America’s Angry White Men

By Dr Selwyn R. Cudjoe
October 08, 2018

“An increasingly diverse society no longer accepts the God-given right of white males from the right families to run things, and a society with many empowered, educated women is finally rejecting the droit de seigneur once granted to powerful men.”

—Paul Krugman, New York Times

Dr. Selwyn R. CudjoeYesterday the U.S. Senate elected Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court by the narrowest of margins despite the objections of 2,400+ law professors and Justice John Paul Stevens, former justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Stevens noted: “He’s a fine federal judge, and he should have been confirmed when he was nominated. But I think that his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind” (New York Times, October 5).

Outsiders looking at the state of affairs within American society may be shocked by the Senate vote and the behavior of Judge Kavanaugh. They need not worry. It might simply be a case of history repeating itself. White men still rule the roost; minorities and women be damned.

The Supreme Court first met on February 2, 1790, two years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It took almost two centuries before the first African-American was named to the Court (Thurgood Marshall in 1967); a further 14 years before the first woman (Sandra Day O’Connor 1981) was named; and another 18 years before a Hispanic woman (Sonia Sotomayor) joined that happy brotherhood of white men. In other words, up until 1967, the U.S. Senate was an all-male white men’s club.

The Supreme Court is not only sexist, it is racist as well. In 1857, in the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, ruled that African Americans were and could never be citizens of the United States. He also ruled that when the constitution was adopted blacks were “regarded as being of an inferior order” with “no rights the white man was bound to respect.”

Hugo Black was appointed to the Supreme Court on August 17, 1937. He had a rocky confirmation hearing. On September 13, Ray Spingle exposed Black’s KKK past in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

On October 1, Black delivered a short radio address to the nation that acknowledged his past association with the KKK. Unlike Kavanaugh’s 11th hour appeal to wavering senators via the Wall Street Journal (anyone could have seen through his artifice) Black apologized for his past behavior and served with distinction for 41 years.

Judge Kavanaugh was accused of sexual indiscretions. I listened attentively to Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony. I was riveted by Ford’s testimony. I believed her story in spite of her lapses in memory. Kavanaugh turned out to be the bully he has always been. He was petulant, rude and obnoxious.

Many viewers failed to discern the judicial temperament that one expects from a member of the U.S. highest court. The 2,400+ law professors took particular exception to Judge Kavanaugh’s obnoxious behavior. They concluded: “Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to the senators.”

In the aftermath of this sordid affair, Chuck Grassley, the Majority Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused the Democrats of “encouraging mob rule.” Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, bemoaned the damage this hearing did to the Senate and the Supreme Court.

Those of us who have followed these proceedings were not surprised by their virulence and the power that white men in the Senate, particularly the 11 white men in the Senate Judiciary Committee, displayed. Grassley said there are few women on the latter committee “because it’s a lot of work.”

Paul Krugman argued that the Kavanaugh hearings drove home the fact that “white male rage isn’t restricted to blue-collar guys in diners. It is also present among people who’ve done very well in life’s lottery, whom you would consider very much a part of the elite.”

He continues: “What distinguishes Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by the fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be” (New York Times, October 1).

Sadly, most white men hit out only in blind rage (as was the case of Judge Kavanaugh when he addressed the Judiciary Committee on October 25) when their privilege is threatened. Theirs is the power to command and control; monarchs of all they survey; none can dispute their rights. (William Cowper).

When Marshall, the grandson of an enslaved man became a member of the Supreme Court, he took his oath of office from Black, a former member of the KKK. Marshall understood the symbolic value of such a gesture. Black also understood the powerful message such a gesture sent to Americans.

It takes the humble and the meek to assert our common humanity. Donald Trump and Kavanaugh can never make the gestures that Black and Marshall made. In their stubbornness, they will take America back to a place from which Americans, for over two hundred years, have striven to free themselves.

How long, O Lord, must we cry unto thee?

17 thoughts on “America’s Angry White Men”

  1. Ironically the election of Barak Obama as the first Black president stirred up a hornet’s nest in the USA.
    Obama was an experiment for America. Americans of all stripes congratulated themselves and were proud to show the world that they were finally free of prejudice.
    Obama’s first term in office revealed a President who was cautious, fair, bi-racial and capable of pulling America out of the greatest recession ever.
    Obama’s second term in office was braver and bolder. He heralded Black America, spoke up against racism, rewarded very many Black Americans, appointed Blacks to high office, fervently embraced his Blackness, passed legislation to benefit the poorer class and praised certain aspects of socialism.

    White America was silently paying attention. They woke up in the form of a “basket of deplorables” Trump voters. It did not end there. A vast number of silent White voters waited their turn to reject the diversity and economic equity which Obama represented. America would never be the same again. The “orange tide” swept the country. Many Obama voters transformed into Trump voters. They “took back their country”.
    Kavanaugh’s appointment is just the beginning.

    Wait until Trump wins his second term!

    1. I beg to differ that he appointed Blacks to high office. As a matter of fact, many Blacks complained that he did not do enough for them. The employment rate, especially for lower income Blacks did not change that much. I think his stance against some of the police shooting of Blacks is what pissed of a lot of Whites(especially males)against him.

  2. Although this article may seem less attractive to our local populace because it addressed American justice and jurisprudence, it is nevertheless important for us to examine the judicial process and how it affects us all, regardless of where we are.
    The basic characteristics of people who aspire to be called a “judge”, “magistrate” or “justice” can be described as “a judge requires ‘a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.’”
    Regardless of constitutional origin, one can safely say that we look for that quality when one is confirmed with that title.

    What we saw in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was not just about judicial qualifications or justice. We saw politics played out to the hilt. It was not just about Republicans and Democrats, it was about the ability of powerful white men of opulence and power having their way to command a supreme court that would be of their liking and control. It was also sexist and gender biased as well. Not to mention racist and class centered as well. Donald Trump who thinks of himself as a person who must always get what he wants regardless of the circumstances, also featured his brand of divisiveness into the fray. In the end, most genuine observers will agree that the Supreme Court is less likely to be viewed as supreme and more as a partisan outfit benefitting the rich and powerful than the expectation of wisdom and justice coming from an institution of learned professional.

    There is a lesson for us here in Trinidad and Tobago too. Too often we see and observe rulings come from our “learned” judges that appear to be questionable. Most of the verdicts emanating from our judges appear to be political in nature as well. These rulings are becoming more and more comical everyday. We see rulings coming out of our courts that are questioning managerial competence in making promotions (especially when they appear to have racial overtones). Our judicial institutions appear to be the place to go, if you have a case against “the government” especially if the government is PNM. In such a case you are most likely to be heard, allowing further review of “what the government did”, as opposed to whether it is beneficial to the country or the person opposing the government.

    Similarly, on political issues, one is more likely to see the courts being more sympathetic to the UNC’s version of truth that that allowed for the PNM. Case in point is the Judge Meara’s ruling in the case Kamla brought about some of the contested seats in the last election. What this means is that our Courts too have become too political and while their rulings might have short term gratifications, we can suffer long term lack of confidence in the judiciary. We all have political biases. But when those biases are exercised when the power is granted in law

  3. ……… I mistakenly lost my piece in addressing this issue locally. What I was trying to say is that when rulings become blatantly partisan, they foment resentment and hatred. So our judges must be more constitutionally sound in their verdicts and less political. In his contribution on Politics & Policy on Bloomberg Opinion Page, columnist Noah Feldman wrote
    “” Collectively and individually, Justices Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, William O. Douglas and Felix Frankfurter were nasty, vindictive, backbiting, ambitious and partisan.

    A contemporary observer referred to the court on which they sat as “nine scorpions in a bottle.” Scorpions aren’t known for their courtesy or judiciousness.

    Yet these four justices all made historically significant contributions to constitutional law and the court. Without them, our living Constitution would be considerably poorer and weaker.””

    Justice Hugo Black especially was more than “unsuitable” because his past as a KKK sympathizer made him suspicious. But he managed to base his supreme court opinions based on law and not his sentiments. He became such an inspiration that Thurgood Marshall, there united States first black supreme court justice, asked him to swear him in. What a compliment coming from one whose past seemed so obviously biased and suspicious, to become a stalwart of the judicial and constitutional process. If we are to continue to hold our judicial system in high honor, we must make sure that those who rise to those positions be made aware of their biases (if they enter with them) and the harm such short comings can cause such a small nation as ours.

