Tuesday, March 29, 2022

EAT OUR SORROW AND REGRET HAHAHAHA: "We feel deep sorrow for the transatlantic slave trade, and fully recognise the strong sense of injustice and the legacy of slavery, but money for reparations you will never get never see(reparations are not part of the government's approach)"

 @Buckingham palace and British - from 1995 and up(what you earned through slavery is of no interest to me). I never was part of one one never will be part of me other than you use me as a slave.
 
Government of UK as you see is guilty as far as reparations and for Ukraine's Romanovs war on Ukraine a Putin is the one to blame for - not Russia nor West...
 

In Jamaica last week, Prince William trotted out the same tired platitudes the UK has parroted for years. Now it’s time to pay

 

Protesters call for slavery reparations at the British High Commission in Kingston, Jamaica, last week during the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s royal tour. Photograph: Ricardo Makyn/AFP/Getty Images
 
 

When Jamaica’s prime minister, Andrew Holness, announced to Prince William last week that Jamaica was “moving on”, the irony of his statement was lost on most. Visiting the country in 2015, Britain’s then PM, David Cameron, told Jamaican politicians making the case for reparations to “move on”.

Republican ideology has been given renewed energy since 2021 when Barbados, led by Mia Mottley, became the latest Caribbean island to remove the Queen as head of state, replacing her with a female president.

Mottley had strongly opined that the Caribbean had won political independence but was denied any developmental compact. Outlining the strides the Caribbean had made in reversing legal inequalities, she made the case that only reparations could help tackle the psychological, sociological and economic inequalities that still exist within Caribbean countries and between them and their former colonisers.

Reparation seems a dirty word whenever Caribbean leaders utter it, and talks have taken on a farcical narrative. In 1834, reparations of over £20m were paid, not to the slaves but to the plantation owners, in compensation for their loss of free labour after emancipation.

Talks over the last 60 years or so, since independence began, have offered no cause for celebration. Britain has been remorseful in words but not emphatic in action. In August 2020, the UK government’s response was: “The UK deplores the human suffering caused by slavery and the slave trade. They are among the most abhorrent chapters in the history of humanity.”

Sound familiar? Prince William reiterated this in Jamaica. The statement went on: “While reparations are not part of the government’s approach, we feel deep sorrow for the transatlantic slave trade, and fully recognise the strong sense of injustice and the legacy of slavery in the most affected parts of the world. We also believe that we have much to do today and in the future to address the reality of slavery in the UK and around the world.”

But hey, let’s move on! Reparations are not part of our approach and neither is a formal apology or, worse yet, making things economically right.


  • I wonder if William knew he was making his statement on the eve of the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, which passed almost unnoticed on 25 March. The day honours the more than 12 million men, women and children brutalised under a slavery system that endured for more than 400 years. The large population of people of African descent in the Caribbean remains the legacy of the inhuman enforced migration which broke the ladder of generational wealth of these displaced people.

    In June 2020, the UK prime minister pledged to establish a new commission on ethnic disparities to “examine all aspects of continuing racial and ethnic inequalities in Britain”. This will have no meaningful impact for the ordinary person on the streets of Kingston, Port of Spain or Bridgetown.

    Voicing “sorrow and regret” is indeed a start but money talks far more than platitudes. One has only to look at how the Windrush generation has been treated to understanding the Caribbean’s plight, how much it has given and how little it has had in return. Today, black and minority ethnic (BME) politics seems to be only about scholarships for black students to British universities and, in the workplace, painting the diversity picture and checking that box. Admittedly, this is important and a step in the right direction, but not enough.


    Former British colonies should not be treated like the French have treated Haiti. In 1791, after the world’s largest slave revolt, Haiti became the first nation to dismantle slavery. However, it was held to political ransom, forced to succumb to France’s reparation demands in order to secure independence in 1804. The terms were cruel, as the infant nation entered into debt with exorbitant interest rates imposed by the French. Haiti paid French slaveholders and their descendants the equivalent today of $30bn, taking 122 years to pay it off, and severely damaging the newly independent country’s ability to prosper.


  • Citizens of Belize and Jamaica protested during the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s visit. A petition proclaimed that there was absolutely nothing to rejoice over for the last 70 years of the Queen’s role in Jamaica.

