The Left is a broad category – from centrist social welfarism to communism. The Left in government ranges from the Communist Party in China to the Tripartite Alliance in South Africa.
The Left, based on its contribution to date, has a place in African politics, just as it features in every continent in the world. Those who would wish the death of the Left in west, east, central and southern Africa have a long wait coming. It is a fact that in certain parts of the African world the Left has been marginalized, neutralized or co-opted. What will further weaken the Left in Africa south of the Sahara and its western (Americas, Caribbean, Europe etc) and eastern ( Arabia, North Africa, Gulf states and points east ) Diasporas, is if it is unable to engage in the major challenges facing us due to emasculation or out of fear of the unknown. This paper argues that the principal challenge facing the Left today is how to engage the decolonization process underway in the Afro-Arab Borderlands.
What will weaken the left is the absence of an organizational framework which unifies it’s struggle. This is beside the absence of a political agenda. The Pan-African movement can serve as the forum of the African Left, as seen in Cameroon, drawing its lifeblood from the people’s struggle for unity, democracy, social justice, equality and economic progress in different social settings in the Diasporas and on the continent south of the Sahara. The issue of organization must be tackled first.
Even as the Berlin Wall was in place voices on the African Left stated that race was a key component in social analysis. However most in government toed the line from Moscow parroting that only class was important in defining social issues. In the South African Communist Party (SACP) during the armed struggle many were expelled who insisted, with varying degrees of emphasis, that race was a key element in social analysis.
For some, when the Soviet variant of socialism suffered internal collapse, with the withdrawal of Russia from its frontline position in the Third World, serious challenges were thrown up. Take, for instance, the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) in Southern Sudan. Adwok Nyaba says - ‘In all honesty the SPLM/A was not socialist or Left for that matter, although it raised socialist slogans. The Left is recognized by the manner it organizes its means of struggle and the relationship between its leadership and the masses. The SPLM/A was militarist and that is why it is paying dearly for its political organization and the unity of its rank and file’.The SPLM/A was, in the language of those times, a progressive, Left-leaning African liberation organization, similar to the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).
The SPLM/A had been at war with Khartoum from the eve of Sudan’s self-government in 1956, with the Soviets gone where was the SPLM to draw its support, both in terms of logistics and diplomatic promotion, to maintain its struggle with the Khartoum government? The Islamic fundamentalist government of Sudan based in Khartoum is lead not by white Arabs, but by a mixed race/coloured group, who are Arabised and Islamised, practicing genocide in Darfur, oppressing the African majority in the country, in alliance with the rest of Arabia, where they are accepted as inferior Arabs.
Sudan is strategically located, straddling the line where Arabia meets black Africa. In Sudan, north of that line, are not white Arabs, but an Arabised and Islamised people of mixed race, living in the centre of the country, around Khartoum on the Nile River which flows from its source in Uganda, through Juba, capital of Southern Sudan, onto Khartoum, thence through southern Egypt, Cairo and into the Mediterranean Sea. These people, in the Southern African context, would be described as a ‘coloured’ people. In Sudan the light brown complexioned people living in the centre of the country around Khartoum, detaining power, historically served as a buffer between white Egypt and black southern Sudan. This is how the last colonial Anglo-Egyptian administration distributed power within Sudan society, as they left the scene in 1956. The power centre in Khartoum was to stem the tide of African nationalism coming north along the Nile, the overwhelming majority of the population of Sudan being black Africans. This explains the causes of the protracted war in south Sudan and the frantic attempt now on to alter the demographics in Darfur, so that Africans will be thrown back southwards, in what has been a historical process of African retreat, since the time of the African civilization of Kush in north eastern Sudan, which preceded the black pharaonic civilization in Egypt, before the arrival of the Arabs in Africa. This type of ‘decolonization’ process was sanctioned in arrangements made by Europe and Arabia, to better exploit African labour and minerals. This is the challenge posed in Sudan today. The issues are similar in Mauritania, where the colonials gave power to a Moorish minority, to rule the African majority. The method of decolonization was the same in south and north Africa. Africans were to be hemmed in by Europeans in the south and by Arabs in the north, in a pincer arrangement in which they would be bound for ever to serve external interests in order to survive and escape genocide.
It could be said that the Left has come a long way from where it was in say, 1957, when Ghana achieved self-government under the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) lead by Nkrumah. Many now acknowledge that race is as significant as class, in any analysis of the African situation, especially when handling Pan-African issues.
African liberation action for decolonization was, in the case of Ghana, a mass not a class struggle, being lead by different strata of society, whereas in South Africa the struggle for majority rule was part of a process of decolonization, but it took the form of a mass struggle lead by the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the trade unions, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the African National Congress (ANC).
The two major areas for settler decolonization in 1957 were Southern Africa under Afrikaner/British settler colonialism, and the Afro-Arab Borderlands, in the Sahel and the Sudan, running from Mauritania on the Atlantic eastwards to Sudan on the Red Sea. Whereas in 1957 the problems of Southern Africa were admitted by the international community, those in the Borderlands were not. Fifty years later, in the 21st century, the issues of Arab racism and hegemony in the Borderlands surface with a vengeance, why ?
Arab slavery and hegemony in the Sahelian Borderlands predated the arrival of the Heugenots in the Cape, in Southern Africa, by a millennium. In the mid-twentieth century proletarian internationalism, as co-operation between the Left across borders was called, in an era dominated by two superpowers – the Soviet Union and the United States – was the quintessential ingredient in the decolonization of Africa. After all colonialism was administered from the Western metropoles of London, Lisbon, Paris and Brussels. It’s end was hastened by the intervention of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe.
In Africa, the context of China until it joined the United Nations in 1971, must be put into consideration. There was no way China would have entered into the world arena before finishing its cultural revolution. It is this cultural revolution in the sixties that consolidated the Communist in power after the defeat of the Nationalists, first in China and then displacing them in the world body. The current China stance is dictated by its economic power. This power has been acquired without eschewing its communist[ Chinese style ]ideology. It remains to be seen what will happen when China reaches the top of the world political and military order. China’s actions in Sudan, particularly in Darfur, require close inspection and monitoring, providing indications of its evolving relations with Africans.
Those who partook in the Fifth Pan-African Congress (PAC) in Manchester in 1945, such as Du Bois and Nkrumah, accepted the line of the Soviet Union, based on its internal need to keep in check its restive minorities, that race was not a factor in social analysis. One could say that Padmore was more circumspect in this regard. This was due to his period spent in Moscow as a member of the Comintern, where he had witnessed at close quarters how proletarian internationalism was tailored to Russian international interests, as the South African Communist Party had learnt much earlier.
