Colonial Violence in The Colonies and The Role of Enslaved Women in Resisting The Colonialists Oppression

Critical Examination of Bahamian Hero, "Poor Black Kate" and Comparative Colonial Atrocities:  A Global Perspective on Resistance, Injustice, and Post-Colonial Recognition

The story of The Bahamas Hero, Kate Moss, also known as "Poor Black Kate," offers a profound insight into the realities of colonial violence and the role of enslaved women in resisting oppression.

By Dr Kevin Turnquest-Alcena

Kate's resistance against her brutal treatment in The Bahamas during the early 19th century not only reflects the gendered aspects of colonial punishment but also parallels similar cases of resistance in other colonial territories such as Jamaica, India, and parts of Africa.  As nations work towards recognizing the legacies of their colonial pasts, Kate’s story deserves not only posthumous state recognition in The Bahamas but also broader acknowledgment as part of a global legacy of women who resisted colonial oppression.  In this paper, I will explore the parallels between Kate’s resistance and other instances of colonial violence against women, recommend how Kate's legacy should be honored, and argue for the establishment of a broader movement for women’s empowerment and recognition.

Kate Moss and Colonial Violence Against Women

Kate Moss’ refusal to mend her torn dress, her subsequent punishment, and eventual death serve as a stark reminder of the gendered violence that women, particularly enslaved and colonized women, faced under colonial regimes.  Kate, a domestic slave, used the torn dress as a silent but powerful symbol of her protest against sexual violence, likely perpetrated by someone in her enslaver’s household.  Her refusal to adhere to the expectations of submission and invisibility in the colonial household led to a horrific punishment: repeated whippings, confinement in stocks, and torture with red pepper.  Despite the promise of relief if she complied, Kate’s steadfastness in her resistance speaks to her extraordinary bravery and determination to expose her abuse.

This form of resistance is not unique to Kate but is part of a broader pattern of how women in colonial societies resisted gender-based violence.  As colonial authorities viewed women’s bodies as sites of both control and subjugation, enslaved and colonized women often found themselves punished for asserting their agency or protesting their abuse.  The treatment of women in colonial Jamaica, for instance, was similar.  Enslaved women who resisted their oppression, like those involved in the Baptist War of 1831–1832, were often met with violent retribution from colonial forces.

Parallels in Jamaica, Africa, and India: Gendered Colonial Punishment

Kate Moss’ story mirrors numerous incidents across the British Empire where women suffered under brutal colonial punishment regimes.  In Jamaica, Nanny of the Maroons, another national heroine, led enslaved people in revolt against British forces.  Though not a direct victim of the type of sexual violence that Kate endured, Nanny’s leadership in armed resistance against colonial authorities highlights the intersection of gender and rebellion in colonial contexts (Craton 54).  Both women, through vastly different means, defied the structures of colonial power, challenging the dominance of white male authority in the empire.

Similarly, in Kenya, during the Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960), Kikuyu women played a significant role in resisting British colonial rule.  Many women were arrested, tortured, and even executed for their involvement in the rebellion.  The colonial authorities' treatment of women in Kenya followed the same brutal patterns seen in other parts of the empire, including sexual violence, physical torture, and psychological intimidation (Elkins 182).  These patterns reflect a global colonial strategy where women’s resistance, especially when linked to national or racial identity, was met with disproportionate and inhumane punishment.

In India, colonial violence against women was also pervasive, as exemplified by events like the Amritsar Massacre of 1919.  While the massacre targeted all Indians, women played a significant role in the independence movement, facing gendered violence from British forces.  British colonial officers, like General Dyer, who orchestrated the massacre, saw the peaceful protests—many of which involved women—as threats to colonial order and responded with excessive violence (Collett 112).  The bodies of colonized women were consistently used as battlegrounds for the assertion of colonial power, and their resistance, like Kate’s - was viewed as doubly threatening because of its intersection with both race and gender.

Post-Colonial Responses to Colonial Brutality and Resistance

The Bahamas’ decision to recognize Kate Moss posthumously as a National Hero is a significant step in addressing the legacy of slavery and colonial violence.  However, Kate’s story deserves further acknowledgment, not just within The Bahamas but also within the broader context of global colonial history.  The brutality she faced and her resistance echoed the experiences of countless women across the colonial world, many of whom have yet to be recognized or honored for their bravery.

Jamaica, for example, has a long tradition of honoring its national heroes, many of whom resisted British colonial rule.  Figures like Nanny of the Maroons, Sam Sharpe, and Paul Bogle are memorialized in Jamaican history books, monuments, and annual celebrations. Similarly, South Africa’s post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) sought to address the legacies of colonial and apartheid-era violence, giving a platform for the victims of these atrocities to be heard (Tutu 134).  Kenya’s Mau Mau veterans also successfully sought reparations from the British government in 2013, marking a significant post-colonial attempt to rectify the wrongs of colonial rule (Anderson 249).

Recommendations: Kate Moss as a Symbol of Bravery and Women’s Empowerment

To fully honor Kate Moss’s legacy, the Bahamian government should consider several initiatives that go beyond the current state recognition:

1. Permanent Memorialization: The establishment of a statue or monument dedicated to Kate Moss in a prominent location, such as Nassau or Crooked Island, would serve as a perpetual reminder of her bravery.  This monument could stand alongside a plaque that details her resistance and the broader context of women’s resistance to colonialism.  This would be similar to the statue of Nanny of the Maroons in Jamaica’s National Heroes Park, which honors her defiance and leadership (Craton 68).

