Afrikan News And History Post New Entry

We could work together to set a new agenda to restore the stolen pride and peace of Africa continent.

view:  full / summary

How Black People Have Been Miseducated to Serve The Agenda's of The Ruling White Elites.

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on May 26, 2016 at 10:35 AM Comments comments (5)

How Black People Have Been Miseducated to Serve The Agenda's of The Ruling White Elites.  

        "The beginnings of this miseducation go back to the beginnings of the exploration of the African coast by Europeans who had been hemmed in by Arabic power for six hundred years. In 1481, when the Portuguese arrived at the Congo-Ngola area, they initiated the process of miseducation of blacks as an instrument of exploitation. The Portuguese invaders persuaded the royal and noble families of the area to send their sons to Portugal for a European education. When these sons returned with Christian names, they began directing African society in the interest of the Portuguese. The physical slavery which the Portuguese started was facilitated by the mental slavery of the African leaders who had been educated by the Europeans. This model has endured for five hundred years as the most successful method by which Europeans defeat, control, exploit, and annihilate Africans." Jacob H. Carruthers


When your entire history has been taught to you by your former enslavers, colonizers, and oppressors everything that you've been taught are lies that have been rewritten to favor them-and to control you.

Imagine that a invader broke into a home to rob it of all its natural resources and wealth. Then while leaving the home in ruins, the invader kidnapped the children from the home to work as his slaves. This invader, fearing an eventual retribution from these enslaved children, would logically find it necessary to implement systems to ensure that these children would remain loyal to him.

Because while the invader, through his military strength can rob and the destroy the children's home, he cannot win their loyalty, or sustain peace with them for long unless systems are put in place to keep the enslaved children loyal, or to suppress dissent among them. To protect himself from retribution, from these enslaved children, the invader would have to give them an education that causes them to admire and revere him.

This would require that the invader retell the details surrounding the events of the invasion of the ancestral home of the enslaved children. The invader would have to revamp the facts of his crimes by telling the enslaved children that he merely rescued them from a dilapidated home where they were unwanted by their parents. The enslaved children may also be told that their parents merely sold them away.

The invader may also find it necessary to make the enslaved children embarrassed to be associated with their past home. To do this the invader would routinely show to enslaved children demoralizing pictures of their ruined former home. This would cause the children to perceive their invader as a rescuer rather than their enslaver. This would cause the enslaved children to develop an undeserving sense of loyalty and appreciation towards their invader. Therefore creating a sort of manufactured Stockholm Syndrome.


White historians will never teach the true great history of Africa because to do so they would then have to admit that they interrupted that great history. They also can't accurately teach Black history to Black students because to do so would reveal that whites have brutally mistreated Black people throughout history.

So the ruling white elites instead rewrote history to favor themselves.

The history presented to African Americans has been heavily revised to hide the true brutality of the crimes committed by whites against Black people throughout history. The history has been revised with lies that make whites appear as having been lesser immoral throughout history then they actually have been.

The images of Africa shown in the media to African Americans is totally controlled by the white elites. Presently African Americans are most often shown--through the white elite's controlled media--those images of Africa that our designed to produce shame of their heritage. They are constantly subjected to only those images of a war-torn, famine-ridden, rampantly illiterate, and disease-stricken Africa. They are also subjected to hearing demoralizing news reports about war-torn Africa --including those stories of self genocidal feuding African warlords. They are rarely,if ever, shown the beautiful and wealthy cities in Africa.


These deplorable depictions of Africa displaying only its poorest and dangerous communities are in fact designed to make African Americans feel grateful that it was their ancestors enslaved and bought to America. African Americans are being subconsciously told that they're the lucky ones to have been taken away from the backwardness of Africa. So subconsciously African Americans are being brainwashed to feel grateful for the enslavement of their ancestors.

White historians depictions of the African slave trade also intentionally miseducates African Americans to believe that most of their African ancestors were merely sold away to the white invader. Their depiction of the African Slave trade deliberately hides the brutal massacre of countless of African Warriors that died in battle trying to rescuing their captured love ones.          

The number of Africans that died in battles fought against the white invaders far exceeded, many times over, the number of any African's that may have assisted in the slave trade. The hiding of these fierce battles and massacres is deliberately done to perpetuate the falsehood that most African Americans where sold away by their ancestors.

However, to believe that the greedy white invaders ( they that bloodily brutalized our ancestors during their enslavement in the U.S.) went into Africa with weaponry advantage [of guns and cannons] but rather than maximizing their profits chosen instead to purchase most of their slaves is absolutely preposterous. Because such a claim totally contradicts 400 years of demonstrated behavior by whites in regards to Black people and making profit.

Furthermore, If Africa has all the resources of gold, diamonds, ivory , animal fur, spices and minerals and western money meant nothing in Africa what could the white invaders used to buy MOST of the slaves with? Cleary the majority of slaves were not sold or given to the white invaders. That's the convenient lie that whites rewrote into history. To believe that story a person has to be totally ignorant of the white race's history of being brutally greedy.

Yet this false belief, that most Africans were sold away to the white invaders, is shared by millions of people-- both Black and white. It isn't some strange phenomenon that millions of people now believe that most Africans were sold away. These perceptions were intentionally created by white media social engineering experts.

I'm not so naive as to say that not a single African was involve in the selling of African slaves. That's not what am saying at all. What I am saying is the participation of Africans has been greatly exaggerated to reduce white culpability in the slave trade. It also causes many African Americans to blame the enslavement on their ancestors more greatly on Africans then the white invaders.

This psychological conditioning is designed to break down African Americans’ sense of Black racial heritage, and allegiance towards mother Africa. This engenders feeling of resentment among many African Americans towards Africans.

This meets the white elites objective of the divide and conquer between African Americans and native Africans.

This psychological programming used to control African American is also being reapplied and reinforced daily through the white elite controlled U.S. media.

The U.S. media’s racially devaluing depictions of its Black population that amplifies the negative to the point that it distorts reality is more than just biased media reporting. It is a media driven black racially demoralizing psychological warfare program. Within this psychological conditioning

program, fraudulent negative black racially devaluing misinformation and propaganda are being pumped unrelentingly into the unsuspecting minds of Black people [from totally white sources] without being challenged or counterbalanced by an equal amount Black self loving messages. It's constant unrelenting daily assault of deplorably negative black images and statistics are intentionally designed to subject African Americans to always seeing only the fraudulent worst in themselves. No group can be constantly subjected to seeing only the fraudulent worse within themselves and not suffer some adverse effects.                                                                                                                                                                    

This program's constant daily assault of deplorable depiction of Black people are designed to corrupt their sense of Black racial unity and cohesion, mold the character of self-hatred, and engender self-doubt, self-loathing, and division among their group that weakens their ranks.

It also covertly conditions many Black people to believe that they need whites to govern over their lives by convincing them that it is now themselves that have become their own worst enemy. It also insinuates that Black people should admire, respect, and trust only Whites. The objective of psychological warfare program is to demoralizingly instill the myth of white superiority into the collective minds of Black people.

Therefore making Black people more compliant white dominance over their lives.

"The oppressed will always believe the worse about themselves" --Franz Fannon

The minds of some Black people have been so bombarded by negative propaganda about their race that it has literally become easier for some blacks to continue believing the negative derogatory information given about their race rather than to accept that it's a psychological warfare system. This system effective that it not only brainwashes many of its Black victims to accept White dominance over their lives, but in many cases it brainwashes them to in fact prefer it. This psychological warfare program is also at the root of both the profound division and self hatred now afflicting so many Black Americans and is at the heart of internalized feelings of superiority that many whites possess.

This article is from the book the Black Matrix by Franklin Jones.

The Black Matrix

The new Zoltan Zigedy

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on May 25, 2016 at 8:00 PM Comments comments (0)

The ‘new’ Zoltan Zigedy


Imperialism, expressed as a nation’s securing economic dominance of, influence over, or advantage from other nations, remains much as Lenin characterized it in his 1916 pamphlet, Imperialism. Its uninterrupted persistence, from the time well before the pamphlet’s publication through today, certainly supports the claim that it constitutes the “highest stage of capitalism.” Its basic features, as outlined by Lenin, remain the same over a century: monopoly capital serves as its economic base, it supports a profound and growing role for finance capital, and the exportation of capital to foreign lands continues as a primary aim. Corporations spread their tentacles to every inhabitable area of the world and nation-states vie to encase those areas in their protected spheres of influence. War is the constant companion to imperialism.


While the character and grand strategy of imperialism never changed, the tactics evolved and shifted to adjust to a changing world. New developments, shifting power relations, and new antagonisms produced different responses, different approaches toward the imperialist project. With the success of the Bolshevik revolution in the immediate wake of an unprecedented bloodletting for nakedly imperial goals, the task of suffocating real existing socialism rose as the primary focus of imperialist powers. Those same powers recognized that the Soviets were encouraging and aiding the fight not only against the spread of colonies, but against their very existence.


Consequently, it is understandable that the next round of imperialist war was instigated by rabidly anti-Communist, extreme nationalist regimes in Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan. World War II came as a caustic mix of expansionism, xenophobia, and anti-Communism.


In the twentieth century, accelerated by the technologies of war honed in World War I, oil production played a greater and greater role in shaping the future fields of imperial contest. Acquiring oil and other resources was not an insignificant factor in the aggressions of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Clearly, both economic factors and political factors shaped the trajectory of imperialism in the first half of the twentieth century.


While no one doubts that the old European great powers hewed to an imperialist course until World War II (after all, they ferociously clung to their colonies), the myth still exists that the US was a reluctant imperialist. Apologists point to the ‘meager’ colonial empire wrenched from Spain (conveniently ignoring the nineteenth-century expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans as well as the deals, wars, and genocide that ‘earned’ that expansion). They point to the ‘isolationist’ foreign policy of the US following the Treaty of Versailles, a claim demolished by the historian William Appleman Williams and his intellectual off-spring.[1] Appleman Williams showed that imperialist ends are achievable by many means, both crude and belligerent and subtle and persuasive. He showed that domination is effectively achieved through economic ties that bind countries through economic coercion, a tactic as effective as colonial rule. US policy, in this period, anticipates the financial imperialism of the twenty-first century. Appleman Williams and others revealed a continuous US imperialist foreign policy as doggedly determined as its European and Asian rivals.


A new model prevails


After World War II, the balance of power shifted in favor of a Euro-Asian socialist bloc centered around the Soviet Union and a liberated China, threatening even greater resistance to imperial world dominance. Through both mass resistance and armed struggle, colonial chains were loosened or broken. The war-weakened European powers strained to hang on to their colonial possessions. Moreover, the US, the supreme capitalist power, largely rejected the old colonial model.


In its stead, less coercive, but even more binding economic ties were secured through ‘aid,’ loans, investments, and post-war institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This ‘neo-colonial’ tactic especially recommended itself because of the needs of the Cold War and the vast economic asymmetries favoring US power. Since the Cold War was also a monumental battle of ideas, US rulers sought to cast aside the ugly, oppressive imagery of colonial administration and military occupation. Further, the enormous need for capital by those under-developed by colonialism or ravaged by war could easily be fulfilled by the US, but at the price of rigid economic ties binding a country to the global capitalist economy now dominated by US capital.


The towering figure of Africa’s most fervent advocate for unity, socialism, and defiance of imperialism, Kwame Nkrumah, was a pioneer in developing our understanding of neo-colonialism. He wrote in 1965 in words that ring true today:


Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom,’ which has come to be known as neo-colonialism.[2]


President Truman affirmed the US commitment to the evolved neo-colonial program in his 1949 inaugural address when he rejected the ‘old imperialism.’


Gordon Gray, in a special report to the President issued on November 10, 1950, offered a motivation for the new program:


The largest part of the non-Soviet world… measured in terms of population and land areas, consists of economically underdeveloped regions. With some exceptions, the countries of the three areas–Latin America, Asia, and Africa–fall into this category. In the non-Communist parts of these areas live… 70 percent of the population of the entire non-Soviet world. These areas also contain a large part of the world’s natural resources… [T]hey represent an economic potential of great importance… The contrast between their aspirations and their present state of unrelieved poverty makes them susceptible to domestic unrest and provides fertile ground for the growth of Communist movements…[3]


But the US variant of classical imperialism predates the Cold War instantiation embraced by the Truman administration. As Appleman Williams notes, post-World War I leaders like Hoover, Coolidge, Hughes, and Stimson endorsed an international ‘community of interest,’ achieved by encouraging the penetration of US business worldwide. In Appleman Williams’s words, “These men were not imperialist in the traditional sense… They sought instead the ‘internationalization of business’… Through the use of economic power they wanted to establish a common bond… Their deployment of America’s material strength is unquestioned.”[4]


It is important to note that their choice of a more benign imperialism was not based upon moral considerations, but self-interest. Moreover, it necessarily preferred stability when possible, even if stability came through the exercise of military might. President Coolidge acknowledged this in a Memorial Day address in 1928: “Our investments and trade relations are such that it is almost impossible to conceive of any conflict anywhere on earth which would not affect us injuriously.”[5] As a late-comer to the imperial scramble, US elites chose the non-colonial option, avoiding the enormous costs in coercion, counter-insurgency, and paternalistic occupation associated with colonialism–and equally avoiding conflicts that might rock existing and expanding business relations.


