- >>African Holocaust
- >>Slavery in America
- >>Arab Slave Trade
- >>Jewish Slave Trade
- >>Slavery Revolts
- >>Modern Slavery
- >>Mental Slavery
- >>Culture Complex
- >>Scripts of Africa
- >>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
- White Supremacy
- Scripts of Africa
- Business & Africans
- ICC & Africa
- Intellectual Property
- Libation in Africa
- Malcolm on Revolution
- African Fundamentalism
- Facts About Africa
- War and Religion
- Death of African Languages
- Garvey Economics
- Cabral Theory
- NGO and Development
- Garvey Legacy
- Willie Lynch Hoax
- Malcolm OAAU
- 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
The analogue of the relationship between the White liberal and the neo-con is that of the left hand and the right hand; connected to the same body and necessary for clapping for the continuation of white supremacy. The left hand is as equally dependent on the right hand, as the right is dependent on the left
Every generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it
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
And while some would argue about the existence of Black supremacy (as in radical Afrocentrism), this form of supremacy only exist in online forums, blogs, self-published books, basements and talkshops, and in pseudo-academic papers. It has zero influence anywhere where it affects the lives of anyone. It has no domain in any economic space; it has no power! It has no repository of WMD, it invades no countries, it has no economic system, it has no media monopoly, it has no army, it has not invaded any country, it does not genocide native people, it does not control the IMF, or the influence GDP. It cannot affect the Dow Jones, it has no means of production, it does not even own any publically traded companies. If anything, does more to damage its own people than members of any non-African race.
Because most African people are so dependent, interconnected, harmonized and grafted onto White supremacy; even if it is a master-slave dyad. It means hurting White Supremacy means hurting a lot of African people: Just like a cancer, which integrates itself into the host body. So in places such as Kenya, USA, Caribbean and SA anything affecting White domination also negatively affects the welfare of African people: This is why White Supremacy is so well protected. And explains why its best mechanism is to restrict African agency and create deeper dependency, deeper social-economic control over the lives of its victims.
This dyadic relationship creates a paradox where African people have become cultural orphans of Europeans (Nehusi). So any attempt at say transforming the economies of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya will destroy the lives of many Africans who exclusively depend on servantile and middle level jobs created by White supremacy. Just like burning down the slave master's house inadvertently made the slaves homeless. (Shahadah) The very people liberation is targeted at are themselves buffers protecting the continuation of White Supremacy.
say European Christian intolerance, which is only a result of their imperialistic nature.This is why White Supremacy is a condition existing in both liberal and neo-con spheres. The mistake of past generations was to only focus on the conservative strain, or the visible spectacle of the KKK or Aryan Nation. But the persona inside these groups—while more intolerant and aggressive, shares the supremacist social genome.
If Europeans were everyday trying to get their hair to look like ours, to darken their skin like ours, they changed their names to African names like ours, tried to dance like us, talk Swahili like us, and finally painted Jesus to look like us, would you respect them?
and modernity. It is a self-feeding cycle in which the more the enslaved adore the master, the more adorable the master becomes. The master’s confidence in himself grows, because of his perceived superiority, which is then verified in the eyes of those he enslaves.
How else could another human have this vast power over the minds of another human community, which proclaims intellectual equality? When we say "They made us do something" we make them into gods. So, did European people strip us of our language, culture etc.? Of Course, but who is in control of your language and culture today? The information is easy to find if one is willing to do the research.
Colonialism/Zionism/Apartheid/Darwinism are a end product of White supremacy. So regardless of the name Jim Crow or apartheid, the mechanism of operation is White supremacy. So we must ask what created Jim Crow? Racism, but what created racism? Which is the belief in the superiority of European traits and behaviors (inherent and acquired). So had there been no white supremacy, they would be no belief in the rights of people (entitlement) of people of European ancestry to dominate over non-White people. So the root of all of these things is White supremacy. Racism, Jim Crow, apartheid, etc are byproducts of White supremacy operating in political and social spheres.
Top distraction techniques:
The lamb innocent and playing in the field, thinks the fox is a friend looking for a playmate – then it is too late. White supremacy cannot even see its own reflection. It seems to hover above the morality of everyone else in order to judge everyone else by its own ethnocentric standards. In this lofty position, it casts down pronouncements and dictum about the standards of truth and justice; yet its legacy has no virtues upon which to stand to make any judgments. That is how you know when to ring the fire alarm; when an ideology, which in its DNA is designed for African liberation, turns out to be a tool, used to stifle African liberation. The very first man to go to jail under some new Hate Speech law in the UK was an African Caribbean man. The Southern Poverty law and the ADL have almost more African groups listed as hate groups, than white groups .
Language is used to obfuscate reality. In sociology this white liberal attitude is called diffusion and distraction. As opposed to discussing issues, they come into our space and throw their liberalism around. Their intention is NOT to understand us, but BLOCK our ability to describe our experience and hence develop solutions. When it comes to filming, documenting and publishing the revolution, you get all manner of ‘concerned liberals’ occupying the front seats. No one bothers to notice that--much like power brokers, apartheid trendsetters, WTO, top 10%, KKK and slave master—they are all white, and the books of the revolution are being written by the sons and daughters of the colonial master. No one questions why the expert on slavery is some White South African, rewarded by UNESCO, cheered as authentic. [Failure to Engage] It seems there is a special box for the “good” white, he or she shines so bright as an exception of their race that they are armed by the African people—or so we are made to believe. They have successfully transcended racism to be Tarzan in Africa. They are exempt from the legacy of whiteness in African lives, not accountable, not part of the problem, but that rare and special kind of white person—the liberal.
Case Study: In May 2013 Dambisa Moyo, a highly educated and renowned economist who also happens to have been born and raised in Zambia, publically had her morals and value system attacked and was accused of “promoting evil” by Bill Gates when asked a direct question about her acclaimed book “Dead Aid, Why Aid Is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa.” An African woman, who has completed a PhD in economics at Oxford University, holds a Master’s degree from Harvard University, an undergraduate degree in chemistry and an MBA in finance at American University in Washington, D.C. apparently is not knowledgeable enough to discuss African issues, or to critique the liberal agenda of a college dropout within Africa. Instead of a logical counter argument he chose to attack her personally.
Two types of Racist. One who commits the crime and the other who covers it up. So while one is using race to grab all the land and keep it, the liberal is tell you there is no such thing as race, we should not look at race and ownership, but class over race. This distraction allows for the ongoing race-based exploitation to pass through unchecked.
Currently, there is a fad of being “progressive” where Africans have taken to agreeing with the white liberal attitude of “class over race;” as if we are all in this together. Race is messy, you have to hold that on your own as an African—it cannot be shared with your white colleagues. Class on the other hand can be comfortably discussed while attending a wine and cheese party. When being politically neutral and race neutrality becomes the peacemaker on Earth, a wide range of salient issues are marginalized for the profit of white supremacy. There is nothing progressive about saying "It’s no longer about race, it is about class."
This is the issue with the idea of a post racial America; the goal of deconstructing race is only called forth when it comes to the privileged having unchecked access to the cultural thoughts and behaviors of marginalized people. White liberals show significantly less interest in making sure that race doesn’t matter when it comes to things like stop and frisk, unjust jail sentences and police brutality. It is easy to be against racism when white people are allowed to modulate what is and isn't racism; so when they take offence in any way they ask you to stop. They wish to continue to be the arbitrator on what you can and cannot discuss in a liberal society. What manner of White supremacy arrogance is that? Despite standing on the throat of African people for 100’s of years, white supremacy continues to seek to prevent us from describing the agent of our oppression, and the nature of his oppression. They come into our spaces in order to teach us, their ex-slaves about racism. Race is invisible to them yet strange how all their points of views seem awfully familiar. Strange how they react to protect white privilege but in such a way it seems humanist.
Every statement must have this motif, they must—before honoring the valiant African warriors-- pay homage to all the good things whites have done for Africans;i.e. “Don’t forget that without the Quakers the Underground Railroad would not have worked.” Forgetting that without whites on the planet 90% of the Native Americans would still be alive; Apartheid and the African Holocaust would not have taken place. The caveat is unnecessary and vulgar when we see the odds stacked against the African cause. We do not waste time discussing the 2% good when the 98% national western attitude controls the globe and dishes out horror and death wholesale. So when 2% good white people are in Africa feeding orphans, what about the 98% of the rest of them who are creating orphans?
Whites who would have hated Malcolm X are now quoting him, selective quoting of course. They start with “By any means necessary” and then the quoting stops. The strategy is to speak about Malcolm as if he was a relic of the 60’s. King on the other hand is easier to handle and is quickly remembered for love and world peace, no mention of the hot stuff, and his name is used to promote everything from gay rights to the rainbow nation.
What progressive African people understand is that what frustrates the white liberal, apart from African agency, is being left out of the African party; not being the center of attention, being made fringe, and irrelevant in the lives of Africans. They prefer us wasting time calling them names, than us completely just getting on with our lives. They cannot understand from their “supreme” position why on Earth the discussion today is African—to—African. So they inject themselves into our spaces and personalize our objections to white supremacy as if their personal heightened conscience and sympathies are of some comfort to the 1 billion Africans and others who suffer under a race-based system painted white.
It is important for African people to recognize and immediately cut off this intrusive behavior. They say: “I am white and I love blacks so don't generalize us all, My Boyfriend Is Black, I marched with King, Why can’t we just forget about race and get along, Why are you so angry (that one is easy to answer just show them land stats in Southern Africa), It is reverse racism (to exclude me from dominating your space), We should not hate, and Ubuntu teaches us to live together as one.” “Motherland Africa is home to all humanity” is the new access card, but it would serve Africans well to see the glib sentiment in these “humanist statements.” Like fools we are happy they acknowledge us, so we nod in agreement. There is no agreement with their claims to the motherland, which is first and foremost soil for the benefit of African people—not as it is currently. It’s all the same, trying to find a way into our space. When you master how to identify the pattern of trite arguments, you are not so easily fooled.
The question at the head of every single premise and statement should be, “In whose primary interest?” They helped us integrate (so they could capitalize on our markets). They liberated us from apartheid (to become better economic slaves). They ended slavery in Africa (so we could be better colonial subjects). We’ve heard them say “poor starving people do not care what color someone is” making it crystal clear why the West loves to hold Africa in a perpetual state of begging. When we are on our knees hungry our natural aversion to self-harm is decreased, our natural inclination toward self-interest declines. Poor people, hungry and dying do not have the luxury of critical examination of policies, of friend and foe. The poor and hungry will trade their entire country’s resources for 2 bags of USAID; good for USA bad for Africa. Poverty allows weak leadership, to install themselves for short term gains. The leaders who will alleviate the problem permanently are de-selected. If Zimbabwe must go hungry for a decade but thrive for 1000 years because of the choice to starve for 10 is that not a good strategy? Especially when the alternative is to remain beggars and dependent for the next 1000 years; or do we still believe the good white land owners are going to become willing sellers/willing buyers?
To ignore the role of the ‘Negro apologist’ or ‘special Negro’ within white supremacy would be doing the reader a great disservice. The definition of what is and what is not racist does not depend on a vote from the Uncle Toms of our race; the compromised, weak willed, corruptible and/or sold-out. Just as with every other people in times of war, some Africans are courageous and some are cowardly. Some honor the collective community that nurtured them and some betray it. It is the job of the special Negro to mitigate white guilt regarding their role in slavery, apartheid and racial segregation, while also representing a benign figure from which white people have little, if any, reason to fear. Special Negros do not rock the boat, or protest and are willing to place unabashed trust in white benevolence.
“Special Negros” will also do almost anything, including sacrificing self, to save the white status quo. They are a staple in Hollywood and anywhere that white supremacy is in need of a brown face to co-sign bad behavior from whites. “Although from a certain perspective the character may seem to be showing blacks in a positive light, he is still ultimately subordinate to whites. He is also regarded as an exception, allowing white America to like individual black people but not black culture.” They play on your ego and need for inclusion and whisper in your ear exactly what you want to hear: “I prefer your fiction to your non-fiction” or "less of that racial stuff, you alienate your audience--speak more human and universal” and "talk more about yourself, let the audience connect with you”. Be wary and do not be led by your ego. When you lose your soul, it is hard to get back.
Often times white liberals will hide behind an apologist Negro with the old “oh it isn’t racist my black friend thinks it is cool”. Getting Henry Louis Gates to be the incognito mouthpiece for what white people cannot say does not work anymore. He might have dark skin, but as Fanon already said Black skin for a White mask is really a proxy of White supremacy. The Black man or woman who denies the history of communal struggle within Africa and the diaspora and instead preaches meritocracy, pulling oneself up by their bootstraps and/or the self-made man/woman is; at best ignorant and/or in denial and at worst a willing participant in the racist institution of white supremacy.
So contrary to popular understanding, White Supremacy and White skin, or people with European ancestry are different concepts. An African person can be worse than a European person if his/her actions protect and extend White domination.
No thorough examination of white supremacy would be complete without addressing the new trend of screaming reverse racism anytime an African person attempts to recognize and describe the current state of world around them. This argument is ridiculous because it uses white privilege to shield itself. We are clear that the pattern is not white people as humans but white supremacy as an overarching ideology, which is a disease to every single system it touches. This explains why in Benin with full "Afrocentric" religions they are just as much enslaved to white culture as the African-American man in the Baptist church. It is critical in the interest of balance, to separate out the habits and general customs of people of European ancestry and White supremacy—they are not always the same (though generally are) because the consequence of white supremacy gives privilege to white culture in general to impose itself. Of course it is untrue that all things European equal all things evil. However, it would be incorrect for a White person, attempting to correct White supremacy to try to take on an African centered culture. African culture is for African people, so to impose it on Europe would be unjust. White people want a white wedding. They have their own culture, which works for them; they venerate their ancestors and have a cosmology, which works for them. They have political structures which they must try to test and apply to their geopolitical orbit. If that is democracy or socialism, so be it.
The issue is when these “ways of Europe” overextend to be the norms and standards for everyone else—at the expense of everyone else’s contribution. Every human has something to add to this world, and Africa should not be so dominant outside of the African world that it obscures, mitigates or denies the contribution of anyone else. White supremacy must be understood in these terms. It is its overextension into other worlds where it does not work, and is not our choice, that makes it supremacy. I.e. because it is European, we should accept it because Europeans are superior to everyone else in constructing democracy, religion, economics, social policy and fiscal systems.
It is amazing that they have time to correct the African struggle and bemoan what they define as racist methods, but ask how much time they spend “correcting” their own? We saw this even with the missionaries, they left wayward decadent, Europe to “save” African souls. Yet 500 years later, no African is so empowered that they can be trusted to take over management of their own land. Unflinchingly recognizing the indisputable truth of white supremacy and its affects is not only not racist, it is necessary for the survival and the healing of non-white peoples the world over…particularly African people.
Disengagement is the only solution once they call you racist; because that tells you everything you need to know about their true mission.  To operate as "friends" while curbing dissent. They will always tell you about Martin Luther King and Mandela while failing to mention that both are on file as taking great issue with white domination. MLK went on to say that, he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He, who accepts evil without protesting against it, is really cooperating with it. For all the so-called racist Black people in the world they seem absolutely impotent at having any affect what so ever in any economic or social format on the system of White supremacy. What then of that so-called racism when its hot air cannot even harm a fly, and in fact seems more adept at harming itself?
Moreover, none of them have a nuclear arsenal. What is special about Zionism is it uses dual modes of supremacy, the liberal mode and the neo-con mode. You are not allowed to even discuss Zionism as racism, because doing so makes you the racist--and not only a racist, a special kind of brute-- an antisemite. Bombing villages of Arabs cannot be critiqued, as Zionist have an eternal victim card held up. Creating programs in league with apartheid South Africa and sterilizing and marginalizing Ethiopian Jews cannot be critiqued. But to suggest Zionism is evil, racist or nefarious makes the person pointing this out “anti-Semitic”. The term anti-Semitic does not even make sense because Judaism has nothing to do at all with Semitic people. One is a religion and the other is a biological specification therefore (for example) it is impossible for one to support Palestinian people and still be anti-Semitic. However, the Zionist movement can be hostile and warmongering but wants to use anti-Semitism as a defense to all detractors. It has a neo-con face when attacking, but a liberal defense when being attacked.
When you ask yourself what is the relationship between Israel and America about? It certainly is not about the religion Judaism, so what is left? Money and culture. Where culture is another way of saying racial unity among White-skinned people--the kind that rule Israel. So Israel is nothing more than a Middle Eastern outpost of White supremacy; their hegemony in Tel-Aviv.
Why is it shocking to some to list Zionism, as practiced by European Jews, as a form of White supremacy? Because of the confusion over the way white supremacy is modeled in the media; as something only Aryan whites or blonde blued eyed German Nazi can do. The Jewish Holocaust was a clash between two white populations for domination. The Jews were the victims of that conflict and left the political spaces of their homeland to occupy and practice white supremacy in someone else’s homeland. Testimony to this assertion that it is a form of White Supremacy just take a look at the fate of the Ethiopian, and Arab-Jews, or Yemeni Jews. Which dark-skin or non-White Jew occupies any senior station in the Knesset?  So the color line evident in Western Europe, South America and South Africa is as real as ever in Israel. And these Russian, German Jews are the immigrants, yet are the dominant race-class occupying the same seat as Whites all over the world. As part of the usually cover up the ADL (the name is deceptive) stated that Ethiopian Jews are not experiencing racism: "Whatever Israel's mistakes towards its Ethiopian Jewish community, the cause is not racism." It explains that "what causes the distress is bureaucratic ineptitude and a cultural gap between a traditional community and a modern, technologically-advanced, highly-competitive nation. It should be clear the role of the ADL in maintaining, protecting, denying anything which threatens the White constitution of Israeli society.
The First Zionist Congress was the inaugural congress of the Zionist Organization (to become the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1960) held in Basel, Switzerland, from August 29 to August 31, 1897. The legal foundation of what is now known as the state of Israel is the Balfour Declaration. This means that Zionism, under the cover of a liberation movement, has in actuality attached itself to British Imperialism and true liberation fighters must question this. Judaism is a religion. Revolutionaries understand that religion can be used as an arm by revolutionary forces.
For all practical purposes, the Jewishness is almost irrelevant, the white supremacy viciously manifesting in Zionism just piggybacks off an ancient Abrahamic faith in the same way Christianity used the Bible to exploit and enslave Africans and burn the New World in the process. Zionism is a nation (nationality) which has everything to do with oppression and nothing to do with religion. Religion transcends geographical boundaries and consequently Zionism must come to understand that it cannot claim or have anything to do with religion if it does not seek to transcend geographical boundaries. The Palestinian state belongs to the Palestinian people, this is a fact. Palestinians were driven out not with the Torah, but with the gun and Zionism claims religion as the justification. There is no other state in the world that can claim it is a state solely because of religion. Zionism cannot claim that Jews are only one race because we know that Judaism came out of Africa and the earliest Jews in the world were African..
Under the veil of dialog (with them and some puppet representative of the Muslim or African American community) they create the facade of a "new world", a world of racial and religious tolerance; A world free from criticism or "Israeli bashing" as they term it. It matters not how many bombs Israel launches at Syria and Lebanon, or how many Palestinians live under apartheid; discussing that is now a form of anti-Semitism and radical Islamic rhetoric. How convenient. It is a new way of softening up the world for greater imperialism and cultural conformity; a way for invading family values and funding dissent. “This charge of anti-Semitism (which is a misnomer) cannot and must not dissuade Africans from researching into any area of history; especially when that history has traditionally been suppressed. Passionately saying "This is all anti-Semitic junk" or "sounds like Protocols of Elders of Zion conspiracy" can no longer be used as a defense against this discourse; the world is getting tired and bored of this dronish one-liner, and the cookie cutter drivel. It is very easy when in control of media, to selectively critique people (such as Louis Farrakhan, Marcus Garvey, Cynthia McKinney, Malcolm X, John Henrick Clarke, Desmond Tutu, Leonard Jefferies even liberal Alice Walker) as hateful but avoid dealing with their positions on a point-by-point basis. Because if the charge of anti-Semitism (an over-abused Zionist silencing apparatus) was satisfied every time it was invoked, no one other than pro-Zionist would be allowed to say "Jew." Make no mistake, the issues of Israel are not "Jewish" issues, they are Zionist issues. No one should confuse Zionism and Judaism, Jewish people and Zionist. The issue is 100% with Zionism, an areligious cover for White supremacy.”
and was born through the most brutal process of oppression.It is not that the skin color of Europeans has privilege, superiority, or inferiority; it is that the historical attachment to white skin or European cultural identity became interchangeable with the privileges it gave.
It is a privilege, one enjoyable only by white people, to be (or claim to be) in denial of the existence of this systemic and institutionally racist, white supremacist system. White privilege seems to live on a hill all alone looking out onto a field believing that the world it sees is the only world which exists. It assumes that all of humanity looks through pale blue eyes and sees the heavens painted white; morals are through blue eyes, logic is through blue eyes. Despite the African being the victim of their whip on their plantations, it is that same African today who they have the privilege of calling racist for resisting the modern chains and mental shackles. White privilege is what allows white people to view the Boston bombings as a tragedy while ignoring or being unaware of the mass shooting on Mother’s Day in New Orleans one month later.
Whether or not a person is intentionally racist or privileged makes no difference. If the skin is white in a white supremacist society, the reflex is always to preserve self-interest and African people must be cognizant of this. Liberal or neo-con is not exempt from human nature. This explains why it is important to proceed with caution when approached by the teary-eyed white woman or well-meaning, concerned and charitable white man who makes a personal plea to be part of the “cool white person club.” They sleep well at night, feeling immune from something as hideous as white supremacy. Like a Trojan horse with amnesia, what they do not realize (acknowledge?) is beyond the cute smile and pretty blue eyes lays a beast called self-interest. She so loves the revolution she will sacrifice her body on anything black and even bear a little Black child as proof of her exception status….He happily lets his Black friends stand up in his wedding and visit his home. However, willingly or not, when she/he is pricked by the sharp edge of African agency they make an innate attempt to destroy it— he/she automatically acts to defend their white flesh. So what is their role in the progressive drive for humanity? To respect African agency, and to go within his or her own community and promote authentic African discourse where she is not the agent or the broker.
Remember the Fox and the scorpion that climbed on the foxes back and stung him part- way across the river. The Fox ask the scorpion why did you do that, the scorpion replied—it is my nature.
The nature of any person with power is to keep that power, the nature of White supremacy is to remain supreme, it actually has no problem killing European people to do it—if they get in the way. So in that funny way it is color blind. White people have already secured the wealth; they have more than enough power brokers in place. It is no skin off their back to have a few voices of white dissent; however these dissenting white voices have the privilege to tie us up in pointless conversations (to get technical, to try to divert the conversation to all humans, to claim reverse racism, even to say “please explain it to me again” –as if 40 years of Malcolm was not clear enough). They can afford to waste our time, time we should be using to educate our own people, so do not be fooled by their “innocent” attempts to learn more and understand you better, the understanding is self-serving and still in the interest of a better grip on the subaltern.
What we need to know beyond silly race games is this; the system of white supremacy protects white privilege. Anyone of any race, who is granted privilege by virtue of any characteristic, physical or otherwise is hardwired at some level to protect that privilege… it is a basic pleasure/pain response. When it comes to Africans, white supremacy has been so powerful it has disrupted or re-aligned our pleasure/pain response and shortened our memory—so much so that many Africans now, consciously or not, work so hard to gain what we think is a pleasure (white approval) that we are willing to lose an arm and a leg. The white man will always applaud what he sees as weak, and therefore in line with self-interest; that which gets him off the hook and mitigates his genocide. Our dedication, as African people, should be directed towards honestly dealing with real problems, assigning and understanding the race dynamic and the human dynamic in all of our conflicts. We should never personalize this condition as insulting—it is a simple natural observation— in the same way a lamb observes a hungry lion and understands it is bad news and thus, rightfully so, runs away!
Peggy McIntosh writes: I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.
12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.
18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.
29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.
32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.
33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.
45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.
47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.
48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.
49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.
50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social
If I was white I would not be worried: We drink their wine, we rent their house, we lay with their women, we speak in their language, we have their names, we worship their version of Jesus, we work for them, we get paid and we give them back their money, they get to name us, they get to still define us, they write books about us and for us, they make the films about us. If you were them would you be worried about a revolt? Since the physical chains came off, continuing until 2013 we are still enslaved with no signs of changing that condition.
It is not an issue to hire African people to work in their companies, knowing that 50 years from now the company will still be white owned. The genius of Africans has serviced the genius of Europeans for 500 years, so much so, that we have been written out of modernity without even knowing our role in creating it. This stalled development is realized at every level—especially mentally, how people envision themselves and their self-reliance; so even when Africans have the skills and experience, they are still satellites of lower qualified Europeans.
WHITE SUPREMACY IN MILITARY TERMS
And we need to remember this section is just about the CIA and America, what about Israel, Britain, France in Africa, Belgium in Congo, apartheid South Africa, conquest in New Zealand. William Blum writes: The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.
Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.
In the history of White supremacy very few forces have threatened its existence. Its primary arch rival is none other than Islam; and this is why we see the urgent agenda across the Western world to usurp Islamic influence geo-politically. It was Islam that swept across Europe and up through Spain to threaten, as well as influence, the foundations of the modern European superpowers. And it is very important to understand the "why" behind this. Organization vs organization, structure vs. structure, identity vs identity, technology vs technology, commerce vs commerce. Only by matching White supremacy power-base can it be repelled from the lives of non-White people (as is happening in Latin America and Asia). It cannot be defeated by sitting a Black man in a White House.
And certainly will not work in our competitive globalized economically driven 21st century. It would be wise we should look at the history of successful groups and realize they did not march and meet, they organized (as opposed to just mobilizing) and took control of their economy. Mental slavery has shaped how African, as a group, respond to our oppression. Reacting in ways which only make White supremacy more secure. Because if you are marching for them to give you more jobs, how is that revolutionary? If you are marching for them to give you a better education, how does that create a new African? How can you request freedom from your oppressor?
How can there be new partnerships with the personality of white supremacy, with the foolish hope of a new world when white supremacy has not changed in over 500 years? We are a special generation because we can look back on a historical relationship between us and them, and see that there is an “us and them”. There is no politically correct voice, which can speak around the harsh reality of a dominant race class imposition in all areas of people activity any more than Jews going into ovens could neglect that those going into ovens were not blonde blue-eyed and ‘Aryan.’
We can see Biko talk about it, Malcolm, Karenga, Farrakhan, Elijah; you pick and they had an experience. Has anything changed? Has ownership changed? So maybe we re-evaluate that relationship and institutionalize our approach to these people. Without too much drama or thought, it is clear they must be taken out of the African revolutionary loop. Even if the author is wrong on one point—why take the chance? Humans are surely predictable, and in that predictable behavior no human is so human that they can determine the fate of another group of people. Instead of engagement, the next time some “well meaning” liberal starts pontificating about what is or is not racist, kindly remind them that if they have not experienced what it is like to be African in a white supremacist culture then surely they are not qualified to define what that means. Do NOT engage them in a dialog because it is a trick, it is white supremacy defense mechanism to draw you into an unproductive course of action. Some believe they have time on their hands to sift through the good white liberals from the bad white liberals, even if it takes 1000 years; as if we do not spend enough time figuring out which Africans are worthy of our liberation efforts. Institutional disengagement is the simplest, less headache solution --people healing need restricted areas to grow their health back. How can we grow with them coming in all the time and putting something in our food?
What we must always avoid is explaining our oppression to the oppressor with the view of appealing to the conscious of oppression. The oppressor is here to oppress. He is here to tell us to protect White Supremacy, but uses words of universal love. However, if the charge is we “are racist” for defending African people against tyranny; then let us be racist -- better to be a free racist than a slave. Yes, we can have mutual relationships and exchanges but not one where they are inside our movement (family business). This is not a statement of racial superiority, or us good and them bad, but of pure self-defense. Even if they mean well, it hurts our long-term development, because a people must free themselves by their own hands. We are not their children, we have arms, legs and minds to build and repair our own world. How can any people be complete human beings, and be so oppressed, yet denied the right to define and defend ourselves against that oppression?
2. Black on White: Black Writers on What It Means to Be White (pg 14-16) David R. Roediger
7. The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Jonathan Schneer, page 342
23. From Wikipedia source list.Shohat, Ella, "Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the standpoint of its Jewish victims", in Dangerous liaisons: gender, nation, and postcolonial perspectives, Anne McClintock, Aamir Mufti, Ella Shohat (Eds), U of Minnesota Press, 1997, p 42-44. Originally published as "Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Jewish Victims" in 'Social Text, No. 19/20 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 1–35 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987, Volume 17; Volume 1987 (Yoram Dinstein) p 249 Medding, Peter, Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews, p 128-129 Smooha, Sammy, "Jewish Ethnicity in Israel: Symbolic or Real?", in Jews in Israel: contemporary social and cultural patterns, Uzi Rebhun (Ed.), UPNE, 2004, p 60-74 Khazzoom, Loolwa, The flying camel: essays on identity by women of North African and Middle Eastern Jewish heritage, Seal Press, 2003, p 69 Sharoni, Simona, "Feminist Reflections on the Interplay of Sexism and Racism in Israel", in Challenging racism and sexism: alternatives to genetic explanations, Ethel Tobach, Betty Rosoff (Eds), Feminist Press, 1994, p 309-331 Hanieh, Adam, "The Reality Behind Israeli Socialism", in The Palestinian Struggle, Zionism and Anti-Semitism, Sean Malloy, Doug Lorimer, Doug Lorimer (Eds), Resistance Books, 2002, p 21-22 Lefkowitz, Daniel, Words and stones: the politics of language and identity in Israel, p 15 Thomas, Amelia, Israel and the Palestinian Territories, p 43 Zohar, Zion, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: from the Golden Age of Spain to modern times, p 324 Medding, Peter Y. Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews, p 81