Men such as Du Bois, Padmore and Makonnen, worked with Nkrumah in the implementation of his Pan-African agenda, which lead to the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1964. The OAU was a tool in the hands of African leaders. For the Arabs it served to enlist African support for the Arab causes of Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine
After the Camp David Accords and the establishment of relations between certain Arab states in Africa, such as Egypt and Isreal, the OAU and its successor the African Union (AU ) became increasingly subject to Arab, as distinct from African interests. It is from this period that the divide, north and south of the Sahara, became clearly discernable and their destinies no longer reconcilable. Arab members were not interested in the integration of the African Diasporas, on equal basis with continental governments, into the statist Pan-African structure. Certain Arab states took to underwriting/buying-into the expenses of the organization, by paying state dues in the face of the indifference of some African states regarding their financial obligations. A point was reached in late 2007 whereby Gadaffi of Libya was able to manipulate the AU by threatening to withdraw his support for the AU and rather turning to the West and Europe, knowing that this would cause severe financial problems, even the collapse of the organization.
Makonnen had doubts about Nasser’s intentions in Africa and favoured relations with Israel. Nasser’s Egypt and Nkrumah’s Ghana, in close socialist alliance, were the main proponents of African decolonization, assisted by the Soviets. The OAU enshrined the concept of sovereignty and the inviolability of borders, with respect for the territorial integrity of states. Many Left leaning leaders in Africa, as late as the close of the 20th century, remained steadfast in their support of Nasser’s Egypt,despite Egypt’s signing of the Camp David Accords with Isreal and its murky involvement with Britain in the neo-colonial dispensation for Sudan.
Whatever may have been Nasser’s intention in Africa, many have argued convincingly that he was first a Pan-Arabist and secondly a Pan-Africanist. During his period Egypt continued its interference in Southern Sudan, Darfur, Nubia etc by way of their institutionalized marginalization by Khartoum. Nasser facilitated the marriage of Nkrumah to an Egyptian, a tactic used by Arabia in the past to neutralize African nationalist leaders in south Sudan. The rule of Ghana by the Convention People’s Party (CPP) saw the establishment of Ghanaian embassies in Khartoum and Nouakchott in Mauritania. Nkrumah would have been aware of the oppression of black Africans in Sudan and Mauritania by people calling themselves Arabs or Moors. It is said that it was the 1966 Khartoum Roundtable on the future of South Sudan, at which Ghana was represented, which brought Nkrumah to the realization of the need to support Southern Sudan. His Government was overthrown shortly thereafter by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Adwok Nyaba takes the view that most African leaders did not understand the genisis of the Sudan conflict. Arab diplomacy focused on wider issues, such as Palestine, concealing Arab internal contradictions with the captive black African people in their midst. It was therefore not surprising that the continental body, often described as Pan-Africanist, left to us by Nkrumah, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), now African Union (AU), reflects the view that Arabs could be and indeed are ‘brothers’ – even as the Khartoum based government was fighting a protracted war with African nationalism in south Sudan, in a war seen by the Africans of southern Sudan, as a just war of decolonization from Arab settler colonialism.
It is probably from this period, if not earlier, that we note the Left’s failure to address the issue of Arab hegemony and racism, which attitude is still with us today. Residence in south Sudan teaches that at the point of contact in the Afro-Arab intercourse, Arabia is aggressive and expansionist, not hiding its interests. This is understood throughout the Arab world. However in areas removed from direct contact, such as the west and southern African coasts, it is a different story. There Arab, particularly Egyptian, cordial diplomacy is legendary. Yet an Egyptian diplomat could be shifted from the Consulate in Juba, to the Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia. It is this duplicity which has confounded Africans, but such protocol is rule-of-thumb in the Foreign Ministries of the Arab world, when dealing with Africa. African leaders are amenable to bribery by their Arab counterparts, at the cost of their people’s interests.
The OAU played a major role in the decolonization of Southern Africa, whilst it refused to be involved in the south Sudan issue, which was stated to be an Arab issue, the proper consideration of the Arab League. The Liberation Committee of the OAU ensured that the decolonization process in southern Africa received the maximum support of the Organization, including its Arab members. The Arab government in Khartoum, although at war with Africans in south Sudan, was generous in funding the anti-apartheid struggle. In mid-February 2008 the post-apartheid
Government of South Africa dealt in a cavalier fashion with a Darfurian freedom fighter seeking to enter South Africa, to explain the war going on in his country. He was locked up, his luggage confiscated and he expelled on the next available flight, without being offered any explanation. This could best be explained as a deliberate act to deny South Africans first hand knowledge of what is going on in Darfur and Sudan.
The road to the defeat of settler colonialism in southern Africa was a long one. The African National Congress (ANC) had been formed in 1912. Later it was fused with the South African Communist Party. Shortly before South Africa attained majority government in 1994 the South African leader Chris Hani and likely future President, was assassinated, being described as both a leading figure in the ANC and the Communist Party.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement was a powerful international tool of finance capital and played a leading role in the garnering of international support for the decolonization process in South Africa. There was no such humanitarian interest in the freedom struggle underway in Sudan by the marginalized majority. Those who followed the transfer of power from the white settler colonial Afrikaner Nationalist Party to the ANC saw how the Left in that country, worked with capital to create a new South Africa, so-called, with a mixed economy and lots of opportunities for venture and transnational capital, so that there was never a chance that the commanding heights of that economy would shift from the pre-1994 situation. Indeed local capital quickly stepped off-shore to places like Switzerland. The Kempton Park talks leading to majority rule in South Africa, laid the ground rules for the peaceful co-existence and co-operation of the Left with organized labour and the centre-right, which rule remains in place today. In Namibia self-government saw the introduction of a mixed economy, with respect for the social contract, with assurances for public health and education, embedded in the Constitution.
It was therefore ironic that the government which emerged in South Africa, lead by the Left, experienced some discomfort in handling settler colonial issues in the Afro-Arab Borderlands, such as Darfur. This unease was felt to be a product of Soviet era relations, whereby the ANC had forged close international socialist working alliances, which ultimately lead to the battle of Cuito Cunavale in Angola, where the progressive forces of Cuba, Angola, Namibia and South Africa defeated on the battlefield the racist minority Afrikaner regime of South Africa, which was in alliance with the international rightwing, which included the USA, UK, the Angolan rebel group UNITA and others. From observation the ruling Tripartite Alliance in South Africa ( ANC, the Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions [COSATU] ) has not shifted from its view that class is the main and only determinant in analyzing human relations. The Mbeki Administration did adopt aspects of Pan-Africanism in its African Renaissance agenda, taking on board the Diaspora and championing counties such as Haiti, whose role in contemporary African history had been ignored by the Left in the past. However the Alliance was unable to answer charges that Renaissance was more a moral fig leaf for the penetration of South African capital into Africa, through the agency of Shoprite, the Banks and the breweries etc, to be followed by the vacuuming of minerals resources.
Whereas the world today is no longer in a duo-polar situation as during the Cold War, with power controlled by the United States of America and the Soviet Union, we are now in a period of the decline of the mono-power, the United States of America. This current scenario is slowly shifting in our view to a multi-polar world, in which new conflict issues are emerging, such as decolonization in the Afro-Arab Borderlands. We have seen terrorism become a matter of global concern, as well as fundamentalism and the preoccupation with the environment.