    As part of the Queen’s platinum jubilee, other tours are planned. In April, Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, will travel to Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. Some of the last significant bastions of the British empire lie in Caribbean waters. These tiny island paradises, thousands of miles away yet still tied to the British empire, have been plagued by natural disasters which have impacted infrastructure and economies.

    Two years of the pandemic have severed any hope of a quick recovery. In addition, there is political corruption by captured states, and the inertia of successive governments that seem hellbent on destroying their economies and enriching themselves, moving their ill-gotten gains through British tax-haven territories, with the final destination being London, to be hidden in real estate and other investments.

    Caribbean politicians and officials continue to be naive towards what reparations would mean to Britain. They fool themselves that they possess leverage if they remain in the Commonwealth. Maybe a clue lies in recent articles and interviews on reparation issues between Namibia and its German ex-colonisers, which reveal exactly how the west views reparations.


    Namibia was known as “German South West Africa” from 1884 to 1915. Between 1904 and 1908, German colonial forces brutally suppressed anti-colonial uprisings by the Herero and Nama people, forcing many into the desert to starve. They killed tens of thousands, confiscating land and livestock.

    In 1988, the South African government finally agreed to give up control of Namibia and it was granted independence in 1990. The German government has acknowledged responsibility for genocide in Namibia but “reparation” is feared as a legal term by German negotiators concerned at setting any expensive precedent. Reparations therefore become masked as “developmental aid”, suggesting a handout, and a means by which the west can appear as saviours. It is not restorative justice.

    Reparations to bring real, impactful development initiatives in infrastructure, education, health and transportation could change the destiny of the descendants of slavery in the Caribbean. The fight for reparations must continue and must unite the ethnic majority of the Americas, the Caribbean and Africa.

    DISCRIMINATED - PERSECUTED AGAINST BY OWN  FAMILY AND  MEDIA AND OWN EMPLOYEES(harassment of employees against couple started in Britain and one reappeared in USA because Britain was used as a ground base in newly founded homeland for absolutely everything - prove the lie in UK and you have proven one in USA) !!!

    (AND NOW THE FREE "HAHAHA" PART - WHERE DIARRHEA SPILLS OVER THE EDGE AS PER WHAT SHOULD BE DONE/DO RATHER THAN ADDRESS ISSUE STATED IN TITLE YOU GET FREE LESSON FROM ROYAL BRITISH NEWSPAPER - AS IF SOMEONE WOULD ASK THEM FOR ADVICE) 

    In addition, the Caribbean countries, having taken their destiny into their own hands, must break the chains of political corruption and corporate capture which continue to smother and retard their economic and social development.

     

    END OF ARTICLE







    ULTIMATE TRUTH ABOUT WAR ON UKRAINE AS PER WHO/HOW/ AND WHY: Russo Finish Winter War of 1939 and/or how Finland which became a communist state known as FINNISH SOCIALIST WORKERS REPUBLIC since 1918 became known as a nazi state during Hitler's war on Russia


    This is in response to Romanovs from London who somehow continue to question their sabotage against people of Ukraine https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/europe/956229/is-there-risk-neo-nazi-insurgency-ukraine
    And yes, history as you all know, repeats itself...

    Queen Elisabeth alone admitted me and others, "We didn't care because they became communist"...

    Two "communist" countries(Finland which abandoned monarchy just 20 years earlier truly was communist, but USSR was just Russia is today - aggressive fascist alike state that wen on to roam other countries under the rug) exchanged fire and Adolf Hitler was about to strike deal soon with Russian Joseph Stalin in respect to Poland - did after here seen war ended with Finland loosing substantive amount of land ...something just as NATO did with Putin ahead of 2022 war in Ukraine...
     
    Finland lost nearly 23,000 men in that so-called Winter War of 1939-40. As a result of the treaty signed at the end of the Winter War, Finland had to cede parts of Karelia, Salla, and Kuusamo provinces to the Soviet Union, as well as islands in the Gulf of Finland.

    NO MONARCHY - NO COUNTRY FOR YOU !!!

    WWII broke out and Finland gained its land back fast anddddd lost one to Russia(aka USSR) again after WWII due to affiliating itself with something Finland REJECTED THROUGHOUT ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE DUE TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FINNS IN OCCUPIED FINLAND BY SWEDES AND RUSSIANS - NAZISM...

