BS in the Name of Christ
So I've been really busy and unable to post for a while. I even missed my Garvey Quote for his birthday. However, that which I did do on August 17th makes up for it by far.
Anyway this post is a result of the non-sense that I find myself reading about coming from certain Christian quarters. I thought the whole Intelligent Design thing was perhaps the silliest thing that a good number of Christians have come up with to attempt to get Christian Creationism (there are other creation stories out there) taught in classrooms. But more nasty things appear on the horizon as Pat Robertson spewed his hatred of Venezuela's head of state. Says Robertson:
Thanks, Dale. If you look back just a few years, there was a popular coup that overthrew him; and what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing; and as a result, within about 48 hours, that coup was broken, Chavez was back in power. But we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger, and this is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, and we have other doctrines that we have announced, and without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another 200-billion-dollar war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Commandments be damned!! Lets commit murder seeing as how we covet his oil and tell all kinds of Lies in order to try to get him ousted from office. I guess Robertson has no clue about democracy given that in this Christian country a president can take office without the majority of votes nor can that president be re-called or have a referendum called to remove him from office. Oh no, the fact that Chavez was elected and confirmed by the majority of the people in his country is a sign of a dictator.
To prove that such idiocy in Christendom is not limited to old white men, one Chavannes Jeune in Haiti is running for presidency of Haiti stating:
eune believes his Christianity will positively influence Haiti if he is elected. “Good, solid Christian values like justice, truth, transparency and integrity are lacking in Haiti, so I think that with the gift of God and the help of God, I can bring these things to my country.”
Bhy what arrogance does this man assert and co-opt such notions as Justice, Truth, Transparency and integrity as being the providence of Christianity?
That article that hosted the defaming statement is chock full of other defamatory statements such as:
On Aug. 14, 1791, a black slave and witch doctor named Boukman led Haitian slaves in a voodoo ritual, drinking the blood of a sacrificed pig to form a pact with the devil. The slaves agreed to serve Satan for 200 years in exchange for freedom from French colonizers who ruled their island. Beginning on Aug. 22, 1791, the slaves rose up against the French, and by Jan. 1, 1804, they declared Haiti the world's first independent black republic
It is of little wonder that the "intelligent Design" proponents are so STUPID since they rely on Christian publications such as this to "inform" themselves on world history. Boukman was what was referred to as a Hougan or Papaloa, using local vernacular, He would also be called a Babaloa which would be closer to the Yoruba root of the word as "Baba" is the yoruba word for father as Papa is the local slang for father. a Loa is the Haitian term for the Orisa, what the Yoruba call messengers of God whom they (and I) call Olodumare. the Babaloa is the equivalent of the Babalawo of the Ifa religion which the symbolic side of Haitian Vodun is based upon. a Babalawo is literally the father of wisdom. This wisdom is gained by gathering information from Orisa which is why the Haitian reference of Babloa is linguistically and practically derived from the Yoroba. This is important to understand because there is no devil in Yoruba theology. Therefore it is impossible for Boukman to have "made a pact" with the devil since he could not have believed in a devil as Christians understand the figure.
The second problem is the sensational "drinking of blood of the pig. I don't see anyone calling people who eat rare meat names. I don't see anyone critiqing Christians for symbolic blood drinking they do for communion.
I see that it is asking too much for a Christian publication to actually get their facts straight when discussing religion (even thier own). Earlier I discussed an article in which a black Christian was asking that so called "liberals" stop being intolerant and bigoted towards Christians. He should understand that such articles as these and other offenses are the sole reason for the hostilities that Christians get from so called "liberals." If Christians are serious about wishing to not treated hostily then they should deal first and foremost with these types of articles and organizations.
Links:
http://www.cbn.com/about/pressrelease_hugochavez.asp
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1347510.html
(17 years of informed commentary)
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Stuff Palestinians Get Shot At For
Today the NY Times reports that:
The army and the police took control of Neve Dekalim early today, but there were clashes later in the day. They arrested 48 demonstrators who threw stones and eggs at officers trying to ensure that moving vans could enter for those residents who wanted to leave.
No ones been shot, but I do recall Palestinians getting shot at for throwing stones at the Israeli military.
hmmmm......
Today the NY Times reports that:
The army and the police took control of Neve Dekalim early today, but there were clashes later in the day. They arrested 48 demonstrators who threw stones and eggs at officers trying to ensure that moving vans could enter for those residents who wanted to leave.
No ones been shot, but I do recall Palestinians getting shot at for throwing stones at the Israeli military.
hmmmm......
Monday, August 15, 2005
Isn't It Ironic?
For those who have been living under a rock, Israel is evicting Jews from the Gaza Strip this week. Now here's what is sooooo ironic about this: Last night on ABC World News this Weekend we saw a woman saying how it was wrong for her to be evicted to make room for Palestinians. Never mind that the state of Israel exists because the same thing was done to Palestinians. Oh, but the irony continues! sympathisers for the settlers have snuck into the strip and say they will put up a fight. Hmmm.. This sounds like an Intifada! Oh but it gets even more ironic!! How about a member of the Israeli security forces going on a killing spree? And on TV we see Jews, American Jews at that, claiming "It is our land and we aren't going anywhere! You have to hold on to what's yours!"
Really?
It would seem to me that the very actions being seen here by Jews in Israel only proves the correctness of the Palestinian position, it's rhetoric and even it's violence. If there is indeed violence in the next two days when Israeli security forces have to physically remove the settlers, then Israelis woudl have lost any and all moral high ground they may have had with any thinking people who see the clear parallels.
For those who have been living under a rock, Israel is evicting Jews from the Gaza Strip this week. Now here's what is sooooo ironic about this: Last night on ABC World News this Weekend we saw a woman saying how it was wrong for her to be evicted to make room for Palestinians. Never mind that the state of Israel exists because the same thing was done to Palestinians. Oh, but the irony continues! sympathisers for the settlers have snuck into the strip and say they will put up a fight. Hmmm.. This sounds like an Intifada! Oh but it gets even more ironic!! How about a member of the Israeli security forces going on a killing spree? And on TV we see Jews, American Jews at that, claiming "It is our land and we aren't going anywhere! You have to hold on to what's yours!"
Really?
It would seem to me that the very actions being seen here by Jews in Israel only proves the correctness of the Palestinian position, it's rhetoric and even it's violence. If there is indeed violence in the next two days when Israeli security forces have to physically remove the settlers, then Israelis woudl have lost any and all moral high ground they may have had with any thinking people who see the clear parallels.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Niger Cont.
Yesterday I discussed how the Starvation in Niger is our, as in all Black peoples, problem. The AP highlighted an issue that was brought up by the BBC last week, that there is indeed food in Niger, it just costs too much for the poor, a large percentage of the population, to purchase. In an article entitled Niger's market filled with food but unaffordable for the poor we find the following:
While mothers continue to bring children weak with hunger to feeding centers, market stalls are filled with food — but at prices well out of the reach of many in this desperately poor nation.
"It is the government's job to deal with the hungry, we the traders are here for business," said Ibrahim Baye, who sells millet, a staple in Niger, at a Maradi market.
The well-stocked markets are deceptive. The food shortage is real. Last year locusts, in the worst invasion in 15 years, ravaged 7,000 square miles of Niger farmland. That and a subsequent drought cut cereal production by 15% last year, according to the United Nations.
Hunger was a problem in Niger even before the locusts and drought. Today, more than a third of the nearly 12 million people in Niger face severe food shortages. Children are most at risk.
On Tuesday, Baye shooed away beggars dressed in rags and staring at the heaped food on display. A friend sitting with him who gave only one name, Louali, said the grains on display had been stockpiled "and traders wait until the lean season to sell at double its price."
Prices have dramatically increased. A bag of 220 pounds of millet went from $23 to $44.
Few can afford that in the second-poorest nation in the world, where 64% of the people survive on less than $1 a day.
hmmmmm. I see. So it is the job of government to deal with the hungry. Fair enough. But since the govt. is clearly unable to do so who should pick up the slack? Oh yes,, the white foreigners. Let's shoo our hungry women and children away and let the white folks feed them. I mean we got profits to make!!!
I think I get it now. Allah Be praised! Here's a model Muslim for us.
Yesterday I discussed how the Starvation in Niger is our, as in all Black peoples, problem. The AP highlighted an issue that was brought up by the BBC last week, that there is indeed food in Niger, it just costs too much for the poor, a large percentage of the population, to purchase. In an article entitled Niger's market filled with food but unaffordable for the poor we find the following:
While mothers continue to bring children weak with hunger to feeding centers, market stalls are filled with food — but at prices well out of the reach of many in this desperately poor nation.
