Quite Possibly The Most Honest Writing by White Man
Today at Alternet I came across an article entitled: On China At Least, Nixon Was Right written by Robert Sheer in which he states the following:
Sadly, the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being lifted from abject poverty seems to alarm even leading Democrats in Congress, who claim to be driven by a standard of social justice. And many Republicans, who tend to trumpet the virtues of free trade when it involves the domination of world markets by U.S. businesses, are also raising the protectionist flag against the prospect of Chinese ownership of a single mid-size American-based oil company.
The signals we send to China have always been bizarrely mixed: Play in the capitalist ballpark but not so well that you become one of the big stars. It is a message that, as with the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, is at best paranoid and at worst racist. We in the West can be trusted with enormous economic power, but not the children of a lesser god.
Remember that when we discussed White Supremacy we made it clear that Whites will always want to be on top and that the economic and social systems invented and used by them are for thier benefit. Furthermore, they will change the game whenever it is neccessary to keep White Supremacy intact. Clearly this author, though not stating it as sucinctly as Dr. Welsing and Neely-Fuller, has none the less said the same thing.
Go ahead and read the rest of the article.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23726/
(17 years of informed commentary)
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Go To People on Africa: Black Conservatives
With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).
So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.
In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:
elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.
Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:
Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.
Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.
When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.
But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:
Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.
Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?
Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.
Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.
Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.
I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).
So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.
In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:
elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.
Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:
Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.
Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.
When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.
But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:
Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.
Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?
Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.
Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.
Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.
I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Further Cooption of Garveyism
By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:
I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.
Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):
You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.
Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."
Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:
and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:
a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?
So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA
By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:
I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.
Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):
You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.
Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."
Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:
and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:
a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?
So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Planes, Trains and Automobiles
Last August Garvey's Ghost warned it's readers that security focus on buildings and planes would do nothing to stop a determined terrorist. Garvey's Ghost also gave a scenario that sited random bombs going off during rush hour commutes. We specified bridges and car bombs. Behold. London is now reeling from apparent Al-Q bombings of it's subways and buses. As soon as this happened, as Garvey's Ghost prediicted there was massive drops in market values of various insurance and travel stocks as well as mass evacuations of certain buildings. This act, that involved no planes, targetted no buildings and involved no suicide bombers was already caused millions in dollars in property damage and perhaps hundreds of millions in lost "revenue" for various businesses.
As Garvey's Ghost has stated before, It is simply impossible to check each and every car or person, especially durng rush hours. The British people and indeed all countries involved in the Illegal war in Iraq should seriously reconsider thier actions and the consequences of thier rhetoric. The world now knows that there was always a plan to get into Iraq. The world knows that there were no WMD's. The world also knows that the Blair and Bush administrations knew of the legal ramifications of their actions but went ahead anyways. These politicians, who do not ride public transportation, put their citizens in harms way for thier own gain. Blair's attempt to deflect the real issue at hand by talking about the G8 summit addressing African Poverty, when it is largely the members of the G8 who are responsible for creating that poverty in the first place, is simply disingenious. I believe that this bomobing was in fact a response the the British people re-electing Mr Blair and the subsequent information that came out during the campaign for Prime Minister. That the G8 was meeting there at the same time was, in my view, a nice co-incidence. I think London, like Madrid "had it coming" for it's part in the Iraq war.
It remains to be seen what will occur in Denmark, which has been specifically mentioned by a unconfirmed "Al-Qaida" organization that claimed responsibility.
So as the title says, we've seen planes. We've sen trains. We've now seen automobiles. Unfortunatly the worst is still to come.
Last August Garvey's Ghost warned it's readers that security focus on buildings and planes would do nothing to stop a determined terrorist. Garvey's Ghost also gave a scenario that sited random bombs going off during rush hour commutes. We specified bridges and car bombs. Behold. London is now reeling from apparent Al-Q bombings of it's subways and buses. As soon as this happened, as Garvey's Ghost prediicted there was massive drops in market values of various insurance and travel stocks as well as mass evacuations of certain buildings. This act, that involved no planes, targetted no buildings and involved no suicide bombers was already caused millions in dollars in property damage and perhaps hundreds of millions in lost "revenue" for various businesses.
