fodder and actually came up with good ideas and positive outlook(turned out to be lies though).

I believe that if the UBP focus on what they can do for the people of Bermuda instead of childish school yard argueing in the house and paper, they may actually have a chance.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 24.03.06 at 10:10]

First off, thank you, obsie! "The proof of the pudding, of course, will be in the eating."
It's a pet peeve of mine when people get that wrong.

Second...
Finally, they have actually said something!
It's nice to see them be proactive, rather than recative. I just hope that they at least TRY to get some of this stuff in gear in the next few years, lobbying for referenda, showing us the plan (Not TOO slick, please. The last big plan you had at election time, with the houses, came off a little too... too, y'know?) for the Tourism Authority, showing their willingness to be transparent by letting the people know what they're doing, etc. etc.

This could be a decent platform for them.
It certainly seems to be full of good ideas.
To extend on what Limey said, let's throw away our opinions on what their intentions are and concentrate on the actual ideas put forth.
Anyone disagree with any of them?

[AP on 24.03.06 at 11:35]

Like Lost In Flatts said giving speeches at the Southampton Princess is all good, but the UBP have to get out there and press their agenda. This means primarily getting to the black population of Bermuda, because let's face it 99% of whites are going to vote UBP no matter what. And they have to be prepared to to fight back when the PLP invariably play the race card and start calling them uncle toms or the rich white slave master party. It's their timidness over the last couple of years combined with not pressing hime their message that has hurt them.

[b,w&p?? on 24.03.06 at 14:03]

"99% of whites are going to vote UBP no matter what" - AP

Don't presume you know me or my intentons based on the my skin colour - thats the whole problem with politics today. I vote for some who will provide good government, who is accountable and has respect for the people of Bermuda. These traits run alot deeper than in the colour of one's skin.

[Somers on 24.03.06 at 14:09]

Well said BW&P...

[Nicole on 24.03.06 at 16:53]

>>This means primarily getting to the black population of Bermuda, because let's face it 99% of whites are going to vote UBP no matter what. And they have to be prepared to to fight back when the PLP invariably play the race card and start calling them uncle toms or the rich white slave master party. <<

That statement is so very racial and divisive. I would find it scary in its implication if it wasn't such an old and established viewpoint.

What are the UBP people really fighting to protect? Protect Bermuda from the black population of Bermuda? Fighting against the black population of Bermuda? Might not the black population of Bermuda also have a stake in Bermuda society for which to fight? If you set a fight against a person, how can you honorably complain when they don’t welcome your presence and don’t speak to you so nicely? That can’t be a basis for positive political relations, unless you like cracking the whip to maintain it.

AP, if 99% of whites are going to vote UBP, why isn't that an indication THEY are playing the race card? Why should the onus be on the UBP to 'get to' the black population of Bermuda, rather than the PLP to 'get to' the white population? Cynical by nature, I am not inclined to believe entirely that all or even most of those 99% of whites are voting UBP because they aren’t ‘racial’ at all, and that all or even most of those blacks voting for the PLP are the ‘racial ones.’

Is the PLP really more 'racial' than the 99% of whites voting UBP? Maybe some support UBP because they want to protect a system that is favorable to them and that is what ‘unites’ them. Thinking that what is good for them is good for Bermuda because they are more ‘important’ and ‘know best’ doesn’t sound so non-racial, just or even fundamentally correct. That is colonial, racist, paternalistic, demeaning and something indeed for any sane black Bermudian to fight against with every being of their person. This idea of 'we aren't racist/racial because we don't speak of race' really cannot exist against rational inquiry into the perspectives behind it.

I offer a far more arguable view that many black Bermudians have a vested interest in a system that effects fundamental justice and good practices for the broadest spectrum of Bermuda society, that results in a general elevation of the population, rather than maintaining privilege for a select few and tossing just enough tokens to the mass to seem honest, but not enough to disrupt the same social structure that has existed in Bermuda for decades upon decades. The not at all hidden belief that without white Bermudians and Expatriates as the CHOSEN ONES, Bermuda will go to hell because the “people” (wink wink) can’t exist without them, is inextricably going to be reflected in fighting for government policies that reflect that sentiment and maintain that privilege given by situation not be ‘noble birth.’

It is also bound to spark some resentment from people because it is racist, it is wrong. And people speaking against the silent code of such attitudes is NOT playing the race card, it fighting against injustice.

Wayne Furbert tries very hard to emulate the temperature and tone of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech and ideology. Had he not failed so miserably to match the sense of justice and reason of MLK, Jr., an argument could be made for plagiarism and uninspired paraphrasing.

What Furbert does succeed at is mocking MLK’s beliefs in a speech that best reflects the attitudes, both white and black (conservative preachers) that Dr. King fought against. That Mr. Furbert is likely unaware of his crime, speaks less about the Bermuda educational system and more about a general status quo ideology under which he, many white Bermudians and white expatriates were so thoroughly formed and so thoroughly left uneducated and uncivilized.

Furbert said that there appears to be 'greater polarization'(now) between black and white, rich and poor. Compared to when?? Can people be so violently unselfconscious and shameless as to believe that such polarization is greater now than when blacks were openly legally segregated against? Or is the definition of “polarized” that people speak more openly about such matters? When Furbert speaks about seeing when race becomes irrelevant, he is appealing to that idea of the ‘race card.’

Furbert said “I sense a profound change taking place in Bermuda. The last time I felt like this was in the 1960’s. Let me stress that I was a youth then. Young people throughout the world were in revolt. Women were asserting their identity. Oppressed minorities were demanding their rights. Colonized people were fighting for their independence.” I think Furbert should have stressed most clearly that he has no idea of the thinking that governed MLK, Jr. and like others of that time, since he somehow manages to quote and mime the man, yet wrap up his statement still a member of the UBP.

The only profound change desired is to put back in firm power a party that wouldn’t truly question (much less challenge fundamentally) the status quo. Reduce some signs of social problems that are off-putting to the tourists, the expatriates and ‘upper class’ (wink wink) Bermudians who want the quaint place they used to know. I believe there was a southern song of such a nature “How I wish I was in Dixie..” I pray that there is never any political unity in Bermuda, if it means rule by people who prefer a negative peace to a positive peace. MLK, Jr's work was so great, his words so profound, that when they are so maligned and misunderstood, they deserve to be articulated correctly. So on that honor:

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” MLK,Jr. wrote, “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the…Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice… Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

“Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice…The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them.... If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history.

So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label… the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be… Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?....Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.”

“I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress... "

“My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”-MLK,Jr.

If all political sides in Bermuda honestly dedicated themselves to justice -- even if it means they lose some social privilege built upon injustice -- they will find they have for more in common upon which to unite both politically and socially. This is what is truly good for BERMUDA.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” - Martin Luther King

[Count Zero on 24.03.06 at 17:24]

"Cynical by nature, I am not inclined to believe entirely that all or even most of those 99% of whites are voting UBP because they aren’t ‘racial’ at all, and that all or even most of those blacks voting for the PLP are the ‘racial ones’."

Can't say I blame you about being cynical, Nicole. Understandable enough in this degraded environment. Excellent piece -- well written with some references and citations that were once extremely relevant to the Bermuda situation. But I'm afraid most of them don't apply any more. Even the bloc white vote the UBP used to atttract finally splintered at the '98 election -- an estimated 20 percent of whites opted for the PLP on the basis they couldn't do any worse than the incumbents. A goodly portion of them veered back to the UBP in '03 when it was proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the PLP could do worse. But not all white voters returned to the UBP fold. Opinion polls as well as anecdotal evidence suggests younger, working class white Bermudians did not feel the same knee-jerk obligation their parents did to vote for the UBP. They've been raised with blacks, educated with blacks, socialise with blacks and have none of the hang-ups that might have prevented their elders from voting for a black-based labour party. These young people are jaded, disenchanted and increasingly pissed off with an IB-dominated economy they believe has left them behind. In terms of voting for a party that *should* be pursuing their interests, it's not surprising they would opt for the PLP. But in any event, the dwindling white Bermudian population means dwindling white Bermudian influence come election time and dwindling white Bermudian influence in general. White Bermudians don't hold the economic reins anymore -- Smith's is gone, Trimingham's is gone, the whole tourism-based socio/economic framework that gave birth to the PLP and the UBP is gone. Our political parties cannot remain locked into a past that grows more remote with every passing day. The UBP is at least suggesting it wants to evolve to meet current and future conditions. I see no hint of that from a PLP that tends to use race as an all-purpose distraction from its internal problems (the Scott/Brown leadership battle continues behind the scenes) while essentially ignoring the tremendous strain an economy in transition is putting on this community.