"It is the government's job to deal with the hungry, we the traders are here for business," said Ibrahim Baye, who sells millet, a staple in Niger, at a Maradi market.
The well-stocked markets are deceptive. The food shortage is real. Last year locusts, in the worst invasion in 15 years, ravaged 7,000 square miles of Niger farmland. That and a subsequent drought cut cereal production by 15% last year, according to the United Nations.
Hunger was a problem in Niger even before the locusts and drought. Today, more than a third of the nearly 12 million people in Niger face severe food shortages. Children are most at risk.
On Tuesday, Baye shooed away beggars dressed in rags and staring at the heaped food on display. A friend sitting with him who gave only one name, Louali, said the grains on display had been stockpiled "and traders wait until the lean season to sell at double its price."
Prices have dramatically increased. A bag of 220 pounds of millet went from $23 to $44.
Few can afford that in the second-poorest nation in the world, where 64% of the people survive on less than $1 a day.
hmmmmm. I see. So it is the job of government to deal with the hungry. Fair enough. But since the govt. is clearly unable to do so who should pick up the slack? Oh yes,, the white foreigners. Let's shoo our hungry women and children away and let the white folks feed them. I mean we got profits to make!!!
I think I get it now. Allah Be praised! Here's a model Muslim for us.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
RE: The Religious Left Fights Back
Over the weekend I stumbled across a piece on Alternet by Von Jones entitled "http://www.alternet.org/sms/23725/"> The Religious Left Fights Back. In this piece there was a reference to the "religious bigotry" that "lefties" apparently harbor towards those of practicing faith:
He also wants to challenge the Left's chronic and toxic bias against religious feeling, expression and people.
Lerner hopes to end "religio-phobia among progressives." And such efforts will not be welcome among a great many rabidly secular progressives.
As for me, I will be praying for the Rabbi's success. I am an African-American Christian who was raised in the American heartland. When I moved to the cosmopolitan coasts of Connecticut, and later California, I ran headlong into shocking levels of anti-religious bigotry among progressives.
I literally have had liberals laugh in my face when I told them I was a Christian. For awhile, I felt self-conscious about telling other activists that I preferred not to meet on Sunday mornings, because I wanted to go to church.
It is still commonplace to hear so-called radicals stereotyping all religious people as stupid dupes -- and spitting out the word "Christian" as if it were an insult or the name of a disease. I thought progressives were supposed to be the standard-bearers of tolerance and inclusion.
He then goes on to discuss his experiences in the black church in the south proudly proclaiming that:
But one key fact seems to escape the notice of today's activist crowd. The champions of the civil rights struggle didn't come marching out of shopping centers in South. Or libraries. Or high school gymnasiums.
To face the attack dogs, to face the fire-hoses, to face the billy-clubs, these heroes and she-roes came marching boldly out of church-houses. And they were singing church songs. They set an example of courage and sacrifice that will endure for the ages. And as they did it, they prayed on wooden pews in the name of a Nazarene carpenter named Jesus.
I think that Von Jones presents us with a very distorted idea of the black church as well as the origins of so called "religious bigotry" among liberals. While I cannot speak for all so called "religious bigots" I can speak for those who know what I know.
I would like to first address the issue of the Black church. While indeed the black church was often at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement, it was not always there. A cursory reading of the "letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Dr. King Jr. would show that a great many Christians were not so moved to stand up to Jim Crow. It would seem to me that this shows that in many instances it was the fact of discrimination and not some inherent morality of the Black Church that drove blacks to stand up to Jim Crow. Other examples of this would be the Haitian Independence movement, which was lead by a Hougan (So called Voodoo priest) or the Quilombos of Brazil or Maroons of Jamaica, none of whom was lead by Christians but all of whom were movements of Black people against oppression. These facts underscore a fact that is uncomfortable to most, Black Americans are Christian largely because their former owners/captors were. In places where Africans were sold to Muslim slaveholders, those Africans became Muslims. A great example of this phenomenon would be a country such as Nigeria where the population is pretty much evenly divided between Christians and Muslims, a legacy of the two colonial influences in that country. Therefore it is pretty specious to argue that somehow it was the Black Church, per se, that was the engine of change in the black community. Fact is, regardless of religious institution, where blacks wanted freedom, they used whatever tool or ideology worked for them.
The second issue with the Black Church, which is also endemic to White Churches, is the rife bigotry they have towards non-believers. I cannot count the number of times I have been personally insulted by Black Christians because I was not a Christian. It is simply hypocritical to belong to a faith that regularly damns and otherwise belittle persons who do not agree with the religion while at the same time calling for "liberals' to be more tolerant. Again, I know of many likeable, liberal Christians who have no problem sitting in a pew while a Reverend says that the only way to salvation is through Christ. These persons will say that the Reverend didn't say anything about being "damned" but it is clear that if there is one way to being "saved" then the rest of us are in for a subterranean no-joy ride for eternity. It is almost as if such Christians do not think we can understand the logic of the material presented at churches.
Let me move away from the Black Church and refocus on Christianity in general. One of the big problems that some of us "religious bigots" have is that we know the sources of the religion. We know that the Commandments were lifted from the Egyptian Oracles of Maat. We know that the Jesus story is also lifted from the Ancient Egyptian Mystery System. We know that there is Ancient Egyptian symbolism throughout the Books of Moses as well as much of what is called the New Testament. We find it particularly insulting when Egyptian Mysteries are passed off as Christian property, when it is not and were are further insulted by lay people who insist they know more than people who have dedicated their lives to the study of said systems. This particular issue underscores the larger issue of Christians co-opting things and presenting them as "their own" while simultaneously devaluing the origins of those ideas or of belief systems that share those ideas. For example I like to tell people that Jesus believed in Karma. Many Christians, especially those of "lesser knowledge" will swear up and down that Jesus did not believe in such pagan things, yet there he is saying "as ye sow, so shall ye reap." Is that not Karma?
This co-option of other peoples or faiths ideas and presenting it as ones own is a large reason why many "liberals" do not care much for religion. Such a thing is called plagiarism and a great many of us can spot a fraud when we see it. The issue is that Christians do not like being told that they have been sold recycled goods. It cuts to the very core of who they are and what they want from their faith and they get defensive about it as anyone would. However, I find it disingenuous to call the very people who are pointing out the flaws in Christian doctrine bigots when they are not bigoted at all (though I can't speak for all of them).
Lastly Van Jones states:
Number two: At the same time, any approach that fails to honor and embrace the positive contributions of religiously inspired people is also wrong-headed, and it foolishly and needlessly shuts progressives off from our own history, achievements and present sources of vital support.
I disagree with this statement because it is the "religiously inspired" person that injects religion into their "positive contribution." Where many of us may say "It was the right thing to do." The religious person says "God moved me to...." Why? Why can't it simply be "the right thing to do?" There is a portion of the Bible in which a story is told of a rich man and a poor man who go to the temple. The rich man proclaims loudly how he thanked God for what he had and his life and how he wasn't low. He made a great show of his offerings. Meanwhile there was a poor many who humbly went to the temple, went over to the corner and gave the little offering he could and quietly made his prayer. It was said that the offering and prayer of the poor quiet man was of more value to God than the one who made a big scene. You would think that Christians, liberal or not would take note of that story.
Over the weekend I stumbled across a piece on Alternet by Von Jones entitled "http://www.alternet.org/sms/23725/"> The Religious Left Fights Back. In this piece there was a reference to the "religious bigotry" that "lefties" apparently harbor towards those of practicing faith:
He also wants to challenge the Left's chronic and toxic bias against religious feeling, expression and people.
Lerner hopes to end "religio-phobia among progressives." And such efforts will not be welcome among a great many rabidly secular progressives.
As for me, I will be praying for the Rabbi's success. I am an African-American Christian who was raised in the American heartland. When I moved to the cosmopolitan coasts of Connecticut, and later California, I ran headlong into shocking levels of anti-religious bigotry among progressives.
I literally have had liberals laugh in my face when I told them I was a Christian. For awhile, I felt self-conscious about telling other activists that I preferred not to meet on Sunday mornings, because I wanted to go to church.
It is still commonplace to hear so-called radicals stereotyping all religious people as stupid dupes -- and spitting out the word "Christian" as if it were an insult or the name of a disease. I thought progressives were supposed to be the standard-bearers of tolerance and inclusion.
He then goes on to discuss his experiences in the black church in the south proudly proclaiming that:
But one key fact seems to escape the notice of today's activist crowd. The champions of the civil rights struggle didn't come marching out of shopping centers in South. Or libraries. Or high school gymnasiums.
To face the attack dogs, to face the fire-hoses, to face the billy-clubs, these heroes and she-roes came marching boldly out of church-houses. And they were singing church songs. They set an example of courage and sacrifice that will endure for the ages. And as they did it, they prayed on wooden pews in the name of a Nazarene carpenter named Jesus.
