Forum at Brandeis University Discusses Blacks, Jews and Obama

Your Black News: What About the Black Community America?

By Peniel E. Joseph,

What About the Black Community America?

A front page story in today's New York Times explores the way in which Barack Obama's presidential candidacy has precipitated excitement and anxiety among African Americans underscores the way in which race continues
to contour the dynamics of this historic election. Obama's march to the Democratic Party's presidential nomination has produced what I call "racial vertigo" in the United States and beyond. Racial vertigo is characterized by a profound inability to comprehend historic events and phenomena due to the way in which they upend pre-conceived notions of America's color-line. This is to say that the prospect and promise of Barack Obama being elected America's first black president has dramatically transformed the national political landscape in ways that continue to defy analysis. In America, what the pre-eminent black intellectual of the twentieth century--W.E.B. Du Bois--called "double-consciousness" cuts both ways. Du Bois defined "double-consciousness" as the tightrope between American citizenship and black marginalization that African Americans faced. Famously, Du Bois wrote of a "veil" or wall that separated blacks and whites in a world where skin color shaped social, political, and economic reality. The color-line imposed its will on white folk as well, allowing them to embrace an identity that, in large measure, defined itself as anti-black. This fiction was backed by an elaborate mythology that used popular culture, public policy, and, as a last resort, racial terror to rationalize black oppression. Racial vertigo distorts these deeply ingrained assumptions that shape the hopes, dreams, ambitions, potential, and imagination of all Americans.

Obama's dramatic primary battle against Hilary Clinton revealed stark racial and gender cleavages within the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole. In his two best-selling books, Dream From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, Obama expressed a romantic admiration for 1960s era civil rights heroes and a generational fatigue with the cultural wars that continue to
remain one of that decade's most enduring legacies. Many of Clinton's most ardent supporters participated in these culture wars and are openly skeptical of Obama's candidacy. Although couched in terms of Obama's perceived lack of political experience, such women offer up telling examples of the effects of racial vertigo. Many of these women view Obama as the
worse kind of example of Affirmative Action, where America's vicious legacy of racism trumps what they view as an even more pernicious and enduring gender inequality. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem lobbed the first salvo in this discourse, arguing that Obama's gender made his candidacy possible in a provocative New York Times op-ed that distorted the nation's tragic legacy of racism and sexism by arguing that blacks received the right to vote fifty years before women, while conveniently forgetting that most African Americans could not vote until 1965. Geraldine Ferraro, former congresswoman and the 1984 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, ratcheted up this line of attack further by suggesting that Obama's race proved to be his major asset among a media and public enthralled by the voguish notion of racial identity. When critics objected, Ferraro hurled allegations of reverse racism and displayed a spirit of entitlement and seething anger at black advancement that echoed the passionate white response to Boston's busing crisis of the early 1970s.

Such attacks, of course, proved to be a double-edged sword. As noted scholar and public intellectual Boyce Watkins has observed, Bill Clinton helped make Obama a political "king" through his ill-advised comparison of the Illinois junior senator to civil rights activist Jesse Jackson. Billionaire entrepreneur Bob Johnson and Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangle inadvertently contributed to Obama's ascent through equally impolitic assertions that brought up Obama's admitted past drug abuse. Cumulatively, explicit and implicit racial attacks against Obama galvanized unprecedented black support. The candidate who, at the beginning of 2007, faced blunt questions about his racial authenticity has evolved into the most popular and
universally beloved black public figure since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Obama's soaring popularity has stoked hopes, dreams, and fears about the transformative power of his candidacy. Liberals, neo-liberals, and conservative magazines, newspapers, and journals (ranging from the New York Times to Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report) have openly wondered whether Obama's extraordinary ability to attract white voters in the Democratic primaries illustrated America's evolution into a "post-racial" phase of national politics. From this perspective, white voters' embrace of Obama during the January 2008 Iowa caucuses signaled a watershed moment in America's racial history.

More provocatively, some have suggested that Obama's election as president could signal the "end of black politics." In this narrative Obama's ability to situate himself as a candidate who happened to be black, rather than the black candidate, is evidence of the decline of identity politics among black elected officials. Fresh political faces, including Massachusetts Governor
Deval Patrick, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, are touted as post-racial elected officials whose appeal transcends the explicitly racial identifications of the civil rights-Black Power era.

