One particular issue results from the condition of post-colonialism: nostalgia in this situation can affect both the former colonial masters and the subordinate classes who were suppressed and dispossessed in their own country. The former is common in former imperial states which want to conceal the outrages that gave them power of life and death over much larger numbers of the colonized. It is also used by the peddlers of such disgusting lies as the ‘white man’s burden’ and the right wing’s attempts to demonise and belittle the efforts and achievements of people from other parts of the world as a pretext for not making proper contributions to multilateral international funds and projects.

A second issue is political in nature. Nostalgia can be used to convince people that things were really better in the past and that people in the current time are falling short of the standards of those who have gone before us. Clearly, although no doubt people in the past did the best they could in the circumstances they faced, they lacked the knowledge and resources that are available to us today. Their lives were less convenient and rewarding because of the constant threat of death by disease or ignorance of scientific facts and the absence of labour-saving devices that has revolutionized the lives of billions of working people and, particularly, women. No woman would wish to live in the past with its so much higher rate of death for children and for childbirth. Above all, it is very clear that human nature has not changed over the ages – people were just as heroic or disreputable as they are today. The past had its share of hypocrites, exploiters and abusers just as we are obliged to tolerate such people today.

People who claim that we should live our lives today according to laws and traditions created in the past really want obedience to the existing power structures now existing and to the rich, powerful and probably elderly power who control them.

The initial British interest in the Indian subcontinent revolved around trade.4 The moneymaking opportunities that India provided attracted the attention of British businessmen looking to make their fortune and motivated by a desire for adventure. They would decide to leave England to live out their lives in untamed and barbaric India. Not only were they motivated by the prospect of creating a fortune, but also by the responsibility that they believed they had as Christians and members of the “British race”. Rudyard Kipling wrote his essay The White Man’s Burden; in which he outlinedthe British mentality regarding their racial superiority. “The responsibility for governing India” Kipling claimed, “has been placed by the inscrutable decree of providence upon the shoulders of the British race.”2 This statement represents the general understanding of the British people regarding their right to rule. It was this mentality that allowed the colonial governments to treat the indigenous people like savages that had to be controlled. The response to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, during which Hindu and Muslim soldiers rose up against their British commanding officers, consisted of strapping the imprisoned mutineers to the muzzles of loaded cannons and touching the guns off, a particularly barbaric method of execution by British standards. These killings illustrate the disdain with which the colonial rulers dealt with the ruled.5 As a result of what are now considered by many to be British atrocities, the academic analysis of this period is often focused on British wrongdoing as well as the oppressed colonized without taking a close look at the Britons who were living out their lives and doing business in the colonies. For them, especially in the period from 1850 to 1914, India was not a place to make a fortune, but instead to escape the safe and somewhat dull lives in England in favor of a hazardous and alien playground where a well-to-do Englishman and his family could live a life of indulgence and danger all for the glory of Great Britain.

To the young Britons who lived in India, the colony was more than just a source of money. India represented all that was great and good about British colonial rule. Their interest was not only monetary, but nationalistic; they wanted to be a part of the history of England in all of its greatness. The young European men who elected to spend their lives in India were not driven by money, but by glory and adventure.

The India of the Victorian Era was what Disraeli called the “brightest jewel of the British Crown”.3 The Crown Jewel India was highly romanticized in the minds of the English and this image appealed especially to England’s young men. These men were usually well-bred and well educated and their decision to move to India was informed by an education dedicated to “manly pursuits” and, perhaps foremost, by the influence of their fathers and grandfathers who had spent their youthful years serving the Crown in the Subcontinent who encouraged them to join the military and serve as officers commanding sepoys. The romantic India of these young men, write Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre,

was the India of gentleman officers in plumed shakos riding and the head of their turbaned sepoys; of district magistrates lost in the torrid wastes of the Deccan; of sumptuous imperial balls in the Himalayan summer capital of Simla; cricket matches on the manicured lawns of Calcutta’s Bengal Club; polo games on the sunburnt plains of Rajasthan; tiger hunts in Assam; young men sitting down to dinner in black ties in a tent in the middle of the jungle, solemnly proposing their toast in port to the King Emperor while jackals howled in the wild around them; officers in scarlet tunics pursuing rebellious Pathan tribesman in the sleet or unbearable heat of the Frontier; the India of a caste unassailably certain of its superiority, sipping whiskies and soda on the veranda of its Europeans Only Clubs.2

This India was the India that drove men to give up prosperous lives in England for adventure and danger.