I think that Von Jones presents us with a very distorted idea of the black church as well as the origins of so called "religious bigotry" among liberals. While I cannot speak for all so called "religious bigots" I can speak for those who know what I know.
I would like to first address the issue of the Black church. While indeed the black church was often at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement, it was not always there. A cursory reading of the "letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Dr. King Jr. would show that a great many Christians were not so moved to stand up to Jim Crow. It would seem to me that this shows that in many instances it was the fact of discrimination and not some inherent morality of the Black Church that drove blacks to stand up to Jim Crow. Other examples of this would be the Haitian Independence movement, which was lead by a Hougan (So called Voodoo priest) or the Quilombos of Brazil or Maroons of Jamaica, none of whom was lead by Christians but all of whom were movements of Black people against oppression. These facts underscore a fact that is uncomfortable to most, Black Americans are Christian largely because their former owners/captors were. In places where Africans were sold to Muslim slaveholders, those Africans became Muslims. A great example of this phenomenon would be a country such as Nigeria where the population is pretty much evenly divided between Christians and Muslims, a legacy of the two colonial influences in that country. Therefore it is pretty specious to argue that somehow it was the Black Church, per se, that was the engine of change in the black community. Fact is, regardless of religious institution, where blacks wanted freedom, they used whatever tool or ideology worked for them.
The second issue with the Black Church, which is also endemic to White Churches, is the rife bigotry they have towards non-believers. I cannot count the number of times I have been personally insulted by Black Christians because I was not a Christian. It is simply hypocritical to belong to a faith that regularly damns and otherwise belittle persons who do not agree with the religion while at the same time calling for "liberals' to be more tolerant. Again, I know of many likeable, liberal Christians who have no problem sitting in a pew while a Reverend says that the only way to salvation is through Christ. These persons will say that the Reverend didn't say anything about being "damned" but it is clear that if there is one way to being "saved" then the rest of us are in for a subterranean no-joy ride for eternity. It is almost as if such Christians do not think we can understand the logic of the material presented at churches.
Let me move away from the Black Church and refocus on Christianity in general. One of the big problems that some of us "religious bigots" have is that we know the sources of the religion. We know that the Commandments were lifted from the Egyptian Oracles of Maat. We know that the Jesus story is also lifted from the Ancient Egyptian Mystery System. We know that there is Ancient Egyptian symbolism throughout the Books of Moses as well as much of what is called the New Testament. We find it particularly insulting when Egyptian Mysteries are passed off as Christian property, when it is not and were are further insulted by lay people who insist they know more than people who have dedicated their lives to the study of said systems. This particular issue underscores the larger issue of Christians co-opting things and presenting them as "their own" while simultaneously devaluing the origins of those ideas or of belief systems that share those ideas. For example I like to tell people that Jesus believed in Karma. Many Christians, especially those of "lesser knowledge" will swear up and down that Jesus did not believe in such pagan things, yet there he is saying "as ye sow, so shall ye reap." Is that not Karma?
This co-option of other peoples or faiths ideas and presenting it as ones own is a large reason why many "liberals" do not care much for religion. Such a thing is called plagiarism and a great many of us can spot a fraud when we see it. The issue is that Christians do not like being told that they have been sold recycled goods. It cuts to the very core of who they are and what they want from their faith and they get defensive about it as anyone would. However, I find it disingenuous to call the very people who are pointing out the flaws in Christian doctrine bigots when they are not bigoted at all (though I can't speak for all of them).
Lastly Van Jones states:
Number two: At the same time, any approach that fails to honor and embrace the positive contributions of religiously inspired people is also wrong-headed, and it foolishly and needlessly shuts progressives off from our own history, achievements and present sources of vital support.
I disagree with this statement because it is the "religiously inspired" person that injects religion into their "positive contribution." Where many of us may say "It was the right thing to do." The religious person says "God moved me to...." Why? Why can't it simply be "the right thing to do?" There is a portion of the Bible in which a story is told of a rich man and a poor man who go to the temple. The rich man proclaims loudly how he thanked God for what he had and his life and how he wasn't low. He made a great show of his offerings. Meanwhile there was a poor many who humbly went to the temple, went over to the corner and gave the little offering he could and quietly made his prayer. It was said that the offering and prayer of the poor quiet man was of more value to God than the one who made a big scene. You would think that Christians, liberal or not would take note of that story.
Niger: Our Problem
Anyone who has been paying attention and watching something other than US Newscasts, well at least ABC and affiliates, knows that there is a sever drought going on in Niger, a land locked country in North West Africa. The drought is so bad that there are cattle carcasses all ovger the place and nomads are eating rotting meat in order to survive long enough to make it to the aide centers set up by various agencies. Does any of this sound familiar? We've been here before. Many times before.
As usual when I watch the sad state on the BBC, I see white, mostly European aid workers giving speeches about how this could have been averted and how they need more supplies. Stuff we have heard before. I'm not going to go into a diatribe about the presence of white aide workers in the country because to be honest they are doing something that we, blacks, have not been.
I am old enough to remember the Live Aid concert which gave us the song "We are the World." In which musicians got us to send money and raise awareness for the then plight of Ethiopians. Since then Ethiopians, outside of Rastafarian circles, are synonymous with starvation and its attendant symptoms in the minds of many Americans. That was 20 years and 8 months ago. Today we see that absolutley NOTHING has changed in the ability of Africa to help itself and prevent such tragedies from occuring. What is the point of the AU if it cannot organize itself enough to prevent mass starvation? Why is it that once again an African country must put it's hand out and beg for help from former colonizers in order to feed it's population? Just what exactly are these leaders doing?
Let's dig even further, Why are some of the people in Niger still herding cattle as their major supply of food in an environment that is increasingly hostile to that way of life? Why in 2005 do the people only have enough grain for x, amount of days, when the technology is available to extend such supplies for months? Why are there perhaps millions of black men, women and children apparently underemployed when the 52 governments in Africa could be putting them to work to raise and store enough foodstuffs to be able to provide for such an event as is going on in Niger?
I fear that not a single "leader" will suggest, much less implement, a change of course for Africa after this latest continental shame. And a continental shame is what it is. We, and especailly these so called leaders should be shamed, for allowing this to occur. No, we cannot control nature. We cannot prevent drought or heavy rain. However, we are intelligent human beings that can learn from our past and plan for the future. The rains or lack thereof may not have been preventable, but the starvation that resulted was indeed preventable and the mass begging of international aid agencies was preventable. However, as I have been pointing out, the knowledge that Aide agencies will step in and do what the "leadership" was supposed to be doing, is partially the reason why the "leaders" are not doing any leading.
-Garvey's Ghost
Anyone who has been paying attention and watching something other than US Newscasts, well at least ABC and affiliates, knows that there is a sever drought going on in Niger, a land locked country in North West Africa. The drought is so bad that there are cattle carcasses all ovger the place and nomads are eating rotting meat in order to survive long enough to make it to the aide centers set up by various agencies. Does any of this sound familiar? We've been here before. Many times before.
As usual when I watch the sad state on the BBC, I see white, mostly European aid workers giving speeches about how this could have been averted and how they need more supplies. Stuff we have heard before. I'm not going to go into a diatribe about the presence of white aide workers in the country because to be honest they are doing something that we, blacks, have not been.
I am old enough to remember the Live Aid concert which gave us the song "We are the World." In which musicians got us to send money and raise awareness for the then plight of Ethiopians. Since then Ethiopians, outside of Rastafarian circles, are synonymous with starvation and its attendant symptoms in the minds of many Americans. That was 20 years and 8 months ago. Today we see that absolutley NOTHING has changed in the ability of Africa to help itself and prevent such tragedies from occuring. What is the point of the AU if it cannot organize itself enough to prevent mass starvation? Why is it that once again an African country must put it's hand out and beg for help from former colonizers in order to feed it's population? Just what exactly are these leaders doing?
Let's dig even further, Why are some of the people in Niger still herding cattle as their major supply of food in an environment that is increasingly hostile to that way of life? Why in 2005 do the people only have enough grain for x, amount of days, when the technology is available to extend such supplies for months? Why are there perhaps millions of black men, women and children apparently underemployed when the 52 governments in Africa could be putting them to work to raise and store enough foodstuffs to be able to provide for such an event as is going on in Niger?