2. Women Empowerment Fund: The government could establish a fund in Kate Moss’s name that supports initiatives aimed at empowering women and girls, particularly those from marginalized communities.  This fund could provide scholarships, mentorship programs, and resources for women who face gender-based violence, much like the foundations established in the names of other national heroes (Patterson 143).  Such a fund would not only memorialize Kate but also help create tangible change for future generations.

3. Medal of Bravery for Women: The Bahamian government could institute an annual "Kate Moss Medal of Bravery," awarded to women who have demonstrated extraordinary courage in the face of adversity.  This would be similar to the Queen’s Medal for Courage, awarded in various Commonwealth countries.  By doing so, Kate’s story would become a symbol of empowerment, inspiring women across The Bahamas and the world to stand up against injustice.

4. Education Initiatives: To ensure Kate’s legacy is not forgotten, the government could work with educational institutions to include her story in the national curriculum.  Additionally, public lectures, seminars, and exhibitions could be held to educate both Bahamians and international audiences about her significance in the broader context of resistance to colonial rule (Beckles 157).

Conclusion: A Global Legacy of Resistance

Kate Moss’ story, though rooted in the history of The Bahamas, is part of a much larger narrative of colonial resistance.  The gendered violence she faced at the hands of the Moss family, her refusal to submit to oppression, and her eventual martyrdom are echoed in the experiences of women across the British Empire, from Jamaica to Kenya to India.  By recognizing Kate Moss as a National Hero and expanding upon this recognition with tangible initiatives, the Bahamian government can ensure that her legacy serves as both a symbol of bravery and a rallying cry for women’s empowerment.  Furthermore, this broader acknowledgment would align the Bahamas with other post-colonial nations that have taken significant steps to honor their own resistance figures and address the legacies of colonial violence.

Works Cited

Anderson, David. Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire*. W.W. Norton, 2005.

Beckles, Hilary McD. A History of Barbados: From Amerindian Settlement to Nation-State*. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Collett, Nigel. The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer*.  Hambledon Continuum, 2006.

Craton, Michael.  Testing the Chains: Resistance to Slavery in the British West Indies*. Cornell University Press, 2009.

Elkins, Caroline.  Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya*. Henry Holt and Co., 2005.

Patterson, Orlando. The Sociology of Slavery: An Analysis of the Origins, Development, and Structure of Negro Slave Society in Jamaica*. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2020.

Tutu, Desmond. No Future Without Forgiveness*. Random House, 1999.

By Dr. Kevin J Turnquest-Alcena 

Chairman of the Board of Governors

Rector, Michael University

LLB (Hon-1st Cl.), LLM (Hon-1st Cl.)

Ph.D. in Economics / Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology- MD/ Ph.D in Biogenetics

Ph.D. in Pharmacy (Pharm D) 

Ph.D. in Public Health / Ph.D. in Herbal and Holistic Medicine

Titular Professor Lawyer & Fellow-FCILEX; AClArb; & Snr. Fellow-AMLA

Source

See Bahamianology For Further Reading on 'Poor Black Kate' - Kate Moss

The Cuban Identity In Cuba

Save Cuba From Capitalism

The most revolutionary thing today is to be anti-capitalist

 

By Karima Oliva Bello

October 10 materialized, in the same cry of rebellion, the most revolutionary spirit of the times.  It had its first expression in the call for unity that has mobilized Cubans ever since: unity for a free nation against any form of foreign domination.

At that time, in the very heart of the sense of our budding identity, took shape the hardest of all the contradictions we have had to work out as a people, which has marked the course of our history until today: between the will to be masters of our destiny and the temptation to be in the image and likeness of the empire; first Spain, then the United States, fulfilling the destiny of a colony that they have traced for us.

Today, under a new appearance, the dilemma is the same.  The greatest threat to a country like Cuba is not only the interference policy of the United States and its desire to dominate our economy in the same terms as 60 years ago. Circumstances have changed and the world has been reconfigured since then.  The fundamental risk that we face, together with the other peoples of our region, is the advance of capitalism with giant steps.  It puts at risk our sovereignty and survival.

With the granting of unrestricted freedom to the market, characteristic of the neoliberal model, a new type of colonialism operates, through the mechanisms of coercion exercised by international financial organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, on national economies, demanding the imposition of structural reforms that facilitate transnational corporations the unlimited exploitation of the natural resources of our territories (here in the South) and of the labor force, in almost slave-like conditions.

The uncontrolled privatization of strategic sectors that provide key services to the population, the reduction of public spending, the precarization of working conditions, the withdrawal of the State from its responsibilities for welfare and social security, the criminalization of anti-capitalist social movements and a long list of abuses, represent now the greatest danger to the sovereignty of the former colonies.

There are those who are dissatisfied with Cuba's present, because they would like the changes to lead, once and for all, to the development of a good capitalism, as if that were possible (especially for the most vulnerable), or they want us to make concessions so that our neighbor forgives us and welcomes us back into its tutelage, as if that were worthy.

Those of us who do not want to see a history of rebellion turned into submission and abysmal social differences are not satisfied with Cuba's present either.  The only difference is that we understand that, in order to sustain the freedom bequeathed to us by our heroes and to achieve a progress that does not leave out any Cuban, the path must continue to be anti-imperialist.  The only way to be consistent with the legacy of the founding fathers is to try to save it from capitalism, to the last consequences.