In the post-World War II era, the Marshall Plan and The Point Four program were early examples of neo-colonial Trojan Horses, programs aimed at cementing exploitative capitalist relations while posturing as generosity and assistance. They, and other programs, were successful efforts to weave consent, seduction, and extortion into a robust foreign policy securing the goals of imperialism without the moral revulsion of colonial repression and the cost of vast colonies.


In the wake of World War II, US imperialism reaped generous harvests from the ‘new’ imperialism. Commerce Department figures show total earnings on US investments abroad nearly doubling from 1946 through 1950. As of 1950, 69% of US direct investments abroad were in extractive industries, much of that in oil production (direct investment income from petroleum grew by 350% in the five-year period).[6] Clearly the US had recognized its enormous thirst for oil to both fuel economic growth and power the military machine necessary to protect and enforce the ‘internationalization of business.’


One estimate of the rate of return on US direct investments from 1946 to and including 1950 claims that Middle Eastern investments (mainly oil) garnered twice the rate of return of investments in Marshall Plan participant countries which, in turn, produced a rate of return nearly twice that of investments made in countries that did not participate in the US plan.[7] Undoubtedly, US elites were pleased with the rewards of the new imperial gambit.




Patterns were set in the period immediately after World War II, patterns that persist even today. The basis for US hostility toward Venezuela can be anticipated in US imperialism’s early stranglehold on the Venezuelan economy. As early as 1947, the US exported nearly $178 million of machinery and vehicles to that country, primarily to and for foreign-owned oil companies. Only $21 million of that total went to domestically owned companies or for local agricultural use. In the same year, the income from American direct investments totaled $153 million.[8] Is it any wonder that the US would meet any independent path of development, such as the Bolivarian Revolution, with intense resistance?


The idea of parlaying economic power, capital resources, loans, and ‘aid’ into neo-colonial dependency through the mechanisms of free and unfettered trade–the ‘internationalization of business’–may well be seen as the precursor of the various trade organizations and trade agreements of today, like GATT, NAFTA, TPP, and so many other instruments for greasing the rails for US corporations.


Outside of the socialist bloc, much of the world was newly liberated from colonial domination, but ripe for imperialist penetration in the post-war era. For two decades after WWII, the socialist bloc was united in solidarity with the forces in opposition to imperialism. Arrayed against the anti-imperialist alliance were the imperialist powers bound together by the NATO alliance and their client states. In the imperialist camp, the anti-Communist Cold War imperatives secured US leadership and contained inter-imperialist rivalries in this period.




Two worlds, or three?


It is both useful and accurate to characterize that era as a confrontation between imperialism and its opponents: imperialism and anti-imperialism.


But in the battle of ideas, Western intellectuals preferred to divide the world in a different fashion. They preferred to speak and write about three worlds: a First World of developed, ‘advanced’ capitalist countries, a Second World of Communism, and a Third World of underdeveloped or developing countries. Clearly, the gambit here was to isolate the world of Communism from the dynamics of global capitalism and plant the notion that, with the help of some stern advice and perhaps a loan, the Third World could enjoy the bounty of the First World. The Three-World concept captured completely the world view espoused by Gordon Gray in his missive to President Truman quoted above. Assuredly, the three-world distinction was both useful and productive for elites in the West–decidedly more useful than the division between imperialists and anti-imperialists.


Sadly, late-Maoism, breaking away from the socialist bloc, uncritically adopted the three-world concept in its polemics against the Soviet Union. Embracing a tortured, twisted re-interpretation, Maoism sought to separate the socialist world from the anti-imperialist struggle and establish the People’s Republic of China as a beacon for the Third World. In reality, this theoretical contortion resulted in the PRC consistently siding with imperialism for the next three decades on nearly every front, including and especially in Angola and Afghanistan.




Unfortunately, significant sectors of the Western left fell prey to the confusions engendered by the debates of that time. To this day, many liberals and left activists cannot locate opposition to US dominance as objectively anti-imperialist. They place their own personal distaste for regimes like that of Milosevic, Assad or Gaddafi ahead of a people’s objective resistance to the dictations of imperialism. Confusion over the central role of the imperialism/anti-imperialism dynamic breeds cynicism and misplaced allegiances.


For example, Islamic fundamentalist fighters sided with imperialism against the socialist-oriented government of Afghanistan and Soviet internationalists. When the same forces turned on their imperialist masters their actions, not their ideology, became objectively speaking anti-imperialist. For other reasons–irrationalism, fanaticism, intolerance–we may condemn or disown them, while locating them, at the same time, in the framework of anti-imperialism. Similarly, in the imperialist dismantling of Yugoslavia, it doesn’t matter whether imperialism’s collaborators were Croatian Ustashi-fascists, or Bosnian liberals, they were all aligned with imperialism and its goals. Those who opposed these goals were acting objectively in the service of anti-imperialism. Moral rigidity is no excuse for ignoring the course of historical processes. Nor are murky notions of human rights.


As it has for well over a century, viewing international relations through the lens of imperialism/anti-imperialism serves as the best guide to clarity and understanding; imperialists prey as well upon those who we may find otherwise objectionable.




Confront or undermine?


It would be wrong to leave the impression that US imperialism is solely based upon dollar persuasion or economic coercion. American military might exists as the international police force for imperial maintenance and expansion. The difference is that the US variant of imperialism chooses the option of planting military installations throughout the world–like the cavalry outposts of Western lore–rather than incur the costs of infrastructure and administration associated with Old World colonialism.


In addition, US imperialism confers special status on trusted watchdogs strategically placed in various regions. Before the revolution, the Shah’s Iran functioned as a regional cop, armed with the latest US weaponry. South Korea filled a similar role in the Far East, replacing Taiwan after US rapprochement with the PRC. With sensitivity to oil politics, the US has paired reliable Arab countries–Saudi Arabia or Egypt–with Israel to look after things in the Near East.


But employing regional gendarmes has challenged US policies as domestic upheavals or peer embarrassment has convinced some trusted clients that subservience will be widely viewed as–well, slavish subservience. Consequently, cooperation with the US has become more covert, less servile.


The hottest moments of the Cold War demonstrated that military confrontation with Communist led forces was not a wise move either in desired results or costs. The Korean and Indochinese Wars, interventions visiting a military reign of terror on small countries, proved that even the greatest imperialist military machine could not match the tenacity and dedication to victory of a far less materially advantaged foe. After the decisive victory of the Vietnamese liberators, the US never again sought a direct military confrontation with Communism.




But when the struggle of those fighting to escape imperialism and the capitalist orbit escalated, the US began relying more on surrogates, mercenaries, and clients. In place of direct military intervention, US policymakers relied on covert schemes, secret armies, and economic sabotage. In the Portuguese African colonies and South Africa, in Ethiopia, South Yemen, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and several other countries, Marxism-Leninism served as a guiding ideology for liberation and nation-building. At the same time, Marxist parties played a significant role in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in the Portuguese revolution, and in European politics. By the end of the 1970s, the zenith of militant anti-imperialism and the global influence of Marxism-Leninism were reached. Imperialism appeared to be in retreat worldwide. And the leading imperialist country, the US, had suffered a domestic crisis of legitimacy from the extra-legalities of the Nixon Administration and serious economic instability.


Unfortunately, supporting this shift in the balance of forces globally came at great costs to the Soviet economy. The newly born, socialist-oriented countries were largely resource-poor, economically ravaged, and riven with ethnic and social schisms, all of which were easily and readily exploited by imperialism. Aid and assistance taxed the Soviet economy and in no small way contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union a decade later. Civil war, dysfunctional economies (thanks to colonialism), insufficient cadres, and unskilled administrators left those committed to building socialism facing a profound challenge, a challenge that proved impossible for most after the demise of the Soviet Union. It would have taken decades to integrate these countries into the socialist economic community. Unfortunately, they were not granted that opportunity.


Faced with a deteriorating international position, the cornerstone of the imperialist alliance–the US and the UK–changed course, electing regimes that refused to accept a restructured world order disadvantaging imperialism. The Thatcher and Reagan administrations signaled a new belligerence, a vigorous and aggressive assault on the twentieth-century bastion of anti-imperialism, the socialist community. A massive arms build-up and innumerable covert interventions coincided with the rise of an ideologically soft-headed Soviet leadership to dismantle the European socialist community in the decade to follow.




With the demise of the European socialist bloc, imperialism regained its nineteenth-century swagger, enjoying a nearly unopposed freedom of action. TINA–the doctrine that There Is No Alternative–seemed to prevail as much for imperial domination, as for capitalism.


A shaken international left faced a new, unfavorable balance of forces going into a new century. Far too many stumbled, took to navel-gazing, or spun fanciful, speculative explanations of the new era. The moment was reminiscent of the period after the failed revolution of 1905 famously described by Lenin:


Depression, demoralisation, splits, discord, defection, and pornography took the place of politics. There was an ever greater drift towards philosophical idealism; mysticism became the garb of counter-revolutionary sentiments. At the same time, however, it was this great defeat that taught the revolutionary parties and the revolutionary class a real and very useful lesson, a lesson in historical dialectics, a lesson in an understanding of the political struggle, and in the art and science of waging that struggle. It is at moments of need that one learns who one’s friends are. Defeated armies learn their lesson.[9]


Unfortunately, most of the left learned nothing from the defeat of 1991.




Militant anti-imperialism returns


If Marx teaches us nothing else, he reminds us that historical processes play out in unexpected, perhaps even unwelcome ways. The suppression of secularism as a tactic for disarming movements for independence or social progress is as old as the British Empire and probably older. Certainly the British colonial authorities were masters at divide and conquer, encouraging ethnic or religious differences to smother otherwise secular movements. It was this proven approach that joined US and Israeli policy planners in making every effort to discredit, thwart, split, and penetrate every secular movement in the Middle East: influential and substantial Communist Parties, left Ba’athists, radical democrats, nationalists, etc. The secular PLO was notably targeted. At the same time, they sought to use Islamic fundamentalists by covertly supporting them as an alternative and actively encouraging divisive conflict. Hamas was one such organization, chosen specifically as a hostile option to the militantly anti-imperialist PLO.


Similarly, the US and its allies sought to weaken the Soviet effort in Afghanistan by funding and arming the Islamic fundamentalists engaged in a civil war against forces advocating free, secular education, land reform, gender equality, and modernization.


Radical Islamic fundamentalism had waned in the 1950s and 1960s, losing momentum to the awakening inspired by Nasserism and other nascent national movements. But the encouragement and material support of the US and Israel rekindled these movements. Add the demise of the Soviet Union and the loss of support for secular national movements, and imperialism blazed a path for the growth and prominence of fundamentalism.




Not surprisingly, the grievances, the injustices endured by the people of the Middle East now found expression through the organs and institutions of fundamentalism, just as the peoples of Latin America found expression for their plight through the Catholic Church when denied other options by fascistic military dictatorships.


The Palestinian Hamas-inspired intifada shocked Israel and its allies from their smug arrogance. And the brutal attacks on US interests, the US military, and on targets in the domestic US further shocked imperialism. Lost in the revenge hysteria, hyper-patriotism, and religious bigotry fueled by the attacks were the casus belli invoked by the fundamentalists: the occupation of Palestine since the 1967 war and the use of Saudi bases as US military staging points before and after the 1991 invasion of Iraq.


While the targeting of civilians is regrettable, it is regrettable in its entirety: whether they be German civilians bombed by the allies in Dresden, Korean women and children massacred by US soldiers in Taejon, or villages destroyed by US aircraft in Vietnam. But it is more than a curiosity or a mark of barbarism that oppressed peoples facing a modern, advanced army with superior resources fight by different rules. Nor has there ever been an anti-imperialist movement that was not called ‘terrorist’ by its adversaries. Granting that Marx and Engels were not always consistent or correct on these questions, Engels offers insight in his column in the New York Daily Tribune published on June 5, 1857:


The piratical policy of the British Government has caused the universal outbreak of all Chinese against all foreigners, and marked it as a war of extermination.


What is an army to do against a people resorting to such means of warfare?… Civilization-mongers who throw hot shells on a defenseless city and add rape to murder, may call the system cowardly, barbarous, atrocious; but what matters to the Chinese if it be only successful? Since the British treat them as barbarians, they cannot deny to them the full benefit of their barbarism. If their kidnappings, surprises, midnight massacres are what we call cowardly, the civilization-mongers should not forget that according to their own showing they could not stand against European means of destruction with their ordinary means of warfare.


In short, instead of moralizing on the horrible atrocities of the Chinese, as the chivalrous English press does, we had better recognize that this is a war pro aris et focis, a popular war for the maintenance of Chinese nationality, with all its overbearing prejudice, stupidity, learned ignorance and pedantic barbarism if you like, but yet a popular war. And in a popular war the means used by the insurgent nation cannot be measured by the commonly recognized rules of regular warfare, nor by any other abstract standard, but by the degree of civilization only attained by that insurgent nation.[10]


Political Cartoon Lampoons Robber Barons


Writing well over a century-and-a-half ago, Engels better understood the dynamics of anti-imperialist resistance than modern-day commentators, including most of the left.