I fear that not a single "leader" will suggest, much less implement, a change of course for Africa after this latest continental shame. And a continental shame is what it is. We, and especailly these so called leaders should be shamed, for allowing this to occur. No, we cannot control nature. We cannot prevent drought or heavy rain. However, we are intelligent human beings that can learn from our past and plan for the future. The rains or lack thereof may not have been preventable, but the starvation that resulted was indeed preventable and the mass begging of international aid agencies was preventable. However, as I have been pointing out, the knowledge that Aide agencies will step in and do what the "leadership" was supposed to be doing, is partially the reason why the "leaders" are not doing any leading.
-Garvey's Ghost
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Quite Possibly The Most Honest Writing by White Man
Today at Alternet I came across an article entitled: On China At Least, Nixon Was Right written by Robert Sheer in which he states the following:
Sadly, the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being lifted from abject poverty seems to alarm even leading Democrats in Congress, who claim to be driven by a standard of social justice. And many Republicans, who tend to trumpet the virtues of free trade when it involves the domination of world markets by U.S. businesses, are also raising the protectionist flag against the prospect of Chinese ownership of a single mid-size American-based oil company.
The signals we send to China have always been bizarrely mixed: Play in the capitalist ballpark but not so well that you become one of the big stars. It is a message that, as with the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, is at best paranoid and at worst racist. We in the West can be trusted with enormous economic power, but not the children of a lesser god.
Remember that when we discussed White Supremacy we made it clear that Whites will always want to be on top and that the economic and social systems invented and used by them are for thier benefit. Furthermore, they will change the game whenever it is neccessary to keep White Supremacy intact. Clearly this author, though not stating it as sucinctly as Dr. Welsing and Neely-Fuller, has none the less said the same thing.
Go ahead and read the rest of the article.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23726/
Today at Alternet I came across an article entitled: On China At Least, Nixon Was Right written by Robert Sheer in which he states the following:
Sadly, the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being lifted from abject poverty seems to alarm even leading Democrats in Congress, who claim to be driven by a standard of social justice. And many Republicans, who tend to trumpet the virtues of free trade when it involves the domination of world markets by U.S. businesses, are also raising the protectionist flag against the prospect of Chinese ownership of a single mid-size American-based oil company.
The signals we send to China have always been bizarrely mixed: Play in the capitalist ballpark but not so well that you become one of the big stars. It is a message that, as with the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, is at best paranoid and at worst racist. We in the West can be trusted with enormous economic power, but not the children of a lesser god.
Remember that when we discussed White Supremacy we made it clear that Whites will always want to be on top and that the economic and social systems invented and used by them are for thier benefit. Furthermore, they will change the game whenever it is neccessary to keep White Supremacy intact. Clearly this author, though not stating it as sucinctly as Dr. Welsing and Neely-Fuller, has none the less said the same thing.
Go ahead and read the rest of the article.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23726/
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Go To People on Africa: Black Conservatives
With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).
So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.
In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:
elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.
Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:
Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.
Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.
When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.
But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:
Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.
Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?
Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.
Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.
Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.
I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).
So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.
In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:
elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.
Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:
Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.
Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.
When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.
But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:
Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.
Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?
Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.
Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.
Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.
I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Further Cooption of Garveyism
By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:
I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.
Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):
You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.
Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."
Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:
and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:
a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?
So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA
By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:
I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.
Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):
You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.
Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."
Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:
and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:
a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?
So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Planes, Trains and Automobiles
Last August Garvey's Ghost warned it's readers that security focus on buildings and planes would do nothing to stop a determined terrorist. Garvey's Ghost also gave a scenario that sited random bombs going off during rush hour commutes. We specified bridges and car bombs. Behold. London is now reeling from apparent Al-Q bombings of it's subways and buses. As soon as this happened, as Garvey's Ghost prediicted there was massive drops in market values of various insurance and travel stocks as well as mass evacuations of certain buildings. This act, that involved no planes, targetted no buildings and involved no suicide bombers was already caused millions in dollars in property damage and perhaps hundreds of millions in lost "revenue" for various businesses.
As Garvey's Ghost has stated before, It is simply impossible to check each and every car or person, especially durng rush hours. The British people and indeed all countries involved in the Illegal war in Iraq should seriously reconsider thier actions and the consequences of thier rhetoric. The world now knows that there was always a plan to get into Iraq. The world knows that there were no WMD's. The world also knows that the Blair and Bush administrations knew of the legal ramifications of their actions but went ahead anyways. These politicians, who do not ride public transportation, put their citizens in harms way for thier own gain. Blair's attempt to deflect the real issue at hand by talking about the G8 summit addressing African Poverty, when it is largely the members of the G8 who are responsible for creating that poverty in the first place, is simply disingenious. I believe that this bomobing was in fact a response the the British people re-electing Mr Blair and the subsequent information that came out during the campaign for Prime Minister. That the G8 was meeting there at the same time was, in my view, a nice co-incidence. I think London, like Madrid "had it coming" for it's part in the Iraq war.
It remains to be seen what will occur in Denmark, which has been specifically mentioned by a unconfirmed "Al-Qaida" organization that claimed responsibility.
So as the title says, we've seen planes. We've sen trains. We've now seen automobiles. Unfortunatly the worst is still to come.
Last August Garvey's Ghost warned it's readers that security focus on buildings and planes would do nothing to stop a determined terrorist. Garvey's Ghost also gave a scenario that sited random bombs going off during rush hour commutes. We specified bridges and car bombs. Behold. London is now reeling from apparent Al-Q bombings of it's subways and buses. As soon as this happened, as Garvey's Ghost prediicted there was massive drops in market values of various insurance and travel stocks as well as mass evacuations of certain buildings. This act, that involved no planes, targetted no buildings and involved no suicide bombers was already caused millions in dollars in property damage and perhaps hundreds of millions in lost "revenue" for various businesses.
As Garvey's Ghost has stated before, It is simply impossible to check each and every car or person, especially durng rush hours. The British people and indeed all countries involved in the Illegal war in Iraq should seriously reconsider thier actions and the consequences of thier rhetoric. The world now knows that there was always a plan to get into Iraq. The world knows that there were no WMD's. The world also knows that the Blair and Bush administrations knew of the legal ramifications of their actions but went ahead anyways. These politicians, who do not ride public transportation, put their citizens in harms way for thier own gain. Blair's attempt to deflect the real issue at hand by talking about the G8 summit addressing African Poverty, when it is largely the members of the G8 who are responsible for creating that poverty in the first place, is simply disingenious. I believe that this bomobing was in fact a response the the British people re-electing Mr Blair and the subsequent information that came out during the campaign for Prime Minister. That the G8 was meeting there at the same time was, in my view, a nice co-incidence. I think London, like Madrid "had it coming" for it's part in the Iraq war.
It remains to be seen what will occur in Denmark, which has been specifically mentioned by a unconfirmed "Al-Qaida" organization that claimed responsibility.
So as the title says, we've seen planes. We've sen trains. We've now seen automobiles. Unfortunatly the worst is still to come.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
What Tha FU$%^&^!!!!!
Are black folks in Mexico that powerless that they let this type of BS go without consequence?
this piece of Sh&(*^& was produced by the same government that is headed by a president who recently used Black Americans as examples of laziness. As usual he is refusing to stop production of this stamp citing it as an important historical piece.
Are black folks in Mexico that powerless that they let this type of BS go without consequence?
this piece of Sh&(*^& was produced by the same government that is headed by a president who recently used Black Americans as examples of laziness. As usual he is refusing to stop production of this stamp citing it as an important historical piece.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
No Backbone
Once again, Lt. Ghaddafi has turned out to be the voice of reason among the So called African Union. The Telegraph of the UK posted an article entitled: "Gaddafi damns 'African begging' as Nigeria calls for aid to end poverty " in which Ghaddafi is quoted as saying:
who told the meeting that Africans had to rely on themselves. "Begging will not make the future of Africa," he declared.
The Libyan leader, whose oil revenues allow him to bankroll African countries - and to throw fistfuls of dollars out of his motorcade when visiting impoverished states - insisted: "We are not going to beg at the doorsteps to reduce debt.
"We are insulted constantly and we deserve it. We don't need assistance and charity."
Of course Ghaddafi is correct in his analysis, though I think he ought to refrain from throwing money out his car. That the group of eight white men gave 18 countries debt relief with massive strings attached. should be nothing to cheer about given that the brin drain and other resources that have been taken from Africa is worth far more than the debt that is being cleared.
It is clear to me that if there is not a fundamental shift in the actions of Afrian States, that they would soon be right back into debt and just as dependent on foreign aide. In my opinion, every debted nation in Africa should have "declared bankruptcy" by refusing to service their debt. FOr many countries this would have not changed the plight of the average citizen who are mired in poverty anyway. This would have forced these countries to form new economic relationships with each other and other countries such as those in the Caribbean. For foreign investment, these countries, as a block, would seek partners on terms more favorable to themselves (as in being done with China) which should include local co-ownership and management and strict environmental regulations where applicable. Also key to this is the immediate cessation of warfare. As indicated in an earlier post, warfare is the leading cause of African stagnation. You simply cannot expend so much energy and time into warfare and not expect an already poor nation to suffer.
