THE CONFERENCE on Racism etc. in Barbados, has come under attack for its vote against the participation of non-African/Afro-descendants. The expulsion of people, such as the father of a mixed child and the spouse in a mixed union, is not only insensitive, it is also counterproductive. These people have a vested interest in the conference, and their presence, therefore, does no damage to the purpose of the gathering. In this regard, apologies must be extended to them and moves towards rapprochement made without delay.
But while the modalities of the expulsion are egregious, and the non-identification of cases of exception unfortunate, a distinction must be made between the question of discrimination for specific purposes, on one hand, and xenophobia/ intolerance, on the other. Our claims to equality of individuals based on characteristics that are intrinsic ('race', disability, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) or extrinsic (ethnicity, class, gender, religion, sexual preference, national origin, etc.) does not, in any way, imply that groups' right to determine that their discussions on issues that affect them, to the exclusion of other groups, is a display of intolerance. Neither can the coming together of groups based on such common characteristics, to the exclusion of other groups, in itself, be deemed prejudicial to others. If that were the case, we would have to lock down single sex schools and public lavatory facilities for being public endorsements of discrimination based on sex!
I don't know why anyone who is not African or a descendant of Africans (except for the cases cited above) should be offended by being told that discussions on Africa, reparation and repatriation are restricted to those directly touched by these issues. I hardly think any man would cry sexism if told that he could not participate in a meeting of battered women!
Would I, an Afro-Jamaican male, feel left out of a meeting of Holocaust survivors or of Arab lesbians? Hardly likely.
Molefi Kete Asante reminds us to guard against the fallacy that any emphasis on particular perspectives and experiences suggests separatism, and by extension hostility. The experiences and perspectives being discussed in Barbados, as I understand them, are particular to people who have a claim to African heritage and the way the history of colonialism and slavery have impacted that heritage. If they choose to exclude people who don't share that history, or who relate differently to it, it is their right to do so.
The violent reaction of the Caribbean press, the Barbadian government and some groups to the restriction on who participate in the forum, smacks of what Asante calls eagerness to demonstrate to their master "that they are not a part of the (slave) rebellion and that they distrust the ideas that are derived from the African (and African-descended) masses." Let's have some clear thinking, please.