Failing to understand the dynamic of ‘popular war,’ as Engels called it, only led to escalation: an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, a subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq, incursions in Somalia, drone attacks throughout the region, aggression against Libya, destabilizing Syria, isolating Iran and other actions proclaimed as ‘anti-terrorist,’ but perceived by the people of the Middle East as aimed at forcing their submission to outside diktats. Accordingly, there is little chance that the hostilities invited and unleashed by imperialism will ebb any time soon. Only an exit and a cessation of meddling can promise that result.


Writing in 1989, well before the full unfolding of militant Islamic fundamentalism, Manfred Bienefeld reflected upon what he saw as the dimming prospects for anti-imperialist struggle, speculating on the—


…terrible possibility that in today’s world these forces may be permanently beaten back aided by the massive resources and powers available to the ‘international system’ and their local collaborators. It is striking that those movements that appear to be capable of sustaining such resistance for any length of time are movements like those of Islamic fundamentalism which refuse to calculate costs and benefits according to the calculus of those who shape the international system. [my emphasis][11]




Bienefeld’s words were eerily prescient.


Like the Chinese response to British aggression, the resistance to US imperialism in the Middle East has been nasty; fighters have refused to submit to incineration and slaughter like the Iraqi army when faced with an overwhelmingly overpowering conventional army in 1991 and 2003. And like the English press cited by Engels, the Western media moralizes over tactics while purposefully ignoring the century of great-power aggression, occupation, and colonization of the region. For the apologists of imperialism, the systematic injustices of the past carry no moral weight against the most desperate actions of the powerless. One is reminded of the scene in Pontecorvo’s brilliant film, The Battle of Algiers, when the captured Ben M’Hidi is asked by a reporter why the liberation movement, FLN, plants bombs in discos and schools. His reply is succinct: “Let us have your bombers and you can have our women’s baskets.”


Where Islamic fundamentalism will take the people of the Middle East (and other areas of largely Islamic populations) is unclear. Close study of the different threads would undoubtedly show different and socially and economically diverse prospects. But what is clear is that as long as it carries the mantle of the only force resisting imperialism in the region, it will enjoy support and probably grow, though fraught with the contradictions that come from religious zealotry.




Risings in the south


Resistance to imperialism in the backyard of the US–Central and South America–has a long and noble history: long, because it traces back to the fight of the indigenous people against conquest and enslavement; noble, because millions have given life and limb in wars of liberation and movements of resistance.


But it wasn’t until 1959 that a Latin American country broke completely away from the grasp of imperialism. The Cuban revolution produced a government hostile to foreign intervention, rapacious landowners, and greedy corporations—a formula sure to bring the disapproval of the powerful neighbor to the north. The rebel leaders met threats with defiance. As US belligerence began to suffocate the revolution, the Cuban leaders turned to and received support from the socialist community. In retaliation for this audacious move, the US organized an invasion of the island, only to be met with overwhelming, unexpected resistance. Unable to bring Cuba to its knees, imperialism enacted a cruel quarantine of Cuban socialism that persists to this day.


In the post-war era, the cause of the Popular Unity program in Chile inspired a generation in much the way that the cause of the Spanish Republic inspired a generation in the 1930s. The Allende government embodied the aspirations of nearly the entire left: a break from US imperial domination and a peaceful, electoral road to socialism. In 1973 those aspirations were dashed by economic subversion, the CIA, and a brutal coup launched by the Chilean military. More importantly, the coup in Chile sent the message that US imperialism would readily accept military, even fascist rule in Latin America before it would tolerate others following the Cuban path, the path away from imperialist domination.




But the tide of anti-imperialism could not be held back. Leaders like Lula, Rousseff, and Bachelet emerged from resistance to military dictators or, like Morales, from trade union militancy. As democratic changes inevitably surfaced, all were positioned and prepared to take their respective countries in another direction. The Kirchners in Argentina were more a product of the Peronista tradition of populist nationalism, a tradition often annoying the superpower to the north.


But most interesting and, in many ways, most promising, was the emergence of Hugo Chavez as the lightning rod for anti-imperialism in Latin America. Because Chavez rose from the military, he seemed to hold a key to unlocking the problem of military meddling in Latin American politics. Moreover, the Venezuelan military was a Latin American rarity–a military unwelcoming to US training and penetration. Chavez’s prestige with the military held or neutralized much of the military from going over to the 2002 coup attempt.


Clearly the most radical of the wave of new Latin American leaders, Chavez advocated for socialism. While Venezuelan ‘socialism’ remains a visionary, moralistic project, neither fully developed nor firmly grounded, it counts as an energetic pole raising questions of economic justice in the most profound fashion. Growing from a strong personal relationship between Hugo and his spiritual kin, Fidel, Cuba and Venezuela mark one pole of militant anti-imperialism. Together, they stand for political and economic independence from the discipline of great powers, their institutions, and transnational corporations.


Because they cherish their independence, they have earned the enmity of US imperialism. Lest anyone believe the recent trade for the Cuban patriots negotiated by the Cuban government means that the US government seeks peaceful co-existence with anti-imperialism, think again. The US has, in fact, escalated its aggression against Venezuela and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the heels of that exchange.


The other social and political movements formed in Latin America range across the political spectrum from cautiously social democratic to avowedly socialist. They stretch from Nicaragua in Central America through the entire Southern continent. Though they have no common political ideology, they have a shared aversion to accepting the demands of greater powers, a refusal to toe the imperialist line. To a lesser or greater extent, they support independence from the economic institutions governing the global economy. And they tend to support the consolidation and mutual support of their vital interests within the Latin American community. To that extent, they constitute a progressive, anti-imperialist bloc.




Today’s imperialism and its problems


Any survey of imperialism and its adversaries must note the pathetic role of most of the US and European left in recent years. Even in the most repressive moments of the Cold War, large anti-war movements challenged militarism, aggression, and war. But those movements have shriveled before indifference and ideological confusion. In the post-Soviet era, imperialism cynically appropriated the language of human rights and manipulated or bred an entire generation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with innocuous, seemingly socially conscious banners, but disruptive missions. So-called ‘color’ revolutions proliferated, paradoxically supported and directed by a host of government and private-capital funded NGOs. These organizations promoted a brand of ‘democracy’ that mobilized Western-oriented liberals and Western culture-mesmerized youth against established, often election-legitimized governments. Most of the Western left naively applauded and uncritically supported these actions with no understanding of the forces at play.


Much of the European and US left passively watched the dismantling of Yugoslavia–blinded by NATO proclamations about self-determination and ethnic violence, as if kindling the fires of extreme nationalism would produce anything other than separatism and hatred. In a masterful assault on credibility, NATO bombs were interpreted as enforcing human rights in Serbia and Kosovo.


The imperialist game of deception proved to work so well that it has been repeated again and again, in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria, to only name a few. It’s a sad commentary on the US labor movement (and its European counterparts) that it stands aloof from US imperialism (when not assisting it). Samuel Gompers, the conservative, first President of the American Federation of Labor joined the Anti-Imperialist League over a century ago; his counterparts of today cannot utter the words.




Looking back, it is likely that few if any of the US and NATO aggressions of the last twenty-five years would have been dared if the Soviet Union still existed. Put another way, nearly all of the many interventions and wars against minor military powers were initiated because the US recognized that there was no powerful deterrent like the former Soviet Union. In that sense, imperialism has had a free hand.


Nonetheless, while twenty-first century imperialism endures, it does so despite great challenges and severe strains. Unending wars and deep and lasting economic crises have winded the US and its NATO allies. Military resistance to imperialism has proven resilient and determined, as would be expected of those fighting in defense of their own territory. The US all-volunteer military and low casualty rate have been a calculated success in pacifying many in the US, yet there is a widespread disillusionment with war’s duration and lack of resolution. Despite media courtiers continually stirring the pot of fear and hatred with hysterical calls for a war on ‘terror,’ the cost of that war in material and human terms becomes more and more apparent.


Memories of Vietnam haunt military strategists in the US who are finding it difficult to disengage in the face of escalating violence and the surfacing of new adversaries. It may be tempting to follow the lead of many liberals and label the trail of broken nations, shattered cities, slaughtered and maimed people traveled by the US military, its mercenaries, and camp followers as a product of incompetence and miscalculations. It is not. Instead, it is the product of imperialism’s failure to peacefully maintain a global economic system that guarantees the exploitative and unequal relations that enable imperialist dominance. In fact, it is a sign of a weakening imperialism that less than thirty years ago triumphantly stood admiring its final victory.[12]


The old symptoms return to afflict imperialism. Lenin saw the intensification of imperialist rivalries–competition for resources, spheres of influence, capital penetration–as an intrinsic feature of imperialism. In his time, the British Empire dominated, but with Euro-Asian rivals rising to challenge its supremacy. Commentators noted the ‘scramble’ for colonies and the rising tensions that ensued. Military and economic blocs were formed to strengthen the hands of the various contestants. World War followed.


Focus on the Good Apples


While inter-imperialist war may not be imminent, the signs of discord, intensified competition, and shifting alliances are growing. Tensions between the US, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, and even the EU are constant. Japanese nationalism has stirred historic antagonisms in the Pacific region, challenging the PRC’s economic might. The US has sought not to diffuse these tensions, but to intervene to advance its own interests.


The US has promoted or prodded Eastern European nationalism to shear away countries that were formerly accepted as part of the Russian sphere of influence. Not surprisingly, Russia has interpreted these moves as hostile acts and taken countermeasures. The Ukrainian crisis has produced belligerence unseen since the Cold War. At the same time, the EU opposes escalating anti-Russian punitive sanctions urged by the US, sensing the danger of disrupted economic relations and even war at a time when the European community is already suffering severe economic pain.


New alliances have formed as a counter force to US imperialism. The BRIC group, for example, exists as a loose community made up of significant players in the global capitalist economy: PRC, India, Russia, and Brazil. Though the members are not ostensibly in conflict with the US, they oppose the hegemony of the US in international institutions and the tyranny of the US dollar in international markets. They espouse a multi-polar world without US domination. Theirs is not an anti-imperialist bloc, but an anti-US hegemony bloc. They are not opposed to the predation inherent in international economic competition; they are only opposed to US dominance of that predation.




This is in contrast to the ALBA bloc, a group of eleven Caribbean, Central and Southern American nations establishing an economic community. ALBA was envisioned by then Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as an alliance moving to escape the clutches of the global economic system. Chavez saw the expanding development of mutual trade, shared institutions, integration and a common currency as steps toward a community more and more removed from the rapacious international capitalist system. Of course that is a promise only to be realized far into the future. Moreover, it is a project only capable of achieving escape velocity when the member states embrace socialist economic principles. Nonetheless, ALBA counts as a significant irritant to imperialism.


Political forces are unleashed worldwide that promise to disrupt the course of imperialism. Unanswered economic discontent has fueled nationalism and religious zealotry, forces that inspire distrust of existing institutions and open markets. Spain, for example, is riven with separatism; even the UK is threatened with Scottish autonomy. Economic nihilism and conspiratorial xenophobia have strengthened neo-fascist movements throughout Europe to the point where they seriously threaten the existing order.


Clearly, the political, social, and economic fabric of imperialism, its stability, and its ability to govern the world is under great stress. From world economic crisis to interminable wars, the world system has fallen far from its moment of celebration at the end of the Cold War.




Indeed, imperialism has changed. Colonialism–with the exception of Puerto Rico, Guam and a few other remnants of the past–is gone, with vestiges, like Hong Kong, either absorbed or liberated. Yet what otherwise exists today strongly resembles the imperialism of Lenin’s time, the imperialism of economically vulturous nations unfettered by a counter force like the Soviet Union. Perhaps, the ‘new’ imperialism is little more than a return to the imperialism that opened the last century with the US replacing Great Britain as the dominant imperial power–the ‘new’ is simply the reassertion of the old.


Understanding today’s imperialism requires some ideological re-tooling. The days of an alliance of socialist countries and newly liberated colonies searching for new roads under the socialist umbrella are past. In its stead are capitalist countries competing against the more dominating capitalist countries. Should they succeed in deposing the US, they in turn will fight to retain hegemony. That is, they will behave like a capitalist country. Of course opposing US hegemony is objectively anti-imperialist even when it seeks to impose its will on another capitalist country (Russia, today, for example). Indeed that is part of the struggle against imperialism–an essential part. Likewise, the struggle to resist and end US aggression and occupation of lands in the Middle East is a component of the contest with imperialism.


But the fight to end imperialism once and for all is the fight to end capitalism.




[Graphic: The Guardian]


End notes:


[1] See The Legend of Isolationism in the 1920’s, Science and Society, Winter, 1954 for an early exposition of this thesis.




