In U.S., Clinton’s Africa Trip Spurs Wealth of Views

WASHINGTON — A few blocks from the White House, leaning against a batch of umbrellas for sale in a white bucket, David Opot happily shared his view of President Clinton’s visit to Opot’s home continent, Africa.

“It’s nice. It’s welcome,” declared the 40-year-old street vendor, who immigrated to the United States from Kenya five years ago. But, he asked with feeling, “will anything good come out of it?”

As Clinton treks through sub-Saharan Africa, an audience thousands of miles away is responding to his trip with a wide range of emotions. African Americans expressed generally favorable views about Clinton’s visit to the land of their ancestors in a series of random interviews in Washington, Southern California, Atlanta and Houston.

At the same time, their reactions to Clinton’s apologetic words about slavery and the world response to genocide in Rwanda--and even to the fact of the president’s journey--often were guarded and complex. Some questioned the value of such gestures, as well as the role of U.S. economic self-interest as a force behind the trip. Still others wondered whether the White House is using Africa to distract the public from the welter of allegations facing Clinton at home.

“It reminded me of [the film] ‘Wag the Dog,’ when the president was in a faraway place until his spin doctors could calm down the scandal,” said Thelma Reyna, principal of South Pasadena High School, noting that Africa “tugs at the heartstrings.”

Houston attorney Darlene Taylor, 33, lamented the ongoing problem of racism. But she wondered about the benefits of a formal apology for slavery, which Clinton came close to making in Uganda on Tuesday when he declared that slavery was wrong.

“I don’t understand what people want,” Taylor said. “Everybody is so far removed from that time and place. I don’t see why he feels he has to apologize for it. It’s not like we can all go back to Africa now.”

Clinton’s moves last year to create an advisory board on race, along with his apology for the Tuskegee, Ala., medical experiment in the 1940s in which unsuspecting black men were denied treatment for syphilis, sparked calls for an official apology for slavery. In a different way, his Africa trip has also highlighted the practice of slavery in America and the ancient bond between the two regions.

But those interviewed offered a gamut of views on the worth of an apology--views that included great skepticism.

“It’s over and done with,” said Tiffany Miller, 25, strolling the Santa Monica Promenade on Friday. “He wasn’t there, he didn’t do it, so he has nothing to apologize for.”

Miller, a receptionist for a telemarketing company, offered a theory for Clinton’s sojourn in Africa: “Maybe it was just for him to stay out of trouble and catch a breather from all the stuff that’s going on with him.”

*

Others were far more enthusiastic about the high-level trip, Clinton’s words on slavery and all the attention the visit is focusing on an often overlooked part of the world. Some maintained that it was high time a U.S. president made the effort to go to Africa and gain a firsthand familiarity with the continent.

Others had only the vaguest knowledge of the trip at all, perhaps reflecting the scant attention many Americans pay to foreign affairs.

“I know he’s there, but I don’t know why,” conceded Alicia Smith, an 18-year-old oil company clerk in Houston, taking a break with her friend Shaquinnsha Jackson in a downtown park. “They do need help in Africa, and if his trip helps, well, that’s good.”

Informed of Clinton’s near-apology for slavery, she said, “I guess it’s nice that he apologized for slavery, but it wasn’t necessary.” Then she added: “And I don’t see why he’s apologizing. He didn’t do it.”

Walt Allen, a state of California narcotics enforcement agent who lives in Covina, said he had been too busy at work to follow the details of Clinton’s excursion, and he suspected that business and idealism have both played a part in the trip. But Allen also said that the United States has paid insufficient attention to Africa and establishing closer ties would be good for all parties.

“For me, as an African American, any visit to Africa by President Clinton or another president is good,” Allen said.

*

Some of those interviewed also pointed to Africa as a place of prodigious natural wealth that is largely undeveloped.

James Watusi Shirley, a retiree in West Los Angeles, noted, “The president goes everywhere else in the world, why not Africa?” Shirley, sipping coffee outside a restaurant in Venice, grew up with a consciousness of Africa: All the children in his family were given African middle names, he said, to honor their African-born grandparents.

“He’s very smart, ‘cause if America don’t go in there, some other country’s going to go in there,” Shirley said of Clinton. “Once they [Africans] get themselves together, it’s going to be a big market.”

Shirley was no cynic about Clinton’s remark on slavery either. “We apologize to the Japanese. We apologize to the Jews. . . . It seems to me it’s a great big thing to apologize to the black folks.”

At the Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director Tim Lester described the Clinton trip in terms of economic self-interest. “For people who are going to be trading all over the world, these are some new consumers. . . . I understand why he’s going. It makes sense to me.”

Lester said he was disappointed that the president has not defended affirmative action more vigorously but described himself as “a Clinton supporter.”

Elsewhere in Los Angeles, James Randolph, 35, citing Clinton’s statement that the U.S. and other nations must share the blame for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, said the president has succeeded in elevating issues of principle.

“Human issues that don’t affect economics are put on the back burner, but Clinton--just by talking about Rwanda--it brings human issues out more,” said Randolph, a warehouse worker.

“Just by going there, he acknowledges the African states will be a major player in the world, especially since Africa has so many natural resources,” Randolph said.

Clearly, many of those interviewed believe that the United States historically has not been a good friend or partner to Africa, an assessment that fueled sympathy for Clinton’s bid to reach out.

Joseph Hopkins, an attorney from Pasadena, said that U.S. officials have long given short shrift to Africa because it lacked respect around the world and that Westerners have exploited the continent’s resources rather than invested in its long-term good.

“Historically, the United States’ only involvement was to put puppets in countries where they wanted something and then remove them when it did not work out,” said Hopkins, adding: “It is commendable that the political leader of our country is recognizing Africa as a legitimate partner.”

*

For those who were born in Africa, Clinton’s trip may have a particular resonance. Two of those interviewed expressed a desire for the U.S. to provide the continent with more monetary support.

“I think it’s very good he’s seeing Africa with his own eyes, not through a television set,” said Los Angeles engineer Tesfaye Sahle, 31. Added the native of Ethiopia: “When you see it yourself, it has more impact.

“I think this trip is going to help Africa, especially if the countries get money.”

Opot, the umbrella vendor in Washington who was born in Uganda and moved to Kenya before immigrating to the U.S., was also excited by the idea that closer personal ties could lead to stronger economic ones.

“We first have to talk. . . ,” he said. “Before you know anybody, you have to know his weak points and his strong points.”

Just a few blocks from the White House, in a shop packed with African artifacts, such thoughts seemed to mix with a slightly more detached view of Clinton’s trip. There, Irma Tucker offered her own upbeat assessment as she sifted through a display of multicolored batik fabrics featuring dancers, drummers and other images of tribal life.

“I think it’s long overdue,” said Tucker, a 43-year-old federal employee.

But asked whether the Clinton visit will lead to good, Tucker was more cautious.

“We have to wait and see.”

Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Michael Krikorian in Los Angeles, Susan McAllister in West Los Angeles and Richard Winton in Pasadena, and researchers Lianne Hart in Houston and Edith Stanley in Atlanta.