So Ghaddafi has it almost right. Africa needs to get off it's knees. Drop the hat from one hand and the gun from the other.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/05/wafr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixworld.html
http://www.prudentpressagency.com/CENTER/articlePreview.php?Article_id=2652
Once again, Lt. Ghaddafi has turned out to be the voice of reason among the So called African Union. The Telegraph of the UK posted an article entitled: "Gaddafi damns 'African begging' as Nigeria calls for aid to end poverty " in which Ghaddafi is quoted as saying:
who told the meeting that Africans had to rely on themselves. "Begging will not make the future of Africa," he declared.
The Libyan leader, whose oil revenues allow him to bankroll African countries - and to throw fistfuls of dollars out of his motorcade when visiting impoverished states - insisted: "We are not going to beg at the doorsteps to reduce debt.
"We are insulted constantly and we deserve it. We don't need assistance and charity."
Of course Ghaddafi is correct in his analysis, though I think he ought to refrain from throwing money out his car. That the group of eight white men gave 18 countries debt relief with massive strings attached. should be nothing to cheer about given that the brin drain and other resources that have been taken from Africa is worth far more than the debt that is being cleared.
It is clear to me that if there is not a fundamental shift in the actions of Afrian States, that they would soon be right back into debt and just as dependent on foreign aide. In my opinion, every debted nation in Africa should have "declared bankruptcy" by refusing to service their debt. FOr many countries this would have not changed the plight of the average citizen who are mired in poverty anyway. This would have forced these countries to form new economic relationships with each other and other countries such as those in the Caribbean. For foreign investment, these countries, as a block, would seek partners on terms more favorable to themselves (as in being done with China) which should include local co-ownership and management and strict environmental regulations where applicable. Also key to this is the immediate cessation of warfare. As indicated in an earlier post, warfare is the leading cause of African stagnation. You simply cannot expend so much energy and time into warfare and not expect an already poor nation to suffer.
So Ghaddafi has it almost right. Africa needs to get off it's knees. Drop the hat from one hand and the gun from the other.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/05/wafr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixworld.html
http://www.prudentpressagency.com/CENTER/articlePreview.php?Article_id=2652
Dear Mr. Sharpton
I saw you on the television giving a speech in Howard Beach. I saw ytou again on tv walking with some motorcycles through Howard Beach. Howard Beach is an easy target having been stained by the death of Michael Griffith back in 1986. While I agree that people should not be getting beat on the street, the victim in this case was clearly there to steal someones property and to be honest I would have beat him had he attempted to steal my property. But that is neither here nor there since supposedly at the time no theft was actually in progress. So in the end, regardless as to how henious the crime was, we are talking about a thief. Meanwhile, this weekend in Flatbush a young boy, 15 years old, was stabbed to death over an iPod. The victim of this crime was no thief. He was a bright young man on his way back home. He was walking with his friends and minding his own business. Who killed him? a Black man killed this boy over a little white iPod. So while you were busy reminding Howard Beach that Sharpton "is on the case" little black boys are being gunned down in Flatbush. I'm 99% certain that more black men boys and girls have been killed in Flatbush, Jamaica, Hempstead, etc. at the hands of other black men women and girls than have been killed in Howard Beach between 1986 amd 2005. Now I'm not saying we should let what happened in Howard Beach slide, but this case, is not the Michael Griffith case and while I agree that folks should not have to worry about getting run down and hit over the head for simply walking down a street, I'm hard pressed to find much sympathy for a paid car thief.
So perhaps you could spend less time in Howard Beach. Less time at Gay Pride parades and less time backing doomed stadium deals and spend more time on the issue of black on black violence.
Thank you
Sondjata Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost
I saw you on the television giving a speech in Howard Beach. I saw ytou again on tv walking with some motorcycles through Howard Beach. Howard Beach is an easy target having been stained by the death of Michael Griffith back in 1986. While I agree that people should not be getting beat on the street, the victim in this case was clearly there to steal someones property and to be honest I would have beat him had he attempted to steal my property. But that is neither here nor there since supposedly at the time no theft was actually in progress. So in the end, regardless as to how henious the crime was, we are talking about a thief. Meanwhile, this weekend in Flatbush a young boy, 15 years old, was stabbed to death over an iPod. The victim of this crime was no thief. He was a bright young man on his way back home. He was walking with his friends and minding his own business. Who killed him? a Black man killed this boy over a little white iPod. So while you were busy reminding Howard Beach that Sharpton "is on the case" little black boys are being gunned down in Flatbush. I'm 99% certain that more black men boys and girls have been killed in Flatbush, Jamaica, Hempstead, etc. at the hands of other black men women and girls than have been killed in Howard Beach between 1986 amd 2005. Now I'm not saying we should let what happened in Howard Beach slide, but this case, is not the Michael Griffith case and while I agree that folks should not have to worry about getting run down and hit over the head for simply walking down a street, I'm hard pressed to find much sympathy for a paid car thief.
So perhaps you could spend less time in Howard Beach. Less time at Gay Pride parades and less time backing doomed stadium deals and spend more time on the issue of black on black violence.
Thank you
Sondjata Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost
Sunday, July 03, 2005
The Curse of Intervention
Last year, in my Presidential Debate Q&A I discussed why I do not agree that the US (or Europe) should get involved in Sudan (or anywhere else in Africa). The main reason for this was that I believed that the interventions created or continued a mentality of dependency in the countries involved. Specifically, there would be no incentive for the people of Africa, well the people in the areas in conflict to work out their own problems since all one would have to wait for is the UN to come in and mediate an "agreement" and then get to share power. However; what was most problematic about outside aide was the fact that the reason why most of these conflicts can actually occur is due to outside influences. And for the record we need to recognize that China is a huge conmtributor to the wars in Africa. This does not get the press that it should but Chinese companies are in fact getting oil from Sudan and those monies keeps the Jangaweed armed.
The New York Times has published an article in their magazine section entitled: The Congo Casewhich more or less underscored my point. The article did not however, get into what brought the Congo into it's current situation. In a case of selective amnesia they place all the blame of the situation in the DRC on Rwanda, various militias and Mobutu:
South Kivu was a victim of the same neglect that almost every part of Congo suffered during the 32-year kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. But the region has endured an extra measure of suffering owing to its proximity to Rwanda. In 1994, thousands of Rwandan Hutu génocidaires fled across the border before the advancing Tutsi forces, settling in the rural areas of South and North Kivu and living off smuggling, ''taxes'' on local markets, kidnapping and plunder. Starting in late 1966, the Rwandan Army poured over the border and massacred its Hutu adversaries as well as thousands of civilians. After the Hutu threat had been suppressed, the Rwandan Army remained in the Kivus, turning much of eastern Congo into an economic protectorate. And when the Rwandan troops finally left under international pressure, the 10,000 to 15,000 remaining members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or F.D.L.R., as the Hutu militia called themselves, returned to their brutal exactions.
Congo's great problem is the same one that plagues so many African countries -- poor governance. But this technocratic term scarcely does justice to the self-perpetuating machine of immiseration that one Congolese leader after another has operated for over a century. King Leopold II of Belgium put the mechanism in motion in the 1880's when he reduced the tribes of the region to so many employees of companies devoted to sucking up Congo's treasures, principally ivory and rubber. The Belgians ultimately bequeathed the country a decent infrastructure, though they left it ludicrously unprepared for self-government. (At independence, none of Congo's 14 million citizens -- zero -- had university degrees in law, medicine or engineering.) Five years after independence, Mobutu toppled Congo's only elected president in a coup and instituted a home-grown version of Leopold's rapacity. Mobutu stole billions over the years, while the roads and hospitals and schools the Belgians had left behind disintegrated into the bush. Unlike the Belgian king, Mobutu lavished Congo's bounty on his collaborators, who frequently left a presidential audience with $5,000 or $10,000 in their pockets. Kabuya Lumuna, a former World Bank consultant who served as Mobutu's spokesman and deputy chief of cabinet in the last years, said: ''Mobutu created an image for the Congolese people that enrichment through the state was normal practice. It is normal for a person to say: 'I have finished my studies. If I can't get a government post, I will live my entire life in poverty.'''
It would have been historically accurate to discuss the fact that the first president of an independent DRC, was Patrice Lumumba who was assasinated and replaced, with the aid of US intelligence agencies, with Mobutu. This largely because Lumumba was willing to deal with the Soviets and spoke 'intemperently" to white folks (apparently there is no greater sin). It would also be informative that Mobutu enjoyed wide support from successive US Administrations. That single act of international terrorism by the US and Belgium is the cause for much of the DRC's problems. There is no telling how a proper Patrice administration would have turned out. But let's get back to current events.
