Inspired by the principles of Malcolm X / Malik El-Hajj Shabazz. A 'Third Worldist' perspective focusing on the increasing pace of south-south co-operation which is challenging and defeating US hegemony, and the struggles of those oppressed by neo-colonialism and white supremacy (racism) who fight for their social, political and cultural freedom 'by any means necessary'
DAKAR (source) - African nations should join forces to create a one-million-strong army to protect the continent and confront outsiders like NATO and China, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Tuesday.
Gaddafi, well known for his forthright rhetoric, has acquired growing influence in Africa but his ambition to build a united states of Africa is not shared by the continent's biggest powers.
"National militaries alone cannot save countries. Africa should have one army with one million soldiers," Gaddafi said in a speech in the Senegalese capital.
He said the joint force would "guard the borders and seas, protect Africa's independence and confront NATO, China, France, Britain and other countries."
Speaking at an event called the World Festival of Black Arts and Cultures, Gaddafi also attacked opponents of his long-standing proposal for a unified African government.
"They should leave home, abandon their countries and go and live in the capitals of the capitalist, imperialist countries which once occupied Africa," he said in his speech.
Gaddafi has been pushing for an African unity government for years, saying it is the only way Africa can develop without Western interference.
His ideas have had a sympathetic response in some states, helped by his reputation in parts of the continent as champion of the developing world and also by the millions of dollars in aid his oil-exporting country gives to Africa.
But many African leaders, especially in the bigger economies, are sceptical. They say they cannot be expected to cede sovereignty to an African bloc only a few decades after wresting it from their colonial rulers.
DAKAR (source) - African nations should join forces to create a one-million-strong army to protect the continent and confront outsiders like NATO and China, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Tuesday.
Gaddafi, well known for his forthright rhetoric, has acquired growing influence in Africa but his ambition to build a united states of Africa is not shared by the continent's biggest powers.
"National militaries alone cannot save countries. Africa should have one army with one million soldiers," Gaddafi said in a speech in the Senegalese capital.
He said the joint force would "guard the borders and seas, protect Africa's independence and confront NATO, China, France, Britain and other countries."
Speaking at an event called the World Festival of Black Arts and Cultures, Gaddafi also attacked opponents of his long-standing proposal for a unified African government.
"They should leave home, abandon their countries and go and live in the capitals of the capitalist, imperialist countries which once occupied Africa," he said in his speech.
Gaddafi has been pushing for an African unity government for years, saying it is the only way Africa can develop without Western interference.
His ideas have had a sympathetic response in some states, helped by his reputation in parts of the continent as champion of the developing world and also by the millions of dollars in aid his oil-exporting country gives to Africa.
But many African leaders, especially in the bigger economies, are sceptical. They say they cannot be expected to cede sovereignty to an African bloc only a few decades after wresting it from their colonial rulers.
This is exactly what I did a few years ago. As I waded through a sea of buzzcuts and flannel shirts, I could feel the eyes on me. Eyes of contempt. Eyes of lust. Eyes of confusion. I smiled and waited for the hammer to drop. I didn’t have to wait long.
About an hour into the conference, the conversation turned to the “male gaze.” For those of you who are unfamiliar with feminist lingo, male gaze is a term that was first used by feminist scholars to describe how the film industry typically adopts the point of view of heterosexual men by using camera angles and filming techniques that objectify women. Although it was a term initially applied to sexist film practices, the term now has a wider application – as it is used to describe the focalization of women as objects on a socio-cultural level. Today, much of the female representation and imagery that we see in the media is shaped to please the male gaze.
So at this conference, one sister kept talking about how we, as women, too often defined ourselves by the standards set by men. As she spoke, she pointedly looked at me… and my shoes. Following her cue, a few other women glared at me, openly hostile. Many of the women at this particular conference were lesbian and mixed in with their hostility about my questionable feminism -was definitely a certain amount of sexual interest in my appearance. Hate and lust in equal measure. Maybe they thought I would be intimidated or would start to doubt my decision to unabashedly be myself in this space that they had carved out. I chuckled silently as a Beyonce line ran through my head. They must not know about me.
First of all, let me be clear. I am a feminist. A staunch one. I am a woman who firmly believes that women should have access to all of the rights and opportunities that are afforded to men. I do not hate men. Or anything for that matter. I love men and women. I want to see a society where all of us can be free and whole. I take my feminism seriously. So seriously in fact, that I have taken time to critically think about it. I have not allowed anyone to impose their brand of feminism on me. Whether it’s white women who have made feminism all about the white, middle-class experience or sistas who have rejected feminism for some reactionary and equally debilitating form of womanism that still denies full range of expression and being, I reject anything that tells me that I’m not allowed to be my whole self. I like stiletto heels and make up. I like men. I like attractive men. When I was a single woman, I liked to look at attractive men and I liked them to look at me. Does being a feminist mean that I cannot love and embrace these parts of myself?
I used to feel a deep internal conflict between who I was and what I thought my feminism should look like. But like Joan Morgan said in When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost, I’ve learned to embrace a feminism that’s not afraid to “f*&k with the gray areas.” A feminism that lets me find peace in the understanding that my job as a feminist human being is to constantly work on checking the “isms” within myself, while also loving the parts of me that are healthy and conducive to my growth—even if they don’t fit into someone’s pre-conceived notion of who I should be.
I now understand that every woman is a whole woman. This means that she is multi-faceted, (perhaps, contradictory), complex, and nuanced. She has many sides and has the right to express any of those sides whenever she sees fit. I experience myself as intellectual, emotional, spiritual, sexual, physical, mental, and growing. And if my understanding of feminism is correct, the ultimate goal is to create a world where women can be whatever they want to be, whenever they want to be it, without limitations imposed by gender and sexism. I think that any idea, institution, or person that tries to deny a woman this full range of expression is an enemy to feminism. Feminists…this means you! Sometimes in a misguided attempt to set up parameters, feminists create a narrower and (ironically) oppressive definition of womanhood
Check out the video below of a young lady – who goes by the name of NineteenPercent – giving her take on the new Beyonce video, Run The World (Girls). This is EXACTLY the kind of feminism that I experienced at that conference…snarky, confrontational, biting, sarcastic, and ugly….
Now don’t get me wrong. I value critique and I don’t believe anybody is exempt from it. I also think that if you can look past the off-putting tone, NineteenPercent shares some really important information and makes some critical connections. I appreciate her and any young woman who decides to address these pressing issues. Unlike NineteenPercent, I believe Beyonce’s lyrics were not oppositional, but complementary to the points outlined in the video. I think any form of empowerment starts with an internal decision to be empowered. Beyonce’s song is just that…a creative, aesthetic, call to empowerment. NineteenPercent thinks Beyonce is a liar because she failed to speak about all of the challenges faced by women. I think Beyonce is an artist doing what artists do…creating her vision of what reality should be.
However, NinteenPercent has every right to disagree. I definitely think that a strong feminist movement must include critique of ourselves and each other. But I also firmly believe in what bell hooks, calls “loving critique.” Particularly, when it’s a critique of another woman. Why is it that the women who proclaim to be pro-woman so loudly are the first ones to tear another woman down in the most brutal and humiliating fashion? Why must we enter the arena of dialogue armed with ridicule and disdain for each other? Or is it less about feminist critique and more about seizing an opportunity to attack another woman in an unconscious act of internalized sexism? Does sexy (and arguably hyper-sexed) Beyonce become more of a target because of the added influence of jealousy and repressed sexuality? These are questions we should be willing to face with honesty and authenticity.
Now, I can completely understand the crux of Beyonce and why she is so controversial. Her expression is decidedly sexual. People observe her blonde hair and question her racial politics. When confronted with her as a woman, a brand, and an artist, questions arise about how much of her is genuine expression, how much is savvy marketing, and how much is female exploitation by male handlers. I’ve often thought about Beyonce’s relationship to corporate interests and what it means for the young women and men in my community whom I work with on a daily basis. Beyonce, just like feminism itself, is a complicated knot of fascinating and uncomfortable questions.
