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 neo-colonial 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'
We have a very problematic epidemic in britain. Too many South Asians loved to be used by the white man to promote sell out to our enemies - the british neo-colonial state.
Here pictured we have one fool from our community. He obviously either is ignorant of what the brits have done to our people and ancestors, or is aware of it but his love for the white man is greater than his loyalty to his own people.
The brits killed millions of South Asians, looted our country. Have we as South Asians found justice for all those killed? No. Have we got justice for all the looting the brits did? No, rather the queen will parade again her crown encrusted with one of the biggest diamonds in the world - the Kohinoor - which the Indian state has demanded be returned. A woman in the riots last August can get put in prison for stealing some panties, but the brits can steal and loot whole continents and we have fools from those continents celebrating in the looting of our own people.
Its high time there was a campaign to target sell outs in the media who promote the white man's divide and rule strategies.
This was the piece in today's evening standard newspaper in britain, that is demonising our past and present anti-imperialist world leaders, with two African leaders being singled out and with particular focus on Mugabe.
It reminds me of the Mao quote "We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports." Of course there are more nuances to struggle than this, nevertheless, Mao's comment is still a general good rule of thumb for revolutionaries.
Some of the descriptions of these revolutionary leaders by the propagandist of white supremacy and empire (aka 'journalist') who wrote the piece:
"Tyrant with blood of millions of your stunted conscience"
'Butcher of Harare"
"Psychotically and pathologically desperate to be loved"
"Grotesque of the glory supporter taken to its extreme"
"Enemies of community"
"Fraud, a moral pygmy"
If there was any reasonable appraisal of world history and the world today, these comments would be attributed to the leaders of the white power structure, but a journalist of the white power structure will always put things the exact opposite way round.
Whatever you think about these leaders, empire propaganda such as this is designed to humiliate and degrade ALL peoples of the GlobalSouth, in preparation for the lynchings and looting which imperialism does and has done on a world scale for over 5 centuries.
As Malcolm X often said, do not let the enemy educate and fool you.
Being rushed to hospital because you're suffering from potential fatal pneumonia doesn't seem much like being tricked, but then the interview doesn't seem much like an interview either. Indeed, it resembles one only in so far as I'm an interviewer and I'm in the same room as Womack. I haven't said anything to him yet, beyond hello, at which point he embarks upon a monologue that continues unabated for an hour. It leaps without warning from topic to topic: during one particularly head-spinning section we go from Muhammad Ali's unerring ability to find racist undercurrents in innocuous adverts, to Aretha Franklin's love of soap operas to Martin Luther King in the space of about two minutes. It takes in both gruff homespun wisdom ("I don't wanna be a star because stars fall from the sky, and when they hit the ground they turn into a rock and a rock ain't no good unless you bust someone in the head with it") and, at one juncture, the impossibly winning phrase "your mama only got one titty and that's full of wine".
He played with James Brown and Ray Charles and toured with a young Jimi Hendrix. He wrote It's All Over Now, which the Rolling Stones turned into a global hit, a state of affairs that did not overly delight Womack. "To be honest with you, I said: 'Let the Rolling Stones get their own fuckin' record and record that.'" He worked with the Stones decades later, on 1986's Dirty Work: he liked Keith Richards and Ron Wood, but "had a problem with Mick Jagger". "Some people never grow up if you give 'em too much," he grimaces. "They gonna be assholes, then they just become a bigger asshole."
He spent time as a session guitarist in Memphis, where he played with Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett and on Dusty Springfield's Dusty In Memphis. He also played on Elvis Presley's Suspicious Minds, which didn't impress him much either. "People say: 'What did you think of Elvis Presley?' I say: 'He wasn't shit. Everything he got he stole.'"
He returned to LA, where he recorded Trust Me and Mercedes Benz with Janis Joplin on the day she died – he was the last person to see the singer alive, save for the drug dealer who sold her the smack that killed her – and moved into the Bel-Air mansion where the coke-addled sessions for Sly And The Family Stone's There's A Riot Goin' On were in full swing: "It was a circus." He was working with Marvin Gaye when the latter was murdered. "The last time I saw him, the day before he died, he said: 'Bobby, what's a nigger got to do to get on the cover of Rolling Stone?' It was all white acts. I said: 'Die.'" He sighs. "It's bullshit, it's really bullshit. One of the greatest singers in the world. Marvin never knew he was gonna be as big as he is. Now you hear him on commercials every day."
Occasionally, he sounds mad at everything. He hates hip-hop. "What the shit is that?" he spits. "No melody. Generations are coming up, if they have to listen to bullshit, they'll grow up bullshitty. People don't respect their mom, say they're gonna knock her out. White kids trying to be black because they're confused. I say to them, you wanna be black? You're gonna have a hard time!"
I am interested in anti-imperialist internationalism, and being loyal to all our organisations and leaderships. I am not interested in echoing or helping the enemy in any way. In this vein, it was obvious that there was a lot of pressure and bullying white imperialist interests against the ANC on two things last year and into 2012: not opposing the nato war on Libya, and ensuring they shut down Julius Malema, the former leader of the ANC Youth League, due to his promoting the massively popular position of economic liberation from white supremacy in South Africa. The ANC admitted itself that it has censured Brother Malema and his comrades for putting the ANC into "international disrepute", ie., the white man was giving them problems because Malema's leadership negatively impacted their interests in controlling the mineral resources of South Africa.
I respect and will defend the ANC and Zuma, and at the same time I suggest we oppose all white power structure moves against our peoples and leaderships. Also, supporting the ANC and Zuma does not preclude supporting Mugabe and ZANU as the advanced leadership of African liberation today, rather one calls for maximum unity between our organisations and leaderships.
More from Sons of Malcolm on Malema and South Africa here, here, and here.
Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm
ANC Youth Leadership show solidarity with the ZANU model of African Liberation
PRIME Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and South African President Jacob Zuma yesterday came under attack at the World Federation of Democratic Youth General Council Meeting being hosted by the Zanu PF Youth League in Harare.
While Zuma was not mentioned by name, ANC Youth League deputy president Ronald Lamola accused the ANC leadership of suppressing the league’s fight against imperialism.
The ANC Youth League has been at loggerheads with the mother body following the expulsion of its president Julius Malema, suspension of secretary-general Sindiso Magaqa and spokesperson Floyd Shivambu for bringing the party into disrepute.
Lamola said the youth league was facing difficult challenges in South Africa. “We have condemned Africom (US-Africa Command) in Botswana and the ANC Youth League has been charged for that position,” said Lamola.
“The youths from South Africa remain determined to fight imperialism,” Lamola said. “We are unshaken. Views of the young people are being suppressed by these elders but we are going to continue with the struggle. We are inspired by the indigenisation programme of Zanu PF because it benefits people in Zimbabwe.
