By PETER MWAURA

Why Brazilians have to wait longer to get their Obama

Writing from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on October 28, the Daily Nation’s Elias Makori reported that Kenya’s President Kibaki [Pdf Document] was due to visit the country and Venezuela to strengthen trade ties between Kenya and Latin America.

If and when our President (Mwai Kibaki of Kenya) visits him, President Luiz Inacio da Silva of Brazil is expected to talk about his country’s prowess in such things as agribusiness, generic drugs, sugar plantations and biofuels, to say nothing of coffee and football.

This will not be mere big talk. Brazil is the leading economic power in South America, and the fifth largest country in the world. It is more than three times the size of Sudan, Africa’s largest country, and nearly 15 times the size of Kenya. It has more blacks than any other country in the world, except Nigeria.

Brazil is a worthy trading and political partner for Kenya, and President Kibaki’s visit will be a smart move.

During their table talk, da Silva is likely to tell President Kibaki that it is Brazil, not the US, that was the first white-dominated country to have a black president in 1909. His name was Nilo Pecanha.

But he will not concern himself with the details of that historic first, such as the fact that Pecanha obtained the post by accident when he was the vice-president. He took over when President Affonso Penna died in June 1909 after ruling for only about a year.

In the tête-à-tête, da Silva will probably give the old line about racial democracy and harmony in his country. Brazilians have successfully used the line for years.

In the 1950s, the United Nations commissioned a series of studies on Brazil in an attempt to learn how the country achieved its ‘racial democracy‘ when other societies such as the US were experiencing strife in race relations.

But statistics show that the racial democracy in Brazil is a myth.

Skin pigmentation is still used to delineate social hierarchy. Black Brazilians — they are the majority — are discriminated against at every sphere of life. They suffer, among other ills, little access to education, landlessness, high infant mortality, discrimination in employment and police brutality.

As a result, many Brazilians of obvious African descent who want to better their socio-economic lives have to ‘whiten‘ themselves. The much-vaunted racial democracy only operates to exclude non-Whites.

Da Silva is also unlikely to tell President Kibaki that his country was built on African slave labour, and that Brazil should pay reparations for nearly 400 years of unpaid African labour.

Not surprisingly, Brazil was the last country in the world to abolish slavery in 1888.

In the more than three centuries of Portuguese colonisation, Brazil imported 4 million slaves to work for about 700,000 Portuguese settlers. Brazil was arguably the largest slave economy in human history.

Without the cheap African labour, the country would have stagnated economically. As early as April 1843, politician Bernado Pereira de Vasconcelos told the Brazilian senate: ‘Africa is civilising America‘.

Another Brazilian politician, Cunha Matos, believed that the country would still be populated by Indians living under barbarous conditions if Africans did not come to bolster the Portuguese settlers. Brazil was just a claw-hold until the importation of large numbers of Africans.

But da Silva will not tell his Kenyan guest that the very continued existence of the Portuguese settlers in Brazil depended on the African slaves.

There are many other home truths, mostly rooted in Brazilian history, folklore and culture, that da Silva is unlikely to talk about.

For example, he is unlikely to talk about the Afro-Brazilian women, who have been a part of Brazilian popular culture for centuries.

During the slave era, the sexy mulata (a person of mixed African and European descent) was the female with whom white Brazilian boys were expected to have their first sexual experience, according to famed Brazilian writer-cum-anthropologist Gilberto Freyre.

And as another writer puts it, one of the results of the use of the black female for satisfaction was that Brazil exploded in a spree of miscegenation and racial mixture the extent of which is probably unknown in history.

Certainly, President da Silva will avoid using the old Brazilian expression, e um Africa (It’s an Africa).

Brazilians use the expression to describe anything that is difficult to overcome — a feat. The expression conjures up old images of the ‘Dark Continent‘.

Da Silva may fear that the expression will offend his African guest. In Brazil, old stereotypes about Africa are very much alive.

This is why African-Brazilians will have to wait for a very long time before they have their own Obama.

——————————————————–

References:

1. Brazil and the Yankee Way of Being Black — In Brazil, race and class interact to create a highly stratified society where most people of color are poor, and most middle class and wealthy are “white.” To view this situation through the US lens of racial categories and racial purity is not only intellectual dishonesty, but smacks of colonialism.