[SmokingGun on 24.03.06 at 17:30]

Strong post Nicole. I think I'll have to re-read. One thing though. Regarding AP's ascertion that 99% of whites will vote UBP being a racist comment. Is it really or is it maybe a flippant but true observance?

My thinking is that 99% of white people may indeed vote for the UBP because they see it as a mixed party as opposed to the PLP which has to date condoned some pretty strong rhetoric that only serves to divide the races. So in that case the core party leaders in the PLP are driving the whites away and in effect forcing them to not vote PLP. As far as I'm concerned the PLP could take all of the UBP's economic ideas and implement them tomorrow and even if they were a great success I'd still want to vote the UBP or even a third mixed party in the next time.

I for one can honestly say that I'm just totally exhausted and done with anyone who chooses to continue allowing race to keep us apart. It's time we started realizing that it's not race anymore, it's economic standing and all the problems that come with it that we need to be concerned with. If there's one thing I've noticed in my life it's that we have no control over the color of our skin but we can do something about our economic stature. And the only way we can move forward is if we start showing some dignity and bury the race card and pull together.

[No Justice, No Peace on 24.03.06 at 20:35]

I read the speech, and it does make good politicking. But I can't trust Wayne fully if he attempts to push forward the idea of forgiveness without confession. That's another thing the good book talks about. If he thinks that the cure to Bermuda's race problem is his economic empowerment plan, then he is in denial about the illness. Exactly what does he think that people (read blacks on LIB) need to forgive whites for? Let's define that as a starting point, shall we? Exactly what wrong have whites done, that blacks need to get over?

No justice, no peace?

[J Starling on 24.03.06 at 21:14]

As Limey has allowed the post to diverge from his own mandate that:

"There was very little direct criticism of the PLP at last night's "celebration". The focus was instead on what the UBP wants to do. I'd appreciate it if comment on this thread was the same."

I hope he will forgive the following as it diverges also from the desired thread. There is a constant attempt by certain peoples, primarily from UBP supporters to portray the PLP as an all black party. This is nothing new. The UBP portrays themselves as the party of racial equality, the PLP as a black nationalist party. I admit that certain elements of the PLP do express blatantly black nationalist or black racialist views. These views do not constitute the PLP. As Count Zero has pointed out an increasing number of whites, primarily the youth and the white working class are increasingly identifying with the PLP. His analysis is correct. Despite the few racialistic elements within the PLP the more important and growing trend is one that says a boss is a boss is a boss and a worker is a worker is a worker. Race is only superficial, the objective economic relations between boss and worker, employer and employee are of much greater relevance to reality than the accident of skin colour. Even should the racialists win the current battle, in so doing they dig their graves as the workers see no difference between white and black exploiters. To stop the hate we must not separate but cooperate - that is the realisation amongst the workers and youth. We are entering a period of heightened political consciousness, worldwide, seen in the French and German labour struggle, the anit-war movement, the Bolivarian-socialist movement in Latin America, the people power of Ukrania, Georgia and Haiti, the fall out of Katrina and Ivan, immigration laws, and a growing global economic crises. In Bermuda people are looking beyond race, and the sooner we purge the pernicous poison of racialism, this cancer, from our society and political worldviews, the sooner we can confront our reality with sober senses. The UBP's New Vision comes across to the cynical PLPer as a party bankrupt of ideology and creative ideas, cynically claiming to stand for justice when in relaity it serves as a front for the bosses with their viewpoints seldom differing from the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, lets reform the democratic system of our nation, but I don't think the UBP is serious but our desparately grasping at straws like a drowning man. I support these democratic reforms - but I don't see them seriously commiting to them.

[No Justice, No Peace on 25.03.06 at 07:43]

I just read on IMHO that Bootsie was the MC for this event. I really would like to take the UBP seriously, but Bootsie's inclusion leads me to believe that this is all window dressing. In one wing you have Patricia Gordon Pamplin attacking Col Burch for the house nigger comment. You see the greatest offense taken at Brown's plantation remark and P's email. But Bootsie, the guy who claimed something like: black UBP members were just whites with suntans, is remarkably escaped a landing on the persona non grata list. How is this possible, except in a realm where morality and justic only exist when it is politically expedient. Isn't Bootsie being given the green light because he enhances the UBP's marketability to black Bermudians? This is outright fraud, and it is stunning that whites aren't outraged at this, even if Bootsie gave a hollow apology. You just lost all credibility, Wayne.

[RedOnion on 25.03.06 at 08:24]

No Justice ... Suppose the UBP had a white MC for this event. There would be an outcry about that ... you just can't win in a race versus race discussion or debate!

[No Justice, No Peace on 25.03.06 at 08:36]

RedOnion. The issue is not that they chose a black MC. The chose an MC who claimed that black UBP members are just whites with suntans. How can his inclusion be defended in the political climate the UBP claims that it wants? It's no different than if they hired Burch from "The Col Speaks" (or whatever his show is called) if he wasn't an MP or Senator.

[No Justice, No Peace on 25.03.06 at 08:40]

A direct quote from Limey

*The PLP has 22 MPs and not a single one of them is white. At the last election, their advertising claimed that the only thing new about the UBP was its suntan. Deputy leader Dr. Ewart Brown said returning the UBP to power would be voting to return to the plantation.*

How is it that the same guy is given the job as MC and no one is disgusted or offended at the irony?

[Full Fullish on 25.03.06 at 08:51]

I just read on IMHO that Bootsie was the MC for this event. I really would like to take the UBP seriously, but Bootsie's inclusion leads me to believe that this is all window dressing.

NJNP - While I was surprised that Bootsie was the MC as well, the point that they were trying to make was that it was time to forgive and forget. Hopefully Bootsie learned his lesson from this and has instilled some additional moral values, which everyone needs to do whether work or personal life.

However if you read further in my bit on the rally, you should have made note of the audience (or even better been there yourself). The audience spoke volumes over what was said about the diversity of the makeup of the UBP.

Are you saying that Patricia Gordon Pamplin shouldn't take Burch to task over what he said? He should be accountable for it as a senator and an MP.

[No Justice, No Peace on 25.03.06 at 09:03]

"Are you saying that Patricia Gordon Pamplin shouldn't take Burch to task over what he said? He should be accountable for it as a senator and an MP."

What I'm saying isn't entirely complex, so I don't understand the confusion. What is the justification for the lack of venom for Bootsie? To me it looks like he is not condemned as Burch and Co is because he can draw black votes to the UBP. This is the suntan guy, remember!?!

[The Limey on 25.03.06 at 09:24]

No Justice

So you're saying that black people will vote for the UBP because they heard that Bootsie was the comedian at a UBP rally?

Somehow I doubt that very much.

[Full Fullish on 25.03.06 at 09:49]

No Justice -
Come on now.....that is the most retarded thing I've ever heard and quite frankly if I were a black person in the UBP (of which by the way there were many more black people than white people in the audience, about a 60/40 split, kinda like Bermuda's makeup AND they had no idea that Bootsie was even going to be there!) I would have to smack you upside your head for that statement! No one has forgotten what Bootsie said, however he did apologise for it, something that Burch and the rest of them have yet to find the moral aptitude to do by the way, and as I said, HOPEFULLY he will start being a bit more ethical while on the job. There was a lot of venom for Bootsie when he said it back in 2003 (or was it 2002?) and it was not appreciated.