    In the eyes of the world and regardless of its past as well as heroism praised even today, Finland remained since end of the WWII only a post nazi state because NO MONARCHY NO COUNTRY !!!
     



    NO MONARCHY - NO COUNTRY FOR YOU !!!

    This was written in response to bellow seen British article....






    ‘Neo-Nazi’ insurgency in Ukraine: Russian propaganda or a real risk?

    Far-right Azov Battalion on the front line of battle against Russia

    Launching the invasion of Ukraine just over a month ago, Vladimir Putin claimed that he was on a mission to “de-Nazify” Russia’s eastern European neighbour.

    The allegation that a country with a Jewish president is overrun by the far-right was repeated on Saturday by one of Putin’s closest allies, Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of the Russian Security Council. 

    “Of the many distortions” offered up by the Kremlin as reasons for regime change in Ukraine, the alleged need to “de-Nazify” the besieged nation’s leadership and save ethnic Russians from “genocide” is “perhaps the most bizarre”, said Allan Ripp on NBC News. But while “Putin is engaging in propaganda, it’s also true that Ukraine has a genuine Nazi problem”, Ripp added.  

    Front-line fighters

    The most prominent far-right group involved in the fight against Russia is the Azov Battalion. Formed as a volunteer militia in 2014 to battle Russian-backed separatists in Donbas, the unit was officially incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces that same year. 

    The battalion, named from the Azov Sea, first joined the fight against separatists forces around Mariupol and has been based there since, leading the defence as the port city has faced relentless shelling in recent weeks. 

    The estimated 900 Azov members are “ultra-nationalists” who have been “accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology”, Al Jazeera reported. Yet the unit “received backing from Ukraine’s interior minister” following the annexation of Crimea, “as the government recognised its own military was too weak to fight off the pro-Russian separatists”.

    The group’s founder is Andriy Biletsky, a white nationalist who formerly led the far-right National Corps party. He has “toned down his rhetoric in recent years”, The Guardian reported in 2020.

    But Biletsky had previously called for Ukraine to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]”, said the paper.  

    In 2015, the battalion’s spokesperson said “that 10% to 20% of Azov’s recruits were Nazis”, Al Jazeera reported. And although the unit has denied that it “adheres to Nazi ideology as a whole”, images and symbols “such as the swastika and SS regalia are rife on the uniforms and bodies of Azov members”.

    ‘Defenders of the nation’

    While “most of Ukraine's armed forces have been quietly engaged in the grind of a gruelling tug-of-war with Russia” over the past month, said The Telegraph, Azov has “been busy putting out slick videos and images trumpeting its own achievements”.

    “Its well-oiled PR machine has been producing Ukraine’s arguably best-quality war videos, with camera drones perfectly capturing the attacks as they happen in real time,” the paper reported. And “Ukraine’s armed forces have happily used Azov’s videos as visual proof of the country’s counterattacks on the invading army”.

    The efforts of the “effective, courageous and highly ideological” Azov fighters to stall Russia’s invasion have “won them great renown as defenders of the nation, and the support of a grateful Ukrainian state”, wrote UnHerd foreign affairs editor Aris Roussinos.


    However, the “awkwardly close relationship between a liberal-democratic state” and “armed proponents of a very different ideology” is causing “some discomfort” for Ukraine’s Western backers, Roussinos added.  The US Congress “has gone back and forth in recent years on whether Azov should be blocked from receiving American arms shipments”, but the battalion has begun receiving a share of Western lethal aid shipments as fighting intensifies in Ukraine.  

    Keep enemies closer

    In the war against Russia, Azov’s “dogged, disciplined and committed fighters” have been of great use to the government in Kyiv, according to UnHerd’s Roussinos. Indeed, rather than “de-Nazifying the country”, Putin has “helped solidify the role and presence of extreme right-wing factions in Ukraine’s military, reinvigorating a waning political force”.

    Unit founder Biletsky’s National Corps party “never ran for national elections”, The Telegraph said. But “its candidates have shown dismal performance at local elections in a clear sign of just how far Azov’s ideology is from concerns of ordinary Ukrainians”.

    The organisation was also dealt a blow by a 2016 report by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHA) that accused its fighters of violating international humanitarian law in its response to Russian-backed separatists.

