THE TIME OF THE BLOVIATORS
or
HOW TO SAY NOTHING IN FIVE HUNDRED WORDS
by Hama Tuma
I am sure not many of you know the word bloviator--I did not till someone told me to check it in Google. It means pompous, someone who puffs his chest and makes boastful declarations. The word defines many Ethiopian pseudo and self declared intellectuals of our time. Of course, who is an intellectual is worthy of a debate these days. One who finished Scondary School? Anyone with a diploma or a degree from a foreign institution? Who? Anyone with that Dr or Professor tag? Any fool who speaks averagely coherent English? Anyone with delusions of grandeur? Feelings of elitism?
Sadly, the bloviators are too many. They start out with the assumption that speaking and writing English is expensive to begin with. Not for you and me poor souls with miserable monthly incomes if any. African intellectuals, totally brainwashed alas, boast: "we learnt at the foot of the white man" which, it seems, give them the right and capacity to tell a plant from afar by just sniffing at the air. Ethiopian intellectuals fall in the same pit: their credential is the foreign/ferenji degree, earned in most cases not even from credible or prestigious places, sometimes from correspondence universities who will give you a degree even if you fail!(check Meles, Tamrat and other mentally challenged TPLF officials). Yet, the Dr or Professor tag is all, supreme, it tell us all to shut up and listen, the bloviators have a degree, they are "intellos" par excellence. Alas, they are shallow, ignoramus to boot, word spinners, not worth the ink on their so called degrees. Take time off to listen to any of the loud pal talk rooms and you will hear many not only punctuating but drowning their Amharic with English phrases. Words like State, information, intelligence, saboteur (actually said "sabotateur" by our hyphenated souls), agenda, diversify, struggle, oppression, etc are words that seem to have no Amharic equivalent. I had previously attempted to call upon them to be modest and received a tongue lashing for may alleged "jealousy" concerning their degrees which, I am proud to say, will not accept even if offered on a golden platter.
The half baked "bloviators" use English words to impress, to be unintelligible to my mother and yours, to be pompous. I wish I had written all this in Amharic but as I am trying to deal with those who write and speak pompously in English I have chosen the foreign language and by implication cornered myself in the dilemma. Why can't we write our pieces in our own language so that the majority of our people understand what we are trying to say? The hypocritical attempt is to be above the mundane as it were, to rise above the masses, to parade before them with puffed out chest, to show we know and do speak English and can write articles in it no matter the spelling and grammar errors. We boast and silence our own parents and people, and fools as we are we feel proud as we shame ourselves. Delusion is taken as knowledge, ignorance becomes wisdom and we deny our identity to find some mirage of a respect for our demeaned self. The more they bloviate, the more they become incomprehensible, shallow and hollow. The exercise is to say nothing in many words, to use phrases from the Thesaurus, to say perambulate instead of walk, to sound like a Southern USA fiery Baptist preacher, to pepper one's articles with quotes and references that are either out of place or pedestrian. I remember one "bloviator" who had to refer to Galbraith or Tagore to tell us "yenat hod zingurgur new". The worth of an intellectual is thus situated firmly in an Ivory Tower, away from the majority of the common people, saying not I fell but declaring my verticality changed to a horizontality. One Weyane scribe, a former "tiraz netek" of the bars in Washington, recently wrote from Addis Abeba a vitriolic attack against Isayas Afewerki (of course in English and to please his Masters), and informed us of the need to "indigenize democracy in a collectivist African cultural matrix". Now, what the hell does this mean other than bloviating over our heads parading as a deep thinker, philosopher and a master of the foreign language? There is another Ethiopian who writes incomprehensible regular columns and whom I tried to criticize mildly and provoked his adoring fans (who do not understand what he writes but admire him just for that) to attack me with venom. One asked me in anger "who are you?" and I must admit I was tempted to do a French on her and answer back "I am still searching for my identity" (the French like such replies and will not make it easy where they can complicate). Fake through and through, inferiority complex of the highest order when our so called intellectuals (many have become professors recently by some collective baptism like the Moonies) look down upon our language, culture, heroes (every political pretender is taken as a Mandela if he or she lands in prison for a month or a year), and our own experience.
The bloviators are also official scribes of the dictatorship. One such pathetic person, a stain on the proud history of her martyred brothers and cousins, recently wrote the following effusive nonsense:
"It is such an incredible win and an amazing era for us to witness the open and fast gain of Ethiopia’s democracy these past eighteen years. Never in the history of Ethiopia have we witnessed such an open dialogue. A free expression of ideas among different parties is what we are witnessing for the fourth democratic election. It is so heartwarming and encouraging for those of us that live outside Ethiopia to have the privilege of being eyewitnesses to the myriad developments that is going on in the country. Thanks to humanity’s elevation of technology we are privy to follow the events of the country on a daily basis" If this is not empty talk what is? Democracy and the Meles regime are anathema, incompatible, opposites. The regime she lauds is known as the predator of the free press, the enemy of free expression, a repressive one holding some thirty five thousand political prisoners behind bars, has committed many massacres, is the one that disappeared dozens in its dungeons and practices systematic and wide spread torture. That makes the woman who wrote the above eulogy either totally ignorant or a shameless sell out. She says nothing in so many words even if she may gain some favors from her Masters in Addis Abeba. The art of saying nothing in five hundred words is often mastered by bloviators and the state of our intellectuals is such that they have all become experts at it. They want to browbeat us with verbosity, with the usage of "hard" English phrases and concepts (which they use not in the correct sense but who cares?), with their determined refusal to use their own language to communicate. I must say I am not amongst those African authors who insist that writers must write in their mother tongue or stop writing ( though the usefulness of communicating in one's language cannot be denied) but the impact of a political message is if it reaches a broad cross section of the people and influences them. Last time I checked 95% of Ethiopians are not very familiar with the Queen's English and if truth be told not many of our self declared intellectuals write proper grammatically correct English either, notwithstanding their tendency to resort to English when they could communicate better in their own language. I could even be mistaken in this assumption of mine as most of them have no clear idea of what they want to utter and whether they do it in English or Amharic ( or any other mother tongue) their mumbo jumbo is not saved from being just that.
Alas, to add insult to injury (be inkirt lye joro degif) our bloviating intellectuals are not funny. Just take the above crazy eulogy and try to say you find it funny. It is actually boring, pathetic, an example of dog- like snivelling and servitude not to say shameful narrow ethnic identification. In other contexts, bloviators can be funny--they are so ridiculous that they become clowns. He was not an intellectual per se but Debella Dinsa comes to mind while in the imperial regime Yilma Deressa was another example of the funny officials. Our present day official scribes cum intellectuals take themselves too seriously as they bloviate and thus are dour and never funny. Otherwise their declaration of democracy under Meles Zenawi should have cracked us up but they believe in it and so they squeeze out the funny in their declaration. George Bush and Rumsfeld were funny with their declarations., they pretended to believe their lies but we all knew they were playacting like their claim of WMDs in Iraq. Take Rumsfeld's foray into The Unknown:
"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—Feb. 12, 2002.
Is not this a gem? Such bloviators can and should flourish to give grim politics a funny tinge.
Meles Zenawi, who got his degrees from a correspondence course, also plays at being an intellectual but his feeble bloviating come out disgusting and only fools take his street smart talk as a sign of intelligence.
The redefinition of the intellectual is called for in the Ethiopian context unless we confine ourselves to the basic definition of the intellectual as someone who attempts to speak English, tries to use confusing words, and is irredeemably alien to his own people and lies as a matter of routine. Come to think of it, this defines our intellectuals "indigenized in their own matrix". Whatever that may mean of course.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Ali Saeed in Action
Winnipeg man troubled by airport security findings
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 | 8:19 PM CT Comments95Recommend50.
CBC News
Ali Saeed says traces of explosives were inexplicably found on his hands during an airport security check. Officials have apologized. (CBC)
An award-winning human rights activist based in Winnipeg says he's now afraid to fly after security screeners at the city's airport found traces of an explosive compound on his hands during a random security check.
Ali Saeed was travelling to Colorado in January for a screening of a self-produced documentary detailing the story of his life, which included periods of being jailed and tortured as a political prisoner in the African countries of Ethiopia and Somalia.
While going through security at the James Richardson International Airport on his way to a U.S. departure gate, Saeed said he was pulled aside by officials with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA).