Contemporary events have complicated both of these arguments. Obama's difficulty in attracting white working-class voters in Ohio and Pennysylvania, coupled with the explicitly racial tint of Clinton's victories in Kentucky and West Virginia belied notions of a post-racial American political landscape. The raging controversy over Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, dominated media attention and threatened to undermine the candidate's universal appeal. Ironically, faced with the toughest political test of his career, Obama responded with his most forceful, eloquent, and thoughtful statement on race. Obama's speech, "Toward a More Perfect Union," came closest to outlining the litany of historical ills and contemporary burdens that plague the African American community. At the same time, he leavened this criticism by empathizing with the fears and concerns white Americans have about black people in general
and, by proxy, his own groundbreaking candidacy. In the aftermath of this widely discussed speech journalists and commentators predicted a renewed national conversation about race on a level unseen since the 1960s. Obama's campaign however, quickly dropped this controversial subject in favor of more unifying themes focused on the bread and butter economic issues facing the vast majority of the electorate.

The black community's overwhelming support for Obama has been tempered by this complex political landscape. Nationally, media pundits and journalist have interpreted Obama's individual political success as a litmus test for America's racial progress. Such a formula confuses Obama's iconic run for the presidency as positive proof of the end of institutional racism. In effect it substitutes individual achievement for collective racial progress. Certainly African Americans have embraced Obama's candidacy with a mixture of pride, admiration, and anxiety at witnessing history unfurling before their eyes. Obama's candidacy may in fact be one of the few points of unity between the civil rights and Hip Hop generation. Both groups, for different reasons, admire Obama's confidence, self-determination, and sense of style. Obama's candidacy also reflects a watershed of sorts, in terms of individual achievement in American society, one built on barriers broken during the civil rights era and by a host of entrepreneurial, sports, and entertainment figures. Yet the myth that Obama's ascent means the end of racism remains a
powerful allure of his candidacy. A host of social-economic indicators--from dramatic rates of AIDS/HIV, incarceration and poverty rates to income, wealth, educational and health care disparities--contradict this myth. Nonetheless, Obama's campaign continues to be interpreted by mainstream opinion makers as empirical proof of the declining significance of race.

Black leaders have reacted cautiously to the bold new racial and political landscape Obama's candidacy has seemingly ushered. Old guard civil rights leaders, unable to believe that the same nation that terrorized civil rights workers could actually elect a black man in their lifetime, enthusiastically supported Clinton's candidacy only to be chastened by history's spectacularly dramatic tide. Jesse Jackson, whose important 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns paved the way for a black president, publicly supported Obama but privately grumbled and inadvertently went on record castigating the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as "talking down
to black folks." Veteran civil rights activist, former Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee Chairman, and Georgia Congressman changed his support from Clinton to Obama after agonizing months of deliberation. Meanwhile, a new generation of black elected officials embraced Obama's themes of change. For this new cadre of black elected officials, claiming national political power in states, cities, and a nation dominated by a white electorate required a new political paradigm. Whereas racial solidarity led to the election of the first wave of African American officials ushered into office after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, this new guard touts individual achievement, intellectual ability, and political effectiveness in an effort to convey to white voters their ability to judiciously utilize political power. Finally, despite rumors of their demise, grassroots activists related to the Black Power era have offered perhaps the most stinging denunciations of Obama's candidacy. On August 1, 2008 an Obama rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, was disrupted by local black militants who held up a sign, "What About the Black Community, Obama?" Obama's reluctance to embrace a robust agenda for racial justice, urban renewal, and anti-poverty has left such activists fuming and embittered. Along with former representative Cynthia McKinney's third-party candidacy and the intellectual dissent of a small group of black scholars and activists, the St. Petersburg militants have expressed the most vocal opposition to Obama's candidacy.

The inability of such dissenting voices to be heard is unfortunate inasmuch as it reflects a lack of political maturity within national and African American politics. Obama's pursuit of political power has struck his radical critics as ruthless, even as they attempt, through their own more limited means, to gain political strength through organizing at the local level. The extraordinary numbers of African American willing to follow Obama rather than grassroots black militants illustrates the profound gulf that currently exists between radical rhetoric and reality. Ultimately, Obama's impact on black politics remains an unfolding historical process, one whose
reverberations continue to be felt at the local, national, and international level. Since only a future Obama administration can effectively answer the blunt question posed by young militants in St. Petersburg, perhaps the question should be rephrased as part of a national dialogue about race that instead asks: "What about the black community America?"


Peniel E. Joseph is associate professor of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis University. During the 2008-2009 academic year he will be a fellow at Harvard University's Charles Warren Center. Dr. Joseph is the award-winning author of Waiting 'Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America. His forthcoming book is entitled, From Black Power to Barack Obama. He is a frequent national commentator on issues related race, civil rights, and democracy and is providing historical analysis for both the Democratic and Republican Conventions as part of PBS NewsHour.

Black Intellectual On Our History, Our Present, And Our Future

Interview with Harvard fellow, Peniel E. Joseph, by Tolu Olorunda.

Peniel E. Joseph is one of the nation’s leading scholars of African American history. Although Joseph’s formal expertise includes the Black Radical Tradition, Pan-Africanism, Black Social Movements, and African American feminism, he is currently embarking on a re-evaluation of the Black Power Movement. Professor Joseph is associate professor of African and Afro-American Studies and affiliate faculty in history at Brandeis University. Joseph is the founder of a growing subfield of historical and Africana Studies scholarship that he has named “Black Power Studies.” Joseph's dynamic presentation style and innovative scholarship, place him on the cutting edge of a new generation of public intellectuals. Joseph’s book “Waiting 'Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America,” was a “Washington Post Book World” Best Nonfiction Book for 2006. It was also a finalist for the Mark Lynton History Prize. It received honorable mention for the 2007 Gustavas Myers Center Outstanding Book Award; and received the inaugural W.E.B. Du Bois Book Award from the Northeastern Black Studies Alliance. It was also a Boston Globe paperback bestseller in 2008. Joseph is currently working on a biography of Civil Rights and Black Power activist, Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), and a study of postwar African American history. For the 2008-2009 academic year, Dr. Joseph will be a fellow at Harvard University’s Warren Center.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Joseph on a wide array of issues. With topics ranging from politics to culture, and education to sports, he was insightfully-enlightening in his observations:

Thanks for joining us. Can you tell us about your background, and the journey leading up to Harvard?

I’m from New York City, born and raised, and I’m just raised by a single mom. My mom was a trade unionist for 40 yrs in New York City – just retired. So, I was always into social and political activism; I was on my first picket line by the time I was 9 yrs old, so I was always active. I was always interested in Black history, Caribbean history, Asian history and African history, so after college I got my PhD from Temple University. At the same time, I was still involved in community and social activism. I wound up teaching at Arizona State University for a couple of years; then I taught at University of Rhode Island and Stony Brooks University in New York -- which is my alma mater. And now at Brandeis University, but this year, I’m a fellow at Harvard University.

Is the continued presence of Black and Brown intellectuals in Ivy League schools emblematic of any substantive progress for us?

Yes, I think it’s an example of progress, but I also think it that -- well, I’ll do the ‘positives’ first. I think it’s a tremendous example of progress, given the fact that when we think about higher education and academe, especially predominantly white institutions; these we’re set up as spaces for the white, elite and the rich. So as soon as you get any kind of African Americans in there, it’s very positive. And, obviously we owe a lot of these to people like Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B Du Bois and Ida B. Wells; the generation of the 19^th and early 20^th century intellectuals. Some we’re PhDs and others we’re just organic intellectuals in that degree, such as Marcus Garvey and Hubert Harrison. By the time you get to the 1960s, there’s really a second wave of Black Studies, vis-à-vis the Black Power movement that forces some of these predominantly white institutions to open up their doors, through the implementation of Black Studies majors in programs across the country. So that’s the positive. But the negative is the fact that I think most of these spaces are still overwhelmingly white and racist. So, having Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson and Manning Marable is great, but at the same time, it provides cover for some of these racist institutions as well. So, you have this representative-nature of Blackness, but you don’t have enough Black Undergraduates, or Graduates, let alone Faculty and Administration; because we are sorely underrepresented in all those categories. It’s the same thing with Senator Obama. You might have a black president, but you might also see a lack of Blackness in the federal judges or the news-media. So, there’s the good and bad to the process.