    So “the current war has surely come as a blessed relief for Azov”, said Roussinos.The concern now is that if Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is forced “to sign a peace deal surrendering Ukrainian territory” to Russia, Azov “may find a golden opportunity to challenge what remains of the state and consolidate their own power bases”.

    “Right now,” Roussinos added, “Ukraine and Zelenskyy may well need the military capabilities and ideological zeal of nationalist and extreme right-wing militias simply to fight and win their battle for national survival.

    “But when the war ends, both Zelenskyy and his Western backers must be very careful to ensure that they have not empowered groups whose goals are in direct conflict with the liberal-democratic norms they both pledge adherence to.”

    Azov “are battle-hardened after waging some of the toughest street fighting against Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine”, Ripp said on NBC News. 

    And while their involvement in the Ukrainian resistance does not “justify the misery that has befallen Ukrainians over the past several weeks”, it is vital that Zelenskyy and his government acknowledge that the country’s “Nazi problem is real”, Ripp warned.

    END OF ARTICLE



    Read also 




    Why the U.S.'s double standards on Russia-Ukraine matter

    Self-sanitizing propaganda distorts the reality and makes war more likely.
    Left: A man reacts after seeing his house in ruins after Russian shelling in Kyiv, Ukraine, on March 21. Right: Another man inspects the damage following overnight airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition targeting the Huthi rebel-held capital, Sanaa, Yemen, on Jan. 18.
     

    Throughout their coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, mainstream media and political commentators in America have framed the conflict as an earth-shattering violation of international norms in our modern era. “The Russia-Ukraine crisis is about whether the world will operate according to rules or whether anarchy will prevail,” Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted the day of the invasion. “World order is the oxygen for all else, for whether and how we live.” Reporters and commentators have described Russia’s invasion as a moral atrocity without any kind of recent precedent: “medieval”; comparable to Adolf Hitler; marking the “first” test of the post-1945 "rules-based" global order; or triggering the advent of a new one entirely.

    For those of us who closely observe U.S. conduct on the world stage, the self-sanitizing and ahistorical nature of many of these narratives has been head-spinning. Not too long ago the U.S. knowingly deceived the global community before entering a war of choice and a neocolonial nation-building project in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. President Joe Biden and much of our commentariat claim standing up to “bullies” is “who we are.” Yet the U.S. has actively aided Saudi Arabia in its brutal, ongoing war and blockade against Yemen, which human rights watchdogs say has involved Saudi Arabia taking actions that are similar to or worse than Russia's in Ukraine and created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. (Notably this has not deterred Biden from trying to cozy up to the country for help in dealing with the Russia crisis.) This is just to list two of countless examples of the U.S. being a bully, or siding with bullies, after World War II and disregarding a rules-based order.

    Pointing out this inconsistency and self-flattering omission of history is often to enter a conversational minefield. But the value of this exercise is not to play some abstract game of whose hands are dirtier. It’s about combating imperial blindness — American society’s endless capacity for self-delusion about how and why it conducts itself as a hegemon in the global arena. By cloaking its geopolitical goals in the language of moralism and sweeping contradictions beneath the rug, the U.S. is able to behave recklessly and brutally without taking accountability for its behavior or learning lessons from it. And refusing to understand that only sows the seeds for further misbehavior and poor decision-making.

    A truthful account of the world is a precondition for understanding it. And understanding the real world, rather than living in a world of idealized self-image or visceral feeling, is a precondition for behaving morally and effectively. The myth of Russia’s actions as entirely singular — as a kind of satanic force that has caused a rupture in the progress of human civilization — increases the odds that American society develops a mandate for a rash intervention such as a no-fly zone that could spark a war with Russia. (Stopping evil incarnate would seem to be a worthy reason to risk World War III.) But a more accurately contextualized account of what’s happening and recently happened in the world can act as a source of humility and restraint. At a time when belligerence surrounding the Russia-Ukraine crisis is intensifying, it couldn’t be more urgent.

    Russia’s military operation in Ukraine — an act of aggression and a war of choice — is heinous. Russian President Vladimir Putin is not just conducting an unjustifiable war, he's waging it brutally. Human rights watchdogs say that Russia has used indiscriminate cluster bombs, and it’s clear that Russia is targeting areas that are densely populated with civilians. Aiding Ukraine’s suffering population and surprisingly well-performing military is a moral and, as far as I can tell, strategically sound thing to do.