I'm not going to argue over this. As I said in my piece on IMHO, if they do get elected, and with the reforms they have proposed I sincerely hope they do, it is up to all of us to make sure they stay the course and task them on what they have promised us. Next time, I would suggest that you come to the next rally and see it for yourself instead of making 2nd hand conjectures. I would also suggest that you take this up with them as well. I emailed Wayne Furbert what I wrote yesterday, this is what he wrote back:

"Thank you for attending last night. I meant everything I said and my
colleagues and I are committed to making it happen."

This was in response to my last paragraph. I'm going to hold them to this, I would suggest you emailing Wayne or anyone else with your questions and do the same.

[J Starling on 25.03.06 at 12:10]

I doubt that PLPers are going to attend a rally by the UBP, just as I doubt UBPers would attend a PLP rally. Bootsie has to pay rent and make ends meet like anyone else, and a job is a job when one is living hand to mouth as most of us are now despite the superficial keeping up appearences. An unfortunate consequence of this is that Bethel AME on Shellely Bay held a forum discussing the issue of Independence that same night. The three speakers were Peter Everson of the Chamber of Commerce, Senator Kim Swan (standing in for Mr. Furbert) and Senator Roban. My guess is most of the UBPers were at the UBP rally and thus left the field to PLPers in the opposition leaders own constituency. I think the PLP should call the UBPs bluff and initiate some of these democratic reforms in partnership with the UBP, it does after all fall in with their mandate (as written in the constitution of the Party) and similar proposals have been made by the PLP in the past, of which the constituency redrawing was only a part of.

[SmokingGun on 25.03.06 at 12:22]

"The UBP portrays themselves as the party of racial equality, the PLP as a black nationalist party. I admit that certain elements of the PLP do express blatantly black nationalist or black racialist views. These views do not constitute the PLP." - J Starling

I do not want this to become a racial dicussion, even though I did post in response to AP/Nicole's comment regarding it. The fact is sometimes one will judge it's book by it's cover.

What we must seek, demand and show is dignity. Dignity in how we go about our daily lives, dignity in how we treat others, talk to others and work with each other. Dignity in how we handle the position we were given by those that voted for us and gave us control over their lives. With dignity comes respect. With respect comes appreciation, confidence and trust. With trust we all move forward.

[No Justice, No Peace on 26.03.06 at 07:40]

"and as I said, HOPEFULLY he will start being a bit more ethical while on the job. There was a lot of venom for Bootsie when he said it back in 2003 (or was it 2002?) and it was not appreciated."

Like I said, there is hypocrisy going on here, because it is politically expedient. Bootsie making the excuse that his suntan comment was just something he did "on the job" is disgusting. It's the equivalent of saying, "Sure I'll make a bigoted joke if someone will pay me for it. But sorry, at least tonight." Bootsie gave a hollow apology and you know it. If you want to accept it, because it suits your purposes, then fine. Just don't be surprised if the double standard gets pointed out.

"So you're saying that black people will vote for the UBP because they heard that Bootsie was the comedian at a UBP rally?

Somehow I doubt that very much."

Limey,

You should feel ashamed of yourself and call it like it is. Bootsie does enhance the marketability in the same way that celebrities on the worldwide stage do for other countries. You've written about the suntan and plantation comments all the time, and yet here you have so little to say about his inclusion and "apology". I could respect your position if Bootsie just came right out and said it was wrong to do under any circumstance and that he unconditionally regrets making the joke. If anything he should have endorsed the UBP's approach to race relations and given an unqualified rejection of the race rally he attended. But he didn't, and it's fine with you, because it helps the UBP. What a blatant double standard!

[No Justice, No Peace on 26.03.06 at 07:45]

Just imagine the Premier saying that Burch's house nigger comment was something that was just "on the job" at Hott107.5, and that it should not affect his decision to appoint him to the Senate. Everyone would want to crucify him even more for offering such a ridiculous excuse.

[The Limey on 26.03.06 at 10:23]

No Justice

Perhaps all the black members of the audience were actors too, hired by Wayne to make it look as if the UBP has some black supporters?

And I wonder how much they paid John Swan to say how impressed he was by the racial diversity of the audience? After all, we know he really thinks the UBP is a white organisation, don't we?

[No Justice, No Peace on 26.03.06 at 12:43]

Limey,

I am very disappointed to see the lengths you are willing to go to in order to avoid a real discussion about Bootsie's inclusion in the UBP rally. This is someone who made one of the most racist comments in Bermuda's political history. This is right up there with "house niggers" and "voting back on the plantation". Just do a search on this very website to see what people here thought of Bootsie before now, and you have to wonder what the real deal is. The UBP hired Bootsy for the same reason the PLP did - he has a strong following amongst black Bermudians. It is just tragically hypocritical and ironic though that the UBP is welcoming him with open arms after he too branded black members as uncle toms. Where is the integrity? Why aren't the same whites who were condemning Bootsie to hell not outraged at his weak excuse for racist behavior? Because it is in the UBP's favour, that's why.

[smith on 26.03.06 at 12:53]

Do you hear yourselves?

Others do....It's embarrassing.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 26.03.06 at 14:46]

I gotta say... it was kind of a bad idea to have Bootsie do this thing. It reeks of the very thing that the UBP are accused of all the time: pandering to the black vote. I'm not saying they do, but it is an accusation that's thrown out.

Not their worst idea everm but not a good one.

[Boots on 26.03.06 at 15:27]

have you thought that maybe they chose him because he is a good host? people dont always plan things as much as we (on this site) seem to think. they are just politicians remember, not the smartest cookies in the jar.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 26.03.06 at 16:19]

Mmmmmmaybe... but I doubt it. I wouldn't say GOOD... adequate and the only one available, maybe, but GOOD? Nnnnnot really.

[No Justice, No Peace on 26.03.06 at 16:24]

Maybe they chose him because he was a good host? How many more excuses must you come up with? With his suntan comment he effectively called blacks in the UBP Uncle Toms and puppets, I believe, on the same night that Brown made his plantation comment. It is terribly hypocritical to lash Burch, Brown and P, but welcome Bootsie because he draws the crowd the UBP desperately needs. I can't see how any white person could have sat there and not been offended. I can't see how any black person would not have wanted to toss him off the stage. Those with integrity, that is.

[ace on 26.03.06 at 16:48]

Who is this Bootsie?

[Full Fullish on 26.03.06 at 19:46]

I personally wouldn't have choosen Bootsie for this either. As I said, I won't forget what was said back then, but he did apologise, all be it not a good one, but at least he did that. To my knowledge, he hasn't done anything insulting to any particular race or party since. I'm not making excuses for him, just saying that maybe it's a lesson learned. Believe me, my mouth was one of the first to drop open when he walked out, but at least he was man enough to apologise to a rather large scrutinizing crowd. This was the first thing that was addressed when he came out on stage. Just how long do you expect to keep this bit of hate alive though? You have to let it go at some point.

[sotrue on 26.03.06 at 21:20]

'Just how long do you expect to keep this bit of hate alive though? You have to let it go at some point.'
Posted by Full Fullish on 26.03.06 at 19:46

So true for so many things...

[Boots on 26.03.06 at 21:30]

No Justice, No Peace:
I have personally made no excuses as to why they chose Bootsie, yet YOU single me out why? YOU try to infer that I (or is it 'we'?) have no integrity, but why? Is it because 'we' can forgive? I bet YOU, with all your 'integrity' have made a bonehead comment in your life that has hurt some one or a group of people...have YOU appologized for every wrong thing you have done? Ok, I thought so...and since you have so much integrity which is defined as 'deriving from honesty and consistent uprightness of character' can you please applogize for hurting my feelings with your statement of 'How many more excuses must you come up with?' And yes, i am only 12 years old :P

[Two Cents on 26.03.06 at 22:43]

"Mmmmmmaybe... but I doubt it. I wouldn't say GOOD... adequate and the only one available, maybe, but GOOD? Nnnnnot really"

Come on Uncle Elvis, now that's a kind of harsh critique, alot of people like rehashed, regurgitated Cruise Ship "Cruise Director” humor.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 08:03]

To hell with the UBP's so called new vision smells like the same old bullshit served up in a diffent dish.