2. History of slavery — The history of slavery uncovers many different forms of human exploitation across many cultures throughout history. Slavery, generally defined, refers to the “systematic exploitation of labor” traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.

3. Why Obama is Black, not White.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY

Power, pressure serving and grass-court experience prevailed Thursday as Serena and Venus Williams earned the right to make the final a family affair.

WIMBLEDON, England — Standing on the now-patchy grass of Centre Court on Thursday and smiling at her family in the players’ box with delight and a bit of relief in her eyes, Serena Williams was also looking at the only woman left who can stop her from winning a third Wimbledon title.

That would be her older sister Venus, who will try to win her fifth singles title at the All England Club.

   Serena, left, and Venus Williams will meet in the women’s singles finals at Wimbledon.

It has been five years since the Williamses played each other for a Grand Slam trophy, five years since Serena beat Venus here in straight sets in the 2003 final; five years since the sisters dominated their sport and the rest of the field was trying in vain to catch up to their power, athleticism and self-belief……[MORE >>]

REFERENCES:

>> Why Serena Williams will not vote for Barack Obama

Venus Williams quote: “Some people say that I have an attitude- Maybe I do. But I think that you have to. You have to believe in yourself when no one else does- that makes you a winner right there.”

Popularity: 17% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

 By: Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad
Shamsaddin (Pictured Below)
Going through the vast literature that is being daily produced with focus on the ongoing Democratic campaign, one gets the idea that rich conceptual thinking, innovative approaches, and nuance are all there.

Yet, the field where nuance seems to be permanently absent in America is the US foreign policy. This does not concern the present campaign only, but the situation has certainly been exacerbated over the past weeks. From the comical comments of Senator McCain about the US staying in Iraq another 100 years () to the hysterical reaction of Senator Clinton as regards to US ‘policy toward Iran‘ Ayatollahs, one gets the impression that the US foreign policy risks being entrusted in irrelevant hands precisely at a moment when the unipolar world of one and sole superpower seems about to end.

With the American economy in the middle of a serious crisis that can be tremendously deteriorated, with a great number of social issues unresolved, with a wide range of very preoccupying global problems (energy, food crisis, bio-fuel, environment), America’s foreign policy needs reconsideration, reassessment and re-evaluation from scratch.

The need for an immediate shift in the US foreign policy consists in the most urgent demand for America as it hinges on all other issues, energy, environment, commodities prices, economy, to name but a few.

In a rising multi-polar world where China, India, Russia, the Islamic World, Africa, Brazil, Mexico and Japan vindicate their position next to the US and the EU, America needs to think out-of-the-box, and devise a global strategy that will promote the US interests genuinely conceived.

To briefly comment on the aforementioned oversights, we would focus on US-Iraq issues, and ask the following:

• - What is the benefit of the US staying 100 years in Iraq, if the Christian Aramaeans who are the ethnic majority of Mesopotamia (Iraq is a false term that severely damages the US interests) are thus eradicated from their fatherland?


• - To whose profit is this sort of extended American presence in Iraq going to be?


• - Are Americans able to understand that the US-led invasion of Iraq turned to the unique advantage of the Islamic terrorists?


• - Is Senator Mac Cain mentally capable of envisioning an 100-year long American presence in Iraq that would not be to the profit of the terrorists? If yes, why doesn’t he publish an overview of this policy so that people be able to appreciate the pillars on which it may be based and be convinced about it? If not, for whom is he working in order to practically extend US damage (present policy has been clearly assessed as such thus far) due to the invasion of Iraq for another 100 years?

One can therefore understand that what matters in Iraq is not whether the US military stay there 3 months, 3 years or 3 centuries but whether US presence in Iraq can let Justice prevail, help repair damages caused to several ethno-religious groups over the years of colonialism and post-colonialism, and promote a culturally â?? educationally genuine, democratic nation building that has long been deliberately averted.

As we have entered, since 2001, in the period of the so-called War against the Islamic Terrorism (irrespective of the veracity or not of the events of September 11), America should consider whether the infantile US foreign policy has so far committed, in this new era, precisely the same errors that have been perpetrated in the period of the foremost waste of US national resources, namely the Cold War.

Absence of Nuance

To be more precise, we will circumspectly present two models of consideration. Evaluating America’s performance during, and contribution to, the Cold War (1950 â?? 1990), one could conclude that the US, by forging an alliance with Western European democracies, managed to contain and in time to cause the downfall of the Soviet regime.

