Monday, September 28, 2015

Is Hillary Clinton Robotic and Amoral ?


Hillary Clinton recently said something that’s morally and politically unfortunate. For a world-class politician like Clinton to utter something so robotic, so dispassionate, is very disconcerting; and pundits and average Americans should be concerned.
Many people in the world are more concerned about American presidency and elections than we realize. And this might come as a shock and questionable to many Americans because non-Americans can't vote in US elections.

However, America meddles in the affairs of many countries; and the decisions taken by American governments affect the citizens of these countries more than Americans realize. The cult of expertism has made Americans ignorant of world's socio-political and geopolitical affairs; and also, too dependent on 'Experts.'
Beside the fact that America is the only super-power (in a vague sense) and that any vile American economic decision sends shockwaves throughout all economies in the world, it's prudent that we, as non-Americans, question the moral standing of aspirants for American presidency.

About a month ago, Democratic Presidential hopeful, Hillary R. Clinton, was asked by a group of 'Black Lives Matter' about what she could do to help their cause. Beside the fact that her response was cold, dispassionate and dismissive, she proved what pundits and analysts say about her: that she's not relatable on a human level.  Clinton talks to voters like a human-like robot!
With a straight, robotic face, Mrs. Clinton told the activists she doesn't believe in changing hearts but in changing laws. She later on acknowledged the fact that you can change some hearts but not others. Of course, the latter is the core of human social reality. No matter how good something is, some people will oppose it!

What bothered me as a moralist and humanist was the moral dryness and dispassionate manner  Clinton talked to the activists. A leader who’d possibly make very intricate and life-changing decisions needs to have humane ways of looking at things.
For Clinton to say she doesn’t believe in changing hearts but in changing laws, she betrays the a-moral nature of the would-be president of the most powerful nation in the world. In the scariest sense of the word, Clinton is saying she’s not obligated to regard African-Americans in a humane, passionate manner unless the law says so. She’ll only respect them and treat them well because the law tells her to. This is terrible!

Good people-to-people inclusive attitude is the only way to create inclusive societies where discriminatory practices are not systemically pervasive. Civil Rights leaders (both African-Americans and European-Americans) didn’t wait for laws to be changed.  Conscientious European-Americans didn’t wait for laws (Civil Rights Act, 1964) to make them respect African-Americans. Anti-Slavery activists and Abolitionists didn't wait for laws outlawing Slavery. They saw the inhumanity of segregation and acted because they felt the human-ness of African-Americans. Without the action of these humane hearts, there would have been no inspiration to changes in discriminatory legislations.
To change hearts is to make people understand the rationale behind any social campaign. Once people see the point of such social demands and understand why they should be met, their change of hearts becomes long-lasting and impacting.

Once you depend on laws to make people respect each other, you’re basically making people bottle-up their feelings. You have to address people’s feelings (bad or good, informed or ill-informed) instead of forcing them.
No matter how good something is, people will naturally resist it if you force it on them.

ON CULTURAL IDENTITY & BELONGING

Dear Melbournians, the South Sudanese people to be precise. Do you think we have seen it all? Do you think we have seen that: I mean in the aftermath of yesteryears, in regard to our culture and the notions around identity and belonging? Do you think we have seen the true reaping of what we sowed years ago? Do you really think so? After all, did we really sow anything like seeds and that there’s something to be reaped? Did we really live it out well to be seen today?

I am sorry to have bothered you, my potential readers, with questions regarding our social, economic, and political location in our host society: Australia. I think we have not seen it all and as a whole: The idea that people are bound by certain values and beliefs of significance to them. This requires cooperation and role-specific obligations on the roles of every man and woman across a given people and their society.

TOLERANCE & INCLUSION


While it is possible for us to racially discriminate or judge people we know, the chances of judging people we know diminish significantly the more we know them. An easy example of the importance of understanding others is the attitude people develop when they want to harm others or when they want to deny them something valuable. Essentially, before you fight someone, you insult them. Insults are attempts at diminishing the value of people, an attempt at estranging them, as Toni Morrison argued in The Origin of Others. It is easy to discriminate against strangers or make others strangers or dehumanized in order to discriminate against them.

Transformational Leadership, Inclusive Institutions and Service Provision

Leadership, given what is happening now in South Sudan, and generally in Africa, fascinates me. And it fascinates me not in a good way but because of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic ills facing the African continent and most of the so-called 'Third World.' To me, South Sudan, now, is a classic case.

Rebellion by disaffected politico-military leaders and repression by the government of South Sudan in Juba have stunted institutional development and leadership growth. This has made service provision almost irrelevant as political survival has taken primacy and supremacy. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

‘Black’ as an Identity Oversimplification and Mockery

Black as a universalized cultural identity of the African Person (AP)* is a residual effect of slave and colonial mentality; a racial/race paradigm. It is a malady I call, conservatively speaking, stuck-in-the-past syndrome of color constraints. Black could be an on-the-street ‘social identifier’ of race figures not a meaningful phenomenon of deep cultural identification on a universal scale.