At a forum at Wayne State University in 2010, Joachim Chissano, former President of Mozambique was asked a question about the movement to secure independence from the Portuguese. He was also asked about the ensuing civil war in his country that occurred from the early 70’s until the early 90’s. Chissano surprised many by answering that it was not a civil war, but a “civil disruption”, partially caused by and supported through external forces (e.g. South Africa). These external forces instigated havoc between two major Mozambican parties in their country (FRELIMO and RENAMO). These statements by Chissano would underscore similar challenges faced by then Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and the underlying external and internal interference eventually lead to his 2 month reign and a brutal death. His challenges mirrored many African nations seeking independence from Colonial rule.
In chapter 9, a brief summary of global events, African sentiment towards colonialism and worldwide are described to fully understand the involvement of outside countries such as the U.S., Britain and Belgium (Congolese liberation). These descriptions also help to understand the challenges faced by African leaders, many of which may not have been anticipated. Historically, it was not generally understood by many the opposition that African nations put forth to prevent themselves from being colonized. We are also reminded that many countries did not freely give up their rule in African nations. Events such World War 1 and 2 and the fallout from these events were instrumental in providing the forum for leaders in African countries to leverage the instability of colonial countries to begin their own opposition strategies.
Typically, the face that is portrayed by historical and even in the current media is the ineptitude of African countries to govern themselves. What is not so evident is the interference or lack of that was portrayed in the Lumumba video. In the increasing conflict between Belgium and the Congo, Lumumba looked to the UN and specifically, the United States to help support their internal struggles and with those experienced by excessive sabotage and aggression by the Belgium military. The United States not only did not offer support, but was implicated in a plot to get rid of Lumumba because of his ties to Russia. Although it is reported that the internal conflicts with the Congolese President, the head of the Congolese army led to Lumumba’s death, it has been said that the U.S. did not succeed first with their assassination attempts.
Although Lumumba was assassinated, he is remembered for his efforts to unite the Congo, across ethnic group and political opposition to reach the state of independence for his country. In his final letter to his wife, Lumumba he states, “ History will have it one day-Not the history they teach in Brussels, Paris, Washington or the United Nations, but the history taught in the countries set free from colonialism and it's puppet rulers, Africa will write her own history, and both north and south of the Sahara. It will be a history of glory and dignity” (www.africawithin.com). Lumumba clearly understood the long suffering that would exist for African countries in their quest for independence. It is not without notice that his final letter speaks about the lack of support by the U.N., the influence on those within in country that were susceptible to corruption. He also recognized the personal sacrifice, courage and long-suffering of those like himself, that envisioned a unified Africa, free from colonial rule.
Sebrina in Mozambique
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Imperialism and Racism across Africa
“The British don’t become slave traders and slavers because they are racist, they become racist because they used slaves for great profit in the Americas and devise a set of attitudes towards black people to justify what they’ve done. The real engine behind the slave system is economics”. This statement from Racism: A History is a root cause analysis of the ideology of white supremacy amongst people of color and fuels the European expansion and destabilization of the continent of Africa. Chapter 6 on the European expansion tends to look at several variables that support the exploitation of African, to include the term “atavism” (defined as the irrational but irresistible historical tendency by any state to conquer alien people and lands (pg. 109).
If the brutality of Europeans and other nations against other non-whites where limited to Africans, the argument would follow that economics was the sole reason for exploitation across the African nation. However, as the video shows, some brutality inflicted upon indigenous people was the direct result of a racist and superior stance (as in the elimination of the Tasmanian aborigines).
Economics may have begun the disconnection between Africans as humans, but time and science help to support their beliefs. As indicated in the video, Black Africans are viewed as closely related to chimps, even stating that they mated with them. As this schema is strongly held by those who benefited from slave labor, the evolution of this belief system becomes increasingly linked to scientific and social rational to support an imperialist system of exploitation by the likes of Robert Knox, who wrote in his book, “race is everything”. He believed that the superior races will naturally dominate the inferior ones. American scientist also studied skulls in an attempt to show them as a “separate species”. Some call for extermination of races. The nineteenth century “Origin of the Species”, by Charles Darwin. Natural selection supported the idea of the great British race.
One aspect of brutality and exploitation of Africans was indeed for the support of an increasingly industrial nation and the raw materials that Africa produced. The lack of attributing a human element to Africans by the colonialist however bordered on an evil that is not discussed in either the book or the video. As we see the cruel and inhumane treatment of the Congolese by King Leopold as he cut off the hands of laborers that did not meet quotes were even done to children.
The treaty of 1844 was the epitome of a long history in the destabilization of indigenous African people. The killing, mutilation and transatlantic slave trade are seldom spoken of as the long-term effects of African destabilization. The imperialist view even today shows Africans as incapable of governing themselves, violent and corrupt leaders without implicating the role that the imperialist had in changing the social strata, population and culture of many African nations.
If the brutality of Europeans and other nations against other non-whites where limited to Africans, the argument would follow that economics was the sole reason for exploitation across the African nation. However, as the video shows, some brutality inflicted upon indigenous people was the direct result of a racist and superior stance (as in the elimination of the Tasmanian aborigines).
Economics may have begun the disconnection between Africans as humans, but time and science help to support their beliefs. As indicated in the video, Black Africans are viewed as closely related to chimps, even stating that they mated with them. As this schema is strongly held by those who benefited from slave labor, the evolution of this belief system becomes increasingly linked to scientific and social rational to support an imperialist system of exploitation by the likes of Robert Knox, who wrote in his book, “race is everything”. He believed that the superior races will naturally dominate the inferior ones. American scientist also studied skulls in an attempt to show them as a “separate species”. Some call for extermination of races. The nineteenth century “Origin of the Species”, by Charles Darwin. Natural selection supported the idea of the great British race.
One aspect of brutality and exploitation of Africans was indeed for the support of an increasingly industrial nation and the raw materials that Africa produced. The lack of attributing a human element to Africans by the colonialist however bordered on an evil that is not discussed in either the book or the video. As we see the cruel and inhumane treatment of the Congolese by King Leopold as he cut off the hands of laborers that did not meet quotes were even done to children.
The treaty of 1844 was the epitome of a long history in the destabilization of indigenous African people. The killing, mutilation and transatlantic slave trade are seldom spoken of as the long-term effects of African destabilization. The imperialist view even today shows Africans as incapable of governing themselves, violent and corrupt leaders without implicating the role that the imperialist had in changing the social strata, population and culture of many African nations.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Understanding the Complexity of Rebellion
It is tempting to view the ethnic slave rebellions a successful attempt of those enslaved in the Caribbean to resist the often cruel and inhumane treatment of slave owners or overseers as a knee jerk reaction by all blacks slaves. As the Shuler’s article “Ethnic Slave Rebellion in the Caribbean and in the Guianas show us, the complexities of resistance and rebellion was a complex compilation of many variables, including ethnic, psychological and environmental factors. Not only were the reasons for rebellion complex, the methods used varied based on different factors as well.
Ruth Hamilton’s article helps to clarify how many of these factors must be considered in understanding why and how decisions were made to rebel. Using the differences in ethnicity or whether a slave was indigenous to Africa or born in their New World existence is an example of what variable influenced the decision to fight or flee their existence. When Hamilton refers to the cosmology as a “field of action”, she refers to what was the current reality for those making individual and group decisions to change what had to be intolerable conditions. For example, the differences in perceptions of Africans and those born in captivity lessoned the comradery that would increase the chances of an organized rebellion to be successful. This perceived difference occurred with the Creole or mixed race to an even further degree. The reality of preferential treatment by whites or even other blacks would influence a decision of “how bad” their lives were in comparison to other blacks.
Religion or belief systems would also be an influence on the decision to resist or revolt. Because many of the Caribbean plantations did not initially discourage the practice of either indigenous African or transplanted religion, these beliefs were shown to produce both leaders of revolts or give those leaders a sense of invincibility as described in the Shuler article. This psychological advantage had the potential to influence those who normally may not have had the courage to act themselves.
Although perceived differences could contribute to the failure or limit the success of organized resistance, one group of runaways seemed to band together with longstanding success. Specifically, the Jamaican maroons were a mixture of African groups that led resistance and led a separate existence in remote parts of the Jamaican forest. As Hamilton helps us to understand the cultural dynamics of the groups, the Cameroons were interested in self-preservation, and through a treaty, agreed not to accept “rebellious” slaves. The at times would collect a bounty for their return. Ironically enough, the Maroons were helpful in some instances to support large scale insurrections, such as in the revolts in Suriname in 1757 and 1772.
Both articles help to add additional understanding of the complexities of resurrection, resistance and rebellion of slaves. One major misconception is that resistance consisted of the desire to be free. As mentioned in the articles, those slaves that perceived their conditions as more favorable may not have only concluded that their existence was tolerable, but some contributed in sabotaging the efforts by acting as spies or informants to their enslavers. The other misconception about freedom was it was always based on the desire to be free. As noted, many times, rebellion or resistance was based on certain conditions (famine or natural disasters), or even an absent proprietor that left them in the hands of a harsh overseer. Understanding the different variables that affected the decisions of those enslaved helps to broaden the understanding of how and why rebellion occurred.
Ruth Hamilton’s article helps to clarify how many of these factors must be considered in understanding why and how decisions were made to rebel. Using the differences in ethnicity or whether a slave was indigenous to Africa or born in their New World existence is an example of what variable influenced the decision to fight or flee their existence. When Hamilton refers to the cosmology as a “field of action”, she refers to what was the current reality for those making individual and group decisions to change what had to be intolerable conditions. For example, the differences in perceptions of Africans and those born in captivity lessoned the comradery that would increase the chances of an organized rebellion to be successful. This perceived difference occurred with the Creole or mixed race to an even further degree. The reality of preferential treatment by whites or even other blacks would influence a decision of “how bad” their lives were in comparison to other blacks.
Religion or belief systems would also be an influence on the decision to resist or revolt. Because many of the Caribbean plantations did not initially discourage the practice of either indigenous African or transplanted religion, these beliefs were shown to produce both leaders of revolts or give those leaders a sense of invincibility as described in the Shuler article. This psychological advantage had the potential to influence those who normally may not have had the courage to act themselves.
Although perceived differences could contribute to the failure or limit the success of organized resistance, one group of runaways seemed to band together with longstanding success. Specifically, the Jamaican maroons were a mixture of African groups that led resistance and led a separate existence in remote parts of the Jamaican forest. As Hamilton helps us to understand the cultural dynamics of the groups, the Cameroons were interested in self-preservation, and through a treaty, agreed not to accept “rebellious” slaves. The at times would collect a bounty for their return. Ironically enough, the Maroons were helpful in some instances to support large scale insurrections, such as in the revolts in Suriname in 1757 and 1772.
Both articles help to add additional understanding of the complexities of resurrection, resistance and rebellion of slaves. One major misconception is that resistance consisted of the desire to be free. As mentioned in the articles, those slaves that perceived their conditions as more favorable may not have only concluded that their existence was tolerable, but some contributed in sabotaging the efforts by acting as spies or informants to their enslavers. The other misconception about freedom was it was always based on the desire to be free. As noted, many times, rebellion or resistance was based on certain conditions (famine or natural disasters), or even an absent proprietor that left them in the hands of a harsh overseer. Understanding the different variables that affected the decisions of those enslaved helps to broaden the understanding of how and why rebellion occurred.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
New perspectives on transatlantic slave trade!
In chapter 4 in our text Africana Studies (M. Azevedo, 2005), and as the chapter is named, there are controversial scholarly discussions around the practices of trade, diplomacy and the actual practice of human trafficking of Africans. Additionally, the interesting view of Harvard Professor Henry Gates video: The Slave Kingdom and the Holy Land provide a layer of complexity into the role of African nations to the advent and continuation of providing slave traders with indigenous people for the purpose of trade. Both commentaries provide an opportunity to see the slave trade for what it was, the compilation of both African and outsiders working in conjunction to keep slave trading a common practice for centuries.
On page 77 in the Africana text, the word “sinister” is used to describe the 1969 figure by Philip Curtain of actual slaves forced to leave Africa. The figure of only 11.5 million is used (of which only 9.5 reached the Americas), whereas other scholars (such as W.E.B Dubois, J. Fage, amongst others) describe the figure to be as high as 50 million. At first glance, one might think that the barbarism of the trade on the slave themselves is much more important that the actual figure. However editor Azvedo points out that the depopulation of Africa affected the continent’s ability to prosper in terms of “economic and social damage” Gates documentary tends not to focus on this particular issue, but more on the cooperation of Africans in the slave trade. Not addressing the depopulation issue, does not give the viewer the opportunity to see how this was not only a problem of individual and cultural barbarism, but a long-standing method that kept Africa as a continent vulnerable to colonialism, and stunted the ability to keep up with the advances of the industrial “new world”. The texts provides specific examples on specific damage caused through the depopulation (pgs. 85-87) and includes the increase in internal warfare through guns for slaves trading, loss of able-bodied men, leaving women, children and seniors.
In chapter four and in the Gates video, the area of Dahomey is mentioned as an important landmark in the coastal slave market, however the difference between the text and Gates is that Azvedo tends to minimize (or fail to mention) the large role that the Kings and Queens of the Asante of Ghana and the Dahomey areas played in the procurement of slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. The lack of the predominance in the text may leave the idea that excludes Africans and demonizes the slave traders as those who invaded all parts of African to kidnap slaves. As shown in the Gates video, slave traders were not, in many cases allowed to leave the coastal areas and relied on the captured slaves of internal warfare, or lower caste Africans to be traded for commodities that fueled the wealth of the Kings and leaders.
Understanding the political, social and history of the transatlantic slave trade through chapter 4 and the Gates video, helps to broaden the perceptions (or misconceptions) of slavery. No one would deny the atrocities that occurred to Africans brought to the new world. However, the idea that African-Americans sometimes look to in the uplifting of their history is through knowing that they may be descendants of Kings and Queens of African nations. The truth, as Gates would find in his journey, is that the very leaders were often instrumental in the perpetuation of the slave trade itself. Gates wondered in the video, did Africans ever feel a sense of guilt to African-Americans. The descendants of Brazilian slave trader Don Francisco DeSusa both deny and acknowledge the guilt felt by the major role DeSusa played as Dahomey’s major representative in the slave trade.
As history is taught in American schools, little is taught about the role of Africans themselves in providing the labor for the transatlantic slave trade. Visions of white captors, is embedded in both current day Blacks and Caucasians alike. It is somewhat ironic that an African-American Harvard professor would be the one to enlighten many on the African influence on the slave trade!
On page 77 in the Africana text, the word “sinister” is used to describe the 1969 figure by Philip Curtain of actual slaves forced to leave Africa. The figure of only 11.5 million is used (of which only 9.5 reached the Americas), whereas other scholars (such as W.E.B Dubois, J. Fage, amongst others) describe the figure to be as high as 50 million. At first glance, one might think that the barbarism of the trade on the slave themselves is much more important that the actual figure. However editor Azvedo points out that the depopulation of Africa affected the continent’s ability to prosper in terms of “economic and social damage” Gates documentary tends not to focus on this particular issue, but more on the cooperation of Africans in the slave trade. Not addressing the depopulation issue, does not give the viewer the opportunity to see how this was not only a problem of individual and cultural barbarism, but a long-standing method that kept Africa as a continent vulnerable to colonialism, and stunted the ability to keep up with the advances of the industrial “new world”. The texts provides specific examples on specific damage caused through the depopulation (pgs. 85-87) and includes the increase in internal warfare through guns for slaves trading, loss of able-bodied men, leaving women, children and seniors.
In chapter four and in the Gates video, the area of Dahomey is mentioned as an important landmark in the coastal slave market, however the difference between the text and Gates is that Azvedo tends to minimize (or fail to mention) the large role that the Kings and Queens of the Asante of Ghana and the Dahomey areas played in the procurement of slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. The lack of the predominance in the text may leave the idea that excludes Africans and demonizes the slave traders as those who invaded all parts of African to kidnap slaves. As shown in the Gates video, slave traders were not, in many cases allowed to leave the coastal areas and relied on the captured slaves of internal warfare, or lower caste Africans to be traded for commodities that fueled the wealth of the Kings and leaders.
Understanding the political, social and history of the transatlantic slave trade through chapter 4 and the Gates video, helps to broaden the perceptions (or misconceptions) of slavery. No one would deny the atrocities that occurred to Africans brought to the new world. However, the idea that African-Americans sometimes look to in the uplifting of their history is through knowing that they may be descendants of Kings and Queens of African nations. The truth, as Gates would find in his journey, is that the very leaders were often instrumental in the perpetuation of the slave trade itself. Gates wondered in the video, did Africans ever feel a sense of guilt to African-Americans. The descendants of Brazilian slave trader Don Francisco DeSusa both deny and acknowledge the guilt felt by the major role DeSusa played as Dahomey’s major representative in the slave trade.
As history is taught in American schools, little is taught about the role of Africans themselves in providing the labor for the transatlantic slave trade. Visions of white captors, is embedded in both current day Blacks and Caucasians alike. It is somewhat ironic that an African-American Harvard professor would be the one to enlighten many on the African influence on the slave trade!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)