[3] The Point Four Program: Promise or Menace? Herman Olden and Paul Phillips, Science and Society, Summer, 1952, p 224.


[4] The Legend of Isolationism in the 1920’s, Science and Society, Winter, 1954, pp 13-16.


[5] Ibid. p 16.


[6] All data from Olden and Phillips pp 234-237.


[7] Ibid.


[8] Olden and Phillips, p 232.


[9] Lenin, ‘Left-Wing’ Communism, an Infantile Disorder, International Publishers, 1969, p 13.




Forty Years After Angolanīs Independency An Ancestral Spirit Appears In An Abandoned Colonial Mansion.Luanda(Angola).

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on March 13, 2016 at 8:00 PM Comments comments (0)

I am not a demon. Who am I?

 Forty years after Angolan´s independency an ancestral spirit appears in an abandoned colonial mansion, in the metropolitan city center of ‪Luanda‬ (‪Angola‬.The defamation of the african religion during colonialism disconnected most Angolans from their ancestors. Because its people now live life through Christianity its appearance is confused as a manifestation of demons.

 During the scramble for Africa, white imperialists, priests and churches promoted christianity and civilization to remodel the African culture. European imperialism was aggressive and obligated most africans to abolish their cultural behavior and change their cultural values to adore a religion, culture, habits and language which worked in favor of colonialism, any other form of religion was a false superstition.

If you disconnect a man from its roots and you gain power over his mind, this man will become whatever you want him to become.

The ancestral spirit spoke in a dialect from the ancient Kingdom of Angola but his people could not understand him as most Angolans living in the metropolitan city speak Portuguese, French or English. His voice was condemned to be the roar of a demon tormenting the mansion visitors.

The tales told by street book sellers is that the opulent mansion is not sold but abandoned because of its demons. The defamation used in the imperialism period destroyed the respect and believe Angolans had about the existence of a higher power guiding them through spiritualism.

Imperialism had such a force that some colonised African countries continued to reject their roots, cultural values, power, land and ancient religious practices.

The ancestral spirit uses his body language to convince its people that his appearance is not the manifestation of a demon but a wise ancestor trying to speak to this generation to pass the wisdom and vision our ancestors have for Angola in the 21st century.

 This is a tale written by street vendors and Keyezua#

Obama slams Cameron, Sarkozy over Libya intervention

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on March 11, 2016 at 7:10 AM Comments comments (2)

Obama slams Cameron, Sarkozy over Libya intervention 

British leader David Cameron got “distracted” and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to promote his country during the 2011 NATO-led military intervention in Libya, US President Barack Obama said in an interview with The Atlantic Thursday. Obama didn’t shy away from rebuking two of his closest allies in the extensive magazine interview, as he discussed the conditions surrounding the British and French-led bombing campaign that led to the fall of Moamer Kadhafi’s regime.

Obama said when he considers what went wrong in Libya, “there’s room for criticism because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.” Cameron stopped paying attention soon after the military operation, he said, becoming “distracted by a range of other things.”

During the bombing campaign, Obama said, Sarkozy wanted to “trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure” for the operation. Since the government’s collapse, Libya has descended into near-anarchy, ruled by rival militias ISIS vying for power while the Islamic State group has gained influence in the country.

The US President also noted the French president at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy, lost his job the year after the 2011 invasion and criticised the French eagerness to take credit for overthrowing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Mr Obama said: Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defences and essentially set up the entire infrastructure. Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy paid an infamous visit to Libya in September 2011 to be greeted as heroes and liberators. Five years later, Islamic State is taking hold in the east of the country, no government has been formed, and Washington is considering a new intervention. In the lengthy interview, that runs to 72 pages, President Obama also said that free riders aggravate me, in a pointed barb at Britains reluctance to spend 2% of GDP on the armed forces. You have to pay your fair share he told Mr Cameron and said Britain would no longer be able to claim a special relationship if it didnt.


Shocked! .100 times a white actor played someone who wasn't white.

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on March 1, 2016 at 3:35 AM Comments comments (1)

100 times a white actor played someone who wasn’t white.

100 times a white actor played someone who wasn’t white

shocked! — to learn this week that white guy Joseph Fiennes has been cast as African American icon Michael Jackson in a TV movie. But anyone who’s surprised at this news hasn’t been paying attention. Despite decades of protests over racially inappropriate casting and the recent protests over the lack of diversity among Oscar nominees, filmmakers continue to cast white actors as minority characters on a depressingly regular basis.

Hollywood has yet to wrap its mind around the fact that the ancient Middle East was not populated entirely by dashing white men with well-trimmed beards. It’s pretty well documented that the area was home to people with darker skin than, say, Richard Gere, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, who’ve each taken a turn at playing a biblical hero (David, Noah and Moses, respectively). But here we are again, with “Gods of Egypt” set for release next month, and a slate of white actors is starring in a film about a place whose ancient inhabitants had brown skin and black hair. That’s not to say Hollywood hasn’t learned anything over the years — as early as 1965, the New York Times was horrified when a British version of “Othello” featured Laurence Olivier in blackface, and everyone now agrees that Mickey Rooney’s prosthetic buckteeth were the worst thing about “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”

100 times a white actor played someone who wasn't white

But even if Hollywood is having actors alter their physical appearance less than they used to, they’re not necessarily giving minority actors the opportunity to play minority roles. Instead, they’re making those roles white. Over a dozen times, Hollywood has taken source material (everything from real life to novels to Japanese anime) that featured people of color and turned it into movies starring white people. When the scripts get written, black Halmea is white Alma (“Hud,” 1963) and Hispanic Irina is lily-white Irene (“Drive,” 2011). These moves aren’t necessarily made to accommodate great acting talents. Although Angelina Jolie has done this a time or two (“A Mighty Heart,” “Cleopatra” you’re more likely to see it from repeat offender Rob Schneider.

Just how common is this practice?

You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

Take a look:.“The Birth of a Nation,” 1915: The first movie ever screened inside the White House featured multiple white actors in blackface. One of them, Walter Long, was listed in the credits as “renegade Negro.”

“Broken Blossoms,” 1919: Richard Barthelmess, a white actor, played Cheng Huan. Not a great sign that the alternate title of the movie was “The Yellow Man and the Girl.”. “The Sheik,” 1921: A white actor, Rudolph Valentino, played the eponymous sheik, an Arab character named Ahmed Ben Hassan.


“The Thief of Baghdad,” 1924: Douglas Fairbanks, a white actor, played an Aladdin-like character who was supposedly from, well, Baghdad. Julanne Johnston, a white actress, played a smitten Baghdadi princess.

“The Son of the Sheik,” 1926: Rudolph Valentino reprised his role as the sheik. Vilma Banky, a white Hungarian actress, played the Arab dancer Yasmin.


“The Jazz Singer,” 1927: A white actor, Al Jolson, played the lead role in blackface. Black audiences weren’t necessarily opposed to the portrayal, which they saw as potentially paving the way for (actual) black performers to take leading roles in future movies. The Amsterdam News, the oldest black newspaper in the country, called “The Jazz Singer” “one of the greatest pictures ever produced” and wrote that “[e]very colored performer is proud of” Jolson.


“Charlie Chan Carries On,” 1931: Warner Oland, a white actor, played the Chinese character for the first of seven times. He wore the same goofy mustache every time.


“Swing Time,” 1936: Fred Astaire appeared in blackface in a musical number that most people read as a tribute to, rather than a mockery of, black tap dancer Bill Robinson.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“The Good Earth,” 1937: Every lead actor in this movie, based on Pearl S. Buck’s novel about a family of Chinese farmers, was white.

“Everybody Sing,” 1938: Judy Garland’s character in this musical wasn’t black, but she attempted to join a musical troupe by auditioning in blackface..

“Dragon Seed,” 1944: Katherine Hepburn wore prosthetic eyelids to play Chinese heroine Jade Tan. Hepburn is the most famous white actor in the cast, but certainly not the only one — only children and extras were played by Chinese actors.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“Anna and the King of Siam,” 1946: Rex Harrison, a white British actor, played King Mongkut.


“Fiesta,” 1947: Usually blonde actress Esther Williams played Maria Morales, a Mexican woman who dreams of being a bullfighter.


“Lost Boundaries,” 1949: Mel Ferrer, the son of a Cuban father and American mother, played a light-skinned black doctor who passed as white in an effort to secure a job.

“Winchester ’73,” 1950: Rock Hudson, a white actor of German, Swiss, English and Irish descent, played a Native American character named Young Bull, who delivered the memorable line, “All white men are thieves.” Of movie parts as well as land, apparently.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“Show Boat,” 1951: Ava Gardner played a mixed-race character who was passing as white, making her marriage to a white man both dangerous and illegal. Lena Horne, an actress who was actually mixed-race, was considered for the part but ultimately rejected due to discomfort over interracial love scenes.

“Othello,” 1952: One of literature’s most famous black characters is also one of the most commonly portrayed in blackface. But Orson Welles, who played the title character in this adaptation of the classic play, had the sense to skip the blackface in favor of a “mild bronzing.”


“Apache,” 1954: Just go ahead and guess what kind of character Burt Lancaster played here.

 “Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing,” 1955: Dr. Han Suyin, the mixed-race doctor from China who falls for an American in Hong Kong in this movie, asserts, “I’m Eurasian!” throughout the film. But the actress who played Suyin, Jennifer Jones, was neither European nor Asian; Jones was born in Tulsa, Okla., to American parents.

“The Teahouse of the August Moon,” 1956: Marlon Brando played a Japanese man named Sakini.


“The Conqueror,” 1956: John Wayne played Genghis Khan.


“The Ten Commandments,” 1956: American Charlton Heston and Russian-born actor Yul Brynner, both white, played a Hebrew hero and Egyptian pharaoh, respectively, in the Biblical epic.


“The King and I,” 1956: It was a busy year for Yul Brynner. In addition to playing Ramses II in “The Ten Commandments,” Brynner took a turn as King Mongkut of Siam in what would become a lifelong role for him. (He went on to play Mongkut 4,625 times onstage.)


“Touch of Evil,” 1958: Charlton Heston played a Mexican character in degrees of brownface that varied noticeably throughout the movie.


“Imitation of Life,” 1959: Susan Kohner, a mixed-race actress, won two Golden Globes for her portrayal of Sarah Jane, a mixed-race young woman. So far, so good! But Kohner’s mother was Mexican and her father was Czech; Sarah Jane was supposedly half-black and passing as white.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“West Side Story,” 1961: Natalie Wood played the Puerto Rican Maria.

“Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” 1961: If you can think of an offensive stereotype related to Japanese people, Mickey Rooney probably employed it in his portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi. Yellowface? Check. Buckteeth? Got that too. Outrageous accent? Yup. Rooney defended the part for years, but ultimately made a sort-of apology.

“King of Kings,” 1961: White actor Jeffrey Hunter played Jesus in yet another biblical epic populated almost entirely by white folks playing characters of Middle Eastern descent.

“A Majority of One,” 1961: Alec Guinness, a white British actor, played Japanese businessman Koichi Asano.


“The Outsider,” 1961: Tony Curtis, a white actor of Hungarian descent, played Ira Hamilton Hayes, a Native American soldier creatively nicknamed “Chief.”

“Lawrence of Arabia,” 1962: Repeat offender Alec Guinness played the Arab Prince Faisal.


“Cleopatra,” 1963: Elizabeth Taylor played the last Egyptian pharaoh.


“Hud,” 1963: Patricia Neal, a white actress, won an Oscar for her role as Alma, a sought-after housekeeper who fends off the advances of multiple men. In the book on which the movie was based, “Alma” was “Halmea,” a black woman. The movie’s screenwriter later said, “We would have loved to keep her black for the movie,” but “in those days you simply couldn’t do it.” He admitted it wasn’t “because the talent wasn’t there — there were at least a half-dozen powerhouse black actresses who could have played that role. But the times weren’t ready for it yet.”

“The Face of Fu Manchu,” 1965: Before he was Saruman the White in the Lord of the Rings series, Christopher Lee was “an evil Chinese mastermind” with extravagant facial hair and suspiciously narrowed eyes. The actor would play Fu Manchu in numerous sequels.


“The Greatest Story Ever Told,” 1965: White actor Max von Sydow played Jesus.

You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“Othello,” 1965: Laurence Olivier played the title character in blackface so outrageous that New York Times critic Bosley Crowther was forced to use an exclamation point in his indignant review of the movie.

“Stay Away, Joe,” 1968: Elvis Presley played Joe Lightcloud, a Native American character.

“The Party,” 1968: Peter Sellers, a white British actor, played the main character, an Indian man named Hrundi V. Bakshi, in brownface.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“The Wind and the Lion,” 1975: Sean Connery played Raisuli, a character who was loosely based on the real-life Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni, a sort of Moroccan Robin Hood figure.

“The Year of Living Dangerously,” 1982: Linda Hunt, a white actress, played a male Chinese-Australian dwarf. We don’t know either.

“A Passage to India,” 1984: Alec Guinness (hi again!) played the Indian scholar Narayan Godbole.

“King David,” 1985: Richard Gere played David.

“Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins,” 1985: Joel Gray, a white guy from Cleveland, played Chiun, a Korean martial arts master.

“Delta Force,” 1986: Robert Forster played Abdul.

“Allan Quatermain & the Lost City of Gold,” 1986: Robert Donner, a white actor, played Swarma, a vaguely Asian guru who’s always causing problems. In stills from the movie, Donner appears to be wearing brownface and is doing something goofy with his hands in every single shot.

“Short Circuit,” 1986: White actor Fisher Stevens played Indian engineer Ben Jabituya.

“Short Circuit 2,” 1988: A young Aziz Ansari was delighted when he saw this movie. “An Indian lead character? With a Caucasian love interest? In the 1980s? What’s going on here?” he wondered. Well, brownface. A few years later, Ansari hopped on IMDB and discovered that “the Indian guy was a white guy.” There’s a happy ending, sort of. Ansari tracked Fisher down and talked to him about the role, ultimately concluding that he was a “well-intentioned if slightly misguided young actor who needed a job during a more culturally insensitive time.”

“The Last Temptation of Christ,” 1988: You know the drill. Biblical epic, so we’ve got a white dude (this time Willem Dafoe) playing Jesus.

“Not Without My Daughter,” 1991: British-American actor Alfred Molina played Sayed Bozorg “Moody” Mahmoody, an abusive Iranian character.

“The House of the Spirits,” 1993: Winona Ryder, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave and Glenn Close played Blanca Trueba, Clara del Valle, Nivea del Valle and Ferula Trueba, respectively, in this adaptation of Isabel Allende’s novel. Despite being set in Chile and featuring characters who were supposedly of Latin American origin, the film’s only women of color played a prostitute, a rape victim and a nanny.

“Carlito’s Way,” 1993: Al Pacino played “lisping” Puerto-Rican Carlito.

“Father of the Bride Part II,” 1995: Jewish Canadian actor Eugene Levy played Mr. Habib, an Arab character.

“Starship Troopers,” 1997: White actor Casper Van Dien played Johnny Rico, a now-white character who was of Filipino descent in the book on which the movie was based.

“Mask of Zorro,” 1998: Welsh actor Anthony Hopkins played Spanish hero Zorro (as did Antonio Banderas, who is actually Spanish).

“Big Daddy,” 1999: Rob Schneider, a white actor with a penchant for unfortunate roles in Adam Sandler movies, tackled the role of Middle Eastern delivery guy.

“Pay It Forward,” 2000: Kevin Spacey played social studies teacher Eugene Simonet, who was white in the movie but black (and named Reuben St. Clair) in the book. Rumor has it that Denzel Washington was offered the role of Reuben, but he declined. Obviously the next choice was Kevin Spacey.

“The Human Stain,” 2003: Anthony Hopkins played Coleman Silk, a black professor who passes as white.

“The Passion of the Christ,” 2004: White guy Jim Caviezel played Jesus.

“Memoirs of a Geisha,” 2005: Okay, so this one didn’t involve white people, but it did stir up trouble. Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi, both Chinese actresses, played Japanese characters Mameha and Sayuri, respectively. This infuriated people across Asia: Japanese critics were incensed that Japanese actresses hadn’t been chosen for the parts, and their Chinese counterparts resented seeing Chinese women in geisha roles, particularly given the history of Japanese soldiers kidnapping Chinese women and forcing them into sexual slavery during World War II.

“World Trade Center,” 2006: William Mapother played Marine Sargeant Thomas, one of the men who helped rescue two Port Authority Police Officers from the rubble of the World Trade Center. In real life, Thomas is black; Mapother is white.

Angelina Jolie in “A Mighty Heart” (AP Photo/Paramount Vantage/Peter Mountain)

“A Mighty Heart,” 2007: Angelina Jolie played Mariane Pearl, the wife of kidnapped journalist Daniel Pearl. Pearl is a French-born woman of Afro-Cuban descent; Jolie appeared to darken her skin and alter her hair for the role.

“Stuck,” 2007: Mena Suvari played Brandi Boski, a character clearly based on Chante Mallard, who is black in real life. There might have been some plausible deniability here, if not for the decision to put Suvari’s blonde hair in cornrows.

“30 Days of Night,” 2007: Josh Hartnett played Eben Oleson, a character who was of Inuit descent in the original comic book series.

“I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,” 2007: Rob Schneider appeared as “Asian Minister.”

Mike Myers (center) in “The Love Guru”

 100 times a white actor played someone who wasn't white

“The Love Guru,” 2008: Canadian Mike Myers played the supposedly Indian Guru Pitka (and “Young Pitka,” and “Teenage Pitka” in this comedy. He skipped the brownface but went for an elaborate brown beard. You know who wasn’t miscast in this movie? The Deepak Chopra character, who was played by Deepak Chopra.

“21,” 2008: Virtually every actor in this movie was racially miscast. The nearly all-white cast was composed of Kevin Spacey, Jim Sturgess and Jacob Pitts, among others, but almost everyone involved in the real-life card-counting scheme that inspired the movie was of Asian descent.

“Dragonball: Evolution,” 2009: Justin Chatwin, a white Canadian actor, played main character Goku, who was Japanese in the original manga on which the movie was based

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” 2009: Here’s a head-scratcher: in the early Harry Potter movies, Lavender Brown was a Gryffindor student who appeared onscreen a few times but doesn’t have a huge role. In those early movies, she was played by black British actresses: Kathleen Cauley in “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” and Jennifer Smith in “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” But before Lavender Brown’s part became a speaking role in “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” filmmakers held an open casting call for the part, and they replaced Smith with Jessie Cave, a blonde, British tap-dancer.

“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” 2010: In a widely mocked casting decision, Jake Gyllenhall was tapped to play Dastan, the aforementioned prince.

“The Social Network,” 2010: Max Minghella played Divya Narendra, who was one of the creators of HarvardConnection, a predecessor to Facebook. Minghella is a British actor of Chinese and European descent; Narendra is Indian American.


“Avatar: The Last Airbender,” 2010: In the anime series that inspired this movie, all the characters were Asian or Native American. In the film version, the three primary protagonists had been transformed into white characters — only the villain remained a person of color.


“Drive,” 2011: Carey Mulligan played Irene, who was portrayed as white in the movie but was Hispanic in the original novel. The script initially called for an “Irina,” but the name was changed to “Irene” after Mulligan signed on.


“Day of the Falcoln,” 2011: Spanish swashbuckler Antonio Banderas played Emer Nesib, an Arab character, and white actor Mark Strong played Sultan Amar.


“Argo,” 2012: Ben Affleck played Tony Mendez, an American whose father was Mexican. Some people criticized the casting choice, but Mendez is on the record as saying he doesn’t think of himself as Hispanic and didn’t object to Affleck playing him.

“The Lone Ranger,” 2013: Johnny Depp played Native American sidekick Tonto. Don’t worry though; Depp was adopted into the Comanche Nation the year before the movie was released.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

“Star Trek Into Darkness,” 2013: Benedict Cumberbatch played Khan, a villain of Indian descent.


“Warm Bodies,” 2013: Analeigh Tipton played Nora, who was portrayed as white in the movie but who was half-Ethiopian in the original book.


“Exodus, Gods and Kings,” 2014: Where to begin? In this movie you can find Christian Bale as Moses; Australian Joel Edgerton as Ramses; John Turturro as Seti; Spanish actress Maria Valverde as Zipporah, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and the British Ben Kingsley as Nun. What you are not going to find is anyone from Egypt in a leading role.


“Noah,” 2014: This Biblical epic doesn’t do any better. Top billing goes to actors from New Zealand, the United States, and Britain, including Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins and Emma Watson.


“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” 2014: White actor William Fichtner played Eric Sacks, a villain who’s typically depicted as Japanese; he’ll reprise the role in future movies.


“Aloha,” 2015: Fair-skinned Emma Stone played the lead, who was written as a mixed-race character with a Swedish mother and a half-Chinese, half-Native Hawaiian father.


“The Martian,” 2015: Filmmakers really mixed things up here. Mackenzie Davis, a white actress, played Mindy Park, who was Korean-American in the original novel. And they transformed Venkat Kapoor, who was an Indian man in the novel, into “Vincent,” who was played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, a British actor of Nigerian descent.


“Pan,” 2015: Rooney Mara played the Native American Princess Tiger Lily, to everyone’s chagrin.

“Dr. Strange,” 2016: Tilda Swinton is set to play “The Ancient One,” a male Tibetan mystic.

“Ghost In the Shell,” 2017: Scarlett Johansson has signed on to play Motoko Kusanagi, who is Japanese in the anime series the movie is based on.

100 times a white actor played someone who wasn’t white

100 times a white actor played someone who wasn't white http/

Africa American Family Were Asleep in Car When Cops Arrived and Killed Them Both

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on March 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM Comments comments (0)

Africa American Family Were Asleep in Car When Cops Arrived and Killed Them Both.

Inglewood, CA — On Sunday, police responded to a call of a suspicious vehicle parked on Manchester Boulevard around 3:10 am. When police arrived, they engaged in a 45-minute long standoff before opening fire on the man and woman inside the vehicle, killing them both.


In the news release on Monday, following the shooting, police claimed that the woman in the car had a gun. Scott Collins, a spokesman for the Inglewood Police Department said that the couple refused to obey the officers’ commands to exit the vehicle. The officers then feared for their safety and opened fire on the car — killing the couple.


The woman was pronounced dead shortly after the shooting, and the man succumbed to his injuries after paramedics transported him to a local hospital, according to the LA Times.


The shooting seemed like an open and shut case until the next day. Mayor James Butts, while responding to questions about the shooting, opened up a huge can of worms — both the man and the woman were unconscious.


For at least 45 minutes, police attempted “to rouse” them in an effort “to de-escalate the situation,” said Butts.


After admitting that the couple was asleep, Butts quickly defended the officers, noting, “Obviously at some point they were conscious because somebody felt threatened.”


However, that notion has yet to be proven and is particularly unlikely due to the fact that not a single officer received so much as a scratch, nor did the couple have any reason to be violent.


Both of the victims were parents; Kisha Michael, 31, a single mother of three sons, and Marquintan Sandlin, 32, a single father of four daughters.


Michael’s twin sister Kisha stated the obvious when she said that it’s possible that Kisha merely passed out on the way home from their night out.

Families for both described them as devoted parents who made arrangements for care of their children while they took a night off, according to NBC Los Angeles.

“The police ain’t telling us nothing,” said Trisha Michael after being met with tight lips from the department.

“He was a loving father,” said Sandlin’s sister Leandra Faulkner.  “All he cared about was his girls, getting them right.”

Of course, as is standard procedure for all those killed by police, their arrest records were released to shame them. Michael was on probation for a misdemeanor last year, and 7 years ago, Sandlin was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in Los Angeles.

According to his relatives, Sandlin had a ‘rough life’ but had turned it around and was working as a successful truck driver.

Sadly, these children will now grow up knowing that their parents were taken from them by cops, scared of a sleeping couple.

The world would be better if Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein still in power .Donald Trump

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on February 25, 2016 at 5:10 PM Comments comments (1)

The world would be better if Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein still in power ..Donald Trump

US Republican Party's presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has once again caused a stir by expressing his beliefs that the world would be a better place if Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein still ruled over their countries US Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Donald Trump has a way with words that complements his personality and hairpiece: over-the-top, crass and rather hard to take seriously. Yet that's the strange thing; despite all his corrosive statements about his intentions for his country's immigration policies and his feelings about President Barack Obama, he's become the Republican Party's strongest general election candidate.It is with all this in mind that we were surprised when, in a CNN interview, he reckoned that Libya, Iraq and by extension's the world would be better places had Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein not been ousted from their positions of power. I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists. He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now it's the Harvard of terrorism.

Trump said. ?If you look at Iraq from years ago, I am not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on. When asked what he thinks about the human rights abuses that transpired under the rule of the controversial leaders, he contended that those abuses were not as bad as the horrors that are happening there right now. Pretty sensible reasoning for a guy who claimed, according to Kenya's Politica platform, that's Africans are only good at eating, lovemaking and stealing.

Akinwande, Nigerian professor who will receive America's highest research award

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on February 24, 2016 at 9:20 AM Comments comments (0)


Akinwande, Nigerian professor who will receive America’s highest research award


Deji Akinwande, a professor at the University of Texas Austin, is one Nigerian scaling hurdles, pushing boundaries and breaking stereotypes. Akinwande has been identified by President Barack Obama, as one of the recipients of the highest honour bestowed by the US government for science and engineering professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers.

Alongside 104 researchers, he will receive the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers in Washington DC later in the year. These early-career scientists are leading the way in our efforts to confront and understand challenges from climate change to our health and wellness, Obama said while announcing the winners. We congratulate these accomplished individuals and encourage them to continue to serve as an example of the incredible promise and ingenuity of the American people.