[observor on 27.03.06 at 09:13]

ice_cube

wow ... how profound ... you must be a road scholar or something.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 09:16]

Nah, nothing so fancy, just a simple plain old observor like yourself...

[Bermudian on 27.03.06 at 11:13]

road scholar?

[SmokingGun on 27.03.06 at 11:28]

Yeah, road scholar.... from Road Island. :)

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 27.03.06 at 13:24]

Wow, way to give people a chance, ice.
But you're right. Close-mindedness is DEFINITELY the way forward.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 14:25]

Your Excellency I would add that open mindedness about closed minded parties would be an over-rated experience. New faces don’t always equal to fresh blood, esp. when you have a foundation of old carcasses that take time to see that new faces remain just that.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 27.03.06 at 17:05]

You're absolutely right. Let's not give them a chance at all. Not one. Throw them to the dogs.
Why not? The current administration is doing such a fine job.

[loki on 27.03.06 at 17:13]

"have you thought that maybe they chose him because he is a good host?"

Fact: the man's about as funny as kneecap cancer.

[Nicole on 27.03.06 at 17:19]

>>But I'm afraid most of them don't apply any more....But in any event, the dwindling white Bermudian population means dwindling white Bermudian influence come election time and dwindling white Bermudian influence in general. White Bermudians don't hold the economic reins anymore ... Our political parties cannot remain locked into a past that grows more remote with every passing day. The UBP is at least suggesting it wants to evolve to meet current and future conditions. I see no hint of that from a PLP that tends to use race as an all-purpose distraction from its internal problems (the Scott/Brown leadership battle continues behind the scenes) while essentially ignoring the tremendous strain an economy in transition is putting on this community. << (SmokingGun)

One of my favorite quotes came to mind while reading Furbert's speech,

"What's that smell in this room? Didn't you notice it, Brick? Didn't you notice the powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room? (from, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof)

Is it possible that the UBP is mocking a progressive evolution by using the wording of Dr. King, Jr. without any of the ideological commitment to justice implicit in his words? Maybe it is evolving to use a façade believed useful to appease and disarm a (assumed) gullible population while still protecting or recovering whatever they can of their dwindling political/social assets?

Isn't it just a little (way way a lot) embarassingly transparent, so much so that even a few UBP supporters had to laugh, cover their eyes and peek later asking 'did they buy it?'

Talking about race as a problem was more often a tactic of born out of challenging racism. The side representing an old power structure is not going to address race in the same manner as a newer structure. One side is trying to preserve certain old ways and another side is trying to eliminate certain old ways and make new ones. Necessarily, each side will have different tactics.

I know that when one typically thinks of MLK, Jr. the imagery is of violent racists, shouts of white power, blacks unable to vote or eat in certain restaurants, and an uncracked monolith of a racist power structure. To the extent that this is past, is only because people were committed to challenging the racial status quo through substantive change.

But my comments, and the accompanying MLK, Jr. quotes, spoke only to the hypocritical and disingenuous idea of a ‘race card’ that accuses blacks of racialising a situation, while at the same time not questioning a status quo of white privilege, something so ‘normal and right’ to them that they cannot see it as “racial.”

It is a mind-trick, to convince the other side that race shouldn’t be a factor and shouldn’t be talked about, while at the same time effectively protecting racial privilege in a way that never did require much talking.

It wasn’t the ‘violent racists’ that MLK, Jr. called the 'great stumbling block' for black people in their progress. It was the white moderates. That’s a conversation that some in Bermuda need to have with themselves, that many in Bermuda already know is an issue, even if they articulate it only inappropriately in rude street gestures, angry stares and comments.

And certainly as did MLK, Jr., I don’t mean to imply all white people, or all black people on either side, nor do I discount the idea of a generation of younger folk being raised without that sense of ‘normal and right’ that enshrines racial privilege.

People quote MLK, Jr. on ‘content of character, not color of skin’ so often that I believe that 7 out of 10 of them probably don’t know much else he said. Yet, they are ignorant of or willfully overlook the detail behind what he said. It isn’t quite comfortable, and not as easy to manipulate.

Maybe the opposition is using PLP internal problems as a way of distracting from the valid challenges it makes on racial issues in Bermuda?

Might not the UBP folks be using “racial code words” when they imply that Bermuda will become like those Caribbean islands gone independent and can’ manage properly, international (white, don't want their money risked by people not their own) companies will leave, expatriates (white, educated) will go to places where the people (desperate natives) appreciate them (their civilising influence and superior leadership)? Or when they talk about the need to keep expatriates (white) happy or they will leave the island and the island will go all to hell(if left to blacks)? Oh come on, we all know what it means. All of us, not just you who use them.

Race should not be used to diminish ethical accountability. All politicians need to be held accountable to basic ethics, financial controls, administrative processes, etc. and cannot be allowed to excuse themselves in that area by exploiting real issues and stirring up supporters to overlook those internal accountability problems.

That said PLP requires the experience of being sober and savvy when going up against a group that has learned to keep the word 'race' out of their speech while staying steady on the same mental path (save little email and word slip-ups).

Why get caught up in a battle about race with people so in denial of their own sense of 'racial privilege' that you spend all your time wading in their denial? That will distract them from acting on the power of the people that they do have. I don’t believe they should act in arrogance, but instead of cultivating an ethically weak opposition or their own part strength, they should cultivate the strength of their supporters. Hey, I believe firmly in the Art of War, and the idea of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. They don't have to negotiate with injustice when they can assert justice from a position of power.

AGREED, dwindling white population in Bermuda, means dwindling white influence, and that white Bermudians don't hold the reigns anymore.

BUT if some advocate that "high-level" expatriates (who are mostly white) deserve 'more' respect, access to citizenship, access, ownership, etc., is this simply (by direction or in outcome) a means to slow, stop and/or restore that dwindling white population and influence?

AND if that said expatriate population believes somehow it is superior in ability, potential, value to the prosperity of the island than the 'general population' (sans euphemism: black), just as the dwindling white Bermuda population did, no matter how one tries to erase a 'racial' component to this, then is it unreasonable for black bermudians to notice this fact? Should they pretend to not notice it? Would that benefit them or other people?

Wouldn't it be interesting if black bermudians are just observant, and as for the other side, sheesh imagine the success of al qaeda if they could have independently operating cells so precisely acting on the same mentality that they don't have to have a collective plan to effect a collectively desired goal?

Oh wait, they do.

The way to deal with a situation is not just to edit out the bits that make YOU feel uncomfortable.

Racial issues are a reality for some people who don't have the privilege of ignoring them. I remember my school's Chancellor saying that on a trip to a small village in China he was stared at in a way he didn't deem friendly by people unused to seeing white people. This, he said so very solemnly, was his experience with racism. Deservedly, we mocked him viciously, but understood that because he is fully unused to being in a place where his whiteness did not grant him racial privilege, he for the first time didn't have the privilege of ignoring race.

Maybe there are strains of an economy in transition that have to deal with race that are best answered by not pretending racial issues don't exist, but by dealing with them in a more direct manner?

Black power movements arise out of resistance to white moderates. They forge an independence that is often both blurringly reactionary in its anger but justified in idea and enthusiasm that the path of justice doesn't stop because it leads through the comfort zone white moderates. Mindless aggressiveness for 'show' is ridiculous, but so is mindless passivity to appease injustice, no matter how mild. Again, even Dr. King valued tension and extremism as appropriate to achieving the goal.

One can criticize the PLP for many things, but don't be so unashamed of one's own hypocrisy that it becomes a badge of honor that you wear, but don't want to question how you got it and why you still have it.

Realistically, the past is never so remote for one who has experienced some pain in it, as it is for one who did not have a painful experience. As easily as one side can relegate bad deeds to the past, there are those that have to deal here and now with its impacts.

Most people are neither stupid nor unfeeling of their own situations. Even those who may not best articulate the issue, are still capable of feeling the mental consanguinity between past and present.