Source

Colonialism and neocolonialism in Jamaica

By Maurice HAUGHTON:



It is now 51 years since Jamaica had to its Independence, however, it is like a baby whose umbilical cord was never severed at birth. The baby grows up, underdeveloped with limited mobility, still attached to its mother by an extended umbilical cord. This attachment restricts the baby's movement while giving an uncaring mother a great degree of control; she can impose her will, put unfair demands on the child, withhold food, and take from the child if the child does not conform to her wishes .This metaphor is a depiction of neocolonial control over Jamaica.

For many years colonialism milked Jamaica and other Caribbean countries by imposing a false identity on our people, diminishing resources that affected growth and development. In spite of the richness of these countries, they are still referred to as Third World and underdeveloped. All the post-colonial unrest and instability in the Caribbean has the footprints of traditional colonial entities. They usually come into the country, attach themselves to some factions, mostly opposition parties, then supply guns and ammunition, dangle the carrots, and influence elections. Their main objective is to prevent governments that would encourage self-reliance, equality and justice for the people. They rather keep the masses poor and needy so they can pass their breadbasket and their offering plate in which they drop a penny and take a pound .They come under false presence as human rights advocates, freedom fighters and stability agents, while instigating and spreading propaganda to create unrest among the people. They create artificial shortage of basic foods like bread, milk and flour so the poor cannot eat, all to undermine the Government. Given the circumstance, any baby would buckle under such pressure, while the mother undoubtedly grins as she gets her way, just like the old days of gestation when the baby must shuts its mouth and take whatever comes its way.

During colonialism, Jamaica had to blindly ingest the unsavory meals served up by colonial powers. They took our harvest and gave us slaves to create more harvest. It is true, "I and I build a cabin, I and I plant the corn. Now you look me with a scorn then you eat up all my corn".

Marcus Garvey spoke out against it and Michael Manley tried stopping it, but overpowering forces fought back, using everything from the IMF to big businesses and capitalist tactics. Neocolonial influence is all over the Jamaica today. After 300 years of Emancipation, and 51 years of "Independence", people are still talking about 'God Save The Queen'. When did the Queen ever say 'God Save Michael Manley, Portia Simpson' or any of those stuff shirts who claim to represent her. In 2009, England suspended part of the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands over allegations of corruption. Like a scolding mother, she usurped the democratically elected government and replaced elected officials with her own appointees. For those who wish Jamaica was still under British rule, is that what you want? Why not ask your fairy godmothers for a couple of slave masters and some backra massas too.

All elected officials in Jamaica must take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty: "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors, according to law. I remember as a young man in Jamaica watching a parliamentary debate when Michael Manley stated that he could not mean it in his heart but he was obliged to so swear. He said, while he respects the Monarch, he did not think the people of Jamaica should have to take such an oath. I remember the opposition pushing back on the idea. Manley wanted true independence on all fronts and was not willing to be anybody's puppet. He was not afraid to associate himself with those the world hated; he had a mind of his own. Michael Manley put up a good fight against neo-colonial forces.

It's time to chase those self-serving bald heads out a town. It's time to stand up to neocolonial forces, throw away the wigs and gowns and pay allegiance to the people of Jamaica. Stop licking the back of Mrs Elizabeth's head on those stamps, how many Jamaicans are on British stamps? "Jamaica, Land We Love" what about Jamaica's people we love. Stop allowing the devaluation of the Jamaican dollar, stop the slave wages when people are paying an arm and leg for food. Trinidad recently gave a 12-14 per cent wage increase across the country, it's Jamaica's time.

God bless Jamaica, but it's time the parties come together and make it about the people and not politics.

Maurice Haughton is a freelance journalist living in Philadelphia, USA. Send comments to: haughton727@ymail.com

February 03, 2014

Jamaica Observer

Can The Youth Save Africa From Neo-Colonialism?

AFRICANGLOBE – In his book, “Neo-Colonialism : The Last Stage of Imperialism”, (page11) Kwame Nkrumah cautioned:

‘So long as Africa remains divided, it will therefore be the wealthy consumer countries who will dictate the price of its resources’.

I told you so! This appears to be the bitterness boiling up in the hearts of many Pan-African revolutionaries across the world as Africa gradually sinks into the pit of poverty while its resources are being fleeced for peanuts on a daily basis.

Today, the dangers of Neo-colonialism have become so evident in Africa to the point where no further explanation is necessary. Africa, a continent which claims to be independent has allowed herself to be ordered around, always dancing to the tune of foreign “aid”. This is despite the fact that Dambisa Moyo, a renown Zambian economist and author of the book ‘Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa‘, has clearly demonstrated to our leaders that ‘No nation has ever attained economic development by aid.”

African leaders have over the years obeyed every instruction from the West, yet Africa and its people are no better for it. We’re still indebted to the World Bank and the IMF more than it was 20 year ago. In spite of this, African leaders are not ready to change the old ways of doing things.

To allow a foreign country, especially one which is loaded with economic interests in our continent, to tell us what political courses to follow, is indeed for us to hand back our independence to the oppressor on a silver platter, (Kwame Nkrumah, ‘Consciencism’ pg.102).

The fact is, our founding fathers foresaw the dangers that come with our resolve to rely on the non-Africans to solve all our problems for us. This problem has been compounded by the lack of unity among the African nations.

After 50 years, this statement has become the sad truth. There is not a single African raw material that is traded on the international market which price is determined by Africans. It is now evidently clear that many of our African leaders don’t care whether the solutions to our economic challenges have been well-documented by our founding fathers or not.

It is therefore time for the African youth to step aside these traitors for failing to act in our collective interest as African people.