Closer to home the Darfur conflict is bringing to the surface an old problem, which has long been buried from global view, which was apparent during the long war in South Sudan, for those who were discerning. This is the issue of Arab hegemony, slavery, racism and abuse of human rights, lead by Islamic fundamentalist governments such as that in Khartoum, which systematically seeks to change the demography of places such as Darfur, implementing genocide against the people of the area, such as the Fur, who are being forced off their land and are being replaced by Arabised West Africans, such as the Taureg. A similar Arab project is underway in Nubia, Northern Sudan, near the Egyptian border, where African Nubians, who have been living in the area for a millennium, are being removed in plain view of the world and Egyptian Arabs being resettled on their lands. Bear in mind that the conflict in the Afro-Arab Borderlands is as old as time, and that these issues were not publicized in the past. There will be new Darfurs spreading westwards. So long as Arab hegemony continues to push Africans southward it will be meet by a stout and organized resistance.
From observation it appears that the difficulties that the Left experiences in South Africa, of openly supporting harassed Africans in the Borderlands, is the admission that in countries such as Sudan and Mauritania there is indeed a race issue, of such dimensions that just as South Africa needed the support of the Liberation Committee of the OAU to end apartheid, so in the Borderlands African solidarity and support is necessary. Indeed from Mauritania to the Red Sea there is an issue of Arab hegemony and racism. After all Africans lived on the Mediterranean coast, as Cheikh Anta Diop explained to us. If Africans have been pushed Southwards as far as Darfur today – the issue is – what are Africans going to do about it. There is unease when an apartheid-type figure such as El Bashir of Sudan is able, in late 2007, to undertake a state visit to South Africa, where he is accorded full honours. Would the ANC, in say the mid-1980s, have remained silent if P.W.Botha had conducted a State visit to a Frontline state?
All progressive/Left leaning forces in African society have to take on board the truths of the Sudan and struggle to put in place changes for the better. The Left, both African and international has no choice, but to get engaged, as it did in South Africa. If the Left stays on the sidelines as a spectator, it ceases to be part of the solution and becomes part of the problem. The Left needs to fight Arab hegemony and violent Islamic fundamentalism. African contradictions with the Arab Left stems from its acquiescence to Arab hegemony. A distinction must be made between Arab Leftist ideas which are progressive and in line with progressive humanity and the support of the Arab left for Arab hegemony. Arab hegemony is imperial, it steals land and natural resources and it enslaves people. It is in continuous expansionist mode and has the support of the Arab League. But for the gallant fighters of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), Sudan under Tourabi, would have overrun the South and marched on Kampala, in the name of Jihad.
Arab racism and domination is not an issue for the United States of America lead liberal alliance alone. It concerns African progressive forces too. Arab hegemony is active from Mauritania to the Red Sea. This is not new. As Chinweizu said, the Borderlands have been a war zone since the arrival of the Arab in Africa. Africans were unable to admit and face-up to this reality. The conflict is low intensity, in the main, and generalized, with key combat zones such as south Sudan, which lost 2.5 million during its liberation struggle, and now Darfur. These conflicts did not start yesterday, as the international press would want us to believe, but have been intermittent moving southward, again since the arrival of the Arab in Africa. Such conflicts are now in the public domain as the genocide in Darfur has received front page coverage internationally.
The Heads of State of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS ) meeting in Burkina Faso in mid-January 2008 had top of their agenda, as a security matter, the issue of the Taureg. In the face of a collective Arab challenge there should be a collective African response.
Groups such as the Darfurian freedom fighters deserve the support of the Left. A factor in that support will be the orientation of the group in question. Wagging liberation struggle requires support, both material and diplomatic. Military equipment is taken from the enemy. The people of Darfur, support their liberation movements. Amnesty International reports that the IDP camps in Darfur are flooded with weapons, with no shortage of youthful volunteers, ready to fight. In the camps a revolver can be purchased for US$25. In Sudan there will be no peace unless the claims of all the marginalized are meet. There are projections that this may take 10-50 years. The current peace process in the South is part of a longer unfolding process, which the late John Garang set in motion, towards a new Sudan. There is an ark of crisis of endangered African states, targets for Arab expansion as follows – Eritrea, Tchad, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya, Central African Republic, Niger, Mali, Senegal and Uganda.
And what about the lands which were ‘lost’ in the north of the African continent, such as Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco? The indications are that once majority rule has come to Sudan, then the preoccupation of the new Sudan will by way of education on human rights and history, re-educating the people that Africa has its own culture, history and civilization. And that the African origins of civilization, currently excluded from the school curricula in North Africa, is a fact of history. The ‘lost’ lands will not be recovered by war, but those now living in those lost lands will have to address the challenges of African culture, ideas and the Afro-Arab civilizational dialogue based on equality.
Afro-Arab relations have always been conflictual, with Africans on the receiving end, since the advent of the Arab on the Africa continent. The Left needs to engage this fact directly, not remain neutral and passive. The issues in play in this area are clear. The Left should not be afraid of confronting new situations, new challenges or unfamiliar terrain. In this period the Left should be vigilant and unbending in its core principles, as well as flexible in its approach
B.F.Bankie
November 2010
bfbankie@gmail.com
The author expresses appreciation for the comments and reactions to the preparatory text of this paper, received from Dr Adwok Nyaba.
B.F.Bankie
Sudan Sensitisation Project (SSP)
www.bankie.info
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zimbabwe. Show all posts
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Being Zimbabwean: From Bondage To Slavery
I have stayed in foreign lands for some time now. I have seen Zimbabweans being killed, I have seen them being segregated and I have seen them living worse than dogs. Back home I have seen my people degenerating into thieves, fraudsters and murderers; our once righteous women turning into nocturnal body-sellers. Out of pain, I decided to undertake a dialectical journey to the core of our existence; to explore what it means to be Zimbabwean, what it should mean and why it means what it means right now to be a Zimbabwean. This could be the works of a troubled mind but my hope is that someone would find sense out of it.
Sometimes I sit wondering why some people behave the way they do. I wonder why Robert Mugabe is that arrogant, why General Zvinavashe agreed to pronounce that infamous statement on the eve of the 2002 Presidential elections, why Jonathan Moyo keeps vacillating like a pendulum and why Morgan Tsvangirai overruled a democratic consensus that later led to the split of MDC. Most of the times, I end up indifferently concluding that maybe that’s how human beings behave. This time I decided to interrogate the source of these behaviors even deeper without giving myself a chance to resign.
The first question that I asked myself was; “what makes a man a man?” Apart from the physical how can we differentiate between a man and a dog? This question came about because of some things that we have seen happening in Zimbabwe that we would normally say; they are not fit to be done by human beings but by dogs or savages. So what is it that makes a man a man and a dog a dog?