When Aristide was deposed by so called "opposition" in Haiti, I discussed how the so called leadership of the "Opposition" was more concerned with power than by doing anything for the population. Each "opposition" movement seemed more intent on financing killing sprees and looting and gang warfare rather than the building of civil society. In the case of the Congo the same thing apparently holds true:
Later that afternoon, I drove out with a squad of soldiers in open transports with machine-gun mounts. We stopped at a plateau ringed by steep green hills. Here the men would stay for the next 12 hours: if word of an attack came from any of the government soldiers they had posted in the local villages, they would bounce down the rutted lanes and confront the rebels with gunfire if necessary. Maj. Mohammed Younis, the commanding officer, pointed out the local villages along the ridge lines and said, ''When we first began, in late March, we had three to four incidents every week.'' An F..D.L.R. raiding party would wait until nightfall and then attack a village, stealing food and raping women; they frequently kidnapped villagers, took them back to the forest and threatened to kill them if relatives didn't pay ransoms. But Operation Night Flash, as the Pakistanis called their nocturnal vigil, had at least temporarily closed down the crime wave. Younis said that there hadn't been an incident for close to a week.
Since the article freely admits that the Congo has no real government save that which aides in the removal of resources, then where and how are all these armed militias able to remain armed? Similarly for the contries that got themselves involved. None of them produce the weapons needed to sustain these wars. Thus while singers are asking for more aid for Africa, there is no discussion about the seemingly endless aid given to arms dealers and militias.
More importantly though, is the fact that we have "movements for Democracy" and "Fronts for Democracy" which provide nothing for their constituent groups. They provide no services, no schools, not anything. Clearly what is needed in Africa is not peacekeepers. It is not more aid, It is very simple in design though difficult to implement:
1) A complete arms embargo to any and all countries involved in some sort of war. You want to kill, you make your own weapons to do so.
2) A complete financial lock of any corporation or where arms are originating. This is perhaps the hardest one to do since most of Europe and China would be on the receiving end of such sanctions. SHould make for a good show in the UN though.
Of course I'm aware that since no.2 will not occur, then the whole plan goes down the tubes. So what will happen? The times offers a glimps which echos my original concern:
The Congolese I talked to want to be saved from themselves, or at least from their desperate predicament. Even those who accuse Monuc of spinelessness or complicity add immediately that of course the U.N. troops mustn't leave. They want more troops, not fewer, and more insistent political engagement...f we believe that in the post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to let failed states fester, then we plainly owe it to ourselves to stop the Congolese political class from preying on its people and to shape the nascent institutions of state in such a way as to give legitimate economic and political activity a decent shot at survival. Is that, in fact, a prescription for some kind of benevolent imperialism? If so, then bring it on.
I am in no way in suppoirt for imperialism, benevolent or otherwise, but there clearly needs to be some means to bring order and stability to the Congo and Sudan. A Pan-Africanist state could have dealt with this but so far the so-called leadership of Africa are too concerned with thier little fiefdoms to go that route.
It is clear that with the intervention of the "West" and China the people have lost faith in themselves to solve their own problems and would welcome thier former masters to come in and save them, thereby proving the idea that black folks are incapable of self rule.
read the entire article.
Last year, in my Presidential Debate Q&A I discussed why I do not agree that the US (or Europe) should get involved in Sudan (or anywhere else in Africa). The main reason for this was that I believed that the interventions created or continued a mentality of dependency in the countries involved. Specifically, there would be no incentive for the people of Africa, well the people in the areas in conflict to work out their own problems since all one would have to wait for is the UN to come in and mediate an "agreement" and then get to share power. However; what was most problematic about outside aide was the fact that the reason why most of these conflicts can actually occur is due to outside influences. And for the record we need to recognize that China is a huge conmtributor to the wars in Africa. This does not get the press that it should but Chinese companies are in fact getting oil from Sudan and those monies keeps the Jangaweed armed.
The New York Times has published an article in their magazine section entitled: The Congo Casewhich more or less underscored my point. The article did not however, get into what brought the Congo into it's current situation. In a case of selective amnesia they place all the blame of the situation in the DRC on Rwanda, various militias and Mobutu:
South Kivu was a victim of the same neglect that almost every part of Congo suffered during the 32-year kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. But the region has endured an extra measure of suffering owing to its proximity to Rwanda. In 1994, thousands of Rwandan Hutu génocidaires fled across the border before the advancing Tutsi forces, settling in the rural areas of South and North Kivu and living off smuggling, ''taxes'' on local markets, kidnapping and plunder. Starting in late 1966, the Rwandan Army poured over the border and massacred its Hutu adversaries as well as thousands of civilians. After the Hutu threat had been suppressed, the Rwandan Army remained in the Kivus, turning much of eastern Congo into an economic protectorate. And when the Rwandan troops finally left under international pressure, the 10,000 to 15,000 remaining members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or F.D.L.R., as the Hutu militia called themselves, returned to their brutal exactions.
Congo's great problem is the same one that plagues so many African countries -- poor governance. But this technocratic term scarcely does justice to the self-perpetuating machine of immiseration that one Congolese leader after another has operated for over a century. King Leopold II of Belgium put the mechanism in motion in the 1880's when he reduced the tribes of the region to so many employees of companies devoted to sucking up Congo's treasures, principally ivory and rubber. The Belgians ultimately bequeathed the country a decent infrastructure, though they left it ludicrously unprepared for self-government. (At independence, none of Congo's 14 million citizens -- zero -- had university degrees in law, medicine or engineering.) Five years after independence, Mobutu toppled Congo's only elected president in a coup and instituted a home-grown version of Leopold's rapacity. Mobutu stole billions over the years, while the roads and hospitals and schools the Belgians had left behind disintegrated into the bush. Unlike the Belgian king, Mobutu lavished Congo's bounty on his collaborators, who frequently left a presidential audience with $5,000 or $10,000 in their pockets. Kabuya Lumuna, a former World Bank consultant who served as Mobutu's spokesman and deputy chief of cabinet in the last years, said: ''Mobutu created an image for the Congolese people that enrichment through the state was normal practice. It is normal for a person to say: 'I have finished my studies. If I can't get a government post, I will live my entire life in poverty.'''
It would have been historically accurate to discuss the fact that the first president of an independent DRC, was Patrice Lumumba who was assasinated and replaced, with the aid of US intelligence agencies, with Mobutu. This largely because Lumumba was willing to deal with the Soviets and spoke 'intemperently" to white folks (apparently there is no greater sin). It would also be informative that Mobutu enjoyed wide support from successive US Administrations. That single act of international terrorism by the US and Belgium is the cause for much of the DRC's problems. There is no telling how a proper Patrice administration would have turned out. But let's get back to current events.
When Aristide was deposed by so called "opposition" in Haiti, I discussed how the so called leadership of the "Opposition" was more concerned with power than by doing anything for the population. Each "opposition" movement seemed more intent on financing killing sprees and looting and gang warfare rather than the building of civil society. In the case of the Congo the same thing apparently holds true:
Later that afternoon, I drove out with a squad of soldiers in open transports with machine-gun mounts. We stopped at a plateau ringed by steep green hills. Here the men would stay for the next 12 hours: if word of an attack came from any of the government soldiers they had posted in the local villages, they would bounce down the rutted lanes and confront the rebels with gunfire if necessary. Maj. Mohammed Younis, the commanding officer, pointed out the local villages along the ridge lines and said, ''When we first began, in late March, we had three to four incidents every week.'' An F..D.L.R. raiding party would wait until nightfall and then attack a village, stealing food and raping women; they frequently kidnapped villagers, took them back to the forest and threatened to kill them if relatives didn't pay ransoms. But Operation Night Flash, as the Pakistanis called their nocturnal vigil, had at least temporarily closed down the crime wave. Younis said that there hadn't been an incident for close to a week.
Since the article freely admits that the Congo has no real government save that which aides in the removal of resources, then where and how are all these armed militias able to remain armed? Similarly for the contries that got themselves involved. None of them produce the weapons needed to sustain these wars. Thus while singers are asking for more aid for Africa, there is no discussion about the seemingly endless aid given to arms dealers and militias.
More importantly though, is the fact that we have "movements for Democracy" and "Fronts for Democracy" which provide nothing for their constituent groups. They provide no services, no schools, not anything. Clearly what is needed in Africa is not peacekeepers. It is not more aid, It is very simple in design though difficult to implement:
1) A complete arms embargo to any and all countries involved in some sort of war. You want to kill, you make your own weapons to do so.