  4. Kavanaugh versus Ford. She could not recall the date, the time the place, who pushed her, or all who was there when Kavanaugh molested her.. Her testimony would not stand in a court of law. But this was a made for tv drama that played out in the public domain. Allegedly 38 years ago something happen. No one doubts her story because it always take a lot to come forward and share. It is just bothersome when someone comes forward after 38 years to seek justice. The man has his family, his friends and a nation looking on. It could be quite humiliating and embarrassing.

    The world is a strange place. A catholic priest with Aids confess to sexually molesting 30 native children in Mexico, most of them age 8 and 9 and the Pope grants him absolution, meaning he is forgiven. Where is the Justice? Some may ask. Then there is the revelation of a catholic clergy pedophile ring in the US with codes and moving around children to be molested. This with the knowledge of the Pope.

    Compare Kavanaugh to these Catholic priest and Kavanaugh is a saint, whilst these priest are devils.

  5. Selwyn Cudjoe points out the problem with the American experiment with democracy in a stark and elucidating way. “White men still rule the roost; minorities and women be damned.” His article and the lamentation with which he ends it point out a valuable truth about that American experiment – it can be subverted from within. One of the axioms upon which democracy rests is the idea of checks and balances – the idea that power can be checked by institutional arrangements. The branches of government, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary can act as checks and balances to each other. It sounds very elegant in theory, but now with the appointment of Kavanaugh as a Justice of the Supreme Court and his overt and shocking partisan position, it shows that the whole experiment can be subverted. The Judiciary is supposed to be above the fray of partisan politics, particularly the Justices of the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s overt display of partisanship invalidates that idea.
    To go a little further, the judiciary is supposed to interpret the law, the legislature makes the law, and the executive carries out the law. Here is the rub. The law does not interpret itself, it is not given as a fixed quantity. Interpretations can vary. The conservatives in America have used the concept of “originalism” to interpret the law. In other words, to “originalists”, the framers of the Constitution had a clear idea of what they intended, any interpretation is measured against that background. Now the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of white men and interpreted within the bounds of “originalism” it is true as Cudjoe points out blacks were “regarded as being of an inferior order” with “no rights the white man was bound to respect.” For liberals, the Constitution was interpreted as an aspirational document, something that outlined a more perfect union that America had to work towards, aspire to. So for conservatives, the Constitution described a state of affairs that was actual, while for liberal that state of affairs was aspirational. That simple difference in interpretation has serious and deadly consequences. The point is that the judiciary is not a fixed, unalterable, body of opinion. Depending on how things are interpreted, a judicial opinion is reached.
    To bring it back to our situation in T&T, we tend to think of the judiciary as being non-partisan, non-political, above questioning, above reproach. When we look at the American situation, we see that the interpretation of the law is not a fixed, unvarying quantity. Interpretation can be partisan; it can depend on what elements of theory go into that interpretation and more importantly what political and social objectives lie behind that theory. Because theory often serve to legitimize those objectives. We in T&T should learn from the Kavanaugh incident that the judiciary can be partisan and that there are those whose agenda can be to create a partisan judiciary in order to bring about a particular type of society and a particular social and political order within that society. All of this implies that the judiciary itself, in order to preserve its democratic character, must be subject to questioning by the people and ultimately must be subject to the will of the people.

  6. Both the Democrats and Republicans have shown time and time again that they lack respect for a fundamental principle of the legal system: that someone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and allow for the due process of law. Of course, the opposite occurs when whites are dealing with non-whites or cannot get their way otherwise. People are free to believe whatever they want but an accusation, even with an impassionate testimony, is not proof of the guilt of one who is accused. The conduct of many who appear to be centrist or on the left is no different to that of the right. This concept that ‘The accusers of sexual abuses must be believed,’ has a history in the US and has led to the lynching of thousands of innocent Black men who were falsely accused of raping white women or even looking at them. It is the drive behind the so-called war on terror. They accuse people and nations without proof or without judicial process (where facts and evidence are supposed to be weighed) and then proceed to bomb them. We should err on the side of caution while improving the legal processes to lessen the chances of innocent persons being railroaded and lynched.