What is your overall perspective on the Senator from Illinois -- especially being that he hails from your very Harvard?

Well, I’m a critical supporter of Mr. Obama, and what I mean by that is that I support Obama’s candidacy; and at the same time, I think that if he is elected, we have to be very vigilant and very critical. So that we force ‘President Obama’ to publicly confront things like, the Prison Industrial Complex and the pervasiveness/viciousness of institutional racism – locally nationally and internationally. But again, I think that trying to run for president is a hard thing to do.

Do you believe that Cynthia McKinney from the Green Party can help in exerting some ‘progressive-pressure’ upon the political landscape?

I think that Cynthia McKinney is obviously a very progressive person -– whom I admire. I think that when we talk of Cynthia McKinney, a lot of activists get confused with Third-Party runs and Community Organizing. Nowadays, some people think that ‘trying’ a Third-Party run - in and of itself - is community organizing, and there’s a problem there. I think that the bankruptcy of that strategy is shown when you have a candidate like Barack Obama, who’s actually energizing millions of people. The Third-Parties don’t seem to have a parallel-outreach and success. When people like Malcolm X and Kwame Ture would say, “We got to follow the people, because the people are ahead of us;” how come they’re following Obama? Masses of the American people are following Obama.

Do you think Senator Obama’s struggle for the White-House is one which we must all embrace?

I think we should be critically supportive of Barack Obama’s candidacy. We’ve seen a lot of debates over this. We saw Tavis Smiley come out and catch a lot of flak for it. But, I do like the idea of holding Barack Obama accountable, but I also feel that he’s in a very difficult position, because he is the first black man that could actually become president. I think the African American community should embrace his candidacy - but critically - and then really watch what’s going on, and try to influence it within the next four years. And then if our needs aren’t being addressed, we can begin making intelligent calculations on what to do next.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Father’s Day Speech that he gave last Sunday. Did you have a problem with it, or did you feel that it was indeed a legitimate critique?

Well, certainly the speech was pandering, but if you’re from that background, where you’re raised by a single parent, you realize that you do need to speak to Black Men about this. And I thought Obama did it in a way that wasn’t quite as condescending as the way in which Bill Cosby did it in 2004. You have to talk about the politics of self-responsibility vis-à-vis our failures, and also the system that is perpetuating that failure, and that’s a dialogue that we haven’t had in a really complex way. If you’re speaking of the politics of self-determination, whether it’s Marcus Garvey or the Nation of Islam, you’re supposed take personal responsibility. But, one big issue with a Barack Obama presidency is that he might not be able to preach responsibility all across the board.

In matters of education, how does the next president rehabilitate the dilapidated public school system?

To be honest with you, all the president can do is propose laws to the Congress for passage. Certainly, he can give more money to public schools and have further accountability by putting more ‘teeth’ behind “No Child Left Behind;” but it’s really based on spending bills.

As an expert on issues pertinent to race, what are the major obstacles threatening our progress?

I think the biggest things are probably lack of access to higher education, the Prison Industrial complex and the Criminal Justice System. Unemployment, Violence and drugs also are power-brokers in our stagnancy. And we’re talking of Black Americans who happen to be part of the so-called “underclass.”

Do the recent victories of Tiger Woods and the Boston Celtic (being overwhelmingly black) have any substantial impact upon the lives of everyday black folk?

I think they might be an inspiration to some, but a Barack Obama presidency would be even bigger. You know, sports is different from politics, and I think if you have a black President, it will transform the way a lot of young people look at themselves. And, I think Obama’s presidency would bring about reverberations in other aspects of American society. I think that newspapers and television and media would be forced to re-examine aspects of how they’re made up vis-à-vis the shock of having a Black President.

What is your advice for the average brother and sister trying to gain access to higher education?

The pursuit of literacy would allow you to really excel; because, a lot of us are woefully unprepared after graduation from High School. The way it is now, so many of our people have a star-crossed relationship with school, and it is not perceived as something which would impact their lives. I think that what the older folks have to do is educate the younger ones about our history and the struggle that took place to get to this point. And, I think that can provide a context for a way to move forward in the present.

