Expert: Michael Troy - 11/26/2003

Question
I have to write an essay based on Eric Mann's book "Dispatches from Durban". But I don't understand the book that well, I also don't understand the essay topic.

Essay Topic: Discuss the third reconstruction presented in this book. Include how issues of international relations and racial justice intersect.  Also might include some things on imperialism, culture, gernder, class , leadership, and ideology. The essay should show the evolution of black struggle for justice that shows their ideological & political evolution & international dimensions.

First, I think the third reconstruction was the fight against racism, and how it's not just a U.S. problem, but a worldwide one.

That's all I could get from it. I don't know if I'm on the right track. I also need more ideas to work on; you don't need to read the book, it could be based on other sources as well, like the film "Battles of Algiers".

Answer
Hi there,

I can't say I've read the book.  I did read an online review just to figure out what was meant by "third reconstruction" since that is pretty much a made-up term.

Apparently Mann discusses the UN Conference on Racism that took place in 2001 and how to continue the struggle after the changes in the world brought about by the 9/11 attack.

I may be off base not having read the book, but the descriptions and table of contents illustrate a neo-communist perspective.  For example, Dispatch #4 is entitled in part: "Where Is Lenin Now That We Need Him?"  Lenin, of course, brought Communism to Russia, resulting in more suffering and death than anyone else in the 20th Century, or probably any other Century.  More innocents were killed in Russian Communist purges than died in the Nazi Holocaust.  

It is not clear from the title whether the author likes Leninism or whether he is merely reporting on a view of others who favor it.  In either case, whoever it is deserves our condemnation, just as if someone said "Where is Hitler now that we need him?"

The UN conference itself was widely ignored by the US for good reason.  It was less about ending racism, which has already been largely rejected by most thinking people, and more about socialism.  

For example, the notion of reparations for slavery.  We can all agree that slavery was a terrible thing, and that trying to justify slavery gave rise to American racism.  But the victims and perpetrators of slavery are long dead.  And for the most part, their children and grandchildren are dead.  One cannot reach back into history and make descendants of past wrongs pay for the bad acts of their ancestors.  If we were to do that, why not make England pay reparations to the Vatican for seizing all of its property in the 16th Century and murdering all the Priests in England?  Why not make Italians pay for the Roman domination of France, England, Germany and other European nations until about 400 AD?  Certainly by todays standards both acts would be considered terribly wrong.

Another problem with international reparations is that African Americans, the descendants of the actual victims would be paying part of the reparations to African nations, where the decedents of those who sold them into slavery live.  Why exactly should descendants of victims pay the descendants of perpetrators?

These issues show that the reparations movement is less about justice and more about poor nations demanding a handout from rich ones.  There may be good reasons to provide aid to poor countries, but I strongly disagree that it money is owed to them for past wrongs.

Additionally, the Conference gives the impression that racism is the worst possible sin in the world.  Personally, I think killing or enslaving someone is equally wrong, regardless of whether the enslaver or murder is motivated by issues of racism, economic gain, or simply megalomania.

I suspect the argument of the books is that their is oppression and racism internal to many nations, but that similar patterns exist in the way wealthy industrialized nations treat third world nations.  For example, in the US, poor minority workers tend to be less educated and get stuck doing the least desirable and lowest paying jobs.  Similarly, in the international arena, third world nations tend to have less educated people and tend to get work that is less desirable and low paying.

Where I get lost is what to do about it?  Many of these activists want wealthy countries to stop making these low wage jobs available in third world countries.  But what happens then?  People in those countries want those jobs because the alternatives, joblessness, starvation, and suffering, are worse than working long hours for low pay.  If the pay is increased significantly, foreign companies have no incentive to bring jobs to those countries in the first place.

The activists seem to think the goal is to get rid of all the low paying jobs and just have the rich countries decide to hand over much of their wealth each year for no real reason to allow these people to live in relative comfort.  To me, that seem rather unrealistic.

I hope this helps!
- Mike