After bidding goodbye to home and family the young soldier would embark on a months-long voyage to the other side of the world. The first taste of the place these men would spend the next thirty-five to forty years was in their arrival at India’s primary port city of Mumbai (Bombay). Here they were greeted by a bustling crowd of travelers in Bombay’s Victoria Station where they would make their way to trains to send them throughout the country. In the first-class cabins of the Indian railroads they received their first taste of the organization of European and Indian relations. The cars were luxurious and clean, and the only Indians to be seen were servants who poured champagne and changed linens, which they never had to interact with. This pseudo-segregation characterized the colonial experience in India.2

The romanticized India did not come to life in the form of the poverty and squalor of local, and wherever the colonizers went, they did their best to separate themselves from the local populace. The Europeans Only Clubs were a phenomenon that appeared wherever more than two Englishmen gathered. At the clubs they were waited on by Indian servants and passed the time drinking, eating, and playing games of cricket, polo, tennis, squash, and hockey. In these clubs they were able to live out the Jewel of the Crown India which had inspired them to make the trip. Not only were these clubs luxurious, they also served an important social capacity. They were the center of the European-Indian disconnect and the most visible symbol of English superiority. By always asserting the might of the Crown and the superiority of the British race the colonists were able to easily control and govern the indigenous population, which hugely outnumbered them.2

The ratio of rulers to locals is an important one. For his first assignment, these men usually found themselves in “…remote posts…inhabited…by only a few Europeans. By the time they were twenty-four or twenty-five, they often found themselves with the sole responsibility for handing down justice to and administering the lives of a million or more human beings, in an area sometimes larger than Scotland.”2 In a situation such as this, the motivation for colonial rule cannot be attributed to monetary gain. The honor and glory of serving the Empire proved to be a far more enticing motivator.

So too was the case among women. In fact, the social separation in Victorian India could be attributed to the wives of British officers. Collins and Lapierre in Freedom at Midnight suggest that this can be attributed to a desire to keep their husbands away from Indian women, though this was not always effective and the first few generations in India fathered an Anglo-Indian society that fit into neither world. There may also have been, however a glorified image of India in the minds of the British wives, known by the locals as memsahibs. Their hand in the segregation may have been due to a sense that they were there to help the local savages, not to become one of them. These women, unlike the missionary women in the region, were not interested in interaction with Indians.2

Women played an important and somewhat unseen role in the lives of their husbands. Though in the first volume of his memoir Forty-One Years in India published in 1897 Field Marshal Lord Roberts does not mention his wife, he dedicates the book as follows:

TO THE COUNTRY TO WHICH I AM SO PROUD OF BELONGING,

TO THE ARMY TO WHICH I AM SO DEEPLY INDEBTED,

AND TO MY WIFE,

WITHOUT WHOSE LOVING HELP

MY ‘FORTY-ONE YEARS IN INDIA’

COULD NO BE THE HAPPY RETROSPECT IT IS,

I DEDICATE THIS BOOK.1

Though she was never at the forefront of his Indian experience, Roberts’ wife played an important role in his coming to terms with his experiences and organizing them to produce his memoir.

Roberts’ memoir allows for a unique look into the mind of a colonizer with a very typical Indian experience. He treats his experience as execution of duty, but relays his story to the reader with relish, as though his time in India was the great adventure of his lifetime. Roberts’ India was the British India which characterized the romantic Victorian vision. Not only that, but he describes a certain respect of the natives and a need to respect their traditions and customs. He writes about British governance and understanding of the native populace, saying

It is difficult for people who know nothing of Natives to understand and appreciate the value the set on cherished customs, peculiar idiosyncrasies, and fixed prejudices, all of which must be carefully studied by those who are placed in a position of their Rulers, if the suzerain Power is to keep their respect and gain their gratitude and affection.1

In this passage Roberts shows his passion for his Indian experience. Not only does he tell his story, but he also communicates that cleverness and courage are needed to fully serve the Empire. He treats the natives as one might treat children. He seems to find them somewhat humorous and immature. Roberts clearly communicates his understanding of how they need to be governed and controlled. To Roberts, the indigenous people are not human, instead he sees them as a pleasant attraction, something to be viewed and wondered at.

