MPesa

Was this on 60 minutes last night.

View More: 60 Minutes News|Live News|More News Videos

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.

Boko Haram, Afri-COM and The Girls

Whenever a government wants to get the people behind a plan it is usually best to draw attention to women and children. Girl children are even better. Indeed one of the ways that the “intervention” in Libya was sold to the public was by a false claim of Viagra fueled rapes by agents of the Ghaddafi regime. All the usual suspects fell in line and muted any left objection to what was clearly a civil war in which the US (and others) had taken sides with the rebels. Al-Qaeda be damned! We gonna get Ghaddafi for that Pan-Am flight! A similar plot is playing out in Nigeria.

Boko Haram has been acting a total fool in Nigeria for years. Prior to the kidnapping of the girls from school, they had been killing people (usually but not exclusively non-Muslims) by various means. The Nigerian state has been unable to stop their terrorist actions for some time. This of course is partially because the federal state has been weak and had allowed the northern areas to adopt Sharia law in an attempt to mollify Muslims who dominate that part of Nigeria.

Unfortunately as any student of history knows, there is no mollifying those Muslims who are determined to create a greater Caliphate and extract Jizya from those of us who refuse to submit. So not soon after the capitulation of the state, with “assurances” that non-Muslims would be exempt from Sharia laws, Boko Haram made its entrance.

Boko Haram, apparently meaning Western Education (Boko) is forbidden (Haram) is of the opinion that only Islamic education (whatever that is) is appropriate for Muslims (and supposedly non-Muslims). Never mind that these fellows run around with Kalashnikovs, a product of “western” education and invention. Never mind that the vehicles they ride around in are the product of “Western” education. Never mind that the foundations of “western” mathematics and geometry were built upon the work of Muslims who had re-discovered and improved on the work of earlier non-Muslim civilizations of north east Africa and the so called Middle East (algebra, current numbering system). I suppose it's not surprising that these kinds of things do not cause pause among the so called revolutionaries of Boko Haram.

One would think that if Boko Haram was so sure that Western Education was so plainly inferior to that of Islamic education (whatever that is) that they would not only set up schools in the areas in which they live, but they would also be building homes, paving roads, providing electricity (solar, geothermal, etc.), running businesses of all sorts and other related activities. After all, what better way to prove that one's ideology is superior to another than to actually build up your society with it? Of course the girls they kidnapped would not have to be kidnapped because the plain superiority of Boko Haram Islam would have been so plain as for them to WANT to go to Boko Haram schools, wed Boko Haram men and have babies with them. Nothing speaks louder to the failure of the ideology of Boko Haram, or any other group for that matter, than when they have to resort to force to get it's way.

So it is clear that Boko Haram is not new to Nigeria. Nor is the kidnapping of the girls from their schools the worst thing they have done (I'm of the opinion that being killed is far worse). So why is the US and it's people suddenly interested in what is going on in a remote northern corner of Nigeria? Well John Kerry was the honest one yesterday: Boko Haram is a security issue to the US.

Understand that the reason for all the interest by the US federal government in Boko Haram has everything to do with Al-Qaeda affiliates and the expansion of Afri-COM in order to secure US interests in the area. The people are being offered The Girls as a means of rallying around the continued US military expansion into Africa. After all who is against finding The Girls?

The other prong here is to make the Nigerian government look inept. Here at The Ghost we've pointed out many times that it is apparent that black folks the world over seem to need white supervision in their affairs. The IMF is needed to tell them how to run the economy. The UN is needed to tell them how to handle internal disputes. Previous colonial masters are needed to provide technical assistance and police. The Chinese needed to build stadiums.

The latest example of this being CAR, where the French are baby sitting the people and mediating that dispute. In one recent post of a video made by Vice one of the interviewers asks “where are the French when you need them?” Of course Africans of all stripes are to blame for this. If Jonathan Goodluck had a proper spine and sense of self-respect he would have called on Obama to instruct his staff to stop making negative commentary about the Nigerian government and acknowlege the difficulty in dealing with armed Jihadists. Surely the current entanglements that the US is involved in proves that.

Furthermore, Nigerians themselves would stop making public pronouncements about how bad their government is. Of course they will not because many Nigerians, like much of the world believe that their government is no good and that they need outside help. In other words we are witnessing, in full view, Nigerians admitting to the world that they are incapable of handling their own affairs.

Pretty shameful isn't it?

Boko Haram is of interest to the US because Nigeria has large oil reserves and as an OPEC member is of importance to the US (and Europe, and China). Though Boko Haram are in the north of the country which is not where the oil comes from (it's in the delta region), if Boko Haram causes enough problems then they may have an adverse impact on oil operations in that country (bombings, kidnappings, etc). So don't be fooled. It is not really about The Girls. It's about the Security. Believe Kerry when he says it.

RE: Why “African-American” is a Patronizing, Even Racist Term

RE: Why “African-American” is a Patronizing, Even Racist Term or Why M.G. Piety might be an idiot.

In another of a series of “why did Counterpunch publish this?” articles, M.G. Piety explains why she is uncomfortable with the term “African-American” as applied to “blacks” who are the descendants (at least partially due to that one drop rule thingy) of Africans from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (AKA Maafa).

I do not like the expression “African-American.” It’s patronizing, condescending, and racist

Patronizing! Condescending! Racist! Oh my!

I expect M.G. Piety will soon click her heels three times and wish herself away from here.