As Garvey's Ghost has stated before, It is simply impossible to check each and every car or person, especially durng rush hours. The British people and indeed all countries involved in the Illegal war in Iraq should seriously reconsider thier actions and the consequences of thier rhetoric. The world now knows that there was always a plan to get into Iraq. The world knows that there were no WMD's. The world also knows that the Blair and Bush administrations knew of the legal ramifications of their actions but went ahead anyways. These politicians, who do not ride public transportation, put their citizens in harms way for thier own gain. Blair's attempt to deflect the real issue at hand by talking about the G8 summit addressing African Poverty, when it is largely the members of the G8 who are responsible for creating that poverty in the first place, is simply disingenious. I believe that this bomobing was in fact a response the the British people re-electing Mr Blair and the subsequent information that came out during the campaign for Prime Minister. That the G8 was meeting there at the same time was, in my view, a nice co-incidence. I think London, like Madrid "had it coming" for it's part in the Iraq war.
It remains to be seen what will occur in Denmark, which has been specifically mentioned by a unconfirmed "Al-Qaida" organization that claimed responsibility.
So as the title says, we've seen planes. We've sen trains. We've now seen automobiles. Unfortunatly the worst is still to come.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
What Tha FU$%^&^!!!!!
Are black folks in Mexico that powerless that they let this type of BS go without consequence?
this piece of Sh&(*^& was produced by the same government that is headed by a president who recently used Black Americans as examples of laziness. As usual he is refusing to stop production of this stamp citing it as an important historical piece.
Are black folks in Mexico that powerless that they let this type of BS go without consequence?
this piece of Sh&(*^& was produced by the same government that is headed by a president who recently used Black Americans as examples of laziness. As usual he is refusing to stop production of this stamp citing it as an important historical piece.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
No Backbone
Once again, Lt. Ghaddafi has turned out to be the voice of reason among the So called African Union. The Telegraph of the UK posted an article entitled: "Gaddafi damns 'African begging' as Nigeria calls for aid to end poverty " in which Ghaddafi is quoted as saying:
who told the meeting that Africans had to rely on themselves. "Begging will not make the future of Africa," he declared.
The Libyan leader, whose oil revenues allow him to bankroll African countries - and to throw fistfuls of dollars out of his motorcade when visiting impoverished states - insisted: "We are not going to beg at the doorsteps to reduce debt.
"We are insulted constantly and we deserve it. We don't need assistance and charity."
Of course Ghaddafi is correct in his analysis, though I think he ought to refrain from throwing money out his car. That the group of eight white men gave 18 countries debt relief with massive strings attached. should be nothing to cheer about given that the brin drain and other resources that have been taken from Africa is worth far more than the debt that is being cleared.
It is clear to me that if there is not a fundamental shift in the actions of Afrian States, that they would soon be right back into debt and just as dependent on foreign aide. In my opinion, every debted nation in Africa should have "declared bankruptcy" by refusing to service their debt. FOr many countries this would have not changed the plight of the average citizen who are mired in poverty anyway. This would have forced these countries to form new economic relationships with each other and other countries such as those in the Caribbean. For foreign investment, these countries, as a block, would seek partners on terms more favorable to themselves (as in being done with China) which should include local co-ownership and management and strict environmental regulations where applicable. Also key to this is the immediate cessation of warfare. As indicated in an earlier post, warfare is the leading cause of African stagnation. You simply cannot expend so much energy and time into warfare and not expect an already poor nation to suffer.
So Ghaddafi has it almost right. Africa needs to get off it's knees. Drop the hat from one hand and the gun from the other.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/05/wafr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixworld.html
http://www.prudentpressagency.com/CENTER/articlePreview.php?Article_id=2652
Once again, Lt. Ghaddafi has turned out to be the voice of reason among the So called African Union. The Telegraph of the UK posted an article entitled: "Gaddafi damns 'African begging' as Nigeria calls for aid to end poverty " in which Ghaddafi is quoted as saying:
who told the meeting that Africans had to rely on themselves. "Begging will not make the future of Africa," he declared.
The Libyan leader, whose oil revenues allow him to bankroll African countries - and to throw fistfuls of dollars out of his motorcade when visiting impoverished states - insisted: "We are not going to beg at the doorsteps to reduce debt.
"We are insulted constantly and we deserve it. We don't need assistance and charity."
Of course Ghaddafi is correct in his analysis, though I think he ought to refrain from throwing money out his car. That the group of eight white men gave 18 countries debt relief with massive strings attached. should be nothing to cheer about given that the brin drain and other resources that have been taken from Africa is worth far more than the debt that is being cleared.