There are certain characteristics that are common between a man and a dog which compel us to conclude that a man is primarily an animal. They both desire food, water, shelter and other basic needs. They both have the five scientific senses. They are both calculative- a baboon may bury wild fruits in sand to facilitate ripening just like a human being. Most importantly, they both act instinctively in the face of danger to avoid death. But still a baboon is a baboon and a man is a man- why?
Somebody argued that a man is a man because he can differentiate between good and bad. Again we ask; is good universal to all men? Why is polygamy good in some societies but bad in some? Who defines good? If we can follow the dictates of society on good and bad can’t that be said of a dog that is conditioned to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to its master?
However, even if good or bad is not universal to all men the concept of goodness and badness is common across all people. But even this concept derives from a deeper intrinsic awareness in man which is I prefer to call the consciousness of value. It is therefore arguable that apart from the physical and the genetic make-up, human beings also share a common characteristic- attaching value to nature.
Notwithstanding the fact that animals also attach value to things out of instinct, it is only man who has the ability to attach value and defend it on worthless material and on non-material things. For example, man fight to defend religion, they fight to defend their rights because they place value unto these things and they are willing to risk death for things that are intangible.
Man in as much as he places value on other things also places value upon himself. He believes that he is worth a certain value. This is what is called self-worth. The product of this self-evaluation is called dignity. Because man is naturally a social being, that is he desires to be desired by other man. He expects other man to evaluate his worth by other man, he expects other man to evaluate his worth to its real value. When they undervalue him, he gets angry and when the evaluate him to his real worth he feels pride. This desire to be recognized by other man, is the one that drives man to behave in ways that defy natural animal instinct.
Let us look at Zimbabwe. On one hand we have a ruling class that is unwilling to recognize other ordinary Zimbabweans as people amongst other people, on the other we have a people that is yearning for such recognition. This ruling class which is mainly ZANU PF , behaves in a manner that seeks to undo history.
I say ZANU PF is seeking to undo history because it is taking the human philosophical function back to the primitive state when man , although social beings, interacted with each other violently. A period in history when man’s worth was evaluated on how much one was willing to risk death for pure prestige. Remember Alexander or Chaka .
Unfortunately, other Zimbabweans are unwilling to engage ZANU PF in such a primitive manner which to some may appear as cowardice. In circumstances, where one part is willing to engage in violence and another is unwilling there is greater possibility that their relationship terminates in lordship and bondage in which as is in Zimbabwe, ZANU PF gains the recognition of being the master and everybody else looses the dignity of being a man and becomes a slave.
But is the unwillingness of Zimbabweans to engage in violence a symbol of cowardice? The answer could be both YES and NO.
YES in that, cowardice itself begins when a man fails to overcome the fear of death and let his animal instinct of self-preservation override the human characteristic of seeking recognition. So out of cowardice, Zimbabweans decided to forfeit their worth for a chance to live.
NO in that, a human being is also calculative and can temporarily forgo his human desires for a particular reason. For example a man may choose not to eat even if he is hungry because he is on hunger-strike. So there could be a reason why Zimbabweans chose to forfeit their worth. One of which could be that they know that most of the primitive members of ZANU PF are close to death due to aging. From their calculations, they can do without dignity for a few years until this generation is wiped out. They can derive hope from the fact that a number of younger ZANU PF members have been attracted to the idea of change like Simba Makoni, Daniel Shumba, Walter Mzembi and others.
What is certain in Zimbabwe however is that the ZANU PF regime is not evaluating its people’s worth justly. Zimbabweans are conscious of this, unfortunately; as in all dictatorships, two groups of slaves arise. One that feels unjustly evaluated and is willing to regain its dignity and another that knows and feels theindignation but is content to live like that as long as they are alive....more
CONTINUE TO THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Are The Sanctions Against Zimbabwe A Weapon Of War ?
James C. McIntosh, M.D.:
The great Prussian general, and before I get into trouble and anybody is asked to denounce me, for calling a Germanic leader great, let me cautiously say wickedly great. The wickedly great Prussian general Frederick the Great wrote in his instructions to his generals, that "The greatest secret of war and the masterpiece of a skillful general is to starve his enemy.
That's what sanctions do.
In Zimbabwe sanctions have created critical shortages of supplies of clean water, water purification equipment, agricultural equipment and medications. The health system of Zimbabwe that had once been described as the best in Africa is now described by some as in a shambles.
Even government opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, speaking to CNN described Zimbabwe as having a "deepening food insecurity" Put that under the category even a broken clock is right twice a day. At any rate that's an echo of what Wickedly Great military strategist, Frederick was talking about starvation as a tactic.
Thats what sanctions do
General Colin Powell,
the wickedly great General Colin Powell, said when asked about his strategy for handling the Iraqi military, these infamous words "First we cut it off; listen, First we cut it off -----then we kill it."
That's the plan of the American Government for Zimbabwe.
That's what sanctions do.
Even in a country with a highly developed, sophisticated and well functioning medical system like Cuba certain inevitable consequences have been suffered because of US imposed sanctions in the form of an Embargo.
The American Association for World Health Report in their summary findings of 1997 said that sanctions had the following 4 negative impacts on the health of the Cuban People
"1. Malnutrition: The outright ban on the sale of American foodstuffs has contributed to serious nutritional deficits, particularly among pregnant women, leading to an increase in low birth-weight babies. In addition, food shortages were linked to a devastating outbreak of neuropathy numbering in the tens of thousands. By one estimate, daily caloric intake dropped 33 percent between 1989 and 1993.
2. POOR Water Quality: The embargo is severely restricting Cuba's access to water treatment chemicals and spare-parts for the island's water supply system. This has led to serious cutbacks in supplies of safe drinking water, which in turn has become a factor in the rising incidence of morbidity and mortality rates from water-borne diseases.
3. SHORTAGES OF Medicines & Equipment: Of the 1,297 medications available in Cuba in 1991, physicians now have access to only 889 of these same medicines - and many of these are available only intermittently. Because most major new drugs are developed by U.S. pharmaceuticals, Cuban physicians have access to less than 50 percent of the new medicines available on the world market. Due to the direct or indirect effects of the embargo, the most routine medical supplies are in short supply or entirely absent from some Cuban clinics.
4. SHORTAGES AND DELAYS OF Medical Information: Though information materials have been exempt from the U.S. trade embargo since 1 988, the AAWH study concludes that in practice very little such information goes into Cuba or comes out of the island due to travel restrictions, currency regulations and shipping difficulties. Scientists and citizens of both countries suffer as a result. Paradoxically, the embargo harms some U.S. citizens by denying them access to the latest advances in Cuban medical research, including such products as Meningitis B vaccine, cheaply produced interferon and streptokinase, and an AIDS vaccine currently under-going clinical trials with human volunteers. "
Are sanctions a weapon of war ??