Lamola added: “This kind of programme must be exported to South Africa, Mozambique, Angola and all our countries. We can’t have a situation where one white person remains rich while millions of black people remain poor. We will never accept dying poor in our own land. We must defend African resources.”
Tsvangirai and his MDC-T party were branded “puppets” of the West by Zanu PF national chairman Simon Khaya Moyo who told the youths to defend their country against “pseudo- democracy” being promoted by Western countries through “these puppets”.
"It's the educated field n***a, trained in guerilla Warfare, plus equipped with mental hardware, Manifesting organizational skills Cuz organizational skills kills more devils than bullet, Pull it the psychological trigger and be a real n***a, Happy as a runaway slave in the jungle, The concrete jungle, here's your scars wear 'em, here's your arms don't fear 'em..."
Nearly half of young women in London were sexually harassed in public last year, with many forced to endure unwanted male attention on buses and trains, a new study shows.
Laurie Penny: Do you ignore him, and risk him getting angry, or smile, which might encourage him?
The harrassment ranges from wolf-whistling and lewd comments to physical groping and sexual assault.
Campaigners say that reported cases represent "the tip of the iceberg" and that authorities can no longer afford to ignore the issue.
Research released today by the End Violence Against Women (EVAW) coalition shows 41 per cent of women under the age of 34 have been on the receiving end of sexual harassment in the street. Of the total, 21 per cent classified the abuse as unwanted sexual attention and 4 per cent said they had been physically touched by someone.
The revelations have led to renewed calls for a more pro-active approach towards sexual harassment from local councils, police and national government. In recent years, a slew of websites and campaign groups have sprung up encouraging women to report their experiences and pressure the police into pursuing allegations more vigorously. But there are concerns that not enough is being done to counter the view among wide sections of society that unwanted sexual attention is little more than light-hearted flirting.
Figures for those using public transport were also alarming. A third of the 1,047 respondents reported unwanted sexual attention on trains and buses, with 5 per cent saying they had been groped. Professor Liz Kelly, co-chair of EVAW, called on the Government to invest more readily in campaigns targeting sexual harassment on public transport and educating staff on how to respond to allegations.
"Despite this high prevalence and impact, however, public sexual harassment is a form of abuse which generally goes unchallenged, creating an unsafe and unequal environment for women," she said.
Her comments were echoed by Bob Crow, head of the RMT union which represent many public transport workers. He said recent cuts to staffing levels on transport networks would make passengers less safe.
"The reassurance of having a human staff presence on a station late at night is key to showing that safety and security are a priority and those who want a faceless transport system in the name of cuts and profit should study this important piece of work," he said. The true extent of sexual harassment across Britain is difficult to judge. Campaigners say there is an acute shortage of academic studies looking into women's experiences. But anecdotal evidence and the few studies that exist suggest unwanted sexual attention is frighteningly common. Fiona Elvines, from the Rape Crisis Centre, south London, is one of the few academics researching public sexual harassment for a PhD. "The issue has been trivialised for so long that is hasn't been seen as a valid subject to study," she said. "But the effect it has is enormous, from everyday decisions women have to make to avoid such harassment – like pretending to talk on your phone – to longer term effects on how they view their bodies."
Vicky Simisterset up a campaign group encouraging women to report harassment after she was herself the victims of unwanted sexual advances.
Her Anti-Street Harassment website has since gone nationwide. "This is both a societal and policing issue," she said. "It's not just about slapping cuffs on people, it's changing the way we think."
Sexual harassment victims speak out
Rosie Wadey, 20, is a music photographer who lives in east London
"I've suffered a lot of street harassment since I moved to London. I've been assaulted three times. Those incidents were induced by street harassment. I was either followed home, or followed off the train, I was assaulted on the Underground.
"It's changed the way I live in London, the way I dress, the areas I visit. I turn down things if it's late. I don't have the money to take taxis all the time.
"A lot of them started when someone has said something to me. If someone's openly aggressive, I say 'thank you'. Then they use that as an opportunity to follow me or touch me.
"The most recent assault happened in Liverpool Street station. I was coming home late, probably 11.30, and using a cash point, and some guy came up to me and said, 'What's your name?' I continued to use the cash point, but it was out of order. I had to move away, and he followed me. There were a lot of people around. He followed me and would not stop talking to me. By that point, I had made it perfectly clear that I did not want to talk to him. He put his arm around me. He asked me things like, 'Do you have a boyfriend?', 'Want to come back to my house?'. I got more and more aggressive; and this person is not taking the message. It got to the point where he put his hand on my head and pulled me by my hair, and I screamed at him."
Emma Allwood, 19, from Milton Keynes
"The kind of stuff that's happened to me, I think, it's nothing much. But then, that's part of the problem isn't it? I remember when I went to school, when I was in sixth form, we would walk up the road during lunchtime to get food. As we were walking up, groups of men in cars would be beeping their horn or saying stuff at us. In London, literally last week, I walked on to the road at a bus stop, and in under a minute people were beeping at me. This stuff generally happens at least once a week."
Caroline Mortimer, 21, a student at Birmingham university, was on the train from Birmingham to London
"I was listening to my iPod, when I felt the fingers of the man next to me lightly touch my leg. He seemed to have fallen asleep, so I thought it was a mistake." After shifting her position, she again felt him touch her leg – and she realised it wasn't an accident. But she didn't speak up. "I thought, if I say something and ask the people around me to swap seats, they'll think I'm over-reacting."
I went home, wondering how I could feel so violated by words, being angry at myself for not reacting more robustly and then finally mulling over what exactly that guy would need to hear to stop him from doing it again. I still haven't come up with anything."
"I was queueing at a cashpoint with a couple of friends in a busy part of town one Friday night after work. It was cold so I was wrapped up warm, with a long thick coat on – which was just as well because a group of five men came jogging past us and one of them forcefully grabbed at my backside as he went by. It all happened so quickly, I didn't see which one it was and they were out of sight by the time I'd told the people around me what had happened. It made me feel angry and vulnerable."
"I've begun taking photos of people who harass on the street. I took a photo of a man who said I had a nice arse. He seemed unhappy but also adamant that he'd done nothing wrong. I see him about once a week now. Makes my skin crawl."
"I think the most threatened that I've felt was a couple of months ago. I just walking through a park. There were these two boys. They followed me all through the park. And they were saying very sexual things, in quite a threatening way. A lot of the time, you don't think you can report it to the police because you don't know if the police can do anything about it."