Akinwande is an associate professor in electrical and computer engineering and the Jack Kilby/Texas instruments endowed faculty fellow in computer engineering in the Cockrell school of engineering at the university of Texas at Austin. EDUCATION Akinwande graduated from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, bagging a double degree (B.S/M.S) in electrical engineering and applied physics. His master's research in applied physics pioneered the design and development of near-field microwave probe tips for non-destructive imaging and studies of materials. He had his PhD degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 2009, conducting research on the synthesis, device physics, and circuit applications of carbon nanotubes and graphene. INVENTION According to Akinwande Nano Research Group, the professor is known for his groundbreaking research on nanomaterials, sensors, devices and flexible technology. He is considered one of the top researchers in the world in the areas of graphene, silicon electronics and 2-D nanomaterials for use in flexible electronics. In 2015, Akinwande created the first transistor out of silicene the worlds thinnest silicon material and he is continuing to advance the capabilities of computer chips and other electronics.

Schematics of Akinwandes invention He is a co-inventor of a high-frequency chip-to-chip interconnect and an electrically small antenna for bio-electronics. HONOURS AND AWARDS Prior to his presidential award listing, Akinwande has been known as a man of many caps, working with US department of Defence in taking academic quantum leaps. He has the following honours and awards to his name: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Nanotechnology Early Career Award, 2015 Engineering School Nominee for Texas System Regents Outstanding Teaching Award, 2015 TI/Jack Kilby Endowed Faculty Fellowship, 2013-present IEEE Senior Member, 2013 IEEE NANO Geim and Novoselov (Inaugural) Graphene Prize 2012 NSF Faculty CAREER Award 2012 DTRA Young Investigator Award 2012 3M Nontenured Faculty Award 2012 Army Research Office Young Investigator Award 2011 Office of Naval Research Grant Award 2010 Stanford Future-Faculty DARE Fellow, 2008-2010 (12 fellows selected out of 110 senior Ph.D Candidates from all the Schools at Stanford University) Ford Foundation Fellow, 2006-2009 (60 fellows out of over 1000 applicants) Alfred P. Sloan Scholar, 2006-2008 (Selected Stanford Ph.D Candidate) Design Award for outstanding Low-Noise

Johnson & Johnson to pay $72m in case linking baby powder to ovarian cancer

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on February 24, 2016 at 9:05 AM Comments comments (0)

Johnson & Johnson to pay $72m in case linking baby powder to ovarian cancer. Jury in Missouri orders pharmaceutical company to pay damages to family of deceased woman who claimed talcum powder caused her cancer.A Missouri jury has awarded $72m to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer, which she said was caused by using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and other products containing talcum.


The civil suit by Jackie Fox of Birmingham, Alabama, was part of a broader claim in the city of St. Louis circuit court involving nearly 60 people. Her son took over as plaintiff following his mother’s October 2015 death at 62, more than two years after her diagnosis.


Marvin Salter of Jacksonville, Florida, said his late mother, who was a foster parent, used the brand of talcum powder as a bathroom staple for decades. “It just became second nature, like brushing your teeth,” he said. “It’s a household name.”

An attorney for Fox said the jury verdict Monday night, which came after nearly five hours of deliberations at the conclusion of a three-week trial, was the first such case among more than 1,000 nationally to result in a jury’s monetary award.


The jury said that Fox was entitled to $10m in actual damages and $62m in punitive damages. Attorney James Onder said he “absolutely” expects Johnson & Johnson – the world’s biggest maker of healthcare products – to appeal the verdict.


The New Jersey-based company previously has been targeted by health and consumer groups over possibly harmful ingredients in items including in its Johnson’s No More Tears baby shampoo.


In May 2009, a coalition of groups called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pushing Johnson & Johnson to eliminate questionable ingredients from its baby and adult personal care products. After three years of petitions, negative publicity and a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate the ingredients 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable human carcinogens, from all products by 2015.


Spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said that the company was considering its next legal move. In a written statement, she said the verdict “goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products,” citing supportive research by the US Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute.


In the trial, Fox’s attorneys introduced into evidence a September 1997 internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson medical consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies [the] risks” between “hygenic” talc use and ovarian cancer would be publicly perceived in the same light as those who denied a link between smoking cigarettes and cancer: “Denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.”

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral, mined from the soil and composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It is widely used in cosmetics and personal care products, such as talcum powder, to absorb moisture, prevent caking and improve the product’s feel.


Nora Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor not involved in the Missouri case, said it was unlikely the $72m award would survive, noting that the US Supreme Court, in a recent series of rulings, has maintained that appeal courts clamp down on punitive damages.


“Big jury verdicts do tend to be reined in during the course of the appellate process, and I expect that to be the case here,” she told Associated Press.


Monday’s verdict “doesn’t bode well for Johnson & Johnson” as it faces at least 1,200 still-pending lawsuits and possibly thousands more, she said.


“This case clearly was a bellwether, and clearly the jury has seen the evidence and found it compelling,” she said, concluding “the jury was distressed by the company’s conduct”.

Former Black Panther freed after 43 years in US prison

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on February 20, 2016 at 6:40 PM Comments comments (0)

Former Black Panther freed 20 febrary 2016 after 43 years in US prison .Albert Woodfox spent decades in solitary confinement but walked free after his murder conviction was overturned. An US man kept in solitary confinement for 43 years has been released after his murder conviction was overturned on appeal.


Albert Woodfox was convicted twice for killing a prison guard in 1972 but a judge ordered his release last summer.


The former Black Panther was kept behind bars by a federal appeals court as the state of Louisiana, where he was imprisoned, lodged a challenge against his release.


His release on Friday came after the state dropped the threat of a third murder charge in exchange for Woodfox pleading no contest to lesser charges.


'Cruel and inhumane'


"Although I was looking forward to proving my innocence at a new trial, concerns about my health and my age have caused me to resolve this case now and obtain my release," Woodfox said in a statement after he was freed.


Woodfox's supporters have insisted his imprisonment and detention in solitary confinement were politically motivated.


His legal team has called on authorities to end the use of solitary confinement as a punishment, describing the practice as "cruel and inhumane".


The activist was one of three men known as the "Angola Three", alongside Robert King and Herman Wallace, who supporters say were kept in isolation because they fought for better prison conditions.


King was released in 2001 after his conviction was overturned and Wallace died in 2013 just two days after his release.

The Angola Three of the Black Panther Party were kept in solitary confinement for decades. [AP (Archive)]

Meanwhile, Barack Obama used his executive powers to ban solitary confinement for juveniles in all federal prisons. He has also commissioned a review into the use of solitary confinement in the US.


"If our ultimate goal of our criminal justice system is to give people a second chance, after they've paid their debt to society, we're basically setting them up to fail if we don't take seriously the long-term negative consequences of prolonged solitary confinement," President Barack Obama's spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.


"The kind of reforms that the president put forward are the kind of reforms that can only be implemented in the federal prison system," he said.


His two fellow Angola Three allies were already freed. Robert King, who spent 29 years in solitary was released after having his separate conviction overturned, Herman Wallace was released in 2013 and died shortly after of cancer.


Yet many of the 80,000 people estimated to be in solitary confinement in US prisons have been there for years on end.


"Today should also mark a pivotal new chapter in reforming the use of prolonged solitary confinement in US prisons and jails," said Jasmine Heiss, a campaigner with Amnesty International USA.


"Moving forward, Woodfox's case must serve as a tragic reminder of the cruelty inflicted by the prison system at its most extreme."



You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.


Mugabe Takes a Swipe At UN , whites And Obama

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on January 31, 2016 at 5:00 AM Comments comments (0)

Mugabe Takes a Swipe At UN , whites And Obama .January 30th, 2016 | Updated

ADDIS ABABA – Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe received a standing ovation from his peers at the African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Saturday as he handed over the chair of the body with a rousing speech, filled with more than his usual invective against former colonisers, imperialists, westerners, US President Barack Obama, the United Nations and whites.UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon squirmed in his seat on the podium when the 91-year-old Mugabe – still feisty despite the annual eruption of rumours about his death this month – threatened that Africa would walk out of the UN unless it was given permanent representation on the UN Security Council.

“We have asked and asked and asked for Security Council reform,” he said, adding that Africans were tired of making “hollow speeches” at the UN with no results.

He said Africans were not real members of the UN — only those with white skins were members — and if they decided one day “down with the UN” they would walk out of it.“If the UN is to survive, we [Africa] must be equal members of it,” he said to loud applause.

“You’re a good man, Mr Ban Ki-moon, but we can’t make you a fighter. That’s not what your mission was. But we shall fight for our own identity and personality as Africans.”

He told Ban to tell the UN that Africans “are also human, not ghosts. Tell them, that we also belong to the world.”

The UN’s headquarters should not be in New York but in a more populous country, such as China or India, or in Africa, Mugabe said.

Yet Africans and others were placed there [New York] with the “white faces and pink noses next to us – yet how many are they compared with us?”

But Mugabe also thanked Ban for working with Africa in fighting Ebola and helping to fight terrorism and in other crises.

He suggested Obama was a puppet of whites. After berating whites for “dragging Africans across the ocean” as slaves, he said those blacks might now seem free – particularly Obama.

“But what is he? A voice made to speak their language, to act their act and not our act. They are still superior.”

Mugabe said that in America black people were still inferior, living in places such as Harlem in New York where education and healthcare were inferior.

Black people were shot in the streets “and nobody seems to talk about it, but today instead they still want to talk about us”.

Even after colonialism, the former colonisers were still everywhere in Africa, “if not physically then through NGOs”, a comment that drew much applause.

He said colonisers were also on the continent as “spies, pretenders, some say they are here in Africa to assist us, even in armed groups in our territories” effecting regime change.

At the end of his speech, which was scheduled to last 10 minutes but continued for close to an hour Mugabe handed over the AU chairmanship to Chad’s President Idriss Deby, giving him a mock bang on the head with the chairperson’s gavel as he did so.

He assured Deby that he would still be around if he wanted to call on him. “I will still be there – until God says, ‘Come to join the other angels’,” he said to loud laughter.

Mugabe raised his fist twice in a black power salute when he returned to his seat.

South African President Jacob Zuma seemed uneasy about the standing ovation, rising to his feet slowly and only after nearly everyone else had.

Nigeria's Comic Republic creates African superheroes

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on January 7, 2016 at 4:45 AM Comments comments (0)

Nigeria’s Comic Republic creates African superheroes

Comic Republic, a Nigerian comics startup is creating African superheroes for Africans and black readers around the world. The startup says it believes “in the power of story telling” and aims to put Africa’s best foot forward in comics and entertainment

Comic Republic, a Nigerian comics startup based in Lagos, is creating a universe of superheroes for Africans and black readers around the world. The cast of characters—”Africa’s Avengers” according to some fans—ranges from Guardian Prime, a 25-year old Nigerian fashion designer by day who uses his extraordinary strength to fight for a better Nigeria, to Hilda Avonomemi Moses, a woman from a remote village in Edo state who can see spirits, and Marcus Chigozie, a privileged but angry teenager who can move at supersonic speeds.

“I thought about when I was young and what I used to make my decisions on: What would Superman do, what would Batman do? I thought, why not African superheroes?” Chief executive Jide Martin, who founded the company in 2013, told Quartz. Its tagline is, “We can all be heroes.”

The startup may be a sign that comics are having a moment on the continent as well as in a market once said to lack interest in African-inspired characters. The nine-person team has seen downloads of its issues, published online and available for free, grow from a couple hundred in 2013 to 25,000 in its latest release last month as the series has become more popular. Comic Republic plans to make money from sponsorships and advertisers.

So far, companies have asked Comic Republic to create comics for their products and NGOs have asked for help illustrating public health risks like malaria. The head of one of the country’s largest e-commerce outfits, has asked for a portrait of himself rendered as a superhero. The story of one the characters, Aje—Yoruba for “witch”—may be made into a movie by a local filmmaker. Another edition of Guardian Prime’s story is scheduled for this month.

The startup is part of what some say is a renaissance of made-in-Africa music, literature, and art that resonate beyond the continent. Over half of Comic Republic’s downloads are from readers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and a scattering are from other countries like Brazil and the Philippines. About 30% come from Nigeria, according to Martin. Lagos now hosts an annual Comic Con for the comic and entertainment industry. Kenya hosted one for the first time in 2015.

The comic book industry has potential in Africa in part because of the popularity of superhero-themed films, Martin points out. His company launched with Guardian Prime, “a black Superman,” he says, on the same day as the 2013 premiere of Man of Steel.

Other African characters have already emerged. A popular South African comic, Kwezi, or “star” in Xhosa and Zulu, created by designer and artist Loyiso Mkize, follows a teenage superhero in Gold City, a metropolis imagined after Johannesburg. The comic, which features plenty of local slang and cultural references, is a “a coming of age story about finding one’s heritage,” according to Mkize. Nigerian animator Roye Okupe’s graphic novel, E.X.O: The Legend of Wale Williams released in August, is meant to “put Africa on the map when it comes to telling superhero stories,” according to Okupe.

