It is difficult to put into words the significance of America electing its first black president. From the northern victory of the U.S. civil war to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “sick and tired” speech, this country has worked endlessly to achieve equal rights for all. We still have a long way to go, but our current president is truly the greatest symbol of how far we have come. However, what does the rest of the world see in Barack Obama? Why do they value the U.S. election of a black president as much if not more than we do? Why was he awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after such a short time serving as president? While I still do not know the full answer to these questions, I feel that I have a much better idea after learning about the relationship between the U.S. and the horrifying oppression of the Congo.
In the past few weeks I have learned everything I know now about U.S. foreign policy with the Congo. When the Democratic Republic of Congo (DROC) was finally granted independence after almost a hundred years of oppression from “King” Leopold and Belgium, my own country’s government did everything it could to keep this independence from benefiting any native Congolese. This included encouraging the assassination of the first democratically elected prime minister and setting up the rule for the next corrupt leader. Our county’s leaders were more than willing to sacrifice the livelihood of all of the Congolese in order to keep receiving cheap minerals from the Congo. A very disgusting part of the movie for me was during the meeting of George Bush Sr. and Mobutu. It seemed like a publicity stunt. As if they were trying to convince the American public of what good deeds we are doing in the Congo by showing the great relationship between our president and Congo’s leader. What Americans didn’t know was that many Congolese hated their selfish corrupt leader.
Although, I know just because a person is black does not mean that as a black person, he or she would disapprove of the treatment of the Congolese people (After all, Mubutu was not only black, but also a native to the Congo.), in the case of President Obama it does mean that he absolutely disapproves. He believes in equal civil rights. Although his beliefs would be just as strong to him no matter his appearance, I think his race is a huge encouraging symbol for the rest of the world. What it shows is how far we have come and how far we can go. In the future I hope it means no U.S. participation in the oppression of innocent people. I believe that is what the rest of the world is hoping and expecting as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are right that for many, particularly in Africa, the idea of a black US president (especially one with an African father) is seen as a triumph for civil rights and a spark of hope for the future. There is no knowing how Obama’s foreign policy toward Africa will pan out -unfortunately this is rarely a campaign issue! And regardless of his heritage or skin-color he could easily follow in the footsteps of his predecessors. There have been fleeting moments of hope: in his first state of the Union, he stated that he would end farm subsidies -his success in this endeavor will undoubtedly be limited but I practically cried when I heard it (as a world citizen concerned about Africa and US industrial agriculture). There has been little or no talk of the Congo and the US bill to prevent US imports of coltan and other conflict related minerals remains stalled in congress.
ReplyDelete