I'm a Racist. Are you?

If I were running for public office the above statement would guarantee me a defeat, but I'm not. I dealt with the race and racism issue when I first put up the blog but of late I've run into some blogs discussing race and racism. Specifically Blackademic and Fire Angel. The posts at those locations remind me of my college days and of some of the general reactions black folk have to "racism" so I've decided to revisit the topic briefly. I take Dr. Welsing's and Neely Fuller Jr.'s concept of functional definitions very seriously. This in combination of Garvey's admonishment that we should master the language of the lands we live in. I also liked how Brother Malcolm would slice and dice critics with his sharp use of the English language. I am also a student of history and science so I don't fool easy on either subject. Not saying that either Nubian or Fire-Angel are fools, just that a disagree with their analyses.

First lets all clear our heads of what we think we know. Lets also clear our heads of the intellectual terrain that most of us a forced to fight our liberation struggle on. Let's take Dr. Welsing's functional definitions to heart. If a word is used in a manner that defies it's etymology let's say that it is a bad word and seek a more correct word. Is that not fair? Cool. Let us begin.

What is race? Who invented race? In our normal goings on, we hold a concept of race that has been foisted upon us by the European. The European holds ownership of the concept. First he tells us it exists and then after taking over tells us it doesn't. Or maybe it does? It all depends on the situation. This is not satisfactory. Let us then ask the question to ourselves. If race exists then it should exist in all biological systems and objects? After all if there are different types of people, then there should be different types of dogs, cats, etc. Indeed when we look around we see race everywhere in nature. However, instead of calling them races we call them "breeds." Oh we are very familiar with this term. Why? This term is rarely applied to humans so we don't feel uncomfortable with it. We don't have reservations about it's implied meaning. Instead we take it at face value. We see a poodle we recognize the poodle. We know that the poodle can breed with a Cocker Spaniel and produce a Cock-a-Poo. We realize that although the dogs have very different outward appearances, appearances that can be transmitted to the up-teenth generation, we know that it is a dog and can breed with other dogs. We don't make the fact that most dogs are very similar genetically excuse the fact that there are different breeds (races) of dogs. However; when we talk of humans, we throw this observable logic out the window and claim there are no observable races. This is preposterous and all thinking people should reject such nonsense! If we can observe different races of trees, grass, sheep, bovine, Feline, arachnid, etc. then why is it so naughty and "bad" to recognize different races of Homo Sapiens sapiens? So when someone tells you that race does not exist in the human family because so and so and such and such amount of genes are a like, smile: they haven't a clue.

Having established that race actually exists, then lets answer the question of who "divided" up man first. As is usual in a European dominated society Europeans get the credit for this. How much sense does this make? Look; Black people have been on the planet for as long as people have been on the planet. We were trading with all kinds of people for thousands and thousands of years before the Gauls, Anglos, Saxons and other Northern tribes even learned how to write and count with Roman letters. What makes anyone think that with us building Pyras (House of Ra, House of God, Pyramids) and calculating Pi and doing geometry, that we did not observe that there were different types of people and didn't write that down with one of our writing systems? Of course we did. Dr. Diop in his seminal work, Civilization or Barbarism, shows us a figure from the tomb of Ramases III (1200BCE) . This figure can be seen on page 66 of the 1991 Lawrence Hill Book publication. at 1200 BCE the Greeks had barely even arrived on the scene, yet the Egyptians had already noted the different types of humans around them.
So the issue is that when the European made his ascendancy they decided to redo the same thing that we had already done, but assigned the highest place for themselves. Thus we should never say that race was made up by Europeans. That is untrue. The European merely redid what we (and no doubt other cosmopolitan cultures) had done already but added their own twist.

Having said that, we have established that races of Homo Sapiens sapiens exist. We have established that such differences had been known in antiquity then we can move on to racism and the racist.

Race is therefore a portion of humanity with common phenotypical features that are genetically determined, passable and subject to mutation. Simple. Nothing negative about it. Races can be "interbred" to produce hybrid offspring which can themselves arise to new breeds (or races if you will).

Ist: Ist is a suffix that denotes the study of. When attached to biology you get a biologist: one who studies biology. When attached to race it means ones who studies race. Hmm nothing negative here either unless one has been trained to think that studying race(s) is negative in and of itself (The Ghost does not hold such a belief). Now this definition runs counter to the prevailing notion accepted by the larger and dominant society. To be a racist to them (not The Ghost) means to hate someone based on their color. Now note how this definition is completely at odds with the etymology of the word racist. Clearly then such a definition is non-functional and perhaps a means to confuse the masses and distract attention from the actual problem. Therefore The Ghost suggests that if accused of being a "racist" one take immediate control of the conversation by asking:

"What do you mean? Define racism." You will get the aforementioned definition to which you may answer:

"No that cannot be right. Race is a group of humans with common physical characteristics determined by their genetics. Ist implies the study of. Therefore a racist is someone who studies people with common physical characteristics determined by their genetics. I think you are unclear of what you are trying to accuse me of. Is there some specific action you are trying to discuss?"

Now, you will no doubt confuse the person to which you say this too. This is to be expected because the society uses confusing language to prevent clear communication. So a racist really isn't anything bad. If you partake in African Studies you are really a racist. If you study Asian people then you are a racist. If you study European people then you are a racist. Heck, to be precise, if you study a particular breed of dog, you are a racist. Now see how we've gutted the word of connotation and left it with what it is: a neutral term.

So then what is racism? Well we have established what race is already. the suffix ism, implies a belief system or philosophy. thus when 'ism' is attached to 'race' we get a belief system about race. Again notice that there really isn't any negative or positive connotation here. it is a simple term that encapsulates a whole mess of philosophies. Thus the Aryan Nation has a specific form of racism. Pan-Africanists clearly have a position regarding race and therefore all Pan-Africanists are students of a particular form of racism. In fact all HBCU's are practicing racism. Let us take this back to the racist issue.

When someone is accusing another person of being a racist they are really saying something else. They should be saying "You're a black supremacist!" or 'You're a White Supremacist!" or "You're prejudiced against white people!" or "You hate black people!" all of these are racisms.

Now I'll admit that for expediencies sake, I may use the term racist and racism as is used by the general public, but I don't like using it because as we have discovered of late, there is a backlash against the term and an ownership of it by people with ill intentions towards black people. See you can turn "racism" around on the accusor but it is an entirely different thing to rebuff an accusation of White Supremacy. When that term is used, the accusee is being dealt a very specific hand. They are being accused of having a specific philosophy that they then have to rebut. See it's hard to accuse say, Senator Joseph Lieberman as being a racist because, as we have shown it is too lose a term. Now if we called Joseph Lieberman a White Supremacist because he has stated that he thinks that certain Arabs are unable to govern themselves and needs America (White people) to impose government on them. Then he has to answer for a specific charge that cannot be swatted away with "I have black friends." and other such convenient dodges.

I hope this post clears the air on the issue.

Peace.
GG

Technorati Tags: Culture, Pan-Africanism

RE: Black Electorate’s: Hip Hop Fridays: Urban Legends_Debunking The Myth of Acting White by Ras Baraka.

On Friday Jan 6 Black Electorate posted an article by Ras Baraka in which Mr. Baraka supposedly attempted to debunk the “Myth” of “acting white.” I say attempted because most of the article was actually about Cory Booker, Barak Obama and Bill Cosby. He also went on about the origins of so called “Black conservatives” noting their attendance at Ivy League Univesities.

Let me say at the outset that I agree with much of what “Shorty for Mayor” writes in regards to the suspect nature of Barak Obama as well as the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of many so called black conservatives however I think he has the wrong idea regarding Bill Cosby’s commentary as well as the true issue of the devaluing of education by African- Americans. In part Baraka writes:


What I really want to get at though is this growing urban myth that black people don’t like education, that we think being educated is acting white and somewhere deeply inherit in our culture is a lack of value for education. Maybe it came from slavery. I used to hear this being whispered from time to time at political meetings or conferences on education. Then the whispers began to grow louder, and finally Cosby, angry at why the civil rights movement and the struggle for democracy in this country did not bear the fruits expected, gave a scolding and dangerous speech at Howard University. It was dangerous because it opened the door for every nut of every nationality and their hatred for the black community. The Economists, a conservative magazine, began to recognize Cosby as a social critic. I guess they never saw “Black History Lost Stolen or Strayed.” They praised Cosby for his criticism of Black street culture and his notion that it was time to give up the excuses and blame us for having low expectations (or as the Bush calls it soft bigotry) thus low results. Cosby was no longer participating in the “conspiracy of silence about blacks’ dismal performance in school.” Its not poverty. Its not racism. Its not parity in school funding. Its rappers that are responsible for the state of black America. In fact we are the only people that have come here (well we were knocked over our head and dragged here) that have not been able to take advantage of the American Dream. As if the majority of people in this country that are poor are not white, that are failing are not white, that are on welfare are not white, that commit crime are not white, that even buy rap music are not white, that own the radio stations and communication outlets that play it are not white, that constantly cut money for education are not white.