Instead of trying to talk them out of their feelings, efforts should go to examining the basis of our own sense of privilege and how it may clash with what really is fair and just in the manner that many of us claim to profess.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 27.03.06 at 17:28]

"Maybe the opposition is using PLP internal problems as a way of distracting from the valid challenges it makes on racial issues in Bermuda?"

How are they doing this again?

You mention White Privilege, which I applaud, as it's something that isn't addressed, but offer no was of combating it, only an essay on shoulda, coulda's.

How, in your opinion, should we address this and attempt to do away with it? How do we get people to understand that there IS a non-conscious ideology of White Privilege that needs to be addressed?
Throwing accusatory suppositions isn't going to do it.

Calling people the N-word isn't going to do it, either.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 27.03.06 at 17:32]

"...the valid challenges it makes on racial issues in Bermuda?"

How are they doing this again?

Sorry.. that was a little unintelligible. I meant "How are the PLP making "valid challenges it makes on racial issues in Bermuda"?

[SmokingGun on 27.03.06 at 17:40]

Nicole - I believe the qoute you mention was made by Count Zero.

[Nicole on 27.03.06 at 19:13]

I think I cut and pasted too much, oh well, I guess the points in both posts refer to all mentioned, even if I (with apologies) misattributed a quote..

"...My thinking is that 99% of white people may indeed vote for the UBP because they see it as a mixed party as opposed to the PLP which has to date condoned some pretty strong rhetoric that only serves to divide the races. So in that case the core party leaders in the PLP are driving the whites away and in effect forcing them to not vote PLP. As far as I'm concerned the PLP could take all of the UBP's economic ideas and implement them tomorrow and even if they were a great success I'd still want to vote the UBP or even a third mixed party in the next time. I for one can honestly say that I'm just totally exhausted and done with anyone who chooses to continue allowing race to keep us apart. "

Well, I didn't say racist, I said racial (and divisive). But, I don't think it is an untrue statement. I just question the paradigm of the comment.

PLP divides the races? Before the PLP existed, the races in Bermuda were ‘together?’ The races were ‘together’ under all those years of UBP leadership? Are you saying that racism didn't exist, that the races weren’t divided in the 1970s, 1960s, 1920s, 1850s, 1750s in Bermuda? Or do you mean that racism existed, but it really wasn’t a problem? Or that whatever exist, you wouldn't call it racism, you'd just call it 'normal' and/or 'right?'

As Dr. King said, THE PREFERENCE of a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…

Is it possible that for most/many/sane black Bermudians, what existed before was a negative peace, as Dr. King wrote? Order existed, but not justice. Maybe black Bermudians were not happy with what many white Bermudians found comfortable and orderly? And what some may find ‘divisive’is just a breaking up of that unjust order? Maybe disorder, uprising, tension, conflict, are necessary steps to a new and just order?

Divisive = tension? Maybe what keeps the divisiveness and tension, keeps the races apart, is trying to enforce that unjust order?

“My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”- MLK,Jr.
My grandfather used to 'yeah sure, the white slaveowners complained that racism wasn't a problem till the slaves started trying to escape and those abolitionists started arguing.' Then he'd sing that old southern American song, Dixie, "I wish I was in the land of cotton, Old times there are not forgotten.."

Isn’t there another way to look at the issues?

If it is a (negative) racial issue that so many blacks vote PLP, then why not question the negative racial issue of why whites votes UBP? Maybe both sides are taking the same action to protect their interests?

And hey, why not ask about the core party leaders of the UBP driving blacks away and in effect forcing them not to UBP?

Are you suggesting that 99% of the whites vote UBP because they are so non-racist and progressive that they crave a 'mixed' party?

Do you really believe that 99% of the whites are so pure and just at heart on racial matters? Maybe only 98% of them are so pure? Can there be say, 10% of them who aren't so nice? Is it even possible for some white people to be just a wee bit racist in their voting preferences?

Are they all devoid of any hint of securing racial privilege, resentfulness at "uppity" black folk who don't defer to them even out of 'politeness', not feeling comfortable with ideas that don't cater to white privilege, don’t feel comfortable with so much black leadership, missing the old secure days for them on the island, wanting to go back to the 'old days,' don't want the island to be 'too black run' like those other islands, and so forth?

You didn't mention why the blacks vote PLP? If you assign such non-racist motives to so many whites who vote UBP, then are the so many blacks who vote PLP as honorable in their motives?

Strong rhetoric to some, may well be simply highly accurate and uncomfortable rhetoric. Just because it is strong, doesn't mean it is wrong. Reread MLK, Jr. comments on tension and extremism and white moderates. They are valid. I can’t express them any better (or any nicer.)

Speaking about racism causes racism? Chicken and egg? Does that work on other topics. Speaking strongly about wife-beating, causes husbands to more often beat their wives?

Maybe the PLP isn’t driving whites away but being responsive in some way to the concerns of a very large population in Bermuda? Maybe whites are driven away because they don’t like that responsiveness, aren’t used to and don’t want to be used to that population having (and using) that kind of political muscle?

Interestingly, one main accusations against Martin Luther King, Jr. was that his work only stirred up trouble, his racial talk, and those civil rights folks only divided blacks and whites. They felt that without the racial rhetoric things were just fine. He was a troublemaker that only made whites angry. People said he divided blacks and whites, because he encouraged blacks to no longer accept the established ‘normal’ structure of race and justice, and told whites that this racial order was wrong. That’s why he was killed.

These people didn't see existing problems, because things were just fine (for them) and they didn't want it to change. A few blacks were truly afraid (and well-trained) to also accept things as they were. MLK, Jr. was hated at that time by so many for being 'racial' and now people refer to him to criticize those whom they call 'racial.'

In a country that is predominately black, why it is required that a party be 'mixed' or mixed enough for it to be okay? In Bermuda, is having white people in a party more important than the way issues are addressed? If so, why? And if you feel that way, can’t some blacks feel the same way in reverse and refuse to vote for UBP no matter what?

I'd vote for the party that best addressed the issues important to me. And maybe you are indirectly saying that an all black/too black party can't address the issue important to you, and that the presence a preferred mix of whites and blacks in a Bermuda party mean that you assume your issues will be in the forefront, therefore you can focus only on the race.

Without knowing you, I immediately wonder if a few blacks in the party means avoiding the 'all white' stigma, while a few whites means that it must be 'okay?'

Do you question any of that on your own? Or just accept it as "normal"? Maybe there is, or could be, a new normal?

[Raptor on 27.03.06 at 19:34]

Nicole, It would really help if you would specify whom you are quoting. It's hard to tell when you're addressing what one person wrote (which everyone else may or may not agree with), or when you are generalizing (which is not too effective). You make some good points that might stand out if you were more concise and less redundant...(please)!

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 27.03.06 at 19:53]

"PLP divides the races? Before the PLP existed, the races in Bermuda were ‘together?’ The races were ‘together’ under all those years of UBP leadership? Are you saying that racism didn't exist, that the races weren’t divided in the 1970s, 1960s, 1920s, 1850s, 1750s in Bermuda?"

I don't think that's ever been said here. You're putting words in others' mouthes and twisting what was said.
You yourself say, later on, that whites are being driven away from the PLP, for whatever reason. This is not the action of a party that is working for equality.

You also keep bringing up Dr. King, I guess in an attempt to create parallels. It's not fitting. Dr. King's dream was that "...one day... little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." It was a dream of equality. It was a dream of understanding. The current administration, and the one previous, has proven, time and again, with their actions and words, that they do not share this dream.

Yes, there is "White Privilege". Yes, it is wrong.
But the current administration certainly aren't working to make it better or even address it in a non-emotional, non-combative, positive way.

"In a country that is predominately black, why it is required that a party be 'mixed' or mixed enough for it to be okay?"

It's not required, certainly, but, in my pompous opinion, is preferable. I would prefer the Government to represent ALL of Bermuda, not just the ones that "look like [them]". I would prefer my Government to reprimand members that use racial epithets towards members of our society, not reward them. I would prefer that my Government give a shit about me and everyone else on the island, and not just a select few.