The India of the Victorian age was a cash cow for the British Empire, but it was not money that motivated ordinary Britons to leave home and risk life and limb. Rather it was the adventure and danger that India presented. To them it was a place of glory and beauty and adventure. It was a playground, and provided an escape from normal lives in England to lives of combat, adventure, and Europeans Only Clubs. The danger was very real, and the death toll among the English was astronomical. But even in death the country retained its exciting mystique. English headstones list causes of death such as “…gored by a bison”, “…died of wounds received from a panther”, “…eaten by a tiger.”2 These causes of death are characteristic of India’s legends, but one cannot help but think that these lives were lost in the pursuit of adventure and that, even though the English subdued and mistreated the people they colonized, they gave many lives in pursuit of what they believed to be the right thing to do. It is important to remember that these people were not evil, but a product of their times, and when looked at this way one comes to appreciate the bravery and dedication required to carry out what the British did for 300 years, however twisted their reasoning.

Endnotes

1. Field Marshal Lord Roberts, Forty-One Years in India (London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1897), vii-10.

2. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1975), 12-17.

3. Michael Edwardes, The Last Years of British India (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1963), 1-5.

4. R. J. Minney, India Marches Past (New York: D Appleton and Company, 1933), 65.

Bibliography

1. Field Marshal Lord Roberts, Forty-One Years in India (London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1897), vii-10.

2. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1975), 12-17.

3. Michael Edwardes, The Last Years of British India (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1963), 1-5.

4. R. J. Minney, India Marches Past (New York: D Appleton and Company, 1933), 65.

5. R. P. Masani, Britain in India (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1960), 1-6.

6. P. E. Roberts, History of British India (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 643-650.

Finally, an important U.S. representative has visited Myanmar (Burma) where she is presently meeting with members of that country’s military dictatorship, as well as with Aung San Suu Kyi,  the opposition leader and Nobelist, with the hope that the illegitimacy of that administration be terminated and a new dawn of freedom ushered in the light of a long-nursed democracy. One has to wonder as to why it took so long to get involved in Myanmar’s nightmare which seems to be gradually giving way toward perhaps a brighter future. There seems to be a faint light at the “end of the tunnel,” with the possibility that, after years of tyranny, the turn to a new chapter might be in the offing.

I happened to be born in Burma when it was a British Colony, but after World War II when the rest of the world had celebrated an exhilarating victory, as well as freedom from fascism, Burma had lapsed into a nightmarish military dictatorship which is still clinging to power. Ironically, it seemed as if the rest of the world cared less about the intolerable condition of that country’s much-maligned subjects, as if they belonged to a different planet.

Prior to the military takeover of Burma, there were leaders that dreamed of freedom from colonialism, hoping to establish its independence at the end of World War II, after the Japanese occupation of that country, but it wasn’t meant to be when it was suddenly overwhelmed by yet another calamity that continues to this day.

Perhaps, the visit of our Secretary of State will open a new chapter in Myanmar’s long struggle to establish its true independence on the groundwork of democracy.

The teaching of a second and/ or foreign language has come a long way. Early approaches (i.e. grammar-translation) put emphasis on “knowing” or “understanding” the language and not necessarily “speaking” it or expressing one’s self using it. The shortcomings of this type of approach may be exemplified by the dying out of Spanish in the Philippines. Though we cannot disregard the political events which favored the spread of the English language throughout the Philippines in the first half of the 20th century, it must be noted how fast English took the place that Spanish occupied.

The demise of Spanish speaking and the success of English usage for many Filipinos lie in how the former was taught and made available and in the variety of ways in which the latter seeped into Philippine society and popular culture. Whereas Spanish was available only to a privileged few and it was not necessary for Filipinos then to be competent in using the language, the colonial ways of the Americans, on the other hand, differed from those of their predecessors. Thus, English was systematically introduced to Filipinos. While the art of manipulating the Spanish language was limited to the elite in the earlier era, the opportunity to gain fair to good command of the English language was given to more Filipinos in the 20th century.

More can be written and said when comparing the fates of the Spanish and English speaking or the usage of these two languages in the Philippines. Causes point to complex social, political, and technological factors. However, when one strips away these factors, the phenomena of “abandonment” and “acceptance” of these two languages may simply be explained by the very different approaches employed when the languages were introduced and taught.

At the age of 3 he was a day boarder to the only boarding school in that village at that period.  The school was run by two English Headmistresses for pupils whose parents could afford to pay the fees for their children’s education.  He was sent to this school to learn to speak fluent English and English grammar.  The school was for preparing ones child to enter the school at the age of seven.  He attended the school  for four years where he gained a certificate for Elocution.

Because of virtue of his birth (most of his parents were of English and German extraction) he was sent to Cornwall College in Montego Bay for further education.

On leaving College at 17 he was employed by the Jamaican Nationalist Party, headed by Norman Manley as a Social Worker looking after the problems of the membership, he spoke in Sabina Park as the Voice of Young Jamaica at the age of 12.

He came to England in 1947 with the intention of studying law, owing to the climatic situation at the time this was impossible.  The conditions were so bad he was unable to get accommodation because of his colour and was forced to live in bombed houses for some time in the freezing winter and live in Hostels fit for destitutes, the conditions were so dirty that when he woke his body was covered in lice he had to burn all his clothes.

He joined the Colonial Service 15 Victoria Street, London W1, between the years of 1950-1956 and worked under Mr Ivor De Souza as a volunteer assisting with the settlement of the newly arrived West Indians in this country.  He used to meet them at Victoria Railway Station, when they arrived in from the islands with only their few menial possessions.

Between the years of 1950-1960 he spoke in Hyde Park as this was the only voice the black people had at the time there were no black newspapers, he spoke about the racialist conditions in the country and for the freedom of Africa, 7 days a week.  Every evening after work he would go to Hyde Park to speak all through the cold Winter evenings.

He was also a dancer.  In order to earn some money he became a demonstration dancer for Mecca Ballroom.  He used to dance freestyle dancing and the popular dances of the time at many of the Ballrooms.  He achieved such notoriety for his prowess in the dance-halls of London that after first being banned from the Lyceum, The Astoria, the Locarno and the Hammer-smith and Wimbledon Palais, he was hired by the management to perform exhibitions of jiving and jitterbugging to the delight of the white working-class crowds.  This employment took him to ballrooms throughout the south of England and earned him £25 per week for three nights work.  Unable to find a black woman to be his partner, he took a white partner, but discovered dancing with white women provoked intense hostility from the management and sometimes violence.  He and his white partner were contracted to leave immediately, their exemplary performances ended lest other white women asked him to dance.  Operating under the name Sugar he and other young black dancers congregated at the Paramount Ballroom in London’s Tottenham Court Road.   The Paramount rapidly became known as the dance-hall for black teenagers.  ‘Sugar’ and other dance-floor hustlers working under names like The Magic Boots and ‘The Gladiator quickly achieved a monopoly of the dance competitions organized by the ballroom owners.

It was ironic to see in an area of white people you could not find one white male dancing.  At the Paramount the atmosphere was always electric as the Big Bands jostled  to play for us…  At these moments they could really enjoy their playing and by seeing  the black people enjoying themselves to the full it gave them more room for improvisation… Alas there were no black women, but the Paramount was packed with young ladies coming in from the stockbroker belt of Surrey, Essex and Hampshire and  other small villages and towns within a 60 mile radius of London.

Enrico’s account of the ballroom scenes of the early 1950s is particularly valuable if read in conjunction with the autobiography of Leslie Thompson a black musician who worked in many of the biggest dance-bands during this period.  Both testify to the ambiguous penetration of blacks into mainstream working-class leisure space.

The contradictory nature of the black presence in those institutions is exemplified by Enrico’s tale of the ways in which racial hostility was tempered by the high status that derived from black pre-eminence on the dance floor.

He was also a dancer in the ‘Bertha Berzouca Ballet’ called ‘Tobacco Road’ and appeared in a play called ‘How Deep Are the Root’s.’