2) A complete financial lock of any corporation or where arms are originating. This is perhaps the hardest one to do since most of Europe and China would be on the receiving end of such sanctions. SHould make for a good show in the UN though.
Of course I'm aware that since no.2 will not occur, then the whole plan goes down the tubes. So what will happen? The times offers a glimps which echos my original concern:
The Congolese I talked to want to be saved from themselves, or at least from their desperate predicament. Even those who accuse Monuc of spinelessness or complicity add immediately that of course the U.N. troops mustn't leave. They want more troops, not fewer, and more insistent political engagement...f we believe that in the post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to let failed states fester, then we plainly owe it to ourselves to stop the Congolese political class from preying on its people and to shape the nascent institutions of state in such a way as to give legitimate economic and political activity a decent shot at survival. Is that, in fact, a prescription for some kind of benevolent imperialism? If so, then bring it on.
I am in no way in suppoirt for imperialism, benevolent or otherwise, but there clearly needs to be some means to bring order and stability to the Congo and Sudan. A Pan-Africanist state could have dealt with this but so far the so-called leadership of Africa are too concerned with thier little fiefdoms to go that route.
It is clear that with the intervention of the "West" and China the people have lost faith in themselves to solve their own problems and would welcome thier former masters to come in and save them, thereby proving the idea that black folks are incapable of self rule.
read the entire article.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Dear Mr. Mugabe
Dear Mr. Mugabe:
I am not a CIA, MI5 , MOSSAD or any other national stooge. I am not an apologist for England or the UN or the World Bank or IMF. Nor do I suppose to know and fully understand all that entails running a country. I am simply a Pan-Africanist who has a deep concern over the happenings in the country over which you preside. I was a mere child when you liberated your country from the grip of colonialism. In fact it was Bob Marley's seminal work, Survival that clued me in to the goings on in that country. This was 1989 and I was a freshman at Michigan State University. I became a staunch supporter of the ANC, PAC and all African liberation movements. I agreed with and continue to agree with the reclamation of land for the African with absolutely no compensation for the Europeans who are there regardless of where they were born. When England, under Tony Blair used the Commonwealth to isolate you from the world over this issue, I was in full support of your position.
I say this so that you would understand my perspective and why I write this letter to you.
Last week I was horrified to see reports that you had authorised your government to tear down housing and businesses of mostly, if not exclusively poor people. It was claimed that these areas are full of crime and a black market that does not pay into the government coffers. I understand that as president, you must make hard decisions every day regarding the development of your country but I believe you have made a grave error in judgment. Surely you know, as most watchers outside your country knows, that much of your population is poor and that poverty can be a catalyst for varied crimes and black markets. Perhaps I missed the reports, or perhaps it simply went unpublished, regarding the plans you have to address the rampant poverty in your country that does not include making people homeless and causing the deaths of citizens with bulldozers.
I would also like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties. While I fully understand the fact that Britain and other countries are helping to create unrest in your country, sure you know that you cannot be president for ever. What are your plans for when you die? Clearly you know that your citizens will not accept an oppointed president. Surely you do not want chaos to erupt upon your death. Again, perhaps it simply has not been reported on, but I'd like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties and the eventual transition to a non-Mugabe government. For the good of the people, I hope this plan has been finalised and in the implementation stages as you do not have much longer to live. I would suggest that you have some election where you are not elected, sometime in the near future. In fact you should not even run but act as an elder statesman and Griot (or whatever culturally relevant term applies) as to remind the citizens of where they have come from.
Lastly, As I indicated, I am in full support of the land reclamation program, however, from various reports, which I admit may well be biased, the settling of the land has not gone smoothly at all. I support your ban against genetically altered seeds, but I would like to know how you plan on getting the country back on track to self sustainablity. Sometimes when we are in positions where we do not have to worry about the necessities of life such as food, water and shelter, we forget that there are millions or people who are struggling daily for these things. I would have preferred you not have made the trip to the Vatican to pay homage to some white man on your country's dime and put that m oney into the local economy. But that is my opinion.
Again, I do not suppose to know all the details of what is going on in your country, but the few things that do trickle out are not good. I know that in doing business with the Chinese you do not have to have business or aid tied to the political whims of the US or Europe. However; I would strongly suggest that you take a long view of the situation in your country and realize that there is more to rule than tough talk to Europe, marginalizing of the opposition and running down shanties.
Thank you.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost.
Dear Mr. Mugabe:
I am not a CIA, MI5 , MOSSAD or any other national stooge. I am not an apologist for England or the UN or the World Bank or IMF. Nor do I suppose to know and fully understand all that entails running a country. I am simply a Pan-Africanist who has a deep concern over the happenings in the country over which you preside. I was a mere child when you liberated your country from the grip of colonialism. In fact it was Bob Marley's seminal work, Survival that clued me in to the goings on in that country. This was 1989 and I was a freshman at Michigan State University. I became a staunch supporter of the ANC, PAC and all African liberation movements. I agreed with and continue to agree with the reclamation of land for the African with absolutely no compensation for the Europeans who are there regardless of where they were born. When England, under Tony Blair used the Commonwealth to isolate you from the world over this issue, I was in full support of your position.
I say this so that you would understand my perspective and why I write this letter to you.
Last week I was horrified to see reports that you had authorised your government to tear down housing and businesses of mostly, if not exclusively poor people. It was claimed that these areas are full of crime and a black market that does not pay into the government coffers. I understand that as president, you must make hard decisions every day regarding the development of your country but I believe you have made a grave error in judgment. Surely you know, as most watchers outside your country knows, that much of your population is poor and that poverty can be a catalyst for varied crimes and black markets. Perhaps I missed the reports, or perhaps it simply went unpublished, regarding the plans you have to address the rampant poverty in your country that does not include making people homeless and causing the deaths of citizens with bulldozers.
I would also like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties. While I fully understand the fact that Britain and other countries are helping to create unrest in your country, sure you know that you cannot be president for ever. What are your plans for when you die? Clearly you know that your citizens will not accept an oppointed president. Surely you do not want chaos to erupt upon your death. Again, perhaps it simply has not been reported on, but I'd like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties and the eventual transition to a non-Mugabe government. For the good of the people, I hope this plan has been finalised and in the implementation stages as you do not have much longer to live. I would suggest that you have some election where you are not elected, sometime in the near future. In fact you should not even run but act as an elder statesman and Griot (or whatever culturally relevant term applies) as to remind the citizens of where they have come from.
Lastly, As I indicated, I am in full support of the land reclamation program, however, from various reports, which I admit may well be biased, the settling of the land has not gone smoothly at all. I support your ban against genetically altered seeds, but I would like to know how you plan on getting the country back on track to self sustainablity. Sometimes when we are in positions where we do not have to worry about the necessities of life such as food, water and shelter, we forget that there are millions or people who are struggling daily for these things. I would have preferred you not have made the trip to the Vatican to pay homage to some white man on your country's dime and put that m oney into the local economy. But that is my opinion.
Again, I do not suppose to know all the details of what is going on in your country, but the few things that do trickle out are not good. I know that in doing business with the Chinese you do not have to have business or aid tied to the political whims of the US or Europe. However; I would strongly suggest that you take a long view of the situation in your country and realize that there is more to rule than tough talk to Europe, marginalizing of the opposition and running down shanties.
Thank you.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost.
Eminent Domain
Today the Supreme Court decided that local governments can seize homes and businesses of private citizens and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.
Justice O'Connor dissented along with Clarence Thomas (Wow! he got one right):
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
And this is not the first time that this has happened. back in November 2000,In Missisippi, 27 acres belonging to a black family, the Archies, was threatened with eminent domain to make a automobile plant for Nissan. The state lost it's case however; had this case been put before the Miss. Supreme Court under the current decision, the Archies would be out on thier behinds with no recourse.
It is hard to argue against O'Connor. So long as the state can say there is some public good, you can have your property taken. How did a majority of justices miss this? They may not want people in California to use Marijuana for medical reasons but with a decision like this it is clear they are smoking something themselves.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?hp&ex=1119585600&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.ij.org/private_property/mississippi/9_24_01pr.html
Today the Supreme Court decided that local governments can seize homes and businesses of private citizens and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.
Justice O'Connor dissented along with Clarence Thomas (Wow! he got one right):
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
And this is not the first time that this has happened. back in November 2000,In Missisippi, 27 acres belonging to a black family, the Archies, was threatened with eminent domain to make a automobile plant for Nissan. The state lost it's case however; had this case been put before the Miss. Supreme Court under the current decision, the Archies would be out on thier behinds with no recourse.
It is hard to argue against O'Connor. So long as the state can say there is some public good, you can have your property taken. How did a majority of justices miss this? They may not want people in California to use Marijuana for medical reasons but with a decision like this it is clear they are smoking something themselves.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?hp&ex=1119585600&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.ij.org/private_property/mississippi/9_24_01pr.html
Friday, June 17, 2005
It Can't Be Race
The title references the common sentiment of whites and so called "conservative" blacks when confronted about various issues affecting black people that are the caused directly by white people. Today the NY Times posted an article entitled Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts In which it is shown that white canidates with felony drug possesion charges are more likely to receive job offers than blacks presented with the same background:
Black men whose job applications stated that they had spent time in prison were only about one-third as likely as white men with similar applications to get a positive response.
For every 10 white men without convictions who got a job offer or callback, more than 7 white men with prison records also did, the study found. But the difference grew far larger for black applicants: For every 10 black men without criminal convictions, only about 3 with records got offers or callbacks.
"It takes a black ex-offender three times as long to receive a callback or a job offer," said Devah Pager, an assistant professor of sociology and one of the study's two authors.
Even if you go the personal responsibility route and say that haveing been involved with drugs "you get what you deserve" the fact that even black men who have not been convicted of any crimwe still only get job offers 30% of the time.
It is clearly known that upwards of 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed, clearly white employers are discriminating against black males when hiring decisions are being made.
On the other hand I want to haark back to the words of warning given to us by Marcus Garvey. He told us clearly that the white majority, when faced with tough economic times, would choose to employ their own rather than blacks. Garvey was clearly right in this regard. This underscores the need for black business and links with the Caribbean and Africa so that we do not have to depend on asking white people for jobs.
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2005/06/17/nyregion/17felons.html
The title references the common sentiment of whites and so called "conservative" blacks when confronted about various issues affecting black people that are the caused directly by white people. Today the NY Times posted an article entitled Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts In which it is shown that white canidates with felony drug possesion charges are more likely to receive job offers than blacks presented with the same background:
Black men whose job applications stated that they had spent time in prison were only about one-third as likely as white men with similar applications to get a positive response.
For every 10 white men without convictions who got a job offer or callback, more than 7 white men with prison records also did, the study found. But the difference grew far larger for black applicants: For every 10 black men without criminal convictions, only about 3 with records got offers or callbacks.
"It takes a black ex-offender three times as long to receive a callback or a job offer," said Devah Pager, an assistant professor of sociology and one of the study's two authors.
Even if you go the personal responsibility route and say that haveing been involved with drugs "you get what you deserve" the fact that even black men who have not been convicted of any crimwe still only get job offers 30% of the time.
It is clearly known that upwards of 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed, clearly white employers are discriminating against black males when hiring decisions are being made.
On the other hand I want to haark back to the words of warning given to us by Marcus Garvey. He told us clearly that the white majority, when faced with tough economic times, would choose to employ their own rather than blacks. Garvey was clearly right in this regard. This underscores the need for black business and links with the Caribbean and Africa so that we do not have to depend on asking white people for jobs.
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2005/06/17/nyregion/17felons.html
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Pride Before The Fall: Schiavo's Autopsy
In news that I and others knew was coming, the New York Times reported that the autopsy report indicated that:
particularly the findings that she had irreversible brain damage and was blind...
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,...
To this Dr. Bill Frist, who was shown on National Television stating that based on his viewing of a videotape:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
Tom Delay another Devil on the Senate said:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
These two idiots do not even have the decency to publicay admit they were wrong. NOt kinda wrong, not mis-informed but simply WRONG. The Democrats should IMMEDIATELY hire a company to make advertisements on how dead wrong these individuals were. IMMEDIATELY. If these two individuals make it back into office after this then Americans are simply stupider than rocks.
In news that I and others knew was coming, the New York Times reported that the autopsy report indicated that:
particularly the findings that she had irreversible brain damage and was blind...
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,...
To this Dr. Bill Frist, who was shown on National Television stating that based on his viewing of a videotape:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
Tom Delay another Devil on the Senate said:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
These two idiots do not even have the decency to publicay admit they were wrong. NOt kinda wrong, not mis-informed but simply WRONG. The Democrats should IMMEDIATELY hire a company to make advertisements on how dead wrong these individuals were. IMMEDIATELY. If these two individuals make it back into office after this then Americans are simply stupider than rocks.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Acting White
Back in December of last year a publication came out discussing the "Burden of Acting White" which sought to disporve the notion that blacks have some cultural bias against academic performance. I had serious issues with the paper, chief of which were that no one claimed that black culture was against academic performance, but that specific portions of the black population sees academic performance as "white" or at a minimum "not cool." It was with this in mind that I found the following article in the Washington Post entitled The Price of Acting White which contained the following:
The phenomenon is one reason some social thinkers give to help explain at least a portion of the persistent black-white achievement gap in school and in later life. Popularity-conscious young blacks, afraid of being seen as acting white, steer clear of behaviors that could pay dividends in the future, including doing well in school, Fryer said. At the same time, the desire to be popular pushes many whites to excel in the classroom, enhancing their future prospects.
Certainly that's what the data suggest is happening, Fryer said. Among white teens, Fryer and Torelli found that better grades equaled greater popularity, with straight-A students having far more same-race friends than those who were B students, who in turn had more friends than C or D students. But among blacks and especially Hispanics who attend public schools with a mix of racial and ethnic groups, that pattern was reversed: The best and brightest academically were significantly less popular than classmates of their race or ethnic group with lower grade point averages.
"For blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5 [a B+ average], then the slope turns negative," Fryer and Torelli wrote in a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. A black student who's gotten all A's has, on average, 1.5 fewer same-race friends than a straight-A white student. Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity until a student's average rises above a C+, at which point it plummets. A Hispanic student with all A's is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and has three fewer friends than a typical white student with a 4.0 grade point average...
What I find most significant was that this particular study went down the grade scale whereas the other study appeared to concentrate on relatively high achievers where as this study shows, and I argued, there is less contact with people who may hold attitudes regarding "acting white".
The article also had this very interesting line:
Why is "acting white" absent in mostly black schools?
That's easy, said Fryer, who is African American. He recalled his own experience growing up and attending predominantly black schools in Daytona Beach, Fla., and Dallas. "We didn't act white -- we didn't know what that was," he said, stressing that he prefers data to anecdote. "There were no white kids around."
So then the question becomes what is "Acting White"? If such behaviour is 'unknown" in all black schools, then are we discussing an issue of popularity which would negate the very "acting white" concept as was argued by the previous study?
I guess we are going to be in for the battle of the research.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400126.html
Back in December of last year a publication came out discussing the "Burden of Acting White" which sought to disporve the notion that blacks have some cultural bias against academic performance. I had serious issues with the paper, chief of which were that no one claimed that black culture was against academic performance, but that specific portions of the black population sees academic performance as "white" or at a minimum "not cool." It was with this in mind that I found the following article in the Washington Post entitled The Price of Acting White which contained the following:
The phenomenon is one reason some social thinkers give to help explain at least a portion of the persistent black-white achievement gap in school and in later life. Popularity-conscious young blacks, afraid of being seen as acting white, steer clear of behaviors that could pay dividends in the future, including doing well in school, Fryer said. At the same time, the desire to be popular pushes many whites to excel in the classroom, enhancing their future prospects.
Certainly that's what the data suggest is happening, Fryer said. Among white teens, Fryer and Torelli found that better grades equaled greater popularity, with straight-A students having far more same-race friends than those who were B students, who in turn had more friends than C or D students. But among blacks and especially Hispanics who attend public schools with a mix of racial and ethnic groups, that pattern was reversed: The best and brightest academically were significantly less popular than classmates of their race or ethnic group with lower grade point averages.
"For blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5 [a B+ average], then the slope turns negative," Fryer and Torelli wrote in a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. A black student who's gotten all A's has, on average, 1.5 fewer same-race friends than a straight-A white student. Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity until a student's average rises above a C+, at which point it plummets. A Hispanic student with all A's is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and has three fewer friends than a typical white student with a 4.0 grade point average...
What I find most significant was that this particular study went down the grade scale whereas the other study appeared to concentrate on relatively high achievers where as this study shows, and I argued, there is less contact with people who may hold attitudes regarding "acting white".
The article also had this very interesting line:
Why is "acting white" absent in mostly black schools?
That's easy, said Fryer, who is African American. He recalled his own experience growing up and attending predominantly black schools in Daytona Beach, Fla., and Dallas. "We didn't act white -- we didn't know what that was," he said, stressing that he prefers data to anecdote. "There were no white kids around."
So then the question becomes what is "Acting White"? If such behaviour is 'unknown" in all black schools, then are we discussing an issue of popularity which would negate the very "acting white" concept as was argued by the previous study?
I guess we are going to be in for the battle of the research.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400126.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)