This is the conventional thinking that does not take into consideration the resources and the time wasted, the loss in other fronts (Europe, Africa, China, Latin America), as well as the impact on the image and the perspectives of America. Even worse, this conventional way of thinking does not take into account the fact that the so-called collapse of the Soviet Union consists in an absolutely false myth; in real terms, it was a 10-year moratorium that ended up with the replacement of the former Soviet Union by Russia.

As conventional thinking is based on a quantitative approach, defenders of this interpretation would say that Russia is now much weaker (comparatively speaking) than Soviet Union in the mid-70s. This is absolutely wrong because America is similarly weaker now, as Europe, China, and to lesser extent India and Brazil have risen to significance.

This ominous way of conventional thinking is what publicly unseen but real and omnipotent centers of power promote in order to besot the vast masses of the Americans, divert them from global issues, and then effectively run them without them even understanding it.

According to an unconventional approach and interpretation, after WW II, all the administrations failed to understand that ’superpower’ (anytime anywhere) means above all ability to deal with nuance.

Of course, the Russians are quite the same. And perhaps, this is the reason for which the Cold War lasted that long. If France or England had been in the position of (as powerful as) America in 1945, the Soviet Empire would have collapsed in the early 60s.

America cannot be an ally for Colonial England and France

As a matter of fact, the lack of nuance made America (under either Democrats or Republicans) perceive itself as an ally of colonial empires that following their collapse managed to turn the colonial rule to postcolonial rule (which is just another form of colonial rule) under America’s nose - and the US started understanding this reality only in the 90s.

For Eisenhower or Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, Carter or Reagan, the Search for Freedom could not have a positive exit if undertaken in alliance with the most vicious enemies of Freedom, France and England. The two colonial countries are not only guilty for Serial Crimes against the Mankind because of their deeds in Africa, Oceania, and Asia but also responsible for terrorism, oppression and cultural genocide practiced in Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Occitania, Corsica, Bask Land, Catalonia and French Polynesia.

The oppression in Corsica was not different from the oppression in Estonia. If Ukraine is now an independent country, so Scotland and Catalonia must. Today, in 2008, France cannot possibly dare demand of China to respect the rights of the Tibetans because France has long implemented far crueler practices of oppression in Brittany under the infamous emblem “In the streets it is prohibited to spit and to speak Breton.”

It would be a terrible political mistake to identify ‘anti-colonial’ with “Democrat”, ‘left’ or even ‘leftist’. Anti-colonialism is Americanism, the essence of the Declaration of Independence. It has to be undertaken / promoted / implemented by either Democrats or Republicans.

Lessons to take from the Cold War

Conventional thinking and traditional approach to foreign policy are responsible for the following oxymoron - all due to the lack of nuance:

Anti-colonial (by nature) America was the ally of the colonial powers England and France (1950 - 1990), while they promoted postcolonial structures in Africa and Asia, involving state run economies, totalitarian regimes, and at the same time a great dose of Anti-Americanism.

Was it not a form of American suicide?

In fact, the Cold War was in itself a terrible anti-American trickery of England and France. It helped the colonial powers ensure the implementation of the following projects for some decades:

1. America would waste an incredible amount of resources in the Cold War.

2. England and France would recover financially.

3. They would maintain the colonial control in most of their former colonies.

4. Soviet Union would also waste an incredible amount of resources.

5. Every liberation movement would be triggered by the Soviet Union, thus
contributing to a good public image of that monstrous realm for decades. It would however be without real effect as the Soviet system was never viable.

6. Americans would try to prevent ‘Soviet expansion,’ thus triggering anti- Americanism, and identifying themselves as the ‘bad’ guys!

It is all being currently reproduced in the equally fake War against Islamic Terrorism. By this I don’t imply that there are no Islamic extremists! On the contrary! Simply, the setup is fake. All the US has done against Islamic extremism thus far is just a mere unilateral damage of the US image, influence and potential allover the world. America rather contributed to severe worsening of the case.

It is high time for Obama to envision an American policy able to redress the current ordeal. The only way would be rethinking from scratch without endorsing anything in the world that contradicts America’s basic principles and values as defended by the Founding Fathers. Political realism is a monodrama for which the US has an expiry date.

Popularity: 36% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Writes: James N. Kariuki

Kenya — The way forward for our leadership Read the full story

Popularity: 34% [?]

Sphere: Related Content