This education issue is not an urban myth. Let me point the reader to a post I made entitled Of Bantus and Bill in which I discuss the attitude of recent immigrant Africans towards education:

at Mission Vista one Friday, Ms. Osman's son, Abdullahi Osman, 15, sat at home at the dining table, homework assignments and an English-Somali dictionary in his lap...Until I finish my education, I don't want to do anything else," said Abdullahi, who dreams of becoming a doctor. He said that books were his most valued possessions, though he checks them out of the public library.

...Hamadi, who goes to school and helps his brother at his job at a Boston Market restaurant, said of his new life, "I don't have time for watching TV"


What is the attitude of African Americans in general towards education vis-à-vis-TV? I wrote in another post More on Black Education

After having this discussion I took a gander at The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (Nov. 24, Spring 2004) where I stumbled across an article attempting to discuss the general low-scores of blacks on the SAT. Among the 14 points discussed ETS, two immediatlty jumped out at me:

12) Reading to Young Children: Almost two thirds of all white children ages three to five are read to every day. Only 48 percent of black children in this age group are read to daily.


13) Television Watching: In black households, 42 percent of fourth-graders watch six or more hours of televisions each day. Only 13 percent of white fourth-graders watch six or more hours of television each day.

So then lets bury the argument for good. Any group of people who allow their children to watch six or more hours of TV daily does not value education. Period. Here at Garvey’s Ghost we have stated that the problem with AA’s in general is one of culture. Many of the other non-white immigrant groups that come here come with intact cultural practices and expectations that re-enforce certain priorities. In the American Black communities much of that culture has been stripped. It is for this reason Kwanzaa is a potent tool to reclaim certain attitudes that we have lost.

In order to clear up any confusion at no point does Garvey’s Ghost, or Bill Cosby for that matter, believe or state that all blacks are down on education. It has always been an issue for a portion, rather sizeable, of the population. Yet many people opposed to this fact attempt to put that claim on us. It is wrong and only makes us look bad.

But one may ask: Is devaluing education the same as “acting white?” this is a very good and relevant question. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that it is not. Let’s say that instead it is considered ‘not black.” With this concept we can say that if a group is stereotyped as being a certain way then anyone who behaves in the manner ascribed to the group may be seen as trying to emulate that group. Running with this logic, we know for a fact that there is a certain group of black people for whom “Street knowledge” is king. Certain modes of dress are a hallmark of this group. Knowledge of certain events, music and material items are also hallmarks of this group. The playing of certain sports and the use of a particular vernacular are all hallmarks of this group. This group claims to be “keeping it real” which implies that others, not exhibiting certain behaviors are less real by various degrees. Now this lifestyle has adherents who are not from the same racial group who behave in the same manner as the joined group and they are referred to as “wanna be’s” , “wiggers” or some other reference that clearly shows that they aspire to be the same as the group to which they are fitting into. Clearly if this group can identify those who are outsiders trying to get in, then they can also identify supposed insiders who are not “keeping it real.” If they are not keeping it real then what are they being? I would allow the reader to draw their own conclusion.

There are also many African nationals in the US who upon seeing the behavior of some of our people, send their children back to Africa for socialization and education because they can see the problems to which many of us are willing to cover up publicly while talking about it privately. Now many of us here get defensive and say that recent African immigrants are ignorant to our history and are being unfair to us. Some of that is indeed true, but it does not erase the facts on the ground.

Technorati Tags: Black Education, Culture

How Much Does The Brain Drain Cost?

All Africa reports via the Ghanian Chronicle That Africa pays Us$4bn a Year On Western Expatriates:

Africa spends US$4 billion per year, representing 35% of total official development aid to the continent, to employ some 100,000 Western experts.

These are recruited to perform functions generically described as 'technical assistance', which could have been done by African experts lost to the brain drain of the western world.

There's not too much I could say about this. Interesting that I had only recently posted on the rejection of Garveyites by the "Plenipotentiary" of Liberia back in the 1920's. So it appears that in some manner, the slave trade still continues in that Africa is drained of human resources and then pays the places that benefit from those resources for goods and services.

Sad ain't it?

Technorati Tags: Africa, Pan-Africanism

Pan-Africanists and The Political Spectrum

In these days of heady partisanship it is pretty much a dipolar political world. Thanks to Bush's "You're either with us or you're against us" atmosphere even black folk have been suckered into the fight. Today, in most people's actions, if not their thinking, you are either a Liberal or a Conservative. If you are a conservative, you are typecast as a Christian, pro-Bush, Pro-Capitalism, Pro-War Pro-limited government. If you are a Liberal then you are just about anything else. Well no, you're an anti-marriage, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, Anti-Christian, Anti-American, Anti-War, Pro Big Government. So where is the Pan-Africanist? Well first what is a Pan-Africanist? On this blog we follow Neo-Garveyism. Neo-Garveyism is an updated version of Garveyism that is stripped of it's religious chauvinism. Garvey was a Christian, which is evident in his speeches. This fact lead Garvey to make disparaging remarks about native African religions, some of which were valid. Garveyism in a nutshell calls for the unification of Africa in a continental government organized similarly to what is seen in the EU and the United States. Before anyone get's it twisted, the EU is not the ancestral idea for Garveyism. That continental government would seek to incorporate those predominantly African countries in the Diaspora such as Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad, etc. Those blacks inhabiting countries in which they are not the majority may apply for citizenship. Thus we have One Aim, One Destiny but clearly not One God. Thus the religion issue.

Understanding the Aim of Garveyism, there are certain political decisions that flow from that. On the way to this Aim it was clear to Garvey that blacks would need to have economic ties amongst themselves and therefore founded the Black Stay Line, Black Star Factories, etc. So then clearly the Pan-Africanist is not against business, small or large. Rather the Neo-Garveyist Pan-Africanist is concerned with the proper conduct of business. Business should be conducted in a manner that respects the human being first and foremost. Business should be run in a manner that does not destroy the environment. Thus the Pan-Africanist is an Environmentalist. Many people on the "left" of Pan-Africanist have issues with "big business." That's their business but in reality any business that is successful will become a big business. The Pan-Africanist is not anti-corporation. A corporation is simply a legal entity run by actual people. Again since the Pan-Africanist is concerned with the way corporations operate and not the corporation itself there is no citing the Pan-Africanist as anti-business. So for example, if Sean Combs was a Pan-Africanist he would not allow his clothing apparel to be made in sweatshops in "Third World" countries. instead he would contract with a company that treats it's workers fairly OR forces the factory to change in order to get it's contract. Of course this means less profit for Sean Combs, but as stated, the Pan-Africanist puts the human first ( as opposed to the legal entity). Garvey wanted to cap a persons income at $1 million. Neo-Garveyism does not agree with this. A person may wish to limit his or her own income by whatever means, but the state should not be able to impose an income limit on a persons legal activity. This position also means that the Pan-Africanist is anti-Capitalism. Capitalism (technically the study of money) is a profit driven ideology that subordinates the person to profit. Therefore it is inimitable to the ideals of Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism is not anti-war. Indeed we believe that there are cases for armed conflict, but such conflict must be in self defense. Thus the Pan-Africanist is opposed to the war in Iraq because it is not a self-defensive war. The Pan-Africanist is not Pro-Christian or Pro-Islam or even Pro-religion. The Pan-Africanist believes that religion is a personal thing to each individual and therefore does not believe the state should be in the habit of imposing it's official or unofficial view of religion on citizens. In the Pan-African state, the school system would make instruction on religion(s) available to all students. Also it would not be in the habit of declaring religious national holidays. Individuals can observe their days as they wish, just don't expect banks or malls to close for it.

Is the Pan-Africanist Anti-American? This is really a trick question since no one to date has defined "American." Indeed some people define it as "freedom to do what you want." This is clearly not true as there is no "civilized" place where people can do anything they want. Even within the states there are clear boundaries to individual activities. beyond that, there are many countries where people can "do what they want." So the "freedom" claim is pretty specious. There is though a particular and pernicious Americanism, which to be fair, is shared with a number of countries. This Americanism, is that Americans (mostly those capitalists) can have any and everything that exists. Pan-Africanists are opposed to such an ideology. Pan-Africanists oppose the Americanism that they can dictate how other people should govern themselves. For example Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. The former is opposed simply because he founded a communist government. Of course the focus is on 'human rights abuses" such as detention and jailing of dissidents. However; given that the US has supported multiple terrorist actions against that government, it isn't surprising that the Castro government is so sensitive about dissidents. Besides who is the US to talk since it now does the same thing, and puts some of them in Cuba! So while it is easy to say that the Pan-Africanist is "anti-American" it simply is not the case. Such claims are often made by those people who agree with the morally bankrupt ideas that are behind such naked aggression against people like Castro and Chavez.

