Against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2002

By William Blum, www.uscrusade.com

William Blum, author of three books covering U.S. foreign policy, gave the following speech at the University of Colorado in Boulder on October 16, 2002.

Good evening, it's very nice to be here, especially since the bombs have not yet begun to fall; I mean in Iraq, not Boulder; Boulder comes after Iraq and Iran if you folks don't shape up and stop inviting people like me to speak.

The first time I spoke in public after September 11 of last year, I spoke at a teach-in at the University of North Carolina. As a result of that, I and some of the other speakers were put on a list put out by an organization founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of you know who. The organization's agenda can be neatly surmised by a report it issued, entitled "Defending Our Civilization: How Our Universities are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It." In the report and on their website they listed a large number of comments made mainly by faculty and students from many schools which indicated that these people were not warmly embracing America's newest bombing frenzy. These people were guilty of suggesting that some foreigners might actually have good reason for hating the United States, or what I call hating U.S. foreign policy.

Because of that listing, as well as things I wrote subsequently, I've gotten a lot of hate mail in the past year, hate e-mail to be exact. I'm waiting to receive my first e-mail with anthrax in it. Well, there are viruses in e-mail, why not bacteria?

The hate mail almost never challenges any fact or idea I express. They attack me mainly on the grounds of being unpatriotic. They're speaking of some kind of blind patriotism, but even if they had a more balanced view of it, they would still be right about me. I'm not patriotic. I don't want to be patriotic. I'd go so far as to say that I'm patriotically challenged.

Many people on the left, now as in the 1960s, do not want to concede the issue of patriotism to the conservatives. The left insists that they are the real patriots because of demanding that the United States lives up to its professed principles. That's all well and good, but I'm not one of those leftists. I don't think that patriotism is one of the more noble sides of mankind. George Bernard Shaw wrote that patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it. And remember that the German people who supported the Nazi government can be seen as being patriotic, and the German government called them just that.

The past year has not been easy for people like me, surrounded as we've been by an orgy of patriotism. How does one escape "United We Stand," and "God Bless America"? And the flag - it's just all over - I buy a banana and there it is, an American flag stuck on it.

We're making heroes out of everyone - the mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, became a hero. On Sept. 10 he was an arrogant, uncompassionate reactionary - suddenly he was a hero, even a statesman, speaking before the U.N. George Bush also became a hero. People who called him a moron on September 10 welcomed him as hero and dictator after the eleventh.

In the play, Galileo, by Bertolt Brecht, one character says to another: "Unhappy the land that has no heroes." The other character replies: "No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes."

Although I'm not loyal to any country or government, like most of you I am loyal to certain principles, like political and social justice, economic democracy, human rights.

The moral of my message to you is this: If your heart and mind tell you clearly that the bombing of impoverished, hungry, innocent peasants is a terrible thing to do and will not make the American people any more secure, you should protest it in any way you can and don't be worried about being called unpatriotic.

There was, sadly, very little protest against the bombing of Afghanistan. I think it was a measure of how the events intimidated people, events, along with their expanding police powers, led by Ayatollah John Ashcroft. I think it was also due to the fact that people felt that whatever horrors the bombing caused, it did get rid of some really nasty anti-American terrorists.

But of the thousands in Afghanistan who died from American bombs, how many do you think had any part in the events of 9-11? I'll make a rough guess and say "none." How many do you think ever took part in any other terrorist act against the United States? We'll never know for sure, but my guess would be a number in the very low one digits, if that. Terrorist acts don't happen very often after all, and usually are carried out by a handful of men. So, of all those killed by the American actions, were any of them amongst any of those few handfuls of terrorists, many of whom were already in prison?

Keep in mind that the great majority of those who were at a training camp of al Qaeda in Afghanistan were there to help the Taliban in their civil war, nothing to do with terrorism or the United States. It was a religious mission for them, none of our business. But we killed them or have held them under terrible conditions at the Guantanamo base in Cuba for a very long time now, with no end in sight, with many attempts at suicide there amongst the prisoners.

It is remarkable indeed that what we call our government is still going around dropping huge amounts of exceedingly powerful explosives upon the heads of defenseless people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Beginning in the late 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev put an end to the Soviet police state, then the Berlin Wall came down. People all over Eastern Europe were joyfully celebrating a NEW DAY, and South Africa freed Nelson Mandela and apartheid began to crumble, and Haiti held its first free election ever and chose a genuine progressive as president ... it seemed like anything was possible; optimism was as widespread as pessimism is today.

The United States joined this celebration by invading and bombing Panama, only weeks after the Berlin Wall fell.

At the same time, the U.S. was shamelessly intervening in the election in Nicaragua to defeat the Sandinistas.

Then, when Albania and Bulgaria, "newly freed from the grip of communism," as our media would put it, dared to elect governments not acceptable to Washington, Washington just stepped in and overthrew those governments.

Soon came the bombing of the people of Iraq for 40 horrible days without mercy, for no good or honest reason, and that was that for our hopes of a different and better world.

But our leaders were not through. They were soon off attacking Somalia, more bombing and killing.

Meanwhile they continued bombing Iraq for years.

They intervened to put down dissident movements in Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and Colombia, just as if it were the cold war in the 1950s in Latin America, and the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and still doing it in the 1990s.

Then they bombed the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights.

And once again, last year, they grossly and openly intervened in an election in Nicaragua to prevent the left from winning.

Meanwhile, of course, they were bombing Afghanistan and, in all likelihood, have now killed more innocent civilians in that sad country than were killed here on Sept. 11, with more to come as people will continue to die from bombing wounds, cluster-bomb landmines, and depleted-uranium toxicity.

All these years, they're still keeping their choke hold on Cuba. And that's just a partial list.

There was none of the peace dividend we had been promised, not for Americans nor for the rest of the world.

What the heck is going on here? We had been taught since childhood that the cold war, including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the huge military budgets, all the foreign invasions and overthrows of governments - the ones we knew about - was all to fight the same menace: The International Communist Conspiracy, headquarters in Moscow.

So what happened? The Soviet Union was dissolved. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved. The East European satellites became independent. The former communists even became capitalists....yet nothing changed in American foreign policy. Even NATO remained, NATO which had been created - so we were told - to protect Western Europe against a Soviet invasion, even NATO remains, bigger than ever, getting bigger and more powerful all the time, a NATO with a global mission. The NATO charter was even invoked to give a justification for its members to join the U.S. in the Afghanistan invasion.

The whole thing had been a con game. The Soviet Union and something called communism per se had not been the object of our global attacks. There had never been an International Communist Conspiracy. The enemy was, and remains, any government or movement, or even individual, that stands in the way of the expansion of the American Empire; by whatever name we give to the enemy - communist, rogue state, drug trafficker, terrorist.

You think the American Empire is against terrorists? What do you call a man who blows up an airplane killing 73 people, who attempts assassinations against several diplomats, who fires cannons at ships docked in American ports? What do you call a man who places bombs in numerous commercial and diplomatic buildings in the U.S. and abroad? Dozens of such acts. His name is Orlando Bosch, he's Cuban and he lives in Miami, unmolested by the authorities. The city of Miami once declared a day in his honor - Orlando Bosch Day. He was freed from prison in Venezuela, where he had been held for the airplane bombing, partly because of pressure from the American ambassador, Otto Reich, who earlier this year was appointed to the State Dept. by George W.

After Bosch returned to the U.S. in 1988, the Justice Dept condemned him as a totally violent terrorist and was all set to deport him, but that was blocked by President Bush, the first, with the help of son Jeb Bush in Florida. So is George W. and his family against terrorism? Well, yes, they're against those terrorists who are not allies of the empire.

The plane that Bosch bombed, by the way, was a Cuban plane. He's wanted in Cuba for that and a host of other serious crimes, and the Cubans have asked Washington to turn him over to them; to Cuba he's like Osama Bin Laden is to the United States. But the U.S. has refused. Can you imagine the reaction in Washington if bin Laden showed up in Havana and the Cubans refused to turn him over? Can you imagine the reaction in the United States if Havana proclaimed Osama Bin Laden Day?

Washington's support of genuine terrorist organizations has been very extensive. To give just a couple of examples of the past few years - The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have carried out numerous terrorist attacks for years in various parts of the Balkans, but they've been our allies because they've attacked people out of favor with Washington.

The paramilitaries in Colombia, as vicious as they come, could not begin to carry out their dirty work without the support of the Colombian military, who are the recipients of virtually unlimited American support. This, all by itself, disqualifies Washington from leading a war against terrorism.

Bush also speaks out often and angrily against harboring terrorists. Does he really mean that? Well, what country harbors more terrorists than the United States? Orlando Bosch is only one of the numerous anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who have carried out hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist acts, in the U.S., in Cuba, and elsewhere; all kinds of arson attacks, assassinations and bombings. They have been harbored here in safety for decades. As have numerous other friendly terrorists, torturers and human rights violators from Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia and elsewhere, all allies of the Empire.

The CIA is looking for terrorists in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan at the same time as the Agency sits in bars in Miami having beers with terrorists.

What are we to make of all this? How are we to understand our government's foreign policy? Well, if I were to write a book called The American Empire for Dummies, page one would say: Don't ever look for the moral factor. U.S. foreign policy has no moral factor built into its DNA. Clear your mind of that baggage which only gets in the way of seeing beyond the clichés and the platitudes.

I know it's not easy for most Americans to take what I say at face value. It's not easy to swallow my message. They see our leaders on TV and their photos in the press, they see them smiling or laughing, telling jokes; see them with their families, hear them speak of God and love, of peace and law, of democracy and freedom, of human rights and justice and even baseball ... How can such people be moral monsters, how can they be called immoral?

They have names like George and Dick and Donald, not a single Mohammed or Abdullah in the bunch. And they even speak English. Well, George almost does. People named Mohammed or Abdullah cut off arms or legs as punishment for theft. We know that that's horrible. We're too civilized for that. But people named George and Dick and Donald drop cluster bombs on cities and villages, and the many unexploded ones become land mines, and before very long a child picks one up or steps on one of them and loses an arm or leg, or both arms or both legs, and sometimes their eyesight. And the cluster bombs which actually explode do their own kind of horror.

But our leaders are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... if that's a distinction worth making. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the Empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ... then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home - the ones who make it back - with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. Our leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things.

It must be great fun to be one of the leaders of an empire, glorious in fact ... intoxicating ... the feeling that you can do whatever you want to whomever you want for as long as you want for any reason you care to give ... because you have the power ... for theirs is the power and the glory.

When I was writing my book Rogue State a few years ago I used the term "American Empire," which I don't think I had seen in print before. I used the term cautiously because I wasn't sure the American public was quite ready for it. But I needn't have been so cautious. It's now being used proudly by supporters of the empire.

There's Dinesh D'Souza, the conservative intellectual at the Hoover Institution, who became well-known with his theories on the "natural" inferiority of Afro-Americans. Earlier this year, he wrote an article entitled "In praise of American empire," in which he argued that Americans must finally recognize that the U.S. "has become an empire, the most magnanimous imperial power ever."

Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment writes: "And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the U.S. is good for a vast portion of the world's population. It is certainly a better international arrangement than all realistic alternatives."

And syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer speaks of America's "uniquely benign imperium."

So that's how people who are wedded to American foreign policy are able to live with it - they conclude, and proclaim, and may even believe, that our foreign policy is a benevolent force, an enlightened empire, bringing order, prosperity and civilized behavior to all parts of the globe, and if we're forced to go to war we conduct a humanitarian war.

Well, inasmuch as I've devoted much of my adult life to documenting in minute detail the exact opposite, to showing the remarkable cruelty and horrific effects of U.S. interventions on people in every corner of the world, you can understand, I think, that my reaction to such claims is ... Huh? These conservative intellectuals ... Is that an oxymoron? They are as amoral as the folks in the White House and the Pentagon. After all, the particles of depleted uranium are not lodging inside their lungs to keep radiating for the rest of their lives; the International Monetary Fund is not bankrupting their economy and slashing their basic services; it's not their families wandering in the desert as refugees.

The leaders of the empire, the imperial mafia - Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell and Rice and Wolfowitz and Perle - and their scribes as well, are as fanatic and as fundamentalist as Osama Bin Laden. And the regime change they accomplished in Afghanistan has really gone to their heads. Today Kabul, tomorrow the world.

So get used to it, world. The American Empire. Soon to be a major motion picture, coming to a theatre near you.

A while ago, I heard a union person on the radio proposing what he called "a radical solution to poverty - pay people enough to live on." Well, I'd like to propose a radical solution to anti-American terrorism - stop giving terrorists the motivation to attack America.

Now our leaders and often our media would have us believe that we're targeted because of our freedom, our democracy, our wealth, our modernity, our secular government, our simple goodness, and other stories suitable for schoolbooks. George W. is still repeating these clichés a year after 9-11. Well, he may believe it but other officials have known better for some time. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded: "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."

Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his agreement with such a conclusion. He said:
We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers - women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks.
The terrorists responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." And finally, several members of al Qaeda have repeatedly made it quite plain in the past year that it's things like U.S. support of Israeli massacres and the bombing of Iraq that makes them hate the United States.

I present more evidence of the same sort in one of my books along with a long list of U.S. actions in the Middle East that has created hatred of American foreign policy.

I don't think, by the way, that poverty plays much of a role in creating terrorists. We shouldn't confuse terrorism with revolution.

And the attacks are not going to end until we stop bombing innocent people and devastating villages and grand old cities and poisoning the air and the gene pool with depleted uranium. The attacks are not going to end until we stop supporting gross violators of human rights who oppress their people, until we stop doing a whole host of terrible things. We'll keep on adding to the security operations that's turning our society into a police state, and it won't make us much safer.

It's not just people in the Middle East who have good reason for hating what our government does; we've created huge numbers of potential terrorists all over Latin America during a half century of American actions far worse than what we've done in the Middle East. I think that if Latin Americans shared the belief of many Muslims that they will go directly to heaven for giving up their life and acting as a martyr against the great enemy, by now we would have had decades of repeated terrorist horror coming from south of the border. As it is, there have been many non-suicidal terrorist attacks against Americans and their buildings in Latin America over the years.

There's also the people of Asia and Africa. The same story.

The State Department recently held a conference on how to improve America's image abroad in order to reduce the level of hatred; image is what they're working on, not change of policies.

But the policies scorecard reads as follows: From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist movements fighting against insufferable regimes. In the process, the U.S. bombed about 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global interventions have come to an end and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but - believe it or not - a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to our victims and repair the damage from our bombings. There would be enough money. Do you know what one year's military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.

On page two of The American Empire for Dummies, I'd put this in a box outlined in bright red: Following its bombing of Iraq, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Following its bombing of Yugoslavia, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.

Following its bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now winding up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the region.

That's not very subtle, is it? Not really covert. The men who run the empire are not easily embarrassed. And that's the way the empire grows, a base on every corner, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-seven years after World War II ended, the U.S. still has major bases in Germany and Japan; and 49 years after the Korean War ended, the U.S. military is still in Korea.

A Pentagon report of a few years ago said: Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere ... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

The bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan have served the purpose of setting up a new government that will be sufficiently amenable to Washington's international objectives, including the installation of military bases and communications listening stations and, perhaps most important of all, the running of secure oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea region, which I'm sure many of you have heard about.

For years, the American oil barons have had their eyes on the vast oil and gas reserves of the Caspian Sea area, ideally with an Afghanistan-Pakistan route to the Indian Ocean, thus keeping Russia and Iran out of the picture. The oilmen have been quite open about this, giving very frank testimony before Congress for example.

Now they have their eyes on the even greater oil reserves of Iraq. If the U.S. overthrows Saddam Hussein and installs a puppet government, as they did in Afghanistan, the American oil companies will move into Iraq and have a feast and the American empire will add another country and a few more bases.

Or as General William Looney, the head of the U.S.-U.K. operation that flies over Iraq and bombs them every few days, said several years ago: If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn missiles. They know we own their country. We own their airspace. ... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.

We've gone through a few months now of a song and dance show that passes for debate, a debate about whether to attack a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, that has not threatened to attack us, that knows it would mean instant mass suicide for them if they attacked us. This debate is absurd not simply because Iraq is not a threat - by now, even the Martians must know that - but because our imperial mafia know that Iraq is not a threat, at all. They've been telling us one story after another about why Iraq is a threat, an imminent threat, a nuclear threat, a threat increasing in danger with each passing day, that Iraq is a terrorist state, that Iraq is tied to al Qaeda, only to have each story amount to nothing; they told us for a long time that Iraq must agree to having the weapons inspectors back in, and when Iraq agreed to this they said "No, no, that isn't good enough." How soon before they blame the horror in Bali on Iraq?

Does any of this make sense? This sudden urgency of fighting a war in the absence of a fight? It does, I suggest, only if you understand that this is not about Saddam Hussein and his evilness, or his weapons, or terrorism. What it's about is that the empire is still hungry and wants to eat Iraq and its oil and needs to present excuses to satisfy gullible people. And then they want to eat Iran. And then? ... I understand when George W. was asked: "Who next?" he said "Whatever."

The empire, in case you missed it, is not content with merely the earth; the empire has been officially extended to outer space. The Pentagon proudly admits this and they have a nice name for it. They call it "full-spectrum dominance," and for years now they've been planning to fight wars in space, from space, and into space. And that's a quote.

And if you're wondering "Why now?" about Iraq. I think - as many have said - that the coming election plays a role. It's going to decide which party will control congress and there's nothing like a lot of talk about war and defending America to sway voters, and make them forget about the economy and health care at the same time.

In addition to all the absurdities and lies they've been throwing at us, what I've found most remarkable and disturbing about this period has been the great absence in the mass media of the simple reminder that a U.S. attack upon Iraq means bombs falling on people, putting an end to homes, schools, hospitals, jobs, futures. The discussion has focused almost entirely on whether or not to go after the evil Saddam and his supposed evil weapons. What it all means in terms of human suffering is scarcely considered worthy of attention. Is that not odd?

Also absent from the discussion is that over the course of several years in the 1990s, the U.N. inspectors found and destroyed huge amounts of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq. I'm sure that most Americans are convinced that Saddam got away with hiding virtually all his weapons and that he'll get away with it again if there's a resumption of the inspections. But that's not what happened. Scott Ritter, chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, recently stated that "since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed; 90-95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories."

And we have similar testimony from others who were involved in the inspections.

Each of the big American bombing campaigns carries its own myths with it, but none so big as the one before last. I must remind you of that.

We were told that the U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was to save the people of Kosovo from ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. And since the ethnic cleansing finally came to an end, the bombing seems to have worked. Right? First there was the ethnic cleansing, then came the bombing, then came the end of the ethnic cleansing. What could be simpler? I'm sure that about 90 percent of those Americans who think about such things firmly believe that, including many of you, I imagine.

But it was all a lie. The bombing didn't end the ethnic cleansing. The bombing caused the ethnic cleansing! The systematic forced deportations of large numbers of Kosovars - what we call ethnic cleansing - did not begin until about two days after the bombing began, and was clearly a reaction to it by the Serb forces, born of great anger and feelings of powerlessness due to the heavy bombardment. This is easily verified by looking at a daily newspaper for the few days before the bombing began the night of March 23/24, and the few days after. Or simply look at the New York Times of March 26, page 1, which reads:
... with the NATO bombing already begun, a deepening sense of fear took hold in Pristina [the main city of Kosovo] that the Serbs would NOW vent their rage against ethnic Albanian civilians in retaliation. The next day, March 27, we find the first reference to a "forced march" or anything of that sort.
How is it possible that such a powerful lie could be told to the American people and that the people would swallow it without gagging? One reason is that the media don't explicitly point out the lies; at best you have to read between the lines.

There's the story from the Cold War about a group of Russian writers touring the United States. They were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. "In our country," said one of them, "to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We torture them. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What's the secret?"

Can any of you name a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the U.S.-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia three years ago?

Can any of you name a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the U.S. bombing of Iraq eleven years ago?

Can any of you name a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan?

Isn't that remarkable? In a supposedly free society, with a supposedly free press, with about 1500 daily newspapers, the odds should be way against that being the case. But that's the way it is.

I suppose that now some of you would like me to tell you how to put an end to all these terrible and absurd things I've talked about. Well, good luck to all of us.

I could say that personally I proceed from the assumption that if enough people understand what their government is doing and the harm that it causes, at some point the number of such people will reach critical mass and some changes can be effectuated. But that may well be a long way off. I hope I live to see it.

I'm sure that if all Americans could see their government's bomb victims up close, see the body fragments, smell the burning flesh, see the devastated homes and lives and communities, there would be a demand to end such horror so powerful that even the imperial mafia madmen couldn't ignore it. But how to get Americans to see the victims? I and many of you don't need to see those terrible sights to be opposed to the madmen's policies, but most Americans do. If we could figure out why we have this deep empathy for the victims, this imagination, it might be a very good organizing tool.

Gandhi once said that "Almost anything you do will be insignificant, but you must do it." And the reason I must do it is captured by yet another adage, cited by various religious leaders: "We do these things not to change the world, but so that the world will not change us."

Sam Smith, a journalist in Washington, whom some of you are familiar with, in his new book makes the point that "Those who think history has left us helpless should recall the abolitionist of 1830, the feminist of 1870, the labor organizer of 1890, and the gay or lesbian writer of 1910. They, like us, did not get to choose their time in history but they, like us, did get to choose what they did with it."

He then asks: Knowing what we know now about how certain things turned out, but also knowing how long it took, would we have been abolitionists in 1830, or feminists in 1870, and so on?

We don't know what surprises history has in store for us when we give history a little shove, just as history can give each of us a little shove personally. In the 1960s, I was working at the State Department, my heart set on becoming a Foreign Service Officer. Little did I know that I would soon become a ranting and raving commie-pinko-subversive-enemy of all that is decent and holy because a thing called Vietnam came along. So there is that kind of hope as well.

Let me close with two of the laws of politics which came out of the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, which I like to cite:

The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: "No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."

The Second Watergate Law states: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Both laws are still on the books.

¤ The World's Only Superpower

[William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer, because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Vietnam. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, and West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Political Memoir.] 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Boiling pot of Africa
Posted: Wednesday, October 23, 2002

By Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga

Ever since Henry Morton Stanley hacked his way through the Ituri forest in 1874, the Congo has been the "Boiling pot" of Africa.

Stanley's sponsor was Leopold II, King of the Belgians, who turned Congo into his personal fiefdom. Using slave labour, his agents extracted vast quantities of rubber and ivory for their new master. The profits built palaces for Leopold in Brussels, while recalcitrant Congolese were beaten.

The period of ruthless exploitation lasted until King Leopold was stripped of the Congo in 1908 and it became a Belgian colony. Today the UN has named those whom they claim have been looting the Congo minerals, which adds to the fact that the same boiling pot has eaten the Hutus who fled to Congo. Don't you think that the same men like Lt Gen Salim Saleh, Lt Col Mayombo and his boss Major General Kazini with the help of the Rwanda Chief of Staff Major-General James Kabarebe have cannibalised the Hutus in the DRC? Where is the human democracy that the UN stands for?

The UN under pressure from the British government have included the name of the Speaker of Parliament of Zimbabwe who is innocent.

A reliable Source at the UN told Africa Strategy that "a plot was hatched by the British UN representative" who received instructions from Hon. Jack Straw who was in New York last week between 14th-18th October 2002 to lobby the rest of the Council Members to include Zimbabwe on UN matters.

The true picture is that many malcontents in the British government and Zimbabwe opposition have tried to tarnish the good name of Hon. Emmerson Mnangagwa. They know he has given hope and faith and added more credence to the government of Zimbabwe.

Another factor that the source at the UN told us is that Zimbabwe's troops behaved well while in Congo as compared to Ugandan and Rwandan troops and this has embarrassed the governments of Britain and USA — hence the inclusion of at least someone from Zimbabwe.

This goes to show how far the British system has gone to demonise innocent people in Zimbabwe.

Yet the repression continued when independence finally came in 1960. Congo was already in chaos. Patrice Lumumba, its first elected leader, was murdered. Mobutu Sese Seko, the army chief, seized power in 1965. But he soon turned chaos into a method of government.

He emulated Leopold and plundered his newly named Zaire, until the jungle reclaimed the few roads, and the telephone and rail networks all but ceased to exist. By the time Mobutu was overthrown in 1997, the renamed Democratic Republic of Congo had effectively ceased to function as a state in all but name.

For a few years, Mr Kabila's takeover led to hopes that a milestone had been reached but it soon became clear that the long suffering Congolese was to continue for years to come.

The Democratic Republic of Congo's vast mineral resources of gold, diamonds, copper and cobalt, much of which has yet to be exploited, is likely to ensure that peace is a long way off for the war weary people of Africa's third-largest country. The British and American companies have made it clear that Congo will never have peace.

Rebel groups, which have fought to depose President Joseph Kabila, have now taken advantage of the blind eye on Congo by the so-called world order and the logistical support given by Uganda and Rwanda are now re- organising a final push for the capital, sources close to the rebels told us.

Despite international calls to salvage the 1998 Lusaka Peace Accords — a hard-won agreement that was never more than a paper truce — both sides have little incentive to end the fighting.

The legitimate Kinshasa government, backed by Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia, and the rebel groups, backed by Rwanda and Uganda, are now likely to attempt to strengthen their hand in a new and bitter upsurge of fighting for territory and power.

The renewed fighting that is being reported in Congo is the same thing that we have told those friends who support President Joseph Kabila to watch out.

We have in all our past articles said the two Presidents of Uganda and that of Rwanda can never be trusted when it comes to honouring agreements.

It is now on record that they were "given orders from Britain to go and get Kabila out as soon as possible" a source close to the meeting has told Africa Strategy.

There were no new peace initiatives but only a meeting of "lovers" in London, which ended with "a golden hand shake" to both Presidents.

Many international analysts believe that the rebels will probably take advantage of the weakening of the Kinshasa regime by the pulling out of Zimbabwe troops and press ahead with their new offensive which has been blessed by the British and USA governments in a meeting held in London on 17th October 2002.

Rwandan officials insist that their forces are in Congo solely to eliminate the Interahamwe, the ethnic Hutu militia that orchestrated the 1994 massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda. Many thousands of the Hutu took refuge in Congo.

Kagame told the BBC programme Hard Talk by Tim Sebastian on 21st October 2002 that he was not worried about the state department report of genocide and other terrorist acts against the people of Congo. In fact "we shall go in and kill them if Kabila does not control the situation".

He further said that "it is the British and American companies that are plundering the wealth of the DRC" not Rwanda. "There are many European countries that are also dealing in minerals which has made it impossible to find peace" stated Kagame.

But sources close the UN headquarters we spoke to told us that Rwanda also has a keen interest in the mineral wealth in eastern Congo, largely diamonds and gold. These have helped to keep the economy of this country, which had totally collapsed after the genocide.

Uganda is also eager to ensure its continued access to the region's mineral riches. Both are suspicious of the other's ambitions, despite being ostensible allies in the conflict against Kinshasa. This sums up why they were called to meet in London.

They have borne the brunt of the fighting in the diamond-rich Kisangani where many Rwandans and Ugandans have benefited. Insiders close to these rebel groups have said the past pattern of conspiratorial tradition of post-independence opposition politics in the Congo, and their increased hatred for the government was matched only by their loathing for each other. It is this which could ensure that President Joseph Kabila's regime will stay in power.

The latest upheaval gives no opportunity for both sides to talk as the hidden agenda of Uganda and Rwanda is about to be seen. Those who think that the Pretoria and the Luanda agreements are going to produce miracles should have watched and heard what Kagame said on BBC.

Guerrilla

The most overt threat to President Kabila's power comes from the clique of the guerrilla movements backed by both Uganda and Rwanda that have taken control of more than half the vast country. They have slogged it out in Africa's largest war, which is driven more by greed to control the Congo's fabulous mineral wealth than politics.

Congolese politicians, who have abandoned Kinshasa's salons for the bush, nominally lead the three movements. But they would be nothing without the backing of Rwanda and Uganda. This is the worry of most diplomats whom we have spoken to in London and Brussels.

For Rwanda's minority Tutsi-led government it was a chance to break, once and for all, the Interahamwe militia that organised and carried out the genocide in Rwanda. But asked by the BBC Hard Talk why there is no single Tutsi accused of genocide, Kagame denied vehemently that not a single Tutsi took part in the genocide.

There is growing worry about the plight of over two million Hutu refugees who fled to Congo who appear to have been completely "wiped out".

The UN has been asked to tell the world whether these are not crimes against humanity, which the government of Rwanda and Uganda should be accused of. After being ousted by Kagame's forces, most Hutus fled to Congo. For the scheming President Museveni, whose regional tag is the Bismarck of Africa, Kabila's rebellion represented an opportunity to extend his power and influence.

But within a year of putting the late Kabila in power they turned against him and would have toppled him in 1998 had Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola not come to his aid.

Since then tens of thousands of soldiers have been rampaging across a battlefield almost the size of western Europe in a war that has paralysed the heart of Africa, driven out two million people from their homes and yet gone almost unreported — so impenetrable is the rainforest that covers the interior.

For Mobutu's former generals and aides, the rebellion has been godsend. They fled into exile in the last chaotic days of his rule, in many cases with fortunes in their suitcases.

Now from their homes in Brussels, Paris and Cape Town they are re-inventing themselves as "committed democrats". The Uganda government has been busy taking money from these people and promising them a lot in return, just as they did to Savimbi until his final days.

One such figure is Kin-Kiely Mulumba, the Brussels-based spokesman for the Rwanda-backed Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD) whom I met in Brussels during one of my lobby trips on Zimbabwe at the headquarters of European Union. This is the most powerful ruthless of the three rebel movements in Congo. He hailed current events as a break-through.

Ceasefires

The rebels have had the upper hand in recent fighting. Jean-Pierre Bemba, the leader of the Ugandan-backed Congolese Liberation Movement has signed an agreement with the government but knowing the history of his backers, this is only a ploy to buy time while they prepare a final onslaught on Kabila. But the rebels' feuds have scuppered all previous attempts at ceasefires and peace deals, leaving a proposed UN peacekeeping plan in disarray.

Only last year, Ugandan and Rwandan forces fought a bloody battle in Kisangani, the former Stanleyville, one of the Congo's main diamond centres. The UN has dragged their feet on DRC and this has caused untold suffering to the people of Congo and the whole of the Great Lakes Region. The revelations by President Kagame on the "HARD talk" programme has now confirmed what Africa Strategy has always said about the two nations that partitioned Congo. One thing that remains unanswered is where are the two million Hutu refugees who fled to Congo? If they are still alive, how many are left and what has the UN done to help these refugees who live in the same occupied territories with their hunters?

The world now needs answers to these questions because the plight of the Hutus as a tribe in Africa has been forgotten. Many people have ignored our reasoning that those who invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1994 also organised genocide.

The world has failed to trace the root causes of genocide and have only dealt with the effects, which will not prevent any future occurrences. Had President Museveni not armed his Tutsi cousins to invade the peaceful country in Central Africa, there would have been no genocide in Rwanda?

Nobody has tried and admitted to the terrorist acts of shooting down of a plane carrying the two Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi which sparked the full-scale war in Rwanda.

These are some hidden and missing links to the whole Great Lakes Region crisis that has engulfed over 10 countries in the region.

The last time in 1999, Africa Strategy tried to investigate, in a meeting with the widow of the late Rwandan President in Vienna Austria, Ugandan government newspapers printed crude and imagined stories of "an assassination" plot on President Museveni in such a meeting which was done deliberately to distract our investigations. Africa Strategy still thinks and believes that somewhere in the secret box that surrounds the mystery of the killing of the two former heads of State, Museveni and Kagame were involved. This is what we are researching on in a bid to find out who played what part so as to form a basis for the late Habyarimana's family to take the matter further.

President Kagame of Rwanda himself has confessed in plain English on British television on Monday (October 21, 2002) on "HARD talk" that he was supported by Uganda to topple the Habyarimana government.

Misery

It is very clear that since the RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) was operating in the outskirts of the capital Kigali with the logistics of the plane provided by Ugandan authorities, then they must give answers to the terrorist act, which caused the misery that we see in the region. As much as we struggle to bring those who committed war crimes as far as the Second World War, we should also charge President Kagame and Museveni with crimes against humanity. They are not different from the former leaders of Yugoslavia who are standing trial for having stood against Islamic fanatics in Kosovo. The world order should not be different for the "Blue-eyed Presidents" while many others who have tried to defend their people and re-empower their people like President Mugabe have been demonised by the international community.

British

Whether those involved in the war and peace negotiations in the Congo make victory roads on either fronts, the fact remains that Congo will not return to normality as long as British and American companies want the wealth of this African boiling pot.

The endorsement of Uganda and Rwanda's policies on Congo by the British double-standard government last week, casts doubts on the whole process in the Congo. Those who have helped the Congo like Zimbabwe should not rush to pull out troops — SOME HIDDEN AGENDA LIES IN BRITAIN.

We can be contacted on africastrategy.@hotmail.com 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Spiritual Prostitutes: Recent conference on racism
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2002

The Progeny of Neo-Colonialism and White Racism (Part One)
Re recent conference in Barbados on racism

by Ras Jahaziel
members.aol.com/jahpaint

The historical white racism that created The White World Order of this day has become a self-regenerating ideological and economic system that makes it no longer necessary for whites to be racist on an individual level. This self-regenerating ideology of white racism has been established for so long on both sides of the railway track that it has acquired an aura of credibility, respectability and normality. As a result, the inferior behavior that Blacks were forced to adopt in an effort to escape their own outlawed and scorned identity has now become fashionable and normal. The victims of such scorn have been convinced of their own inferiority and have firmly resolved to convert to the image of their Caucasian master and mistress. Because their basic view of themselves and the world has been learned from the centuries-old manual of white racism, the victims have actually been enlisted in the oppression of their own image as well as their own kind. Though their skin is black, they have become chauffeurs on the carriage of white racism.

Oppression of THE BLACK IMAGE was the first code of the plantation, and it was instituted in order to make real the lie of African inferiority.

Oppression of one's own image is the same as oppression of one's own kind. Whenever a Black woman perms her hair in the Caucasian image of the slave-mistress she is automatically collaborating, even if unknowingly, in the centuries-old oppression of her own kind and also cooperating in the original racist scheme to clone A NEGRO. The cloned Negro was supposed to be AN INFERIOR COPY of the Caucasian slave-master and slave-mistress. By their futile attempt to attain straight hair, straight nose, white skin, and blue eyes, an image which they were not biologically equipped to attain, they thereby made real the lie of Black inferiority, and gave their owners great pleasure at seeing ludicrous yellow-headed and straightened hair caricatures of themselves. When slave behavior becomes fashionable and normal, CLONING is complete.

Racist slave-masters well understood that if the mother of Black civilization could be coopted in oppressing her own image, the rest of Black civilization would be raised from the cradle nursing on the complexes of inferiority. Because of the great success of this mission, there is no longer any need for a white slave-master or a white slave-mistress to be around, because the mother of Black civilization has been tricked into pinning the white beauty standard and the badge of inferiority on her progeny. Therefore even when no white folks are around, WHITE RACISM still enforces itself in the Black community. In that manner the ideological system of white racism has become self-regenerating. Once the germs have been sown, the victim becomes a carrier.

In addition to the psychological operation of cloning THE NEGRO, the robbery and enslavement of Blacks fostered an economic system that operates on a basic law which says you must have money to get money. Of course, if you had been already robbed of your land and your natural resources, you would not have started off the race with money, so the only money you would ever get would be determined and measured by those who started off with the money that was gained from having slaves and stolen property.

Emancipation therefore became a smokescreen that actually legitimized and perpetuated A PERMANENT GAP between the inheritors of the slave-master legacy and the inheritors of the slave-legacy. From the very beginning of the race for economic development, the basic laws of the race left no possibility for there to ever be a catch up. That is why the nations that benefitted from robbery and slavery are so far ahead and Africa is so far behind. This head-start that came from having slaves, now makes it possible for the recipients of the said legacy to not have slaves but get increasing benefits from the time when they did have slaves, because money begets more money and so there is no longer any need to be personally racist.

Because of this ongoing historical reality of white racism which has been systematized and impersonalized, life for the victims is a constant battle with invisible racist forces which predetermine the quality of their human existence, and this battle takes place even when the races are not in contact. Meaningful debate about racism is therefore not about the need for blacks and whites to become color blind and intermarry, because even if they do become friends and lovers, the dynamics of white racism will still be inflicting pain. Its impersonal, systematic, and robotic nature makes it totally indifferent to what form of human relationship exists between the races. The educational system, the information system, the political system, the legal system, the religious system and the economic system have long been geared to perpetuate the status quo of the plantation, so without radical change to all of these systems, being COLOR BLIND will not change anything. None of these systems are color blind, and even the most well-meaning of whites are forced by the economic chains which also grip them too, to cooperate in the maintenance of The White World Order. The same also goes for the Black victims. They too cooperate in the maintenance of The White World Order because of the controlling force of economic chains and psychological chains.

The robot has become bigger than its maker and independent of its maker. In fact, when the emphasis is placed on becoming color blind, Acute Negro Psychosis always tends to increase. That is why racial integration without restoration of the black psyche which has been damaged by the teachings of black inferiority and white superiority can only serve to perpetuate the hypnotic trance that is now the legacy of black slavery.

INTRUSION is the first crime of white racism.

Even the most sacred of Black spiritual spaces have been invaded and contaminated by violence and destruction, to the extent that there are no longer any black sacred spaces left haloed and uncontaminated from intrusion. The mummies of Black ancestors, the great Black Kings, Black Queens and Pharaohs are right now being dissected in white laboratories as white scientists peep up in their insides, and all of their sacred possessions are now in white museums exposed to the same peeping intrusive eyes. The temples of the black man and black woman which are their living human bodies have also been penetrated and polluted ruthlessly by rape and sexual abuse throughout their long history of enslavement. Every day from the cradle their minds are being invaded with thoughts that emanate from the U-rocentrick soul. On a continual basis their psyche is being penetrated by THE WHITE IMAGE which is always dressed in robes of false superiority, whether it be in the form of blue-eyed Jeezus in church, or Hollywood "stars" on tv. Black sacred culture has been so profaned and commercialized that it is only valued now as a tourist attraction, a thing to be peered at by the same intrusive eyes. How then is it possible to decry and condemn the victims of such TOTAL INTRUSION for wanting to have family reunions without intrusion?

Who can blame a gathering of African peoples for wanting to discuss their strange and unique predicament amongst themselves? Who can blame them for wanting the opportunity to look around at each other and say "WE, the same we who were bound together at the bottom of the slave ship, the same we who have toiled and never got any pay, the same we who were raped and abused by the rapist's sperm, the same we who felt the lash of the slave-master's whip, the same we with whom no one wanted to mix, the same we who have been cast aside as non-humans, the same we who have always been scorned and kept down, the same we who were torn apart from the love of each other, the same we who never had a chance to be WE." ? Is it not A HOLY THING that those who never had a chance to come together in unity as "WE" should at last want to say "WE" without having to qualify that "we" ?

This desire and this sacred right is the first right that the scattered family of African peoples around the world must establish in order to regroup and rebuild that oneness which has long been prevented. It is a healthy sign that those who were taught to despise their own image are now wanting to savor the beauty of their own image without distraction from THE WHITE IMAGE that they have been so long forced to worship. It can be said of such a gathering, "This is a gathering of those who suffered the destruction of their natural image at the hands of white racism, and have come together to behold the mirror of their own painful experience in the faces of their family who were brutally ripped from their embrace almost forever."

There was a time when the cruelty and wretchedness of plantation slavery did not allow such ones to even cross over to the next plantation a few hundred yards away to see their loved ones. Even now economic chains still bind the vast majority of African peoples to the plantation that was chosen for them by their slave-master. And now at this late stage in history, that which ought to have been a common and regular occurence must now be hailed as a great historical achievement.

Condemnation of the attempt to reclaim the "WE' that was deliberately hindered by white racism is clear proof that white racism can even spring from liberal white mouths and black mouths too. But this is a logical outcome of the historical intruder's long years of arrogance, contempt, and insensitivity to the human dignity of African peoples. Long years of such INTRUSION accompanied by attitudes of contempt for the African sacred space have actually bred a sense of ENTITLEMENT which now causes indignation at the thought of putting an end to intrusion. Because the U-rocentrick thought process has now become a norm in black heads, it is not even surprising to hear the U-rocentrick echo proceeding from black mouths.

So because the evil of white racism has long been internalized by Blacks who now unconsciously echo the sentiments of their masters, it is quite obvious that a great part of the work of dismantling white racism has to be done amongst blacks themselves. Equally important is the internal work that has to be done amongst whites, for the simple reason that white racism is a cultural norm that is internalized from the cradle, and it permeates the fundamental myths of white society, conferring honor and sainthood on the architects of genocide and robbery. Fed from cradle on such myths which totally disembowel non-white peoples of their humanity, racism becomes such a normal world view that it is easy to be nice, liberal, and racist at the same time without even being aware of it.

Too often in addressing the evil of racism, failure to identify the root makes the problem look like a mankind problem, but the evidence of history shows that it is a white disease that eats black blood vessels. When one considers the fact that David Livingston never ended up on a plate, it is quite obvious where the real cannibals and savages have always had their nesting place. The truth must be faced that the ideological root of racism lies in the soil of U-rocentrick thought, and that which is often described as black racism is very often A REACTION to white racism when Blacks fail to act in the way that is expected of Negroes. As A GOOD NEGRO you are supposed to always act like you have "gotten over it and moved on." You are supposed to be totally non-racial and eager to be MIXED in order to demonstrate your voluntary amnesia. In former times when a slave failed to comply with the etiquette of Negro-hood it would be said that he was getting "uppity." Today this "uppity-ness" is now being used against the slave by describing it as racism, and thereby diverting attention from the real root of racism.

When the root is not properly identified there is naturally a tendency to generalize the problem, and the prescriptions for healing the infectious disease therefore consist of. integration medicines with the vain hope that intermarriage, color blindness and having at least one or two friends from the other race will effect a cure.

Such simplistic analysis of the disease of white racism will therefore never place emphasis on the system itself which has become master of the individual participants. The fundamentally racist economic and psychological structures which underpin racial domination and racial submission are indifferent to smiles and shake hands. Even with a Black government, a black judiciary, a black police force and a black army, one can yet suffer excruciatingly from white racism on a daily basis, because the black faces are just the deputies. They are not THE SHERIFF.

White racism is an international world order created on the profits from black slavery. It is the mother ship upon whose deck little black nations march. Dollar bill rule is assisted by mental slavery, and if the mind has not been thoroughly purged of the plantation blue-print, black political power is powerless in understanding and addressing the results of white racism.

If your mind is a product of the same white racist ideological and cultural system, it is most likely that you have grown to understand the master's point of view. You have been rehearsed by the education system of the plantation to see the reasonableness in what the slave-master is saying, and you have grown to understand why it is his land and not your land. That is what the plantation education system does for the Negroes of the plantation, it makes them forsake their own thoughts and prefer those of the master. The U-rocentrick education system endows the white mind and the white idea with a stamp of authority and God-hood, because after all, such education says that whites discovered everything including Black folks and brought them to civilization.

With such God-like authority conferred upon it, the white idea or the white mind can say "that plant is evil" and it can be expected that all the Negro minds will say "amen." Even though you are supposed to be an independent "black" government, if the white mind says "Your chief judge must wear a white head, and your speaker in the parliament must also wear a white head," it can be expected that the "black" government will say amen. The overshadowing power of long indoctrination will not allow the black mind to see the symbolism of "the white wig." Under the influence of long indoctrination, it will not be understood that such symbolism establishes the right and authority of the white mind to rule the black head and the black mouth. This explains why even under black governments the movement for African liberation has always been met with stout resistance. The black mind has been so conditioned to wait for authorization from the white mind that if the Pope, the Queen or the White House say "Rasta is the right way, stop persecuting them for practicing their culture," the black mind that now thinks of persecuting the Rastas could be expected to adopt a different point of view.

We should not forget that many times in history, plantations have been run by appointed slaves when the master was away, and to their credit, those plantations were run very efficiently, never wavering once from the master's point of view. Many times the slaves would be glad for the master to come back, because the need to prove their faithfulness caused the temporary masters to be real severe. If the real slave-master would give you twenty lashes for being black, the temporary masters would give you twenty for being black and twenty more for being a reminder of their own blackness which they despised.

The economic and psychological legacy of white racism has therefore become a robot that no longer needs whites to make a personal input. The program has already been laid down, and the many human parts of its machinery do their appointed tasks in order to remain on the vital payroll. The inherent evil in the system itself is actually endorsed, since CRIMES AGAINST BLACK HUMANITY are legitimized in the psyche of the victims and the victimizers by yearly observation of such festivals as Columbus day, Thanksgiving day, Settlers day, Hole Town Festival, Crop Over etc. Black humanity and Black self worth have therefore been ideologically relegated to the realms of unimportance and insignificance to such an extent that walking in another man's image now comes natural to the children of Africa. This is inevitable when all the annual rituals of the colonial plantation have succeeded in placing CRIMES AGAINST BLACK HUMANITY more firmly beneath the radar of human conscience.

These invisible economic and psychological forces which have been unleashed by historical white racism place the present-day victims in a predicament of wide-spread psychic pain which is shared only by those of similar fate wherever they are scattered. The evidence of this UNITY IN PSYCHIC PAIN is to be found in the music which emanates from their souls, be it Blues, Jazz, Soul, Gospel, or Reggae etc. They all draw from A UNITY OF PSYCHIC PAIN, and the music, the art and poetry that come from the soul often contradict the lie of having "gotten over it."

Despite this predicament, the precarious condition of economic insecurity, total dependency, and critical vulnerability that historic white racism has placed upon the inheritors of the slave legacy, now forces them to present an appearance of "the non-racial Negroes who have gotten over it." This situation is somewhat similar to one where a bully is standing on your toes but you have to smile and pretend he isn't doing it. Such forces if not resisted unceasingly can actually infect the victims with that wide-spread disease of ACUTE NEGRO PSYCHOSIS which is so prevalent today on the plantation.

But in accordance with the Willie Lynch Plan, the psychology that now operates in Middle Class Heaven is such that Negroes can actually "get over it" by immersing themselves in the hamburger and plastic bag delights which are commonly mistaken for progress. These ANESTHETICS of Hamburger Heaven help the Negro to desensitize his perception of pain to the extent that he becomes distanced from the pain of the majority of his race. It is not uncommon to hear such Negroes say "we Negroes over here in The Big House are different, we don't hurt so much like those out there who are always getting on so bitter." And they will say it very loudly, because it is very important that their master hears and makes note of their unflinching fidelity.

True to the spirit of Negro-hood, the Negro's brain will not be busy studying how to correct the vulnerable and insecure predicament which has been bequeathed to him by historical white racism. Instead, the Negro will be more concerned and agitated about the spoiling of the "good Negro" name, thinking that preservation of the good name will forestall the inevitable.

Negro-hood is so binding on the consciousness, that Negroes will try to preserve their servile hold on the plank until whenever the slave master pushes them off. Their lack of historical memory will not remind them that the Arawaks also had a good name and it never helped them to escape genocide. Despite the oncoming rush of the economic precipice which has no regard for Negro fidelity, misplaced concerns will naturally cause agitation over "those other ones who are giving us a bad name"

And so, the ANAESTHETICS of Middle Class Heaven continue to create a wide division between those that "haven't gotten over it and moved on" and those that have "moved on" to A LOANED PROGRESS, where month to month leases on borrowed houses, borrowed cars and borrowed gadgets is more important than your soul. It is therefore important to maintain the etiquette of the plantation and suppress the visions that come from your own natural origins, because such visions do not pay when neo-colonialism is the order of the day.

Ras Jahaziel http://members.aol.com/jahpaint/index1.html 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Commercial Farmers Union director attacks UK
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2002

www.herald.co.zw

THE Commercial Farmers' Union director, Mr David Hasluck, yesterday attacked Britain for causing a diplomatic stand-off with Zimbabwe that resulted in farmers failing to get full compensation for land acquired for resettlement.

In a rare attack on the former colonial power, Mr Hasluck said Mr Tony Blair's government had failed to acknowledge the historical background to the land reform programme that required it (Britain) to help pay the compensation.

He was speaking to a delegation from the United States' New York City Council that is on a fact-finding mission in Zimbabwe.

"There was no acceptance of history by the new British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair," said Mr Hasluck.

"The British government has absolutely rejected that there will be compensation for land based on our history."

"Since my President (Cde Mugabe) and Tony Blair fell out diplomatically, things have been worse for us, especially the white farmers."

He said the British government had refused to take the responsibility of financing the land reform programme because it did not acknowledge what happened in the past, especially at the Lancaster House Conference.

There was almost a total breakdown of negotiations at Lancaster House in 1979 over the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe.

The negotiations, which led to the drafting of a compromise constitution for Zimbabwe, only resumed after Britain and the United States sent envoys indicating they would finance the land issue.

The Government recently amended the constitution to include a section obliging Britain to pay compensation to the farmers for the farms, while it would only pay for improvements.

"The most difficult thing for us is the failure of diplomacy," said Mr Hasluck.

"The promises for compensation have been taken away and we are being called the children of the British. This is an insult to us because we are Zimbabweans."

Mr Hasluck got angry at one point when some members of the delegation continued to refer to him as a white farmer.

"I am sorry to get angry and emotional, but please identify with me as an African too," said a visibly angry Mr Hasluck.

"I do not see myself as a white commercial farmer, but as a Zimbabwean. I am a Manyika who comes from Manicaland Province."

The leader of the delegation, Mr Charles Barron, said the delegation was in Zimbabwe to find out facts and not to arouse anger.

"We are also angry because we identify with black Africans," said Barron.

"When you see the degree of this anger on our side you have a right to be angry too. We appreciate your anger, but we are here to find the facts."

Mr Hasluck said the farmers did not want to involve themselves in politics.

He claimed the farmers had made a number of proposals on how the land reform programme could proceed, but had been ignored by the Government.

The farmers, he said, had no power to talk with the British government on the land reform programme because it was the responsibility of the Government.

The delegation later met with the opposition MDC in a closed meeting.

The MDC officials barred The Herald from attending the meeting despite the fact that all the other meetings held by the group so far with different organisations had been open to the Press.

"Who the hell are you and what do you want here?" one of the MDC officials told a Herald reporter.

"You cannot just come without our invitation because we are the ones who arranged this meeting."

The delegation arrived on Sunday and met with President Mugabe, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa; Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Minister, Cde Joseph Made and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, Cde Olivia Muchena.

The delegation would meet several other stakeholders and visit the farming communities before departing for the US next week.

Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15276&pubdate=2002-10-16 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Howard's latest act of madness
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2002

By Chinondidyachii Mararike

Glass-housed Caucasian Australia should think twice before throwing stones at Great Zimbabwe's stone-built palace of agrarian reforms.

It ought to know that the main battle in imperialism is over land. And when it comes to who in Zimbabwe owned the land, who had the right to settle and work on it, who kept it going, who won it back, and who should now plan its future, all African organisations in Europe, America and the Caribbean clearly recognise that President Mugabe is a grand narrative of emancipation and enlightenment that has mobilised people in the former colonial world to rise up and throw off neo-imperial subjugation and domination.

The Australian Prime Minister John Howard should know, if he doesn’t by now, that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme has the support of all African progressives the world over. MORE 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

South Africa won't dictate to Zimbabwe: Mbeki
Posted: Monday, October 14, 2002

SOUTH AFRICA will not dictate policy to Zimbabwean President Mugabe, nor will it be "dragooned" into overthrowing his Government, South African President Thabo Mbeki said in an interview published yesterday.

"When people say: 'Do something', we say to them: 'Do what?', and nobody gives an answer because they know when they say 'do something' what they mean is march across the Limpopo and overthrow the Government of President Mugabe, which we are not going to do," President Mbeki told South Africa's Sunday Times newspaper.

The South African government has been criticised for its refusal to criticise President Mugabe's land reforms and perceived lawlessness in Zimbabwe.

In September, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called for Zimbabwe to be fully suspended from the Commonwealth because of alleged human rights and democratic abuses.

However, he was overruled by President Mbeki and Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo, who said Cde Mugabe should be given a further six months before reviewing the situation in Zimbabwe.

"You can see that there is a particular agenda that drives that particular perception about Zimbabwe. The notion that South Africa can dictate policy to Zimbabwe . . . people must abandon that."

"What (US) President (George) Bush calls regime change is not going to happen," President Mbeki said. "The particular focus on Zimbabwe . . . suggests that particular agendas are being pursued here. And we are being dragooned to play: to come and fulfil and implement other people's agendas."

The South African President said the mainly white Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) had sent him a message opposing sanctions, sought by the West over President Mugabe's land reforms and the March presidential election victory.

President Mbeki spoke out against singling Zimbabwe out for punishment for perceived political wrongdoing, when global powers were doing little to resolve the "terrible situation" in the Middle East.

He also said no one had suggested punitive sanctions against President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in Pakistan via a military coup.

"It is Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, Zimba-bwe everyday. Is a military coup less of an offence? Or is a military coup in Pakistan okay?" he said.

The SA leader said the Zimbabwe question was often raised at forums discussing the continent's economic rescue plan — the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad) — but had not obstructed the programme in any way.

Nepad pledges improved political and economic governance by African leaders in return for increased financial assistance by Western governments.

President Mbeki is one of Nepad's key promoters.

The South African leader said the only solution to Zimbabwe's problems was continued engagement with all parties concerned.

Sadc decided last week, at President Mugabe's invitation, to send its Ministerial Task Force on Zimbabwe back to the country to review developments, particularly the land redistribution programme.

South Africa's Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who was on a three-day visit to Zimbabwe last week said there were clearly no signs of a looming bloodbath in Zimbabwe as suggested by the SA media.

"We are not seeing any signs of that bloodbath and maybe we are too blind to see this looming war, but we are saying we are not blind and there is not any looming bloodbath," she told journalists after meeting President Mugabe on Friday.

"The media in SA wants to paint a picture of gloom and doom, but we think the public wants to be informed about what exactly is going on."

Dr Dlamini-Zuma said the major problem with the SA media was that it always thought people wanted to read and listen to bad news.

The South African minister held closed door meetings with her Zimbabwean counterpart Dr Stan Mudenge where they exchanged views on regional and international issues, and other developmental issues between the two countries. — AFP-Reuters-Herald Reporter.

Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15214&pubdate=2002-10-14


Australia announces sanctions against State officials

Australia announced yesterday unilateral sanctions against Zimbabwe, including travel bans and a freeze on assets of Government officials following its failure to persuade the Commonwealth to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.

In a statement, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer claimed the sanctions were designed to influence the Zimbabwean Government to return "good governance and rule of law". MORE 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Campaign to isolate Zimbabwe dealt blow
Posted: Friday, October 11, 2002

Presidential Reporter

THE international campaign to isolate Zimbabwe and not to recognise the reelection of President Mugabe in March this year, continues to crumble with several European and North American countries accrediting new envoys to Zimbabwe.

New envoys from Norway, Austria and Canada — whose countries had earlier said they did not recognise the outcome of the March presidential election — yesterday presented their credentials to President Mugabe at State House.

The new High Commissioner for Canada, Mr John Schram and incoming Austrian ambassador, Mr Mag Michael Brunner, pledged to work towards improving ties between Zimbabwe and their countries.

"Your Excellency, may I present to you the letters of recall of my predecessor and present letters by which my President . . . accredits me as ambassador to the Republic of Zimbabwe," said Mr Brunner when he presented his credentials to Cde Mugabe.

Mr Schram also read a similar citation.

Also presenting their credentials yesterday, were the new Pakistani High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, Mr Khalid Aziz Baba, incoming Iranian ambassador Mr Hamid Moayyer and Mr Kjell Storlokken of Norway.

Mr Brunner told reporters soon after meeting Cde Mugabe that as a member of the EU, the position of the Union and that of Austria towards Zimbabwe "are well known".

Asked to comment on the fact that the EU had said it did not recognise Cde Mugabe’s re-election and yet as a member of that organisation, his country had sent him to Harare where he had just presented his credentials to the President, Mr Brunner said: "I will do my best to improve the relations. The Greek ambassador was here (at State House where he also presented his credentials recently), and now me.

"Here you are member of the European Union, here you are an autonomous State. So as long as we have an embassy here, we will continue to have bilateral relations."

Diplomatic sources, however, said bilateral relations between Austria and Zimbabwe were cordial as evidenced by the participation of firms from that country at the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair in April this year.

A cultural and musical group from Austria also took part in the jazz festival held at the Borrowdale Race Course in Harare recently.

The sources said the EU stance on Zimbabwe had largely been influenced by the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Bilateral relations between Harare and London have been frosty ever since Mr Blair reneged on a promise by his predecessors to fund land reforms in Zimbabwe.

The incoming Canadian High Commissioner said he hoped that relations between his country and Zimbabwe would strengthen during the four years that he would be in Harare.

He said his country had set aside $11 million for food aid to Zimbabwe and was ready to offer assistance in agriculture, food and training.

Mr Schram, however, denied that his country had taken a stance similar to that of the EU against Zimbabwe.

"What we are doing is to continue to work with Sadc and the Commonwealth in a way that can be helpful to the people of Zimbabwe.

"Canada has been working with the Commonwealth and our African partners in the Commonwealth and we believe land reform is central and can be done in a way that will ensure food production," he said.

Canada, together with Australia and New Zealand have largely been seen as siding with Britain in a campaign to demonise Zimbabwe.

However, their efforts to isolate Zimbabwe failed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Coolum early this year when African members voiced their support for Harare.

Sources who attended the meeting between Mr Schram and Cde Mugabe yesterday said the President had urged the Canadians not to continue siding with Britain in a bilateral issue between Harare and London over land reforms.

"We are dismayed Canada had to go the way of Britain. We would expect you to read us well and project us as best as you can and where we have gone wrong, point it out (but) not in the Blair way.

"Engage us in the normal Canadian way. The politics of deception that have no essence of honesty we don’t accept," the sources quoted Cde Mugabe as saying.

They said Mr Schram and the President discussed the good relations that existed between the two countries in the 1980s and early 1990s when Canada used to provide training scholarships to Zimbabweans.

Cde Mugabe hoped that this would be revived.

Mr Storlokken of Norway told reporters after meeting the President that there had been strong links between his country and Zimbabwe since independence.

He said Norway was currently engaged in drought relief operations in the region and was moving food from South African ports into Zimbabwe.

Responding to allegations that some Non-Governmental Organisations from Norway were engaging in the internal politics of Zimbabwe, Mr Storlokken said he believed that while civic organisations played a crucial role in societies, they should abide "by the laws of the land".

Pakistani’s incoming envoy, Mr Baba, and the President discussed the excellent bilateral relations between Pakistan and Zimbabwe dating back to the days of the liberation struggle and through the early years of independence when Islamabad helped in the training of Zimbabwean pilots and provided equipment for the airforce.

The Asian nation also provided scholarships to Zimbabwean students in foreign services, international banking and finance, mining, telecommunications and defence.

Mr Moayyer pledged to follow up various agreements signed between Zimbabwe and Iran to "assist brothers and sisters who are very friendly people".

"In Iran, we admire the resistance of brothers and sisters here in Zimbabwe and hope that you will succeed and have more development in this country. In this field (of land reform) we are ready to assist them," he said.

Iran has expressed its readiness to help Zimbabwe in agricultural research, livestock breeding, fisheries and irrigation.

A Zimbabwe/Iran joint economic commission convened in Tehran in August and was attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cde Stan Mudenge, the Minister of State for Information and Publicity, Professor Jonathan Moyo, and the Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Cde Joseph Made.

Reproduced from:
http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=15124&pubdate=2002-10-11 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

British tourist to correct negative publicity
Posted: Monday, October 7, 2002

Herald Reporter

A BRITISH national, Mr David Jones, has undertaken to correct the negative publicity Zimbabwe is receiving in the West saying the country is a paradise.

Mr Jones described Zimbabwe as "a real paradise, a jewel in the crown for Africa and heaven on earth" because of the real feeling of unspoilt nature the country possessed.

He was speaking at a function on Saturday night where the Minister of Environment and Tourism, Cde Francis Nhema, presented him with the Tourist of the Decade Award.

"For us, Zimbabwe in particular, and southern Africa in general is the eighth wonder of the world," said the 50-year old Mr Jones.

Whenever I have had the opportunity, I have done my personal best to sing Zimbabwe’s praises and sell your country’s benefits to the uneducated and we all know how many of those people there are in the world. MORE 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black Racism
Posted: Thursday, October 3, 2002

By Tim Wise

It happened again, for what seems like the millionth time. Once again, in response to something I said about ongoing racism in the United States, someone (a white male, naturally) pulled out the all-too-common conservative race card (oh yes, they have one), which they believe disproves the existence of racial injustice. It sounds a bit like this:

"If racism is such a big deal in America, then why have Asians done so well? Why is Asian income higher than white income? Doesn't this prove that the problem with blacks is simply a lack of effort?"

Offered this challenge most recently by a disgruntled county employee in Minneapolis who resented having to sit through a speech I had given, I rolled my eyes, took a deep breath and considered the irony of the query (ironic because it always comes from whites who insist on their "color-blindness") before issuing my reply.

As I pondered my response, I thought about the Asian women working twelve hours a day in garment sweatshops both abroad and in places like Los Angeles to make clothes for people like this guy's kids; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"

I thought about the Vietnamese youth in California who are profiled as potential gang members by police, for wearing the wrong clothes or driving in the "wrong" neighborhoods; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"

I thought about the Asian families whose members have to put in 80 hours a week just to keep their heads above water; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"

I thought about the Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi taxi drivers who endure crappy working conditions, customers who get pissy about their accents or "attitudes," and cops who are responsible for nearly eighty percent of all anti-South Asian attacks-often against hack drivers in places like New York; and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"

I thought about the demonization of Wen Ho Lee, and of Chinese American political contributors during the Clinton Administration; and the beating death of Vincent Chin; and the persistent refrain that the Japanese are "buying up America;" and I wondered, in what sense were they "doing so well?"

But instead of getting into all of those things, which likely wouldn't have been seen as responsive by my detractor, I offered the following.

First, I noted that the Asian "model minority" myth has long been a staple of white conservative race commentary, though rarely have members of the various Asian communities in the U.S. pushed the notion themselves. The genesis of this argumentation goes back to the 1950's and '60's, when prominent magazines ran articles lauding the "hard-working" Chinese or Japanese, and explicitly contrasting their "success" with the "failure" of African Americans.


Of course, none of these ever editorialized in favor of lifting the immigration restrictions that had kept Asian populations small in the U.S. from the 1880's until 1965, despite their respect for their favored persons of color. Neither they nor any adherent to the model minority image spoke out against internment of "hard-working" Japanese Americans during World War Two, or the killing of hard-working Southeast Asians during the Vietnam War.

Secondly, I explained that comparisons between blacks and Asian Americans overlook a number of differences between them. Whereas the African American population represents a cross-section of background and experience, the APA community is highly self-selected. Voluntary migrants from nations that are not contiguous to their country of destination tend to be those with the skills and money needed to leave their home country in the first place. As many scholars have found, Asian immigrants are largely drawn from an occupational and educational elite in their countries of origin.

Indeed, Asian "success" in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to immigration policies that have favored immigrants with pre-existing skills and education. As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly-educated APA community in the U.S. already had college degrees or were in college upon their arrival.

Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, Asian Americans are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree. More than eight in ten Indian immigrants from 1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science, medicine or as engineers.

Pre-existing educational advantages are implicated in Asian success once here; but they hardly indicate genetic or cultural superiority. After all, to claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty and lack of success for persons from the same genetic or cultural backgrounds in their countries of origin. There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.

Indeed, ethnic Koreans in Japan, as well as the Burakumin there-a minority treated similarly to the Dalits in India-consistently underperform economically and educationally, compared to dominant Japanese. They are both the targets of discrimination, and although they are culturally and genetically indistinguishable from other Koreans or Japanese, they are consistently found at the bottom of Japanese society, and do worse than others in Japan, or than Koreans in Korea.

Not only does this debunk the notion of pan-Asian superiority in genes or culture, but it also suggests that a group's caste status influences group outcomes: much as with blacks in the U.S., whose position has been similar to the Burakumin and ethnic Koreans in Japan.

The primary argument put forth by those who push the model minority myth is that APA income in the U.S. is higher than the average for other people of color and even whites. As such, it is suggested, racial discrimination cannot be a significant problem any longer.

But the data that shows Asians doing better in terms of income than whites, is family and/or household data, not per capita income data. This is important because APA households and families tend to have more family members (thus, slightly higher incomes are made to stretch over more persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more family members in the workforce in order to earn only slightly more than whites, with fewer income earners).

The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually.

An additional reason why the average income of Asian families is higher than that of whites is because Asians are concentrated in parts of the country that have higher average incomes and costs of living. The three states with the largest Asian populations and a disproportionate share of the overall Asian population (California, New York and Hawaii), rank 13th, 4th, and 16th in terms of average income: all within the top third of states. Whereas 76% of all Asian Americans live in the higher-income regions of the West and Northeast, only 41% of whites and 28% of blacks are in these regions.

Over half of all APA's in the U.S. live in just five major U.S. cities (Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City): all of which have higher than average household incomes, and much higher costs of living than most of the U.S.

According to the Census Bureau, in 1996, median household income was about $35,500. But in states with disproportionate shares of Asians (NY and Hawaii, for example), median household income was $39,000 and $42,000 respectively. This means that APA median income will be skewed upward, relative to the rest of the country, but given cost of living differences, actual disposable income and living standards will be no better and often worse.

More importantly, claims of Asian success obscure the fact that the Asian American child poverty rate is nearly double the white rate, and according to a New York Times report in May of 1996, Southeast Asians as a whole have the highest rates of welfare dependence of any racial or ethnic group in the United States.

Nearly half of all Southeast Asian immigrants and refugees in the U.S. live in poverty, with annual incomes in 1990 of less than $10,000 per year. Amazingly, even those Southeast Asians with college degrees face obstacles. Two-thirds of Lao and Hmong-American college grads live below the poverty level, as do nearly half of Cambodian Americans and over a third of Vietnamese Americans with degrees.

Indeed, Asian "success" rhetoric ignores the persistent barriers to advancement faced by Asians relative to whites. On average, Asian Americans with a college degree earn 11% less than comparable whites; and APA's with only a high school diploma earn, on average, 26% less than their white counterparts.

When Asian American men have qualifications that are comparable to those of white men, they still receive fewer high-ranking positions than those same white men. Asian American male engineers and scientists are twenty percent less likely than white men to move into management positions in their respective companies, despite no differences in ambition or desire for such positions.

Of course, beyond the statistics, there are obvious points to be made. First, if whites truly believe that Asians are culturally superior and add to the quality of schools and workplaces, then why aren't these folks clamoring for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations? Why not flood the borders, since we could all benefit from a little more Asian genius? Why not have white CEO's step down from their positions and let Japanese managers take their place?

Secondly, the whites who trumpet the model minority concept would be the first to object if Asian Americans began to bump their own white children from college slots, even if they did so by way of higher test scores and "merit" indicators. Just ask yourself what would happen if next year the top 3500 applicants to U.C.-Berkeley, in terms of SAT score and grades, happened to be Asian Americans, especially since there are only 3500 slots in the freshman class.

Would the regents allow the freshman class at the state's flagship school to become 100% Asian? Or for that matter even 80% or 70%? How would white Californians react to such a development, including those who praise hard-working Asian kids for their educational excellence and scholarly achievements?

How would white alums react if their favorite "model minorities" were suddenly seen as taking slots not from black and Latino youth, but from their own white children? To ask the question is to answer it.

And finally, to argue-as supporters of the model minority myth do-that Asians "have made it, so why can't blacks," is to misunderstand the issue of moral and ethical responsibility to correct the harm of wrongful actions.

Even if we accept the notion that groups victimized by racism can "make it" without assistance, affirmative action, or reparations, that would not deny (or indeed speak to in any way) the fact that society has an obligation to compensate the victims of injustice. After all, if my leg is blown off in an industrial accident, it hardly matters that many people with only one leg go on to succeed. The issue of compensatory justice remains, irrespective of what gains one can make without compensation.

I have little reason to believe that any of this made much difference to the individual who chose that day to trumpet Asian success as a way to denigrate African Americans. Given some of his other comments-that African sexual promiscuity was to blame for AIDS on the continent, and that he resented the "fact" that his black son (presumably adopted) has more opportunity in life than his white son (despite the fact that the former is unemployed and the latter in college)-his ability to rationally decipher much of anything seems doubtful.

Nonetheless, challenging the model minority myth is a worthwhile enterprise, especially when one considers how many decent, well-meaning individuals often fall for it.

Those who trumpet "Asian values and culture" (based on stereotypical understandings of both, not unlike the white guys who covet mail-order Asian brides for their anticipated "docility"), do Asians no favors. If anything, they set them up in a way that not only harms the groups against which they are contrasted, but in a way that harms Asians as well.

To be considered a group filled with math and science geniuses and passive, sensual, and willing female companions, not only objectifies Asian Pacific Americans, but results in a special stigma for those in the various Asian groups who aren't good in school, don't know how to fix your computer nor care to do so, or who don't fit the sexist stereotypes that are so comforting to Western male tastes.

The model minority myth, in other words, is a setup: a carrot offered to certain groups so long as they don't get out of line, assert their rights, strike for better wages, or try to determine their own sexuality. And as with all carrots, there is an even bigger stick, ready to throttle those who don't go along with the game.

Ultimately, justice and equity will remain elusive so long as whites feel no compunction about using one group of color against another group of color, in an attempt to make fools of both.

Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at (and footnotes procured from) timjwise@msn.com 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Kola Boof Responds to Traitor Charges
Posted: Saturday, September 28, 2002

Press Release--September 20, 2002
Prepared by Yi Nee Ling, Publicist.

On Sept. 15th 2002...Hisham Noor, a Diplomat of the Sudanese Government, published an article featuring and attacking Sudan's top woman writer, Kola Boof, in the Arabic daily newspaper "AlSharq Al-awsat" (which is London's largest Arab newspaper). In this article, Sudan's diplomat blasted Ms. Boof and openly painted her as...a traitor to Sudan...a "fake" who doesn't really exist, because no Sudanese woman would carry herself as trashy as Boof does..."a prostitute working to create propoganda against Arabic Islam on behalf of the United States government"...a mentally unstable habitual liar...he spoke quite heatedly on behalf of...the government and the citizens of Sudan.

This morning, from California, Kola Boof responds for public record.

Official Statement of Kola Boof:

First let me say for the record...that I am a traitor to the Arab Muslim government of Sudan...because as God knows...the practice of ethnic cleansing, socially accepted racism and colorism, and of course, timeless sexism by the Arab ruling class in Sudan is like a gasoline-tainted veil that is burning away the layers of our true mother's African face. And if there is anyone who believes in God...then they know that Sudan is currently governed not by Allah, but by Satan.

Many of the world's most intelligent leaders have claimed that the holocaust that happened in Nazi Germany could not possibly happen again, but they were wrong about that. I assure you, as a witness...that there is a new holocaust of ethnic cleansing taking place in the hands of God...and it's taking place, this time, in Sudan. It's been going on for more than twenty years now. I'm a witness to that, too. And with my heart on fire with rage...I am sad to report, via very reliable sources, that just last week there were more bombings in Sudan's royal southern region, there were more fathers killed, more mothers and children abducted, raped and some mutilated with savage beatings--the kind of savage beatings that only the Arabs Muslims know how to administer, trust me. There were even little boys 10 and 12 years old sodomized by their Arab masters. For those wishing to see for themselves...here is the news report....

http://www.persecution.com/news/index.cfm?action=fullstory&newsID=167

The problem, however, is that the victims of the world's new holocaust are mainly charcoal colored Africans...and therefore, no one with any real power on this planet cares. God knows that Kola Boof doesn't have any power. But that is why I have no choice but to be a traitor to my country. As Allah is my witness, I have no choice.

It hurts me to be so hated, disowned and lied on by the Arab Muslim community of my birthplace. But I am not mentally unstable...I am not a prostitute...and I am not Islam's loyal fool. I am not America's puppet...I am...as I stated before, my own Queen. That is the example that I wish to set for little African girls. I am the one who represents the Black African mothers, daughters and wives of Sudan...I am the Black man's mother....and I do not believe that any peace agreements in Machakos will improve the real lives of Sudan's oppressed and enslaved southern tribesmen. In fact, as much as I have honored the heroic efforts of our great African lord, Dr. John Garang...I do not believe that any peace agreements will even be carried out if they are so reached. That is the way of Africa and paper agreements. You might as well use it for toilet paper!

I believe that the racist Arab Muslims of the North can never peacefully coexist as equal brothers and sisters with the authentic Black Africans of the South. And what has become of Sudan's Nubians..it's a disgrace. Mother Africa and Isis cry over it every day...that there is no one, not the Nubian, the Nuer or the Dinka who can stand up to the blatantly unchecked evils of the lightskinned North. I believe that Sudan will never know any peace or justice as long as Arab Muslims are the sole rulers and architect of the thinking man's Sudan. That is what Kola Boof believes and has to say, and yes....America is my husband now. I am a traitor to Sudan. I am my own Queen, my own unique creation. Hopefully, someday, so too shall Sudan be. tima usrah...may God save Sudan, my mother, for she is the Sun!

Kola Boof:
KOLA BOOF, SOME LADY

Kola Boof is the author of "Every Little Bit Hurts" (Poems), "Long Train to the Redeeming Sin: Stories About African Women" and coming in 2003.."DIARY of a Lost Girl". Kola Boof survived an attempt on her life when three Arab Muslim gunmen opened fire on her in Indian Hills, California. Ms. Boof, to their surprise, returned gunfire and escaped unharmed. Ms. Boof is an official supporter of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army. Her late father, Egyptian archeologist Atmu Bahri Kolbookek was a member. 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Mugabe absent from Commonwealth talks
Posted: Monday, September 23, 2002

Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, has decided to boycott talks about his country's suspension from the Commonwealth, apparently because he objected to the tone of his invitation.
Mr Mugabe had, until the last minute, been expected to attend Monday's meeting in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, to review Zimbabwe's response to its exclusion from the organisation.

But in a phone call to the Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, Mr Mugabe said he objected to the invitation letter from Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

"Mugabe said the invitation gave the impression that he was going to be court-martialled in Abuja," a Nigerian official told Reuters news agency.

The BBC's Dan Issacs in Abuja says the boycott is a major blow to the Commonwealth. More from BBC

Diplomatic gaffe

Herald Reporter

PRESIDENT Mugabe was not invited to today's Commonwealth troika meeting in Abuja to discuss the issue of Zimbabwe, it emerged yesterday.

Officials at the Commonwealth London headquarters confirmed yesterday that there was a "major diplomatic foul-up" in the manner the President was invited.

"President Mugabe is not attending the meeting because the bottom line is that he was not invited," the officials said.

The officials said the idea of having a meeting in Abuja was initially mooted when Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Mugabe met on the sidelines of the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa early this month.

The two leaders held a one on one meeting on the morning of September 2, the day Cde Mugabe addressed the summit. MORE 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

White woman in bizzare case of racism
Posted: Friday, September 20, 2002

From Isdore Guvamombe in Masvingo, www.herald.co.zw

IN a bizarre fit of racial bigotry, a white woman in Chiredzi allegedly wrapped her faeces in an attractive paper foil and gave them to a security guard as a delicious food present.

After accepting the "gift" in good faith, the guard, Mr Peter Malava, took his present home and gave it to his wife to open.

But the couple received the shock of their lives when the wife opened the parcel in front of her three kids only to discover the nicely wrapped human faeces.

The accused, Sonnette Rohm (28) of Hartbeesnerk Farm in Chipinge was not asked to plead when she appeared before Chiredzi magistrate Mrs Memory Maphosa on one count of crimen injuria.

She was remanded to September 27 on $2 000 bail.

The State, led by prosecutor Mr Gilbert Mutyamaenza, alleges that on August 31 this year, Rohm, entered Muwonde Lodge in Triangle, Chiredzi where Malava was guarding the entrance.

Late that afternoon, when driving out in her Toyota Land Cruiser, Rohm gave Malava the neatly wrapped "present" and told him to "go and have a nice meal".

After work, Malava went to his home and gave his wife the present only to be shocked to find human excreta.

Malava then reported the matter to the police, who instituted investigations and arrested Rohm in Chipinge on Monday.

The incident comes hardly two years after a Chiredzi white farm manager, Mr Cornerious Johhanes Krueger, was arraigned before the courts for allegedly urinating into the mouth of a junior employee.

He is out of custody on $5 000 bail.

Reproduced from:
www.herald.co.zw 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

Beware of West, region warned
Posted: Friday, September 20, 2002

From Elton Dzikiti in VICTORIA FALLS

PRESIDENT Mugabe yesterday war-ned Southern Africa to be wary of efforts by Western imperialist forces bent on dividing people and governments in their quest to continue exploiting the rich resources of the region.

Cde Mugabe said although changes in the sub-region’s political landscape were welcome, it would be fallacious to assume that former colonisers had disappeared with the coming of political independence.

"Those who tormented and dispossessed us yesterday have assumed new, subtle and deceptive forms of imperialism and subjugation that are not clearly understood by some of our people in the sub-region and beyond," he told delegates attending a conference for the Southern Africa Development Community police chiefs and ministers in charge of policing.

Cde Mugabe said while Africa was the richest continent in terms of resources, Africans were yet to enjoy the full value of their resources owing to conflicts and other machinations fuelled by the West.

"The new millennium should therefore, be viewed as an epoch in which Africa must redefine its relations with the West, with our people emerging more liberated, politically, economically and socially." MORE 

Printer friendly version

Send page by E-Mail

The Opposite of Racism Isn't Colorblindness
Posted: Thursday, September 19, 2002

Published: Sept 2 2001
By Sean Gonsalves

If St. Paul was right, that the wages of sin is death, is it a stretch to say that the wages of white supremacy is colorblindness?

To suggest such a thing, I'm sure, makes a good number of white brothers and sisters uneasy, thinking perhaps Black Americans have deserted Dr. King's dream where people are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Forget that King, just before his death, called for affirmative action in his last book, "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" His dream wasn't that everyone would not recognize color, but that skin pigmentation would not be used as the key measure of human potential.

King wasn't so naive to think a society steeped in centuries of white supremacy would be magically transformed into a colorblind utopia. I'm not suggesting that affirmative action is our salvation, but neither is it the reverse racism that some opponents claim.

A hard-working white person is sure to raise the question: Why should I be made to pay for America's past racial sins? Evidently, voluntary cooperation is not an option.

In a nation where the majority of its citizens are at least nominally-affiliated Christians, it seems such questions are more knee-jerk deflection than thoughtful reflection.

Eating of the fruit produced by sinful forbears is to partake in the original sin, according to one of the central tenets of the Christian faith.

Deuteronomy 5:9 says: "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

The point here isn't to promulgate evangelical Christianity. That's Cal Thomas' job. I just find it hard to believe that people in a Christian-saturated society are perplexed by the idea of paying for sins committed by previ