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

[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.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 29.03.06 at 19:37]

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 got right. We SHOULD demand, not support, demand, a Government that gives a shit about ALL of us. I don't have to give a shit about them. They have a job to do and that job is to run my country so it's the best place for me and mine to live (and by that, I mean Bermudians, before THAT phrase gets twisted.) They are providing me with a service and they are paid for it. Just like a waiter, or a bank manager. I don't have to give a shit about the salesgirl who sells me a shirt, but you can be damn sure that I demand that she give a shit about me!
It's not chicken and egg. If she does a good job, maybe I'll start giving a shit. If she doesn't, and the current and past administration certainly haven't for the most part, since that IS what we're talking about, then there is no justification whatsoever for her to expect me to.

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

He was mocked? What? Where?

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.

So... from my two line post quoting his most famous speech, you can tell my understanding of the Civil Rights Movement? Nicely done.

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.

I'm assuming you mean me when you say "most people using..." in this instance.
Actually, I took the quote from the entire speech, which I have on my computer. The file is right next to an MP3 file of the speech.
Please stop presupposing what I do and do not know or believe.

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.

Ye-esss... this is what we call a wrap-up. It summarizes what is said in the body of the speech.
Quite frankly, it's one of the best end-goals there is. To imply that it's not what he was talking about in the rest of the speech is ludicrous.

He was NOT saying that the way he felt one should confront racial inequality was to not see race at all.

Huh? Where did I say this? Again, please stop putting words in my mouth. As for that, where did Mr. Furbert say it in the speech that "mocked" Dr. King?

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.

How did me quoting the "I have a dream" section negate this? Read it again. What you said just reinforced what I wrote.

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.

Um.. yeah. We got that. We actually support it. I know it's hard to believe that white people DO support that, but... well.. we do.

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

Where does it say that? I just reread the speech. I'm looking for that section but can't seem to find it.

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.

Who's doing what, now? I'm sure there's an accuation in there somewhere, but I can't figure it out.

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

Oh, we got the intent, alright... trust me.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 29.03.06 at 19:43]

So, to summarise your answer to my question on combatting White Privilege:

"Fuck it, no one's gonna listen"

See, you can say it in ten words or less.

"... extra snack of cheesy poofs..."

A South Park fan. I approve!

[Nicole on 29.03.06 at 20:25]

>> Nicole,

The truth is that numerically there are more people enslaved today than pre 1834. Go to Google and do some research. <<

Which would mean what in your mind? What is the qualitative value you want to uphold with that argument? Or is it just a diversionary tactic because of something for which you can't google support? I can't go slashing at windmills when you've given me a perfectly real target.

Which kind of enslavement or slavery? Chattel? Racial? Gender? Religious? Economic? Political? By whom? Which year pre-1834, because you surely can't mean all years before 1834 or just 1833, as compared to simply now, this moment (2006). Are you saying that re: enslavement, there is something you like about pre-1834 that vexes you now?

Basic Point: There are numerically more people on earth now than in most any given year pre-1834. Pick a broad societal ill and you will likely find more people suffering from it.

For instance, there are more people starving in the world than pre-1834 and there are more people living in abundance now than pre-1834. And hey, I think we can randomly pick diseases - even those that now have secure prevention and cures, and still find numerically more people suffering -dying - contracting them now. Google that.

Let me suggest mildy that I could debate at length debate such a topic without much reliance on google. Would you be surprised that I've done some serious research on such topics, and that is how I form my opinions, rather than formed an opinion first, and then sought sources specifically to validate it?

We can't trust the ideas of any yahoo who puts up a website, can we? A whole forum of fools could gather and convince themselves of anything by cutting and pasting bits and pieces from here and there.

But tell me what what of my view you seek to refute, and I will tell you why I believe my point was valid. Maybe you actually validated all that I've written, with your question alone?

Let's not be silly. If you think pre-1834 was ideologically and materially a better time than now with regard to enslavement, I'd ask you simply to find a comparative abundance of laws that enshrine it vs. those that oppose it. Better yet, man your slave ship and pick a port at which to fill it. Form your plantation and seek government protection keep people on it. Don't hide it, put it right out in the open. Advertise for slaves. Won't work as well now as it did then.

It would be a spectacular failure for you in places where people formed a history of resistance, instead of pretending race, racism and injustice wasn't really there. I feel protected by that progress, perhaps you are one of the folks that may feel inconvenienced by it?

However, perhaps we can agree that a person who could think in a discussion about racism that pre-1834 was a less odious time for the existence and allowance of enslavement, than present-day, is a person for whom the difference would not be felt.