On the home front the Pan-Africanist is very much opposed to "handouts." In fact this idea is what get's the Pan-Africanist in trouble with "the left." Neo-GArveyite Pan-Africanists agree with Bill Cosby. Garvey was often quoted about how black people needed to be educated, to know how to read and speak the language of their home country well. Garveyism was always about presenting oneself well. The Pan-Africanists sees that black people world wide are in a whole heap of trouble. The black man and woman is on the verge of extinction As we speak, AIDS, warfare and natural disasters are killing millions of black people on the continent and the vast majority of these victims are dependent on outsiders to help them! What kind of situation is this where people in so called "sovereign" countries are dependent on Aide agencies and NGO's for health care! We agree with Bill Cosby because there has been a serious decline in the do for self in the black community. Not only in the poor segment but in the middle class one. We agree with Frantz Fanon when he stated that the native middle class is but a shadow of the middle class that is deposed. Indeed the Pan-Africanist observes that black business ownership and land ownership suffered due to integration. This is why the Pan-Africanist, while opposed to racial segregation (the forced separation of races) it is pro black neighborhoods. The Pan-Africanist notes that integration has had the effect of making black people more dependent upon outsiders while increasing the access to black capital by white business people. Now the general agreement with Bill Cosby rankles some first and foremost because they only know what the media reported him saying and have not even read or heard the original speech in it's entirety. This is a part of the problem with some in the black community who are often too quick to apologise for or make excuses for the behavior of some of our population. The second thing that bothers some is that they felt that Cosby was being "mean spirited." I don't agree. We hold to the lessons taught to us by Dr. Welsing that our feelings on the subject are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Unless the subject matter can be shown to be false, then who gives a hoot? Given the global situation facing black folks, some hard language is needed I say. I also offer this perspective, When a parent spanks a child it isn't (shouldn't be) because they hate the child, it is because they love the child and needs to impress upon the child the very real dangers of that behavior. Similarly, black people as a whole need a good spanking. A wake up call. It saddens the Pan-Africanist to see the events unfolding in Sudan. The Pan-Africanist hates to see what happens to black people in France and Egypt. The Pan-Africanists says however, that the answer does not lay in asking the White and Arab governments for favors. We say that it lays with the oppressed to get together among themselves and build themselves up so that they no longer need to ask for amnesty from those that see them or participate in their oppression. Now you say: "What does this have to do with the poor Cosby was talking about?" Cosby's comments are the same. the UNIA had also set up black employment agencies. So even though Garvey was for black people doing for self and having a low tolerance for slackness, Garveyism also had a component to help out those that wanted to do better.

The Pan-Africanist is not against Hip Hop as an art form but is opposed to it's ownership and control by white people. It is opposed to black faced record companies as well. Hip Hop was not and to an extent was, never all about guns and hoes. But anyone who grew up in the late 70's and early 80's knew that Hip Hop then had far more variety then it does now.

The Pan-Africanist believes that government is formed primarily for the benefit of people and not business. It is unacceptable that there are people going bankrupt from medical costs in the richest country in the world. It is unacceptable for people to be without medical coverage in the richest country in the world. If government is supposed to be for the common good then how can this be acceptable? The Pan-Africanists believes in universal healthcare. The Pan-Africanist does not believe in universal employment though. The state does not create jobs only the framework wherein people can create businesses. business's provide employment. The state can only employ that which it needs to run. The other thing is that in some cases there are people who are lazy and wont want to work. Yes they exist and we should admit that.

So in closing I'll say that the entirety of Neo-Garveyism Pan-Africanism has not been discussed here but this should serve as a summary of our positions.

Technorati Tags: Pan-Africanism

Firestone And Liberia: So What Else is New?

All Africa is reporting on the suit being filed against Firestone for the mistreatment of the locals in the extraction of rubber from rubber plants.

quote:
Three human rights groups have threatened legal action against the American-owned Firestone Rubber Plantation Company for alleged human rights violations and gross abuses of Labor Law on the plantation in Harbel, Margibi County.

The three human rights institutions, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission (JPC) headed by Attorney Augustine Toe, the Liberia Democracy Watch (LDW) of Jerome Verdier and the Foundation for International Dignity (FIND) of Kofi Woods have alleged that the American-run company was mistreating workers at the plantation...

The disclosure was made to newsmen in Monrovia by the Executive Director of JPC, Augustine Toe who recently returned from the United States. The JPC Boss said the three human rights institutions met in Washington DC in the United States of America with their human rights counterparts to finalize the lawsuit against the Firestone Rubber Plantation Company.

According to the human rights groups, the Firestone Company is using the workers on the plantation as slaves, forcing them to tap 700 rubber trees per day, something they consider as Labor abuse as well as forced labor.

The rights groups further said due to the heavy workload, the tapers were compelled to use their wives and children to help them, claiming this to be normal practice by the company's authority on the plantation...

Besides the human rights institutions, residents of Harbel in Margibi County told team of journalists that the company was using its waste products to pollute the Farmington River, which the residents claimed has been used as a safe drinking water and at the same time as bathing water.

Information have it that the residents most of whom are workers of the plantation have begun getting blind, and many are already developing stomach problems due to pollution of the water with chemicals.

We will remind the reader of the words of Marcus Garvey:

"We also beg to draw to the attention of your honorable body the great danger that lurks in the future through the granting of Firestone Rubber and Tire Company of certain concessions, which we do hope have not yet been ratified by you. Whilst it is not in out province to interfere with your legislation, we beg to point out to you the motives generally underlying white capitalists when they seek entry into the countries of weaker peoples. It is our firm belief that the Firestone concessions in Liberia will lead them ultimately to seek the usurpation of the government, even has been done with the black Republic of Haiti after similar white companies entered there under the pretense of developing the country."

Also said by Garvey:

The selfish and heartless capitalist of the white race conspires to rob Negroes of their land and values in many instances by employing and using the conscienceless and disloyal members of the race who happen to be removed from the majority by intelligence, to betray the people into a false sense of feeling security. In some instances , entire countries are thus stolen with their mineral, agricultural and other wealth; in others the people's investments and interests in banks, insurance companies, real estate holdings, including private dwellings, churches, corporation stocks and allied financial undertakings are pilfered with the concurrent and conniving consent of these so called "intellectual" Negroes..."

To this wisdom the then" Minister Plenipotentiary" of Liberia; the "Honorable" Edwin Barklay was quoted by the New York Times:

My mission in this, my first visit to America, is to endeavor to cement the friendship between the two countries."

"Labor is very cheap in Liberia and strong healthy men work for 25 cents a day...It is a country for young men, and any of the colored people who wish to go there from America to live will be heartily welcomed, and given grants of land to cultivate"

"No, Neither Garvey nor any of those who have been identified with him would be received in Liberia."


So when we see that instead of inviting Garveyites who were looking to modernize Liberia, the "Minister Plenipotentiary" was more interested in 25 cents a day and inviting people to cultivate the land. So now we see the fruits of that decision: wars, child soldiers and continued slavery.

When will we take Garveyites seriously?

Technorati Tags: Africa, Pan-Africanism

Hunger In Kenya, Death In Egypt

Today we look at two problems that have at it's root the same general cause: Dependency and lack of leadership.
First is the food situation in Kenya where even prisoners have gotten into the act by donating their food to those affected. The general causes are said to be:

They include Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Somali and Zimbabwe. Countries with general lack of access to food include Liberia, Mauritius, Niger and Sierra Leone. Kenya is listed among 14 countries facing severe localised food insecurity.

The main reasons for the food shortage include civil strife, drought and locusts, high food prices, economic crises, refugees and resettlement of returnees.

Now it is important to note that the most of the "main reasons" for the drought were man made issues. We noted in our critique of the riots in France that governments do not make jobs. We will restate this point and underscore the point that in Africa, governments are not the best suited for providing economic relief. Such relief is being called for:

In a joint statement issued in Machakos Town on Monday, the MPs said that following the poor rains, many parents who depend on farming will be unable to raise school fees. They urged the Government to revive the school feeding programme in primary schools and to provide secondary schools with food.

And the Kenya National Association of Parents (KNAP) urged the Government to increase the constituency bursary fund from Sh800 million to Sh2.5 billion.

Musau Ndunda, the association's secretary-general, and former Cabinet minister Kalonzo Musyoka also appealed to the Government to waive school fees for children from famine hit areas.

I'm not entirely clear as the the budget of Kenya but I cannot imagine that there is a surplus of educational funds available. The waiving of school fees by the government would no doubt lead to some budget shortfall at a later time. For the long run the issues that were raised above, specifically the man made issues must be addressed first. As a PAn-Africanist, I find it untenable that 20% of African nations are short on food. Steps should be taken to create a continental food programme or industry such that the countries with surplus can provide for those without in these times. Furthermore, with a Pan-African government, such issues as refugees and resettlement may be better handled.

The second issue is the horrible treatment meted out against the Sudanese refugees in Egypt. This has been covered by the mainstream media with many people across the political spectrum condemning the act. While I too condemn the event I am not very surprised by the actions. Firstly the southern Sudanese are refugees from a war being committed by Muslims, most of whom identify as Arabs. Egypt is now, as opposed to ancient times, an Arab country. Clearly the Sudanese here thought that running from one set of Arab identifying Muslims to another set of Arab identifying Muslims would somehow garner more respect. Are we surprised that it did not? Again a clear lack of leadership on the part of Africans. What has to be worse, is that these unfortunate people were beat while begging the Arabs in Egypt to provide better conditions for them. Again the whole idea of governments creating something that should be created by the group themselves.

Don't mistake my critique as "blaming the victim" or excusing the actions of the Egyptian government. it is not. It is merely a call to action. A call to change how we deal with our problems. The first and foremost thing we must stop doing is waiting for those that oppress us to stop oppresing us. Secondly we must work with each other regardless of ethnic grouping, regardless of religious grouping, regardless of regional grouping. So long as we continue to look outside of our communities for salvation rather than "casting our bucket where we are" we will continue to be treated inhumanely by others.

