Black (and others) Nationalism and History

Hannibal was not the ruler of Carthage*

After reading Satan the next chapter of Malcolm X's autobiography is saved. It basically explains that after listening to the initial teachings of Elijah Muhammad Malcolm through himself into extensive reading of the prisons library with a particular focus on the few books covering African and "Negro" History. He also gives an explanation for why the Nation of Islam's teachings including the nutty parts were so easily accepted by so many Black Americans. By erasing the Black Americans history both his African heritage, not only were most Black names European, but there last names were either those of a slave master or the generic "Freeman" which still carried an association to slavery. And the knowledge of his experiences in the "New World", Malcolm claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, that in school a very prestigious one in Lansing Michigan had only one paragraph on the whole of Negro history. American society had created a void in the intellectual and emotional being of most Blacks which meant they were quick to embrace teachings and philosophy's like Elijah's that filled that void.

The teachings of Mr. Muhammad stressed how history had been "whitened"-when white men had written history books, the black man simply had been left out. Mr. Muhammad couldn't have said anything that would have struck me much harder. I had never forgotten how when my class, me and all of those whites, had studied seventh-grade United States history back in Mason, the history of the Negro had been covered in one paragraph, and the teacher had gotten a big laugh with his joke,"Negroes' feet are so big that when they walk, they leave a hole in the ground."This is one reason why Mr. Muhammad's teachings spread so swiftly all over the United States,among all Negroes, whether or not they became followers of Mr. Muhammad. The teachings ring true-to every Negro.

This is one area where I can totally relate. Having grown up in Britain as a mixed Celt (my parents are Welsh and Irish and my ancestors are Scottish) the concept of "Britishness" is heavily dominated by "Englishness". One of the main reasons Nationalist groups like Plaid and the SNP maintain a sizeable support base is because a lot of Celts will never feel part of a Great Britain because its just another extension of England. With the exception of Scotland I never learnt anything about Wales or Ireland that wasn't heavily linked to England until Sixth Form history. And even with Scotland it was limited to a bit a bout the Jacobite rebellions after we had looked at the Stewart's (so it was really just an addendum to the Civil War lessons) and a few brief biography's of a couple of clever Scottish inventors though they were presented as British inventors with just a brief mention that they came from Edinburgh or Glasgow.

I know from first hand experience one of the few areas were both Plaid and SNP have been very popular has been the education reforms focus on Celtic history and culture. I myself once I started to learn about Celtic history and mythology, in my own free time became something of a cultural nationalist for a brief period. Fortunately reading the work of critical historians about national myths like the Jacobite rebellions and the fact that most "English loving Traitors" in Celtic history did so purely for monetary reasons convinced me of the importance of class over nation. For example most Welsh Nationalists venerate Owain Glyndwr (Owen Glower) as a sort of Welsh Braveheart. The problem is he used to be a staunch supporter of England he was part of the Anglo-Welsh Gentry and he served in its army as a noble officer. He only led the rebellion after his lands were confiscated by a personal friend of Henry IV and English racism barred him from solving his grievances legally.

It also helped that many Blacks never received sufficient education in general, Malcolm for an example says he didn't know what the word genetic actually meant until AFTER he heard Yacub's history. And when he looked it up the discovery of the dominant and recessive gene structure seemed to support the tales of Yacub the ancient eugenicist.

Unfortunately while Malcolm came to learn enough to see absurd fables like Yacub's history and every white man is literally the devil for what they were he till his dying day believed in quite a few fictions.

I perceived, as I read, how the collective white man had been actually nothing but a piratical opportunist who used Faustian machinations to make his own Christianity his initial wedge in criminal conquests. First, always "religiously," he branded "heathen" and "pagan" labels upon ancient non-white cultures and civilizations. The stage thus set, he then turned upon his non-white victims his weapons of war.

What's the problem here? There is no such thing as a "Collective" White man, never has been and never will be. For example the English language gets the word Slave from the word Slav. The Slavs are a mixed group of people from Transcaucasia and have lived for centuries in Eastern Europe. They are a diverse bunch but two things they all have in common is their pale skin and their shared history of poor treatment and oppression at the hands of other white Europeans.

Google assures me this is what an average Slav looks like

Furthermore the usage of the labels of heathen and pagan were not exclusively directed at "coloureds" Protestant and Catholic Europe branded each other by that terminology all the time and it lead to a lot of bloodshed. The Thirty Years war being the most blatant example involving most of Europe and decimated entire populations of several of the warring kingdoms. 

I don't see any black faces do you?

Pop quiz which nation is the following qoutation about?

They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to leisure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihood for animals and they live like animals.