"It seems quite minor, but for me it really summed up how some men are such knobs sometimes. I was walking across [town]. A guy shouted 'hello' at me, I ignored him and carried on walking. He then shouted 'what, not good enough for you? It really angered me that he turned his douchebaggery round on me. Suddenly, in his mind, he's not an ass for shouting at me, it's that I'm a bitch because I ignored him. So typical.
The scale of the ongoing tragedy visited on Libya by NATO and its allies is becoming horribly clearer with each passing day. Estimates of those killed so far vary, but 50,000 seems like a low estimate; indeed the British Ministry of Defence was boasting that the onslaught had killed 35,000 as early as last May. But this number is constantly growing. The destruction of the state’s forces by British, French and American blitzkrieg has left the country in a state of total anarchy - in the worst possible sense of the word. Having had nothing to unite them other than a temporary willingness to act as NATO’s foot soldiers, the former ‘rebels’ are now turning on each other. 147 were killed in in-fighting in Southern Libya in a single week earlier this year, and in recent weeks government buildings – including the Prime Ministerial compound – have come under fire by ‘rebels’ demanding cash payment for their services. $1.4billion has been paid out already – demonstrating once again that it was the forces of NATO colonialism, not Gaddafi, who were reliant on ‘mercenaries’- but payments were suspended last month due to widespread nepotism. Corruption is becoming endemic – a further $2.5billion in oil revenues that was supposed to have been transferred to the national treasury remains unaccounted for. Libyan resources are now being jointly plundered by the oil multinationals and a handful of chosen families from amongst the country’s new elites; a classic neo-colonial stitch-up. The use of these resources for giant infrastructure projects such as the Great Manmade River, and the massive raising of living standards over the past four decades (Libyan life expectancy rose from 51 to 77 since Gaddafi came to power in 1969) sadly looks to have already become a thing of the past.
But woe betide anyone who mentions that now. It was decided long ago that no supporters of Gaddafi would be allowed to stand in the upcoming elections, but recent changes have gone even further. Law 37, passed by the new NATO-imposed government last month, has created a new crime of ‘glorifying’ the former government or its leader – subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Would this include a passing comment that things were better under Gaddafi? The law is cleverly vague enough to be open to interpretation. It is a recipe for institutionalised political persecution.
Even more indicative of the contempt for the rule of law amongst the new government – a government, remember, which has yet to receive any semblance of popular mandate, and whose only power base remains the colonial armed forces – is Law 38. This law has now guaranteed immunity from prosecution for anyone who committed crimes aimed at “promoting or protecting the revolution”. Those responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha – such as Misrata’s self-proclaimed “brigade for the purging of black skins” - can continue their hunting down of that cities’ refugees in the full knowledge that they have the new ‘law’ on their side. Those responsible for the massacres in Sirte and elsewhere have nothing to fear. Those involved in the widespread torture of detainees can continue without repercussions – so long as it is aimed at “protecting the revolution” – i.e. maintaining NATO-TNC dictatorship.
This is the reality of the new Libya: civil war, squandered resources, and societal collapse, where voicing preference for the days when Libya was prosperous and at peace is a crime, but lynching and torture is not only permitted but encouraged.
Nor has the disaster remained a national one. Libya’s destabilisation has already spread to Mali, prompting a coup, and huge numbers of refugees – especially amongst Libya’s large black migrant population - have fled to neighbouring countries in a desperate attempt to escape both aerial destruction and lynch mob rampage, putting further pressure on resources elsewhere. Many Libyan fighters, their work done in Libya, have now been shipped by their imperial masters to Syria to spread their sectarian violence there too.
Most worrying for the African continent, however, is the forward march of AFRICOM – the US military’s African command – in the wake of the aggression against Libya. It is no coincidence that barely a month after the fall of Tripoli – and in the same month Gaddafi was murdered (October 2011) - the US announced it was sending troops to no less than four more African countries – the Central African Republic, Uganda, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. AFRICOM have now announced an unprecedented fourteen major joint military exercises in African countries for 2012. The military re-conquest of Africa is rolling steadily on.
None of this would have been possible whilst Gaddafi was still in power. As founder of the African Union, its biggest donor, and its one-time elected Chairman, he wielded serious influence on the continent. It was partly thanks to him that the US was forced to establish AFRICOM’s HQ in Stuttgart in Germany when it was established in February 2008, rather than in Africa itself; he offered cash and investments to African governments who rejected US requests for bases. Libya under his leadership had an estimated $150 billion of investments in Africa, and the Libyan proposal, backed with £30billion cash, for an African Union Development Bank would have seriously reduced African financial dependence on the West. In short, Gaddafi’s Libya was the single biggest obstacle to AFRICOM penetration of the continent.
Now he has gone, AFRICOM is stepping up its work. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan showed the West that wars in which their own citizens get killed are not popular; AFRICOM is designed to ensure that in the coming colonial wars against Africa, it will be Africans who do the fighting and dying, not Westerners. The forces of the African Union are to become integrated into AFRICOM under a US-led chain of command. Gaddafi would never have stood for it; that is why he had to go.
And if you want a vision of Africa under AFRICOM tutelage, look no further than Libya, NATO’s model of an African state: condemned to decades of violence and trauma, and utterly incapable of either providing for its people, or contributing to regional or continental independence. The new military colonialism in Africa must not be allowed to advance another inch.
"For two decades black people had to fight their battles unaided by - AND IN FACT , IMPEDED BY THE RACISM OF - the labour movement AND THE LEFT GENERALLY. But after the inner city rebellions of the 1980s the established Left .. took up the 'black cause' and the fight against racism moved from the streets and the shop-floor to the town halls and committee room where bureaucrats sought neatly packaged solutions" (A Sivanandan, Communities of Resistance: black struggles for socialism, page 61, my emphasis- Sukant)
"The first is that the president himself does not have much faith in his country’s traditional alliances. One of his first executive acts was to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. In Mr Obama’s rather Third World view of life, imperialism is the great sin, and America inherited it from Britain. Churchill – half-British, half-American, wholly imperial – is bad news for people who feel that way.
Mr Obama’s foreign policy began as an apology tour...."
As many Black Radicals state, Obama likes to do stuff for nearly groups of people, apart from Black people. Be it black people in the usa, or black people outside, more than that Obama has bombed Africa (Libya). However, this does not mean that white supremacists aren't still irked by the fact that a Black man is president of the usa, and in the *white* house, as Farrakhan states.
So far, Obama has proven to be a Black man doing more for white supremacy in the usa than anything else. Nonetheless, I still find it very hard to put the boot into Obama knowing that there are a whole bunch of crazy white supremacists in the republican party and beyond who would like nothing more than to remove Obama from the scene by whatever means.