In 1948 he was the founder of an organisation in Wimbledon, London called the ‘Cosmopolitan Social Association.’  The emblem of this Association was created by Mr Stennett of a black hand shaking a white hand which was used throughout Community Relations.  Through this Association he worked amongst West Indians and Africans assisting in all social problems.  Locating employment through the Trade Unions, assisting new arrivals from the West Indies to find accommodation, aiding both West Indians and Africans when in trouble with the Police.

In 1951 he was co-founder with Mr E Brewar of the African League who became Judge Advocate in Nigeria and Mr W Longmore of Ghana.  This organization was political and social, he was responsible for the protest meetings held in London, in respect of Jagan of Guyana and Ceretsi Kharma of Botswana.   This organisation had branches in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham and London.  He was a Lecturer for this organisation speaking to Co-operative Societies throughout the country, Trade Unions and Labour Party meetings on social problems which confronted the West Indians and Africans in England.

He founded the first black Newspaper to be printed in this country called the ‘African Voice’ this was a monthly paper sold to the public on street corners.  His work also entailed the organization of house to house meetings in the Brixton area and other areas of London.  He explained to the West Indian and African population the necessity to assimilate themselves in the community, to join the Trade Union Movement, the Labour Party and to take part in all social and political activities.

He was a very active member of the Westminster Labour Party and the National Union of the Furniture Trade Operators.  He was on the B list for the Parliamentary Candidacy for the Labour Party.  He was one of the joint secretaries of the ‘Movement for Colonial Freedom’ led by Fenner Brockway, Member of Parliament in the middle 1950’s.

Working among the immigrant population equipped him for his job in the early Seventies in Coventry, London and High Wycombe in his work in Community Relations.

Even in sadness, one must feel pride in the legacy left by someone so special.  His spirit will continue to shine, lighting the way for others, leaving all of us an example to follow and a remarkable life to remember with grateful hearts.  The heart is comforted by a life well lived.

Let us not mourn, but give thanks for his life as we all would be much poorer in many ways had we not met him.

His spirit and youthfulness made him seem almost invincible.  He had a great integrity and tenacity, never afraid to speak the truth, to stand up for what was right.

His constant efforts to create new opportunities for young people through Education and the Youth Service.  His ideas were ambitious but appropriate if the aim of Social Justice was to be achieved.

He never gave up, courage and determination were his trademarks. 

He was one of our most distinguished elderly statesmen with a mountain of knowledge regarding black history and issues around Race Relations, Trade Unions, Community Cohesion and Empowerment, the effects of Colonialism and Imperialism.

Enrico’s story is a truly remarkable and distinguished experience.

Enrico Stennett, a Leader, an Ally, a Voice for Justice, a Writer, a Dancer, a man with light, humour and kindness in his eyes.

Enrico Stennett the sweetest man who ever lived, you will remain in our hearts forever. 

Why did you have to die? 

I loved you so much.  We all loved you.  

You have left behind so many broken hearts until the end of time.  

European Colonialisation of Africa

The marauding colonialists raped, exploited and abandoned Africa and her peoples. One may erroneously claim that this is ancient history, which in a sense it is, but the ripple effect is still being felt; especially as the powers are introducing the New World Order. Being a South African, I have experienced a lot of what has happened in Africa over the past fourty years, including the 1994 election of Mr. Nelson Mandela (Madiba), and the subsequent democratic government. This has been wonderful, however the African people, i.e. the actual black African people, in the rural areas of Africa have been abandoned.

Consider the following:

- In the 1600’s European explorers arrived on African soil.

- Within fifty years, horrific crimes and human rights violations were committed against the people of Africa. They were enslaved, transported all over the world, sold and abused, whilst their families and fellow African people’s land was taken and masses were trapped in encampments.

- These are facts, based on factual historical accounts.

- Soon their country’s natural resources, like gold, copper, silver, oil, etc., were mined and “sold” back to the European countries, such as England, at huge profits to the Europeans.

- Agriculture boomed, vast areas of the land flourished under crops and livestock.

- Cities and towns developed and the population, whose land and country this was, were offered work on farms and in the cities, for an absolute pittance.

-The Africans were put to live in townships, outside the towns and cities, and in tiny
apartments in compounds aside the mines.

- The African people were introduced, or forced rather, into the Western lifestyle and economic way of life, and the Christian religion.

- Life remained this way for hundreds of years.

- Eventually separatism, or Apartheid, was formally introduced in South Africa, by law, and informally in most other colonialised African countries; and the people suffered even further under what was formally termed Separate Development.

I will not cover the facts about who benefited most from all of this in this note, but later in the series I will do so. The only benefits to these African people have been a Western, or civilized and formalised system of education and better health care. Some might say they have benefited from becoming Christian. In every other sense they were abused, exploited in terms of cheap labour, and they have been abused and abandoned.

Take special note here: the African people were not given an option to continue their cultural lives as they had lived before; they were literally taken hostage, their land and counties stolen from them, all in the name of autocracy, and eventually religiosity. This genocide and humanitarian abuse is akin to a horror story; invade, kill, capture, control, send in the missionaries to heal and preach, exploit the people and their economic resources, and then withdraw completely 300 to 400 years later.

New World Order. Aid?

Now that The New World Order is almost entrenched and the G8 countries are funding the poorer countries, the Global Economic Forum is in tow with the World Bank and World Monitory Fund, a new World Government is currently being shuffled into place, prospects are seemingly looking up for these impoverished African people. One wonders whether this will ever fully recompense for the sins of the British and European forefathers who colonialized Africa back then. Not true, I’m afraid. The people might receive handouts, on which they might survive for a number of years, but they do not have a clue about, and will not be able to benefit from Global Trade, or function prosperously within the Global Economy. The people of Africa have been left “high and dry”.

Rural Economic Project throughout Africa

This is why I am starting a Rural Economic Project throughout Africa, which will develop local economies within rural communities, teaching the people how to run their own businesses, thereby keeping their money circulating within their own people’s hands far longer, which will grow their own economies and support infrastructures. Thus also enabling them to develop social support groups for the children, the sick and the elderly so that they may all live happy, secure and prosperous lives.

Once these local economies are active and bedded down, we will gradually introduce the people to the benefits of international trade within the Global Economy and set them up to benefit from it; but only under the condition that they first have a sustainable economic, social and civil infrastructure -  up front.

Kindly visit our Causes page and our website to contribute moral support, your time, ideas, and finances. Your valuable input and support, in whatever form, will be greatly appreciated.

U.S. Global policy seems inextricably linked to race and ethnicity. Our country is in fact founded on the basis of racism. The destruction of Native American people, lands, and culture was seen as a normal and necessary means to gaining control over America, but if the people had been white would the Colonialism of North America be nearly as acceptable a historical fact? In American aid to the world it is evident that we still do not treat just any nation on equal terms. Although race seems to play a role in our involvement around the world I think that the U.S. has an intricate system of alliances and interests that are well hidden from the American people. Because of the global policy that is decided underhandedly we can not know for sure how much racism has to do with American actions around the world. Historically racism seems to go hand in hand with many American interests; For instance the exploitation of Africa for oil, diamonds, gold and other resources was assuaged by racism and the dehumanization of the black race. Because of racism the exploitation was made easier for the white colonialists, and in America people could hardly empathize with the plight of black Africans when all they saw of the exploitation was gold and diamonds. Racism was invented as a way for the people in power to control and renegotiate human identity based on a system of devaluation. Humans of races other than white were nudged closer and closer to the roll of servant animal for the convenience of the people in power. Nowadays this system still serves the power structure very well and it maintains this racist structure as well as it can. In third world countries where most people are of color America and the CIA have done the worst and most atrocious acts of exploitation. We do not attack China or the Soviet Union. We assassinate democratically elected presidents (Allende) for corporate interests, we install fascist dictators (Pinochet), we leech economies and resources with our multi-conglomerate corporations that have free reign over the third world. Racism of course plays a part in these actions because if racism wasn’t an inherent part of our culture and if we did not subconsciously dehumanize these people we would care too much to allow America and its corporate friends to abuse the people of the third world.  Racism therefore, is a byproduct of colonialism that perpetuates and excuses the exploitation and abuse of people of color. It can be used hand-in-hand with any kind of abuse and it can result after exploitative action in order to excuse it or it can precede an abusive action, it is a malleable and complex ideal that is intricately linked with abuse, power relations, and exploitation.

With the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict race does not seem to play as big a part for American policy as coalition building and global control. For the elite though it is extremely helpful to keep the American people racially and ethnically biased so that they do not question the conflict. People look at the Jewish people as though they are white and they see the Palestinians as though they are darkly-colored, Muslim “terrorists.” Because of these predispositions of thought we will not feel the need to find out more about the situation.

With the genocide in Rwanda America allegedly did not intervene because it did not have any interests in saving the Hutu people. I would question though to what extent America has interests in depopulation and preserving third world conflict. Both Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller have said that depopulation is the most important need of the third world. These people are part of the Bilderberg group which is a group of wealthy elites and policy makers who many say are trying to create, as George Bush Sr. stated in one of his speeches to congress “A New World Order” in which a small elite dictates global policy.  The reality is that we do not know what decisions are being made behind closed doors between the elites of the world and to what extent they control what is happening globally. Perhaps Rwanda was ignored by the media and by the U.S. government because of racist attitudes, but I believe that racism served as a convenience to keep people from identifying with the victims and demanding their being saved.

The genocide of Arabs by the Serbians was virtually ignored by the media and the U.S. kept making “mistakes” and delayed any aid to the Arabs. This could be another decision that was made for interests outside of the American people’s knowledge or it could be a way for the U.S. to save money by not helping people America doesn’t care about. Racism again in this case is very useful in detaching people from one another in order to squelch empathy and keep people focused on rigid boundaries between each other.

It is interesting to question why we have not had a “race” war. America has backed “race” wars in the past. IBM and Bush’s grandfather among other American eugenics followers are known to have backed Hitler’s war against the Jews and other inferior races. The American eugenics movement facilitated the sterilization of a large proportion of native-American and black women. The tension that has been created between different races seems like it would have surely caused some type of revolt, but why hasn’t it? Perhaps oppressed races feel like if they were murdered in some conflict or if they rose up and died fighting for their freedom no one would care and the racism would continue or more likely become much worse. Society is constructed in a highly organized and deliberate way and keeping people from finding solace in one another is a very important method of control. Both women and people of oppressed races have been disconnected with each other through the barrage of subliminal messages by the media. If you convince people that they are living a shameful existence by being black or poor then many of them will try and separate themselves from their community and their identity by identifying with a socially accepted form of existence. The conditions such as poverty, high stress, alcoholism, and drug abuse are also things that counteract cohesiveness between oppressed people. Once people become organized and have the energy to fight against their oppression perhaps they may become angry enough to revolt.  In the cases of Rwanda, the Arab genocide by the Serbs, and the Israeli conflict it was not the oppressed fighting back it was the oppressor’s deciding to wipe out a population of people. This has not happened in America because we are wiping people out through economic and psychological means. There is no need for brut force when decisions carried out by stealth keep people thoroughly subjugated. It is much more convenient to have individuals so unaware of the abuse of people that they do not even know or question it and certainly do not fight against it (in enough numbers that it would affect the power structure). If people become aware of the abuse of humans that is happening in America then they may fight back in large numbers and that may be when the U.S. government would use brutality to squelch dissent.  Our world is headed toward more and more tense conditions and maybe in the future in America there will be a race war, but for now America uses psychological and economic manipulation in order to control populations.

M. Oudina

Imperialism and Colonialism

            Imperialism and colonization were widespread during the era of exploration and the scramble for Africa.  Imperialism is the practice of extending one’s governance to foreign countries.  Imperialism is a mechanism that is often used to increase a country’s sphere of influence.  Colonization is the act of creating colonies in countries that have been claimed by a foreign party.  The process of colonization can be beneficial to both the colonizers and the colonized in ideal circumstances; such circumstances are rarely achieved.  So was colonialism justified?  In order to answer this question, it is necessary to explore the reasoning behind colonialism.  What motivated colonialism and imperialism?

            Africa, India, and other areas were targeted for their size and their resource-rich lands.  Before the regions were colonized, their previous governments were overthrown.  This was mostly due to the fact that the areas were unstable because of tribal wars or other disunifying conflicts.  The civilizations in Africa were not advanced by European standards of the time.  How else could Europe have so easily colonized such a large territory?  Many of the previous European colonies still have yet to industrialize, due to limiting factors such as government corruption and lack of arable land. 