A new generation of leadership is needed to rise up from among the youth with a determination to save mother Africa from the firm grip of neo-colonialism, political incompetence and corruption which is currently becoming the hallmark of modern African leadership.

Action Plan One: The Role Of the Youth

Earlier in life, I had discovered that if you want something, you had better made some noise. - Malcolm X

It is clear that Africa still remains under-developed because many of the youthful talents that can transform the continent have been ignored for far too long. Nevertheless, this is not a reason for them to give up. It is time for the youth to start making some noise else the status quo will never change. Gather yourselves in front of the parliament buildings and in front of the various African embassies. March in your numbers towards the the stations of the various TV networks.

Whiles you’re there, continue to make noise and Rest Not until their voices are heard and your concerns addressed.

Finally, I therefore put forward an action plan which must be followed in order to ensure that our search for a new generation of incorruptible leaders for the continent becomes a reality within the shortest possible time for the benefit of Mother Africa.

• The African youth must first organise in small groups and create the platforms for dialogue and exchange of ideas.
• The groups must identify and nominate highly incorruptible members as their leaders.
• The groups must have power to remove from office, leaders identified to be corrupt.
• Leaders of the various youth groups must coalesce and draw up a common agenda for the Youth Liberation Movement. All such agenda must focus on youth empowerment including a protest to remove the age-restricted political portfolios from our constitutions.
• The Youth Liberation Movement must remain vocal in their communities, highlighting the challenges of the youth on any given platform.
• It is ideal that the Youth Movement forms a political party solely dedicated to the needs of the youth.
• Leaders of the Youth Movement can thus venture into the political terrain and stand up for the right of the youth. We need more young ones in parliament.
• Where possible, no youth must vote for the old men but rather a candidate nominated from the political parties formed by the youth and dedicated to the youth.

If this is done, the youth can begin to make impact in African leadership and help wrestle power from the old men. It is time for the youth to begin ignoring the old men in elections and rather concentrate on such leaders born out of the Youth Revolutionary Movement who truly have the welfare of the youth at heart. This process if well implemented can help send a strong signal to the world that Africa is now ready for a new generation of revolutionary leaders dedicated to end corruption once and for all.


By: Honourable Saka

The writer is a Pan-African analyst and the founder of the Project Pan-Africa, an organisation established with the sole purpose of unlocking the minds of the African youth to take Africa’s destiny into their hands. He can be reached on e-mail:honourablesaka@yahoo.co.uk.

May 16, 2013

African Globe

Bahamas Blog International

With friends like the UN, OAS and CARICOM, the Republic of Haiti needs no enemies!

By Jean Herve Charles


The Republic of Haiti was present at the baptismal fountain at the creation of the United Nations in 1946. Its active and diligent diplomacy facilitated the emergence of several countries from colonialism or occupation to nationhood -- we can mention amongst others Libya, Ethiopia, Belgium and Israel as the direct beneficiaries of Haiti’s international leadership.

The Human Rights Charter was drafted by none other than the Haitian delegate Mr Emile St Lot, the Rapporteur of the 3rd Commission of the 94th Session.

Yet, in 1957, some ten years later, when the Duvalier dictatorship established its grip into the country, the UN did not come as a friend to help Haiti liberate itself from that repression, instead it spirited to Africa the best minds of the nation (those who could have forced a change of the status quo) for a nation building project in the Congo as that nation was emerging from its colonial status.

Those Haitian doctors, lawyers and teachers did such an efficient job in helping the Congolese to become nation builders that they were soon declared persona non grata by the same UN that cancelled their contracts. From there, the Haitian pioneers went to Quebec, Canada, where they helped the land of Cartier to become fully developed. They went also to the United States where they established themselves in Flatlands and Flatbush, New York, renovating and stabilizing the neighborhoods fled in haste by the Italians and the Jews.

In the meantime, in Haiti, successive governments, whether dictatorship, militarism or populism, have continued to engulf Haiti into an abyss where a return to the homeland could not be organized.

Against the good advice of learned veterans of the UN operation overseas, not to invite the UN into your country -- “the UN does not leave a country, once it has been invited in; nor the fate of that country will be improved” -- the government of Ertha Pascal Trouillot introduced the UN into Haiti to supervise the election.

The UN has managed since to remain in the country under different acronyms for the past twenty years. It is now under MINUSTHA -- a mammoth operation involving more than seventy countries.

With no concern for the environmental impact, MINUSTHA has flooded the Haitian capital with cars and other vehicles going and coming to and from no specific destination, with no specific purpose. The real concerns of the country in food and personal security, political stability and social integration have remained unattended. Yet the UN has stated as its purpose: “to be a critical factor in the consolidation of social peace stability and the rule of law in Haiti”.

Mr Edmond Mulet, the UN resident, has monitored against the advice of the Haitian civil society an election flawed in its conception and unacceptable in its final delivery. When the Haitian masses went on a rampage to manifest their anger at the outcome of the election that does not reflect the popular vote, the UN retreated to its barracks instead of protecting life and limb.

The lowest rank of the MINUSTHA professional draws a tax free salary of $81,508 per year while the senior staff commands a minimum of $166,475 annually.

To add insult to injuries, the French scientists have just proven that the UN Nepalese contingent was indeed the carrier of the cholera germ into Haiti, killing 3,000 people, sending 40.000 to hospitals and exposing the entire nation to the contagion.