This quote from a pro-tory newspaper still shows that there is a very real split between the tory government in britain and the Obama presidency. I am not trying to play up more than it is, other than the oldest european colonial class (brits) knowing that Obama just doesnt like them at all.
It was interesting to see brit prime minister cameron's recent state visit to the usa where he met Obama. After a period in which Obama obviously had very little time for cameron, why the fanfare for cameron's visit? It was probably because britain still plays an important part in the usa pushing its hegemony, especially war, across the world, in which strategy britain can play the useful idiot for the usa. As before with the Argentinian Las Malvinas ('falkland' islands, occupied by brit colonial settlers), britain may call upon the usa to help it militarily in a military confrontation with Argentina.
However, the apparent contradictions between britain and the usa are worth playing at and exploiting for anti-imperialists.
"... I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate.."
Khalid Muhammad was brought to most peoples attention (definitely mine in my mid teens) by the sample of his speech in the Public Enemy song 'Night of the Living Baseheads':
"Have you forgotten that once we were brought here, we were robbed of our name, robbed of our language. We lost our religion, our culture, our God...and many of us, by the way we act, we even lost our minds"
The full speech from which it has been taken is here.
Muhammad passed on in 2001, but was a massive influence on the Black Liberation struggle in the usa and beyond. He said some things I dont agree with, but what cannot be denied is that his militancy inspired many to fight harder and with more confidence.
He was a up-coming leader of the Nation of Islam and in some ways paralleling to what happened with Malcolm X and the NoI, he was essentially pushed out of the organisation for being too radical and formed the New Black Panther Party. Muhammad still considered Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan as respected leaders of the struggle and Black people.
In recent years, the current leader of the New Black Panthers - Malik Zulu Shabazz - reunited with Farrakhan in public, accepting Farrakhan as the father of the struggle.
Arguably, apart from Farrakhan, the NoI unfortunately has not got a leading personality of the calibre, wit and charisma of Khalid Muhammad.
It should be noted that Curtis Mayfield meant "n*****" and not "jigger", one can see this evidenced here and here.
Nothing much more to say as Curtis Mayfield's lyrics below say it all.
This ain't no time for segregatin' I'm talking 'bout brown and yellow too High yellow girl, can't you tell You're just the surface of our dark deep well
Such a wonderful last line.
Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm
We people who are darker than blue
Are we gonna stand around this town
And let what others say come true?
We're just good for nothing they all figure
A boyish, grown up, shiftless jigger/(n*****)
Now we can't hardly stand for that
Or is that really where it's at?
We people who are darker than blue
This ain't no time for segregatin'
I'm talking 'bout brown and yellow too
High yellow girl, can't you tell
You're just the surface of our dark deep well
If your mind could really see
You'd know your color the same as me
Pardon me, brother, as you stand in your glory
I know you won't mind if I tell the whole story
Get yourself together, learn to know your side
Shall we commit our own genocide
Before you check out your mind?
I know we've all got problems
That's why I'm here to say
Keep peace with me and I with you
Let me love in my own way
Now I know we have great respect
For the sister, and mother it's even better yet
But there's the joker in the street
Loving one brother and killing the other
When the time comes and we are really free
There'll be no brothers left you see
We people who are darker than blue
Don't let us hang around this town
And let what others say come true
We're just good for nothing they all figure
A boyish, grown up, shiftless jigger/(n*****)
Now we can't hardly stand for that
Or is that really where it's at?
Pardon me, brother, while you stand in your glory
I know you won't mind if I tell the whole story
Pardon me, brother, I know we've come a long, long way
But let us not be so satisfied for tomorrow can be an
An even brighter day
Warda Al-Jazairia was a Arab Nationalist and singer. She was comrades with Algerian revolutionary leader Boumidienne, and sung in honour of Muammar Gadafi. Gamal Abdel Nasser, the greatest modern Arab anti-imperialist leader respected her greatly, and it was to Egypt where she lived after Algeria. Nasser asked her to perform in many important patriotic films.
She said recently in an open letter to the pro-nato Qatari news channel regarding the arab spring:
"You have killed thousands of Libyans and you continue to mow-down a large number of innocent people in Syria (...) You swear not to have borne no weapons, but I assure you that you have the most powerful weapon of mass destruction: the media. If you make misuse the media, you will kill the son of Arabism ".
...And during the few moments that we have left, we want to have just an off-the-cuff chat between you and me -- us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand. We all agree tonight, all of the speakers have agreed, that America has a very serious problem. Not only does America have a very serious problem, but our people have a very serious problem. America's problem is us. We're her problem. The only reason she has a problem is she doesn't want us here. And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red, or yellow -- a so-called Negro -- you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you're not wanted. Once you face this as a fact, then you can start plotting a course that will make you appear intelligent, instead of unintelligent.
What you and I need to do is learn to forget our differences. When we come together, we don't come together as Baptists or Methodists. You don't catch hell 'cause you're a Baptist, and you don't catch hell 'cause you're a Methodist. You don't catch hell 'cause you're a Methodist or Baptist. You don't catch hell because you're a Democrat or a Republican. You don't catch hell because you're a Mason or an Elk. And you sure don't catch hell 'cause you're an American; 'cause if you was an American, you wouldn't catch no hell. You catch hell 'cause you're a black man. You catch hell, all of us catch hell, for the same reason.
So we are all black people, so-called Negroes, second-class citizens, ex-slaves. You are nothing but a [sic] ex-slave. You don't like to be told that. But what else are you? You are ex-slaves. You didn't come here on the "Mayflower." You came here on a slave ship -- in chains, like a horse, or a cow, or a chicken. And you were brought here by the people who came here on the "Mayflower." You were brought here by the so-called Pilgrims, or Founding Fathers. They were the ones who brought you here.
We have a common enemy. We have this in common: We have a common oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator. But once we all realize that we have this common enemy, then we unite on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy -- the white man. He's an enemy to all of us. I know some of you all think that some of them aren't enemies. Time will tell.
In Bandung back in, I think, 1954, was the first unity meeting in centuries of black people. And once you study what happened at the Bandung conference, and the results of the Bandung conference, it actually serves as a model for the same procedure you and I can use to get our problems solved. At Bandung all the nations came together. Their were dark nations from Africa and Asia. Some of them were Buddhists. Some of them were Muslim. Some of them were Christians. Some of them were Confucianists; some were atheists. Despite their religious differences, they came together. Some were communists; some were socialists; some were capitalists. Despite their economic and political differences, they came together. All of them were black, brown, red, or yellow.
The number-one thing that was not allowed to attend the Bandung conference was the white man. He couldn't come. Once they excluded the white man, they found that they could get together. Once they kept him out, everybody else fell right in and fell in line. This is the thing that you and I have to understand. And these people who came together didn't have nuclear weapons; they didn't have jet planes; they didn't have all of the heavy armaments that the white man has. But they had unity.