It is clear to me that if there is not a fundamental shift in the actions of Afrian States, that they would soon be right back into debt and just as dependent on foreign aide. In my opinion, every debted nation in Africa should have "declared bankruptcy" by refusing to service their debt. FOr many countries this would have not changed the plight of the average citizen who are mired in poverty anyway. This would have forced these countries to form new economic relationships with each other and other countries such as those in the Caribbean. For foreign investment, these countries, as a block, would seek partners on terms more favorable to themselves (as in being done with China) which should include local co-ownership and management and strict environmental regulations where applicable. Also key to this is the immediate cessation of warfare. As indicated in an earlier post, warfare is the leading cause of African stagnation. You simply cannot expend so much energy and time into warfare and not expect an already poor nation to suffer.
So Ghaddafi has it almost right. Africa needs to get off it's knees. Drop the hat from one hand and the gun from the other.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/05/wafr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixworld.html
http://www.prudentpressagency.com/CENTER/articlePreview.php?Article_id=2652
Dear Mr. Sharpton
I saw you on the television giving a speech in Howard Beach. I saw ytou again on tv walking with some motorcycles through Howard Beach. Howard Beach is an easy target having been stained by the death of Michael Griffith back in 1986. While I agree that people should not be getting beat on the street, the victim in this case was clearly there to steal someones property and to be honest I would have beat him had he attempted to steal my property. But that is neither here nor there since supposedly at the time no theft was actually in progress. So in the end, regardless as to how henious the crime was, we are talking about a thief. Meanwhile, this weekend in Flatbush a young boy, 15 years old, was stabbed to death over an iPod. The victim of this crime was no thief. He was a bright young man on his way back home. He was walking with his friends and minding his own business. Who killed him? a Black man killed this boy over a little white iPod. So while you were busy reminding Howard Beach that Sharpton "is on the case" little black boys are being gunned down in Flatbush. I'm 99% certain that more black men boys and girls have been killed in Flatbush, Jamaica, Hempstead, etc. at the hands of other black men women and girls than have been killed in Howard Beach between 1986 amd 2005. Now I'm not saying we should let what happened in Howard Beach slide, but this case, is not the Michael Griffith case and while I agree that folks should not have to worry about getting run down and hit over the head for simply walking down a street, I'm hard pressed to find much sympathy for a paid car thief.
So perhaps you could spend less time in Howard Beach. Less time at Gay Pride parades and less time backing doomed stadium deals and spend more time on the issue of black on black violence.
Thank you
Sondjata Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost
I saw you on the television giving a speech in Howard Beach. I saw ytou again on tv walking with some motorcycles through Howard Beach. Howard Beach is an easy target having been stained by the death of Michael Griffith back in 1986. While I agree that people should not be getting beat on the street, the victim in this case was clearly there to steal someones property and to be honest I would have beat him had he attempted to steal my property. But that is neither here nor there since supposedly at the time no theft was actually in progress. So in the end, regardless as to how henious the crime was, we are talking about a thief. Meanwhile, this weekend in Flatbush a young boy, 15 years old, was stabbed to death over an iPod. The victim of this crime was no thief. He was a bright young man on his way back home. He was walking with his friends and minding his own business. Who killed him? a Black man killed this boy over a little white iPod. So while you were busy reminding Howard Beach that Sharpton "is on the case" little black boys are being gunned down in Flatbush. I'm 99% certain that more black men boys and girls have been killed in Flatbush, Jamaica, Hempstead, etc. at the hands of other black men women and girls than have been killed in Howard Beach between 1986 amd 2005. Now I'm not saying we should let what happened in Howard Beach slide, but this case, is not the Michael Griffith case and while I agree that folks should not have to worry about getting run down and hit over the head for simply walking down a street, I'm hard pressed to find much sympathy for a paid car thief.
So perhaps you could spend less time in Howard Beach. Less time at Gay Pride parades and less time backing doomed stadium deals and spend more time on the issue of black on black violence.
Thank you
Sondjata Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost
Sunday, July 03, 2005
The Curse of Intervention
Last year, in my Presidential Debate Q&A I discussed why I do not agree that the US (or Europe) should get involved in Sudan (or anywhere else in Africa). The main reason for this was that I believed that the interventions created or continued a mentality of dependency in the countries involved. Specifically, there would be no incentive for the people of Africa, well the people in the areas in conflict to work out their own problems since all one would have to wait for is the UN to come in and mediate an "agreement" and then get to share power. However; what was most problematic about outside aide was the fact that the reason why most of these conflicts can actually occur is due to outside influences. And for the record we need to recognize that China is a huge conmtributor to the wars in Africa. This does not get the press that it should but Chinese companies are in fact getting oil from Sudan and those monies keeps the Jangaweed armed.