His hands were swabbed with a chemical and then he had to place his hands into a machine, he said.
He was then told traces of trinitrotoluene – or TNT, an explosive material — were found.
He said he had no idea why his hands set off alarm bells.
'Is it human error, is it the machine error or am I being labelled because I'm Islam name?'
—Ali Saeed"She said, 'you have got contact with explosive material — TNT,'" Saeed told CBC News. "I don't know what TNT means. Is it candy, is it sandwich? I don't know what this explosive material is."
Saeed said he was allowed to board his plane and his return flight home to Winnipeg was uneventful, but he is concerned because CATSA told him the information about the incident will be kept on file for future reference.
He worries the information could come back to haunt him because of his activist past and Islamic-sounding name.
"Is it human error, is it the machine error, or am I being labelled because [of my] Islam name?" he wonders.
Policy not followed
In a letter to Saeed, CATSA apologized and admitted that officials at the airport broke protocol by telling him about their findings.
"CATSA's procedures stipulate that screening officers must not discuss an … alarm with passengers," the letter said.
"We are sorry that this is not what occurred. We extend our sincere apologies for the screening officers' actions and the stress it caused you."
On Tuesday, an agency spokesperson told CBC News that Saeed will not have any trouble travelling in the future, and will send him a letter telling him so.
In December, Saeed was awarded the 2009 Human Rights Commitment Award of Manitoba by the Manitoba and Canadian Human Rights Commissions for his work in sponsoring refugees from Ethiopia.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/02/17/human-rights-activist-winnipeg-airport.html#ixzz0gZhiR5Tc
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 | 8:19 PM CT Comments95Recommend50.
CBC News
Ali Saeed says traces of explosives were inexplicably found on his hands during an airport security check. Officials have apologized. (CBC)
An award-winning human rights activist based in Winnipeg says he's now afraid to fly after security screeners at the city's airport found traces of an explosive compound on his hands during a random security check.
Ali Saeed was travelling to Colorado in January for a screening of a self-produced documentary detailing the story of his life, which included periods of being jailed and tortured as a political prisoner in the African countries of Ethiopia and Somalia.
While going through security at the James Richardson International Airport on his way to a U.S. departure gate, Saeed said he was pulled aside by officials with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA).
His hands were swabbed with a chemical and then he had to place his hands into a machine, he said.
He was then told traces of trinitrotoluene – or TNT, an explosive material — were found.
He said he had no idea why his hands set off alarm bells.
'Is it human error, is it the machine error or am I being labelled because I'm Islam name?'
—Ali Saeed"She said, 'you have got contact with explosive material — TNT,'" Saeed told CBC News. "I don't know what TNT means. Is it candy, is it sandwich? I don't know what this explosive material is."
Saeed said he was allowed to board his plane and his return flight home to Winnipeg was uneventful, but he is concerned because CATSA told him the information about the incident will be kept on file for future reference.
He worries the information could come back to haunt him because of his activist past and Islamic-sounding name.
"Is it human error, is it the machine error, or am I being labelled because [of my] Islam name?" he wonders.
Policy not followed
In a letter to Saeed, CATSA apologized and admitted that officials at the airport broke protocol by telling him about their findings.
"CATSA's procedures stipulate that screening officers must not discuss an … alarm with passengers," the letter said.
"We are sorry that this is not what occurred. We extend our sincere apologies for the screening officers' actions and the stress it caused you."
On Tuesday, an agency spokesperson told CBC News that Saeed will not have any trouble travelling in the future, and will send him a letter telling him so.
In December, Saeed was awarded the 2009 Human Rights Commitment Award of Manitoba by the Manitoba and Canadian Human Rights Commissions for his work in sponsoring refugees from Ethiopia.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/02/17/human-rights-activist-winnipeg-airport.html#ixzz0gZhiR5Tc
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
ZE FOLLIES OF AFRICA
"ZE FOLLIES" OF AFRICA
From the son of Zenawi to Zuma, the follies of Africa are indeed the presidents and prime ministers, the power mongers and corrupt officials staining the face of our beloved continent. Some are funny, most are not but they all add up to spell folly and destruction for Africa, It is evident I prefer Zuma to Meles Zenawi, the goat faced tyrant who runs an ethnic discriminatory politics making some 80 million Ethiopians suffer.
Jacob Zuma is a character, perhaps from some ancient Zulu folklore but it is clear that many South Africans consider him harmless and benign only when compared to his predecessor Mbeki. We have to admit he is a caricature who warms the prejudiced heart of any white racist. This is a man of power who is accused of raping an HIV positive woman and then counters he had consensual unprotected sex with her but had taken a shower to reduce the possibility of Aids coming his way. Zuma was accused of corruption and survived the rough power struggle to become South Africa's president, to rule disgruntled citizens who have seen no positive change in their lives but are allowed to vent their anger now and then on refugees from Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, etc...Already with three wives and a fiancée, Zuma has fathered a "love child" from another woman bringing the total number of his children to 20. A field day for the haters of Africa for sure but then again Zuma is an honest and honourable man who has done his share to increase the number of Africans and who has lived up to his words and admitted his peccadilloes (compare with Bill Clinton and John Edwards!). He does preach safe sex and one partner relationship to the people in order to combat Aids but who said he had to follow his own advice? Isn't he the president? As for having 20 children (Big Daddy Amin had 33 and the Sheikhs in the Middle East can count more), he has at least helped school children avoid tough questions: a primary school student was asked "where do children come from?" and he was able to answer "from Jacob Zuma" outright. But, let me say definitively that the report of Zuma never again making any move to greet children for fear that they may call him daddy is a fabrication by anti-Zuma forces. Zuma's personal song is titled "My Machinegun" and many South Africans are blaming him for not keeping this weapon of his zipped up or covered up
(How can I shoot? a reckless Zuma is said to have asked). Zuma is a tough man at 67 years of age who shoots no blanks as he would like to say had he not feared the outcry. As for polygamy, let the Americans talk to their harem happy Middle East sheikhs and to the followers of the ancestors of Mitt Romney (Mormons) who had more than a dozen wives.
If Zuma is funny son of Zenawi aka Meles is dull and boring. This is the man who invaded Somalia and claimed it was not an invasion; "we just crossed the border". This is the man who blamed the West for the famine in Ethiopia: "they did not send food aid in time". This is the very man who indefatigably claims the economy is growing by 10% per year while the people are starving (14 million need food aid) and the country is in ruins in general. And this is the man who spent millions on monuments and to add insult to injury erected a monument for a donkey called Desalegne that transported arms, ammunition and goods for the guerrillas. Countless Ethiopian heroes have no monument in their name while an "ethnic "donkey has deserved one instead. This is the same Meles whose ultra corrupt wife claims she does not afford to pay school fees for her elder daughter, the same Meles who justifies a massacre (200 shot dead in Addis Ababa in 2005) by claiming that his police were not well trained in riot control. Damn the British who were supposed to train the police and intelligence services!
And Gadafi, the self declared King of Kings of all African tribes (sic), who tried to be second time president of the comatose AU and was angry he could not. This is the same Gadafi who has allied himself with Silvio Berlusconi much to the detriment of African refugees. Salva Kirr, the cowboy manqué, who presides over a corrupted South Sudan government that is seemingly obsessed on whether women should wear trousers or not while the whole region is aflame with violence. Up north, the dour faced Beshir does his massacre routine with gusto, preparing to be re elected as President even when the accusations against him for genocide kick up. In a few months, both Beshir and son of Zenawi will go through the motion of an election that has been rigged already. Swazi King Msawti III has 13 wives and takes up a bare breasted virgin as a new wife at the annual Reed Dance-- a show to make many white colonials chuckle with satisfaction. The young Swazi king is corrupt, he has, for example, spent US$ 500,000 on a new Daimler Chrysler Maybach 62 with all possible luxury extras, including a fridge and DVD player while two thirds of Swazis live on less than one dollar a day. Mention Kabila jr, the Bongos past and present, the Nguema fellow in oil rich Equatorial Guinea, the Congolese Ninja president Sassou Ngueso, the Chadian Deby and royal level corruption rears its head. Abundant folly.