  7. Aye Prof.. what about angry ‘Trinidad white’ (well he look Latin to me, but)… Ah thought ‘Massa Day Done’.. Maybe it’s to tell of that Slave Plantation where that refinery sits today.. some say it’s where the bloodiest Slave uprising took place in Trinidad..

    *Petrotrin exploring all options, including bankruptcy, says Espinet

  8. For those who are questioning the issue of evidence in the case of Christine Ford versus Brett Kavanaugh, the appropriate way of ascertaining whether the accusation was true or false would have been to do a proper FBI investigation of the accusation. There were two other accusations against Kavanaugh by Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, these were not investigated. Why was the nomination of Kavanaugh rushed through rather than investigated thoroughly? After all a Supreme Justice is a lifetime position, why not do a thorough investigation? In his defense of his innocence, Kavanaugh went on a partisan attack against the Democratic Party based on strange conspiracy theories. Hilary Clinton was behind the accusation. It was this introduction of partisanship in his defense that disqualified him from many people’s point of view. Kavanaugh replied that his was an emotional response, but the temperament of a Supreme Court Justice demands an objective response in judicial matters.

  9. It Amazes me how locked in most people are on American political reality. The advent of US cable channels, have Trinidad swimming in the nasty waters of American culture, while at the same time being influence by same. The White man’ policies haven’t change , since the renaissance. One thing not mentioned in the article, is the role of the White Woman, who in all cases will support her White Man no matter what, as in Senator Colins confirmational vote. The White man may have a lot to teach , but what comes across is blatant Hypocrisy, deceit and all the related conniving ills, the institutions that make up the US Gov’t, the SCOTUS being a major part, have the blood of the Native American, Africans, South and East Asians on their hands, their laws impacts the World Trinidad included, laws passed in the US supreme court dominates every law internationally , otherwise known as US white supremacy World Domination.

  10. The vote of the white woman senator Susan Colins got Kavanaugh off the hook although the vote from Pence if deemed necessary would have still confirmed him as Justice. Is it not ironical that the white woman professor Christine Ford who was 100% sure that it was Kavenaugh who was on top of her and Marc Judge as his accomplice had no validity in the hearings for the White House to give the required approval for the FBI to pursue on a wider scope? Still the public is at bay as to what those FBI briefings and summaries revealed.

    So now we have a black Justice Clarence Thomas at the expense of Anita Hill and a white Justice Bret Kavenaugh at the expense of Christine Ford as two sexual predators sitting on the Supreme Court currently. Would they ever be labelled as such in their place of employment? One thing is clear there still exists the invisible hierarchy in all aspects of metropolitan US society including employment. From top to bottom it is: White men, White women, Coloured women, Coloured men then last on the bottom of the totem pole are the natives.

    This whole televised hearings and confirmation highlighted perjury, partisanship, outbursts of emotions counter to the allegations made, literally means nothing in respective institutions but achieved high ratings on watched television drama,just like the OJ Simpson trial. Come to think of it, I wonder if Nikki Haley’s resignation from the UN as US ambassador has any clandestine operations behind the scenes from mimic men Pompeo and Bolton.

  11. In order to bring about the Republican Party’s vision of society, the Republicans have been playing the long game. What Trump and some of his main ideologues such as Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon are articulating is a white nationalist vision. The long game consists in controlling the Senate, the House of Representatives, electing their President (in other words, controlling the executive and the legislature); it consists also in controlling the judiciary (including the Supreme Court), the state legislatures and the governorships. The Republican Party and its big money financiers have accomplished this. At present, Republicans control 67 of the 99 state legislatures, and control both chambers in 32 states. Democrats control 32 chambers and both chambers in only 14 states. There are 33 Republican governors at present compared to 16 Democrats. Republicans control the Senate, the House of Representatives, and now, with the appointment of Bret Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court. We cannot claim that there is a centrist there now to add some measure of balance, like Justice Kennedy whom Kavanaugh replaced. There is little to restrain the Republicans other than the coming midterm elections in November. In America, politics is about the long game. Electing a President for even two terms is not sufficient to transform society. Transforming society requires that you play the long game.
    Here in T&T, the UNC has been engaging in a long game to transform society so that its ethnic vision of society is implemented, its equivalent of Bannon and Miller’s vision. They have sought to control the powerful institutions of society. They control the media (check who the media always support), they seek to control the judiciary, the upper and lower house, etc. We should be aware of what they are doing. We should be conscious of their plans. We seem to be only thinking of day to day things. That’s why when, like the Republican Party, they take over everything, we will sit there wondering what happened. By then it will be too late. The most important thing we need to do is to break the stranglehold of the UNC on the media. Once the UNC controls the media, they control the information, the fake news, the propaganda and those with soft minds will succumb to the onslaught of fake news and propaganda. We need to fight for a balanced and objective media so we will get the truth rather than UNC propaganda and fake news.