Comic Republic’s universe of heroes differs from its Western peers in other ways. Of the nine characters created by Comic Republic, four are women, which Martin believes is a reflection of the fact that women are active in politics and business circles. “Today’s Nigeria, we’re very indifferent to whether someone is a man or woman. I wouldn’t say there was any strategic decision. It’s just a way of life for us,” he said.

Beyond battling evil and saving the day, the comics are meant to show how individuals can come together to provide for a “better safer Africa,” chief operations officer, Tobe Ezeogu said in November.

That message appears to be getting across to some readers. One fan wrote on Comic Republic’s Facebook wall of its flagship character, Guardian Prime, “My favorite quote [by him]: ‘All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing. I won’t stand by. I am Nigerian.’ I’m not Nigerian, but heroes are going to help the youth and stimulate patriotism.”

Source: Quartz Africa

Adolf Hitler is Donald Trump grandfather . Mugabe puts Trump in his position

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on January 5, 2016 at 4:00 AM Comments comments (0)

“Adolf Hitler is Donald Trump’s grandfather” – Mugabe puts Trump in his position

HARARE, ZIMBABWE. Barely a week after American tycoon and Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump threatened to arrest and imprison Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his Zimbabwean counterpart Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean President has firmly responded.

Speaking yesterday in a fundraising in Harare where he was chief guest, Mugabe said that Hitler and Trump have everything in common from blood to character and that they are grandfather and grandson.

The furious Zimbabwean President reiterated that Trump took after his grandfather Hitler because the reckless words he utters confirms the same.

“Recently that madman that wants to be American President said he’ll arrest some African Presidents including my brother Yoweri and myself and lock us in his imaginary prison should he become American President”

“May I state here that that Trump will never take us anywhere because we Africans are the strongest and fearless in the universe. I wish everyone to Know that I have nothing to fear and I want to tell the world that that Hitler’s descendant (Trump) has taken after him and he is about to do his worst should the people of America make a mistake of electing him” Said President Mugabe.

Just like his grandfather Hitler caused World War II, and he wants to create World War III so as to leave behind a legacy but the world will not allow that. How do you even start imagining that you are going to arrest a man like myself? Is that Trump’s head okay? And, are there enough doctors in America to check this man’s psychiatric condition? Added Mr. Mugabe furiously.

“I will lock Mugabe and Museveni in prison if I become President” – Donald Trump VOWS

Washington DC, US business mogul Donald Trump has put Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and Ugandan President , on notice, vowing to deal with them ruthlessly when he ascends to Presidency.

Speaking while addressing war veterans in Washington, Trump warned other like minded dictators who want to die in power, that their time is up and its just a matter of time before they face justice.

“I want to reiterate here before America’s greatest heroes that I will not condone any dictatorial tendencies exhibited by dictators around the world especially the two old men from Zimbabwe and Uganda”

Mugabe and Museveni must be put on notice that their days are numbered and that I am going to arrest them and lock them in prison. If the past American administrations have failed to stop these two despots, I will personally do it”

Mugabe and Museveni have given the world enough troubles and its about time someone puts to an end all these madness for peace to prevail” Sid Trump who seemed unapologetic.

If Obama fears them, I will never fear them. If clinton and Bush feared them, If the Pope kneels before them, I will never be reduced to that level. I will never be cowed. I promise to clean all the political mess around the world and promote international justice” Added Trump arrogantly.

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, Author Of The Isis Papers, Dead At 80

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on January 2, 2016 at 5:50 PM Comments comments (0)

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing died at 5:50 am, Sat., Jan. 2, from a stroke she suffered

Frances Cress Welsing, the Black author and psychiatrist whose 1991 work The Isis Papers; The Keys to the Colors introduced the world to the “melanin theory” and the “neuroses” of white supremacy, has died.She was 80-years-old.Welsing, a Chicago native and graduate of Howard University‘s College of Medicine, often explored the origins of White supremacy in her works, arguing that White people developed an aggressive manifestation to dominate society due to a biological mutation. Her research, while controversial, focused on White racism while offering the theory of Black superiority based on heightened levels of melanin.


In her 1970 essay The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy), Welsing wrote that “the quality of whiteness is a genetic inadequacy or a relative deficiency or disease based upon the inability to produce the skin pigments of melanin which are responsible for all skin color.”


“Acutely aware of their inferior genetic ability to produce skin color, whites built the elaborate myth of white genetic superiority. Furthermore, whites set about the huge task of evolving a social, political and economic structure that would support the myth of the inferiority of Blacks and other non-whites,” she wrote.


While her intellectual work has garnered praise from the Black community, her stance on homosexuality has been criticized. In the 1980’s Welsing wrote that homosexuality was a “white-imposed” attempt to discourage reproduction in Black families.


Hip-hop journalist and activist Harry Allen took to Twitter to send his condolences, reporting that Welsing died from a stroke she suffered earlier this week.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

Psychological Slavery by Francis Cress Welsing.


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

Ousted Burkina Faso President, Blaise Compaore Charged in Thomas Sankara Killing

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on December 22, 2015 at 6:45 PM Comments comments (0)

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP that Compaore, who is living in exile in the Ivory Coast, had been charged with an “attack” and “assassination”.

 Compaore was toppled from power by a popular uprising in October 2014 after ruling Burkina Faso with an iron fist for 27 years.

 Sankara, a revolutionary figure who is still a hero to many in west Africa, was killed on October 15, 1987 during the coup that brought his friend and former comrade-in-arms Compaore to power.

 A police lab helping investigate the killing of the iconic former president on Monday said it had not managed to detect any of his DNA in the remains presumed to be his, according to a family lawyer.

 Remains believed to be those of Sankara and 12 former aides also killed during the coup were exhumed from a cemetery in the capital Ouagadougou in May.

At least five other people, mostly former soldiers, have been charged in connection with Sankara’s killing — including General Gilbert Diendere, Compaore’s former chief of staff, who led a failed coup in September.

Burkina Faso has issued an international arrest warrant for ousted leader Blaise Compaore in connection with the murder of former President Thomas Sankara, news reports said on Monday.

Sankara, a revolutionary figure who is still a hero to many in West Africa, was killed on October 15, 1987, during the coup that brought his friend and former comrade-in-arms Compaore to power.

"I confirm that an international arrest warrant was issued against [ex-]President Blaise Compaore by the investigating judge," Prosper Farama, a lawyer for Sankara's family, told Reuters news agency.

Compaore himself was driven from power last October by crowds opposing his bid to change the West African country's constitution and extend his 27-year rule. He fled to neighbouring Ivory Coast, where he is now thought to be based.

At least five other people, mostly former soldiers, have been charged in connection with Sankara's killing - including General Gilbert Diendere, Compaore's former chief-of-staff, who led a failed coup in September.

Sankara took power in a coup in 1983 and pursued a philosophy of Marxism and pan-Africanism that led him to be called "Africa's Che Guevara".

 West Africa haunted

Sankara's murder is one of the most high-profile killings in Africa's post-independence history and criminal charges could represent a breakthrough in a case that has haunted the West African country for decades.

Meanwhile on Monday, a police lab helping to investigate Sankara's killing said it could not find any "detectable DNA" in remains presumed to be his, another family lawyer said.

Nearly three decades after his death, remains believed to be those of Sankara and 12 former aides were exhumed from a cemetery in the capital, Ouagadougou, in May.

"There is no detectable DNA in accordance with the current state of science," said Benewende Stanislas Sankara, one of the lawyers representing Sankara's family and who is no relation.

"We can simply say that in view of these results, the state of the remains did not permit the laboratory to certify the existence of DNA," the lawyer said.

A police lab in the southern French city of Marseilles performed the testing.

Sankara's death certificate stated that the 37-year-old former army captain died of "natural causes".

According to autopsy results released in October, the leader's supposed remains were "riddled with bullets".

Several reports have since suggested that he was executed by a hit squad at government headquarters.

Brussels cancels homage to Leopold II amid protest

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on December 22, 2015 at 6:05 PM Comments comments (0)

The City of Brussels has cancelled plans to hold an homage to King Leopold II on Thursday evening in front of the statue of the former Belgian king. Protest against the event was at the heart of the decision to cancel, due to the dubious role the king played in the colonial history of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).


According to Brussels alderman Geoffroy Coomans de Brachène, the event was considered a “bad idea” by a number of organisations, even though the purpose of the meeting was to highlight the "important urban accomplishments" of Leopold II in Brussels, writes


The city has since cancelled the homage that was to be held tomorrow in front of the equestrian statue at Place du Trône. The accompanying conference at City Hall, however, will go ahead as planned, to commemorate 150 years since Belgium's second king took the throne.


The homage has drawn a lot of criticism from the public, human rights organisations and politicians. Brussels MP Bruno De Lille called the event "morally reprehensible", and likened it to "laughing at the suffering of the genocide victims and their families."


While King Leopold II may well have left a significant mark on the urban landscape in Brussels, including the Justice Palace and Park Cinquantenaire, he is better known as the man responsible for the brutal regime of the Congo Free State at the end of the 19th century, one of the most exploitative colonial regimes in modern history, which cost as many as 10 million lives.

Letter from one of the most evil King Leopold II of Belgium to Colonial Missionaries, 1883

Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots:

The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate

and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelize, but your evangelization must inspire

above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach

the niggers to know God, this they know already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi,

one Nzakomba, and what else I don't know. They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else's

wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they

know already. Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which

means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in

that part of the world. For these things, you have to keep watch on disinteresting our savages from

the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make

you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you.

Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your

followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and, “It's

very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You have to detach from them and make

them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us. I make reference to their Mystic

System and their war fetish – warfare protection – which they pretend not to want to abandon, and

you must do everything in your power to make it disappear.


Your action will be directed essentially to the younger ones, for they won't revolt when the

recommendation of the priest is contradictory to their parent's teachings. The children have to learn

to obey what the missionary recommends, who is the father of their soul. You must singularly insist

on their total submission and obedience, avoid developing the spirit in the schools, teach students to

read and not to reason. There, dear patriots, are some of the principles that you must apply. You will

find many other books, which will be given to you at the end of this conference. Evangelize the

niggers so that they stay forever in submission to the white colonialists, so they never revolt against

the restraints they are undergoing. Recite every day – “Happy are those who are weeping because

the kingdom of God is for them.”

Letter from King Leopold II of Belgium to Colonial Missionaries, 1883 2

Convert always the blacks by using the whip. Keep their women in nine months of

submission to work freely for us. Force them to pay you in sign of recognition-goats, chicken or

eggs-every time you visit their villages. And make sure that niggers never become rich. Sing every

day that it's impossible for the rich to enter heaven. Make them pay tax each week at Sunday mass.

Use the money supposed for the poor, to build flourishing business centres. Institute a confessional

system, which allows you to be good detectives denouncing any black that has a different

consciousness contrary to that of the decision-maker. Teach the niggers to forget their heroes and to

adore only ours. Never present a chair to a black that comes to visit you. Don't give him more than

one cigarette. Never invite him for dinner even if he gives you a chicken every time you arrive at

his house.

“The above speech which shows the real intention of the Christian missionary journey in

Africa was exposed to the world by Mr. Moukouani Muikwani Bukoko, born in the Congo in 1915,

and who in 1935 while working in the Congo, bought a second hand Bible from a Belgian priest

who forgot the speech in the Bible. – Dr. Chiedozie Okoro

Mexico Combats Racism Against Blacks, Recognizes Afro-Mexicans in New Census.

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on December 22, 2015 at 7:15 AM Comments comments (0)

 Mexico Combats Racism Against Blacks, Recognizes Afro-Mexicans in New Census.

Afro-Mexicans are finally getting their due recognition in the newest edition of Mexico’s census.

Mexico Negro, a pro-Black Mexican group, won a campaign to have Afro-Mexicans listed as an identity option in the national census that was released on Dec. 8.

The country has about 1.38 million people of African descent, making up approximately 1.2 percent of its population. This is the first time in Mexican history that Blacks can fully identify themselves on the census report, a significant move towards equality in a country that has historically tried to erase blackness from its national legacy since the Mexican Revolution in 1910.

For almost a century, the term “mestizage” has been exclusively used to recognize interracial lineage from colonizers mixed with indigenous people—simultaneously ignoring Mexico’s history and descendants of African slaves.

Getting Black people to be recognized on the census has been a battle forged by Mexico Negro for the past 15 years. The organization points out that having Black people accurately represented on the country’s census combats the anti-black/structural racism that is pervasive throughout Latin America.

Based on your culture, history and traditions, do you consider yourself black, meaning Afro-Mexican or Afro-descendant?

- Mexico's 2015 intercensal survey

The inclusion of that question was initially considered a delicate matter. Cervera said that using the word negro (black) on the questionnaires was viewed by some as a touchy issue, since many researchers considered it a pejorative term. But that turned out to be mostly an academic concern; those who were surveyed didn’t object to the word and appreciated being able to identify as “Afro-Mexican,” he said.

“These groups want to count statistically, so they can solicit government or institutional support,” Cervera said.

One of the main takeaways from the first data set is that Mexico’s self-identified black population doesn’t appear to be trailing the rest of the population in terms of access to education or health services—something that Cervera says he was “pleasantly surprised” to find out. In general terms, Mexico’s black population seems to have better access to public services, education and work opportunities than the indigenous population, he said.