As they say "ze oil" speaks volumes. Corrupt African leaders are backed by predators like the USA, Britain and France. Chinese presence and greed for Africa's wealth and resources has also aggravated the complication--Peking has allied itself with malleable African dictators like Beshir, Meles, Mugabe and more. The rich African countries are the main victims but the poor ones are not spared too--Djibouti sells its land as a military base to Washington and Paris and Ethiopia is being mortgaged to the highest bidder. Corrupt leaders are given more aid so long as they toe the line of the metropolis and persist with their folly that ridicules and damages Africa. Chinese ministers openly admit that they routinely pay bribes to win contracts and the recent collapse of the tunnel of the much touted Gilgel Gibe II dam in Ethiopia (the Italian construction firm reportedly paid bribes both in Rome and Addis Abeba) just ten days after its inauguration is a case in point. The white elephant projects of the seventies are alive and well.
The Ziegfeld Follies were quite a show in their time. "Ze follies" of Africa may stage shows but at the end of the day they are not funny at all. The cost is too much, the destruction too great. From the son of Zenawi to Zuma, to Sassou and Kabila, from Mugabe to Gelleh, the "follies" of Africa are on a rampage to destroy the continent. Time to end their disastrous show,
From the son of Zenawi to Zuma, the follies of Africa are indeed the presidents and prime ministers, the power mongers and corrupt officials staining the face of our beloved continent. Some are funny, most are not but they all add up to spell folly and destruction for Africa, It is evident I prefer Zuma to Meles Zenawi, the goat faced tyrant who runs an ethnic discriminatory politics making some 80 million Ethiopians suffer.
Jacob Zuma is a character, perhaps from some ancient Zulu folklore but it is clear that many South Africans consider him harmless and benign only when compared to his predecessor Mbeki. We have to admit he is a caricature who warms the prejudiced heart of any white racist. This is a man of power who is accused of raping an HIV positive woman and then counters he had consensual unprotected sex with her but had taken a shower to reduce the possibility of Aids coming his way. Zuma was accused of corruption and survived the rough power struggle to become South Africa's president, to rule disgruntled citizens who have seen no positive change in their lives but are allowed to vent their anger now and then on refugees from Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, etc...Already with three wives and a fiancée, Zuma has fathered a "love child" from another woman bringing the total number of his children to 20. A field day for the haters of Africa for sure but then again Zuma is an honest and honourable man who has done his share to increase the number of Africans and who has lived up to his words and admitted his peccadilloes (compare with Bill Clinton and John Edwards!). He does preach safe sex and one partner relationship to the people in order to combat Aids but who said he had to follow his own advice? Isn't he the president? As for having 20 children (Big Daddy Amin had 33 and the Sheikhs in the Middle East can count more), he has at least helped school children avoid tough questions: a primary school student was asked "where do children come from?" and he was able to answer "from Jacob Zuma" outright. But, let me say definitively that the report of Zuma never again making any move to greet children for fear that they may call him daddy is a fabrication by anti-Zuma forces. Zuma's personal song is titled "My Machinegun" and many South Africans are blaming him for not keeping this weapon of his zipped up or covered up
(How can I shoot? a reckless Zuma is said to have asked). Zuma is a tough man at 67 years of age who shoots no blanks as he would like to say had he not feared the outcry. As for polygamy, let the Americans talk to their harem happy Middle East sheikhs and to the followers of the ancestors of Mitt Romney (Mormons) who had more than a dozen wives.
If Zuma is funny son of Zenawi aka Meles is dull and boring. This is the man who invaded Somalia and claimed it was not an invasion; "we just crossed the border". This is the man who blamed the West for the famine in Ethiopia: "they did not send food aid in time". This is the very man who indefatigably claims the economy is growing by 10% per year while the people are starving (14 million need food aid) and the country is in ruins in general. And this is the man who spent millions on monuments and to add insult to injury erected a monument for a donkey called Desalegne that transported arms, ammunition and goods for the guerrillas. Countless Ethiopian heroes have no monument in their name while an "ethnic "donkey has deserved one instead. This is the same Meles whose ultra corrupt wife claims she does not afford to pay school fees for her elder daughter, the same Meles who justifies a massacre (200 shot dead in Addis Ababa in 2005) by claiming that his police were not well trained in riot control. Damn the British who were supposed to train the police and intelligence services!
And Gadafi, the self declared King of Kings of all African tribes (sic), who tried to be second time president of the comatose AU and was angry he could not. This is the same Gadafi who has allied himself with Silvio Berlusconi much to the detriment of African refugees. Salva Kirr, the cowboy manqué, who presides over a corrupted South Sudan government that is seemingly obsessed on whether women should wear trousers or not while the whole region is aflame with violence. Up north, the dour faced Beshir does his massacre routine with gusto, preparing to be re elected as President even when the accusations against him for genocide kick up. In a few months, both Beshir and son of Zenawi will go through the motion of an election that has been rigged already. Swazi King Msawti III has 13 wives and takes up a bare breasted virgin as a new wife at the annual Reed Dance-- a show to make many white colonials chuckle with satisfaction. The young Swazi king is corrupt, he has, for example, spent US$ 500,000 on a new Daimler Chrysler Maybach 62 with all possible luxury extras, including a fridge and DVD player while two thirds of Swazis live on less than one dollar a day. Mention Kabila jr, the Bongos past and present, the Nguema fellow in oil rich Equatorial Guinea, the Congolese Ninja president Sassou Ngueso, the Chadian Deby and royal level corruption rears its head. Abundant folly.
As they say "ze oil" speaks volumes. Corrupt African leaders are backed by predators like the USA, Britain and France. Chinese presence and greed for Africa's wealth and resources has also aggravated the complication--Peking has allied itself with malleable African dictators like Beshir, Meles, Mugabe and more. The rich African countries are the main victims but the poor ones are not spared too--Djibouti sells its land as a military base to Washington and Paris and Ethiopia is being mortgaged to the highest bidder. Corrupt leaders are given more aid so long as they toe the line of the metropolis and persist with their folly that ridicules and damages Africa. Chinese ministers openly admit that they routinely pay bribes to win contracts and the recent collapse of the tunnel of the much touted Gilgel Gibe II dam in Ethiopia (the Italian construction firm reportedly paid bribes both in Rome and Addis Abeba) just ten days after its inauguration is a case in point. The white elephant projects of the seventies are alive and well.
The Ziegfeld Follies were quite a show in their time. "Ze follies" of Africa may stage shows but at the end of the day they are not funny at all. The cost is too much, the destruction too great. From the son of Zenawi to Zuma, to Sassou and Kabila, from Mugabe to Gelleh, the "follies" of Africa are on a rampage to destroy the continent. Time to end their disastrous show,
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
THE DEVIL AND HAITI
Some of my Anglo -Saxon friends have for long suspected that the distance between an African and Satan, if any at all, is not that long at all. To begin with, it is common knowledge that Satan is black as are Africans. There are. of course, some Africans who imagine that they are not really black and belong to that category the French boldly call the "couleur sauvee" or the saved colors, that is saved by a hair's breadth from being black (God Forbid!), Métis, light skinned, brown, what have you. In any case this African affinity with Satan has been mentioned often to explain the African's alleged propensity to cause calamities and problems of all kinds.
The catastrophic earthquake in Haiti has been duly attributed to the devil worship of the voodoo practicing Haitians. One of the preachers of ignorance, the right wing Christian Minister Pat Robertson, has openly declared this and revealed to the uninformed that the Haitians made a pact with the Devil in order to throw away French colonial rule-- Quote:"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it," the televangelist said. "And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the Devil said, 'Okay, it's a deal.' . . . But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another". By the way this is the same Robertson who signed a gold mining contract with Charles Taylor and lobbied the Bush administration in Taylor's behalf. It is safe to say that many in the West have not forgotten that the Haitians started the very first slave revolt back in 1791 and fought to success in 1804 setting up their independent republic. How dare they! It is like Guinea's Sekou Toure's NO to continued French tutelage or domination, a rejection that Paris never forgot and tried to make Sekou pay for-- ( not a savory individual our Sekou, but a courageous one at the time when he opted for independence). The afflicted Haitians have become the center of approbations for causing an earthquake upon themselves, for being sinners, poverty stricken and even lazy. Some expected the usual "black" violence with looting and mayhem in Port au Prince and could not explain why it did not really happen even though some TV stations were gloating over footage of two alleged thieves shot by the police and desperate people struggling to get food handouts. The CNN, true to form, came with a titled series called Saving Haiti (from what? from whom?). American Marines, who took the opportunity and came in thousands, were seen distributing food and doing camera--attracting charity work in an effort to improve their tarnished images in Iraq and Afghanistan. We give out not bombs but flour and rice---our eyes are destined to see wonders, no? The militarization of aid in Haiti will evidently have many grave consequences in the future.