Once again, thanks for speaking with us Dr. Joseph.

This interview was conducted by Tolu Olorunda, Staff Writer for YourBlackWorld.com

Dark Days, Bright Nights

by Dr. Peniel E. Joseph, Harvard University

In 1955, representatives of over 29 countries representing over 1 billion people convened in Bandung, Indonesia to craft an alternative vision of global society. Seeking space between Cold War liberalism and Soviet style Communism, radical humanism infused the “Bandung World.” Indeed, it was a glorious moment in recent world history, one that witnessed revolutionary anti-colonial movements sweeping across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. For African-Americans combating domestic white supremacy, Bandung represented the last best hope for dreams of freedom. Liberation movements in Ghana, Kenya, Algeria, Angola, and Mozambique emboldened black Americans engaged in their own life and death freedom struggles.

Unfortunately, the heady rush of post-colonial idealism in Africa gave way to the harsh reality of neo-colonialism. Perhaps the ultimate irony regarding these historic liberation movements is that for a new generation the Third Way—once irrevocably tied to the radical non-aligned movement—has come to be defined by the neo-liberalism and free-market ideology of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

Almost 50 years after Bandung, the World Conference Against Racism convened in Durban, South Africa to discuss old and new issues related to the continuing legacies of slavery, colonialism, and white supremacy. In truth, there were two separate conferences that, at times, contained overlap. The Non Governmental Organization (NGO) forum that took place from August 28–September 1 was comprised of grassroots activists, community organizers, students, labor representatives, and activist-scholars. The more well-publicized UN Forum that took place from August 31–September 7 featured a staged American walkout and enough expensive suits to keep an upscale men’s store in business through the next century. While not possessing the “official” credentials required to participate in the UN conference, I was fortunate enough to attend workshops, meetings, caucuses, and rap sessions as a delegate to the NGO Forum held at Durban’s Kingsmead Stadium and surrounding venues.

Held in the port city of Durban, South Africa’s third largest metropolis, the conference site provided ample evidence of both the hopes and impediments that course through the post-apartheid era. For first-time visitors to South Africa, which included this writer, arriving in Durban was accompanied by a combination of intense euphoria, gratitude and a humbling sense of the historic struggles that made this trip possible. With over 5,000 delegates in attendance the NGO forum was an energetic mixture of political activity that ranged from press conferences and workshops to plenary sessions. Like the masses of people gathered, the schedule was constantly in motion, slightly disorganized, sometimes disappointing, but always well-intentioned. The agendas were diverse as well. On tap was everything from groups against caste discrimination and land rights for South Africans to reparations for African descendants.
Although representing a wide array of local and geographically specific organizations, the delegates converged in connecting indigenous issues to slavery, colonialism, capitalism and white supremacy. More importantly, the delegates held workshops to inform and strategize on behalf of the dispossessed. The final “Program of Action” included the demand for reparations for Africans and African descendants that would take the form of restitution, monetary compensation, restoration, and satisfaction and guarantee of non-repetition. Instructively, these demands underscore the way in which Western Civilization has been built upon the broken backs of black laboring populations and continues to utilize black subordination to thrive well into the 21st century.

Undoubtedly the NGO’s biggest success was in casting a strobe light on the issues of reparations for the entire world to see. In opening up this Pandora’s box anti-racist activists illustrated the myriad ways that white supremacy, racial capitalism, and imperialism continue to marginalize the lives of billions on this planet. By dragging these issues to the center of an international debate, NGOs sought to shame, embarrass, and harass state power into acknowledging continued political oppression and fashion practical solutions. Rather then viewing slavery, colonialism, and international human rights violations as historical artifacts to be studied and debated over, the NGO Forum focused on the contemporary impact of these debilitating practices. The United States’ shameful refusal to discuss reparations speaks truth to the power of this international forum.