Well they are certainly a weapon of economic war. And economic war is just that war. There would be no need to debate the point that economic war is war were it not for the fact that we are living in a period when US government officials are known to argue with straight faces that coerced hypothermia that is freezing a person to a state of ill health, sleep deprivation and drowning a person until he gives up information, are not torture but technically just harsh interrogation. HARSH INTERROGATION -They make it sound as though they are just cussing somebody out while they question him- You better tell me where those weapons of Mass distruction are you Son of a Bush- but it is nothing so benign. We are living in a time when there are politicians who still maintain that the events in Korea, involving mainly U.S. Troops was not war but technically just a U.N. police action. We are told that what occurred between Bill and Monica was not sex. What was it torture, harsh interrogation? 4 years f medical school and if it wasn't sex I don't know but seriously. We are told that if you take a person out of a U.S. prison and send him to an Uzbekistani prison prison for the purpose of having him beaten, shocked and boiled, that's not torture its an extraordinary rendition- They make it sound like Beyonce had changed the inaugural program and instead of singing At last had sung Mirriam Makeba's song, Piece of ground--- and sounded just like Etta James or as if if Sachmo got up out the grave and showed up at the Obama inauguration and played the national anthem- ----- you know, of Zimbabwe- and mixed it in with The Creator Has A Master Plan, now that would be an extraordinary rendition. But this Cheyney Bush crap is torture and sanctions are nothing but weapons of war.
1. Like weaons of war, sanctions kill people
2. Like weapons of war, sanctions are usually used in excess against and among poor and black nations
3.Like weapons of war. sanctions are killing the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet the children
Case in point Iraq: The 88 thousand tons of ordinance the US dropped on Iraq in the first Gulf War, killed by most estimates maybe 37,000 Iraqi's., the economic sanctions imposed on iraq after the war are blamed for killing 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 per week
Thats over 500, 000 or a half a million children IN UNDER 10 YEARS
That's what sanctions do.
In Zimbabwe during the last few weeks 67 thousand people have been infected from a totally preventable form of diarrhea. Over 3 thousand of them have died This deadly watery form of diarrhea called Cholera is TOTALLY PREVENTABLE.
All you have to do to prevent Cholera is have clean water. All you have to do to treat Cholera is to replace the persons fluids so they don't become dehydrated from the diarrhea which in severe cases can cause the loss of several quarts of fluid per hour.
IV fluids are THE best and most rapid way to replace these fluids However there is a cheap oral solution that can be used pretty effectively if you have clean water and utensils to serve it in. The cure can also be speeded up if the antibiotic tetracycline is used.
But under Sanctions shipments of chlorine gas necessary for water purification are blocked that keeps the water supply from being purified in the first place, Under Sanctions the government has credit problems that don't permit the purchase of the antibiotics, or water purification equipment or IV fluids, or even enough of the cheap oral solution that is curative. Under sanctions aircraft parts necessary to repair crop dusters to grow the grain necessary to stop malnutrition are blocked. Malnutrition makes the children die of diarrhea and respiratory infections from germs that would only cause a sore throat an ear ache or cold in a well nourished child.
So because of Sanctions In Zimbabwe, children die for lack of clean water, IV solution, common place antibiotics or an asthma pump.
That's what Sanctions Do
Please recognize that the imposition of Economic
sanctions on a developing nation like Zimbabwe is not an alternative to war but such imposition is war itself.
Sanctions like wars are used for economic motives to foster political change, specifically regime change.
Sanctions like wars have historically been used to attempt regime change. We have the examples of sanctions for attempted regime change in Chile, Cuba, and Iraq. Zimbabwe is no different
In Zimbabwe the first sanctions were of the unofficial variety where various lenders and banks began to refuse credit to Zimbabwe in the context of a call by the western powers for regime change. These unofficial sanctions were followed by official declaration of sanctions in 2001 under Zidera the so called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery ACT. The ACT authorized the US to officially use its veto power to make the multilateral lending agencies, IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank stifle Mugabe's efforts to get credit. This meant that not only were efforts to borrow new money necessary for development stifled but efforts to restructure existing loans were nipped in the bud. All of this was sparked by Mugabe's having responded in 1999 to the peoples demand to the reclaim their stolen land. Was'nt it Malcolm X who said that land is the basis of all revolution. Should the Zimbabwe revolution be any different. Of course not, Land reclamation is in fact the real revolution. And The reaction of imperialism to revolution is always war.
That's what Sanctions are one a the weapon of Imperialist Economic War.
And the purpose of the war is the same purpose as in war in chile, cuba, grenada, Iraq etc etc economic gain and political change specifically regime change in the interest of the US government.
Sanctions Like weapons of war are proliferated mainly by the US government and imposed all over the the Black and Brown world
The National Association of manufacturers reported in 1997 that at that time 42 percent of the world's population from over 190 countries were being. sanctioned by the United States for alleged offenses ranging from terrorism to failure to protect the Sea Turtles of Costa Rica. So to save the sea turtles you starve the children, make them drink dirty water, catch cholera, malaria and pneumonia and call it an alternative to war.
That's what sanctions do That's what the United States does.
The same study by National Association of manufacturers also concluded that sanctions are costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion annually in potential exports. And in only 13 percent of the cases in which they have been employed do they achieve the foreign policy goal for which they have been employed.
They are not even working and yet they are used to cause suffering for more than 41 percent of the earths population.
These kind of facts about sanctions do not make sense to a rational mind. The rational mind says why would you kill babies when the strategy only works 13 percent of the time. But the capitalist mind is not a rational mind. 13 perecent yield is an excellent yield for a Capitalist during Imperialism's last gasping breaths. No only would they kill our babies for a 13 percent yield, they would kill their own. In Vietnam they watched their babies step on punji sticks. In Somalia they watched their babies get dragged through the streets, and in Iraq they are sending their own and our own 18 and 19 year old babies toff to war only to bury them by the caseload as they return or to hospitalize them for traumatic brain injury or post traumatic Stress Disorder after they return. But for a pipeline , for a 13 percent yield they will do this.
And they will say it is worth it.
I am not speaking figuratively.
When former Secretary of State Madeline Albright was told by Leslie Stahl that these sanctions had caused the death of a half a million children more dead children than in Hiroshima, Albrights response was
"-we think the price is worth it."—
She said
The world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't mind some people dying
all the time
or maybe only starving
some of the time
which isn't half bad
if it isn't you
Nah, She didn't say that last part that was the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti
but that's what she meant !
She meant the price is worth it. So long as its not me and Bill and Hillary and George and Condy. Its worth it!
For the American Government not only is it worth it for the most innocent and vulnerable to die. In the case of Sanctions as with all siege warfare,
The innocent and the vulnerable are the intended targets.
Military Strategists have know since the time of wickedly great Frederick and beyond that The lord of a feudal castle eats well until the last of the provisions are gone. The children and the sick hunger and die first. That's the whole point of siege warfare and sanctions to make the populace suffer to the point that they scream for the ruler to open the gates.