Technorati Tags: Africa, Pan-Africanism

Assessing Dialogue by Baba Wande Abiola

I think this piece, an essay written by Baba Wande Abiola is very good and is being posted here without edit:

Assessing dialogue
by Professor Wande Abimbola*, 7 June 2005

Embargoed against delivery

Over the past 25 years, the major religions of the world have been concerned

with dialogue amongst themselves. The Christian missions both Catholic and
Protestants have been in the forefront of this idea, and the Vatican even
saddled a Cardinal with their relationship with other faiths. In the
following short pages, I intend to assess the impact of inter-religious
dialogue on the world religions, especially as far as the African continent
is concerned, and to make proposals and suggestions for the future.

Before I go any further, let me introduce myself to my audience. My name is
Wande Abimbola. I am a Nigerian Professor who has taught African languages,
literatures, religions and thought systems in various Nigerian Universities
over the past forty years. I have also taught the same subjects at several
United States Universities - including Amherst College, Massachusetts,
Harvard and Boston Universities, to mention only a few.

I am a practitioner of an African indigenous religion - the religion of the
Yorùbá people, which is a religion of West Africa practiced also in several
countries of the African Diaspora, including Brazil, Cuba, Trinidad and
Tobago (where the Yorùbá Religion was raised to the status of an official
religion by an Act of Parliament in 1981).

I am also a High Priest of Yorùbá Religion, having been initiated as a
Babalawo in 1971. A babalawo is at the same time a diviner, a story teller,
a counselor, and a medicine man. In 1981, I was installed by all the
Babalawos of West Africa as Awise Agbaye (Spokesperson of Ifá and Yorùbá
Religion in the World). I am not a Christian, and I am not a Muslim. I am
one of the millions of Yorùbá people who have decided that rather than
convert to Christianity or Islam, we will pitch our tent with the religion
of our ancestors.

In June 1981, I founded a World Congress of Yorùbá Religion which has become

very popular and successful. Three congresses have been held in Africa; one
in the United States; one in Trinidad and Tobago; and two in Brazil. The
next congress, which is the 9th in the series, is coming up in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, from the 1st to the 6th of August 2005. You are all
cordially invited to the Rio Congress.

The dialogues which the Christian missions have staged so far have been
half-hearted and insincere. To start with, the dialogues have been held only

with Islam and Judaism for the most part. Sometimes, these dialogues have
included the Buddhist and the Hindu religions, and some other religions of
the Far East. But rarely have these dialogues included the primal religions
of the world such as the indigenous religions of Africa and the Americas.
When African indigenous religions are included at all, they are often
represented by Christian evangelists masquerading as scholars or
practitioners of so-called traditional African religions (ATR). These past
dialogues can be likened to an attempt by a person who wants to hold
consultations with members of his household, but who deliberately neglects
some members of that household either because he does not like them, or
perhaps because he wished they were dead or lost. Needless to say, that
person deceives himself but no other.

It is pertinent, at this juncture, to speculate as to why inter-religious
dialogues have often excluded the indigenous religions of Africa and the
African Diaspora. One reason is that the Christian missions do not accept
the indigenous religions of Africa as religions in the first instance. As a
matter of fact, the Christian missionaries have for so many centuries
laboured to wipe out these religions from the face of the earth. Some
western evangelists and scholars characterize African indigenous religions
as animist or pagan. As far as the Christian missionaries are concerned,
there are only two religions in Africa, viz. Christianity and Islam.

There is another school of thought in the Christian faith who calls the
indigenous religions of Africa Traditional African Religions (ATR) probably
to be able to label them as primitive or archaic. Such scholars and
evangelists also claim that the population of Africa is 50% Christian, 45%
Muslim, and only 5% or less ATR. The possible inference is that as Africa
becomes more christianized or westernized or islamized or arabized, the
remaining 5% belonging to ATR will disappear.

The real truth, however, is that the overwhelming majority of Africans are
still very much involved in the indigenous religions and way of life of
their ancestors, even though some of them may go to church on Sundays or
they may go to Jumat prayers on Fridays. I ask the question, what strange
logic permits the Christians to count people who go to church as Christians,

and the Muslims to count those who go to Jumat prayers as Muslims, but does
not permit me to count the same people as practitioners of my own Yorùbá
Religion, even though the same persons come to me to perform divinations and

sacrifices many more days every month and every year? When we bring out the
ancestor masquerades of egungun, or when we celebrate the annual Osun
festival in Osogbo, or the Ogun festival in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, from where do
the hundreds of thousands who attend these festivals come? Are they not the
same people who attended the churches last Sunday, or who attended the Jumat

prayers last Friday?

It is not a secret that many Africans practice Christianity and Islam at the

same time as the practice indigenous religions of Africa. What the Christian

and Islamic evangelists need to know is that in spite of billions of dollars

spent to make African convert to Christianity and Islam, in actual fact,
there are really very few wholehearted and complete conversions to
Christianity and Islam in Africa. For many Africans, to be a christian is
like belonging to a modern club to which some of their friends and family
belong, and which they too need to frequent to fulfill certain societal
requirements. If you do not believe the above, I invite you to listen to a
famous song of Yorùbá Christians which goes as follows:

A wa o soro ile wa o,
A wa o soro ile wa o.
Esin kan o pe ....
O yee,
Esin kan o pe,
Ka wa ma soro.
A wa o soro ile wa o.
Eni to ba fe,
Ko ki wa.
Eeyan ti o si fe,
Ko yan wa lodi!
A wa o soro ile wa o.

(We are going to worship our ancestral religions.
We are going to worship our ancestral religions.
No religion can say ...
O yes,
No religion can say,
That we should not worship our ancestral gods.
Anyone who likes,
Can continue greet us.
Anyone who dislikes,
May greet us no more!
We will worship the gods of our ancestors.)

It is therefore unrealistic and probably a mark of self delusion for any one

to think that the practitioners of the indigenous religions of Africa are so

small in number that they are on the verge of extinction, and as a result,
there is no need to dialogue with them.

Perhaps, part of the problem is that the leaders of the indigenous African
religions are not so easy for westerners to identify, since many of them do
not speak European languages, and since their places of worship are not so
easily identifiable like the big churches and mosques which can be seen
everywhere in Africa today. For most indigenous Africans, religious worship
is such a personal thing that it does not necessarily have to take place in
a temple. In Yorùbá land for example, temples and shrines of the divinities
are very few, and when thieves started to steal our icons, most people moved

their own images into the innermost areas of their homes. As a matter of
fact, a person's handbag, the pocket of his clothes, the necklaces or
bracelets that he wears, or the insignia of his office which he carries, may

well be all that he needs to worship his divinities at any given time.

Apart from those African who people who practice the three religions as
mentioned above, in Yorùbá land there is still a hard core of millions of
people who are neither Christian nor Muslim and who live totally according
to the tenets of the indigenous beliefs of their ancestors. It may be true
that all parts of Africa are like that, but it is certainly also true that
the population of the practitioners of the indigenous of Africa is not 5% of

the total population of Africa.

I would like to propose the following suggestions for the future of
inter-religious dialogue. For dialogue to be real, sincere, and worthy of
the time and resources put into it, it must fulfill the following
conditions:

Dialogue must be all-inclusive and all-embracing. The indigenous religions
of the world, including the indigenous religions of Africa and the Americas
must be included. No religion practiced in any remote corner of our planet
must be left out.
All religions must be accepted to the table on an equal basis, and we must
do away with derogatory terms such as ATR, animism or paganism, when we
refer to the primal religions of the world.
The destruction of shrines, temples, icons, images, and places of worship of

the indigenous religions of Africa and the rest of the world must stop
forthwith.
The World Council of Churches must issue a proclamation to all its members
worldwide stating that they must have an attitude of tolerance for the way
of life and religions of their neighbours; just as Jesus Christ said in the
Holy Bible that his followers must love their neighbours as themselves.
Jesus did not say love your neighbours as yourself only if they are
christian, or only if they practice your religion.
We on our own part, as practitioners of the ways of our ancestors, will
continue to have an attitude of tolerance, love, and respect for all the
religions of the world, in spite of the fact that we are mindful of the
persecutions which we have suffered, and are still suffering in the hands of

our Christian and Islamic brothers, who had in the past enslaved and
colonized us for centuries. We believe that love, rather than hatred,
respect and humility, rather than arrogance, are the virtues which will
endure. These virtues together with honesty are the values which we are
inculcating in words and deeds to our own children.
Our religion is not based on a hierarchical order of wealthy leaders or
institutions. We prefer that the religion remains simple and respectful of
all, including the animals, vegetation and all the other creatures and
objects of nature without which we humans cannot survive on this planet.

In spite of the non-proselytizing nature of our religion, it is one of the
fastest growing religions of the world today. We are powerless today, but
if, by the special grace of Olódùmarè (our High Divinity), and Ifá (the
all-knowing divinity of knowledge and wisdom), we become powerful tomorrow,
we will forever live by the same values.