The New York Times has published an article in their magazine section entitled: The Congo Casewhich more or less underscored my point. The article did not however, get into what brought the Congo into it's current situation. In a case of selective amnesia they place all the blame of the situation in the DRC on Rwanda, various militias and Mobutu:
South Kivu was a victim of the same neglect that almost every part of Congo suffered during the 32-year kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. But the region has endured an extra measure of suffering owing to its proximity to Rwanda. In 1994, thousands of Rwandan Hutu génocidaires fled across the border before the advancing Tutsi forces, settling in the rural areas of South and North Kivu and living off smuggling, ''taxes'' on local markets, kidnapping and plunder. Starting in late 1966, the Rwandan Army poured over the border and massacred its Hutu adversaries as well as thousands of civilians. After the Hutu threat had been suppressed, the Rwandan Army remained in the Kivus, turning much of eastern Congo into an economic protectorate. And when the Rwandan troops finally left under international pressure, the 10,000 to 15,000 remaining members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or F.D.L.R., as the Hutu militia called themselves, returned to their brutal exactions.
Congo's great problem is the same one that plagues so many African countries -- poor governance. But this technocratic term scarcely does justice to the self-perpetuating machine of immiseration that one Congolese leader after another has operated for over a century. King Leopold II of Belgium put the mechanism in motion in the 1880's when he reduced the tribes of the region to so many employees of companies devoted to sucking up Congo's treasures, principally ivory and rubber. The Belgians ultimately bequeathed the country a decent infrastructure, though they left it ludicrously unprepared for self-government. (At independence, none of Congo's 14 million citizens -- zero -- had university degrees in law, medicine or engineering.) Five years after independence, Mobutu toppled Congo's only elected president in a coup and instituted a home-grown version of Leopold's rapacity. Mobutu stole billions over the years, while the roads and hospitals and schools the Belgians had left behind disintegrated into the bush. Unlike the Belgian king, Mobutu lavished Congo's bounty on his collaborators, who frequently left a presidential audience with $5,000 or $10,000 in their pockets. Kabuya Lumuna, a former World Bank consultant who served as Mobutu's spokesman and deputy chief of cabinet in the last years, said: ''Mobutu created an image for the Congolese people that enrichment through the state was normal practice. It is normal for a person to say: 'I have finished my studies. If I can't get a government post, I will live my entire life in poverty.'''
It would have been historically accurate to discuss the fact that the first president of an independent DRC, was Patrice Lumumba who was assasinated and replaced, with the aid of US intelligence agencies, with Mobutu. This largely because Lumumba was willing to deal with the Soviets and spoke 'intemperently" to white folks (apparently there is no greater sin). It would also be informative that Mobutu enjoyed wide support from successive US Administrations. That single act of international terrorism by the US and Belgium is the cause for much of the DRC's problems. There is no telling how a proper Patrice administration would have turned out. But let's get back to current events.
When Aristide was deposed by so called "opposition" in Haiti, I discussed how the so called leadership of the "Opposition" was more concerned with power than by doing anything for the population. Each "opposition" movement seemed more intent on financing killing sprees and looting and gang warfare rather than the building of civil society. In the case of the Congo the same thing apparently holds true:
Later that afternoon, I drove out with a squad of soldiers in open transports with machine-gun mounts. We stopped at a plateau ringed by steep green hills. Here the men would stay for the next 12 hours: if word of an attack came from any of the government soldiers they had posted in the local villages, they would bounce down the rutted lanes and confront the rebels with gunfire if necessary. Maj. Mohammed Younis, the commanding officer, pointed out the local villages along the ridge lines and said, ''When we first began, in late March, we had three to four incidents every week.'' An F..D.L.R. raiding party would wait until nightfall and then attack a village, stealing food and raping women; they frequently kidnapped villagers, took them back to the forest and threatened to kill them if relatives didn't pay ransoms. But Operation Night Flash, as the Pakistanis called their nocturnal vigil, had at least temporarily closed down the crime wave. Younis said that there hadn't been an incident for close to a week.