And we can take that point and come right back to what I wrote previously about paradigms that underpin current arguments.

[Bill Oreilly on 29.03.06 at 20:43]

Keep it pithy. Too much bloviating. That's Phil's job.

[Bill Cook on 30.03.06 at 07:22]

Nicole,

Sorry I thought you were saying that slavery had ended and giving the reasons that ended it.

Was pointing out that it had not.

Google provides a service in giving the names and contact of active anti slavery orgs one can join.

[SmokingGun on 30.03.06 at 12:49]

Nicole - with all due respect, you tend to make a lot of assumptions. Some people say it's putting words in one's mouth, I say it's just having a bad habit of listening with your mind made up.

I certainly don't mean to lecture you and I apologise if that's what you thought but to be honest I haven't had to sit through such long dissertations since University and most of those were in lecture halls. So I guess maybe I got the vibe from you. No worries.

I have spent quite some time in my relatively short life learning a great deal about myself and how I fit into the grand scheme of things. One thing I have learned is this. I'm just a one of many small wheels in a mighty big cog. I know that the little things I do will impact those around me in some form so I try to be extremely careful in understanding how. But the one fear I have is that if I become too sensitive to it all I'll just end up spinning my wheels and nothing will get done.

Regarding the sunfish. In order to right the boat you need to be facing into the wind or you'll run into the flip-flop problems. So therefore the direction is a given for all aboard. Sometimes you'll spend so long trying to get going again that you become exhausted so the safest thing is to get in to the closest port. Again the direction is pre-determined. However! What if the winds blowing the wrong way? My point is simple. We may never know exactly where we are going nor how we will get there. But we must learn to accept that at this moment we have only two options - stay in the boat and work together to get to safe harbour or simply stay put and drown. I for one do not want to leave anyone to drown. But there is a boat to catch.....

[ken on 31.03.06 at 09:54]

So according to the RG today, the Premier's ratings have gone up incrementally but the Opp Leader's ratings are lower than that of the former Opp Leader...is there any significance to that?

[observor on 31.03.06 at 11:15]

Wow ken ... I thought 'P' didn't care about poll numbers.

Still, the biggest number I noticed were the percentage of respondents who found 'P' unfavourable.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 31.03.06 at 11:22]

Hey, ken... check the bar underneath the "Favourable" one...

Mr. Scott's Unfavourable Rating is still WAY higher than Mr. Furbert's.

Is there any significance to THAT?

[ken on 31.03.06 at 11:29]

Not really because the Premiers rating has been about the same, but the UBP is the one who made a specific change, in an attempt to increase their chances, and it seems though it may have backfired a bit...Mr. Furbert was supposed to be the great hope that will sail them through...

[silencedogood on 31.03.06 at 13:00]

Nicole,

I don’t know where to begin with you.

1) The UBP is not a white party. It’s racially mixed. As Limey demonstrated several times before, a large proportion of UBP voters are black. How exactly is it that where a large proportion of voters are non-white, a large proportion of leaders are non-white a party may still be labeled as white?

2) The link between Furbert’s speech and Dr. King’s is unmistakable but how in the world does that make it a call to return to Jim Crow-like conditions in Bermuda. Hmm, maybe he’s trying to allude to Dr. King because he wants a positive association with a civil rights hero.

3) White privilege is a fallacy for the current generation no matter what you or His Excellency (what’s up with the name change?) believes. To reference your plant analogy (which I quite liked) you are blaming the same species of plant for the privilege received by a few plants of that species a generation ago.

To be more blunt, my family never held slaves and was dirt poor until the generation before mine which educated itself while working three jobs and became middle class. Our family got no help from elitists of the same race, they disliked poor people of the same race also, but it is completely fair to say there was a benefit by virtue of the fact others were being discriminated agaisnt, not that negates their struggle.

Times have changed. I am not diverse as a white male and attended institutions of higher learning which were very blunt about the fact they would sacrifice test scores to meet racial or gender goals. Other institutions I did not recieve admission to, who were equally blunt, admitted good friends of mine with lower credentials across the board except for on diversity. That's not really fair either is it?

Equal opportunity is fair but it doesn’t guarantee an obstacle free, easy path to success, nor does it guarantee equality of outcomes. If you want a black child growing up to have the same opportunities under the system as a white, asian, etc. child I am with you 110%. If you want to social engineer I'm 110% against.

4) 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.