It is obvious that Haitians brought the "biblical tragedy" upon themselves. They believed in the tenets of the French and American Revolutions and staged their own only to find rejected both by the then vicious colonial power, France, and the US, a slave holding country that recognized Haiti only in 1862. Actually, an angry France demanded huge reparation payment from Haiti in exchange for recognition and the chance to take part in international trade. Haiti should have done a Barbados (which became independent only in 1966 and is still a Commonwealth member), no revolt, no Revolution, accepting colonial rule with docility. Haitians have been blamed by one Washington Post columnist for bringing this man made disaster upon themselves-- what "with their weak public institutions leading to the collapse of buildings" (no matter if the collapsed presidential palace was built by Marines during the US occupation from 1915 to 1934). Haitians should have long abandoned this obdurate desire of theirs to be a free nation and welcomed instead with open arms, as quite a few African countries do, the very many interventions and plots of Washington to impose its diktat over them. And why did they burn the hundreds of corpses on the streets instead of suffering the consequences such as a devastating cholera epidemic? Cruel people who, like those Africans from Kenya to South Africa, are prone to torch thieves and rapists and corpses!
I really think the Haitians should actually be commended for their contribution to the West by giving it a chance to pose and improve its image. One can say Haiti has learnt from Ethiopia on all levels as it has now received its own "We are the World" song and has become the primary concern of celebrities. Larry King and Anderson Cooper are dwelling on it and Darfur can eat its heart out this time! The local boy Wyclef has also learnt the bitter lesson that Western NGOs brook no patience when they come with full force to occupy the terrain all for themselves. Jean Wyclef's foundation was accused of misuse of funds, the singer driven to tears and of course brought into the fold by being invited to the Grammy awards ceremony. Haiti gave the West, especially America, the chance to strut big time as a savior force. So much so that the bizarre creature called Rush Limbaugh had to complain on Obama's alleged affinity to his black or light skinned kin ("slackers kept up by American tax money") and his "using the tragedy to burnish his image". Idle NGOs (who wants to go to Eastern Congo?) were given jobs and the opportunity to gather millions of dollars to "save" Haiti. While many pundits waxed bitterly lyrical against Haitians without ever setting foot there some correspondents and reporters did make it to Haiti and report drama from there making it appear as if they were in the heart of a war zone. Haiti also gave the child traffickers great opportunity to smuggle children (or be caught doing it) thereby bringing into focus the child adoption racket that has been going on in Haiti and is taking place in Ethiopia, Cambodia, Malawi, Russia where children with living parents have been sold and bought in a thriving market. Remember Jolie and Madonna.
If Haiti's poverty is to be exclusively blamed on the slackers who call themselves Haitians and if earthquakes come due to a pact with the devil then a number of questions rear their heads to ask for an n answer. How about the earthquakes in California in the past? What about the decades long suffering of Haiti under foreign invaders and interventionists? Who overthrew Aristide? If most of the buildings in the Haitians capital collapsed is it a bad thing or a good thing? Does it indicate that American engineers and Marines are bad architects or should we blame the Haitians in exclusivity? How come Benin, the Motherland of Voodoo, has not suffered from earthquakes yet? How come many talk of corruption after the earthquake and in connection with many NGOs? Some cynics argue that America is mobilized for Haiti to keep the Haitians in place, to stop them from trekking en masse to the USA. Preventive charity has been seen in the past and it is not sure it works but it helps keep the natives in their own hell hole as THEY would say. The tragedy has also given us uninformed souls the chance to hear sofa bound experts expound on the alleged weaknesses and peculiarities of the Haitian culture. Benefiting from a tragedy is how we can term this. Thank you again Haiti.
As Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the Haitian Revolution (whom some called the Black Napoleon) said when he was captured by the French: "In overthrowing me you have cut down in Saint Domingue only the trunk of the tree of liberty, it will spring up again from the roots, for they are many and they are deep". Earthquake or not the tree of liberty in Haiti will still bear many branches, leaves and fruits.
My sympathies and solidarity to the people of Haiti.
The catastrophic earthquake in Haiti has been duly attributed to the devil worship of the voodoo practicing Haitians. One of the preachers of ignorance, the right wing Christian Minister Pat Robertson, has openly declared this and revealed to the uninformed that the Haitians made a pact with the Devil in order to throw away French colonial rule-- Quote:"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it," the televangelist said. "And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the Devil said, 'Okay, it's a deal.' . . . But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another". By the way this is the same Robertson who signed a gold mining contract with Charles Taylor and lobbied the Bush administration in Taylor's behalf. It is safe to say that many in the West have not forgotten that the Haitians started the very first slave revolt back in 1791 and fought to success in 1804 setting up their independent republic. How dare they! It is like Guinea's Sekou Toure's NO to continued French tutelage or domination, a rejection that Paris never forgot and tried to make Sekou pay for-- ( not a savory individual our Sekou, but a courageous one at the time when he opted for independence). The afflicted Haitians have become the center of approbations for causing an earthquake upon themselves, for being sinners, poverty stricken and even lazy. Some expected the usual "black" violence with looting and mayhem in Port au Prince and could not explain why it did not really happen even though some TV stations were gloating over footage of two alleged thieves shot by the police and desperate people struggling to get food handouts. The CNN, true to form, came with a titled series called Saving Haiti (from what? from whom?). American Marines, who took the opportunity and came in thousands, were seen distributing food and doing camera--attracting charity work in an effort to improve their tarnished images in Iraq and Afghanistan. We give out not bombs but flour and rice---our eyes are destined to see wonders, no? The militarization of aid in Haiti will evidently have many grave consequences in the future.
It is obvious that Haitians brought the "biblical tragedy" upon themselves. They believed in the tenets of the French and American Revolutions and staged their own only to find rejected both by the then vicious colonial power, France, and the US, a slave holding country that recognized Haiti only in 1862. Actually, an angry France demanded huge reparation payment from Haiti in exchange for recognition and the chance to take part in international trade. Haiti should have done a Barbados (which became independent only in 1966 and is still a Commonwealth member), no revolt, no Revolution, accepting colonial rule with docility. Haitians have been blamed by one Washington Post columnist for bringing this man made disaster upon themselves-- what "with their weak public institutions leading to the collapse of buildings" (no matter if the collapsed presidential palace was built by Marines during the US occupation from 1915 to 1934). Haitians should have long abandoned this obdurate desire of theirs to be a free nation and welcomed instead with open arms, as quite a few African countries do, the very many interventions and plots of Washington to impose its diktat over them. And why did they burn the hundreds of corpses on the streets instead of suffering the consequences such as a devastating cholera epidemic? Cruel people who, like those Africans from Kenya to South Africa, are prone to torch thieves and rapists and corpses!
I really think the Haitians should actually be commended for their contribution to the West by giving it a chance to pose and improve its image. One can say Haiti has learnt from Ethiopia on all levels as it has now received its own "We are the World" song and has become the primary concern of celebrities. Larry King and Anderson Cooper are dwelling on it and Darfur can eat its heart out this time! The local boy Wyclef has also learnt the bitter lesson that Western NGOs brook no patience when they come with full force to occupy the terrain all for themselves. Jean Wyclef's foundation was accused of misuse of funds, the singer driven to tears and of course brought into the fold by being invited to the Grammy awards ceremony. Haiti gave the West, especially America, the chance to strut big time as a savior force. So much so that the bizarre creature called Rush Limbaugh had to complain on Obama's alleged affinity to his black or light skinned kin ("slackers kept up by American tax money") and his "using the tragedy to burnish his image". Idle NGOs (who wants to go to Eastern Congo?) were given jobs and the opportunity to gather millions of dollars to "save" Haiti. While many pundits waxed bitterly lyrical against Haitians without ever setting foot there some correspondents and reporters did make it to Haiti and report drama from there making it appear as if they were in the heart of a war zone. Haiti also gave the child traffickers great opportunity to smuggle children (or be caught doing it) thereby bringing into focus the child adoption racket that has been going on in Haiti and is taking place in Ethiopia, Cambodia, Malawi, Russia where children with living parents have been sold and bought in a thriving market. Remember Jolie and Madonna.