This was never better expressed than when Richard Nixon instructed the CIA, in the case of Chile to
"make their economy scream." MAKE THEIR ECONOMY SCREAM The barbarism of the sentiment comes forth even THRU the euphemism economy . Economies don't scream people scream.
And what better way to make people scream than to negatively impact on their health, food, drinking water, education, shelter and safety'
Writer Joy Gordon points out in her two papers Sanctions as Siege Warfare and Sanctions as weapons of mass destruction that it is perhaps contradictory and immoral for the UN to be involved in sanctions given the madate of the, Universal Declaration of Human Rights to insure that every person has a right to "to health, food, drinking water, education, shelter and safety'
For my last point I would like to suggest that it is immoral for the US and any of the western powers to engage in Sanctions against any country in the so called developing world
To make this point I refer to General Tecumsah Sherman, whom the white folks of Georgia still refer to as wickedly great. Sherman said War is Hell
Why should Hell be imposed on anybody, but if it is to be imposed on someone why the innocent children. George Bush and the Crusaders say they are fighting the axis of evil. Well you all know that the axis of evil runs in the line right between that dunce's ears. In runs right up Condelizza's -------nose through the sphenoid bone through her brain-
Sanctions bring hell to the children of Zimbabwe.
I ask you to close your eyes and think of a little boy or girl in Zimbabwe with a face just like your child or grandchild. I ask you to imagine your child or grandchild shivering, on soiled bedding, sweaty, thirsty, malnourished, vomiting, afraid, innocent, screaming and in hell. Then I ask you to hold that image and support D12 as they gather supplies and money to bring relief to our people.
Call December 12th Movement if you want to help
(718) 398-1766
Africa for the Africans and Long Live The Zimbabwe Revolution!
The great Prussian general, and before I get into trouble and anybody is asked to denounce me, for calling a Germanic leader great, let me cautiously say wickedly great. The wickedly great Prussian general Frederick the Great wrote in his instructions to his generals, that "The greatest secret of war and the masterpiece of a skillful general is to starve his enemy.
That's what sanctions do.
In Zimbabwe sanctions have created critical shortages of supplies of clean water, water purification equipment, agricultural equipment and medications. The health system of Zimbabwe that had once been described as the best in Africa is now described by some as in a shambles.
Even government opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, speaking to CNN described Zimbabwe as having a "deepening food insecurity" Put that under the category even a broken clock is right twice a day. At any rate that's an echo of what Wickedly Great military strategist, Frederick was talking about starvation as a tactic.
Thats what sanctions do
General Colin Powell,
the wickedly great General Colin Powell, said when asked about his strategy for handling the Iraqi military, these infamous words "First we cut it off; listen, First we cut it off -----then we kill it."
That's the plan of the American Government for Zimbabwe.
That's what sanctions do.
Even in a country with a highly developed, sophisticated and well functioning medical system like Cuba certain inevitable consequences have been suffered because of US imposed sanctions in the form of an Embargo.
The American Association for World Health Report in their summary findings of 1997 said that sanctions had the following 4 negative impacts on the health of the Cuban People
"1. Malnutrition: The outright ban on the sale of American foodstuffs has contributed to serious nutritional deficits, particularly among pregnant women, leading to an increase in low birth-weight babies. In addition, food shortages were linked to a devastating outbreak of neuropathy numbering in the tens of thousands. By one estimate, daily caloric intake dropped 33 percent between 1989 and 1993.
2. POOR Water Quality: The embargo is severely restricting Cuba's access to water treatment chemicals and spare-parts for the island's water supply system. This has led to serious cutbacks in supplies of safe drinking water, which in turn has become a factor in the rising incidence of morbidity and mortality rates from water-borne diseases.
3. SHORTAGES OF Medicines & Equipment: Of the 1,297 medications available in Cuba in 1991, physicians now have access to only 889 of these same medicines - and many of these are available only intermittently. Because most major new drugs are developed by U.S. pharmaceuticals, Cuban physicians have access to less than 50 percent of the new medicines available on the world market. Due to the direct or indirect effects of the embargo, the most routine medical supplies are in short supply or entirely absent from some Cuban clinics.
4. SHORTAGES AND DELAYS OF Medical Information: Though information materials have been exempt from the U.S. trade embargo since 1 988, the AAWH study concludes that in practice very little such information goes into Cuba or comes out of the island due to travel restrictions, currency regulations and shipping difficulties. Scientists and citizens of both countries suffer as a result. Paradoxically, the embargo harms some U.S. citizens by denying them access to the latest advances in Cuban medical research, including such products as Meningitis B vaccine, cheaply produced interferon and streptokinase, and an AIDS vaccine currently under-going clinical trials with human volunteers. "
Are sanctions a weapon of war ??
Well they are certainly a weapon of economic war. And economic war is just that war. There would be no need to debate the point that economic war is war were it not for the fact that we are living in a period when US government officials are known to argue with straight faces that coerced hypothermia that is freezing a person to a state of ill health, sleep deprivation and drowning a person until he gives up information, are not torture but technically just harsh interrogation. HARSH INTERROGATION -They make it sound as though they are just cussing somebody out while they question him- You better tell me where those weapons of Mass distruction are you Son of a Bush- but it is nothing so benign. We are living in a time when there are politicians who still maintain that the events in Korea, involving mainly U.S. Troops was not war but technically just a U.N. police action. We are told that what occurred between Bill and Monica was not sex. What was it torture, harsh interrogation? 4 years f medical school and if it wasn't sex I don't know but seriously. We are told that if you take a person out of a U.S. prison and send him to an Uzbekistani prison prison for the purpose of having him beaten, shocked and boiled, that's not torture its an extraordinary rendition- They make it sound like Beyonce had changed the inaugural program and instead of singing At last had sung Mirriam Makeba's song, Piece of ground--- and sounded just like Etta James or as if if Sachmo got up out the grave and showed up at the Obama inauguration and played the national anthem- ----- you know, of Zimbabwe- and mixed it in with The Creator Has A Master Plan, now that would be an extraordinary rendition. But this Cheyney Bush crap is torture and sanctions are nothing but weapons of war.
1. Like weaons of war, sanctions kill people
2. Like weapons of war, sanctions are usually used in excess against and among poor and black nations
3.Like weapons of war. sanctions are killing the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet the children
Case in point Iraq: The 88 thousand tons of ordinance the US dropped on Iraq in the first Gulf War, killed by most estimates maybe 37,000 Iraqi's., the economic sanctions imposed on iraq after the war are blamed for killing 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 per week
Thats over 500, 000 or a half a million children IN UNDER 10 YEARS
That's what sanctions do.
In Zimbabwe during the last few weeks 67 thousand people have been infected from a totally preventable form of diarrhea. Over 3 thousand of them have died This deadly watery form of diarrhea called Cholera is TOTALLY PREVENTABLE.
All you have to do to prevent Cholera is have clean water. All you have to do to treat Cholera is to replace the persons fluids so they don't become dehydrated from the diarrhea which in severe cases can cause the loss of several quarts of fluid per hour.