Dialogue. Yes. Dialogue. Dialogue between the religions of humankind to
solve pressing problems of the world. To compare notes, take a common stand,

and have a powerful voice for the religious communities of the world.
Dialogue to empower women, and provide the best education, and the best
environment for the children and young people of the world. Dialogue, to
eradicate hunger, thirst and needless suffering in the world. Dialogue to
end wars, terrorism, greed, hatred, religious conflict, ethnic cleansing and

racial bigotry. But dialogue on an equal basis, in an atmosphere of respect,

and equality. If dialogue can be staged on these terms, INCLUDE US. If not,
LEAVE US OUT. But we love you nevertheless, and we will continue to remember

all of you in our daily prayers.

* Dr Wande ABIMBOLA PhD is a chief of African religion from Nigeria who
occupies the position of Awise Awo Ni Agbaye ("spokesperson and ambassador
for the Ifá and Yorùbá religion and culture in the world"). Dr Abimbola is a

special adviser to the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on
cultural affairs and traditional matters

Technorati Tags: Africa, Culture, Ifa, Pan-Africanism, Religion

Contamination

Kwame Anthony Appiah has an article in the NY Times entitled The Case for Contamination" Where he generally argues the benefits of globalization and connectedness, or at least it's inevitability. His opening example was the his meeting of the kotokohene in Ghana. He tells us of how the people waiting for the 'Hene were busy on their cell phones and of business planning and discussing the topic of the day. There's nothing really spectacular about his observation. In the 1400's I'm sure the business and topics of the day were also discussed prior to the entrance of the 'Hene. Indeed we know from history that Ghanians, be they Fanti or Assante, were traveling to Europe, learning European languages and reporting what they could of the world outside Ghana. But again this is not really THE point of the article, an excerpt from a book, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Mr. Appiah is releasing later this year. The real point is a critique of persons who may have problems with "modern" life encroaching on "Traditional" life of non-Western peoples. writes Appiah:

I've seen visitors from England and the United States wince at what they regard as the intrusion of modernity on timeless, traditional rituals - more evidence, they think, of a pressure in the modern world toward uniformity. They react like the assistant on the film set who's supposed to check that the extras in a sword-and-sandals movie aren't wearing wristwatches. And such purists are not alone. In the past couple of years, Unesco's members have spent a great deal of time trying to hammer out a convention on the "protection and promotion" of cultural diversity. (It was finally approved at the Unesco General Conference in October 2005.) The drafters worried that "the processes of globalization. . .represent a challenge for cultural diversity, namely in view of risks of imbalances between rich and poor countries." The fear is that the values and images of Western mass culture, like some invasive weed, are threatening to choke out the world's native flora.

You'll note that I put "modern in quotes because I too have had serious problems with the arrested development of African culture. For example African art being only wood carvings and the like, but if it is say a digital model of an Antelope it is "Modern" art, it is American art, and so on. I have argued that such ideas stunts the growth of African culture and leaves it in the past unable to be a part of the present and makes it an object to be cared for and protected by others. So in this regard I can agree with Mr Appiah. However, Appiah does not even make that his point rather:



The contradictions in this argument aren't hard to find. This same Unesco document is careful to affirm the importance of the free flow of ideas, the freedom of thought and expression and human rights - values that, we know, will become universal only if we make them so. What's really important, then, cultures or people? In a world where Kumasi and New York - and Cairo and Leeds and Istanbul - are being drawn ever closer together, an ethics of globalization has proved elusive.

The right approach, I think, starts by taking individuals - not nations, tribes or "peoples" - as the proper object of moral concern. It doesn't much matter what we call such a creed, but in homage to Diogenes, the fourth-century Greek Cynic and the first philosopher to call himself a "citizen of the world," we could call it cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitans take cultural difference seriously, because they take the choices individual people make seriously. But because cultural difference is not the only thing that concerns them, they suspect that many of globalization's cultural critics are aiming at the wrong targets....

Where they live, though, there is one everyday language (aside from the English in the government schools) and an agrarian way of life based on some old crops, like yams, and some newer ones, like cocoa, which arrived in the late 19th century as a product for export. They may or may not have electricity. (This close to Kumasi, they probably do.) When people talk of the homogeneity produced by globalization, what they are talking about is this: Even here, the villagers will have radios (though the language will be local); you will be able to get a discussion going about Ronaldo, Mike Tyson or Tupac; and you will probably be able to find a bottle of Guinness or Coca-Cola (as well as of Star or Club, Ghana's own fine lagers). But has access to these things made the place more homogeneous or less? And what can you tell about people's souls from the fact that they drink Coca-Cola?

Anyone really notice a problem with this discussion of globalism as it going so far? I would infer that globalism would be a cross-contamination of culture. There would be an equal exchange of ideas, concepts, entertainment as well as values. If you notice, and will continue to notice is that the consequence of this globalization is largely one way. Villagers outside Kumasi know all about radios, Tupac (and Biggie no doubt), and Coca Cola, but what does the average American know about Kumasi?
What does the average non-city living white American or European know about the kotokohene? Why is Tupac known to a remote villager while Fela is barely known? Appiah touches on the reason, but only slightly and not as the problem I see it as. One of Appiah's concerns, also one of mine, is the economic consequences of not being "caught up" with the modern world:

Nowadays, everything is different. Cocoa prices have not kept pace with the cost of living. Gas prices have made the transportation of the crop more expensive. And there are new possibilities for the young in the towns, in other parts of the country and in other parts of the world. Once, perhaps, you could have commanded the young ones to stay. Now they have the right to leave - perhaps to seek work at one of the new data-processing centers down south in the nation's capital - and, anyway, you may not make enough to feed and clothe and educate them all. So the time of the successful farming family is passing, and those who were settled in that way of life are as sad to see it go as American family farmers are whose lands are accumulated by giant agribusinesses. We can sympathize with them. But we cannot force their children to stay in the name of protecting their authentic culture, and we cannot afford to subsidize indefinitely thousands of distinct islands of homogeneity that no longer make economic sense.

Indeed it does not. In fact globalization is primarily being driven by economic interests. This is something I will return to later, but you'll note that the primary reason why homogeneity is bad is that it is uneconomical. Who wants to subsidize the poor economic output of backward people? Again, I partially agree with this as the famine in Niger shows the frailty of cultures who insist upon living a life simply because that is the way it has been done. But the true disagreement I have with Appiah is found here:

But preserving culture - in the sense of such cultural artifacts - is different from preserving cultures. And the cultural preservationists often pursue the latter, trying to ensure that the Huli of Papua New Guinea (or even Sikhs in Toronto) maintain their "authentic" ways. What makes a cultural expression authentic, though? Are we to stop the importation of baseball caps into Vietnam so that the Zao will continue to wear their colorful red headdresses? Why not ask the Zao? Shouldn't the choice be theirs?

"They have no real choice," the cultural preservationists say. "We've dumped cheap Western clothes into their markets, and they can no longer afford the silk they used to wear. If they had what they really wanted, they'd still be dressed traditionally." But this is no longer an argument about authenticity. The claim is that they can't afford to do something that they'd really like to do, something that is expressive of an identity they care about and want to sustain. This is a genuine problem, one that afflicts people in many communities: they're too poor to live the life they want to lead. But if they do get richer, and they still run around in T-shirts, that's their choice. Talk of authenticity now just amounts to telling other people what they ought to value in their own traditions.

Firstly I believe that the argument or "cultural preservationists" has been distorted by Mr. Appiah or he simply does not understand it. It's not whether baseball caps are to be or not to be imported into Vietnam or Africa, but why they are sent there? Indeed why does any country really import basic clothing rather than make it's own. Indeed Appiah later discusses Ghandi a suited South African lawyer. I would remind the reader that Ghandi later chose to cloth himself in the garb of his people, because he realized the symbolism of wearing English clothes rather than Hindu clothes. Indeed he saw the economic connection between the wearing of European clothing and wearing native clothes. The wearing, and importation of European and American clothing prevents the establishment of local industry. There was a news report on Nightline (During Ted Koppel's stay) about second hand clothing operations sending all manner of clothes to Africa where it is sold in open markets. So, as has been the case since colonialism, Africans are both the consumer and exploited. Again we'd ask, in the case of the baseball caps, why aren't Americans or Europeans interested in purchasing red headdresses of the Zao?

So Appiah has a problem with people being told to value their own traditions. Yet that is what every country tries to do. In fact the entire movement against colonialism and imperialism is based on the previously colonized and oppressed to recognize the value of their own traditions. Also it is arguable, as Appiah does argue that much of the rich in these areas are rich precisely due to their distance from their traditions. This topic is brought up and dismissed by Appiah himself:

The preservationists often make their case by invoking the evil of "cultural imperialism." Their underlying picture, in broad strokes, is this: There is a world system of capitalism. It has a center and a periphery. At the center - in Europe and the United States - is a set of multinational corporations. Some of these are in the media business. The products they sell around the world promote the creation of desires that can be fulfilled only by the purchase and use of their products. They do this explicitly through advertising, but more insidiously, they also do so through the messages implicit in movies and in television drama. Herbert Schiller, a leading critic of "media-cultural imperialism," claimed that "it is the imagery and cultural perspectives of the ruling sector in the center that shape and structure consciousness throughout the system at large."