If Haiti's poverty is to be exclusively blamed on the slackers who call themselves Haitians and if earthquakes come due to a pact with the devil then a number of questions rear their heads to ask for an n answer. How about the earthquakes in California in the past? What about the decades long suffering of Haiti under foreign invaders and interventionists? Who overthrew Aristide? If most of the buildings in the Haitians capital collapsed is it a bad thing or a good thing? Does it indicate that American engineers and Marines are bad architects or should we blame the Haitians in exclusivity? How come Benin, the Motherland of Voodoo, has not suffered from earthquakes yet? How come many talk of corruption after the earthquake and in connection with many NGOs? Some cynics argue that America is mobilized for Haiti to keep the Haitians in place, to stop them from trekking en masse to the USA. Preventive charity has been seen in the past and it is not sure it works but it helps keep the natives in their own hell hole as THEY would say. The tragedy has also given us uninformed souls the chance to hear sofa bound experts expound on the alleged weaknesses and peculiarities of the Haitian culture. Benefiting from a tragedy is how we can term this. Thank you again Haiti.
As Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the Haitian Revolution (whom some called the Black Napoleon) said when he was captured by the French: "In overthrowing me you have cut down in Saint Domingue only the trunk of the tree of liberty, it will spring up again from the roots, for they are many and they are deep". Earthquake or not the tree of liberty in Haiti will still bear many branches, leaves and fruits.
My sympathies and solidarity to the people of Haiti.
Monday, November 23, 2009
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
In the old musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, there is the chorus that sings the question: Jesus Christ, Superstar, who do you think you are? A very pertinent question to someone claiming to be the son of God and wanting to redeem souls through his message but choosing to be born in the wrong place at a backward time instead of coming today to pass his message via the internet and the new mass media to the world at large. The question of identity is perennial. Who are you? Who do you think you are? Are you who you think you are?
Of all the people I claim to know there is none more preoccupied by identity like the French. This is best expressed by the French bureaucracy and its persistent and obsessive need to know and ascertain who you are. A naive person may infer some serious concerns for his or her welfare but the problem is elsewhere. Actually, France does not know itself really. There was a time it considered itself an Empire, an era that ended after Vietnam and Algeria, though someone has forgotten to tell France that, and thus it continues to strut as a big Empire with tin pot dictators of small countries in Africa fawning over or under it in a Franceafrique that is as laughable as the British Commonwealth.
The Empire syndrome gives an obsession with History and the need to mould others into one’s will or under one’s rule and diktat. Furthermore, France has suffered many humiliations (1870, 1940, etc) but it has refused to accept or acknowledge this heavy weight of history and pretends all is well in its pursuit of grandeur. For the confusion, poor souls of colour have to pay, of course. The identity crisis that has struck France has thrown it into a contradiction in which it considers islands inhabited by dark skinned fellows as its overseas territories and the people as French at the same time, as it yearns feverishly to keep its basically white identity. Hence, the present need to debate its national identity spearheaded by a minister of immigration (Eric Besson) who himself has changed his political colour so radically that many wonder who he really is. Who are you people? Are you proud of being French? Can Eyoum, Mamadou, Latifa, Kim or Ananda be really French? Who do you think you are? And the trap question: are you proud of who you are— that is to say are you proud of being French?
The Kenyans had an attorney general called Charles Njonjo who believed he was British and looked down upon his countrymen. For a while, Idi Amin imagined he was a Scot. Emperor Bokassa called De Gaulle Papa and took himself as French. Some Arabs think they are white and discriminate against Black Africans while in Ethiopia, the birthplace of human kind, the people think they are the one and only chosen people. Delusions and illusions over identity, a mess into which the argument seeking French want to wade in.
Alas, the non-white French are thus trapped. What with their non French religion, their penchant for scarification, genital mutilation, witchcraft, polygamy, barbarity, marabous, bizarre cultures and languages. What with their noise and smell as one old French politician said without shame. Who are they? Are they really French? Are they proud of being French? If so, why are they still clinging to their other identity? What is it being French? The whole concept of national identity was first spawned by the right wing National Front, headed by a paratrooper who excelled in torturing Algerians, to affirm that French means white and may the darkies and their turbans, the Arabs and their hijabs please go away. Sarkozy tweaked the fear of being flooded by immigrants to garner votes away from the Socialists who, in my view, have yet to prove themselves free of the malady of racism and have time and again shown that they also pander to the right wing prejudices. Is being French defined by “nepotism a la Sarkozy?” Is "Frenchness" singing the national anthem that has lines about "impure blood irrigating our farmlands"? Or does it refer only to, as Parisian kids used to sing, "our ancestors the Gaul (who) had blue eyes and blond hairs"? Does France symbolize the land of refuge when last year it expelled some 30,000 asylum seekers (some sent back to the dungeons and their deaths), the present immigration minister (the very man heading the debate) vows he will surpass this figure and more than 200,000 refugees are denied recognition and legal papers? The Senegalese born French Minister of Sports, Rama Yade, tried to define what France means to her, talked of de Gaulle and the "greatness of France joined with the liberty of the world" almost as if she believes in such inanity. Wild!
Clichés and platitudes aside, the deafening assertion of France being the land of liberty ((egalite, fraternite et liberte) aside, the present reality of France is poignantly captured by the suffering of the “sans papiers” (undocumented immigrants), the pain of the deportees, the poverty of the African street cleaners, the institutionalized racism, the rage of the marginalized youths, and the neo colonial interference in the affairs of African countries. France is also a Pascal Sevran blaming the "African penis for the African famine" and calling for mass sterilization, a Kouchner defending the Burmese junta and Total, a Giscard d’Estaing dealing with Bokassa over diamonds, a Sarkozy declaring Africa has yet to enter the doors of modernity, a Chirac complaining of our noise and odour, and of the common people giving millions of votes to the likes of Le Pen.
France, being a country of contradictions and with a multi ethnicity and multi-culturalism that it is refusing to accept as legit, is indeed fascinating to observe and dissect. The French obsession with splitting hairs and complicating all and sundry when it can be rendered simple once again makes the discussion on national identity a hurdle. As an obsession of the right wing, this search for a lily white national identity (our ancestor the Gaul), is doomed to a resounding failure. As a discussion to enhance integration and build a multi cultural and multi ethnic France its beginning does not augur well. The very man in charge of the ministry of immigration and promising to deport our black and brown bodies back to our own backyards is the one in charge of the discussion on this crucial issue. Up to now, the declarations have on the whole proved to be platitudes. Equality is a myth, integration an illusion no matter if, during naturalization, you accept the insistence to change your name from the original to a French one (the Turks also buy athletes from Africa and force them to change their names). Liberty? As James Baldwin who knew France said of another matter: go tell it on the mountain outside of France if you can, please. Fraternity? Between the ones organising the deportation and the deportees? Between the street cleaner and the Neuilly (upscale Parisian suburb) residents? In your dreams, Madame et Monsieur.
As elsewhere in the world, where double standards triumph, the question of identity rests on wealth and colour of skin. A Sarkozy or Pontiawoski is easily accepted as French more than a Mamadou and Kwaku or Abdella and Kapoor. A useful and rich African or Arab (tennis or football star) will be identified as French more than the impoverished and blighted resident of the Banlieues/Projects/Ghettos/Council flats. And yet again, even for those who may be accepted, naturalized, officially called French, there is always the question: where are you originally from? I was born and raised in Paris. Oh yeah, good for you. But your parents come from Bab el Oued, Dakar, Bangui, no? The name, the accent and above all the colour are important giveaways in determining national identity. And yet, the trend is against those who want to go back to the lore of their blond hair blue eyed ancestors and the mythic pure race. They came to us first as colonizers and, warm hearted as we are, we have believed their message of fraternity and came back to them as émigrés.
What’s in a name? The French national identity will have to include everyone, good or bad, just as it has embraced the Sarkozys (Hungary), the Moscovicis (Romania), Balladurs (Turkey) and even Eric Besson (the present Franco-Lebanese immigration minister) among other foreigners in the past. There is really no need for a discussion on this. Foreigners, as it were, are becoming presidents not only in France but also in the USA and well-bred Parisian kids will one day sing of "our kinky haired and brown eyed ancestors". For the time being in France, Jesus Christ, as it were, remains a French speaking, blond and blue-eyed man of Northern European stock.