Let me just state for the record, that I have not always been pleased with everything that Beyonce has produced. And if given the opportunity, I would love to engage her in a conversation about all of the things I love about her body of work AND the things I take issue with. However, the tone of this hypothetical conversation would reflect the amount of respect that I have for Beyonce as both an artist and a black woman. Being able to navigate contentious points and differing perspectives is the sign of a movement that is healthy and truly progressive.
With that being said, I absolutely love Beyonce’s new song and video. I can relate to the words and performance. In so many ways, this song embodies how I experience my own feminism. Futhermore, I respect that Beyonce is Beyonce. She is not Gloria Steinem. She is not bell hooks. And she is not supposed to be. Her brand if feminism is and should be a reflection of who she is.
Thank you, Beyonce, for making a song for the women who embrace their wholeness, even in the face of ridicule and repression. For us sisters who have no qualms about marching into a feminist conference in sky high shoes and perfume. For the women who understand that feminism has a million different faces.
Who run this mutha?!?!?!?
-------------------------------
Natasha Thomas-Jackson, who performs under the name of Theory, is an MC, spoken-word artist, wife, mother, and Executive Director of RAISE IT UP!
Youth Arts & Awareness, a nonprofit organization that blends performance art, youth engagement and social justice initiatives. Her work has been
highlighted in the Emmy award-winning short documentary Making Genes Dance, and she has been a featured performer and speaker on numerous stages
and panels. Natasha's work has been recognized by John Hopkins University and the Black Congressional Caucus. In 2008, she received two awards from
the National Hip-Hop Political Convention for her commitment to hip hop activism. Follow her on Twitter at NatashaTheory or e-mail
Germany has hit back at explosive remarks by Turkey's prime minister, who told his compatriots that they should learn Turkish before German and resist assimilation into German society.
During a visit to Germany, Recep Tayyip Erdogan told 10,000 members of Germany's large Turkish community of his "growing unease" about the way immigrants are treated in Germany.
"You must integrate, but I am against assimilation ... no one may ignore the rights of minorities," he said, adding that individuals should have the right to practise their own faith.
"Our children must learn German but they must learn Turkish first," said Erdogan.
He added: "I want you to learn German, that your children learn German – they should study, get degrees. I want you to become doctors, professors and politicians in Germany."
Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, promptly hit back, saying that the children of the 3.5-million-strong Turkish community should focus on German to improve their chances in life.
"Children growing up in Germany must learn German first," he said. "The German language is the key to integration for those growing up in Germany."
The row threatened to overshadow Erdogan's Germany trip. He is due to meet the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who caused controversy in October when she said that multiculturalism in Germany had "utterly failed".
Though his speech reflected Turkey's unease about what many Turks perceive to be Europe's increasing xenophobia, it was also an attempt to drum up votes.
There is a general election in Turkey in June and for the first time Turks abroad will be able to vote at Turkish consulates.
Germany, with almost two million eligible voters, will be the fourth largest constituency after Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir.
Erdogan is offering as part of his manifesto a better deal for Turks abroad – specifically, a new "blue card", which is a kind of dual nationality identity card that would allow Turks with German passports more rights back in Turkey.
It is currently impossible to hold both German and Turkish passports, and Turks who opt for a German one often find life difficult if they return to the country of their birth.
Erdogan's rhetoric seemed to go down well in Düsseldorf. "The Germans will never accept us but Erdogan does," one man told Der Spiegel.
Another said: "Finally someone feels responsible for us. For the first time a Turkish prime minister is not forgetting his countrymen abroad."
On Saturday, Erdogan made an even sharper criticism of German immigration policy, telling the Rheinische Post newspaper that forced integration requiring immigrants to suppress their culture and language violated international law.
Immigration leapt to the forefront of political debate in 2010 after the central banker Thilo Sarrazin published a bestselling book that argued German culture was at risk from Muslims, who he said were a drain on state coffers.
The debate left raw nerves on both sides. German politicians initially closed ranks to condemn Sarrazin's theories, but later many shifted rightwards in tone as polls showed he enjoyed widespread support. Sarrazin later stepped down.
Erdogan's newspaper comments were published alongside those of a senior German politician who complained of discrimination against Christians in Turkey.
The Conservative parliamentary floor leader, Volker Kauder, told the same paper that land belonging to a Christian monastery in Turkey known as Mor Gabriel was being expropriated, which he said showed that the Muslim country lacked religious freedom.
"I urge the EU to not open any more negotiation chapters with Turkey as long as Turkey does not guarantee full freedom of religion," Kauder said.
Erdogan's speech came before a meeting with Merkel scheduled for today, where Turkey's bid to join the European Union is likely to be discussed.
The two leaders have a fractious relationship. Last year Merkel made a tense visit to Turkey after Erdogan accused her of harbouring hatred towards Turks.
Germany is home to around 2.7 million people of Turkish heritage who first came in the 1960s to help rebuild the country after the second world war.
Laurent Blanc's continued employment as France manager is in jeopardy because he conflated two issues in a way that was, at best, clumsy and, at worst, racist. The issues that he and other members of French football's top brass discussed at a meeting last November, whose contents were leaked by Mohammed Belkacemi and published last week, were ones that he and others had addressed in public many times before: what should the country's football authorities teach young players? And which young players should they teach? Both questions are obviously legitimate. But debate rages over the legitimacy or otherwise of the answers that they reportedly proposed, and the assumptions that may have underpinned them. One year out from a presidential election, the debate has become heavily politicised.
Since taking over as manager of Les Bleus last August Blanc has advocated concentrating on cultivating technique and intelligence rather than power and speed. In the leaked meeting he reiterated this philosophy and regretted that French academies seem to be populated primarily by youngsters chosen for their athletic prowess more than their football flair. He claimed that these youngsters tended to be black. "You have the impression that they really train the same prototype of players: big, strong, powerful … What is there that is currently big, strong, powerful? The blacks. That's the way it is. It's a current fact. God knows that in the training centres and football schools there are loads of them."
Although Blanc had stressed earlier in the conversation that a person's race was of no concern to him and that it would "suit me fine" to field a France team consisting entirely of black players if the best players happened to be black, the 'prototype' statement has been the focus of much of the furore, with many complaining that it could be construed as an endorsement of the cobwebbed racist notion that, basically, black people are physically superior but mentally inferior. Big and strong but blunt and dumb. Blanc, who has since admitted that he spoke maladroitly (he would surely have chosen his words more carefully if he'd known his comments were going to be published), professes to be "outraged" at this interpretation. Surveys and interviews suggest most people give him the benefit of the doubt, which seems reasonable as he has never previously been associated with bigotry and all visible actions in his playing and managerial career suggest race has played no part in his decisions. Indeed, one of the few players who has spoken publicly on the controversy is Alou Diarra, a black man and midfielder whom Blanc signed for Bordeaux and appointed captain of France. Diarra acclaimed Blanc for his open-mindedness, pointing out that when he was manager of Bordeaux he amended training schedules to enable Muslim players to observe Ramadan.
The second issue that Blanc and the Fédération Française de Football officials discussed, which was jarringly muddled with the first issue, is more interesting and also more difficult to resolve – not just for France but for all countries competing in international sport. To pit one nation against others, one has to determine who should represent a given nation and in increasingly diverse societies that is increasingly complex.
Consider this: a boy called, say, Marmaduke, is born in London. His father is Japanese, his mother is German. By his mid-teens he's such a good footballer that England U-16s are considering picking him and the FA is contemplating giving him a place in its elite training academy (this is the future, see, and England has such a thing). However, there is only one place available and there is another equally talented candidate, who was also born in London but to exclusively English parents and grandparents, which means that, unlike with Marmaduke, there is no prospect of him choosing to play for Japan or Germany at a later date (unless, of course, he goes to live there and acquires a passport under naturalisation laws). Which player should the FA give the place to? How should the decision be made?
In the leaked meeting the French officials discussed similar scenarios because many of the players in their country's training academies are like Marmaduke and many alumni – first, second or third-generation immigrants – have already chosen to play for countries other than France despite, in some cases, having won titles with France at youth level. "When people wear the jersey of the [French] national team at Under-16, Under-17, Under-18, Under-19, Under-20 and A level and then they go to North African or African teams, that bothers me enormously," Blanc said. "We have to limit that."
Although Blanc initially denied that he had ever heard any talk of imposing quotas, transcripts of the November meeting subsequently revealed that it was suggested no more than 30% of the places in French training academies should be filled by players who have dual nationality and could, therefore, one day declare for another country. Erick Mombaerts, the Under-21 manager, appeared to be in favour and the national technical director, François Blaquart, intimated that he had already given orders for it to be applied on the QT and has since been suspended pending the outcome of investigations by both the FFF and the Ministry of Sport. According to the transcripts, the one person at the meeting who objected to the introduction of such a plan – the Under-19 manager Francis Smerecki – complained that not only was it discriminatory but it might also mean investing in inferior players: if a Marmaduke could not take a place in an academy because the quota for people with foreign roots had already been filled, then the place may have to go to a less talented player: true, that player would not have the possibility of representing another country, but is he really the sort that France want to turn out for them?
A sinister undertone to the fallout of France's 2010 World Cup fiasco was the degree to which it became politicised. In particular, it fuelled the 'enemy within' strain of anti-immigration lobbying, with critics claiming that it was no surprise that many of the players behind the mutiny in South Africa were black or Muslim (or both) because such folk tend to be incompatible with France: their presence leads to discord. Football had already fanned that debate in France, most recently before a France-Tunisia friendly in Paris in 2008, when Tunisia supporters, many of whom had been born in France, booed the French national anthem and cheered for the opposition.
Blanc has never publicly subscribed to the notion that people of foreign origin are to be distrusted. After last year's World Cup fiasco he merely decried the lack of a team ethic and 'pride in the shirt', and since taking charge he has strived to address these perceived shortcomings. One method has been to insist that all players learn the national anthem.
At November's meeting he suggested that a way of ensuring that fewer France-raised players choose to play for other countries would be to reinforce their feeling of Frenchness. He intimated that respect for "our culture, our history" could be one of the criteria for admission to academies and that once in those academies players could be given "help" to "determine their identity". This was not elaborated on, at least not in the transcripts available so far.
Similar-sounding suggestions are common in the political arena, in France and elsewhere, but it would have been interesting to hear exactly how the FFF might have followed this up. When referring to "our culture, our history", was Blanc suggesting that 12-year-old aspiring footballers should only be admitted to academies if they can prove their knowledge of Napoleon, Voltaire and Johnny Halliday? Or did he mean football culture and history? Would this apply only to the children of immigrants? It is not certain but, with a presidential election one year away in France and political point scoring a priority for many, it has been noted that the former might not be radically different from the loyalty tests that the National Front has campaigned to have foisted on the children of immigrants (or similar, perhaps, to the tests that immigrants to Britain must pass before being granted citizenship). Race, nationality and identity are different things but that was not always clear in the FFF debate, just as it often isn't in political debates.
Fifa rules stipulate which players countries can pick. Governments decide who can get passports. French football officials were debating whether to deliberately exclude people that both Fifa and the government allow them to pick. People in other countries often do the same. The debates about the mooted England call-up for Manuel Almunia showed that. Many fans were opposed on principle even though the government says he is entitled to citizenship, the England cricket and rugby teams would have had no qualms about selecting him if he were good enough and he has spent more time in the country than, say, Owen Hargreaves. Similarly, many Irish fans scoffed recently when Jermaine Pennant revealed that he was considering declaring for the Republic, the land of his grandfather. The reason many fans gave was that Pennant had not made his Irish roots known before and was presumably only doing so now because he had finally accepted that England were not going to give him a game. He is, therefore, an opportunist. But how could they know that? And even if they were right, so what? Is it wrong to go to the country that gives you the best opportunities? He would only be picked if he was the best man for the job. Isn't that how it should be?
Peace Mission receives exclusive list of former-rebels now released by the Libyan government
As a good will gesture by the Libyan government and to further peace talks with the pro-Nato rebels, the Global Civilians for Peace in Libya has been given a list of released former-rebels from the Libyan government.
We understand that many families will be looking for their loved ones on this list, and wish them well in re-uniting with their loved ones, and we wish the Libyan people a swift resolution to the Nato aggression against Libya and the reunification and peace between the Libyan people.