The only compensation that Haiti may derive from the UN experience will be to benefit at the UN departure, of the war equipment, the cars and the trucks brought into Haiti, for the building of the country’s own army in the future. Haiti will need, though, a responsible and nationalist government to negotiate such an important and sensitive deal!

The UN stabilization force has not been a positive experience in the rest of the world either. After forty -- 40 -- years of regretful engagement in the Congo, the UN has been disinvited from that country.

President George W. Bush did try to reorganize the UN to make it more relevant to the pressing needs of the world poor, but Mr. Bush engulfed himself prematurely and regretfully in Iraq, compromising his credibility and aborting the American-led UN reorganization project. Le Monde, the French newspaper has recently described Haiti as the Waterloo of the UN Stabilization force!

May it rest in peace for the emergence of an effective UN nation-building force that will help poor nations of the world to educate their citizens, rebuild their infrastructure and create relevant institutions for their people!

The Haitian experience with the OAS and CARICOM has not been any better. Bundled together for the first time and only in Haiti, the joint operation was commissioned by the Preval government to supervise, monitor and tabulate the result of the election. The United States has offered a purse of 12 million dollars for the operation. The coffer was handed to a veteran of Haitian Affairs, Colin Granderson, who enforced the OAS imposed embargo that destroyed the flora and the Haitian economy some fifteen years ago.

He is now pushing the Haitian political crisis to another abyss. Mr Granderson, back in Haiti, embedded with the predatory Haitian government, is at the heart of the tabulation that provided the contested figures in the last election. He has been described as an opportunist chameleon who sought to sleep with the military when they were in favor, with the populist when the tables have been turned; he is now Preval’s best hope of legitimizing a criminal fraud. The delegation of a forensic international auditing firm will certainly shine light on the dirty hands who falsified the tabulation of the ballots.

Hopefully this time around, his stint in Haiti will be the last one!

The OAS has also taken on the responsibility of providing the Haitian people with electoral identification cards and the electoral lists. The operation has been conducted with such inefficiency, chaos and disregard for elementary safeguards that it seems it was pre-arranged to provide the snafu of the November 28 election day.

The combination UN, OAS, Caricom is instrumental in facilitating the negative Africanization process of Haiti where rival tribes have been killing each other for decades, while the spoils went to the former colonizer. With the vast majority of the Haitian people determined to bring about fundamental change in the country, the old guard loaded with the national and the international purse at its disposal will maintain the fight with all its might, even igniting and perpetuating a civil war in Haiti.

With friends like the UN the OAS and CARICOM, Haiti indeed needs no enemy!

Stay tuned for next week’s essay on “Deconstructing the latest Haitian political crisis”.

December 18, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Jamaica: Not much to show after 50 years of independence

Not much to show after 50 years of independence

By Keeble McFarlane




As Jamaicans everywhere pause to acknowledge 48 years of independence, we should reflect that we joined a bandwagon which had been gathering momentum since the end of one of history's most tumultuous events, the Second World War. With the exception of a strip along the Mediterranean Sea, Africa - the second-largest land mass on earth - remained largely unknown to outsiders until the voyages by European explorers between the 15th and 17th centuries. Egypt, of course, was one of the earliest centres of civilisation and the other countries running west towards the Atlantic had been under European influence since classical times. Two countries escaped the European scramble for Africa in the late 19th century - Ethiopia, which had always been independent, except for a few years of occupation by Italy starting in the 1930s, and Liberia, established by freed slaves from the United States in 1847.

The Europeans came mainly in search of the continent's vast mineral treasures. To this day, about one-third of the world's minerals, including more than half of its diamonds and almost half its gold, are mined in Africa. Other minerals, now highly sought after by the insatiable maw of the electronic factories which churn out cellphones, flat-screen TVs and the like, are now ruthlessly exploited from the continent. At the same time, the birthplace of mankind is ravaged by diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS, while poverty and underdevelopment have kept its teeming millions shackled in a never-ending struggle for mere survival.

Fifty years ago, 17 nations in sub-Saharan Africa gained independence from their European colonists. Fourteen of them were former French colonies and the largest African nation, Nigeria, severed itself from British rule. I recall the excitement some of us felt when as teenagers attending high school we learned about Ghana, the first British colony in Africa to break away from Whitehall's clutches. We looked up to Kwame Nkrumah, who led a non-violent struggle for the independence of the Gold Coast, as the colony was known, achieving that aim in 1957. He was prime minister for the first three years and then declared Ghana a republic in 1960, just as that other large bunch of countries gained their sovereignty.

The new crop of leaders included some worthy contenders - Patrice Lumumba in what was known as the French Congo, Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Ivory Coast, Léopold Senghor in Sénégal and Nnamdi Azikiwe in Nigeria. The new leaders and those who were to come later - like Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Julius Nyerere in Tankanyika (which became Tanzania after merging with the nearby island of Zanzibar), Milton Obote of Uganda and Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Nyasaland, which became Malawi - were all fired up about building a new future for their countries now that they had severed themselves from the suffocating strictures of colonialism.

Resentment of colonialism and resistance against it had begun early in the century in several parts of the world. But the colonial powers held all the cards, controlling the world's industry, banking, methods and means of trade right down to the ships in which the raw materials and manufactured goods moved around. The big powers also spent a lot of time and effort squabbling with one another, and the cataclysm we know as World War II soaked up all the available manpower, raw materials and attention of country after country, including the colonies, which now had to feed bodies into the giant meat-grinding machine that war constitutes.