    But the Biden administration’s aid to Ukraine was not fueled by moral imperatives. The U.S. is not a country that gazes upon the world with an altruistic eye, but a state which, like any other, pursues its own interests. Moreover, in its quest to be the world’s sole superpower, it has acted ruthlessly for decades. Which is why the U.S. painting its involvement on behalf of Ukraine as a pure extension of defend-the-underdog principles is nonsense.

    During the Cold War, the U.S. didn’t just casually ignore sovereignty but actively snubbed it, with indiscriminate bombing campaigns and the backing of dozens of coups and brutal authoritarians that killed or helped cause the death of millions. More recently, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan for nearly two decades even after the Taliban surrendered, where it used brutal and unmonitored airstrikes, targeted civilians with its double-tap drone strike policy, and is currently subjecting the country to an economic suffocation campaign that has laid the groundwork for a horrific humanitarian crisis that has resulted in the death of some 13,000 infants since January. While commentators in the West describe Putin’s use of blockades as belonging the Middle Ages and condemn his use of cluster munitions, the U.S. is backing Saudi Arabia, which has used cluster munitions from the U.S. against Yemen and is starving its population. All the while, the U.S. has declined to intervene in many genocides the world over.

    The chief reason that U.S. policymakers are so attentive to Ukraine’s welfare and need for aid is because Russia is a huge, nuclear-armed and powerful adversary of the U.S., and they're concerned about the instability and precedent set by the invasion, particularly in immediate proximity to NATO countries. Because of this invasion’s geopolitical significance — and the racialized assumption that Europe is not a place where war belongs, in contrast to the Middle East or Central Asia — the media has focused on this with extraordinary intensity, and in the process reshaped our national consciousness.

    It makes sense that a war that matters a lot to the U.S.’s core geopolitical interests would be huge news. What doesn’t follow is that that war in and of itself elevates the U.S.’s moral sensibilities.

    Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me the U.S. seems to be seizing an opportunity to reclaim a moral high ground. “In this moment there is a real danger that American leaders will use this moment to reclaim a sense of moral purity that the U.S. has lost domestically and internationally as a result of the war on terror and post- 9/11 military operations,” he told me. “This attempt seems to take the form of ‘Russia is a terrible actor’ — which is true, and ‘Therefore the U.S. is more virtuous than it was a month ago’ — which is false.”

    The U.S. cannot cleanse itself using Putin’s unconscionable actions. And the more it tries to do that, and the more it tries to erase every other conflict in recent world history in order to single him out in the process, the easier it becomes to go to war. The urge to enter war will increase if the entire country buys into its own propagandistic moralizing and is convinced that Russia's actions constitute an entirely unique threat to humanity. Growing pressure from the public, Congress, and our hawkish press could put pressure on the Biden administration, which has generally been very clear about wanting to avoid military intervention against Russia, to act imprudently if Russia does something like uses chemical weapons or accidentally hits a NATO target.

    Consistency in describing the world creates a foundation for more careful behavior: If people remember that Russia is one of many actors that are doing horrific things internationally then people will breathe before deciding what kind of action should be taken. (Note that one does not have to ignore the political and moral differences between Russia and other countries to note the fact that some of Russia's actions are not unique.) Considering that the stakes are a possible confrontation between the world's two biggest nuclear powers, thinking about the civilizational long game in this situation is rather important.

    And consistency in describing the world is a prerequisite for any agenda to try to behave consistently in the world — and reckon with how radical of a task it is. Seeking a consistently morally upstanding foreign policy would require confronting and clashing with some longtime allies, thawing tensions with some adversaries and making all kinds of decisions on whether to intervene in every armed conflict in the world. Naturally any serious exercise of this kind raises questions of constraints on national resources and practical concerns about international stability and access to trade routes and energy. And if it truly is serious, it would require confronting the reality that much of the global economy and security are not based on noble and democratic principles but shaped by power structures led by the West and capital.

    Calling for consistency is a demand for honesty about what’s really driving the events of the world. It prevents the public from fooling itself with self-flattering illusions. And it's a critical part of any agenda to truly better the world.



    No comments:

    Post a Comment