Italian shot two Africans: racism or homicide?

The killings of Florence are not the result of racism but of injustice. Ewanfoh O. Peter argues.

First of all I want to express a big condolence to the family of Samb Modou and Diop Mor, the two Senegalese who were shot dead on the afternoon of 13th December 2011, the entire African community in Italy and in Europe in general.

The reason for this short analysis is to propose that the Africans in Europe might need to cry out for injustice while reexamining certain terminologies, especially those which seem to suggest a form of justification for the ill-treatment against them in Europe.

Also because with the current economic ill-wind sweeping across Europe, event like that of Florence, 13th December 2011 might likely occur more than once across Europe, and for the interest of the European society and the Africans who are living in Europe, there is the need to unmask these wrongdoers so that their crimes will be more visible before the law.

Before going any further, it must be pointed out that racism as an idea is a rather weak one and has already been defeated long time ago, so there is no need using it anymore as a justification for the evils of men.

At the prime of their potency, the European extreme right had their chance to prove their idea that the people of European origin were indeed superior to the rest people in the world, especially the Africans. But unfortunately, they were unable to prove the idea beyond the elementary level and so could not convince any rational individual, judging from a variety of fundamentals as the performance of the people of African origin at the Olympics, the comparison of genetic composition between Africans and the Europeans, the physical characteristics, the linguistic and cultural evolution of the people in question.

In fact, the whole idea of European racial supremacy is a failure that must belong to the past, including all the associating elements such as “Race and Racism” which were used to propagate the futile idea.

Let see it this way, when you call a man a racist for his atrocious deeds, you are actually not incriminating him for his action, because he practically appears as if he were a soldier or a defender of certain values, and if you were to drag him to the law court, he is likely to enjoy some leniency. After all, he is fighting for the interest of his people, especially if you were to view the argument from a European standpoint.

Of course you would have already understood by now that if it were an African who have killed an Italian, he would never had been called a racist, but simply a criminal, meaning that he was incriminated for his action, not the motive behind his action. And if he was to be taken to the law court, he would not enjoy any leniency because he is just a criminal. You can see that there is something wrong with the idea itself.

In essence, a lot of Africans are victims in Europe, but not of racism; they are victims of injustices. So I think it’s a high time that Africans start asking for justice without unnecessary adjectival attachments, because there is really no difference between the action of a European who kills an African and an African who kills a European.

During a protest against racism as was organized last Saturday evening (17th December 2011) at the Verona city center, in connection to the two Senegalese who were killed in Florence, I asked one of the speakers whether the perpetrator of the act is a criminal or a racist, and he answered: “a criminal racist”.

Well, I do not remember hearing of any legal racists; at least not the ones who have dominated the argument over the years: in Italy, in France, in Germany, in the United Kingdoms or in the United States.

It is true that in the United States, until recently, it was almost lawful for the K. K. Klan to humiliate and terrorize the defenseless African Americans for many decades. Of course, this only was possible because it was permitted by the system and the same system allowed the perpetrators of the evil acts to hide in a mask, a mask which reflected the very fear in the larger American society.

Now the point is, you cannot bring a masked man before the law, you have to first unmask him so that his face can be visible before the law, only then can he face the consequence of his actions as the law demands.

For the Africans in Europe, I think it will be more favorable for them if they can stop singing the same old songs of racism that has been disadvantageous against them and start accusing their European offenders for injustice. This way, they can have the chance to make their legal case and eventually get justice for the ill-treatment against them by some European extremists.

Also because there is never going to be a victory over racism, or worst still an African victory, because it is a faceless enigma. The idea that one race is superior to the other has never really been the problem but a cover up for the real problem: the humiliations and ill-treatments against the vulnerable members of society. These, we can see and can be redressed within the legal frameworks because they have a face.

Most certainly, there is nothing wrong for an Italian to say he is a better person just because he is an Italian or a European? Anybody can say whatever he likes. The point is that he should not go beyond his limit to maltreat or kill another person. Because from that moment, the argument becomes a different thing altogether; maiming or killing a person has absolutely nothing to do with the purported idea. The latter is purely a criminal act and does not in any way reflect racial superiority.

I do not understand why such a person should be called an idealistic individual. If a man kills another man, even for an idea, it means that his case has graduated from ideology to homicide; so he must be seen for whom he is, a murderer.

I think the local institutions need to help the people to understand these two different phases in the argument, so that those with similar tendency do not go around, maiming and killing the less protected in the society and hopping to be called idealistic individuals; because there is nothing idealistic about this.

Ewanfoh Obehi Peter

Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating.