Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Neo-colonialism still wreaking havoc in Africa -- as the world watches

"It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed."




That particular "exceedingly important" goal of white supremacy remains in effect -- all over the world. No matter where one turns, the M.O. is sickeningly apparent, as in the recent Marikana Massacres in South Africa.

**(WARNING - GRAPHIC)**




Were you shocked?  Disgusted?  I hope so.  Indeed, like many of the "Blacks in Blue" here (Danziger Bridge, Sean Bell, these fine specimens in Philly to name but a few), these men have cast their lot with white supremacy, mowing down and beating up folk who look like them, with no apparent conscience, nor morality.  I'm sure they're paid way better than their "systematically oppressed" brothers and sisters; probably have better homes, and even cars; perhaps they even enjoy a few beers with their white counterparts, celebrating that whole, "I'm accepted-but-have-no-real-power," status thing (more on that shortly).

Guess they skipped right over the, "For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort" part, in the beginning of this guilt-tripping sentence in Lincoln's above-referenced address, and headed straight to the, "...for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people" part at the end.

Two articles at Black Agenda Report this week certainly bear that out. The first, "Economic and Social Crisis in Post Apartheid South Africa" by William Bowles, is a must-read that provides an excellent rundown of South Africa's neocolonialism from Mandela to Zuma:

The African National Congress (ANC) won a resounding victory in South Africa's first democratic election in 1994 with a host of promises that it would improve the lives of the Black majority (85% of the population). And whilst there have been gains in some areas, overall, most Black South Africans are materially worse off now than they were under Apartheid.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs have vanished; costs for the basics: electricity, water, food and rents have skyrocketed. Ironically, no longer the pariah of the world, South Africa's white minority is even better off now than it was under Apartheid (remember the 'Rainbow Nation'?). The only Blacks to have gained have been a tiny minority, many from the ranks of the (former) liberation movement and the trade unions as well as the South African Communist Party (SACP).

So what went wrong? Did anything go wrong? Has the ANC and its partners in the Tripartite Alliance, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the SACP betrayed their roots and sold out Black South Africa? Indeed, sold out the rest of Africa?" (emphasis mine)

The second, Mark P. Fancher's passionately succinct, "The People's Rage,"  leaves no doubt about who continues to have, "the real power" in South Africa; not only economically and socially -- but militarily:
The massacre in Marikana, South Africa was not a run-of-the-mill wildcat strike that was met by undisciplined police officers. It was instead an event that left no doubts that while imperialism may be willing to allow Africans to sit in government offices, it will not tolerate any disruption in the flow of profits from the exploitation of highly valuable natural resources. Platinum in particular is indispensable in the manufacture of catalytic converters and other motor vehicle parts, and South Africa has more than 80 percent of the world’s platinum group metal reserves.

Even in 1965, Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana’s first president) understood why South Africa was a focal point of mining activities. He said: “A 1957 U.S. government survey of American overseas investments shows the single most profitable area was in the mining and smelting business of South Africa, whose profits are higher than from any comparable investment in the United States. The high profits can be explained largely by the cheapness of African labor.

Nkrumah went on to explain that South African mineworkers earned 27 times less than their U.S. counterparts. More than half a century later, South Africa’s miners are still paid extremely low wages for dangerous, difficult work. One worker reported that he receives about $500 a month. (emphasis mine)

Fancher goes on to make this very crucial observation, one that reverberates all across the Continent:

This violent response should not have come as a surprise. An essential element of every neo-colonial state is an armed force with express or implied standing orders to put down rebellions. Often there are armies that play this role. In the case of the Marikana tragedy, those carrying out the massacre may have been branded as “police,” but they functioned as a military unit. They were heavily armed and ready to kill.

It should also come as no surprise that an overlap in South Africa’s police and army missions means that the U.S. military is lurking in the shadows. In an article published by the South African Institute of International Affairs, writer Thomas Wheeler reported: “U.S. defense attaches have on-going interaction with the [South African] military and police to define ways in which the U.S. can assist them.

One concrete example of this “assistance” was last year’s “Exercise Shared Accord.” The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) website explained that this joint exercise between 700 U.S. Marines and about twice that number of soldiers in the South African National Defense Force was an opportunity for the soldiers to, among other things: “…engage in live-fire exercises…”

All of this raises logical questions about who South African forces are training to kill. The answers are found in the historical record. It shows that in general, African soldiers are used in conflicts with other Africans, both in their own countries and elsewhere on the African continent. The tragedy of this was not missed by Nkrumah who suggested: “…the ordinary soldier who is after all only a worker or peasant in uniform, is acting against the interests of his own class. (emphasis mine)

On another, indirectly related post over at AfroSpear, I commented, "I am so disturbed and hurt by the massacre of miners at Marikana in S. Africa! WTH?? Apartheid didn’t go anywhere, it just seemed to have melted into the ANC. {smdh}" To which Bro. Amenta replied, "Deb, when we really see and know who controls ALL of these countries; It will be clear who is the true enemy and who is not. A U.S. company owns the mine. The government agents (policemen) work at the behest of the company. Peace"

His comment, along with the two above pieces, sent me looking for some names, so I went straight to Lonmin's site and clicked on its "Investors" tab where, not surprisingly, I found the "usual suspects."  Turns out the company is owned by the UK, but yes, the U.S. is right there with them, as both "investors" and "advisers."  As for names --  JP Morgan, Bank of New York Mellon and Citigroup Global Markets.  Glance at the "About Us" and "Our Business" tabs while you're there, the information on each is particularly laughable, especially given the video above.

Finally, adding insult to injury, we have this:

On Thursday, 270 miners were charged in the Ga-Rankuwa Magistrate’s Court with the murder of 34 of their comrades, who were shot and killed by police at Lonmin’s platinum mine in Marikana in the North West. A further, 78 injured by the same force, have realised a charge of attempted murder for all accused. The legal vehicle used to charge the accused in the Marikana massacre case is called 'common purpose'; it was masterminded by the architects of Apartheid and used during the darkest times to send MK cadres to the gallows. (emphasis Daily Maverick)

This is just imperial madness run amok (and please, don't say, "But they're all Black!"-- it'll tell me you've not really read, nor understood a word I've written).

Briefly, from the Daily Maverick piece:

“The state began to fall back on the common purpose doctrine, which originated in English law and was introduced into South African law via the ominously named ‘Native Territories Penal Code’. At the time the courts interpreted this doctrine to apply to all members of a crowd who had ‘actively associated’ with criminal conduct committed by one member of the crowd – even if those charged were not involved at all in the commissioning of the crime,” writes De Vos. (emphasis mine)

For a concise explanation of the 'common purpose' doctrine, please, do read the first related article below by De Vos, a South African Constitutional Law professor (don't worry, he seems very unlike the one selected president of this country).

On Asabanga's latest post, "270 South African miners charged with murder of their 34 collegues killed by the police, " Bro. Amenta left this comment:

"When I read how the law was from Apartheid era, it actually made me recall how so similar the laws are here!  http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/13704992-418/man-charged-with-murder-after-police-shoot-accomplice.html"

Given the 'common purpose' doctrine originated in the same place as the doctrine of white supremacy brought here by the English, I'm neither surprised by the similarity, nor am I surprised at the inequity with which it is enforced there, or here -- if you're Black.

Remember last year when James Anderson was beaten up by a group of white, Mississippi darlings and then run over by Deryl Dedmond with his pick-up truck?  And it was all caught on a hotel surveillance camera?  There were seven of them.  As of March of this year, three were charged and pled guilty to murder and hate crimes and are serving life sentences; one was charged with simple assault, pled not guilty and is free on a $5,000 bond because he left the scene before Anderson was killed; I could find no criminal charges filed against the other three -- two of whom, were females (James Anderson's family has filed a civil lawsuit against all seven of them).

And the world just keeps on watching...

**UPDATE!!!** 9/2/12South African miners to be freed after prosecutors drop murder charges

Related:
- Abuse, Inc: The 'miners made us do it' murder charge
- Marikana Is the Latest Chapter In a Long Saga
- Mnikelo Ndabankulu speaks at Marikana memorial service (video) -- (h/t to Asa @ AfroSpear)
- The murder fields of Marikana. The cold murder fields of Marikana.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Now about those "chickens"...

"People who treat other people as less than human, must not be surprised when the bread they have cast on the waters comes floating back to them, poisoned."
James Baldwin



Rather than my rehashing, take the time to read these two ladies' posts in response to what's happening in the UK England (with the video in mind) - "Burn, Baby, Burn:  Why United States Citizens Should Follow the UK's Lead" and "Um...If This is How You Handle Civil Unrest, Just Give Up Now."

UPDATE 1:  Well folks, as I'd feared, there will be shades of  Selma, AL in England starting today - both water cannons and rubber bullets have now been authorized.

And doesn't all this sound so very familiar?! (Couldn't figure out how to stop the auto-play when the video was embedded here, so I substituted the link instead. Lawd knows I don't want to hear this man every time I view my blog!)

UPDATE 2: U.K.'s Cameron Looks to U.S. Anti-Gang Tactics - from the piece:
I also believe we should be looking beyond our shores to learn the lessons from others who have faced similar problems," Cameron said.

He said the government, police and intelligence services were looking at whether there should be limits on the use of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook or services like BlackBerry Messenger to spread disorder.

BlackBerry's simple and largely cost free messaging service was used by rioters to coordinate their activities, Cameron's office said.

Government officials said they were discussing with spy agencies and communications companies whether messaging services could be disabled in specific areas, or at specific times. Authorities are considering "whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality," Cameron said.

"Police were facing a new circumstance where rioters were using the BlackBerry Messenger service, a closed network," to organize riots, he said. "We've got to examine that and work out how to get ahead of them."

Cameron said that, in the future, police would be able to order people to remove masks, hoods or other face coverings when they suspect them of concealing their identity to carry out a crime. Currently, officers must seek approval from a senior officer.

A program that can ban gang members from meeting together, loitering in certain places, or displaying gang insignia will also be extended, he said...

...Peter Tapsell, a veteran Conservative Party lawmaker, called on Cameron to draw inspiration from the response of U.S. authorities to anti-Vietnam protests in the 1970s.

Tapsell said he recalled law enforcement in Washington, D.C., rounding up demonstrators and imprisoning them in a sports stadium. He did not elaborate, but authorities in 1971 set up an emergency detention center next to Washington's RFK stadium to hold demonstrators after the largest mass arrest in U.S. history.(emphasis mine)
Yeah, this ought to calm things down.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Why are the Brits still - Inquiring??



Let's be clear, the extent to which those in power will continue to go, in order to avoid accountability for their hawkish behavior regarding Iraq, is absolutely mind-boggling and disgusting.  How many more inquiries will it take for the UK to admit that they let Shrub & Co. suck them into a war that nobody wanted - except Shrub & Co.??

As a weekly columnist for a small, daily paper in South Florida, I wrote the following column in March 2003 (I'd link to it, but that's a whole 'nother post - and a huge lesson learned).  I've added a couple links and the emphasis to the original column:

######

An informed populace can change 'the best laid plans of mice and men'

I don't know about you, but for the early part of my "grown up" life, I'd just been trying to live. Actually; live it up is more like it. I went to college, learned a little, partied a lot and graduated with a dream that I took to Washington, D.C. - a dream for which I quickly discovered 1 had not very well prepared myself. Apparently others had partied less and, learned way more than I did.

So, the dream was deferred as I went about the business of supporting myself and exploring my new home, excited anyway that I was finally living in "the big city." After two jobs in two years, I decided the dream had waited long enough and with my newfound maturity, I enlisted in the Navy to get serious about that preparation.

As a result, a whole new world opened up as I found myself tremendously comfortable in a school environment again. The challenge to learn as much as they were willing to teach was easily met. I kind of had my priorities in order this time. I still partied (after all I WAS still in my early 20s), but I was "handlin' my business" like my mother always demanded we do.

I did, however, slip trip and fall quite rapidly, for a quiet, cute, little Navy guy who was back for an intermediate Spanish class. And my world took on yet another face. Partnering with my husband to provide a decent, safe living for our family, working hard to build something to fall back on in our "golden years" and doing the best we could to raise our sons to be honest, honorable men - hopefully sooner rather than later - became more important and I was, again, just trying to live.

The process of accomplishing these goals certainly involved a measure of social consciousness and civic duty tempered with good, old-fashioned "gold-en rule" beliefs. But I had not spent an inordinate amount of time saturating my brain with the global implications of political strategies or the effects of our culture on other cultures of the world and vice-versa. Those doors were merely ajar as I just tried to live.

But the more I worked among others who were on that particular track, I realized that I had to push those doors wide open and begin looking behind them to learn what was going on in the world. But once I peeked, I could never find a way to shut it out again. Today I find myself a voracious reader, news follower, commentary listener, documentary watcher - you name it, I try to get my nose into it.

With current world events in mind and the need to understand for myself how we got here and where we're headed, I decided to go back a bit. You see, I depend on my nosiness to help me make informed decisions about where and for whom to cast my very valuable vote. Here's a thumbnail of what I stumbled upon and if you're half as nosy as I am, you may want to do some of your own digging to help you decide what to do with your very valuable vote in 2004.

It seems that as early as 1991, a small group of Republicans felt that America "didn't finish the job" in the Middle East with the Gulf War, so they set out to plan a strategy to not only accomplish that task, if and when they were again in power, but began drawing up a blueprint for America's nation building and spreading of democracy - one country at a time. The result was the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997 during the Clinton presidency.

PNAC describes itself as, "A non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions:  that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

In a letter to then President Clinton dated Jan. 26, 1998, eighteen PNAC members publicly pushed for unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

Curiously, of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in very influential positions in the Bush administration. They include, Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is Undersecretary of State for Disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board to name a few along with William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.

ln that same 1998 letter, the group stated, "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibillty that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Where we are now is a result of what happened in late 1997 while most of us were either just trying to live or were enjoying the fruits of a robust economy with it's billions of surplus dollars. I urge you to become your own type of political policy wonk. Read, listen, watch and dig. Go to PNAC's web site and read for yourself, in their own words, what plans lay ahead for our country. Be as informed a voter as possible as you head for the polls in 2004.

If you don't, just trying to live will be all you have.
######

I'm sure you'll recognize the rest of the "usual suspects" who put their John Hancock on that letter to Bill back then.  As I said in the piece I'm nosy, so it took me hardly any time at all to find that letter back in 2003 when I started digging.  If I could find it, you gotta know that the "powers-that-be" in England also knew or could ferret out The Plan.  Hell, in this recent Guardian piece - Iraq war inquiry: Britain heard US drumbeat for invasion before 9/11 - seems top Intel guy, Sir Peter Ricketts had at least an inkling (if no cojones):
According to previously leaked documents, Ricketts, political director at the Foreign Office at the time, described the US in 2002 as "scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida", a link that was "so far frankly unconvincing". He told Jack Straw, then foreign secretary: "We have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for. Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."
Seems they should've ignored Shrub & Co.'s bullshit smarmy praise at that "cojones meeting" back in September 2002 and stuck to that grudge match theory - and stayed the hell out of Iraq.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...