            Was colonialism good for the colonized countries?  The short answer is no.  Granted, the Europeans brought industrialization, new technology, and advanced government to Africa.  Ultimately, however, the colonization of Africa led to slave trade and exhaustive levels of exploitation.  Colonization certainly was not beneficial to those who became puppets of a foreign power. 

            For the Europeans, however, colonization was a great deal.  They acquired the resources necessary to fuel their revolution at a bargain price.  Furthermore, major colonizers such as great Brittan expanded the size of their empires tenfold.  European countries began to accumulate as much land as possible.  There is no question that colonization was greatly beneficial to the colonizers. 

            Even though many of the colonies have now gained their sovereignty from Britain, there still remain internal issues in the countries.  As stated earlier, corruption, crime, and humanitarian conflicts are rampant throughout Africa.  Contrary to popular belief, the European countries are not responsible for these issues, and consequentially do not have an obligation to their former colonies.  Brittan has already done the countries the greatest favor that they are capable of—leaving.                                             

The British government is however trying to strike off the action on grounds “that they are not liable for the actions and omissions of the British Colonial Administration”. How convenient! To understand the basis for the claim, one needs to understand the History of Kenya’s struggle for Independence.

The History of Kenya, and indeed most colonized states, have for a long time been told from a Europeans perspective distorting the truth in the process. But as time goes by and a new generation hungry for truth emerges, the truth is finally being exposed. Kenya like most African countries was forcefully colonized by the British from the early part of the 19th Century.

Before colonization, Kenyan Africans had traded with Europeans without incidence until the arrival of the Imperial British East Africa company which started the process of colonisation. Kenya became British East African protectorate in 1895. The colonizers settling in brutalized Africans attacking villages with their modern weapons. They murdered Africans in groves as they stole their cattle and sheep pushing people out of their land and forcing them into reserves.

From early 1900, White settlers started arriving in Kenya and started forcefully occupying the highlands, then kikuyu land. These highlands became known then as the white highlands. As time went by, more and more rights of the people were taken away including forced labor and forced land tax. It is for this reasons that Africans started rising against such oppression and different movements were formed by various groups advocating for independence and clamoring for their land.

The Mau Mau movement by the Kikuyus, from the central province of kenya, greatly affected by land loss, was formed.  The movement advocated for independence from the colonial masters as well as getting back their land from the foreigners. Those involved in the movement had to take an oath of allegiance which was what bound them together.

The British referred to Freedom fighters, like the Mau Mau as terrorist which goes to show that to one man a person is a terrorist while to another the person is a liberator. For along time the British version of events regarding Kenya’s struggle for Independence was what was taught in schools even after independence. In fact it is only recently that Kenya has started acknowledging and recognizing some of her freedom fighters.

The Mau Mau engaged in a guerrilla warfare and used the forest as protection. They swore not to cut their hair until Kenya had attained her independence. The British method of governing was based on divide and rule. Not only did they divide Africans along tribal lines, they also divided tribes along those loyal to the British, referred to as home guards, and those who were not loyal to the them.

This is the one thing that has plagued Africa, for even after independence there is still suspicion with each other amongst different tribes. To get through the Mau Mau, the British colonial government used money to get information about their where abouts. They also used the home guards who terrorized their own people while passing information about the Mau Mau to the colonialists.

When the Mau Mau got fed up with the home guards betrayal of their own they decided to take action against them.  This is what led to a Mau Mau operation that killed a chief by the name of Luka together with those associated with him in a place called Lari, in Kiambu. Luka was notorious for mistreating his own with no apology for his loyalty to the British despite his people’s suffering. This event is referred to as the Lari massacre of 1953 and it is estimated that between 70 – 100 people died on that day.

After this attack on their puppet, the the British launched an operation which left thousands of Kikuyus dead. They burnt their houses arresting both men and women while brutally beating and torturing them. Women had bottles inserted in their private parts as well as being forced to have sex with the British dogs as well as young boys which was taboo to the Kikuyus.

British rule in Kenya was an act of terrorism and left a lot of scars. Britain needs to own up and apologise for her brutality meted on a people fighting to regain their dignity in their own land. They and other western powers are the first ones to condemn acts of terrorism yet it seems it is only terrorism if it is by others.