In the old musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, there is the chorus that sings the question: Jesus Christ, Superstar, who do you think you are? A very pertinent question to someone claiming to be the son of God and wanting to redeem souls through his message but choosing to be born in the wrong place at a backward time instead of coming today to pass his message via the internet and the new mass media to the world at large. The question of identity is perennial. Who are you? Who do you think you are? Are you who you think you are?
Of all the people I claim to know there is none more preoccupied by identity like the French. This is best expressed by the French bureaucracy and its persistent and obsessive need to know and ascertain who you are. A naive person may infer some serious concerns for his or her welfare but the problem is elsewhere. Actually, France does not know itself really. There was a time it considered itself an Empire, an era that ended after Vietnam and Algeria, though someone has forgotten to tell France that, and thus it continues to strut as a big Empire with tin pot dictators of small countries in Africa fawning over or under it in a Franceafrique that is as laughable as the British Commonwealth.
The Empire syndrome gives an obsession with History and the need to mould others into one’s will or under one’s rule and diktat. Furthermore, France has suffered many humiliations (1870, 1940, etc) but it has refused to accept or acknowledge this heavy weight of history and pretends all is well in its pursuit of grandeur. For the confusion, poor souls of colour have to pay, of course. The identity crisis that has struck France has thrown it into a contradiction in which it considers islands inhabited by dark skinned fellows as its overseas territories and the people as French at the same time, as it yearns feverishly to keep its basically white identity. Hence, the present need to debate its national identity spearheaded by a minister of immigration (Eric Besson) who himself has changed his political colour so radically that many wonder who he really is. Who are you people? Are you proud of being French? Can Eyoum, Mamadou, Latifa, Kim or Ananda be really French? Who do you think you are? And the trap question: are you proud of who you are— that is to say are you proud of being French?
The Kenyans had an attorney general called Charles Njonjo who believed he was British and looked down upon his countrymen. For a while, Idi Amin imagined he was a Scot. Emperor Bokassa called De Gaulle Papa and took himself as French. Some Arabs think they are white and discriminate against Black Africans while in Ethiopia, the birthplace of human kind, the people think they are the one and only chosen people. Delusions and illusions over identity, a mess into which the argument seeking French want to wade in.
Alas, the non-white French are thus trapped. What with their non French religion, their penchant for scarification, genital mutilation, witchcraft, polygamy, barbarity, marabous, bizarre cultures and languages. What with their noise and smell as one old French politician said without shame. Who are they? Are they really French? Are they proud of being French? If so, why are they still clinging to their other identity? What is it being French? The whole concept of national identity was first spawned by the right wing National Front, headed by a paratrooper who excelled in torturing Algerians, to affirm that French means white and may the darkies and their turbans, the Arabs and their hijabs please go away. Sarkozy tweaked the fear of being flooded by immigrants to garner votes away from the Socialists who, in my view, have yet to prove themselves free of the malady of racism and have time and again shown that they also pander to the right wing prejudices. Is being French defined by “nepotism a la Sarkozy?” Is "Frenchness" singing the national anthem that has lines about "impure blood irrigating our farmlands"? Or does it refer only to, as Parisian kids used to sing, "our ancestors the Gaul (who) had blue eyes and blond hairs"? Does France symbolize the land of refuge when last year it expelled some 30,000 asylum seekers (some sent back to the dungeons and their deaths), the present immigration minister (the very man heading the debate) vows he will surpass this figure and more than 200,000 refugees are denied recognition and legal papers? The Senegalese born French Minister of Sports, Rama Yade, tried to define what France means to her, talked of de Gaulle and the "greatness of France joined with the liberty of the world" almost as if she believes in such inanity. Wild!
Clichés and platitudes aside, the deafening assertion of France being the land of liberty ((egalite, fraternite et liberte) aside, the present reality of France is poignantly captured by the suffering of the “sans papiers” (undocumented immigrants), the pain of the deportees, the poverty of the African street cleaners, the institutionalized racism, the rage of the marginalized youths, and the neo colonial interference in the affairs of African countries. France is also a Pascal Sevran blaming the "African penis for the African famine" and calling for mass sterilization, a Kouchner defending the Burmese junta and Total, a Giscard d’Estaing dealing with Bokassa over diamonds, a Sarkozy declaring Africa has yet to enter the doors of modernity, a Chirac complaining of our noise and odour, and of the common people giving millions of votes to the likes of Le Pen.
France, being a country of contradictions and with a multi ethnicity and multi-culturalism that it is refusing to accept as legit, is indeed fascinating to observe and dissect. The French obsession with splitting hairs and complicating all and sundry when it can be rendered simple once again makes the discussion on national identity a hurdle. As an obsession of the right wing, this search for a lily white national identity (our ancestor the Gaul), is doomed to a resounding failure. As a discussion to enhance integration and build a multi cultural and multi ethnic France its beginning does not augur well. The very man in charge of the ministry of immigration and promising to deport our black and brown bodies back to our own backyards is the one in charge of the discussion on this crucial issue. Up to now, the declarations have on the whole proved to be platitudes. Equality is a myth, integration an illusion no matter if, during naturalization, you accept the insistence to change your name from the original to a French one (the Turks also buy athletes from Africa and force them to change their names). Liberty? As James Baldwin who knew France said of another matter: go tell it on the mountain outside of France if you can, please. Fraternity? Between the ones organising the deportation and the deportees? Between the street cleaner and the Neuilly (upscale Parisian suburb) residents? In your dreams, Madame et Monsieur.
As elsewhere in the world, where double standards triumph, the question of identity rests on wealth and colour of skin. A Sarkozy or Pontiawoski is easily accepted as French more than a Mamadou and Kwaku or Abdella and Kapoor. A useful and rich African or Arab (tennis or football star) will be identified as French more than the impoverished and blighted resident of the Banlieues/Projects/Ghettos/Council flats. And yet again, even for those who may be accepted, naturalized, officially called French, there is always the question: where are you originally from? I was born and raised in Paris. Oh yeah, good for you. But your parents come from Bab el Oued, Dakar, Bangui, no? The name, the accent and above all the colour are important giveaways in determining national identity. And yet, the trend is against those who want to go back to the lore of their blond hair blue eyed ancestors and the mythic pure race. They came to us first as colonizers and, warm hearted as we are, we have believed their message of fraternity and came back to them as émigrés.
What’s in a name? The French national identity will have to include everyone, good or bad, just as it has embraced the Sarkozys (Hungary), the Moscovicis (Romania), Balladurs (Turkey) and even Eric Besson (the present Franco-Lebanese immigration minister) among other foreigners in the past. There is really no need for a discussion on this. Foreigners, as it were, are becoming presidents not only in France but also in the USA and well-bred Parisian kids will one day sing of "our kinky haired and brown eyed ancestors". For the time being in France, Jesus Christ, as it were, remains a French speaking, blond and blue-eyed man of Northern European stock.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
WILL CASTRATING TYRANTS HELP?
Will Castrating Tyrants Help?
The rest of the world has not got it yet. Many still think that Africa's major problems concern famine, AIDS, conflicts and wars, poverty, rigged elections, nepotism and corruption, fevers of all types that are said to originate from the continent and more. How wrong. No one knows Africa like its cruel tyrants and they have time and again told the world that Africa's problems are elsewhere.
Tyrants in Africa are often considered as lazybones but this is also very wrong. Our tyrants are very busy souls, often burning the midnight oil to find ways and means of making our life more miserable. They are hardworking busy bees. Bringing famine to a country with fertile land and a hardworking peasantry requires not only talent but diligence. Organizing rigged elections is not child's play even if it has been done before and experience gained. Getting money out of the tight fisted World Bank requires finesse and persistence. Even if the West wants to go along, convincing it that a one party regime is basking in a multi party system requires not only shamelessness but also hard work. Siphoning off the revenues from oil and minerals to one's private bank accounts demands not only perfidy and greed but vigilance and diligent activity as it is a 24 hours undertaking, seven days a week and tolerates no slackening. Contrary to photos of overfed dictators dozing or napping at international meets, our tyrants are addicted workaholics as dictatorship and laziness do not go together. Oppression is no joke and exploitation demands indefatigable energy.
Robert Mugabe is a man of many problems, some made by himself and others by the good offices of London and Washington, ranging from the economic to the political and you name it. Naive observers would of course conclude that with all this on his old lap he would have no time to focus on gays or chemical castration of rapists. Wrong! He continues to rile against gays and his ministers want to imitate the Czech Republic and decree castration laws in Zimbabwe. Up north in Uganda where Museveni has sadly turned into the usual African corrupt power monger, the government wants to decree homosexuality a crime and to punish gays by severe imprisonment (not less than 7 years) as if Uganda does not have several insurgencies to contend with along with economic and political problems of all sorts. In Somalia, where carnage and chaos have built castles, the hardliners are busy destroying graves and cutting hands and feet of petty thieves while the country remains without a State and a trace of peace. In power or aspiring to take it, Africa has so many busybodies watching over its misery and continued suffering.
The call for castration ( taking away the gun of the rapist as one Zimbabwean minister put it) brings to mind the possibility that this measure could have relieved Africa by making its tyrants non (re) productive. Off hand, such a measure would have deprived us (and what a pleasure!) of an Ali Bongo, a Kabila or Eyadema junior, a Seif Al Islam and a Gamal Mubarek, sons that have taken or are in line to take over power. Castration is an ancient practice that should be revived for political ends while the so called chemical castration now being advocated in Harare, aimed at reducing the libido, is a waste of resources and expectations. Someone has said correctly that behind every phallic hero there lurks an "unsocialized" monster. The cock that spares no chicken otherwise known as Mobutu Sese Seko, the big dictator Idi Amin, and all the other polygamous tyrants were/are macho monsters par excellence that could have been or are perfect candidates for castration. But then again, a castrated and sexually frustrated Idi Amin may have brought more havoc on our Ugandan brothers and sisters. After all, according to some articles in the Pet Friendly sites, castration changes the personality of dogs. The same could be true in humans though eunuchs are revered in some countries and oppressed in many others. This means that there is the dangerous possibility that a castrated tyrant may be worshipped and allowed to wreak havoc. Eunuchs had also a purpose, some use ( Eunuch goes back to the Greek word eunoukhos, "a castrated person employed to take charge of the women of a harem and act as chamberlain") while we say castrate tyrants to make them useless. Men said to be "emasculated and castrated" by "dominating women" reportedly have serious psychological problems and we do need tyrants with more mental handicaps. The ancients ranging from Theophilus of Antioch to Augustine condemned the pagan gods demanding castration and called the action villainy and foul. Will castrating tyrants make them more vicious though such a state may be hard to envisage given the fact they have all reached the highest level of viciousness already. Hence, we must really make sure that castration leads to a change to the better in the temperament and personality of the tyrant.
The African tyrant minus his personal private gun may be impeded from producing off springs that replace him and perpetuate our misery. This by itself is a good thing and we can only hope that Mugabe for one will opt for the full Monty castration instead of imitating Western wimps and their chemical castration option. Why send gays to prison and deplete the money of the State (money that can be stolen by the tyrants) while they can be castrated and rendered unarmed for their "criminal" activity. A black friend of mine claiming to be an expert on the make up of the African tyrants ( a field of expertise monopolized by Whites) asserts that a castrated African tyrant will wilt and shrivel as what defines the tyrant is his macho phallic hero posturing. Will castration put an end to the "unsocialized monster"? It is not sure but it sure is worth trying as Africa would benefit from ending the rule of the tyrants and the sons that continue to rise. And it would be a costless procedure as volunteer castrators would line up in their millions. Count me in.
The rest of the world has not got it yet. Many still think that Africa's major problems concern famine, AIDS, conflicts and wars, poverty, rigged elections, nepotism and corruption, fevers of all types that are said to originate from the continent and more. How wrong. No one knows Africa like its cruel tyrants and they have time and again told the world that Africa's problems are elsewhere.
Tyrants in Africa are often considered as lazybones but this is also very wrong. Our tyrants are very busy souls, often burning the midnight oil to find ways and means of making our life more miserable. They are hardworking busy bees. Bringing famine to a country with fertile land and a hardworking peasantry requires not only talent but diligence. Organizing rigged elections is not child's play even if it has been done before and experience gained. Getting money out of the tight fisted World Bank requires finesse and persistence. Even if the West wants to go along, convincing it that a one party regime is basking in a multi party system requires not only shamelessness but also hard work. Siphoning off the revenues from oil and minerals to one's private bank accounts demands not only perfidy and greed but vigilance and diligent activity as it is a 24 hours undertaking, seven days a week and tolerates no slackening. Contrary to photos of overfed dictators dozing or napping at international meets, our tyrants are addicted workaholics as dictatorship and laziness do not go together. Oppression is no joke and exploitation demands indefatigable energy.
Robert Mugabe is a man of many problems, some made by himself and others by the good offices of London and Washington, ranging from the economic to the political and you name it. Naive observers would of course conclude that with all this on his old lap he would have no time to focus on gays or chemical castration of rapists. Wrong! He continues to rile against gays and his ministers want to imitate the Czech Republic and decree castration laws in Zimbabwe. Up north in Uganda where Museveni has sadly turned into the usual African corrupt power monger, the government wants to decree homosexuality a crime and to punish gays by severe imprisonment (not less than 7 years) as if Uganda does not have several insurgencies to contend with along with economic and political problems of all sorts. In Somalia, where carnage and chaos have built castles, the hardliners are busy destroying graves and cutting hands and feet of petty thieves while the country remains without a State and a trace of peace. In power or aspiring to take it, Africa has so many busybodies watching over its misery and continued suffering.
The call for castration ( taking away the gun of the rapist as one Zimbabwean minister put it) brings to mind the possibility that this measure could have relieved Africa by making its tyrants non (re) productive. Off hand, such a measure would have deprived us (and what a pleasure!) of an Ali Bongo, a Kabila or Eyadema junior, a Seif Al Islam and a Gamal Mubarek, sons that have taken or are in line to take over power. Castration is an ancient practice that should be revived for political ends while the so called chemical castration now being advocated in Harare, aimed at reducing the libido, is a waste of resources and expectations. Someone has said correctly that behind every phallic hero there lurks an "unsocialized" monster. The cock that spares no chicken otherwise known as Mobutu Sese Seko, the big dictator Idi Amin, and all the other polygamous tyrants were/are macho monsters par excellence that could have been or are perfect candidates for castration. But then again, a castrated and sexually frustrated Idi Amin may have brought more havoc on our Ugandan brothers and sisters. After all, according to some articles in the Pet Friendly sites, castration changes the personality of dogs. The same could be true in humans though eunuchs are revered in some countries and oppressed in many others. This means that there is the dangerous possibility that a castrated tyrant may be worshipped and allowed to wreak havoc. Eunuchs had also a purpose, some use ( Eunuch goes back to the Greek word eunoukhos, "a castrated person employed to take charge of the women of a harem and act as chamberlain") while we say castrate tyrants to make them useless. Men said to be "emasculated and castrated" by "dominating women" reportedly have serious psychological problems and we do need tyrants with more mental handicaps. The ancients ranging from Theophilus of Antioch to Augustine condemned the pagan gods demanding castration and called the action villainy and foul. Will castrating tyrants make them more vicious though such a state may be hard to envisage given the fact they have all reached the highest level of viciousness already. Hence, we must really make sure that castration leads to a change to the better in the temperament and personality of the tyrant.
The African tyrant minus his personal private gun may be impeded from producing off springs that replace him and perpetuate our misery. This by itself is a good thing and we can only hope that Mugabe for one will opt for the full Monty castration instead of imitating Western wimps and their chemical castration option. Why send gays to prison and deplete the money of the State (money that can be stolen by the tyrants) while they can be castrated and rendered unarmed for their "criminal" activity. A black friend of mine claiming to be an expert on the make up of the African tyrants ( a field of expertise monopolized by Whites) asserts that a castrated African tyrant will wilt and shrivel as what defines the tyrant is his macho phallic hero posturing. Will castration put an end to the "unsocialized monster"? It is not sure but it sure is worth trying as Africa would benefit from ending the rule of the tyrants and the sons that continue to rise. And it would be a costless procedure as volunteer castrators would line up in their millions. Count me in.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
WORTH READING--FROM MAMDANI
Beware of human rights fundamentalism
Mahmood Mamdani (2009-03-26)
FOUR WRONG ASSUMPTIONS
The prosecutor's application makes four erroneous assumptions, all of them so he can pin the full blame of the violence on al-Bashir. This is how the prosecutor put it to journalists at The Hague: 'What happened in Darfur is a consequence of al-Bashir's will.'