    1. There need to be some specifics, beg to differ here.
      Are we speaking of Ken Gordon?,

      Or the 1% (ANSA Mc AL group) involved in GML? Are we saying that the OWTU and ATSGWTU both founded in 1937 and coming together and marching together for a common cause need to be dispensed with by the twitch of fingers.

      With respect to the judiciary are we speaking about Ivor Archie

      1. In looking at political phenomena, we should look not only through the lens of ethnicity but also through belief system or ideology. In one of your comments, you mentioned Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court Justices. Thomas’s position on the Supreme Court can be understood only in terms of his ideology. He is a conservative and moreover one of the first promoters in the Court of the idea of “originalism”. That is why he was appointed on the Court. He was very much influenced by legal thinkers from the Claremont Institute who also greatly influenced conservatives and the Republican Party in general. The difference between Republicans and Democrats, in their legal philosophy, lies in how they interpret the Constitution. Republicans believe that it should be interpreted in terms of “original intent”. What that means is that beliefs such as “all men are created equal” are interpreted in terms of what those original shapers of the Constitution meant. All men are equal, they are presented with opportunities, what they make of it is up to them. What that implies is that people have equality of opportunity and are not guaranteed equality of outcome. So it means that everybody is equal in the sense of having equality of opportunity, it makes that assumption. America is good; it is the city on the hill. All we have to do is make use of its opportunities. For Democrats, America has the promise of being good. Its perfection is something to aspire towards. The injustices must be corrected in time. So the Constitution must be interpreted for conservatives as something describing a perfect place, a picturesque paradise where all were happy, plantation owner and slaves, mammy and her charges, Clark Gable and Scarlett O’Hara… Kayne West is an interesting example of an articulation of the Republican assumption about America. In his meeting with Trump, he spoke about time. There is no time, he said. We are in the eternal present. In other words, there is no past that can affect this present. So there is no effect of slavery, no effect of oppression, no effect of how the system has treated you. You are there in the present with all of life’s opportunities in front of you. Sounds good, if you are a billionaire, not so good if you are catching your nennen to make ends meet.
        In T&T we should look at political phenomena not only through the lens of ethnicity but also through ideology. 1986 saw the transition of one dominant economic ideology – that the state should play a dominant role in the economy; it should control the commanding heights. That ideology was challenged by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek for example who saw it as leading to a new era of serfdom. The situation on the ground was also a problem. State companies were inefficient, mismanaged and were taking up a huge amount of the state coffers. The IMF was propagating a new ideology – the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism. The NAR, a collection of various political parties, allegedly putting together unions, pro-capitalists, and other assorted bedfellows, implemented this new ideology. Ultimately this odd assortment of political bedfellows fell apart. Ken Gordon, who you mentioned, was one allegedly of the pro-capitalists promoters who was instrumental in getting this new ideology through. The PNM particularly under Dr. Williams, we should remember, was totally demonized by the media of his day, so much so that he burned a copy of a newspaper in Woodford Square once in protest. In my opinion, the opposition to the PNM by the media has continued to this day. The media was the voice of the elite and continues to be so; the PNM was the voice of the masses. In 1986 the collection of political parties representing assorted interests, bringing together unions and pro-capitalists big wigs, ended in the implementing of neoliberal ideas of privatization, deregulation, liberalization, etc. Nothing wrong with that. But let us not be hypocrites, that’s what the unions brought about by their alliances. Why? I would say that the unions were representing particular interests, not the national interest. The alliance was the coming together of particular interests, each one seeking their own interest, none seeking the national interest. And so it continues today. A familiar conglomeration of interests, rich elites together with union workers who have become the elite among workers. Their pensions alone will be more than most people work for in T&T. The UNC, who seem to serve the individual interests of the leadership and who seem to aggrandize themselves, their friends and family and some of their co-ethnic members, and the media the voice of the elites, hiding behind their support of the unions. They media hardly ever supported the unions; in fact they were always portrayed as demons from hell intent on bringing chaos on society. Isn’t it funny how now the unions, former demons from hell, are glorified by the media? All because of the continuing battle of the media against the PNM. So that is the role of the media. Who have eyes to see, see? If not, as they say in Alabama, God bless you.

  12. The representation of an ideological belief on a judicial body may appear to be par excellence but that does not take away the honour and distinction Anita Hill represented for herself in front of a panel of white men in 1991. She’s Numero Uno in my eyes although the interpretation of the constitution certainly endorses all men….., consideration should be given to seeking political correction – all people are created equal….. The same applies to Christine Ford. If the scales in one’s eyes can be dropped off, then it would be accepted that both Thomas and Kavanaugh are sexual predators sitting in life time positions as Justices. This is not a case of ethnicity.

    The case of NAR in 1986 was a no-no in the first instance as the writing was already on the wall and to make a long story short, three boar rats cannot live in the same hole. So ideological representations of different colours were successful in toppling the Chambers administration but lacked the required shared belief of unified approaches in seeking overall success. Imagine when Gorbachev with his perestroika united with Reagan and Thatcher in bringing down the Berlin wall to be followed by the collapse of the USSR and liberalizing of the Baltic states. What have we seen since communism coming to a temporary halt? Millionaires from Russia just appearing overnight acquiring assets all over the world – from football clubs, malls, etc. Where was the money coming from when shared and equal opportunities was the practice from socialist doctrines? Today we look at Putin’s attempted implementation of reverse ideology (re-Crimea, Ukraine) from his predecessors including the drunken stupor of Yeltsin.

    Therefore, Unions in T&T cannot be overly criticized as they become a barometer and watchdogs to ruling governments especially in allowing their treasury staying away from the hands of parasitic oligarchs, big Sam e.g., the IMF etc. Reference can be made to Rienzi, Butler, Panday, Weekes in seeking the interests of their people from impoverishment and exploitation. Let’s wait and see what Guyana’s pre-conditions would be in encouraging foreign investments in their un-tapped mineral resources.

    Cuba realizes that for self sustainability they had to relax their ideology, and Obama was going the way of bringing back to the fold of the OAS. Canada backs up Cuba especially in the health and tourist industries and Fidel was a pall bearer for Trudeau Sr. in Ottawa, that’s respect, despite the CIA and FBI watchful and objectionable eyes. Trump a Republican is undoing everything Obama the Democrat was doing? Taking away Obama care is hurting those who cannot afford Medicare and Medicaid. the validity of the constitutional term, equality comes into question.

    It is my opinion with respect to Kanye West he’s a misplaced and misdirected individual who has literally blown out of the waters the case for reparations for people like himself and predecessors seeking damage for past historical abuses.

    In essence whatever political persuasion or pathway one takes it is the bitterness, iniquity and greed of the individual that are the root problems in the world today.

  13. Ideological representation may mean something to a few but that does not negate the fact that both men Thomas and Kavanaugh are both sexual predators. Ethnicity has no bearing here but both men sit in lifetime positions as Justices feeding us interpretations of the constitution that varies at time in varying contexts.

    The best institution is the human mind not the man-made ones that interpret laws, rules and regulations to suit themselves. I do admit that to conform to societal expectations we do need them and to be policed by men and women of honesty and integrity. In my eyes I have a problem when sexual predators are framing such becomes questionable.

    Kanye West has literally blown completely out of the waters the call for reparations. QED. Any consideration espoused to his colleagues (predecessors and descendants) legitimate call for such?

    I do remember the episode of Eric Williams burning a copy of the guardian newspaper at the University of Woodford Square at the same time who was O’Halloran? Why was he the PM’s closest confidante?

    Unions have brought about the call for justice for all working-class people who was living in impoverished conditions and exploited in the 30s. Legends like Rienzi, Panday, Butler, Weekes, Mc. Leod and company through the call of ideology and justice brought about decency for most of us and still the elite has been prospering.

Comments are closed.