Brotherly Love, Shangri La, etc.

This was a mixed week for me. It's been one of the first time this school year where I haven't felt totally pressed by school and outside-school work. Because of this, I had a chance to catch a couple of extra school things. The first was a panel thingy on and for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Who's Mumia and what's the big deal about him? If you don't know, I don't know either, even after sitting through the majority of the panel talk. The simple version is that he's a black dude who alleges that he was wrongly convicted for killing a cop. I can't deal with the truth or not of that assertion. (*1) I can't time travel, so I don't know.

I did interrupt with an in-speech applause when one speaker (Robert Meeropol, I believe, but he's more important for his bloodlines than anything else) blurted something about the death penalty. Something about it being a violation of human rights or an outdated barbarous punishment. Which, for you tally taking people, means I'm against capital punishment. Mumia has been on death row for 28 years, by the way. (*2)

The gal next to me was going strong with her uh-huh, that's right, and such exclamations for most of the program. The speaker (probably Deborah Small, and I paraphrase here): the prison system is just a current form of slavery or slave labor. The gal next to me: mmhmm! The speaker (paraphrasing again): America's strict and severe drug penalties are just another way to keep the black community down. The gal next to me: right on. You get the idea. My manual cheer, on the other hand, was more pensive. Less an exclamation, more a distant clumsy splatter: clap. clap. clap. Then a brief hesitation before others picked up to surge a similar denouncement of the death penalty. As you might guess for an audience there to listen to Mumia's lead attorney Robert Bryan (among others) speak, it was easy picking for that sort of liberal endorsement.

The thing I would like to say was that some things change and some things don't. It was great that there were a lot of chicks in the audience; more visually entertaining for me, that’s for sure. So diversity on the gender front gets a check plus. But color wise, it was mostly snow white.

Don't get me wrong, not only are some of my good friends white, I'm also always receptive to acquire more white friends. But for a panel alleging the wrongful conviction of an ex-Black Panther and the associated implication for the racial (black and brown) problem that is pervasive in America, to see a mostly white audience is fairly disappointing. Disappointing that more young black and Hispanic (not to mention all other minorities) men were not taking an interest. (*3) And disappointing that the organizers did not reach out to get more color folks interested.

The next day I attended the latter parts of a Nepal conference. The quick and dirty on Nepal is that (a) the Maoist rebels (or in typical post 9/11 fashion, terrorists) are seeking to take control of Nepal, (b) recently the king disbanded parliament, staged a coup and declared a state of emergency, and (c) the democratic parties hope to establish dialogue with anyone to somehow regain control, all with (d) the military forces, ostensibly loyal to the crown, but certainly a x factor as they are the sole real and stabilizing authority in Nepal. I caught the last two program.

The penultimate program, with its four speaker panel, was quite swell. The first speaker (Smita Narula) addressed the untouchable/Dalit situation. The untouchables (or Dalit segment in Nepal) represent 20% of the Nepalese population, and true to their caste designation, they are treated like shit. The Maoist cause originally appealed to them because the Maoists were likewise dissatisfied with and originated from the social, political, and economic nether realms. For the record, discrimination of the untouchables was outlawed by parliament in the 1990's, except the prohibition was hardly enforced. The Maoist, for their part, failed to deliver on their equality promise, as even while the untouchable were absorbed into the Maoist ranks, the untouchables were treated as the untouchables were always treated, - like shit, and used as a sort of human shields and slave labor, and abused otherwise.

The second speaker (Arzu Rana-Deuba) talked about women issues. The neat thing was the acknowledgement that the civil war had help lead to some advancement for gender equality. With few men around in the villages, the work traditionally assigned to men were now performed by women and their broaden responsibilities have also become more socially acceptable. (*4) The latter is more significant because as we know, chicks already do a lot or most of the work in society, it's getting acceptance for their contribution that is the tough part. The end results have been that women have taken a greater role in religious ceremonies and gained more financial control of the village/family/themselves. One tell is where, in the past, the status of and the very word widow was a severe social stigma, now widows are referred to as single women. The significance? You decide.

The third speaker (Deepak Thapa) and the first dude was a bit dry. His 10 minutes focused on ethnic discrimination. In short, it happens.

The last speaker (Sam Zarifi) arrived fresh from Nepal with an up-to-date assessment, and brought some life back to the crowd by interjecting some personality in his delivery. Thank goodness for the relatively outdated weaponry employed by both sides, or else the devastation would be much worse than it already is. Thank goodness (sort of) Nepal is not petro rich, or else Iraq, part 2. Thank goodness I don't remember much else from this speaker and we can move on.

I didn't mean to write so expansively on this, feigning an attempt to drop some knowledge on y’all. I like the program because it was more nuanced and sophisticated than I anticipated. And at the same time, they introduced issues for post-conflict Nepal that might not have been on the radar. When (I'll be optimistic and avoid the if) the fighting ends, that would only be a new beginning for the hard work of peace.

The last program featured a speech by Nepal's former Prime Minister (Sher Bahadur Deuba) who also was a popular political prisoner (just released a month or so ago). He and his conference closing speech was a downer because he was not the leader I expected. My complaint starts with his attempt to deflect responsibility from himself and the political parties by stating early on, "I would like to bring attention to the fact that all nascent democracies are marked by infighting and instability and this is part of the maturing of the system. If you turn the pages of history to the times right after the establishment of democracy in the United States you may find it not so dissimilar." First of all, the nascent democracy of the United States would hardly be a favorable comparison as slavery, genocide, and gender and class discrimination defined the young America. Second, shut the fuck up and just say you failed, and you will try to do better. For the record, this dude had served three terms as prime minister, in 95-97, 01-03, and 05 till the royal coup. And more for the record, the Maoist insurgency started in 96, right in the middle of his first term.

Another complaint is that, also early in the speech, he described the advancement made under democracy. Not surprisingly, advancement focused on economic strides, like road construction, communication network, hydro-power development, economic growth, exports, and increase in foreign exchange reserve. Fine, I get that economic progress really does positively touch all aspect of a society, I'm not a luddite. (*5) Pride in Nepal's economic achievements is one thing, but to follow with, "However, the growth of the rural and informal economy as well as the agriculture sector was quite sluggish. Political reform to include the traditionally excluded was also slow to be realized by the political parties across the spectrum. The Maoist took advantage of this fertile ground to feed their insurgency." That is just being out of fucking touch. It's Bush-ian. And thankfully, I half tuned out the rest of the speech, although the rest did not improve on the early parts.

During the Q&A, someone did put some pressure on the former PM and asked about his failed leadership and even more pointedly asked if he would step aside if offered again the head of state position. Not surprisingly, he answered with a dodge. For myself, be hopeful for the process, not the leaders.

There were some rather serious cuties in the audience for the conference. I assume most of the attendees had a Nepal connection. So in summation, Nepalese babes are hot. See, I did learn something at the conference!

Oh right, the mixed part, which I completely neglected, is... it's hard out here for a pimp?

------------------------------
*1 The not simple version includes self defense, biased jury and judge, corrupt prosecutor and police, ineffective counsel, among many more.
*2 Currently, Mumia’s case is on habeas review for three issues in the Third Circuit.
*3 I'm saying men because what few blacks present were of the fairer sex.
*4 The menfolk either were conscripted or ran away for fear of conscription/suspicion of being either royalist/rebel sympathizers.
*5 That I am not on Friendster does not mean a thing.