Friday, 5 November 2010

China 'urges Britain to boycott Nobel ceremony' - Yahoo! News UK

China 'urges Britain to boycott Nobel ceremony' - Yahoo! News UK

My View

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
How would British leaders and all of us as a people like to see China attend a Bin Laden’s Islamic defenders award ceremony in Afghanistan or Iran?
I fear that the contemporary Western leaders’ incompetence and idiocy would lead the world to another major global conflict.
Continually trying to deride China even now that show has proven to be unstoppable; to me is a show of tactlessness and incompetence probably based on a primitive notion of White superiority!
Western media and governments have no moral or legal rights whatsoever to teach China how to govern its own people. If there is any basis for the West or the White World to dictate the principles and practices of human rights for the rest of the world, the question then is what exactly has the West done in practical terms to protect the human rights of the most oppressed?
Africa has at least since around 1885 Berlin conference been largely under firm control or strong influence of the Western powers. How far has the West protected the human rights of the most vulnerable Africans since the past 50 years? How much did Britain and America protect Biafrans between 1967 and 1970; Black Africans of Sudan, people of DRC and generally the impoverished and abused people of all countries in Black Africa(excluding Zimbabwe which has always respected human rights more than Nigeria) where human rights are seen as luxury . It is on record that the West especially Britain, unfortunately, through our self destructive media organisations have always only seen human rights abuses in Black Africa only where a British person feels injured.
I do not agree that Black Africans and the Caribbeans should be blaming our White masters for our own failures as it contradicts any belief in equality of all humans to do so. However, if our White masters in the Western powers must arrogate themselves the divine responsibility for all humans on the planet, then they should be much quicker at protecting the rights those under their noses (e.g. Black Africans and the Caribbeans) than those very far away from their control (e.g. China and North Korea).
In any case, for those who are blinded by some fake human rights noise (especially some fanatical White Supremacists who hide under liberalism e.g. people in Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and dubious White Journalists who habitually fight selective fights), Western media publicity /criticisms of suspected human rights abuses in Countries like China, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Iran etc) have always rather than ameliorate, worsened the state of human rights in those societies. It is therefore very hard to see how Western fake obsession with human rights for others has ever really helped the supposed victims of human rights abuses. How has Western noise about human rights really helped Aung San Suu Kyi? If she had not been seen by the majority of Burmese elites as a Western puppet, would she not have been a free woman leading her country today? What benefit either to the people of Burma or Suu Kyi herself has western interference in the internal affairs of Burma been?
As an enlightened Black African, I make these comments with grave concern because I know the importance (to my vulnerable people) of the West remaining in good control and able to moderate the affairs of the world. I know that the rise of China, India and others would naturally leave Black Africa vulnerable to further slavery and colonialism, but I will never advocate for the fall of China for every nation is entitled to pursue development. In fact, pursuing development is pursuing own survival and as such impeding or interfering with Chinese development in any way (by unreasonably criticising her or by honouring her traitor) should be seen as an act of provocation by all sensible Chinese. Yes, I have never lost grip of the fact that when China and India reach their destinations, my people would suffer, but I will never ask others remain as backward and exploitable as Black Africa as it does not make the world a better place. All I ask for is that the West should be wiser by appreciating the fact that times have changed and is continually changing fast.
The West should be working towards maintaining its position as the conscience of the world rather than foolishly (through its media especially British media) trying to give other peoples of the world ideas or strong reasons to question Western divinity and or moral grounds or suitability as a Judge or master or police over others. The brazen practice of disparate measures for assessing human rights violation (according to Western economic interests rather than any objective parameters) as was all seen in the case of Zimbabwe against other Black Africa countries where no White man’s interest or right was infringed and remains in the case of North Korea and Burma etc will only lead to the demystification of West and possibly fall of Western leadership of the world.
The key to continued Western leadership of the world lies in genuine belief and practice of democracy and human rights principles within as well as equitable treatment and assessment of world affairs or internal affairs of others.

Monday, 1 November 2010

On the Education Secretary, Michael Gove's plan to let top schools expand

What really do English people understand as equality?
I voted the Conservatives hoping that the so-called nasty Party is now dominated by sensible young men determined to repair the country after 13 years of Labour disaster.
I hoped that in the “New Conservatives”, I would see more competent young men and Women determined to do things differently.
Disappointedly, what I have seen so far is the same bunch of "out of touch" privileged adolescents jumping around in service of the media instead of the people.
What does Britain stand to gain by entrenching segregation among schools and the culture of desperate scrambles for so-called best or better schools? Why does it seem harder for Britain to maintain the same high standard in all school rather continually encouraging discrimination and unhealthy competition for so-called best schools?

The duty of the government should be to set the same standard for all schools and pay special attention to those schools not performing as they should (not the other way) with the view of bringing them up to the acceptable standards!
Is it correct to say that Britain is a fundamentally unequal society and that our leaders are determined to maintain the class divides?
Would it not have been more intelligent for a government of "reformers" populated by supposedly intelligent privileged kids from the same select schools to be striving to promote equal opportunities in the sense of encouraging (even pretentiously) a new Britain where any person that works hard irrespective of socio-economic background should be able to achieve her/his ambition?

See public approval of my comment on the following link: