- >>African Holocaust
- >>Slavery in America
- >>Arab Slave Trade
- >>Jewish Slave Trade
- >>Slavery Revolts
- >>Modern Slavery
- >>Mental Slavery
- >>Culture Complex
- >>Rites of Passage
- >>African Agency
- >>Language & Africa
- >>Music and Dance
- >>African Race
- >>African Languages
- ANCIENT AFRICA
- >>African Kingdoms>>Ptahhotep of Egypt
- >>Business & Africans
- >>African Cinema
- >>War and Religion
- >>Art of Revolution
- >>Garvey Economics
- >>African Leaders
- African Kings and Queens
- African Marriage
- Business & Africans
- ICC & Africa
- African Fundamentalism
- Capitalism or Socialism
- Facts About Africa
- War and Religion
- Death of African Languages
- Garvey Economics
- Cabral Theory
- NGO and Development
- Garvey Legacy
- Malcolm OAAU
- Garvey Legacy
- Ethics of the Reparations
- Afrocentrism Pseudohistory?
- Marley Film Review
- Abolition and Wilberforce
- Black Panther Critique
- Jews and Slavery
- Gay Rights
- Failure Of African Leadership
- Capitalism or Socialism?
- Female Genital Mutilation
- Failure to Engage
- Libya Invasion
- Dubois: Souls of Black folk
- Slavery in America
- Amilcar Cabral
- Agency and Africa
- Mis-Education of the Child
- African Revolt
- The Flag of African Cinema
- The Politics of Liberation
- White Supremacy
- The Horrors of 500 Years
- Africa and the Rise of Islam
- Why Kwanzaa
- Ptahhotep Ancient Egypt
- Seen But Never Heard
- African Classical Music
- South Africa: 10 Years On
- Music and Dance in Religion
- White Abolition of Slavery
- A Threat to Black Studies
- Art of Revolution
- African Influence in Barbados
- Origins of Voodoo
- Black Out White Wash
- Ethiopian Slave Trade
- Darfur Report
Until lions tell their tale, the story of the hunt will always glorify the hunter
– African Proverb
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will
– Frederick Douglass
The most pathetic thing is for a slave who doesn't know that he is a slave
– Malcolm X
Every man is rich in excuses to safeguard his prejudices, his instincts, and his opinions.
– Ancient Egypt
Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right.
– Dr. Martin L. King, Jr
What kind of world do we live in when the views of the oppressed are expressed at the convenience of their oppressors?
– Owen 'Alik Shahadah
We are not Africans because we are born in Africa, we are Africans because Africa is born in us.
– Chester Higgins Jr.
Leave no brother or sister behind the enemy line of poverty.
– Harriet Tubman
If we stand tall it is because we stand on the shoulders of many ancestors.
– African Proverb
If we do not stop oppression when it is a seed, it will be very hard to stop when it is a tree.
– ' Alik Shahadah
If the future doesn't come toward you, you have to go fetch it
– Zulu Proverb
It takes more than a horrifying transatlantic voyage chained in the filthy hold of a slave ship to erase someone's culture
– Maya Angelou
It makes no difference what language Africans speak if our first language is not Truth
– Hilary Muhammad (NOI)
Think of a famous "black", Wole Soyinka, Gates, Oprah, Mandela,Tutu, etc, regardless of what they are notable for, there is one thing the majority of them have in common. They are all famous because they have been approved by the White power world to notable "blacks". There is not one single notable White person, that is notable by African approval—not one. And this should cause serious concern. The icons/ "heroes " are named and approved by the forces of oppression. They are commodities in the system of capitalism—brands even. And African people didn't pick them; they were picked for us. And unfortunately most do not see very few of them are representative. So faces that look African, does not mean they are working for Africans, or the best voices for African issues. The role of many, like Oprah is to give the illusion of inclusion. "it is not so bad here for you, look at me. 0.00000000000000000000001% "success" story."
The likes of Wole Soyinka are tools, which are moved into place to give authenticity to whatever beef the West has with Islam, African politicians, homosexuality, etc. They have built up his bag of credentials so he has become iconized and sold off as authentic; even if he makes no sense, shows no impartiality, or serves no Pan-African purpose. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is just a more degraded version of Wole Soyinka but located in the politics of the Diaspora. Using his dark skin as a better tool for bashing African Americans over the head. Being able to say all the things his pay masters wish they could say.
They are tool of control, of seeding agendas directly into African Diaspora communities, a distraction, which as Fanon described as Black Skin, White Mask. And even when they mean well (very few of them), they are absolutely not qualified to speak. So either way you cut it, how did they get so high to speak so loud? Because if it is between a real historian with something progressive to say and a diluted confused black historian— they prefer and give career to the weaker one. So when African history is being thought, after 40 plus years, it is still starts with Slavery.
And because people need to see "successful" images of themselves, most of us are desperate to absorb these people as icons of the race. The real sad news is most of them are famous because of their loyalty to the White power structures. Some of them, namely people like Wole Soyinka have a career of insulting other Africans; as a result he is the West go-to to give black approval to everything they need said, but like Henry Louis Gates in America—from a Black mouth. You would struggle to see him insult the Eurocentric power structure—only other Africans.
So the love (Mandela) and hates (Qaddafi, Mugabe) of the White World are a reflection of the prejudices and preference of the African world. Because through the influence of media the European world has the power to tell African people who their icons, in music, politics and scholarship should be.
Some are so blinded they think an uncritical approach to their leaders is some sort of patriotism, some way of expressing national pride—it is not. Not to challenge the policies of leadership is to engage in passive tyranny.
SOLUTIONS TO LEADERSHIP
What can to be done? There is no denying the problem of leadership as one of the top problems in Africa, if not in the entire world. We have the capacity to end poverty, what really then is lacking is the will to do so. And that will is largely locked in the hands of those who call themselves leaders; business or political. And there is only one path--organize-- use people numbers to create civil societies that hold leadership accountable. Have clear policy pushed into government. Peer review your peers and peer review your leaders. Make is so that any leader that has a hint of corruption, tribalism, nepotism, cronyism, Western choir boy-ism, non-Pan-African, or anti-Africanism on their breath-- no hope of getting into office, or CEO of anything powerful. In all systems may they be sharia, democracy, or a socialist economy, people have the power to put pressure on leadership and shape the leaders that best represent their interest. The solution must come from the people.
Jacobus Capiteine Award
(in no particular order)
As Africans we do not understand what the criterion of leadership is. We do not know ourselves to know what is in our interest and what is NOT in our interest. So we have a sell out giving our African leaders to the ICC, Would Israel do it? Would America do that? Would you put foreign aid before Pan-Africanism? So we need to first discuss the aims and objectives of Africa, then we know who is really a puppet (Joyce, Zenawi, Jonathan), a puppy (Jacob Zuma), and who is just a good old dictator(Bashir). And dictators are better than Puppets.
All share one thing in common. Some one called them tyrants and monsters. But we know that despite that, they were also people who shaped the nations they represented to make them super powers or successful. Someone, not interested in Africa, sold us the saint leader in the manufacturing of Nelson Mandela. But would India be great under Gandhi? Would Martin Luther King made America into any form of success? So we must understand different types of leadership and the roles they play. The voice of consciousness in a nation is not necessarily the type of leadership that will make any nation great. Good for the West is certainly not good for Africa. The West did not kill Gaddafi because he was bad for Africa, they killed him because he was bad for the West. In the same way Clinton sits and smiles at the feet of Nelson Mandela, there is something about him that is very good for White South Africans and America in general.
"Mr so and so was a good leader, he built Roads." But that is what they are supposed to do. Why are we so happy with such low demands on leadership? It is like praising a baker for making bread. But how good was the bread, did you make 1 loaf a year? Did you pocket all the flour? People do not know, they take leadership to mean, he dances good, he smiles a lot, he tells good jokes, he still has a house in the village, his wife can dougie. They cannot go beyond the spectacle because the very system they are voting for has not educated them in the issues pertinent to governance and hence those issues and how they affect the lives of people are largely unknown.
There is no leader that didn't break a promise, so if breaking promises is a criteria of good leadership then no one is history is good. If leadership is measured in fiscal boyancy and GDP terms then Ronald Reagan was one of the best leaders in history. If leadership is defined by twarting the statehood of an oppressed people then Netenyahu is an excellent leader for the Zionnist camp. Colonial oriented Barbados would certainly be ranked as excellent leadership with its number 47 HDI index. If warfare and global choas is used to define a brave and valient leader then Bush is such. If national pride is the virtue of good leadership then Hitler was amazing. If leadership is measured by national unity and solidarity then Mao was the best leader. What are we measuring when we say "a good leader"? If we want to discuss leadership in private enterprise well it is a lot easier, because Job satisfaction, economical index, wage ranking, are boxes we can tick and then Steve Jobs might be a good leader. Henry Ford would be a good leader. But running a country is a little more complex. Because even private business development, or lack thereof can be blamed on the political heads of state.
According to the Freedom House report Freedom in the World 2007, there are eight countries judged to have the worst records:
Libya under Gaddafi wasn't doing too bad. Certainly Iran post revolution has been doing pretty good. The post genocide government of Paul Kagame has been performing well in terms of educational standards. Again If breaking promise is an issue then there is no country that can say It had "good leaders" all leaders even Nkrumah, Ho Chi Ming broke promises to someone at some time. and you will always have someone to say "they were crap" . When you stand up to the West, you and your people will suffer. Fidel Castro is proof of this. Yet Cuba found its own path, yes it had some terrible failures, but it was there to fight against apartheid. Iran being a good example is a serious world power on the rise. I would say the Islamic Revolution created that. We need more detail and not sweeping generalizations. So "poor leadership" did not get Iraq in the dump, and esp not Iran. You cant be a poor leader and have the streets safe and night and the economy on the up. But at the same time those are not the only measures of leadership. As Saudi Arabia has safe streets and good economy, and they are in bed with the west. So there is no "What got them in the dump in the first place answer" A Plethora of factors. Leadership is one, it certainly is not one for Libya, and Iran. American leadership is crap where Africans are concerned, but they are no 1 in the world
Whites everywhere love him, and that is a cause for concern. The Western World love him, and that should raise some red flags. Why do they love him so much? Do they love Malcolm X with this passion? Do they love Farrakhan? Why are they so busy to fan the pages of history to dry the ink on the legacy of this man? Whites love him because he secures their interest in every department bar none. But today on the streets on South Africa the fabricated legacy of Mandela is being torn apart by a generation frustrated and tired of lies and no volume of propaganda will change that reality.
The path of incremental compromise until you finally sell your mission out. He said "let me give one thing for the greater victory," then again, and again, and again. Until one thing became 20 things and the revolution lost shape. Until he could not tell you what that greater victory was! Freedom he though, freedom to be victims of economic apartheid, and cultural genocide. SA is more violent post-apartheid than inside of apartheid; more rape, crime, consfusion, and inhumanity. He never defined freedom in any moral way, so the Whites defined it for him. They also define justice and democracy for him, and he accepted their Trojan gifts.
His years in prison are his only proof of dedication to a nation that might cease to remember him as a defender of the masses. But time in jail is not immunity from critique and his legacy post-prison has to be judged. The branding policy in the West to force a rainbow that doesn’t exist, and a hero that does not exist was clearly part of the terms of hand over the ANC crafted on the eve on South African independence from apartheid. And in that political monstrosity a hero was needed, a name and a brand the world could associate with liberty and cheek turning. This is a tradition they are happy for Africans to adopt, it is good for business, very good for trade. We often here "had it not been for reconciliation there would have been a blood bath." But worst than apartheid was American slavery, yet there was no blood bath. What about Brazil, after emancipation, was there a blood bath? So where was this notion of a pending blood bath coming from? Clearly, it is manufactured fear to justify an agenda, which services the White elites.
Africans are now becoming sick of hearing about a rainbow nation at the expense of a Pan-African agenda. Being African is more important than some pseudo nationality ruled by Whites and Indians. Mandela and especially Tutu protect white privilege and opportunity born from that privilege. Tutu is very vocal and dramatic when whites are being injured very quiet and ineffective, when Africans are still being oppressed.
They love to talk about poverty as disconnected from race politics. The Mandela foundation has crafted a “change” video for South Africa and nowhere in this agenda does the word race come up, it is all “a dialogue about HIV.” Nowhere in his campaign does he upset white dominance or put a challenge to the very visible and oppress continuation of racism in all sectors economic and social. Nowhere is this race justice agenda asserted in his dream for the nation. A very insincere leader sees the living breathing condition of a nation ready to be torn apart at its racial seams and says nothing to that problem.
Even all the merchandizing in South Africa (the clothes, the badges, the buttons the entire for Mandela) is owned by Whites. Branded and exploited for their benefit. Of course they love him, he protects them from the anger of the oppressed population. The minute someone Black raises their hands to strike everything oppressing them Mandela gentle hands steadies the rage with self-serving Eurocentric abstract ideals of non-violence and love.
Some say that he has done all he can do, he is only one man. However, at some junction, the people who he represents must look at that contribution and re-weight the outcome of those choices made. In addition, the acceptances of the burden of leadership means he is responsible for those he had power over. Therefore, if the deal was bad then the deal maker is responsible.
Our leadership, and actually our entire disposition as a people is articulated on degrees of dependency. It is no surprise someone else makes the final product, and builds the roads. We define success as a good job, as a loan from a bank to buy a BMW, tenureship at Yale, how to get a grant to do research. And this mentality goes right the way through, from the politicians, to the academics writing the books about the bad leadership. So there is no confusion what the issue is, how to fix it is the what we are discussing.
A case study on SA shows that despite the opportunities of BEE, people as oppose to acquiring nation building skills, acquire a hustle mentality. Success is setting up a IT firm with —no programmers. A construction company—with no engineers. Their job is tender acquisition, they use their "black" skin to get the gig, and then pass it off/back to Whites. It is not development. And leadership in all sectors of Africa is defined along this mindset.
Example | Malawi President Joyce Banda is a Western Puppet, an aid dependent beggar. With all the "real" issues facing impoverished Malawi she is in deep services to agendas and interest groups from outside. "How can I get more aid", "How can I arrest the enemies of the West."Notable things in her short term in office have been to completely cause friction between the dying governmental Pan-Africanism over ICC racist beef with Africans. Nothing to stimulate African trade, just allow better exploitation and puppetry.
The ICC has only warrants with African names on them. ICC has zero clout in Israel and America. Actually they cannot even hint at arresting any American citizen. Banda is also a champion for gay rights and aid. Her entire position is how to make the West love me so I can make Malawi an aid receipent beggar state. Help Darfur's memory by creating stronger Pan-Africanism not appeasing Western funders, its immoral as she cares nothing about Darfur - only aid. Someone, not Africans, has been running agendas for 500 Years; the HIV/AIDS thing, FGM thing, this new Gay rights thing. Its the same thing: The issues which worry Europe come before the valid concerns of African people
THERE ARE NO KINGS TO SAVE US
Actually We would be having this convo, as we had this convo when they were alive and struggling. (history distills). Right now we got Farrakhan, we got Mugabe, we just lost Gaddafi. Sure Malcolm etc were on another level, but the point is he has left us too many things for us to say if he was here right now. He is here right now and still, most are slaves. He is in this film, and still most are slaves. King on War is here right now and still some support violence against the Arab world. Maybe it is time we stop looking for saints to save us. The problem is not with another Malcolm when I can read what Malcolm would do about the current situation. Esp when Farrakhan and others are speaking to us -- but we do not listen. We rather say "oh Farrakhan this and that" "Oh Gaddafi this and that."
See Also | Art of Revolution
This is the dilemma of most academic Pan-Africanist. It is the theory of unity, without actually any unity. When reading their "solutions," Media comes up Zero, Agency comes up Zero, business comes up Zero. Trade comes up Zero, but idealism comes up in every other sentence. And just like the Imperialist that they decry, they still use the same weapon of FEAR. "If you let so and so in, they will enslave you." or "He is wrong so therefore I am right (despite bringing no solutions)." Anyone in disagreement means "A colonial puppet of Western or Arab imperialism." – It works every time.
If you are a farmer you see the world through the eyes of a farmer, every piece of land you drive pass you notice it in farming terms. If you are a fisherman, every time you pass the sea you look at it and wonder "I wonder if there is any good fish in there." Now Business people think business, filmmakers think in film, academics masturbate in suspended world of academic theory. When the month comes to an end they walk up a flight of stairs into the masters office and collect their check. The reality of the professional Black academic is therefore not realistically in tune with the importance of image of self, business ownership and the like. They know they are important but are generally only capable of dreaming of these things in theory and therefore fail to appreciate them beyond rhetoric. Yes they play a very important role in our liberation but we must understand the limits of their theory and not put the entire revolution on the writings of academia.
Most of our good scholar's rage is spent fighting to keep their job given by the master. As well meaning as L Jeffries, Dr. Ben, Tony Martin, Clarke, et all are/were they are incapable of perceiving or implementing new economic paradigms, because most of them are economically dependent on European structures. So in review of the current generation of African Scholars who entirely depend on the publishing houses of Europe, the TV stations that accommodate them, and the universities that tolerate them. And we have relaxed for so long that we forgot we were guest in our enemies' house. What happens when they decide to pull the plug? As they did with the UK African History departments: A whole lot of African scholars with mortgage arrears. And the same thing when the British decided African/Black arts was not worthy of further funding, and entire collapse of film, art, community culture based organizations occurred overnight. GONE! They failed to use the advantage in the funding years to create self-sufficiency. And like lambs to the slaughter they watch the funding coming down across the board yet were shocked when their funding got pulled.
The current old time leadership and old time methodologies are also out-of-tune with community. Still thinking overhead projectors are revolutionary information delivery systems. They have no idea about the new world that is "liking" itself away on Youtube, Facebook and Wikipedia. Yet they continue to fail to engage the next generation who is techno savvy but lacking in direction. So this is why we see the same types of unchanging engagement: unattended academic conferences - no one reads that boring stuff. Pointless events with the same old faces from back in the day. Community sister [insert triple barrel African name] and community brother [insert Ancient Egyptian name].
Double conscious (Dubois) So they write an entire book cussing Europe, yet everything they write is for a White audience. All the paradigms of success and human relations are aping Europe. And nothing in their actual mind-set is located in Africa- only the rhetoric. How do they live? What is important to them? Getting praised by New York Times. I thought we were trying to come out of Babylon not go deeper into its cave.
Why do our leaders (in all areas) fail us? Because there is no consequences for failure. So a talks shop smooth talker can get up and shout out all kinds of beautiful rhetoric, after he gets his thunderous applause and steps down off the podium, what systems or institutions exist to hold that person accountable to those words? Where is the peer review or monitor that tracks these words into actions? Because they will publically say "we need image of self" (crowd cheers them) but if you go to them behind closed doors they have nothing do with independent cinema. They shout "unity now" but in private, outside of the flashing cameras, they are the ones that get up and walk out of unity. They say "Forget the church and the mosque, go back to the old ways", yet not one of them ever honors Ogoun or Rog or even the basics of principles of Maat. Africa this and Africa that, yet the only place they go in Africa is the grounds of the Hilton Hotel. And none of them actually plan to leave the suburbs of Atlanta for anywhere in Africa. Africa is a tourist stop over when then do shopping in Paris.
How can you have a Pan-African conference yet have no concept of creating a space for trade? As oppose to a TALK SHOP why not have a WORK SHOP, where people can gain real world skills?
Some people are special, they struggle organizing a basic meeting, showing up on time, or even sending a basic e-mail or keeping any form of promise they made. They can't even manage to buy conscious films or visit the Motherland. Yet these same people have the hottest rhetoric on the planet, they will tell you "we should do x, y and z, kick people out and take back Africa." But If you can't do small, how do you plan to do big?
Godsway Yao Sappor
Of course at the time it had been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the colonial masters were using the colonies to provide for their countries in Europe.