Posted by Nicole on 29.03.06 at 18:36

Please clarify? Are you speaking of the UK or the US? Whom exactly are the "people"? Slaves? Voters? Armies? Slavery was not ended by slave revolt if that's what you are implying. Nat Turner was not the inspiration.

Look, if we really want to make progress on this tiny rock we have got to can this racial he-said, she-said. Unless you know every individual’s personal history it is unfair and foolish to assume you know them simply by looking at the colour of their skin. It’s as wrong then as it is today. I don’t care if a young Bermudian is black, white, brown, or purple if he or she is a good kid I am willing, able, and have taken them under my wing, such that it is.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 31.03.06 at 13:55]

"3) White privilege is a fallacy for the current generation no matter what you or His Excellency (what’s up with the name change?) believes..."

The name change was a joke to do with the guy who said he was bringing in Will Smith et al.
If it offends, I'll ditch the honorific.

As for White Privilege, I agreed with you, until I read an essay on it. Check out http://whiteprivilege.com and peek at the definition page.
There are examples of it everywhere. It's called by some a "non-conscious ideology". I've cited the example of the white best man at a wedding talking about the black groom's first day in New York City. He was getting a cataract operation. The punchline of the story was "Welcome to New York. Now a white guy's gonna stick knives in your eyes." (It was funnier in the telling...) Everyone laughed, then an older black man stood up at the back of the room and raised his hand. "I'm the white guy that stuck knives in his eyes." he said.
Now, tell me you didn't think the doctor was white.

You see what I mean? That is a very simple example of it. When we refer to Mr. Butterfield as "The Black CEO of the Bank of Bermuda". Yes, it's great that he's a black man that made it to president of a bank. Where the concept of White Privilege comes in is that, honestly, we shouldn't be impressed. It SHOULDN'T be an achievement for a black man. It shouldn't have to be. It shouldn't be such a great thing. It should be commonplace.

The 60s are over. We shouldn't be looking at current events the same way as Mrs. Talbot being the first Black lady to work on Front Street. These sort of historic events shouldn't be happening any more. If we truly were as equal as we all think we are these days, "achievements" and the title of "The first Black whatever" shouldn't exist any more.

D'you see where I'm coming from?

Yes, it's changing, yes, it's getting better, but, while we're further than some think we are, we're not as far along as others say we are.

We just gotta keep plugging along.

[silencedogood on 31.03.06 at 14:28]

No worries Elvis--I wasn't offended, just curious. I missed the reason for its intro.

I see your point, but I just don't think its fair to apply those annecdotes across the board.

I look at it the same way as when I heard Tim Wise's story about the pilots. I was pretty shocked by his thoughts actually. What popped into his head never has, and I feel safe saying, never would pop into mine.

If anything I think people tend to assume others in the world are like them. Good people think everyone is good, dishonest people suspect others of dishonesty, etc.

Maybe that blurs into a racial context so successful people see others of their race as successful or people who suffered discrimination assume all others of their race have too. Who knows? I'm not much for speculation.

I can only speak for my own experience and views which I know do not fit the privileged image that I've been branded with because of my skin tone.

Would that it were true--I would be quite happy to take the criticism poolside with a drink in my hand either in Tucker's Town or the Fairylands! (Garth, that's a haiku)

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 31.03.06 at 15:03]

The thing is that White Privilege is not just a White problem. It's addressed as such far too often. It's something we ALL have to face and deal with.
Individual punishment for White Privilege is just as bad as individual expectation. It feeds the problem.
We all have inate, ingrained perceptions. This is what the concept of White Privilege is about.
This is why it's called a Non-conscious ideology.

It's something I'm getting my head around, so some of the stuff I write about it will probably be babbling for a little bit (not as bad as the babble of SOME, but still...), but I'm hoping to come to grips with it.

[silencedogood on 31.03.06 at 16:23]

You crack me up Elvis.

[myshreecents on 03.04.06 at 17:21]

Recent polls seem to indicate that the voting public is not buying the "NEW" U.B.P. under Wayne Furbert. The voters don't seem to be that happy with Alex Scott's leadership either. I read Furbert's Vision for the future and quite frankly found it to be just another exercise in political "waffle". They promised to build upwards in high density areas to help solve the housing crisis....duh isn't that what the former Minister De Vent attempted in the Prospect Mary Victoria Road area, only for the U.B.P. to fully support the area residents living in Government subsided houses who objected. The country is presently confronted with some crucial issues which ultimately will require strong leadership and the will to make things happen for the benifit of the majority outside of politics. Simply pandering to the voters does not get the job done at the end of the day.