Since the article freely admits that the Congo has no real government save that which aides in the removal of resources, then where and how are all these armed militias able to remain armed? Similarly for the contries that got themselves involved. None of them produce the weapons needed to sustain these wars. Thus while singers are asking for more aid for Africa, there is no discussion about the seemingly endless aid given to arms dealers and militias.
More importantly though, is the fact that we have "movements for Democracy" and "Fronts for Democracy" which provide nothing for their constituent groups. They provide no services, no schools, not anything. Clearly what is needed in Africa is not peacekeepers. It is not more aid, It is very simple in design though difficult to implement:
1) A complete arms embargo to any and all countries involved in some sort of war. You want to kill, you make your own weapons to do so.
2) A complete financial lock of any corporation or where arms are originating. This is perhaps the hardest one to do since most of Europe and China would be on the receiving end of such sanctions. SHould make for a good show in the UN though.
Of course I'm aware that since no.2 will not occur, then the whole plan goes down the tubes. So what will happen? The times offers a glimps which echos my original concern:
The Congolese I talked to want to be saved from themselves, or at least from their desperate predicament. Even those who accuse Monuc of spinelessness or complicity add immediately that of course the U.N. troops mustn't leave. They want more troops, not fewer, and more insistent political engagement...f we believe that in the post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to let failed states fester, then we plainly owe it to ourselves to stop the Congolese political class from preying on its people and to shape the nascent institutions of state in such a way as to give legitimate economic and political activity a decent shot at survival. Is that, in fact, a prescription for some kind of benevolent imperialism? If so, then bring it on.
I am in no way in suppoirt for imperialism, benevolent or otherwise, but there clearly needs to be some means to bring order and stability to the Congo and Sudan. A Pan-Africanist state could have dealt with this but so far the so-called leadership of Africa are too concerned with thier little fiefdoms to go that route.
It is clear that with the intervention of the "West" and China the people have lost faith in themselves to solve their own problems and would welcome thier former masters to come in and save them, thereby proving the idea that black folks are incapable of self rule.
read the entire article.
Last year, in my Presidential Debate Q&A I discussed why I do not agree that the US (or Europe) should get involved in Sudan (or anywhere else in Africa). The main reason for this was that I believed that the interventions created or continued a mentality of dependency in the countries involved. Specifically, there would be no incentive for the people of Africa, well the people in the areas in conflict to work out their own problems since all one would have to wait for is the UN to come in and mediate an "agreement" and then get to share power. However; what was most problematic about outside aide was the fact that the reason why most of these conflicts can actually occur is due to outside influences. And for the record we need to recognize that China is a huge conmtributor to the wars in Africa. This does not get the press that it should but Chinese companies are in fact getting oil from Sudan and those monies keeps the Jangaweed armed.
The New York Times has published an article in their magazine section entitled: The Congo Casewhich more or less underscored my point. The article did not however, get into what brought the Congo into it's current situation. In a case of selective amnesia they place all the blame of the situation in the DRC on Rwanda, various militias and Mobutu:
South Kivu was a victim of the same neglect that almost every part of Congo suffered during the 32-year kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. But the region has endured an extra measure of suffering owing to its proximity to Rwanda. In 1994, thousands of Rwandan Hutu génocidaires fled across the border before the advancing Tutsi forces, settling in the rural areas of South and North Kivu and living off smuggling, ''taxes'' on local markets, kidnapping and plunder. Starting in late 1966, the Rwandan Army poured over the border and massacred its Hutu adversaries as well as thousands of civilians. After the Hutu threat had been suppressed, the Rwandan Army remained in the Kivus, turning much of eastern Congo into an economic protectorate. And when the Rwandan troops finally left under international pressure, the 10,000 to 15,000 remaining members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or F.D.L.R., as the Hutu militia called themselves, returned to their brutal exactions.
