At a time when we are being disgraced by the spectacle of hate from loyalist bigots in Ardoyne; by similarly terrifying bigotry on the part of Galway parents boycotting a school because of an influx of Traveller children; when ourselves and our politicians (with the exception of Ms Liz O'Donnell and a few others) are shaming ourselves through displays of barely disguised racism towards refugees, it has been inspiring to witness the leadership of Mrs Mary Robinson, at the anti-racism conference in South Africa.
The conference was at times chaotic, not least at its closing session when it simply disintegrated. It got diverted by disputes over Israel, although real issues of racism arise from the barbarism with which the state of Israel has treated the Palestinians.
It was subverted by the walkout of the US and Israel. But it has heightened awareness of racism worldwide and the crimes against humanity that racism in previous centuries inflicted on millions, especially Africans.
It also for the first time resulted in a UN conference acknowledging slavery as "a crime against humanity" and not just the Atlantic slave trade (although that explicitly) but all slavery, including contemporary slavery (as practised in Sudan and Mauritania).
It also acknowledged that colonialism has led to racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and that Africans, Asian and indigenous peoples continue to be victims of colonialism.
Its resolution on the Middle East was fairly balanced, acknowledging the right to statehood of the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The conference committed states to undertake a wide range of measures to combat racism and discrimination; it called for support for the new African initiative which could relieve the economic and social distress of much of Africa; and dealt with AIDS, religious, ethnic, gender and other forms of discrimination.
That there was an outcome at all to the conference was a huge achievement for which Mrs Robinson was in large part responsible. The achievement is all the more remarkable given the obduracy of, for instance, Britain, Holland, Spain and Portugal in refusing to apologise for their part in the slave trade.
If they agree (as they did eventually) that slavery was and always should have been a crime against humanity, why would they not apologise for their countries' part in it? Countries take credit for past glories, why not blame for past crimes against humanity?
What was different about the Atlantic slave trade was that it caused the enslavement of far more people than in any previous comparable period, that it enslaved entire communities, broke up families, herded millions on to coffin ships on which millions died and then kept them and their descendants for more than 100 years thereafter, in many instances hundreds of years.
The conservative British historian, Hugh Thomas, in his history of the Atlantic slave trade 1440-1870, The Slave Trade, estimated that over 13 million Africans were enslaved during that period and put on ships to America. About two million died on the way.
He also showed that our EU partner countries, notably Portugal, Britain, Spain, France, Holland and Denmark, were the main slave traders; in that order (with Portugal transporting 4,650,000 slaves, Britain 2,600,000, Spain 1,600,000 and France 1,250,000).
What was the problem about apologising for the cruelties inflicted? The refusal of Britain and others to apologise held up the conference for days. Apologies and reparations have been made for the Holocaust, so why not for slavery (the same mindset was involved in both cases)?
Apology and reparations have been made in the US for the internment of Japanese Americans during the second World War, so why no apology for slavery? And why no reparations? The Atlantic slave trade greatly enriched not just the US but the slave trader states as well.
AS for Islam's collusion in slavery, why should an issue be made of that? Our own religious heritage is suffused with collusion with slavery. The Old Testament repeatedly condones the institution of slavery, largely by inference, while the New has Jesus advising slaves to be obedient to their masters.
Our civilisation is enriched by people speaking out for justice. Mrs Robinson has done so magnificently. She deserves not our scorn but our admiration, and our appreciation.
In conclusion a personal vignette on racism. Last Friday I received a communication from a reader. It was addressed to The Irish Times and readdressed to my home. It was in a white envelope and contained my column of two weeks ago, clipped from the newspaper and pasted on to an A4 page.
The column was headed "Clamour over asylum is racist". Right across the page and over the column was pasted human faeces. I have received a similar communication from, I assume, the same person twice previously, once after I had written again on refugees and again after I had written in support of Travellers' rights. That I annoy such people is reassuring.