But that seems to be too much to ask for.

"I'd vote for the party that best addressed the issues important to me."

So,a Tourism Authority; measuring the performance of schools and publishing the results; liberalising height restrictions for certain housing developments; providing free basic healthcare, prescription drugs and glasses for seniors; committing to democratic reform; supporting fixed term elections; increased use of referenda; more bipartisan committees; a code of conduct for MPs; more conscience votes, having a member of the Opposition in Cabinet and the ability for the public to recall an MP...

None of those are important to you? None at all? Not even one?

"And maybe you are indirectly saying that an all black/too black party can't address the issue important to you"

Now, I can only speak for myself, but I would never say this. I WILL say that the current administration and the previous one not only didn't address any isues, they made it pretty clear that they didn't give a shit about what issues were important to me.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 27.03.06 at 19:59]

Yet again, Raptor sums it up in FAR less words than I.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 21:17]

His Excellency "I WILL say that the current administration and the previous one not only didn't address any isues, they made it pretty clear that they didn't give a shit about what issues were important to me".

You’re starting to see where I'm coming from. After hearing so many promises and been shown so many wondrous menus. We always end up with the same old cafeteria food with a different salsa. Same BS served in a different dish is what I say. I’d love to be proven wrong.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 28.03.06 at 00:09]

You'd love to be proven wrong, but you won't give them a chance to do it?

That makes sense.

[ice_cube on 28.03.06 at 10:06]

Yeah I agree it makes as much sense as trusting the same old lies time after time.

[SmokingGun on 28.03.06 at 10:53]

Nicole - I must admit it would be easier to respond to your post if it were not quite so broad scoped. You address so many issues and seek an answer and then go ahead and pretty much answer it yourself. And no I did not say you made any racist comments. People who are not racists can discuss racial issues as we do here. One thing you might try to remember is that in this current day we have many more educated and concerned people of all walks of life with a profound ability to communicate amongst ourselves. We must take the progress we have achieved and continue it forward and not keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over. So for instance, if the UBP states they will seek reforms to make sure we are all protected from our government then the PLP should also consider the idea. Hopefully we will get something that works for the good of all.

One way to think of it is this way. Have you ever sailed a sunfish? If so, then you know that if it capsizes it takes a lot of effort by the crew to bring it up right. If done incorrectly the boat can easily capsize back the other way. This can go on forever and we'll get nowhere. But if the crew works together properly it will get them up and sailing again.

We need to make sure that we are working together and that we trust each member of the crew to look out for each other. After all, we're all in the same boat.

[Nicole on 29.03.06 at 17:46]

>>It's not required, certainly, but, in my pompous opinion, is preferable. I would prefer the Government to represent ALL of Bermuda, not just the ones that "look like [them]". I would prefer my Government to reprimand members that use racial epithets towards members of our society, not reward them. I would prefer that my Government give a shit about me and everyone else on the island, and not just a select few. <<

Overall, I am simply arguing that criticizing one side for being 'racial' while not challenging the 'racial' on the other side, is not being rational, reasonable, etc. it is being unfair. And it is being highly disingenous about the issue of racism.

It really helps for a sense of unity when you don't consider the concerns of the other side as invalid by default.

That Furbert quoted Dr. King is indicative of a movement of people who want order - the old order -, a negative peace, far more than they want justice. I think even a few people are just so unconscious about it, that it easy to hurt their feelings by questioning it.

I think that both sides would agree that they want a government to represent all of Bermuda, not just a select few.

An epithet is not necessarily negative. It is a descriptive, like "Big" in "big apple." A racial epithet is a racial description. That N(**gger) word is a negative racial epithet, So are kike and wop.

It is abhorrent to casually call things racial epithets simply to be dramatic and mimic oppression. Sometimes you can so quickly tell people who have never really experienced racism against them.

Coyness causes a problem. Instead of speaking directly to an issue, people dance about and end up sounding foolish.

Why not say "I am getting tired of (select appropriate word) from people who (specify annoying behaviors.)"

I mean how many comments can we count from people who complain about the behavior, actions, attitude of a certain group, but will say "PLP supporters" or other turns of a phrase, but won't get more specific because we all know what they mean?

And really, who are the 'select' few? Depending of which you speak, those 'few' can be a majority.

But historically, the select 'few' were a very particular group of people and it is difficult to be taken seriously if you now argue that this group is now bereft of power and influence, and are being brutalised, savaged, oppressed, in Bermuda is ridiculous.

They may not feel as catered to as before, and there is of course a very real feeling of loss associated with that -- and certainly in every movement for equality there is a group that feels bitter because of it.

They certainly don't fit the category of suppressed minority and are demented (both condemned to and due for disappointment) if they expect others who have actually been suppressed, to weep with them about that loss.

Equality isn't always about bringing some people up, it is also about some people coming down off of their (however beloved) pedestals. If not every one can fit on the pedestals - and by definition they can't - then in an equal society no one can be on them.

Let me make a gentle comparison:

Consider the situation of two plants, a stronger one always given the best and most of the sun, the water, protection from harsh winds, the fertilizer, and a weaker one that has been given the least of all those things.

If you want to equalize the situation, you don't water and feed them equally. Doing so would not eliminate the inequality. You don't starve the larger one, but you do certainly have to feed the weaker one more.

The stronger plant may receive the same as before, or in some cases a little less than before because maybe it got 80% of the water in the bowl before, and now it gets 50% or 40%, some days it may not even get water because it is has previously be so lavishly watered, that it can do well without it. Meanwhile in comparison to the stronger plant and certainly in comparison to what it used to get when deprived, the weaker plant now seems positively drowned in water sometimes.

If plants spoke, one could imagine in that case the stronger plant long familiar with receiving better treatment could complain bitterly about not getting the privilege it was used to receiving.

The stronger plant may not care at all about the condition of the weaker plant, and only care that it is not getting the privileged treatment it used to get, and (oh the horror) even at times is not the center of focus for watering, feeding and fertilizing. The stronger plant may even somehow resent the idea that it will won't always be the stronger plant, that it will be just one of the plants.

And hey, that weaker plant could get resentful at the complaints of the stronger plant, and take them fully as disregard of deprivation (because they were benefiting, not deprived) and resistance to equality.

Perhaps, a proper gardener would simply console the larger plant and say that once acclimated, it (or its progeny) will one day find that the loss of privilege doesn't equal neglect, and can will even result in a more positive society.

I think the implication that all, most or even many black bermudians are of the mindset to replicate the racism that was perpetuated against them, is very unfair. And to shape that implication with the image of white people being oppressed gives the discussion a twist that contributes to unhealthy conflict.

Coyness aside, I think you'd find a lot of people would support (and demand) the government giving a shit about you, if they felt you gave a shit about them.

>> "I'd vote for the party that best addressed the issues important to me."

So,a Tourism Authority; measuring the performance of schools and publishing the results; liberalising height restrictions for certain housing developments; providing free basic healthcare, prescription drugs and glasses for seniors; committing to democratic reform; supporting fixed term elections; increased use of referenda; more bipartisan committees; a code of conduct for MPs; more conscience votes, having a member of the Opposition in Cabinet and the ability for the public to recall an MP...

None of those are important to you? None at all? Not even one? <<

I never said which issues are important to me, I just said that I'd vote based on issues important to me and that I would never vote simply based on the race of politicians.

>>You also keep bringing up Dr. King, I guess in an attempt to create parallels. It's not fitting. Dr. King's dream was that "...one day... little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." It was a dream of equality. It was a dream of understanding. The current administration, and the one previous, has proven, time and again, with their actions and words, that they do not share this dream. <<

I mentioned Dr. King, because he was mocked in that UBP speech.

Dr. King didn't live in dreams -- and he didn't avoid present-day realities. He confronted them quite aggressively. Sit-ins, protests, loud speeches, confrontation.

You SERIOUSLY misunderstand that movement. There is a difference between what he DREAMED about being possible in the future and what he SAW and DID in his present-day struggles.