IV fluids are THE best and most rapid way to replace these fluids However there is a cheap oral solution that can be used pretty effectively if you have clean water and utensils to serve it in. The cure can also be speeded up if the antibiotic tetracycline is used.
But under Sanctions shipments of chlorine gas necessary for water purification are blocked that keeps the water supply from being purified in the first place, Under Sanctions the government has credit problems that don't permit the purchase of the antibiotics, or water purification equipment or IV fluids, or even enough of the cheap oral solution that is curative. Under sanctions aircraft parts necessary to repair crop dusters to grow the grain necessary to stop malnutrition are blocked. Malnutrition makes the children die of diarrhea and respiratory infections from germs that would only cause a sore throat an ear ache or cold in a well nourished child.
So because of Sanctions In Zimbabwe, children die for lack of clean water, IV solution, common place antibiotics or an asthma pump.
That's what Sanctions Do
Please recognize that the imposition of Economic
sanctions on a developing nation like Zimbabwe is not an alternative to war but such imposition is war itself.
Sanctions like wars are used for economic motives to foster political change, specifically regime change.
Sanctions like wars have historically been used to attempt regime change. We have the examples of sanctions for attempted regime change in Chile, Cuba, and Iraq. Zimbabwe is no different
In Zimbabwe the first sanctions were of the unofficial variety where various lenders and banks began to refuse credit to Zimbabwe in the context of a call by the western powers for regime change. These unofficial sanctions were followed by official declaration of sanctions in 2001 under Zidera the so called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery ACT. The ACT authorized the US to officially use its veto power to make the multilateral lending agencies, IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank stifle Mugabe's efforts to get credit. This meant that not only were efforts to borrow new money necessary for development stifled but efforts to restructure existing loans were nipped in the bud. All of this was sparked by Mugabe's having responded in 1999 to the peoples demand to the reclaim their stolen land. Was'nt it Malcolm X who said that land is the basis of all revolution. Should the Zimbabwe revolution be any different. Of course not, Land reclamation is in fact the real revolution. And The reaction of imperialism to revolution is always war.
That's what Sanctions are one a the weapon of Imperialist Economic War.
And the purpose of the war is the same purpose as in war in chile, cuba, grenada, Iraq etc etc economic gain and political change specifically regime change in the interest of the US government.
Sanctions Like weapons of war are proliferated mainly by the US government and imposed all over the the Black and Brown world
The National Association of manufacturers reported in 1997 that at that time 42 percent of the world's population from over 190 countries were being. sanctioned by the United States for alleged offenses ranging from terrorism to failure to protect the Sea Turtles of Costa Rica. So to save the sea turtles you starve the children, make them drink dirty water, catch cholera, malaria and pneumonia and call it an alternative to war.
That's what sanctions do That's what the United States does.
The same study by National Association of manufacturers also concluded that sanctions are costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion annually in potential exports. And in only 13 percent of the cases in which they have been employed do they achieve the foreign policy goal for which they have been employed.
They are not even working and yet they are used to cause suffering for more than 41 percent of the earths population.
These kind of facts about sanctions do not make sense to a rational mind. The rational mind says why would you kill babies when the strategy only works 13 percent of the time. But the capitalist mind is not a rational mind. 13 perecent yield is an excellent yield for a Capitalist during Imperialism's last gasping breaths. No only would they kill our babies for a 13 percent yield, they would kill their own. In Vietnam they watched their babies step on punji sticks. In Somalia they watched their babies get dragged through the streets, and in Iraq they are sending their own and our own 18 and 19 year old babies toff to war only to bury them by the caseload as they return or to hospitalize them for traumatic brain injury or post traumatic Stress Disorder after they return. But for a pipeline , for a 13 percent yield they will do this.
And they will say it is worth it.
I am not speaking figuratively.
When former Secretary of State Madeline Albright was told by Leslie Stahl that these sanctions had caused the death of a half a million children more dead children than in Hiroshima, Albrights response was
"-we think the price is worth it."—
She said
The world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't mind some people dying
all the time
or maybe only starving
some of the time
which isn't half bad
if it isn't you
Nah, She didn't say that last part that was the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti
but that's what she meant !
She meant the price is worth it. So long as its not me and Bill and Hillary and George and Condy. Its worth it!
For the American Government not only is it worth it for the most innocent and vulnerable to die. In the case of Sanctions as with all siege warfare,
The innocent and the vulnerable are the intended targets.
Military Strategists have know since the time of wickedly great Frederick and beyond that The lord of a feudal castle eats well until the last of the provisions are gone. The children and the sick hunger and die first. That's the whole point of siege warfare and sanctions to make the populace suffer to the point that they scream for the ruler to open the gates.
This was never better expressed than when Richard Nixon instructed the CIA, in the case of Chile to
"make their economy scream." MAKE THEIR ECONOMY SCREAM The barbarism of the sentiment comes forth even THRU the euphemism economy . Economies don't scream people scream.
And what better way to make people scream than to negatively impact on their health, food, drinking water, education, shelter and safety'
Writer Joy Gordon points out in her two papers Sanctions as Siege Warfare and Sanctions as weapons of mass destruction that it is perhaps contradictory and immoral for the UN to be involved in sanctions given the madate of the, Universal Declaration of Human Rights to insure that every person has a right to "to health, food, drinking water, education, shelter and safety'
For my last point I would like to suggest that it is immoral for the US and any of the western powers to engage in Sanctions against any country in the so called developing world
To make this point I refer to General Tecumsah Sherman, whom the white folks of Georgia still refer to as wickedly great. Sherman said War is Hell
Why should Hell be imposed on anybody, but if it is to be imposed on someone why the innocent children. George Bush and the Crusaders say they are fighting the axis of evil. Well you all know that the axis of evil runs in the line right between that dunce's ears. In runs right up Condelizza's -------nose through the sphenoid bone through her brain-
Sanctions bring hell to the children of Zimbabwe.
I ask you to close your eyes and think of a little boy or girl in Zimbabwe with a face just like your child or grandchild. I ask you to imagine your child or grandchild shivering, on soiled bedding, sweaty, thirsty, malnourished, vomiting, afraid, innocent, screaming and in hell. Then I ask you to hold that image and support D12 as they gather supplies and money to bring relief to our people.
Call December 12th Movement if you want to help
(718) 398-1766
Africa for the Africans and Long Live The Zimbabwe Revolution!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Pan Africans, enemy of the people
Pan Africans, enemy of the people.
By Kwasi Akyeampong
http://theblacklistpub.ning.com/?xgi=YJzq0g
4/26/8
The first thing that is obvious about Pan African is Pan. Pan a Greek word whose cardinal meaning is all.
So then we Pan Africans could be called All Africanist - we espouse a philosophy that embraces all Africans – seek the union of all of Africa and all its people.
Now lets look at All. ALL - 1: the whole of 2: greatest possible 3: every one of
Does our All and Pan Africans embrace the whole of Africa, every one of Africa’s children or at least the greatest possible number of Africans?
