The corroboration that Western-based animal rights groups are following racist practices comes from a story that appears in today’s Style Section of The New York Times. The subtitle tells the tale:
“The disavowal of fur has coincided with black women’s increased ability to buy mink coats.”
In a key paragraph in the article, the writer notes: “…there is a sense among many black women that this broader, cultural disavowal of fur has coincided with our increased ability to purchase it. (Or, as Paula Marie Seniors, a historian, and professor of Africana studies at Virginia Tech reports her mother saying, ‘As soon as black women could afford to buy mink coats, white society and white women said fur was all wrong, verboten, passé’) For women like my mother and grandmother, my aunts and my sisters, a fur coat is more than a personal luxury item. It is an important investment.”
The reporter continues with more proof of the racist background in the question of fur: “My grandmother never owned a house. She couldn’t afford it. And even if she’d had the money, they wouldn’t have let her have one”
Federal housing codes barred fair loans from being offered to black people. With other forms of housing discrimination, home-ownership was rendered impossible for many black families, and arduous for those who could attain it. So money was put toward other markers of personal prosperity, the kind that retained value and could be passed down to the next generation. “My grandmother never had a house, but she had fur.”
“My mother’s furs are her insistence on public elegance in a world frequently inhospitable to her.”
That lady’s defiance should be the example for the countries of southern Africa. They should now realize that when African societies recovered their independence and took full control of their natural resources, including the wild animals within their borders, white people in the United States and Europe, hiding behind the lofty goals of the animal rights organizations, continued their relentless racial campaign to limit the independence of these societies.
I have lectured many times and Emmanuel Koro has written many articles about the racial nature of the goals of the animal rights groups.
Now we have corroboration of the origins of this insidious attitude. The trouble is that so many young people in the West, believing deeply in progressive societal values and not thinking there was a racial bone in their bodies, have been quietly coerced into being party to a hateful continuation of a colonial past.
It is time to end this. It is time for the southern African states to declare their refusal to accept any CITES resolution or decision that limits their sovereignty to do what is best for the people of their countries.
Godfrey Harris, Managing Editor
THE AMERICAS GROUP
Public Policy Publishers Since 1968