Columnist - John Sammon
I was thinking a lot today about why I’m going to vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday. Partly, it’s a chance to undo the past, that of my own, and my country’s.

Only part of the past. Not the good parts.

I was raised in a typical white racist middle class household of the 1950s. I inherited some prejudices that negated my own humanity, and threatened to trap me in a prison of my own making. It took awhile to understand that.

Obama carries the promise that America, an imperfect experiment that has always fallen short of its original promise, can finally show the world; we are capable of going beyond the narrow confines of belligerence, and tribalism, of them against us. Of a mentality that says, never openly, that only a part of us matter.

In the end, this is not a case of competing philosophies. One of the candidates has shown he is a rationalist, a person who tries to think, rather than just react. Obama is a populist who views the country in more of an all-inclusive way, rather than as disparate groups of worthies, and those who aren’t.

The Civil War was fought to see if America could survive its own burgeoning immorality, and it barely did, though the job was left unfinished. Now, it’s time to see if we the people, all of us, can climb upwards to the next rung of the ladder, to become a country in which all creeds, if not embraced, can at least be tolerated, and have their rightful place in the sun.

Lincoln once called it, “the better angels of our nature.”

For America to live up to its true promise, it has to include the contributions of all its people, not just a few chosen by the imagined destiny of their coloring and background.

But all people. I call it the value of a single human being.

I’m not voting for Obama because he is black. I’m voting for him because I respect what I perceive as his openness, and integrity. But the fact that he is black is a plus. There has never been a black president before.

Up until now, I never thought there would be.

Obama won’t end anger, or racism, or partisan attacks, or arrogance, or wrong thinking.

He will demonstrate, however, that a person of his color can sit in the White House and not only more than hold his own with those who have gone before, but achieve his own positive marks on history, knowing as we know that with any human activity, it will be human, and thus fallible.

The big difference is in attitude.

Obama’s biggest attraction perhaps is that he seems more open to new possibilities, and for that reason, appears to embrace the future, rather than be threatened by it.

I consider myself not just an American, but also a citizen of the world. Obama more clearly demonstrates this concept.

The very fact he is running at all is something of a miracle, and gives me great pride as an American. It generates the possibility that this country can finally come closer to what its Founding Fathers said it should be. It establishes hope.

First of all, there’s hope for me if I can feel this way. Perhaps I can soar beyond the narrow shackles of what I had been taught. Maybe I can become the kind of person I think I can be, kinder, braver, more giving. Perhaps I can learn something, despite my age.

If Obama can run, maybe I can do these things.

Only children are totally open-minded, probably the reason for Obama’s popularity among the young.

I’m voting for Obama not based on ideology or statistical claims and counter-claims or the usual election-day rhetoric, exaggerations or grandstanding, but because he represents a cleaner break with the past, and its confining, hide-bound limitations. The future should be welcomed, not feared.

I think that by confronting these past divisions head-on, which an Obama electoral victory would surely bring, will allow the country to rise a little farther away from pettiness, and into the light of potential.

That’s what hope is all about.

Copyright 2008 Sammonsays.

Popularity: 4% [?]

By Khamati Shilabukha

In the past few years, there have been efforts to re-position Africa in the globalising world to take care of relationships among its states and the rest of the world.

The association of African states was restructured from the Organisation of African Unity, to the African Union. Many would argue that this is merely a change in name and not in the character of the organisation.

Proponents of the “new” outfit argue that it is meant to generate a new awareness of who we are. Many also hold the view that Africans are too divided to evolve into a meaningful regional identity.

This argument stems from the myriad conflict situations in the continent. The conflicts are both intra-national and international, with the former more prevalent.

Intra-national conflicts are often the result of internal (political/economic) power squabbles. Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Rwanda, Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Algeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya are some examples of countries that have experienced such conflicts. They have all received adequate media coverage. But the other genre of conflict has not received the same kind of coverage, yet it is crucial in the pursuit of a global and modern Africa.

This conflict derives from all forms of discrimination including racism and xenophobia. It is vicious and has gone on for some time. These forms of discrimination are serious, and efforts have been made to put them on the global agenda.

The most appropriate example is the current attacks on foreigners in South Africa. The question that begs answers is, why at this time in Africa? All sectors of a society have an obligation to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. We need to examine the extent to which as leaders, scholars and policy makers, we can intervene in this scourge called xenophobia.

It is argued that xenophobia is a result of poor intercultural communication. Members of one culture do not understand, appreciate and accommodate those from another culture. They lack adequate information to deal with such people with the least stress and threat.

But acquiring such information does not come easy and the poor management of communication often leads to strife. This could be the case in South Africa. One major source of information that allows us a wide world view and a more holistic perception and appreciation of others is the mass media. But the mass media, as inanimate objects, cannot do anything. It is those who use and manipulate them that can make the difference.

Xenophobia is a global problem. Although the phenomenon is ubiquitous in contemporary societies, its targets vary across countries and nations. It is such that even those who have been a subject of hate also develop hatred for others. But how does this hatred come about? Anthropologists and other social scientists posit that a population composed mainly of foreigners is an environment in which xenophobia can easily thrive.

They distinguish three theoretical approaches to the rise and diffusion of hatred. The first relates to socio-economic status of individuals, the second pertains to their cultural identity and the third the general attributes of society.

Source of hatred

The first approach derives from the “power theory” – a paradigm that views the relationship between groups as a function of their competitive positions. This concept suggests that a threat of one particular group to another is a source of hatred. When people feel insecure in the face of threat, they portray resentment and hate. But here, the intensity of hate need not necessarily depend on real competition on the job market but on the perception of threat. This is sufficient ground to induce animosity. Much of this is absent in the South African situation.

The cultural symbolic approach holds that animosity towards the other is not a consequence of economic competition between rival groups. It is a product of early political and value socialisation. The main issue here is the fear of loss of social status and identity.

Thus, cultural differences among people could be responsible for conflicts and hatred. In this approach, it can be explained that people would prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than be exposed to “strangers”. Defining a group of people as “un-belonging” to the national “we” deprives them of the right to belong. Much of this is also absent in South Africa.

The third approach, termed phenomenology, attributes xenophobia not to economic strains or cultural divergence but to general attributes of society. When society experiences deep crises, which occur intermittently, anomic tensions encroach upon social postures.

This leads to a crisis of collective identity “so that the calm self-certainty which might enable unproblematic relations with the minorities gets lost”. Under this approach, xenophobia is interpreted as a way of reassuring the national self and its boundaries, as an attempt at making sense of the world in times of crisis. This could be happening to indigenous South Africans.

To start with, the impeding fallout between President Thabo Mbeki and Africa National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma could be disillusioning to many ordinary citizens of African descent.

Many of them subscribe to ANC with a passion yet they find themselves on the sidelines when major party decisions are being made. At the same time, they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of their country.

Many South Africans still live in squalid conditions and the dream of land reform has turned into a pipe dream. These issues run so deep in their collective psyche that they need reassurance of economic and social survival. But they are directing their anger at the wrong enemy.

Many of the low class Zimbabweans, Malawians, Zambians and nationals of other countries are escaping economic hardship and political violence which South Africa has refused to acknowledge as a problem, especially in Zimbabwe.

They should commit themselves to assisting them to the best of their capacity. And this applies to other countries with a chance to host other Africans in need of refuge and sanctuary.

Popularity: 32% [?]