Does this philosophy that warmly embrace Mugabe has a slight embrace for Morgan Tsvangiria? Just one example. The one I’ll use in this discourse.
But of course Pan Africans are Pan Africans.
What else do I know about Pan? Pan, "a broad shallow open vessel or container."
Of course I am for a philosophy that is broad in scope. But the shallowness of the practice and application does contradict its potential as a vessel open to input of creativity and inspiration. (A dogma. Not unlike a religion)
Being true to its application, we use this vessel to Pan - for “gold” - a Moses that will deliver us. We wash away tons of perceived irrelevance - dirt, ideas and potentials' - to find our bright and shining prince.
What will become of the dirt we discard?
When we turn our back on Morgan Tsvangiria; for example, who will he turn to for council, fellowship, and support when others elevate him to the Presidency of Zimbabwe; if not soon, but eventually? Who will hold him to account?
The king is dead. Long will he be dead. No hope for continuity here.
Again, using Zimbabwe as an example, we invest everything in Mugabe, and, when our 85 year old mentor reaches the end there is not room for us to make a difference with the likely successor who may obviously be garnered by the likely interests and thus fulfilling our narrow Pan African delusion.
I am of the opinion that we must reinvent and re-forge the Pan into a bucket; being inclusive of our brothers and sisters, celebrating and acknowledging, and seeking out the arrays that unites us rather than clink to and heighten perceived differences.
As that Pan African I am a conciliator and a reconciler for All Africans regardless of our temperate parochial opinions.
I could never have dreamt that in Jamaica there would be a JLP
Government that would be more socialist than the socialist PNP - a JLP whose platform party that is enacting the very programs (free education) the socialist PNP did not enact over all their years in office - even when they (PNP) had ultimate power. There are no saints nor demons out there. There is just us - each as himself. I am all that I perceive - you are your perceptions.
All the ideas and opinions among us is from us, and when we condemned any of us we condemn the all of us - all of who we are.
When I turn my back on any of us I turn my back on the very part of me I will not embrace. For me to love me I am required to love all of me. There is no conditionality to love. I must get to embrace me as I am and as I am not to truly embrace the vision of Africa that's is worthy of our father Marcus Garvey.
My mother is not less honored as my mother because I disagree with her on some essential points. When will we likewise honor Clarence Thomas and Morgan Tsvangiria for they and we share in common? Do we know what we share in common? Do we dare look?
To the extent I/you/we can look ourselves in the mirror and be in love with everything I/you/we see; to that extent I/you/we are able to be a peace and ease with I/you/we and anyone.
M.arcus Garvey's harsh criticism of His Imperial Majesty did not excommunicate either from the race. Being frank with our selves and our friends is a core value required for being a friend.
How will we ever speak with those with whom we disagree when we dare tell our beloved Emperor what we know too well? He is naked. Sir, you have no close on.
Who among us has the moral authority to speak with both, for example, Mr. Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangiria?
Until being a Pan African is reinvent as being an instrument for what's possible, Pan Africans are enemy of the people.
Time to end the dialect-ic civil war and take responsibility for the juggernauting genocide and once again stand in position at the fore of the dreams and aspirations or the people.
:KWASI Akyeampong
By Kwasi Akyeampong
http://theblacklistpub.ning.com/?xgi=YJzq0g
4/26/8
The first thing that is obvious about Pan African is Pan. Pan a Greek word whose cardinal meaning is all.
So then we Pan Africans could be called All Africanist - we espouse a philosophy that embraces all Africans – seek the union of all of Africa and all its people.
Now lets look at All. ALL - 1: the whole of 2: greatest possible 3: every one of
Does our All and Pan Africans embrace the whole of Africa, every one of Africa’s children or at least the greatest possible number of Africans?
Does this philosophy that warmly embrace Mugabe has a slight embrace for Morgan Tsvangiria? Just one example. The one I’ll use in this discourse.
But of course Pan Africans are Pan Africans.
What else do I know about Pan? Pan, "a broad shallow open vessel or container."
Of course I am for a philosophy that is broad in scope. But the shallowness of the practice and application does contradict its potential as a vessel open to input of creativity and inspiration. (A dogma. Not unlike a religion)
Being true to its application, we use this vessel to Pan - for “gold” - a Moses that will deliver us. We wash away tons of perceived irrelevance - dirt, ideas and potentials' - to find our bright and shining prince.
What will become of the dirt we discard?
When we turn our back on Morgan Tsvangiria; for example, who will he turn to for council, fellowship, and support when others elevate him to the Presidency of Zimbabwe; if not soon, but eventually? Who will hold him to account?
The king is dead. Long will he be dead. No hope for continuity here.
Again, using Zimbabwe as an example, we invest everything in Mugabe, and, when our 85 year old mentor reaches the end there is not room for us to make a difference with the likely successor who may obviously be garnered by the likely interests and thus fulfilling our narrow Pan African delusion.
I am of the opinion that we must reinvent and re-forge the Pan into a bucket; being inclusive of our brothers and sisters, celebrating and acknowledging, and seeking out the arrays that unites us rather than clink to and heighten perceived differences.
As that Pan African I am a conciliator and a reconciler for All Africans regardless of our temperate parochial opinions.
I could never have dreamt that in Jamaica there would be a JLP
Government that would be more socialist than the socialist PNP - a JLP whose platform party that is enacting the very programs (free education) the socialist PNP did not enact over all their years in office - even when they (PNP) had ultimate power. There are no saints nor demons out there. There is just us - each as himself. I am all that I perceive - you are your perceptions.
All the ideas and opinions among us is from us, and when we condemned any of us we condemn the all of us - all of who we are.
When I turn my back on any of us I turn my back on the very part of me I will not embrace. For me to love me I am required to love all of me. There is no conditionality to love. I must get to embrace me as I am and as I am not to truly embrace the vision of Africa that's is worthy of our father Marcus Garvey.
My mother is not less honored as my mother because I disagree with her on some essential points. When will we likewise honor Clarence Thomas and Morgan Tsvangiria for they and we share in common? Do we know what we share in common? Do we dare look?
To the extent I/you/we can look ourselves in the mirror and be in love with everything I/you/we see; to that extent I/you/we are able to be a peace and ease with I/you/we and anyone.
M.arcus Garvey's harsh criticism of His Imperial Majesty did not excommunicate either from the race. Being frank with our selves and our friends is a core value required for being a friend.
How will we ever speak with those with whom we disagree when we dare tell our beloved Emperor what we know too well? He is naked. Sir, you have no close on.
Who among us has the moral authority to speak with both, for example, Mr. Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangiria?
Until being a Pan African is reinvent as being an instrument for what's possible, Pan Africans are enemy of the people.
Time to end the dialect-ic civil war and take responsibility for the juggernauting genocide and once again stand in position at the fore of the dreams and aspirations or the people.
:KWASI Akyeampong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)