That's the theory, anyway. But the evidence doesn't bear it out. Researchers have actually gone out into the world and explored the responses to the hit television series "Dallas" in Holland and among Israeli Arabs, Moroccan Jewish immigrants, kibbutzniks and new Russian immigrants to Israel. They have examined the actual content of the television media - whose penetration of everyday life far exceeds that of film - in Australia, Brazil, Canada, India and Mexico. They have looked at how American popular culture was taken up by the artists of Sophiatown, in South Africa. They have discussed "Days of Our Lives" and "The Bold and the Beautiful" with Zulu college students from traditional backgrounds.

And one thing they've found is that how people respond to these cultural imports depends on their existing cultural context. When the media scholar Larry Strelitz spoke to students from KwaZulu-Natal, he found that they were anything but passive vessels. One of them, Sipho - a self-described "very, very strong Zulu man" - reported that he had drawn lessons from watching the American soap opera "Days of Our Lives," "especially relationship-wise." It fortified his view that "if a guy can tell a woman that he loves her, she should be able to do the same." What's more, after watching the show, Sipho "realized that I should be allowed to speak to my father. He should be my friend rather than just my father." It seems doubtful that that was the intended message of multinational capitalism's ruling sector.

But Sipho's response also confirmed that cultural consumers are not dupes. They can adapt products to suit their own needs, and they can decide for themselves what they do and do not approve of. Here's Sipho again:

"In terms of our culture, a girl is expected to enter into relationships when she is about 20. In the Western culture, a girl can be exposed to a relationship as early as 15 or 16. That one we shouldn't adopt in our culture. Another thing we shouldn't adopt from the Western culture has to do with the way they treat elderly people. I wouldn't like my family to be sent into an old-age home."

Again does anyone see a problem with this? The Zulu is taking in the lives of Americans via the TV but the American does not take in the lives of the Zulu. So there is one way communication; one way globalization of though. The Zulu is not only taking in and filtering with his conscious mind "The Bold and The Beautiful" his subconscious mind is taking in the cues of what the rich and powerful, do, speak and wear. indeed he will want these things if and when the opportunity arises. How do we know this? There are people who are trained in knowing how to reach their audiences. They are paid a great deal to make messages that will bypass that average filter and get into the minds of the viewer. Knowing this and the one way communication of ideas, are we not surprised when these ideas eventually take root? For example, the idea of not putting old people in homes is old hat in Japan. Yet now with the influence of America and Europe and the society becoming more and more concerned with the accumulation and showing of wealth and becoming more "me" centered; Old people are finding themselves in homes. It is not as widespread as in America, yet it didn't exist prior to this "globalization." Therefore Appiah, gives far to much credit to the ability of cultures to continue in the face of massive pressure from outside forces.

Appiah's next mistake which we alluded to earlier soon presents itself:

Talk of cultural imperialism "structuring the consciousnesses" of those in the periphery treats people like Sipho as blank slates on which global capitalism's moving finger writes its message, leaving behind another cultural automaton as it moves on. It is deeply condescending. And it isn't true.

In fact, one way that people sometimes respond to the onslaught of ideas from the West is to turn them against their originators. It's no accident that the West's fiercest adversaries among other societies tend to come from among the most Westernized of the group. Who in Ghana excoriated the British colonizers and built the movement for independence? Not the farmers and the peasants. Not the chiefs. It was the Western-educated bourgeoisie. And when Kwame Nkrumah - who went to college in Pennsylvania and lived in London - created a nationalist mass movement, at its core were soldiers who had returned from fighting a war in the British Army, urban market women who traded Dutch prints, unionists who worked in industries created by colonialism and the so-called veranda boys, who had been to colonial schools, learned English and studied history and geography in textbooks written in England.

The overriding problem of this example, though factually true, is that the Nkrumah's of the world are fare and few between. It is indeed the case that much of the message of the West has had it's intended (maybe...maybe not) results: Massive brain drains to European and American countries where people can live the lives they see on TV? So called leaders who spend more time in Europe than they do in their own countries (Mobutu comes to mind). Oddly Appiah states:

African and Asian empires were driven by the rhetoric that had guided the Allies' own struggle against Germany and Japan: democracy, freedom, equality. This wasn't a conflict between values. It was a conflict of interests couched in terms of the same values.

I would remind the reader that the Allies had little problem with Germany until it decided to take over other parts of Europe. The Allies were only interested in their own freedom and their own equality and not that of non-whites. Therefore the African resistance to colonialism may have used similar language but I would be hard pressed to say that they shared the same values.

Lastly I want to look at one of Appiah's examples which truly underscores my position on the imperialism of media. Says Appiah:

Consider another example: In much of Europe and North America, in places where a generation ago homosexuals were social outcasts and homosexual acts were illegal, lesbian and gay couples are increasingly being recognized by their families, by society and by the law. This is true despite the continued opposition of major religious groups and a significant and persisting undercurrent of social disapproval. Both sides make arguments, some good, most bad. But if you ask the social scientists what has produced this change, they will rightly not start with a story about reasons. They will give you a historical account that concludes with a sort of perspectival shift. The increasing presence of "openly gay" people in social life and in the media has changed our habits. And over the last 30 years or so, instead of thinking about the private activity of gay sex, many Americans and Europeans started thinking about the public category of gay people.

Appiah has confirmed what many people have been saying about homosexuality in America for a while: It's acceptance is a result of the media bringing it into the living rooms (and now classrooms) of people who would normally not be confronted with the issue. As a result a greater acceptance of homosexuality as normal behavior ( if normal is behavior anyone does rather than behavior the majority of the population engages in) is seen. But the question I have had is why? I don't think the acceptance is really about tolerance ( which may be a by-product) but one of economics. Slavery was abolished by Lincoln not because he thought it was morally wrong but because it was an uneconomical system that prevented the employment of poor white men. Women were "allowed' to work because it increased the economic and military output of the US ( and other countries), Similarly, homosexuals are being mainstreamed simply out of economic necessity, Homosexuals as a group (in the US at least) are one of the highest economic brackets. Homosexual men benefit from sexism in that they will out-earn women for the same jobs AND they (until recently) did not have to worry about children if they did not marry to cover up. But back on topic, if Will and Grace are being projected around the world, then how long until those cultures pick up on it? If they reject that portion then what are the economic consequences. After all homosexual men in the West hold far more power than the peoples of the cultures wield on the west. And again, as I've been stating throughout this piece, Why is this all one way? Why are the other cultures not equally influential on the thinking of America and Europe? The answer to these questions lies in the assumed inferiority of the object cultures and peoples. They are so backwards that they don't have anything much to offer the world except perhaps a religion, a quaint tourist destination or relief of guilt as an object of help.

Technorati Tags: Africa, Culture, Pan-Africanism

Chad's Oil, Chad's Responsibility, Chad's Money

The BBC is reporting that Chad, the West/Central African landlocked nation has become an Oil exporter via a large loan from the World Bank. As a condition of the loan the government had to agree to oversight by churches, unions and NGO's. Says the BBC:

It was on condition that Chad's churches, trade unions and non-governmental organisations monitored how oil revenues were spent.
This was meant to guaranteed that oil money was used to help reduce poverty in Chad but the new laws would give Chad more control over the money.
The bank has warned if Chad breaks its agreement, that is a breach of contract. Further funds will be halted, and repayment rates on the current loan increased.
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said the law was a deciding factor in the bank's financial support for the massive pipeline project in 1999.
But the government has accused the bank of treating Chadians like guinea pigs on which to experiment with different types of management.
It wants to use $36m of revenues held in a fund that is meant to tackle poverty to deal instead with the country's financial problems.

While we are not fully informed enough to take much of an opinion on the matter, we do know that:

Oil exports from land-locked Chad first started in November 2003 after the creation of a pipeline to the coast through neighbouring Cameroon.
By 30 June of this year it had earned $70.8m (£39.5m) for the 33.1 million barrels it sold abroad.

You'll note that in an era where oil costs $40+/gallon Chad earned ~$2.00/barrel of oil that it sold abroad. If Chadian oil is being sold at market rates then Exxon is pocketing a vast amount of the oil revenue. Apparently Chad feels the same way:

"We found that things need to be clarified about the commitments of Exxon-Mobil, ChevronTexaco and Petronas," said Therese Mekombe, head of the committee monitoring Chad's oil revenues.

"The Chadian population has its ears and eyes on radios and televisions, following with great hope the rising price of Brent (crude oil) in the international market."
Chad's Oil Minister Youssef Abassallah added that all it wanted was to see its 1998 agreement with the consortium "strictly respected".
He said: "If this issue is not settled amicably, we are going to seek international arbitration.

If Exxon's recent profits are any guide, the Chadian government may have a good case.

Technorati Tags: Africa

Ujimaa & Ujamaa

Ujimaa: Collective Work and Responsibility.
Ujamaa: Coooperative Economics.


The Olatunji Foundation
The Black Commentator

If you haven't contributed to the Olatunji Foundation or subscribed to the Black Commentator then really are we Doing Ujimaa and Ujamaa or are we merely talking Ujimaa and Ujamaa?

I'm not entirely sure how much the BC needs to stay afloat but the Olatunji Foundation needs $4000to fully fund all scholarships and maintain $500 in the Bank. If 160 people make a $25 donation 6 students who are using thier brains and time to address the needs and concerns of black people the world over, can receive aid in thier studies and the boost in confidence to know that there are other people out there who think like they think.

