www.thepetitionsite.com/1/colonialism-is-to-blame-for-africas-problems

Colonialism is to BLAME for Africa's PROBLEMS!

www.ghanaweb.com: Feature Article of Friday, 10 July 2009

Essay about Obama's Ghana visit

WARNING TO MY FAMILY AT HOME FROM THEIR KINSMAN IN THE BELLY OF THE BEAST

By Dr. Ahati N. N. Toure, Ph.D.

Many people seem not to understand the way things really work in the United States, and I suppose it is only natural to assume that a change of a person as president of a country signals a change in policy and direction. But this is not really true in the United States.

In the United States, the president is less a leader than a manager of policies formulated by corporate elite interests. This is what accounts for the stability of the political system, regardless of who is president.

This explains the outcome of the electoral fraud--in effect, an electoral coup--staged in 2000 (more than 2 million votes were discarded, 1 million of them cast by US Afrikans) and in 2004 (similar machinations secured a Republican electoral victory in the White House) that assured George W. Bush's ascendancy to and continued hold on the US presidency.

The Democratic Party refused to challenge the results in both years. I speculate that former Vice President Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize was awarded as a consolation prize for his obeisance to the agenda of the true masters of US politics.

The United States' political stability was created after the civil war of 1861-1865, when industrial capitalists consolidated their control of the economic and political direction of the country. The civil war allowed them to oust the neo-mercantilist faction of the European settler elite (owners and champions of the so-called slavery system), which mode of production depended upon exports of raw materials to western European metropoles.

As we all know, this mode of production promotes economic dependency and underdevelopment. The capitalist elites wanted the United States economically and politically to be competitive with and independent of an industrial and industrializing Europe. They did not want to be its subordinates.

Because of the changes of the civil war, both so-called parties--which are really two sides of one coin--have pledged patriotic allegiance to capitalism as quintessentially American. Their emotional and ideological commitment to its advance under the US political system includes the shaping of its foreign policy--or the definition and extension of what are defined as US interests on to the world stage.

Bush's ascendancy to the US presidency, for perceptive observers, shows that the people do not choose the manager of the country. They simply ratify, or are made to ratify, the results of a selection. Barack Hussein Obama--a name that in and of itself is astonishing in European settler political culture--is no less the product of a selection process.

This explains the consistency of policies pursued by so-called "Democratic" and "Republican" presidential administrations--or, now, "black" and "white" presidents. In the United States all US presidents are "white."

In Africa we call this neo-colonialism.

One example of this is Africom. Established during George W. Bush's regime, it is still being carried out by Barack Hussein Obama's regime. To many, at least, the Bush personality was a bit too crude and, in some respects, brutish for the world to accept. Put some color on him, with a sophisticated and intelligent personality, and now you have the same agenda for Africa, skillfully repackaged in an Obama. The agenda remains the same--imperialistic, exploitative, and, ultimately, deadly--but the general perception is different. It is seductive.

US presidents come and go, but the interests remain constant. Therefore, what is the real agenda in the US president's visit to Ghana? Oil. Africom.

We really should not underestimate the craftiness of the Europeans in their choice of this particular personality for president of the United States. The best way to test my thesis is to explore the question of African strategic interests, or, alternatively, American strategic interests in Africa, and examine the ways in which and the degree to which Obama's pursuit of American policy is consistent with or diverges from that of his predecessor. If you do this well, you will prove my point.

Do not be fooled by appearances. Look deeper, for the snare has been set for you.

Dr. Ahati N. N. Toure is assistant professor of Africana History and Black Studies at Delaware State University, USA. He is the author of John Henrik Clarke: Africalogical Quest for Decolonization and Sovereignty (Africa World Press, 2009).

"White Only " Pool?

Condemn discrimination at the Valley Club in Pennsylvania Two weeks ago outside Philadelphia, sixty-five children from a summer camp tried to go swimming at a club their camp had a contract to use. Evidently, the club didn't know the kids were largely Black. When the campers entered the pool, White parents took their kids out of the water, and the swimming club's staff asked the campers to leave. The next day, the club told the summer camp that their membership would be canceled and that they would refund their money. When asked why, the club's leader said the "kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."1 Please join us in condemning the Valley Swim Club's blatant discrimination and calling on the Justice Department to investigate whether they violated civil rights laws. And please ask your friends and family to do the same... The rest of the story http://www.keystoneprogress.org/page/s/pawhitesonly

Harrisburg NAACP calls on Governor Rendell to impose Martial Law on city's already traumatized community

SEAN SIMMERS, The Patriot-News

Shariyka Muhammad of Harrisburg cries while listening
to 21 year-old Tamicia Burhannan tell the story of finding
out that her cousin, Darrell Evans took his own life during
a police chase last week.

by Diane White, Philadelphia Front Page News

Harrisburg- While hundreds of residents came together at the Heinz-Menaker Senior Center Thursday evening to work on solutions to the recent wave of shootings in the city, NAACP Harrisburg Chapter President Stanley Lawson called on Governor Rendell to bring in the state National Guard for at least 30 days and to impose a curfew in Harrisburg neighborhoods. The NAACP called for the imposition of martial law in the community for its own good. Martial law is a system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice, normally in times of emergency by a show of force. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell responded to Lawson's call for the suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of martial law on the community almost simultaneously by committing the Pennsylvania State Police to patrol the streets of Harrisburg .

So far 12 shootings have occurred in the city during the month of June. Some related some unrelated. A shoot out over a $40 e-pill, A shoot out in retailiation, two in one robbery one as a result of a love triangle. One involving an unarmed teen suspected of being involved in a drive-by who was shot in the face by the same police officer who shot and killed another unarmed black man while off duty. One determined by the coroner to be a suicide as a result of a self inflicted gun shot wound when a teen was found dead by the police officer who was chasing him. One drive by at a play ground where luckily no one got hurt.

The NAACP Harrisburg Chapter was not represented at the community meeting, while Govenor Rendell made a surprise appearance along with Steven Reed, District Attorney Ed Marisco and Dauphin County Commissioner George Hartwick "I came to work" said Hartwick", the best way I can help is to be a good dad."

The meeting was organized by Pastor Brenda Alton, President of the IMC and City Council President Linda Thompson who recently defeated Reed in the Mayoral primary.

No Regrets for a "choice of words".

by Asa Gordon

Washington DC -We may be certain that due to their rich experience of privilege and denial, white male pundits, be they of liberal or conservative persuasion, will never regret or even acknowledge their own racist "choice of words" when commenting on Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor's 2001 speech.

As a case in point, take the opening paragraph of the front-page Washington Post article headlined "Obama Says Judge Regrets Wording" (Saturday, May 30, 2009). The article's biased "choice of words" presents the phrase "wise Latina" out of the context of Sotomayor's caveat "I would hope" and places the word "often" out of the context of Sotomayor's caveat "more often then not." This provides the pretext for "white male" pundits to charge that Sotomayor's "choice of words" is racist, when in reality the term "racist" better describes their own "choice of words."

A racist would not provide caveats when expounding on racial superiority. A racist does not simply "hope" to make better decisions than would another race. It is presumed that such is the case. For a racist, "a better conclusion" would not be rendered "more often then not." It would be the unavoidable outcome of racial superiority. The institutionalized racism in media reports represents the irrational bias of "white male" pundits that has prevailed over the rational "choice of words" in Sotomayor's 2001 speech.

The Washington Post's selective paraphrase reads as follows:

"President Obama said yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor regrets her choice of words in a 2001 speech in which she said a "wise Latina" judge would often make better decisions than a white male."

Sotomayor's "choice of words" in context reads:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It is the ultimate sexism to assert that the experience of women does not offer better insight into the problems of women then does the experience of men, particularly when the statement is qualified by the phrase "more often then not." Similarly, it is the ultimate racism to assert that it is racist to suggest that the experience of the victims of white supremacy, in a nation founded on white male supremacy, may "more often then not" provide better insights into the nature of racism in America and "reach a better conclusion" then what is provided from the experience of being a white male. It is the ultimate racist and sexist mentality to insist that the white male's intellect is so superior that his racially privileged experience is no handicap in rendering justice and that there is no advantage in the experience of women and non-whites when rendering judgments on the issues of sexism or racism in our society. To the white male, any consideration of gender or racial "diversity" is reverse sexism and reverse racism. The political power of this fanciful and irrational racial assault by white male pundits has actually pressured an African-American President to declare that his Latina Supreme Court nominee regrets her "choice of words."

The controversy over the role that life experience offers to judicial insight arose a few years ago over the nomination of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts. The self-righteous, bi-partisan liberal and conservative media pundits rebuked veteran Civil Rights leaders John Lewis and Wade Henderson for their characterization of the "indisputably qualified conservative" Roberts as a pre- Brown v Board of Education Justice. The media reaction at the time made it clear that many white male pundits, regardless of political persuasion, just didn't get it. Their paternalistic rebukes represented a belief in a race so inherently rational that fairness was assumed even where prejudice was evident. It was such a faith that moved "liberal" Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russell Feingold to vote for Roberts on "hope" and won the endorsement of the "liberal" Washington Post. Is there any wonder that Plessy v. Ferguson's 1896 ruling ("[I]t is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it") remains this nation's ageless judgment of racial conflict. Yes, media pundits, the pre-Brown/Plessey justices that made the decision to provide judicial cover for legal apartheid in America were all "indisputably qualified conservative" justices who knew they were not racist, that their judgment was not racist, and that the criticism of the blacks of their day was emotionalism.

However, Thurgood Marshal posed a caveat, with respect to Justice Clearence Thomas, as to the danger in giving unwarranted weight to identity "experience" in order to judge a favorable "empathy" in considering the justifiable need for diversity on the Supreme Court. I am concerned that Sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor and corporate lawyer may embody an "empathy" that may prove to be as hostile to the Latina-American community as Justice Thomas proved to be for the African-American community. But in that my experience is that of a African- American, I will rely on the "experience" of the Latina-American community and "hope" they "reach a better conclusion" then we did.

Asa Gordon is the Executive Director of the Douglas Institute of Government in Washington, DC and the Chair of the DC Statehood Green Party Electoral College Task Force.

Your Green Friend | Green Irene

Your Green Friend | Green Irene