Who Are You Calling Boy?

When one looks at the literature of the history of Africans in America one theme that is noticed is the phenomenon on calling adult black men “boy”. This bothered adult black men in ways that probably cannot be described. Many black men would discuss how such actions, particularly when done in front of their children caused them to feel a great deal of rage. Hence the phenomenon during the Civil Rights Movement of men holding up signs saying “I Am A Man”.

Why was being called a “boy” by adult and minor white men and women such a problem? Well we understand that the power dynamic between an adult and a child is one where the adult holds the power and the child does not. While children may be free to “play” they are generally not responsible for much of anything. They are generally not responsible for their decision making. That is if they make a bad decision the fault usually goes to the adult who was supposed to be supervising them. Children are not entrusted with “adult” decisions. They do not provide food, clothing or other necessities of life for themselves. Instead some adult is supposed to provide these things for them. In short a child is someone who islooked after and provided for. In contrast adults by definition look after themselves and provide for themselves. When an adult does something wrong that adult is generally held responsible for their own actions and decisions. In a group setting each adult in the group may be held equally responsible for the failures of successes of that group. With this is mind lets look at this piece in Counterpunch.

The Obama regime must be held responsible for a series of failed or nearly failed states on the African continent.

Obama has ben in office since 2009. The "failed states" in Africa have been in their situation from before Obama took office. How then can Obama be responsible for countries who's problems predate his tenure as US President? Furthermore how is it that it is NOT the responsibility of the leadership (and perhaps the general population) of the "failed states" for their status as "failed states"?

Whether the calamities that have befallen these neocolonialist constructions have been intentional or not, the ruination and depredations inflicted on large swaths of Africa amount to what can only be described as a failed state policy.

"Failed state policy" of whom? Notice the passive language here. Africa has had "ruination" and "depredations" inflicted upon it as if Africa was just chilling and minding it's own business when ruination and depredations just snuck up on it.

While Libya, and before that Somalia, are overt examples of the western implementation of the failed state policy in Africa an honest appraisal of what has happened in South Sudan can only add it to this list.

On this I will agree with the author. Libya is a clear example of "failed state" policy. Of course history will show that for his faults, of which there were many, Ghaddafi was actually working to improve his country. Of course THAT was also THE problem.

not one western “expert” has tried to explain where the so called “rebels” led by Reik Machar are getting the funds needed to pay for the salaries of their fighters let alone the fuel, ammunition and other expenses maintaining such a large conflagration requires.

Well The Ghost has long tackled that question. The better question would be why are so called "freedom fighters" spending so much money on that stuff rather than improving and modernizing their countries? After all no one is forcing any of these folks to kill each other. You can drop a gun in the middle of my family. None of us are going to pick it up and try to kill each other with it. So the better question is why do these folk think that killing and warfare is a better way to spend their time and money?

Of course, the only winner so far has been the USA which has succeed in protecting its national interests by once again having the Chinese expelled from the only African oil fields they control.

Does this mean that China is a neocolonial party too?

Many of the other neocolonialist entities created by the western colonialists upon their retreat from direct rule in Africa have done so little for their people that in reality they could be described as failed states.

And who's fault is that?

What else can you call a country where the population lives in such abject poverty that a major part of the society lacks such basic human rights as clean drinking water, adequate food and shelter let alone education or health care.

Aside from the fact that "clean drinking water" is not a right in any other sense that you have the right to go find some, scoop as much of it up as possible. The DELIVERY of clean water to places where there isn't water isn't a right, it is a blessing of technology that a country earns by being industrious and mindful of it's environment.

But again lets ask the question: Who's at fault?

The entire country of Liberia lacks electricity and running water. Kenya, often touted as one of Africa’s success stories, provides electricity to only 26% of its people and running water to even fewer.

And again, who's fault is it that Liberia lacks electricity and running water? Wasn't Liberia supposed to be the "promised land" for freed Africans? Why didn't they build up that country? Didn't Garvey warn us of what would become of Liberia if it didn't take up Garvey-ism? Didn't the NAACP send it's folks to bad talk Garvey and his proposals? Didn't people make fun of Garvey when he was talking about the Black Star Line and the need for international commerce between Africa and the diaspora? So again WHO exactly is at fault for not doing what should have been done to make Liberia a modern republic?

If one compares the lives of the people of Cuba, who have suffered under onerous sanctions by the USA since their liberation to the lives of almost all Africans the differences are stark, and appalling.

Which I might add has been under the heel of US sanctions from before Obama took office. I agree that the differences are stark and appalling. One might ask what did the Cuban government and people do Differently than the "failed states" of Africa?

“Crisis Management” is what Pax Americana has implemented in Africa for decades past, as in create a crisis and then manage the ensuing chaos to better loot and plunder more of Africa’s wealth.

So African states simply sat around and waited for Pax-Americana to do whatever it was doing and then just went along with it? If that is the case then what we essentially have is a parent child relationship.

The failed state policy comes into play when the pressure the USA applies directly, or through its proxies, can cause prosperous, let alone already failing societies to begin to disintegrate filling our screens with ever more scenes of death and destruction.

First, name me a prosperous African state other that Libya that has been messed up by outside forces. Simply having minerals or oil in the ground does not make a state "prosperous" anymore than me having gasoline in my car makes me an oil producing state. Nigeria for example was prosperous before decolonialism. It promptly had a civl war and a bunch of coups. Liberia was never prosperous. You know who's not in the news? Ghana, Cote D'Ivoir, Cameroon, Tanzania, Botswana...The "failing" states are the ones with piss poor governance or a serious problem with Islamic Jihadi groups.

When it comes to the number and magnitude of the crimes committed in Africa under Obama one looks back on the much less dangerous days of the idiots of the Bush Jr. regime.

We're going to pretend that Charles Taylor simply did not exist. Lets not even discuss RUF. I'm not saying the US has clean hands here but lets keep it real about WHO has been committing crimes in Africa.

And once again lets look at the language used: "Under Obama..." Here again is the parent child relationship. If the author thought of African leaders as equals to Obama (you know since they are heads of state and all) then he would have written something like:

"...When it comes to the number and magnitude of crimes allowed to occur under the leadership of various African countries during Obama's tenure as President..."

Notice how my rewrite puts the direct responsibility on the African leadership and notes that these things happened during Obama's tenure as President of a foreign state.

A nightmare scenario is another Clinton seems next to succeed to the throne and the thought of the rabidly vindictive Hillary wreaking havoc in Africa as Commander in Chief does not make for a pleasant nights sleep.

Because Hillary Clinton is running for President of Liberia. You'll note that Hillary Clinton as would be president of the United States would be Commander and Chief of the US military. There are 53 African states. You'd think the real nightmare is that the so called leadership of these countries are too inept to be effect Commander in Chief's off their own countries.

To the point though. When we look at this piece and just about any piece written by those left of center we find this common thread that Africans are simply children. Whether they be in Baltimore or Kenya. They are acted upon. They are to be provided for and cannot be held responsible for their part in anything bad that happens in their communities and countries. This is not helping anyone. Garvey told us that back in 1920 and it is still true.