Ghana and the African Identity

recently the NY Time posted an article entitled: Ghana's Uneasy Embrace of Slavery's Diaspora "that is sparking some debate among African Americans. Here's a comment I wrote elsewhere:

Well I was going to post a Kwanzaa post on this at GG but it didn't happen. I don't know if what I can say is relevant but I suspect a couple of things at play here:

1) AA's who visit Africa are mostly "obviously" mixed. We assume that because the "one drop rule" applies here, it applies everywhere and are rudely reminded that some of us are *not* black. "What of light skinned Ghanians?" you may say. Well no doubt they are not considered "obruni" but other factors come into play.

2)AA's by and large act just like white tourists when they travel. They are driven around. Few, if any know the language. Few know any of the local customs. Those who try to be "African" often wear the "wrong" stuff. etc. In effect AA's are "cool" white people. This is a particularly hard pill to swallow for many black folk, myself included.

What would have been informative is if the writer had asked what visiting Nigerians are called or visiting Zulu's are called. Are they referred to as Obruni or something else? If they are referred to as some other term then how are they "known?"

For example, I, sondjata am routinely approached by Nigerians due to my license plate. Conversation is quickly ended once I open my mouth, but the fact that I am regularly "mistook" for a Nigerian means that something other than "presentation" is the identifying factor.
Also we need to take into consideration that Obruni may have been a general term describing outsiders that was generally used to refer to white people (Yoruba: Oyimbo) and then came to included AA's and probably "black brits."

3) I think that many AA's are in Ghana to tour, then they are easy to point out. How many Ghanaians are visiting Elmina other than to sell tourist items.

4)Lastly, I think as the article pointed out, that there is an issue of education. It is pretty sad that After Nkrumah that such language is used towards AA's and other "foreign" blacks But I think it does highlight the issues raised by say, Maulana Karenga in terms of Cultural Revolution among blacks of the Diaspora. There also needs to be a cultural education among many Africans on the continent. Some Africans still talk about how we are "Africa's refuse."

I don't think AA's should take the "Obruni" and "Bwana" and "Benzi" to seriously. It is no different then when someone from overseas comes here and we "recognize" that they are "different." it is no different than when I go to Jamaica and am not considered "Jamaican" simply because I lack the "cultural cues." As a Pan-Africanist, I accept the differences and I don't try to be the "African" people expect.


I'll add to this that articles like these appear to undermine arguements that we black folks are African. Instead I would think that this article re-inforces that those of us who consider ourselves conscious should be very careful about the misconceptions that we hold about Africa (and elsewhere).

Harambe! Harambe! Harambe!

Today marks the first day of Kwanzaa. The opening title: Harambe! means "Let's all pull together." In Kiswahili, the language adopted by celebration founder Maulana Karenga. During Kwanzaa we acknowledge and re-affirm ourselves to the principles of Kwanzaa referred to as the Nguzu Saba. Nguzu being principles and Saba being seven. You will note that I referred to Kwanzaa as a celebration rather than a holiday. I think this is appropriate because holiday is a synthesis of the words Holy and Day which infers a religious conotation. it should be understood that although Kwanzaa has a principle of faith, it is not a religious holiday and should not be promoted or treated as one.

Today's principle is Umoja, or unity. Dr. Karenga wrote in 1965 that he meant for Umoja to stand for:

Unity for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.

I have no doubt that with the expanded attention given to Kwanzaa that the last portion will no doubt be de-emphasized if not dropped all together. Today I want to emphasis a little remembered portion of Dr. Maulana's purpose for Kwanzaa and the cultural revitalization of black people:. Kawaida Theory. One of the central questions asked in this line of thought are:


Who am I?
Am I all that I could be?

My history teacher at Tuskegee, Prof. Fluker would pose the question:

what is the identity? (yourself, your subject)
What is thiere purpose?
What is thier direction?

He referred to this as the IPD: If you could could identify the person. If you could identify thier purpose and direction, most everything else about the subject (including oneself) can be determined.

Turning this inward we can ask ourselves: Who am I? Who are we? The answer to that question will hold the keys to unity.

What is my purpose? What am I here for? What is my family here for? What is my community here for?

What is my direction? Where am I going? Is it consistent with my purpose?

Am I being all that I can be? Is my family being all it can be? Is my community being all it can be?

Let's think on these things as we observe Kwanzaa.

GG

The Party of Lincoln

The newest tack that Repulicans have been using to win over the blacks who don't qualify for faith based monies is to sell the party as the Party of the Great Emancipator. That is probably a good tactic given the general affection that Black people have for President Lincoln. The problem with the whole "Great Emancipator" line is that while technically true, it is but a abberation of the general attitude that President Lincoln had about black folk. This isn't news to me, but I'm sure it comes to news to many people that President Lincoln did not like Black people. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education published an article entitled:The Racial Convictions of the Great Emancipator where Michael Lind quotes Alex De Tocqueville:

In the United States people abolish slavery for the sake not of the Negroes but the white men

Let us be clear that the black mouthpieces of the Republican Party, such as Armstrong Williams, are doing little for the benefit of black people as a whole, but rather they act in a manner that only enriches other white men (and a few (b)lackeys). So it was in the 1800's and so it is now. Many people have the impression that President Lincoln opposed slavery and therefore signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was abolished by Lincoln because it was a means to deprive the South of stabilty.

Michael Lind tells us first of how the Republican Party was formed from a group of dissafected Democrats PO'ed by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise (allowed Maine to become a state at the Missouri adopts a constitution that has no slavery restrictions)by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Lincoln had joined the Republican Party which along with abolitionists had a Free-Soiler contingent that believed:

The purpose of preventing the extension of slavery to the territories was to keep the West white. Banning slavery from the territories and teh new free states to be formed from them was an auxiliary precaution against white migration, supplementing the state laws against free black migration that had existed for years or decades. As long as slavery was confined to the South, most blacks would remain confined to the South as well, because most black Americans were slaves

Said Lincoln:

"Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?"

"Negro equality will be abundant, as evbery white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers."

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want then to be homes of free white people. This they may not be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within' them."

"All the unoccupied territory...shall be reserved for the benefit of the white Caucasian race --- A thing which cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."

These are but a smattering of the comments attributed to Lincoln. There are more vile things in the history of Lincoln's contemporary Republicans. Therefore to the thinking man and woman, the use of Lincoln as a draw to the Republican Party is like the smell of burning tar. This isn't an endorsement of the Democratic Party but rather a head's up to those that want to know.

So You Went To Heaven

Ok. So I'm watching the ABC special on "Heaven" and watching all these folks talk about how wonderful it was...blah blah blah. I have one single question for all the white folks interviewed (and it was only white folk): How many black people did you see?

Not a single person said they saw a black person in this heaven. They saw there relatives (of course). They saw angels (white of course). But not a single person made mention of seeing black folk. Surely if heaven exists then there are black people there. Why don't these folk see 'em? Are they on the other side of heaven where new entries can't see? Or are they as invisible as they are here on Aye (Earth)?

Technorati Tags: Religion

The Transit Union

I would not normally post on this topic but since I have a family member directly affected by this action as well as friends and family who are being inconvenienced by it, I want to point out why I support this action as I supported the striking workers last year.

The very first thing that bothers me about the City's position is the mere existence of the Taylor law. I do not understand how this law can even exist constitutionally. where does the state get special power to dictate to it's workers (who's taxes also support said state) how they may organize and act? How does the state abridge the rights of these private citizens merely because the state is a public institution? The stated rationale behind the Taylor law is that a striking public worker puts the work of the state at risk. If FireFighters and Police were to go on strike then there are risks of fires and crime. That is understandable, however, besides economic loss, there is no similar situation with the Transit. There is indeed great inconvenience to the ridership, but there is no safety problem at all. The empty streets of mid-town shown on TV this morning simply proved that.

This morning the news outlets also showed the last MTA proposal:

3%,3.5% and 3% raises over the next 3 years. This is similar to that which was proposed last time. What happened between then and now? a $1 billion surplus and many reports of bad book keeping by the MTA.

The next thing was the retirement age. I have heard it stated that the average life expectancy of a TA worker is less than 60 years due to the harsh environments that they work. If that is indeed the case then it would seem outrageous to make the retirement age older than the average life expectancy of the worker. That's just my take.

The last thing, which is a problem to me as well is that the TA want's the new members to contribute 6% of their income (gross) to their benefits package (Health I believe). I believe that this is the sticking point. Ultimately, to me, the TA is asking for pay cuts starting with the next generation of workers. Follow my thinking here:

3% raise (which I assume also goes to new employees as an increase in base starting pay).
6% contribution to benefits.
=3% income reduction for new employees.

In year two you see a 3.5% increase, while maintaining a 6% contribution. in that case you've now only recovered the loss from the previous year and only added .5% income increase while inflation has eaten into your purchasing power.

In year 3 there is another 3% increase which means that over three years the worker has only increased his or her gross income by 3.5% at which time the contract has expired and the whole party happens all over again, though this time the changes and increases will hit the entire rank and file.

If I'm right, then I think this is what Toussaint and the Executive board of the TU sees and they are in a long term fight and I agree with them on it. No way a union should actually agree to a package that decreases the income of it's members, current or future.