In any event, all Mexicans would be better served from stronger public policies and improved quality of life. And accurate census data is a first step towards diagnosing the problems facing different communities.

“We celebrate this inclusion,” said Benigno Gallardo, an Afro-Mexican activist based in the southern state of Guerrero. But he says much needs to be done to achieve full recognition. “In school they teach our children about Europeans and indigenous natives, but the history books practically don’t recognize our history.”

It’s a history that’s deeply woven into Mexico’s colonial past.

Some claim the first black people arrived with the Spanish conquistadors. After the fall of the Aztec Empire and the establishment of a Viceroyalty in what is today Mexico City, Spanish rulers began importing slaves from Africa to replace indigenous slaves who died from disease and epidemic. Soon the term “mulato” was coined to describe mixed-race generations of black people and white Europeans.

Under colonial rule, Mexican society was divided into a system of castes where different groups were ranked according to the ruling elite’s perception of “blood purity,” with the white Spanish at the top and mulatos and other mixed races at the bottom.

In the early 1800s, the country’s independence movement abolished slavery and many freed black Mexicans joined the insurgent forces against the Spanish. Subsequent generations settled in the Gulf of Mexico and in the south of the country, mainly in a region known as Costa Chica, which today is largely populated by Afro-Mexicans.

In recent years, the black Mexican population has become more visible, also in the United States. Interracial mixing between African Americans and some Latinos in South Los Angeles has even led to the term “Blaxican.”

Before Columbus..How Africans Brought Civilization to America Continent.

The Olmec civilization, which was of African origin and dominated by Africans, was the first significant civilization in Mesoamerica and the Mother Culture of Mexico.

Olmecs are perhaps best known for the carved colossal heads found in Central Mexico, that exhibit an unmistakably African Negroid appearance. Ancient African historian Professor Van Sertima has illustrated how Olmecs were the first Mesoamerican civilization to use a written language, sophisticated astronomy, arts and mathematics and they built the first cities in Mexico, all of which greatly influenced the Mayans and subsequent civilizations in the Americas. “There is not the slightest doubt that all later civilizations in [Mexico and Central America], rest ultimately on an Olmec base,” once remarked Michael Coe, a leading historian on Mexico.

Africans clearly played an intricate role in the Olmec Empire’s rise and that African influence peaked during the same period that ancient Black Egyptian culture ascended in Africa."--Before Columbus: How Africans Brought Civilization to America

In October every second week on Monday, Columbus Day is celebrated in western culture in general and in the America's specifically. This is an American tradition and school children of all ages are taught about his so-called discovery of his New-World. Annual parades are given around the country, and every year dignitaries participate in these festivities.

Unfortunately, most people celebrate his holiday without knowing the truth about Columbus's purpose for taking such risky voyages, and his horrendous behavior against the indigenous population, together with brutality against his own men.

At the other end of the spectrum, Columbus's impact has been most devastating on the indigenous people together with African communities everywhere. For a better understanding, three historical events before Columbus's four voyages are presented, along with the reasons for these voyages.

President Buhari tells Commonwealth that Gaddafi Demise Has Esclated Terrorism in Africa.

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on December 20, 2015 at 6:45 PM Comments comments (0)

Buhari tells Commonwealth that Gaddafi’s Demise Has Esclated Terrorism in Africa.

“The rise of terrorism in Africa is as a result of the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya,”said Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari.

Muammar Gaddafi, the former dictator of Libya, ruled the North African country for 42 years before his death in 2011. He created relative peace in the Sahel region of Africa and kept Islamic extremism to a minimum. In the midst of all the conflicts that happened in that region during his time, Gaddafi was said to have brokered peace in about 90 percent of them according to Dr. Segun Bolarinwa, a senior researcher at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs. Bolarinwa says that this was possible because Gadaffi had an efficient army, “apart from training his own Libyan Soldiers in countries like Russia and North Korea, he also recruited men from tribes in the Sahel region, who knew the terrain. One these tribes- the Tuareg, are a minority group of social misfits mainly from the Northern part of Mali.”

The Tuaregs, also referred to as the “Kurds of Africa” did not join Gaddafi because of his ideologies, rather they joined because of Libya’s oil money. And when Gaddafi was killed by NATO-supported freedom fighters in 2011, the Tuaregs disbanded along with the rest of Gaddafi’s army, all armed with ammunition and money from Gaddafi’s reserves. While some of Gaddafi’s army followed his family, in particular his son Saad Gaddafi, to Niger seeking assylum, some of them followed the Tuareg soldiers to Mali. There they joined with the Tuareg rebels already there.

There in Mali, they found a new cause to fight for. “Gaddafi’s men helped aggravate the Tuareg conflict in Northern Mali. The Tuareg had been complaining of marginalization and wanted their own state, Azawad state. The state would be free from the control of the Malian Government in Bamako. The Libyan Soldiers, idle, loaded and on the prowl, hijacked the Tuareg cause, and made it theirs” Dr. Bolarinwa said. This new coalition, along with Al-Qaeda groups present in the area, fought with the Malian government in 2012, although they didn’t prevail. However, some of the members of the coalition, especially the Al-Qaeda associated groups started carrying out bombings and Guerrilla warfare in Mali, culminating in the attack on an hotel in Mali last week.

Boko Haram, has also met with some of the former soldier’s in Gaddafi’s army. According to Dr. Bolarinwa “some of these scattered soldiers also hid in Chad, where they met Shekau. They are the ones who supplied Shekau with ammunition for his insurgency in Nigeria.” In January BBC also reported that Boko Haram received most of their weapons from Gaddafi’s arm depots. Buhari is on the mark in terms of the rise of terrorism in Africa, especially in the Sahel region of Africa.

The promise of democracy after Gaddafi’s death has now been hijacked by jihadists militants and different armed militias. Libyans are living now under harsher conditions.

Dr. Bolarinwa supports President Buhari’s statement at the meeting and his call for support from the West in the fight against terrorism in Africa. “What he said was correct. Buhari is talking from experience as a soldier himself. The UN and the Commonwealth should combine powers and stop this trend, or else it could spread to other sub-Saharan countries” he said. Buhari’s statement also supports U.S. President Barack Obama’s hesitation to put soldiers on ground to combat The Islamic State. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan show that you can’t destroy a country to rebuild without the support and desire of local stakeholders.


Ile-Ife Existed Before Birth Of Jesus Christ Late Ooni Of Ile Ife.Taboo As New Ooni Kneel down To White Jesus Pastors

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on December 20, 2015 at 7:35 AM Comments comments (2)

Ile-Ife existed before birth of Jesus Christ, Oyo town – Ooni of Ife....December 15, 2013

Ile-Ife Existed Before Birth Of Jesus Christ–Late Ooni Of Ile Ife.Taboo As New Ooni Knee down To White Jesus Pastors

Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade said yesterday in Ibadan that Ile-Ife had been in existed over 10,000 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, and even before Oyo town, warning people against distortion of history.

Sijuwade made this fact known while delivering his goodwill message at the Lead City University where he was given an honorary Doctor of Public Administration award along with three others.

He furthered: “Ile- ife was created 10,000 years before the birth of Christ.Then how can anyone say it has existed before Ile-Ife. This is distortion of history and it should be stopped. We all belong to Ile-Ife and it will remain forever until God decides otherwise and by that time, none of us here will be around.”

To those who are supporting the Ooni of Ife, this is how the idea of divine right of kings works:

In the Yorubaland, Olodumare is the mythological father, and the Ooni Adimula is his vicar on earth.

In Ancient Egypt, Ausar (i.e. Osiris) was the mythological father. The SUN, personified by Heru (I.e. Horus), was Ausar's visible manifestation on earth, and the pharaoh was Ausar's vicar on earth.

In Ptolemaic Egypt, Serapis (i.e. Osiris + Apis bull) was the mythological father, and the Ptolemaic pharaoh was his vicar on earth.

In the Roman system, Jesus (i.e. an adaptation of Serapis) was the mythological father. He was also his own visible manifestation on earth as the SUN, personified as the SON, and the Pope is his vicar on earth.

The Anglican system is the same as the Roman system except that the Queen is the vicar of Christ on earth.

In conclusion, the doctrine of divine right of kings is relative to one's environment and culture. The Ooni of Ife is the Adimula Igbakeji Orisa n'la. The Ooni is not the Igbakeji of Oyinbo Jesus, for Oyinbo Jesus and Olodumare are not synonymous at all.

It's Oba Ogunwusi's prerogative to praise and worship whoever he wants but not in his capacity as the Ooni of Ife, the Arole Oduduwa.

We call upon all the Yoruba kingmakers to desist from enthroning intellectual infants as Obas. By Ifa Dare.

Religion will prefers mankind to remain ignorance and unintelligent through the weapon of myth... etc for ever.

The White Race Prostituted our Culture and Tradition, Fornicated our Ethics and Raped our Ancestral shrines.

Proliferating their psychedelic and adulterated beliefs thereof relegating our salubrious custom to a referendum etc. How could they have suddenly turn around and give us Something Good....??

A religion they don't even believe in (Christian). A Strategic Imperialistic Hegemony!!! A king Does not teaches a subject to become a king, instead he teaches him how to remain a submissive subject and give birth to a submissive Race.. The white man has always seen us as Slaves!!!mishandle and misremember our cognitive wits! And his ideas about us and wishes for us is all about Merchandise ...........NOW IGNORANCE BECOME OUR MASTER

Letter from one of the most evil King Leopold II of Belgium to Colonial Missionaries, 1883

Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots:

Convert always the Blacks by using the whip. Keep their women in nine months of submission to work freely for us. Force them to pay you in sign of recognition-goats, chicken or eggs-every time you visit their villages. And make sure that niggers never become rich. Sing every day that it's impossible for the rich to enter heaven. Make them pay tax each week at Sunday mass.

Use the money supposed for the poor, to build flourishing business centres. Institute a confessional system, which allows you to be good detectives denouncing any black that has a different consciousness contrary to that of the decision-maker. Teach the niggers to forget their heroes and to

adore only ours. Never present a chair to a black that comes to visit you. Don't give him more than one cigarette. Never invite him for dinner even if he gives you a chicken every time you arrive at

his house. “The above speech which shows the real intention of the Christian missionary journey in Africa was exposed to the world by Mr. Moukouani Muikwani Bukoko, born in the Congo in 1915,and who in 1935 while working in the Congo, bought a second hand Bible from a Belgian priest who forgot the speech in the Bible. – Dr. Chiedozie Okoro

Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots:

The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate

and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelize, but your evangelization must inspire

above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach

the niggers to know God, this they know already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi,

one Nzakomba, and what else I don't know. They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else's

wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they

know already. Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which

means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in

that part of the world. For these things, you have to keep watch on disinteresting our savages from

the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make

you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you.

Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your

followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and, “It's

very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You have to detach from them and make

them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us. I make reference to their Mystic

System and their war fetish – warfare protection – which they pretend not to want to abandon, and

you must do everything in your power to make it disappear.


Your action will be directed essentially to the younger ones, for they won't revolt when the

recommendation of the priest is contradictory to their parent's teachings. The children have to learn

to obey what the missionary recommends, who is the father of their soul. You must singularly insist

on their total submission and obedience, avoid developing the spirit in the schools, teach students to

read and not to reason. There, dear patriots, are some of the principles that you must apply. You will

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Slaveowners would read these verses to slaves as part of the worship services that they allowed (and controlled) as a means of encouraging the proper attitude among their slaves. Based upon these isolated verses, slaveowners claimed that the Bible supported slavery and taught slaves to be obedient to their masters.

"If you expect the present day school system to give history to you, you are dreaming. This, we have to do ourselves. The Chinese didn't go out in the world and beg people to teach Chinese studies or let them teach Chinese studies. The Japanese didn't do that either. People don't beg other people to restore their history; they do it themselves."John Henrik Clarke

China Says U.S. Can't Talk Human Rights When It Has Racism Problems At Home.

Posted by The Reunion Black Family on December 20, 2015 at 7:10 AM Comments comments (24)

China Says U.S. Can’t Talk Human Rights When It Has Racism Problems At Home (DETAILS)

China delivered a major “BOOP!” Thursday, when the foreign ministry said the U.S. had no place to slam other countries on their human rights records when it’s battling its own racism problems at home.


Citing the killings of unarmed black men at the hands of law enforcement and a scathing and disturbing U.S. Senate report on the torture of detainees under George W. Bush’s administration, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei called the U.S. out on its hypocrisy and “poor record.”

The pretty spot-on comments come after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. ambassador to China Max Baucus issued statements Wednesday mentioning the case of the imprisoned Chinese Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo.

“The United States has no right to pose as arbiters and at every turn point their fingers at other countries’ human rights as racism and mistreatment of prisoners and other serious problems in the United States are facts now known to all,” Hong told a daily news briefing.


China and the United States often spar about each other’s human rights records, and on Wednesday, Beijing urged Washington to “correct its ways” following the torture report.