Search This Blog

Loading...

Subscribe by Email

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Talk Of Present Day Slavery, Not Of Yesterday's

No comments: Links to this post
I use to think that the issue about apologizing for slavery was bad although I still think it is not necessary, but I have come to accept that we need to accept the failures and disgrace of slavery as we accept the glories and victories of Lord Nelson and others for this country. But also Africans should also accept their fault in fuelling slavery by selling their own as they crave for the apologies.
But far from that, I refuse to think that anyone should apologise since the descendants of the sold are rather much happier and takes themselves as lucky not to be part of the many slavery going on in Africa. Would any of them want to go back and loose their citizenship of developed countries where their ancestors were sold to? Aren’t we Africans still migrating in what seems to be free slaving; suffering and working jobs we shouldn’t? Can’t we see our qualified professionals only able to work as security men, waiters, road sweepers, and other jobs far below their qualification either because they can’t obtain proper papers to settle in developed countries or they simply are not accepted as equal to their peers in the same profession. What could be less slavery?

In the light of all that, I do think that the campaigners of this sought-after apology should rather – if they feel for their (so-called) root – redirect their energy in quelling the present day slavery by the likes of Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Obasanjo of Nigeria and many other African tyrants-called-leaders. What could be more slavery if one is not allowed to live out his or her sexuality in his own country? If one cannot raise his voice against wicked rules? If people cannot be allowed to join their choice of political leniency as we all see Obasanjo of Nigeria meting out to his deputy presently; if civil servants are not paid nor retirees remembered. Yet these leaders go to the best hospitals in the developed countries for the lightest headache. The common man is denied tools to survive although he pays taxes for them. Is this not a Master-Slavery relationship?

Talk of slavery, can’t we see that the common man in Uganda, in Nigeria, in Kenya, in Congo, in Somalia, etc are still slaves in their own land? Can’t we see the slaveries going on in the offices by the big cooperation’s insisting how their staff live their lives? Can’t we see the slavery by the big banks all over the world charging the poor thousand times over for going overdraft while declaring ungodly huge profits?

We are blind to the present and make noise and a name with the past that really can’t change a thing. The slavery is there when we tell the citizens of under-developed countries that they can’t clear out forests to plant or develop better housing and turn round to call them under-developed and think they live in bad conditions. We slave them when we suddenly think that that we can provide them with our worn-out clothes and food while refusing to accept them into developed countries or accept their qualifications for better jobs. We slave them when we group all of them and subject them to gimmicks and political snobbery. When all we can do to save them from the likes of Saddam is to kill millions of them by dropping bombs all over Iraq. We are watching slavery go on in Zimbabwe, etc if we have refused to act appropriately while people are subjected to various sufferings in their own country.

Apology! There is no need to apologise for slavery of centuries gone but to work now to stop the many slavery going in different places: child-slavery, people trafficking, immigration discrimination, child/women labour, etc. But it is obvious that we are still driven by the same profit craving that the slave dealers of the centuries gone were after through our stock trading thereby fuelling various bad practices going on in the business world.

God bless the likes of Wilberforce and his comrades.

Friday, March 02, 2007

The God Delusion & Richard Dawkins

No comments: Links to this post
From the very first time I set my eyes on Richard Dawkins book: The God Delusion, it has never left my imagination what beautiful thoughts it will be filled with. But the reality is that I have not read it and so don’t know what the hell or bounty it might contain.

Walking into my favourite bookshop, Borders on Oxford Street and catching a glimpse of it, I have scanned through few pages of the book and yea, I was satisfied. I still hope to write my own book of the same sort but it will not be based on science or any such thing – I don’t know yet.

Anyway, at last I had been able to buy my own copy of the book and hopefully, I will read it through soon. Funny enough, I want to read it during the Easter period and possibly outside London.

Having said all the above and how much I think of Dawkins’ book, I must also comment that his approach seem very aggressive having read some review of it and I do not accept his submission that there is no God; there is 'God' – the problem is that 'God' is not exactly as religions has devised, God is rather and simply just that power beyond man’s explanation and expression. Yet one of the thing I so much grasped and love was his suggestion of letting individuals grow from infant to choose their own religion instead of poisoning their mind through a set of belief forced down their immature understanding.

For one like me, I had grown up and checked out religion and came to the conclusion that although my mother made her decision in love, I do not think that I want to live by her choice. Yes, I don’t.

But on a more serious note, I accept the fact that religion unarguably causes a lot of rancour. What I do not understand is why most people refuse to see this.

There are doctrines, beliefs, laws that are good but there are mad ones too from them religion. And for beliefs that lives in its closet of understanding and think others to be foolish or not right, then there is trouble. Like I said in earlier writings, Christianity insists it is the only way to God; so does Islam, and all the lot of them. That is wrong and makes them all madness, they are all intolerant of any outsider and still insist they are righteous – that is arrant nonsense.

So Dawkins’ book is very important on these fronts and I think most of his thoughts are quite right in regards to religion but not entirely right.