Really, I wish people learned about the breadth of his words and the movement instead of just selecting and misusing that "I have a dream" statement. I can imagine that most people using such quotes have never read or heard the full speech.

That "Dream" you mention was a statement nearest to the END of that speech, and indeed ideologically was an end-goal, a future he felt could come, a dream of absolute equality where race was not the negative issue it was at that time.

He also said that he may not get there with us, that he may not live long enough to see that day.

He was NOT saying that the way he felt one should confront racial inequality was to not see race at all. The statement that immediately precedes that 'dream' comment is this:

"Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. "

After that 'dream' comment he goes on to say "With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. "

Dr. King's ideology and that of entire civil rights movement was about present-day struggle which directly involved speaking about racism, challenging racism, chasting racist, encouraging black people to struggle for their rights, to create positive tension, to not submit, to not be silent, to encourage whites to join the movement but not seek to pacify or control it for their own comfort.

Again, this is the man who said that white moderates, not violent racists, were the biggest stumbling block for the progress of black people.

It seems to me that such a statement, and many of his statements were effectly him being tired of white people who acted in ways that were racist, wrong, bad, unjust, selfish, and that worked against the cause of inequality.

It wasn't about whitewashing racial issues as a means to effect equality.

Rather than making every one color-blind, why not accept the challenge of allowing people to see clearly but not judge one race as less than another? What, if you can't (or don't want to) eliminate the inequality, you just make everyone unable to see it.

It is hard for people to not focus only on race, when that is the primary issue they feel you are trying to hide to their detriment.

(I figure even with typos present, most can figure out the intent)

[Nicole on 29.03.06 at 18:36]

>> You mention White Privilege, which I applaud, as it's something that isn't addressed, but offer no was of combating it, only an essay on shoulda, coulda's.

How, in your opinion, should we address this and attempt to do away with it? How do we get people to understand that there IS a non-conscious ideology of White Privilege that needs to be addressed?
Throwing accusatory suppositions isn't going to do it.

Calling people the N-word isn't going to do it, either. <<

What's the point of a discussion if nobody questions their own sacred cows? Being too shy or too proud obstructs knowledge.

Considering it isn't often addressed, the first step in combating it is speaking on the fact that it existed. The first step in hitting a target is identifying that it exists. Maybe that could be deemed accusatory, supposition, or both. You are doing wrong (accuse), suppose you think about this another way? See, not that's not all bad, right?

It would be great if we could all talk and get people to agree to do away with it. But really, what social problems have been done away with that way?

Slavery didn't end because slave owners were convinced by abolitionists that slavery was wrong. Slavery ended because some people were convinced slavery was wrong and just refused to be silent and passive. They refused to make it comfortable for those who supported slavery. Oh sure, folks howled about the injustice of not returning their escaped slaves and things like that, demanded states rights, felt they were being oppressed by abolitionists, etc. but folks just said 'whatever' and kept refusal to give comfort on that point.

Slavery ended because people became confrontational and resistance. They created TENSION and refused to be silent. People with power and people who fought for the power, found some critical tipping point to make illegal and label immoral, what was one considered 'normal and right.' Some people were 'converted' but many others found that the tide of change was so powerful that they were swept along unwillingly.

Slavery by comparison was an easy issue to present-day white privilege. It was easy to identify slavery and much harder to deal with the more subtle issues that people can hide an ultimate belief of white privilege behind.

I still think the first steps to combatting it are just simply asking "why do you think it works that way and not this way." Some people really have never been asked questions like that and certainly don't think of them on their own. YOU are radical, they think normally.

Cynical, as I've mentioned I am, I really don't believe that in a discussion with someone they will 'see the light.' Neither I nor they may have the ability to do so. People aren't perfect. We are often selfish and petty. We want what we want, and we don't want to give up what we want, if it benefits us. We aren't giving up privilege for ourselves to help someone else in need.

Maybe we'll do it with a bit of money, via charity, but we aren't giving up money to buy our extra snack of cheesy poofs to feed the hungry because dammit, we may not need them, but LIKE those things.

More often, I've just served to better inform my knowledge of their viewpoint, and challenge and modify as best necessary my own views.

And for both goal and exercise, it is cool beans to joust in a way that makes the other side feel a bit of steel, either trying to advance or trying to run away.

Many people just take an opinion not because it is defendably right or in harmony with their other claimed beliefs, but because they learned it or heard it somewhere and just kept on with it. They've never challenged, verified, validated, informed their own opinions.

When it comes to racial issues, I especially find that so many people will just try to stand their opinions defending white privilege, on those oft-repeated short quotes Dr. King's "HE HAD A DREAM" and he didn't SEE RACE, or whatever foolishness, and really just be legless out there.

If in an argument, I find that I am wrong (all or in some part) well then I've walked away better. But that's because I have a personal goal of harmonizing my personal beliefs with some measure of objectively defendable integrity.

I don't cower to my own hypocrisy anymore than I cower to anyone else's. And good graces to someone who can help me do this. A worthy stand in any political discussion, I think.

I truly don't believe that some people will give a damn about the existence about white privilege. It works for them, feels good for them and they want it, no matter how unjust it is to anyone else. Arguing is a personal joust, an attempt at sharing, but I don't mistake the willingness of people to be just.

All one can do is be prudent, faithful, wise and unconquerable in their resistance.

Emphasis on the unconquerable part.

As often said, a dream conceived in truth can never die. But all lies are crushed eventually.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." – George Orwell

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 18:41]

Nicole,

The truth is that numerically there are more people enslaved today than pre 1834

Go to Google and do some research.

[SmokingGun on 29.03.06 at 19:16]

"I mean how many comments can we count from people who complain about the behavior, actions, attitude of a certain group, but will say "PLP supporters" or other turns of a phrase, but won't get more specific because we all know what they mean?" - Nicole

Please would you mind actually listing what you think people maybe really meaning when they say "PLP supporter"? As I know I have used that phrase, and I am known to enjoy turning quite a few others, I'd like to get some idea of just what people may be mis-reading into them. Thanks.

[Nicole on 29.03.06 at 19:25]

>> Nicole - I must admit it would be easier to respond to your post if it were not quite so broad scoped. You address so many issues and seek an answer and then go ahead and pretty much answer it yourself. <<

I am actually referring to what I consider a broad issue -- before even dealing with a statement, sometimes it helps just questioning the paradigm that shapes it. I do apologize for how scattered that can seem.

I am asking a lot of questions, granted. I don't want to assume the viewpoint of the other person so thoroughly that I don't miss the forest for the trees.

>> And no I did not say you made any racist comments. People who are not racists can discuss racial issues as we do here. One thing you might try to remember is that in this current day we have many more educated and concerned people of all walks of life with a profound ability to communicate amongst ourselves. <<

And people can be racist and avoid what they think are direct words of racism. My cynicism warrants that sometimes I question that being 'educated' on one topic may not be educated on another, and that being 'educated' doesn't exempt a person from being a racist. There is no absence of racism in intellectual circles, on the contrary there is a lot of fiddle faddle created in such arenas to obscure it.

I don't think education and concern automatically go together. And that whole communication thing is as effective when people aren't addressing those paradigms. We don't necessarily need the exact same language, but it helps to under each others basic grammar rules.

>> We must take the progress we have achieved and continue it forward and not keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over. So for instance, if the UBP states they will seek reforms to make sure we are all protected from our government then the PLP should also consider the idea. Hopefully we will get something that works for the good of all. <<

For some people, that progress came because they were protected BY the government from other citizens. The laws protected them from being discriminated against and oppressed by you and I. The slave owners felt they had to be protected FROM the U.S. Government, the slaves more felt they were being protected by it.

So for them, the PLP is protecting (not as well as it should or could) them from people in the UBP.

That you assume all people should, must, do and even could believe that UBP reforms are to protect them, is what I mean about questioning the paradigms, the grammar, of a question. If the UBP were to become government again, then would you be so open to the idea of the PLP serving to protect people from the government?

Remember, UBP was government at some point, and progress was made by challenging it, reforming ITS policies, and finding ways to protect black bermudians from it, not by letting its people solely decide what did or didn't need to be reformed. What history do you omit that posits the UBP as the source of justice in Bermuda?