Congo's great problem is the same one that plagues so many African countries -- poor governance. But this technocratic term scarcely does justice to the self-perpetuating machine of immiseration that one Congolese leader after another has operated for over a century. King Leopold II of Belgium put the mechanism in motion in the 1880's when he reduced the tribes of the region to so many employees of companies devoted to sucking up Congo's treasures, principally ivory and rubber. The Belgians ultimately bequeathed the country a decent infrastructure, though they left it ludicrously unprepared for self-government. (At independence, none of Congo's 14 million citizens -- zero -- had university degrees in law, medicine or engineering.) Five years after independence, Mobutu toppled Congo's only elected president in a coup and instituted a home-grown version of Leopold's rapacity. Mobutu stole billions over the years, while the roads and hospitals and schools the Belgians had left behind disintegrated into the bush. Unlike the Belgian king, Mobutu lavished Congo's bounty on his collaborators, who frequently left a presidential audience with $5,000 or $10,000 in their pockets. Kabuya Lumuna, a former World Bank consultant who served as Mobutu's spokesman and deputy chief of cabinet in the last years, said: ''Mobutu created an image for the Congolese people that enrichment through the state was normal practice. It is normal for a person to say: 'I have finished my studies. If I can't get a government post, I will live my entire life in poverty.'''
It would have been historically accurate to discuss the fact that the first president of an independent DRC, was Patrice Lumumba who was assasinated and replaced, with the aid of US intelligence agencies, with Mobutu. This largely because Lumumba was willing to deal with the Soviets and spoke 'intemperently" to white folks (apparently there is no greater sin). It would also be informative that Mobutu enjoyed wide support from successive US Administrations. That single act of international terrorism by the US and Belgium is the cause for much of the DRC's problems. There is no telling how a proper Patrice administration would have turned out. But let's get back to current events.
When Aristide was deposed by so called "opposition" in Haiti, I discussed how the so called leadership of the "Opposition" was more concerned with power than by doing anything for the population. Each "opposition" movement seemed more intent on financing killing sprees and looting and gang warfare rather than the building of civil society. In the case of the Congo the same thing apparently holds true:
Later that afternoon, I drove out with a squad of soldiers in open transports with machine-gun mounts. We stopped at a plateau ringed by steep green hills. Here the men would stay for the next 12 hours: if word of an attack came from any of the government soldiers they had posted in the local villages, they would bounce down the rutted lanes and confront the rebels with gunfire if necessary. Maj. Mohammed Younis, the commanding officer, pointed out the local villages along the ridge lines and said, ''When we first began, in late March, we had three to four incidents every week.'' An F..D.L.R. raiding party would wait until nightfall and then attack a village, stealing food and raping women; they frequently kidnapped villagers, took them back to the forest and threatened to kill them if relatives didn't pay ransoms. But Operation Night Flash, as the Pakistanis called their nocturnal vigil, had at least temporarily closed down the crime wave. Younis said that there hadn't been an incident for close to a week.
Since the article freely admits that the Congo has no real government save that which aides in the removal of resources, then where and how are all these armed militias able to remain armed? Similarly for the contries that got themselves involved. None of them produce the weapons needed to sustain these wars. Thus while singers are asking for more aid for Africa, there is no discussion about the seemingly endless aid given to arms dealers and militias.
More importantly though, is the fact that we have "movements for Democracy" and "Fronts for Democracy" which provide nothing for their constituent groups. They provide no services, no schools, not anything. Clearly what is needed in Africa is not peacekeepers. It is not more aid, It is very simple in design though difficult to implement:
1) A complete arms embargo to any and all countries involved in some sort of war. You want to kill, you make your own weapons to do so.
2) A complete financial lock of any corporation or where arms are originating. This is perhaps the hardest one to do since most of Europe and China would be on the receiving end of such sanctions. SHould make for a good show in the UN though.
Of course I'm aware that since no.2 will not occur, then the whole plan goes down the tubes. So what will happen? The times offers a glimps which echos my original concern:
The Congolese I talked to want to be saved from themselves, or at least from their desperate predicament. Even those who accuse Monuc of spinelessness or complicity add immediately that of course the U.N. troops mustn't leave. They want more troops, not fewer, and more insistent political engagement...f we believe that in the post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to let failed states fester, then we plainly owe it to ourselves to stop the Congolese political class from preying on its people and to shape the nascent institutions of state in such a way as to give legitimate economic and political activity a decent shot at survival. Is that, in fact, a prescription for some kind of benevolent imperialism? If so, then bring it on.
I am in no way in suppoirt for imperialism, benevolent or otherwise, but there clearly needs to be some means to bring order and stability to the Congo and Sudan. A Pan-Africanist state could have dealt with this but so far the so-called leadership of Africa are too concerned with thier little fiefdoms to go that route.
It is clear that with the intervention of the "West" and China the people have lost faith in themselves to solve their own problems and would welcome thier former masters to come in and save them, thereby proving the idea that black folks are incapable of self rule.
read the entire article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)