They were able to submerge their little petty differences and agree on one thing: That though one African came from Kenya and was being colonized by the Englishman, and another African came from the Congo and was being colonized by the Belgian, and another African came from Guinea and was being colonized by the French, and another came from Angola and was being colonized by the Portuguese. When they came to the Bandung conference, they looked at the Portuguese, and at the Frenchman, and at the Englishman, and at the other -- Dutchman -- and learned or realized that the one thing that all of them had in common: they were all from Europe, they were all Europeans, blond, blue-eyed and white-skinned. They began to recognize who their enemy was. The same man that was colonizing our people in Kenya was colonizing our people in the Congo. The same one in the Congo was colonizing our people in South Africa, and in Southern Rhodesia, and in Burma, and in India, and in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They realized all over the world where the dark man was being oppressed, he was being oppressed by the white man; where the dark man was being exploited, he was being exploited by the white man. So they got together under this basis -- that they had a common enemy.
And when you and I here in Detroit and in Michigan and in America who have been awakened today look around us, we too realize here in America we all have a common enemy, whether he's in Georgia or Michigan, whether he's in California or New York. He's the same man: blue eyes and blond hair and pale skin -- same man. So what we have to do is what they did. They agreed to stop quarreling among themselves. Any little spat that they had, they'd settle it among themselves, go into a huddle -- don't let the enemy know that you got [sic] a disagreement.
Instead of us airing our differences in public, we have to realize we're all the same family. And when you have a family squabble, you don't get out on the sidewalk. If you do, everybody calls you uncouth, unrefined, uncivilized, savage. If you don't make it at home, you settle it at home; you get in the closet -- argue it out behind closed doors. And then when you come out on the street, you pose a common front, a united front. And this is what we need to do in the community, and in the city, and in the state. We need to stop airing our differences in front of the white man. Put the white man out of our meetings, number one, and then sit down and talk shop with each other. [That's] all you gotta do.
I would like to make a few comments concerning the difference between the black revolution and the Negro revolution. There's a difference. Are they both the same? And if they're not, what is the difference? What is the difference between a black revolution and a Negro revolution? First, what is a revolution? Sometimes I'm inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word "revolution" loosely, without taking careful consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are. When you study the historic nature of revolutions, the motive of a revolution, the objective of a revolution, and the result of a revolution, and the methods used in a revolution, you may change words. You may devise another program. You may change your goal and you may change your mind.
Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution -- what was it based on? The land-less against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost; was no compromise; was no negotiation. I'm telling you, you don't know what a revolution is. 'Cause when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley; you'll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution -- what was it based on? Land. The land-less against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed. And you're afraid to bleed. I said, you're afraid to bleed.
[As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven't got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it's true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you're going to violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don't even know?
If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it's wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it's wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.
The Chinese Revolution -- they wanted land. They threw the British out, along with the Uncle Tom Chinese. Yeah, they did. They set a good example. When I was in prison, I read an article -- don't be shocked when I say I was in prison. You're still in prison. That's what America means: prison. When I was in prison, I read an article in Life magazine showing a little Chinese girl, nine years old; her father was on his hands and knees and she was pulling the trigger 'cause he was an Uncle Tom Chinaman, When they had the revolution over there, they took a whole generation of Uncle Toms -- just wiped them out. And within ten years that little girl become [sic] a full-grown woman. No more Toms in China. And today it's one of the toughest, roughest, most feared countries on this earth -- by the white man. 'Cause there are no Uncle Toms over there.
*Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research. And when you see that you've got problems, all you have to do is examine the historic method used all over the world by others who have problems similar to yours. And once you see how they got theirs straight, then you know how you can get yours straight. There's been a revolution, a black revolution, going on in Africa. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were revolutionaries; they were the ones who made the word "Uhuru" [Kenyan word for "freedom"]. They were the ones who brought it to the fore. The Mau Mau, they were revolutionaries. They believed in scorched earth. They knocked everything aside that got in their way, and their revolution also was based on land, a desire for land. In Algeria, the northern part of Africa, a revolution took place. The Algerians were revolutionists; they wanted land. France offered to let them be integrated into France. They told France: to hell with France. They wanted some land, not some France. And they engaged in a bloody battle.
So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you -- you don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. [The] only kind of revolution that's nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution based on loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theater, a desegregated park, and a desegregated public toilet; you can sit down next to white folks on the toilet. That's no revolution. Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality.
The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is world-wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution -- that's a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia. Revolution is in Africa. And the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he'll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is? You don't know what a revolution is. If you did, you wouldn't use that word.
A revolution is bloody. Revolution is hostile. Revolution knows no compromise. Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, "I'm going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me." No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, as Reverend Cleage was pointing out beautifully, singing "We Shall Overcome"? Just tell me. You don't do that in a revolution. You don't do any singing; you're too busy swinging. It's based on land. A revolutionary wants land so he can set up his own nation, an independent nation. These Negroes aren't asking for no nation. They're trying to crawl back on the plantation.
When you want a nation, that's called nationalism. When the white man became involved in a revolution in this country against England, what was it for? He wanted this land so he could set up another white nation. That's white nationalism. The American Revolution was white nationalism. The French Revolution was white nationalism. The Russian Revolution too -- yes, it was -- white nationalism. You don't think so? Why [do] you think Khrushchev and Mao can't get their heads together? White nationalism. All the revolutions that's going on in Asia and Africa today are based on what? Black nationalism. A revolutionary is a black nationalist. He wants a nation. I was reading some beautiful words by Reverend Cleage, pointing out why he couldn't get together with someone else here in the city because all of them were afraid of being identified with black nationalism. If you're afraid of black nationalism, you're afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism.
To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro -- those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lings" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were -- a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.
*The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro -- remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant -- and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -- that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.
Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man's going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they're not doing anything to you. So you sit there and 'cause you've got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don't know what's happening. 'Cause someone has taught you to suffer -- peacefully.
The white man do the same thing to you in the street, when he want [sic] to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and don't have to be afraid of your fighting back. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me, just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Don't stop suffering -- just suffer peacefully. As Reverend Cleage pointed out, "Let your blood flow In the streets." This is a shame. And you know he's a Christian preacher. If it's a shame to him, you know what it is to me.
There's nothing in our book, the Quran -- you call it "Ko-ran" -- that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion. In fact, that's that old-time religion. That's the one that Ma and Pa used to talk about: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a head for a head, and a life for a life: That's a good religion. And doesn't nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.
This is the way it is with the white man in America. He's a wolf and you're sheep. Any time a shepherd, a pastor, teach [sic] you and me not to run from the white man and, at the same time, teach [sic] us not to fight the white man, he's a traitor to you and me. Don't lay down our life all by itself. No, preserve your life. it's the best thing you got. And if you got to give it up, let it be even-steven.
The slavemaster took Tom and dressed him well, and fed him well, and even gave him a little education -- a little education; gave him a long coat and a top hat and made all the other slaves look up to him. Then he used Tom to control them. The same strategy that was used in those days is used today, by the same white man. He takes a Negro, a so-called Negro, and make [sic] him prominent, build [sic] him up, publicize [sic] him, make [sic] him a celebrity. And then he becomes a spokesman for Negroes -- and a Negro leader.
I would like to just mention just one other thing else quickly, and that is the method that the white man uses, how the white man uses these "big guns," or Negro leaders, against the black revolution. They are not a part of the Negro revolution. They are used against the Negro revolution.
When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil-rights struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. Plus, even financially, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble; plus it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil-rights leaders of so-called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson; in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grassroots level. This was never done by these Negroes, whom you recognize, of national stature. They controlled you, but they never incited you or excited you. They controlled you; they contained you; they kept you on the plantation.
As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King got out and went out to California to a big rally and raised about -- I don't know how many thousands of dollars. [He] come [sic] to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that [Roy] Wilkins attacked King, accused King and the CORE [Congress Of Racial Equality] of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] get them out of jail and spend a lot of money; and then they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened; I've got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses.
And Negroes was [sic] out there in the streets. They was [sic] talking about [how] we was [sic] going to march on Washington. By the way, right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham -- remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up 'side their head -- yes, they did. That's when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. So, and right after that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That's when he said he was going to put out a civil-rights bill. And when he mentioned civil-rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about [how] they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talking -- about what? We're going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt; don't let the government proceed. They even said they was [sic] going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and don't let no airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.
It was the grass roots out there in the street. [It] scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D. C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins; they called in Randolph; they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said, "Look, you all letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it, because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "Well If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."
A matter of hours went by. They had a meeting at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City. The Carlyle Hotel is owned by the Kennedy family; that's the hotel Kennedy spent the night at, two nights ago; [it] belongs to his family. A philanthropic society headed by a white man named Stephen Currier called all the top civil-rights leaders together at the Carlyle Hotel. And he told them that, "By you all fighting each other, you are destroying the civil-rights movement. And since you're fighting over money from white liberals, let us set up what is known as the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership. Let's form this council, and all the civil-rights organizations will belong to it, and we'll use it for fund-raising purposes." Let me show you how tricky the white man is. And as soon as they got it formed, they elected Whitney Young as the chairman, and who [do] you think became the co-chairman? Stephen Currier, the white man, a millionaire. Powell was talking about it down at the Cobo [Hall] today. This is what he was talking about. Powell knows it happened. Randolph knows it happened. Wilkins knows it happened. King knows it happened. Everyone of that so-called Big Six -- they know what happened.
Once they formed it, with the white man over it, he promised them and gave them $800,000 to split up between the Big Six; and told them that after the march was over they'd give them $700,000 more. A million and a half dollars -- split up between leaders that you've been following, going to jail for, crying crocodile tears for. And they're nothing but Frank James and Jesse James and the what-do-you-call-'em brothers.
[As] soon as they got the setup organized, the white man made available to them top public relations experts; opened the news media across the country at their disposal; and then they begin [sic] to project these Big Six as the leaders of the march. Originally, they weren't even in the march. You was [sic ] talking this march talk on Hastings Street -- Is Hastings Street still here? -- on Hasting Street. You was [sic] talking the march talk on Lenox Avenue, and out on -- What you call it? -- Fillmore Street, and Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That's where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six [at the] head of it; made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man; they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher. Yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy in power -- labor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants; [the] same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington.
It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it'll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn't integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit -- I saw it on television -- with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. 'Cause I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone.
No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn't let him talk, 'cause they couldn't make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn't let Baldwin get up there, 'cause they know Baldwin's liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight -- they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing*, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don't like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best actors 'cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast.
"So the concept is this, basically. The whole black nation has to be put together as a BLACK ARMY. And we gon' walk on this nation, we gon' walk on this racist power structure, and we gon' say to the whole damn government - STICK 'EM UP MOTHERFUCKER! THIS IS A HOLD UP!We come for what's ours."
- Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party
Great to see our peoples in France unite different strands of the resistant-oppressed communities against our common oppressor. Black Africans, Arabs and others together against white supremacy and empire is an inspiring thing and one that is the aim of anti-imperialist internationalists the world over. Below is a short explanation of this protest in Paris by Brother Bader Lejmi, and below that is an article by Sister Hafsa Kara explaining the related events in Algeria in 1945.
- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm
8th May Protest in Paris
8th May is a public holiday in France and also day we chose to organise our protest. Why ? 8th May 1945 is the date of the WW2 armistice. It's a victory of independence against occupation, of freedom against tyranny, of fraternity against racism.
But at the same time in Algeria, 8th May 1945 the French colonial regular army killed thousands of peaceful Muslim Algerians who were marching for freedom, independence and fraternity. Since 2005 we have marched on 8th May to commemorate this paradox within the French Republic.
This year, 2 days before François Hollande won over Nicolas Sarkozy, we know from our experience that so-called socialists are no less colonialists that the right wing. We know that François Hollande is not our savior. We know for sure also that we, and only we, can free ourselves from oppression bi idhnilLah (with help of Allah).
This 8th May 2012, many autonomous organisations (listed on www.c-notretour.fr) from different backgrounds - against negrophobia, islamophobia, zionism, necolonialism, police violence and so on - were united on this idea. After the first and second turn of the presidential elections, the 8th May was our turn.
- By Bader Lejmi - bader.lejmi.org
8th May 1945: Remembering Algeria's Setif Massacre
Official history puts the 1st November 1954 as the start of Algeria’s war of independence against the French occupying power. However most Algerians know that the first sparks of the conflict can be traced back to a more sinister chapter in France’s 132 year rule over the North African country. On May 8th 1945, thousands of Algerian men, women and children joined a march organised by the French authorities to mark the victory by allied forces over the Nazis. Many of the Algerian men, marching that day were returning from the front line where they had played a vital role in fighting German troops. Despite the apparent celebratory mood of the march, tensions were high in Algeria at the time. Many Algerian intellectuals such as Messali Hadj had been imprisoned for speaking out against the brutality of the occupying regime and were now demanding that the ‘Muslim’ population, as Algerians were referred to, gain more rights. As the marchers gathered, many Muslim organisations joined the movement in a bid to publicise their cause. Amongst the placards held up were “End to occupation,” “We want equality” and “free Messali Hadj.” The march turned violent when a 14 year old member of the Muslim Scouts held an Algerian flag. The local head of the police ordered him to dispose of it, the boy refused, he was shot. Followed a wave of panic and clashes between Algerian and French protesters that led to all out insurrection. The ensuing clashes culminated in the death of over 20 000 Algerian men, women and children in and around the region of Setif, Guelma and Kherrata. The number of French killed, in what would become known in Algeria as the “Setif Massacre,” was 102.
While the numbers of French victims is precise and not object to questioning, the death toll amongst the Algerian population is open to great debate -American officials posted in Algeria at the time spoke of 40 000 killed. Because of the nature of the massacre itself conducted over a two month long period in reprisal over the initial clashes, establishing how many were killed remains a contentious point.
The head of the temporary government of France at the time was no other than General De Gaulle, hero of France’s victory over Nazi Germany, who appointed General Duval to put an end to the clashes by all means possible.
General Duval called in all available regiments and various bodies such as the foreign legionnaires to quell the insurrection. He ordered that farmers and villagers from surrounding areas be killed in what often amounted to lynching operations.
Cases of villagers rounded up and set alight by the French military or ‘gendarmerie’ were recorded and established as a common modus operandi of the French repressive machine.
The methods used were of ‘unbelievable’ violence as reported by observers of the time. Bomber planes were called in to flatten several villages. Two war ships stationed in the port of Bedjaia fired over 800 cannon shots against the coastal towns.
The thousands of bodies that accumulated over the two month long killing orgy could not be buried and were consequently dumped in wells and surrounding ravines.
One local who lived near the lime furnace of Heliopolis near Guelma, later questioned over the massacre, recalled the ongoing ‘unbearable’ smell of burning flesh and the constant comings and goings of trucks over spilling with the remains of the dead. Saci Benhamla also described the bluish colour coming out of the furnace’s chimneys. When villagers demanded a general pardon for their village, they were forced to give up the young men in exchange for mercy. These would then be taken to nearby barracks and tortured or killed. French official records describe how over 4500 arrests were made, 99 death penalties had been handed down with two formal executions carried out by February 1946 and a further 2000 arrested men remaining in custody.
When the ‘events of 8th May’ finally came to an end, the French military organised ‘submission ceremonies.’ They would round up local men and force them to kneel in front of the French flag forcing them to shout out loud “we are dogs and Messali Hadj is a dog.” Many of those forced to participate in these ceremonies were later taken away never to be seen again. The trauma on the local population was such that many Algerian villagers would flee at the sight of any French official vehicle, for many months following the massacre. The Setif massacre, remains ingrained in a whole nation’s psyche. The 8th May is an official day of mourning in Algeria, and often contrasts with the pomp and celebrations organised in France to commemorate the defeat of one of Europe’s most violent and bloodthirsty regimes. The irony of seeing French leaders describe the horrors of the Nazi regime while many of them were contemporaries and actors of the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in Algeria, is not lost on Algerians. Various civil movements have demanded a former apology from France for this shameful chapter in her often shameful history. France is, after all the only European country involved in both the slave trade and the holocaust. The irony, sadly does not end there. In 2007, the French government passed a law that formerly outlaws any one denying that an Armenian genocide took place, with a possible five year jail sentence as punishment. It is therefore obligatory in France to rule against a foreign power’s crimes, but unacceptable to take responsibility for its own. The same politicians, while refusing to apologise for France’s murderous policy in Algeria, also tried to pass a law calling for the recognition of the ‘benefits of colonialism to former colonies.’ If ever the expression insult to injury was pertinent, then the law of February 2005 surely, sums it up.
It took another nine years before the Algerian population rose up and fought a long and bloody war that eventually led to its independence in 1962; but what Setif 1945 did was finally establish that the time had run out for French Algeria. No amount of humiliation and murder could stop the course of history started across Africa in the aftermath of the second world war. And while history retains independence days and formal treaty signatures as notable dates, Setif is etched in history, like the Mai Lai massacre in 1968 in Vietnam or the attack on Gaza in December 2008 as the events that set the wheels in motion. The wheels of a machine that grinds and roars and says time and time and again that the weak do not remain weak forever, and the powerful do not remain powerful for ever.
Yeah Black progress Yeah yeah Black progress Got’s to get it Black progress No matter what the cost Black progress We’ve been done too long Black progress We’ve got to get strong Black progress What’s the matter? Black progress Huh Black progress We people to we love to boast with the beat We stop living on our knees and start living on our feet Cause brother like it takes two eyes to make a pair We won’t quit to we get our share Talking about Black progress Real real Black progress Lord we’ve been down Black progress Someone please tell me what I said we want Black progress In any kinda way Black progress Got to fight Black progress Got to fight for the right Ah ah ah ah ah
If you love me Black dignity stands out best Get it children Black progress Real real Got to get it
This is not an endorsement of Idi Amin. But the reason Amin is hated so much by the white power structure is although he wasnt exactly a wise and experienced leader, Amin constantly tweeked the nose of the white man, allied with Gadafi, supported the Palestinians and opposed zionism. Basically did a lot to resist imperialism with his own often witty and humourous anti-imperialism of sorts. For example, sending food aid to britain!
Many Ugandan Asians remember with bitterness their expulsion from Uganda
Jaffer Kapasi says he is still angry that Idi Amin has never been brought to trial - he lives in exile in Saudi Arabia having been overthrown in 1979.
But some have taken the view that however wrong the actions of Idi Amin, the Asian community did not exactly endear itself to Ugandans.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown is a newspaper columnist. She and her family left Uganda in 1972.
Looking back, she says that she still misses her homeland but also loves London, where she now lives.
"Many Ugandan Asians have similar ambiguous views - that so much was lost and even more gained when Amin banished us from a country we had helped build".
She says that the Asians did little to share their wealth and skills, they sent money out of the country illegally and "most Asians were deeply racist, unable to imagine marrying Africans and living with them as equals".
On 26 August, the 30th anniversary of the expulsion order by Idi Amin, Ms Alibhai Brown wrote in Britain's Independent newspaper that she once attended a meeting addressed by President Museveni of Uganda at which he said that properties and homes would be handed back to Asians who returned to Uganda.
She says that the president also reminded them that relatively few Asians had been killed in Uganda but that half a million Ugandans died in the wars that began during Mr Amin's period in power.
She concluded that when looking back on the expulsion of the Asians, people needed to remember the truth about what happened.
Even if you don't realise it, if you are not immersed in non-western culture, music, film, knowledge, then our enslavement to the White Man will continue unabated. Brother Akala's verses are there not to just to be listened to, but to be studied, line by line, concept by concept, analysis by analysis. Respect yourselves, free ourselves.