The war left the colonial powers exhausted, both in spirit and in treasure, and they consequently lost the stomach to fight to continue control of the colonies. One of the weakest of the colonial powers, The Netherlands, never regained its prize colony, the Dutch Indies, which became Indonesia, while the much smaller and far less important holdings in the Caribbean lingered on until relatively recently when they detached themselves while retaining a fairly strong connection to the old colonial centre.

Britain was forced to give up its prized holding, India, which had proved most difficult to handle. But the Africans, who had their own complicated social, linguistic, religious and tribal make-up, were a bit easier to hold on to by the classic methods of divide and conquer. Even here, though, the inexorable forces of enlightenment brought about a trickle of changes after the war. Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia and Morocco led the pack in the 1950s before Ghana in 1957 and Guinea, under Ahmed Sékou Touré, in 1958.

Curiously the earliest global empire was the longest lived - at almost six centuries - and the last to quit Africa. Portuguese seafarers were in the front line of European explorers, poking around the coasts of Africa from the early 1400s. After World War II, Portugal's Fascist strongman, António Salazar, conducted a long and bloody armed effort to hold on to the remnants of his empire. The rebels who overthrew him in 1974 immediately recognised the independence of all Portuguese colonies except Macau, a small enclave on the south coast of China. It eventually went in 1999, by agreement with the government in Beijing.

The African dominoes began falling at an unfortunate time - this was the Cold War, when the United States, together with its supporters and clients were locked in a deadly earnest conflict with the Soviet Union and its satellites and clients. Both big countries were not only arming themselves with the latest diabolical weaponry their scientists could devise, but threw vast amounts of money, arms and threats (veiled and otherwise), at the new countries which emerged from under the cruel yoke of colonialism.

So Africa became a battleground for the two camps, and its newly emergent states paid dearly in lives, stillborn development possibilities and distorted governance. Promising leaders like Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo were eliminated and replaced by corrupt figures such as Joseph Mobutu, who morphed himself into Mobutu Sese Seko, renamed his country Zaïre, siphoned vast sums of money meant to help develop his country, and presided over decades of disaster.

Promising leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Houphouët-Boigny and Robert Mugabe in Southern Rhodesia, which became Zimbabwe after a long and nasty struggle, turned into self-aggrandising tyrants interested only in holding on to power. Instead of building and nurturing vigorous and vibrant democratic political structures, they instead surrounded themselves with sycophants and toadies and eliminated opponents either by intimidation or brutality.

The Cold War eventually ended and outsiders lost interest, except as a place ripe for exploitation. Some countries are engaged in the arduous and painful task of building something in keeping with the aspirations of the early independence figures. A few have managed to remain stable and relatively prosperous. Now there is a new external contender - China - but it is motivated primarily by economic rather than political concerns.

At this half-century mark, there is little to celebrate. Much of the continent's difficulties can be attributed to its colonial heritage. But by the same token, many of Africa's problems are self-inflicted. So instead of celebrating, Africa's extraordinarily complex, complicated and differentiated societies need to examine where they went wrong and generate new ideas on how to tackle the enormous problems they face. They need only take a look across the Atlantic at South America, whose long-battered nations are dynamically devising new political and economic solutions to the demands of the 21st century.

keeble.mack@sympatico.ca

August 07, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

The earthquake in Haiti requires the world's human response

By Wellington C Ramos:


Ever since the black people of this Caribbean country fought and defeated the French to gain their independence in 1804, this nation has been left by most European countries to just go downhill. For the people who have no knowledge of the Haitian Revolution, they should take some time to study it. During the era of colonialism, England, France, Holland, Portugal, Spain and other European countries roamed the planet earth, landed on different continents, slaughtered the indigenous people of most lands, made them slaves and took out all of their wealth and natural resources back to their respective homelands.

The landing of Christopher Columbus in this part of the world in 1492 set the pace for this exploitation to begin, with the approval of the Catholic Spanish Pope Alexander the V1 in the Treaty of Tordesillas signed by Spain and Portugal in 1494. With the exception of Brazil, Spain was given all the land and people in the Americas and the Caribbean while Portugal had the continent of Africa for themselves.

England, France and Holland protested this bold move by the Catholic Pope and pledged to fight against this unlawful treaty. The British formed a group called privateers, who were highly trained to navigate the high seas and look for non-British vessels, capture them, take their cargoes and kill all the sailors on board. In addition, they signed agreements with Spain to temporarily occupy some of their illegal territories with the intention to stay on them permanently. The French did this on the Spanish island of Hispaniola in the early 1600s which eventually developed into two countries, one by the name of Haiti and the other the Dominican Republic. Today, these two countries are divided and their relationship remains strained up to this day because of their cultural and historical differences.

The British did the same thing in 1638 by getting permission to cut logwood and mahogany from the Spanish crown in one of their occupied territories in Central America that was under the Captaincy General of Granados, which capital was in Guatemala City and New Spain that had its capital in Mexico City. The Mexican government, in a treaty with England, later renounced their claim to Belize. While the Guatemalan government kept hanging on to their unlawful claim.

Like the French, the British had no intention of leaving because they said from the beginning that they will never honor the treaty that was signed between Spain and Portugal giving them both titles to the entire Americas, Caribbean and Africa. Today, that settlement has led to the emergence of a nation called Belize that is struggling to maintain its independence but still haunted by a Guatemalan claim because of Europeans’ unlawful actions.

The Haitians were able to defeat France with the help of their ancestors and their powerful war god “Ogun”, one of the most powerful gods in the religion of the Yoruba people, who mostly live in the country of Nigeria on the African continent. Most Haitians are descendants of various African cultures that were brought from the continent of Africa during slavery.

Many Europeans look down on African people with disdain as if they are uncivilized, backward and stupid even up to this day. Yet they know that the first people on this planet earth were black people and great civilizations existed on the continent of Africa long before the Europeans set foot on the African continent. In fact many African kings and queens sponsored expeditions and invasions of several territories in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. The Empires of Mali like; King Askia Mohammad, Songhay and Ghana are typical examples.

The Haitians are still looked upon by many Europeans and some Caribbean people as evil people but this assertion is far from the truth. They are entitled to practice whatever religion they chose to practice like everybody else to save their own souls. For me it is laughable for anyone to believe that the Europeans are interested in saving the souls of other people after all the atrocities they have committed upon the people of this planet.

Europeans must accept the fact that Christianity is not the only religion on earth. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and several other religions are common on this planet earth. As a Garifuna person, it took me some time to accept and understand my own culture’s religion, which is also based on African ancestral rites called “Dugu”. I have accepted it and will not depart from my religion just to remain a Christian. This religion has provided me with solace and healing over the years.

The country of Haiti needs the entire world to be on its side at this current moment because a natural disaster can occur anywhere at any time. If there are any people in this world who have suffered and been punished, enough they are the Haitian people and enough is enough. Several people have died in this country and the structural damages and human suffering done nationwide is severe. Looking at the news has brought tears to my eyes because as a human being, I have feelings and these people are all God’s children like me.

There is enough in this world to give every human being in this world who is in need of something but we have got to rid ourselves from this culture of greed and selfishness and just give. We all shall die one day and everything we possess will remain here after we have departed this planet earth.

January 18, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

Ronald Reagan Legacy In The Caribbean

Ronald Reagan’s crowning glory of his legacy in the Caribbean was the U.S. invasion of Grenada

Progressive Bahamians and Caribbean people deplored in the strongest terms, the act of naked aggression and imperialism that was carried out in October 1981, when the United States of America (USA), the world’s richest and one of its largest states, invaded tiny Grenada (pop. 110,000)

Reagan’s Legacy In The Caribbean

By Charles Fawkes

Nassau, The Bahamas

25/06/2004

HOUSE OF LABOUR: In Friday June 15th edition of the Bahama Journal, Godfrey Eneas of the Eneas File fame touched on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Black Americans.  I was particularly interested in his approach to the subject and he did say some things that needed to be said.  I was, however, disappointed that Eneas sought to examine Reagan’s legacy for black Americans, but neglected to mention Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean; particularly, in reference to progressive individuals and movements in the Caribbean.

Indeed, President Reagan the 40th President of the United States was a polarizing figure - not only for Black Americans but all third world peoples particularly, in the Caribbean and Latin America.

During Reagan’s presidency, reaction to the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) had been much like the FTAA is seen today, as mostly benefiting Americans not the Caribbean.  More importantly, for Inside Labour is the fact that Reagan fired 13,000 U.S. air traffic controllers in 1981 after they staged a work stoppage.  He used the U.S. National Labour Relations Board to crack down on trade unions.  In line with this we saw many of our Caribbean leaders attempt similar “union busting” tactics that lingered on and ended with the busting of our own air traffic controllers union being put under “heavy manners” by the FNM government of Hubert Ingraham.

Reagan’s crowning glory of his legacy in the Caribbean was the U.S. invasion of Grenada.  An examination of this opprobrious event and its impact may prove useful in putting his legacy in the Caribbean in proper perspective.  Reagan’s 1983 invasion of Grenada was not universally applauded and indeed the full week coverage by CNN, NBC, FOX NEWS, ABC, CBS that attempted to deify this man, who demonized progressives the world over and setback the progressive forces of the world fifty years.

At that time progressive Bahamians and Caribbean people deplored in the strongest terms, the act of naked aggression and imperialism that was carried out in October 1981, when the United States of America (USA), the world’s richest and one of its largest states, invaded tiny Grenada (pop. 110,000).

The people of the Caribbean and all over the third world have suffered for centuries the racism, economic deprivation and political inequality of British and other colonialisms.  We also know that thousands of our exploited brothers and sisters have endured the harshest punishments in the attempt to escape from this status by becoming independent nations with the right to plot their own destinies.

When the U.S. imperialists under Reagan armed with phrases like “restoring democracy,” “eradicating Marxism,” “eliminating a source of subversion,” “preventing terrorism,” etc. destroy a sovereign nation like Grenada, it brought back to all of us the bitter memories of colonialism.  We were reminded that they were offering then a better life by enslaving us in the same ways the Japanese and German imperialists of World War II tried to convince the world that their systems of domination were “co-prosperity spheres”.

It should be noted that the vast majority of the world’s nations condemned the American action, including Britain, Canada and France, the then USSR and our own government of The Bahamas.  Such condemnation was proof enough of the unpopularity of this policy, and Reagan realized that his imperialism fooled no one.  The vote in the United Nations General Assembly on November 3 1981 (108-9 with abstentions), which demanded that the USA withdraw from Grenada, was further proof of the world’s opprobrium for that nation’s Caribbean adventure.  In many respects, this was the beginning in modern times of the United States becoming an international outlaw.