The first error is to identify the duration of the conflict in Darfur with the presidency of al-Bashir. Yet, the conflict in Darfur began as a civil war in 1987, before al-Bashir and his group came to power, and long before the cycle of insurgency and counterinsurgency that began in 2003. The civil war has become entangled with the counterinsurgency, though they have separate causes. Whereas the insurgency was a rebel challenge to power in Khartoum, the civil war was triggered by the effects of drought and desertification, and intensified by two factors, one internal, the other external, one the failure to reform the system of tribal homelands and the other an effect of the ongoing civil war in Chad.
The second error is to assume that excess deaths in Darfur are the result of a single cause: violence. But the fact is that there have been two separate if interconnected causes, drought and desertification on the one hand, and direct violence on the other. World Health Organisation sources – considered the most reliable source of mortality statistics by the US Government Accountability Office in its 2006 evaluation – trace these deaths to two major causes: about 70 to 80 per cent to drought-related diarrhoea and 20 to 30 per cent to direct violence.
The third error is to assume a single author of violent deaths and rape. In his eagerness to make the prosecution's case, Moreno-Ocampo not only obscured the origins of the violence in Darfur, he also went on to portray life in the internally displaced persons camps in Darfur as a contemporary version of life in Nazi concentration camps in Europe, with al-Bashir cast in the role of the Führer. At the press conference announcing the case against the president of Sudan, the prosecutor said: 'Al-Bashir organised the destitution, insecurity and harassment of the survivors. He did not need bullets. He used other weapons: rape, hunger and fear. As efficient, but silent.'
To be sure, there were ongoing incidents of rape in Darfur, as there are indeed in most conflict situations where armed young men confront unarmed young women. This much was recognised by the US special envoy to Sudan, Andrew S. Natsios, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 11 April 2007: 'The government has lost control of large parts of the province now. And some of the rapes, by the way, that are going on are by rebels raping women in their own tribes. We know in one of the refugee camps, it's now controlled by the rebels, formally. There have been terrible atrocities committed by the rebels against the people in the camps.'
.
The fourth erroneous assumption is that the situation has not changed in Darfur since the onset of the counterinsurgency in 2003. In Moreno-Ocampo's own words: 'In April 2008, the United Nations estimated the total number of deaths since 2003 at 300,000.' This estimate came from John Holmes, UN under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs. This is how Holmes put it in the first place: 'A study in 2006 suggested that 200,000 had lost their lives from the combined effect of the conflict. That figure must be much higher now, perhaps half as much again.' There are two qualifications here, and Moreno-Ocampo glossed over both. The first was that these mortality figures were said to be the result of 'a combined effect', referring to direct violence and drought. The second qualification was explained by Reuters: 'United Nations cautioned reporters that the number was not a scientific estimate but a "reasonable extrapolation".' The assumption underlying the extrapolation – that the level of mortality has not changed in Darfur from 2003 on – was contradicted by the UN's own technical staff in Sudan. As Julie Flint explained in the New York Times of 6 July 2007 and the Independent (London) of 31 July 2007, UN sources spoke of a sharp drop in mortality rates in Darfur from early 2005, so much so that these sources report that mortality estimates had dipped to as low as below 200 per month, lower than the number that would constitute an emergency.
That the ICC has politicised the issue of justice is no reason to sidestep the question of accountability. The kernel of truth in the prosecutor's application concerns 2003–04, when Darfur was the site of mass deaths. This was mass murder, but not genocide. Its authors were several, not just the government of Sudan. There is no doubt that the perpetrators of violence should be held accountable, but when and how is a political decision that cannot belong to the ICC prosecutor. More than the innocence or guilt of the president of Sudan, it is the relationship between law and politics – including the politicisation of the ICC – that poses an issue of greater concern to Africa.
* This article was originally published by the Mail & Guardian.
* Mahmood Mamdani is the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government Columbia University. Mamdani's latest book, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror, is published by Pantheon Books.
\
Mahmood Mamdani (2009-03-26)
FOUR WRONG ASSUMPTIONS
The prosecutor's application makes four erroneous assumptions, all of them so he can pin the full blame of the violence on al-Bashir. This is how the prosecutor put it to journalists at The Hague: 'What happened in Darfur is a consequence of al-Bashir's will.'
The first error is to identify the duration of the conflict in Darfur with the presidency of al-Bashir. Yet, the conflict in Darfur began as a civil war in 1987, before al-Bashir and his group came to power, and long before the cycle of insurgency and counterinsurgency that began in 2003. The civil war has become entangled with the counterinsurgency, though they have separate causes. Whereas the insurgency was a rebel challenge to power in Khartoum, the civil war was triggered by the effects of drought and desertification, and intensified by two factors, one internal, the other external, one the failure to reform the system of tribal homelands and the other an effect of the ongoing civil war in Chad.
The second error is to assume that excess deaths in Darfur are the result of a single cause: violence. But the fact is that there have been two separate if interconnected causes, drought and desertification on the one hand, and direct violence on the other. World Health Organisation sources – considered the most reliable source of mortality statistics by the US Government Accountability Office in its 2006 evaluation – trace these deaths to two major causes: about 70 to 80 per cent to drought-related diarrhoea and 20 to 30 per cent to direct violence.
The third error is to assume a single author of violent deaths and rape. In his eagerness to make the prosecution's case, Moreno-Ocampo not only obscured the origins of the violence in Darfur, he also went on to portray life in the internally displaced persons camps in Darfur as a contemporary version of life in Nazi concentration camps in Europe, with al-Bashir cast in the role of the Führer. At the press conference announcing the case against the president of Sudan, the prosecutor said: 'Al-Bashir organised the destitution, insecurity and harassment of the survivors. He did not need bullets. He used other weapons: rape, hunger and fear. As efficient, but silent.'
To be sure, there were ongoing incidents of rape in Darfur, as there are indeed in most conflict situations where armed young men confront unarmed young women. This much was recognised by the US special envoy to Sudan, Andrew S. Natsios, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 11 April 2007: 'The government has lost control of large parts of the province now. And some of the rapes, by the way, that are going on are by rebels raping women in their own tribes. We know in one of the refugee camps, it's now controlled by the rebels, formally. There have been terrible atrocities committed by the rebels against the people in the camps.'
.
The fourth erroneous assumption is that the situation has not changed in Darfur since the onset of the counterinsurgency in 2003. In Moreno-Ocampo's own words: 'In April 2008, the United Nations estimated the total number of deaths since 2003 at 300,000.' This estimate came from John Holmes, UN under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs. This is how Holmes put it in the first place: 'A study in 2006 suggested that 200,000 had lost their lives from the combined effect of the conflict. That figure must be much higher now, perhaps half as much again.' There are two qualifications here, and Moreno-Ocampo glossed over both. The first was that these mortality figures were said to be the result of 'a combined effect', referring to direct violence and drought. The second qualification was explained by Reuters: 'United Nations cautioned reporters that the number was not a scientific estimate but a "reasonable extrapolation".' The assumption underlying the extrapolation – that the level of mortality has not changed in Darfur from 2003 on – was contradicted by the UN's own technical staff in Sudan. As Julie Flint explained in the New York Times of 6 July 2007 and the Independent (London) of 31 July 2007, UN sources spoke of a sharp drop in mortality rates in Darfur from early 2005, so much so that these sources report that mortality estimates had dipped to as low as below 200 per month, lower than the number that would constitute an emergency.
That the ICC has politicised the issue of justice is no reason to sidestep the question of accountability. The kernel of truth in the prosecutor's application concerns 2003–04, when Darfur was the site of mass deaths. This was mass murder, but not genocide. Its authors were several, not just the government of Sudan. There is no doubt that the perpetrators of violence should be held accountable, but when and how is a political decision that cannot belong to the ICC prosecutor. More than the innocence or guilt of the president of Sudan, it is the relationship between law and politics – including the politicisation of the ICC – that poses an issue of greater concern to Africa.
* This article was originally published by the Mail & Guardian.
* Mahmood Mamdani is the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government Columbia University. Mamdani's latest book, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror, is published by Pantheon Books.
\
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)