The issue of land reform, restoration, and restitution was poignantly played out during the massive protest march held by the Durban Social Forum on August 31. Over 20,000 strong trekked five miles to protest against landlessness in South Africa, the hegemony of free-market ideology, and the consolidation of world white supremacy. Although South Africa’s ANC government had been generally supportive of both the NGO/UN gatherings, this march revealed the increasingly arid political climate of the post-apartheid era. Over the course of this march and throughout my week in Durban I had the opportunity to listen to grassroots South Africans and their generally caustic assessment of the ANC regime. Moreover, hundreds of indigenous Africans were unable to participate in the NGO forum because of the prohibitive (800 South African Rand, the equivalent of $100 US) registration fees. This situation presents a quandary for African-American activists who were pivotal in abolishing the murderous apartheid regime.

As black Americans have come to recognize through bitter experience, black faces in higher places does not necessarily translate into freedom. In many ways, the crisis of nation-state building in Africa bears striking similarities to black political power in the Post-Civil Rights era. The ANC’s assumption of political power sans economic hegemony is a sad story that has been played out from Detroit, Michigan to Durban, South Africa. However, the march and the conference that was its backdrop represented a response and act of resistance that was global in its make-up and outlook. This of course begs the question: Was Durban the sight of a new radical anti-racist international movement for social, political and economic justice?

Though time and history will be the judge of these recent events, I would answer the question with a resounding yes. The NGO Forum provided a center-point for representatives of hundreds of labor, cultural, and grassroots organizations focusing on issues that ranged from incarceration and the death penalty to reparations and Pan-Africanism. As important as these individual agendas are, the thrust of the Forum revolved around articulating an alternative human rights agenda. Of course, such efforts at united front politics have faltered before. However, the fact that the NGO delegates lacked formal political power represented the conference’s greatest strength and weakness. The strength lay in the fact that the absence of formal ties to state power allowed for a lucid and radical perspective on world affairs. Yet this clear-eyed perspective revealed the domination of formal power in the form of political parties, corporate power, the World Bank, the IMF and, ironically enough, the United Nations. Mass marches, political mobilization, and conferences contribute to the global movement for social justice through education, networking and inspiration but, in and of themselves, are not enough.
With the increasing power of corporate interests coinciding with the decreasing effects of pressure groups and mass demonstrations, a new perspective on the relationship between protest, political power, and social change is needed now more then ever. On this score, the international forces arrayed in Durban caught the attention of mainstream leaders of all ideological and political affiliations. Even the NGO Forum was deemed important enough to warrant the presence of Cuban President Fidel Castro, UN Commissioner Mary Robinson, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Like a global March On Washington, the NGO Forum forced the hands of various leaders who were looking for a way to capitalize on the event through association or demonization, and sometimes both.

In contrast to the United Nations’ corporate seminar on diversity, the NGO Forum went beyond sensitivity training and multiculturalism to enact a project that was both descriptive and transformative. The former process involved defining the atrocities that have taken place during modernity and their enduring legacy. This is no small task, and if the NGO Program of Action and Working Draft are any indication, was eloquently handled. This description was controversial only to those who continue to enjoy the ill-gotten gains of slavery, apartheid, colonialism, and white supremacy. The brave new world of the 21st century has ensured that not all of these individuals and nations can be easily distinguished by black/white and east/west binaries. An increasing number of black and Third World descendants are happy to be the beneficiaries of global human rights movements that allow them a measure of prestige, political standing, and wealth. This phenomenon was exemplified by the seemingly incongruous sight of a small number of African nations who, wanting to appease their western masters, disavowed the reparations movement.

The latter process is what the Post-Durban International Movement must now actively engage in. This process must begin with the dissemination of first-hand knowledge from those of us who actually attended the WCAR. Not surprisingly, the amount of disinformation and outright distortions circulated in the American media have been legion. Conference attendees have a counter-narrative that should be shared with friends, families, colleagues, and especially poor communities of color. Young people, who were a welcome presence at the conference and convened their own Youth Conference in Durban August 26–27, should be told how their counterparts across the world are engaged in heroic struggles against racism and white supremacy. If the torch is to be passed, information—both historical and experiential—will be crucial in this endeavor. The warm personal and political relationships that were created, and sometimes renewed, during the NGO Forum represent international and humanistic possibilities that are unlimited. If our efforts in Durban are to prove successful we must ensure that history’s dark days have proceeded for the benefit of the bright nights of a not too distant future where humanity, far from being the reward of the few, will be extended the world over.

Dr. Peniel E. Joseph is a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University.