It was coined, rumor has it, to help counteract the corrosive effect of racism on the self-esteem of black Americans. But how is that supposed to work? In practice, I would argue, the effect is unavoidably the reverse. White Americans are never referred to as “European-Americans,” so to identify black Americans as “African-American” is to suggest that they are only half American.

I suppose it would have been too much work for M.G. Piety to look up the reasons rather than go on rumor and innuendo. It's not as if the term took hold hundreds of years ago. Matter of fact the folks that came up with it are still alive and reachable. But I'm not going to spend time on how and why the term came into being because Piety has given us a great falsehood in the form of what white Americans are referred to.

Lets suppose for a minute that white Americans are not identified on a regular basis as “European-Americans”. The question one has to ask is why not? Is it because that, as Piety suggests, the African is a “half-American”? Absolutely not. Well in reference to what an American is.

I have long argued that American denotes citizenship status. America being one of the few countries not created by its indigenous species of humans. One can equate French with whiteness because France grew out of those Europeans that arose there. Similarly it is quite correct to equate British with whiteness because the British also arose from their native population.

America on the other hand is a country largely populated by those who came from somewhere else. Hence, rather than a polity that grew out of a native population and bound together by a common ancestry, America is a polity created by a common set of rules. Ye Rule of Law. American is a constitutional creation. Each and every European that is in America is identifiable by his or her name.

When we say “Danny Fitzpatrick, head of the so and so police department.” We need not say “European-American” because his very name denotes his country of origins. It identifies his racial origins as well (unless other circumstances ,to be discussed later, apply).

When Todd Williams is identified, so too is his racial and ethnic origins on display. So when we speak of a European-American, there is no need to explicitly identify that individual because their very name identifies them as such. It is understood. In fact it is understood at a subconscious level. No one has to even think about it.

Now let's take a look at the African. When the African was brought to America the African was stripped of his name (among other things) and therefore the connection with his land AND people of origins. Let us be clear there are no Fitz-anything in Africa. There is no Williams, Thomas', Baldwins or any of that in Africa. Every African with a European sir name that did not marry into a European family is carrying a slave owners name or a slave name forced on them by Europeans. This is why there are no African in America descended from the Maafa with the names Yu, Xe, Li, Ping, etc. No Chinese named Africans in the 16,17 and 1800s.

And so the African, unique among the American citizenry has nothing to identify himself as connected to a nation or ethnicity of origin except his black face. That, Mr. Piety is “racist”.

Some of us have decided that since we are free people and unashamed of our origins and collective cultures, to removed our European names and have taken on names from the general geographic area to which most Africans were traded from. Some of us have been able to actually trace out lineages back to a specific people, but that vast majority of us cannot do so and must consciously choose a place to tie ourselves to. This Author has decided upon the Yoruba. Persons such as Molefe Assante have attached themselves to the Assante. Other African-Americans have take on Islamic names. I won't go into that other than to say while it's their business, with the history of West Africa during the Maafa, that's not necessarily the best choice.

When Molefe Assante changed his name he made it clear why he was doing so. Paraphrasing, he said that when he was looking at books and such he saw that it was clear by looking at the names who was writing the books. However when he picked up books by black authors he was unable to identify them by name. Hence he felt that their work could be “assumed” European. Baba Assante did not want to have his contributions to history and scholarship to be “mistook” for the work of a European and that, in part, informed his decision to change his name.

Clearly anyone who picks up a book by Molefe Assante will not assume that the author has origins in the British Isles. That is a good thing.

So having dealt with the issue of origins, let's deal with the other half of M.G. Piety's remarks:

Most black Americans do not identify with Africans and most genuine African-Americans (i.e., people who recently emigrated from Africa to the U.S. or who divide their time between two continents) do not identify with black Americans.

I would suggest that the fact that “most black Americans do not identify with Africans” is a part of the problem. But let's be clear. To say that “black Americans” do not “identify” with Africans” is like saying that the British do not identify with the Italians or that the French do not “identify” with the Polish.

No shit sherlock.

This is where ethnicity comes into play. People can belong to the same racial categories but not identify with each other because their customs are not the same. This is the difference between race and ethnicity. I sure hope that M.G. Piety is not suggesting that Africans and African-Americans are so unintelligent as to not see that they share a lot of traits with each other that they do not share with Europeans of any nationality.

Simply because I choose to identify as an African doesn't mean that I automatically become a Yoruba by ethnicity. Nor do I or Molefe Assante become a Assante by ethnicity simply because he chooses to identify himself with that group. We don't need to, because our racial identity super-cedes chosen ethnic affiliations.

That is known as Pan-Africanism. Look it up.

Let's look at Piety's discussion of “real African-Americans”.

At what point does an “real African-American” become an “American”? How many generations? Grand children? Great grand children? Eventually the recent African immigrant comes to understand that their children or grand children will be indistinguishable from the “black American” they have studiously attempted to avoid and disassociate themselves from. I'm quite certain that when Amadou Diallo was shot up in his vestibule the NYPD officers involved did not say “Well fellas, this is a REAL African-Americans and not those piece of shit home grown niggers.”

The one thing that the children of recent African immigrants will have to their advantage is that provided they do not marry a European (or other ethnic group) they will have names that connect them to their homelands like every other American. At that point there will be no need to refer to them as “African-American” because it will be self evident, just like with Europeans.

So really the only thing patronizing and condescending here was the piece M.G. Piety wrote. Perhaps M.G. Should have spent her time talking to people who don't mind identifying with Africans before penning the piece. At least she would have given us food for thought rather than diarrhea of the pixels.