So why should you take a stance now that only the PLP needs to be reformed? Maybe reformation on both sides is still needed? Why is the concession of flaw only spoken of in one direction?

>> One way to think of it is this way. Have you ever sailed a sunfish? If so, then you know that if it capsizes it takes a lot of effort by the crew to bring it up right. If done incorrectly the boat can easily capsize back the other way. This can go on forever and we'll get nowhere. But if the crew works together properly it will get them up and sailing again. We need to make sure that we are working together and that we trust each member of the crew to look out for each other. After all, we're all in the same boat. <<

But what if the issue isn't whether it is upright, but which direction it is going in? Generally, people aren't in the same boat with different desired directions, unless they agree upon the priorities for the path. I can't be happy with a floating boat, if your idea of trust is that the boat goes only where you want and need to go. You wouldn't be happy either. You'd just be there to help me get to where I'd want, and you'd maybe end up down and out in my preferred destination.

Agreed, we have to look out for each other and that means we have to not just think about what we want, but what direction is best taking into account mutual needs in a way that may mean some concession to the greater good.

If you want people to trust you that you will look out for them as you would yourself, you have to make sure your speech reflects that - - not just to your own ears and paradigm, but in theirs.

If you can't even question your own perhaps self-favoring assumption of what you think is right for me. If you simply want to convince me that the UBP is good for you and yours, therefore it is good for me and mine. Then no, I can't trust you.

I'd trust myself more particularly because I'd have the real pain of injustice in my personal, cultural and familial-legacy experience to stab me at the right moments when I begin to truly mimic the behavior of people who want to oppress others. It isn't a fail-safe position, but its probably safer than your position.

The fear that I'd do to you what you've done to me is profound, and revenge is very common to humans, but what is even more human is repeating and continuing your same behaviors, especially if you've never really examined the unspoken assumptions behind them. Show me some self-awareness and I can begin to assign trust. Show me that you are determinedly oblivious and I will properly reject you.

Maybe that's your burden - don't lecture others on reforming without and before you've truly done your own reforming. Hey, maybe if you examine your own flaws you can then show me how to examine mine. But before then...

So let's have a conversation that appeals to dialogue not one that expects submission. No other kind of dialogue will be sustainable, much less polite.

Ok, I'm going to try to go through this point by point, but there will be some stuff cut out: redundancies and longwindedness, in particular.

"Overall, I am simply arguing that criticizing one side for being 'racial' while not challenging the 'racial' on the other side, is not being rational, reasonable, etc. it is being unfair."

Kind of like what you're doing when you knock the UBP, as you are doing here, but go on to say that the PLP are addressing racial issues, but don't say how or when or anything when asked?
I agree with you, but your very, very longwinded posts are as one-sided as those you chastise.

It really helps for a sense of unity when you don't consider the concerns of the other side as invalid by default.

Um... are you talking about the PLP or the UBP here?
'cuz both do it.

That Furbert quoted Dr. King is indicative of a movement of people who want order - the old order -, a negative peace, far more than they want justice. I think even a few people are just so unconscious about it, that it easy to hurt their feelings by questioning it.

Do what now? The fact that the black leader of a political party quoted Martin Luther King is indicative that he wants us to go back to the old ways? Huh? How does that make sense?

I think that both sides would agree that they want a government to represent all of Bermuda, not just a select few.

Then why haven't we got it? From EITHER side?

An epithet is not necessarily negative. It is a descriptive, like "Big" in "big apple." A racial epithet is a racial description. That N(**gger) word is a negative racial epithet, So are kike and wop.

Actually, those two aren't racial at all, as there is no Jewish race nor Italian race. "Honkey", "Cracker" etc. Would be. Kike is a negative religious epithet and Wop is a negative national epithet. If you're gonna argue semantics, at least use examples that fit.

It is abhorrent to casually call things racial epithets simply to be dramatic and mimic oppression.

I agree. See above.

Why not say "I am getting tired of (select appropriate word) from people who (specify annoying behaviors.)"

Mr. Scott, is that you?

I mean how many comments can we count from people who complain about the behavior, actions, attitude of a certain group, but will say "PLP supporters" or other turns of a phrase, but won't get more specific because we all know what they mean?

Um.. because most of the time, they're talking about a specific, or "certain group", and not, much as you'd like it to be so, all Black folks (Which is what you were getting at, isn't it? I thought we weren't supposed to dance around it?)

Depending of which you speak, those 'few' can be a majority.

Wait. What? The few can be the majority? Huh?

But historically, the select 'few' were a very particular group of people and it is difficult to be taken seriously if you now argue that this group is now bereft of power and influence, and are being brutalised, savaged, oppressed, in Bermuda is ridiculous.

Who said this? Not once have I heard anyone claim that white people (again, this is who you're talking about, right? You're dancing around again...) as a group have been brutalized... or savaged... or...
THAT statement is what is ridiculous.

They may not feel as catered to as before, and there is of course a very real feeling of loss associated with that -- and certainly in every movement for equality there is a group that feels bitter because of it.

This is true. The White Privilege thing is a very real thing. However, this doesn't mean that Privilege itself should be done away with, which is what you seem to be implying... My feelings are that EVERYBODY should be privileged. EVERYBODY should receive the rights and bonuses and special treatment and everything else associated with White Privilege. Everybody CAN fit on the pedestal.
Yes, those at the very top need to come down a little and those at the bottom need to come up, but associating all white people with those at the top is as bad as associating all black people with those at the bottom. THAT is what's unfair.

They certainly don't fit the category of suppressed minority and are demented (both condemned to and due for disappointment) if they expect others who have actually been suppressed, to weep with them about that loss.

No-one is asking for that. However, a little sympathy... no, EMPATHY, when personal stories are told is not out of line. If we're ALL working to get us to a good place, a place of true and real equality, empathy will be key.

Let me make a gentle comparison:

Consider the situation of two plants, a stronger one always given the best and most of the sun, the water, protection from harsh winds, the fertilizer, and a weaker one that has been given the least of all those things.

If you want to equalize the situation, you don't water and feed them equally.

See, now here's where you lost me. This statement is completely and 100% incorrect. If you want to equalize them, you DO water and feed them equally. To do anything else is NOT equalizing the situation.

The stronger plant may receive the same as before, or in some cases a little less than before because maybe it got 80% of the water in the bowl before, and now it gets 50% or 40%, some days it may not even get water because it is has previously be so lavishly watered, that it can do well without it. Meanwhile in comparison to the stronger plant and certainly in comparison to what it used to get when deprived, the weaker plant now seems positively drowned in water sometimes.

Sooooo... um... you should punish the stronger plant because "it can do well without it"? That's equality to you?

If plants spoke, one could imagine in that case the stronger plant long familiar with receiving better treatment could complain bitterly about not getting the privilege it was used to receiving.

And it would be right.

The stronger plant may not care at all about the condition of the weaker plant, and only care that it is not getting the privileged treatment it used to get, and (oh the horror) even at times is not the center of focus for watering, feeding and fertilizing. The stronger plant may even somehow resent the idea that it will won't always be the stronger plant, that it will be just one of the plants.

Now here, you're just conjecturing and supposing, projecting YOUR opinions on the situation, so I'm dismissing this section.
Actually, the rest of this bit is supposition and conjecture and, basically, gibberish.

I think the implication that all, most or even many black bermudians are of the mindset to replicate the racism that was perpetuated against them, is very unfair. And to shape that implication with the image of white people being oppressed gives the discussion a twist that contributes to unhealthy conflict.

Is it an implication when we hear "It's our turn now"?
Or any of the other quotes repeated ad nauseum? It's not implication and it's not unfair to say that there is a group of people that have not only proven, but outright SAID, only not in so many words, that they want to replicate this. This is an observation, not an implication.

Coyness aside, I think you'd find a lot of people would support (and demand) the government giving a shit about you, if they felt you gave a shit about them.

See, that's not in the job description. The first bit, you