The major reasons given by the USA under Reagan for the intervention in Grenada were as follows: First the death of Maurice Bishop, ex- Prime Minister of Grenada, created much instability in that society, which instability threatened the safety of 1,000 Americans who were there.  The numbers included hundreds of students at St. George’s Medical School, a U.S. owned medical facility on the island.  Secondly, Grenada was exporting revolutions to other parts of the Caribbean. Thirdly, Grenada was a Cuba- Soviet military base in the U.S.A's “backyard” or in its “sphere of influence.”

All progressive people in the Caribbean and elsewhere deplored the senseless arguments among the then Grenadian leadership that resulted in the death of Prime Minister Bishop and some of his ministers.  However, if assassination of leaders was a valid reason for intervening in a country, the United States should have been invaded a long time ago.  For example in the last century America’s greatest President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.  In 1963 President John F. Kennedy was killed, and President Reagan in his time was shot.  We also recall that distinguished Americans like Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were killed.  It is common knowledge that when Dr. King died riots took place in large numbers of America’s cities.  Yet in spite of the instability, no nation “intervened” in the USA.

In Grenada after Bishop’s death there were no uprisings, the Americans on the island insisted that they were safe.  A US and Canadian diplomat visited the country a couple of days before the invasion and found their people safe, and General Hudson Austin had agreed to open the airport to allow foreign nationals to leave.  In this same context, President Fidel Castro of Cuba, a close friend of Grenada, who had nearly 800 of his nationals working on projects in the island like the then new airport, volunteered to act as a go-between to insure the safety of the Americans.  Clearly there was little “instability” in Grenada, and there was no threat to American lives at any time before the invasion.

Anthony Lewis in the New York Times October 3, 1983, in an article entitled: “What was Reagan hiding?” - questioned the Reagan Administration’s tale that the Americans were in danger and that the Grenadian government was attempting to hold them there.  Lewis wrote: “Now we know that Grenada and Cuba both sent messages to the United States saying that our citizens, in particular the large numbers of medical students were safe.  We know that the airport was open and Americans flew out the day before the invasion, encountering no problems at the airport and seeing not even an armed guard.”  Lewis went on to conclude: “The Reagan Administration was in fact not interested in exploring peaceful evacuation of Americans who wanted to leave.  It did not look into chartering ships or planes.  It did not respond to the Grenadian or Cuban messages until after the invasion was underway.  It was determined to make a show of force.”  In retrospect Inside Labour is convinced also; that Reagan was not interested in peace.

At the time The Reagan Administration and the right –wing in America and the Caribbean, constantly stated that Grenada and Cuba were bases for “exporting revolution”.  An argument that made no sense.  If a different worldview, for example, has no relevance to the lives of a people in a particular society, then the masses will reject it.  If capitalism is irrelevant to the needs and aspirations of a society, they will reject it also.  Ideologies- in other words are world outlooks that are either accepted or rejected by the masses; they cannot be exported.

On the other hand, if what Reagan and the right –wing meant by “exporting revolution,” the subversion of a country by the illegal use of force and violence, Grenada could not in any way be accused of this.  Indeed, none of the Caribbean countries involved in the invasion produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that the then Grenadian Government illegally conspired to overthrow them.

Philosophers warn us that it is a mistake to confuse analogies with identities, for while an analogy is a call to clarify the specific; it is not the specific itself.  The United States frequently depicts the Caribbean as being in its “backyard” - and as a mental construct to illustrate its proximity to the region; such a depiction is permissible.  However, America seems to see its “Caribbean backyard” not in terms of a close neighbor, but in terms of a region of the earth that they have manifest destiny to own, control and push around.  Such confusion turns an analogy into a principle of ownership.

Progressives the world over insists that the Caribbean consists of sovereign nations which have a right to plot their own destiny.  Much like in the recent case of Haiti.  The Caribbean nations are not parts of the USA like Hawaii; we are in nobody’s backyard.  Grenada in 1981 posed no military threat or “subversive threat” to any nation in this hemisphere, so Reagan had no right to obliterate that nation’s sovereignty, just like President Bush had no right to obliterate the sovereignty of Iraq.  In the meantime what is fearful is that the United States feels that is has natural rights to make every nation in the world her puppet.

Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean proved that the United States violated all the rules in international law in its invasion of Grenada, and of making a mockery of the concept of national sovereignty.  It broke the elementary rules of international law regarding the recognition of states; it broke the U.N. charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), of which it is one of the founding members. The Charters of the OAS states explicitly: “The territory of a state is inviolable, it may not be the object, even temporarily of military occupation or other measures of force taken by another state, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever.”  Some international lawyers argued that even when the U.S unjustly invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965, it at least procured “legal cover.”  At that time it claimed that it was called by the military government of the Dominican Republic to “restore order”.  A claim, which it rammed through the OAS after the fact. In Grenada, on the other hand, the United States destroyed the legitimate government.

Finally, the Reagan administration in trying to secure some legal legacy for its actions argued that the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) provided a legal basis for the invasion.  But as Time Magazine stated: “Grenada is one of the seven members of the OECS, the charter of which says that any decision to take military action must be unanimous.  Grenada certainly did not agree to invade itself.  Nor was it clear that the OECS formed in 1981, had any provision, or any right to authorize military intervention in one of its member states!”  Without a doubt Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean was cemented by this lawless adventure based on the principle that might is right!  When the definitive chapter on this event is written Reagan will be seen for what he was “a little man” not the colossus that the spin-doctors of Washington would have us believe.

 

 

 

 

Charles Fawkes is President of the National Consumer Association, Consumer columnist for the Nassau Guardian and organizer for the Commonwealth Group of Unions, Editor of the Headline News, The Consumer guard and The Worker’s Vanguard.