I also want to state that I think the position of the Parent body of local 100 (TU) was out of line to tell the local not to strike. Exactly what is the purpose of the international body, if not to support it's members? Why is the international body taking sides with management? But let me say this; It appears that Unions in America are dead or dying.

If a group of workers in Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Syria or other "Axis of Evil" type places were to strike, there would be newscasts and print ups about "Democracy in action" and "Facing down tyranical regimes." Yet in America, if public employees attempt to do the same thing, they are called "illegal strikers" and are to be "severely punished" with double wage garnishment. I find this highly, highly ironic.

Speaking of punishment, realize that all the time that the workers are not at work they are not being paid. They are losing income that they will never make up. They have bills that won't be paid. They have holiday gifts that won't be bought (If they do that kind of thing). They have bank accounts that are going to be drained. Is the Mayor of NYC going to miss a paycheck? Is he not going to get his Hannuka gifts? Is governor Pataki going to lose any income? Does he risk eviction and bankruptcy? Absolutely not. But these crackers want to stand up and make threatening talk about $25,000 fines on individual workers and million dollar fines on the unions.

It is also a shame that the TWU is being forced to go it alone. If other workers had any sense at all they would have shut down all mass transit until the TWU was done. But this is modern America, where the average person is so shook at the prospect of losing their job that the state can make Taylor laws and expect it to be followed. The American worker is so shook that they would blame the union rather than the management with messy record keeping and 1 billion surplus and think that a Mayor who walks across a bridge is really "feeling their pain."

So this goes out to my 65 Year Old uncle, who gets up 5 days a week and heads out to work at 6:30 AM and works to make sure the citizens get to work on time in weather that most people, and definitely not Bloomberg or Pataki, wouldn't even want to be in for 1 hour. Thank you for your service. I'm behind all of you who do your honest work. And I say that because I know there are people in the TWU who are not pulling their weight and use the Union to defend them. I'm not for them.

Edit 3:49PM: Correction. The 6% is funds put towards pensions. I'm not entirely clear as to how their pension system works so I can't comment on it too much. I will say that I'm all for aggressive saving and investing and if that 6% is going towards something that will return dividends to the employee I think it is a good idea. However, if this is something along the lines of GM then it is a very very bad proposition and ought to be rejected by the Union and it's members.

Additional comments: I have been reading about comments by various commuters. One was a cab driver saying it was wrong because of the affect it has on the "old" and "sick."
First off the vast majority of the elderly are not taking public transportation, especially if they have conditions that prevent long term standing or walking. The City has what is called "Access-A-Ride" which is a private program which I believe (but have not confirmed) is not a part of this action. Secondly, those who are sick are not (and should not) be going to work anyway. If there is a need for medical attention it appears from all reports that there is now less traffic in Manhattan than at the same time last year. So this FUD created by mis-information agents should be discredited at all points.

The second comment was by a non-union worker who says he can't sympathize with striking workers. I hope his job isn't relocated to Mexico, India or China. If it is relocated I hope he remembers that her felt no sympathy for people fighting for what they considered their just due.

Others are talking about being cold: The Union members are currently outside on picket lines in the same cold as everyone else. They are, mostly, not at home chillin' and gigglin' over the frustrated commuters. Many I'm sure are looking at their budgets and trying to figure out how they are going to stay afloat with mortgages, school tuition, etc.

Edit 12-21-2005: I am particularly offended by the language that Mayor Bloomberg has used to describe the Union and the striking workers. He has repeatedly called the strikers "Thugs" and I don't think it's an accident at all. It is a known fact that much of the rank and file TWU workers are black and /or of Hispanic origins. These are groups that are typically portrayed in the media as thugs and criminals. It is also obvious that the mouthpiece of the union, Roger Toussaint is black with a distinct Caribbean accent. Furthermore; the idea of "caving in" to lawbreakers as has been the repeated refrain of the Governor and the Mayor is reminiscient of Bull Conner and days past when civil disobedience was deemed to be 'criminal" regardless of it's purpose. In a sense I think this is good payback for all the blacks and hispanics that voted for Michael Bloomberg. Having helped to hand the Mayor the largest margin of victory in city history, he now turns and spits in the face of thousands of NY citizens and the (currently) 50% of the NY population that supports them.

Morgan (Not So) Freeman

Last night I had the unfortunate experience of watching Morgan Freeman spit on the memory of Carter G. Woodson by completely mis-characterizing the meaning and purpose of Black History Month. I have always enjoyed Morgan Freeman's work as an actor, including Driving Miss Daisy which many people hated him for doing, but I understood as a period piece.I recall Marvin Van-Peebles was asked a question about racism and he refused to answer the specific question because he felt there were other people who had spent more time on the eubject and could provide a better explanation than he could. I had to respect that answer because it showed a great deal of maturity and respect. It was mature because it showed a man who knew that he had every right to make a comment, but chose to cede that right to others because he realized the limits of his understanding and did not want to interfere with progress by soothing his ego and making his own statement that would no doubt be used to undermine other people. Secondly, he showed respect to people better qualified. It bothers me a great deal when people substitute thier own opinion for fact or opinion over the extensive work of others. It's not every time that "reserached" people are correct, but a lot of times they are.

So returning to Mr. Freeman. He told Mike Wallace that Blacks (I would say "we" but he feels that "we" shouldn't be identified as black) shouldn't have their history relegated to one month. "we" shouldn't be given a month" The comment, on it's face, seems logical. If indeed whites had "given" or "relegated" our history to a month, then I'd agree with Mr. Freeman. However; the fact of the matter is that Black History Month was a special celebration of Carter G. Woodson's famed Negro History Week. In other words, this was something created by us for us.Therefore, the asserion that "you relegate" makes little sense outside of that historical context. What Mr. Freeman should have pointed out is how whites now use black history month as an excuse to ignore black history the rest of the time. And lets be honest here. During black history month, so much of the same ol same ol is drug out by celebritiies who are so far removed from the movements that gave us Carter G Woodsons, that it is now a pale pale pale facad of it's original intention.

The other erroneus part of Freeman's statement is that black history is American history. It is not. a portion of black history is American history. Black History spans the Americas including the caribbean. It includes Afica as well (duh). Black history is WORLD history. When we divorce the history of blacks around the world from American-Black history, then we get a distorted view of the long journey of those called "black." Therefore it is unacceptible to me to have a math class that has a Pythagorian theurum when it was known where Pythagorus got his schooling and that the Khemtites were the originators of that mathemtical construct. You can talk about Charles Drew 'till your blue in the face, but I want every person around the world to recognize that Pythagorus is notbody. That needs to be fixed. That is but a single instance of the depth and breadth of the Black history problem. And it is why we will and should have black History Months, And Black History Journals, by us and For Us

GG

Black Commentator Subscription Service

The Black Commentator, linked at the right, is now offering paid subscription service for their website. While I have my occasional differences with the authors at the site, I do agree with most of what shows up there and I have said that I would pay for access to the site should that become neccessary. True to my word, I have subscribed since I believe that the Black Commentator is valuable asset to Pan-Africanists specifically as it regards the US situation. Just as I have founded the Olatunji Foundation in order to highlight the reality that we Pro-Black, Pan-Afrikanist people must put our monies where our mouths and blogs are, I encourage all readers to also subscribe to the Black Commentator. It takes a lot of time to put together a website of commentary. It can easily be a full time job. If they had to spell and grammar check my writing, then they would have no time for thier families.

So go visit the Black Commentator and support them.

Links:
The Black Commentator
The Olatunji Foundation

3rd year

Garvey'Ghost is going into it's third year of posts and I wanted to thank all the people who have been reading this blog (not commenting much, but reading cause I do get e-mails). For year three
I have decided to do some things differently:

1) change of site design: Yes no more shades of green for the background. I'll probably make more changes.
2) this was supposed to be commentary on world events and not world events via American press. I fell into focusing too much on what was going on in the US, which was not the intention of this blog but happened anyway. this was most likely the result of the US presidential elections as well as the ongoing war in Iraq. so from now on the blog will shift it's attention to more african and other black entities outside of the US. that is far more in keeping of the spirit of Marcus Garvey. To that end one of the new links on the sidebar is "The Timbuku Chronicles" which has a very good set of posts about technology, education and business in Africa.

3) Link backs: I've been a pretty bad citizen in this regard. Therefore if someone has a permanent link to Garvey's Ghost I will reciprocate. This is not just for exposure but also to be consistent with the founding idea of Garvey's Ghost, which is to make sure that intelligent Pan-Africanist ideology is available on the web. anyone else who has the same idea ought to be recognized by GG and vice versa. If we don't organize ourselves and our voices we will cede the floor to sellouts.

4) The Olatunji Foundation: this is an educational foundation started by yours truely. I will be asking for donations to it. it's entire purpose is to provide financial and moral support to Pan-Africanist minded students. This is a group effort. We cannot simply talk about the changes we want to see. We cannot simply write about what we want to change. we cannot simply complain about black conservatives. We cannot simply go about our personal business. We must provide for the next generation(s).

What won't change is the type of commentary. I will not post simple links to other events. There are other blogs that do that pretty well. This blog is about commentary on events and source for detailed factual rebuttal to falsehoods presented by other people.

Again. Thanks for your support and I hope you continue to enjoy the blog.

-Garvey's Ghost.