Defend ours, reject theirs.
Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm
Don't let them fool ya, Or even try to school ya! Oh, no! We've got a mind of our own, So go to hell if what you're thinking is not right! Love would never leave us alone, A-yin the darkness there must come out to light
An anarchist group claimed responsibility on Friday for kneecapping an Italian nuclear engineering executive and warned it would strike another seven times at the firm's parent company, Finmeccanica.
In a four-page letter sent to an Italian newspaper, the group, calling itself the Olga Nucleus of the Informal Anarchist Federation-International Revolutionary Front, said two of its members had shot Roberto Adinolfi, the CEO of Ansaldo Nucleare, in Genoa on Monday.
The firm is owned by Italian state-controlled defence and aerospace group Finmeccanica, which operates 16 sites and employs 10,000 people in the UK.
The letter, which was deemed credible by investigators, said the cell named itself after Olga Ikonomidou, one of eight Greek anarchists it listed as currently jailed in Greece. Seven further attacks would be carried out, one for each of them, the letter stated.
After the shooting Finmeccanica's CFO, Alessandro Pansa, said the firm would not be intimidated. On Friday a spokesman declined to comment on the letter.
The letter takes aim at Adinolfi, calling him a "sorcerer of the atomic industry" and criticising him for claiming in an interview that none of the deaths during the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011 were due to nuclear incidents.
"Adinolfi knows well that it is only a matter of time before a European Fukushima kills on our continent," the letter stated.
"Science in centuries past promised us a golden age, but it is pushing us towards self destruction and slavery," the group wrote, adding: "With our action we give back to you a small part of the suffering that you scientists are bringing to the world."
Adinolfi, who was discharged from hospital under police guard on Friday after he was wounded in the shooting, said "Thank God I am OK".
Before the letter arrived at the offices of Corriere della Sera in Milan, investigators had suspected the attack could be the work of the Red Brigades, the terrorist organisation that kidnapped former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro in 1978.
The so-called Olga Nucleus stated that another cell within the Informal Anarchist Federation had sent a letter bomb to Italy's tax collection agency, Equitalia, in December, nearly blinding an official. Other letter bomb attacks in Italy have also been claimed by anarchist cells within the Federation.
As Italy's economy dips, Equitalia offices have become a target for violence. After an armed man briefly took hostages in an office in Bergamo last week, police on Friday clashed with protesters outside a Naples office, while a suspect package containing powder was sent to a Rome office.
On Thursday, the industry minister, Corrado Passera, warned Italy's economic crisis was threatening social cohesion.
In its letter, the Olga Nucleus said it could have chosen to attack Equitalia but was not looking to win public support. "We have nothing to do with citizens who are indignant about something which doesn't work in a system in which they want to be a part," it wrote.
"We are wild lovers of freedom, and will never renounce the revolution or the complete destruction of the state and its violence."
'Scots were involved in colonial slavery'
"Sukant don't forget the role of Scotland in imperialism as much as they like to forget and hide it. The Scots were as involved as the English..Glasgow was built on the slave trade and it's main shopping streets are named after Scottish slave traders (such as Buchanan Street) who were involved in the tobacco trade - about 1 in 3 slave traders in the West Indies were Scots and Robert Burns almost left to run a plantation himself. I'm Jamaican and have a Scottish surname as a result of their involvement. The rebuilding of Edinburgh was financed on the profits that banks from the city invested in slavery and the other ventures of the BRITISH empire such as the exploitation of India. Scotland is the wealthiest part of the UK outside of London, the reason for this is the legacy of the British Empire that Scots enthusiastically took part in (such as the individual who owned my ancestors). They like to hide behind England on this issue, but they played the exact same role."
REPLY: 'Contradictions of Scots does not mean forfeiting an anti-imperialist position on Scotland' Not-A-Dinner-Party
He has a point of course, but it has to be seen within the same context as Irish or Indian involvement in British colonisation/slavery of Africa and the Americas/Caribbean.
But It is correct to raise it, Scots & Irish settlers were central to the slave trade in the US, albeit first as slaves themselves, but later as slave owners themselves. The confederate flag is based upo n the Saltire and the Ku Klux Klan was named in honour of Scots/Irish clans.
And you know yourself India's role in the British Empire's colonisation Africa and the Caribbean both as soldiers, settlers, merchants and middle-men.
However he clearly knows little about the economy of Scotland. It has much higher levels of poverty than England, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality. Obviously not as stark as in 3rd world colonies, but still representative of Scotland status within the Union. And of course we are poor because our resources are stripped and used to fund English governments, just as our kids are sent to fight their wars, just as our ancestors were shipped off as slaves and then cheap labour to build their Empire. A double edged sword as I point out above, as some of those slaves then became slave masters - however in the US, after the Native American reservations, the poorest people in the US are the "white trash" descendants of Scots and Irish slaves in the deep south. But you got a whole load of messed up contradictions amongst them that are well known!
Clearly Scots have to address their contradictory and complex role within the British Empire and slavery, and their role in the subjugation of Ireland long prior to the Union even (Many Lowland reiver clans, who had themselves fought the English mercilessly whenever they attempted to invade Scotland, would also go on to become mercenaries for England in it's colonisation of Ireland and many remained as settlers - today's Ulster Scots.) but to refuse support for the independence of the first colonies of Empire because of the contradictions of how they were used and adapted to their place in that Empire is an absurdity. Was Irish independence not worthy of support because of the role Irish settlers in slavery and genocide in the US and Australia? What about Indian independence on similar grounds? Should Arab unity and liberation not be supported because Arabs colonised North Africa and enslaved and expelled its people? What about African independence, it was after all Africans who sold other Africans to the British in the first place, supplying the demand of an Empire which industrialised, globalised, commodified and justified what was previously an internal slave trade within Africa.
The British Empire was so successful for so long because it understood how to exploit these contradictions for its own ends, to elevate one group of its subjects to use them subdue others. The US Empire has perfected this technique. Which, using the logic of this guy would beg the questions, why should the people of the world support Black Liberation within the US when the US Army is disproportionately made up of Black and hispanic soldiers? Blacks and hispanics in the US are in the top ten percent richest people in the world. Simply because they live in the US.The foot soldiers of Empire, making up its most brutal cutting edge, are most often drawn from its oldest victims. The poorest and most exploited and marginalised people in the belly of the beast are still fat and corrupted from the beasts feasting on the the rest of the world. These contradictions need to be recognised and understood, and deepened and exploited to our benefit, to tear the beast apart from within itself. Not used as an excuse to essentially surrender to the status quo and let Empire off the hook because some of those contradictions don't personally sit well with you.