The answer is Ireland, I'm sure its sentiment seems very familiar if not its target.

　I read how, entering India-half a billion deeply religious brown people-the British white man, by1759, through promises, trickery and manipulations, controlled much of India through Great Britain's East India Company. The parasitical British administration kept tentacling out to half of the subcontinent. In 1857, some of the desperate people of India finally mutinied-and, excepting the African slave trade, nowhere has history recorded any more unnecessary bestial and ruthless human carnage than the British suppression of the non-white Indian people.

Again the Indian experience does not show a collective white man but rather the opposite, in addition to a British East India Company, there was also a French and Dutch East India Company and several more. And all of them got up to the same dirty tricks the British Company did until they lost controlled and were expelled from India.

　　Over 115 million African blacks-close to the 1930's population of the United States-were murdered or enslaved during the slave trade. And I read how when the slave market was glutted, the cannibalistic white powers of Europe next carved up, as their colonies, the richest areas of the black continent. And Europe's chancelleries for the next century played a chess game of naked exploitation and power from Cape Horn to Cairo.

Again both examples disprove Malcolm's assertion the slave trade was not an example of White collective action but individual competition. Portugal also exported millions of slaves to Brazil via its colony in Angola. And for a time Spain and England (and then Britain) went to war over who would dominate the North Atlantic slave trade.

And of course I'm sure we're all familiar with the White racists favourite argument for slavery. "Blacks had slaves too"! This is true but aside from academic accuracy its irrelevant. It is not an acceptable defence that someone else does it too, its the equivalence of "an older boy told me to do it".

And then we come to big one, Empire. Its undeniably true that Europe and the USA colonised vast swathes of territory and carried out brutal exploitation to fund the wealth of their rulers. But again it directly contradicts the idea of a "Collective White man" not only where these Empires in direct competition with each other, buts this competition drove them to greater heights of cruelty and expansion. Conquering foreign lands and stealing there natural wealth wasn't just an exercise in greed it was also a necessity, failure to take this territory was an open for your rivals to exploit. Oh and Ireland was also one of the earliest colonies, British immigrants were actually called Settlers and in addition to them monopolising the government and landed estates they Anglicised the culture and nearly destroyed the Irish language.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding Malcolm's usage of the term Collective. When I hear the term collective I associate it with concious collaboration, maybe he just meant that since so many White nations acted this way they could be lumped together. I know of several Black Nationalists who clearly state that is why they hate white people. If so there's one severe problem with that analysis is its highly hypocritical.

Empires and slavery and militaristic expansion have existed on every continent. For example a lot of Black Nationalist have come to regard Hannibal of Carthage the same way Welsh Nationalists view Owain Glyndwr. Because he was a skilled General from Carthage (Tunisia, and Northern African Coastline) and defeated Rome (A symbol of White power) several times during the second Punic War. He even did so most famously using War Elephants probably the most African symbol there is.

There's just one massive problem here, Carthage was in many ways just as despotic as the wicked white Romans. They were an Oligarchic Republic similar to Rome they also shared Rome's corruption, they had conquered territories along the Mediterranean coast and in Spain. They also had slaves, in fact they probably stopped raiding for slaves because the Romans outlawed it in their treaties with Carthage. Hannibal's march on Rome was less a blow for the freedom of the Africans and more about reversing Carthage earlier defeats and becoming fully independent again which would have involved being free to launch slave raids again. But that's just one example.

The flag of the Benin Empire, clearly a Peaceful land

As I've said the continent of Africa was full of Empires, and since White people were in Europe who do you think they fought,conquered and exploited? The above is the Benin Empire it lasted from 1440-1897 it wasn't very big, the modern day nation of Benin is of similar size. But it was still a despotic regime that saw the rise of Edo people over neighbouring tribes. Culturally the Empire was quite tolerant but other ethnic groups leaders were appointed by the Edo dynasty and ultimate authority lay with the Edo clans. And the Edo Kings power as their flag demonstrates was martial.

"The King of Benin can in a single day make 20,000 men ready for war, and, if need be, 180,000, and because of this he has great influence among all the surrounding peoples. . . . His authority stretches over many cities, towns and villages. There is no King thereabouts who, in the possession of so many beautiful cities and towns, is his equal."

 Another snag is that in addition to local Empires Muslim and Arab encroachment caused great pain and suffering to the African peoples conquered by them. In the Congo the main opposition to total Belgian control was the presence of Arab slave traders, and the Slave trade in Eastern Africa served to enrich Arabic lands. Unsurprisingly Malcolm a fervent Muslim was silent on this issue(though its possible he didn't know), and Arabs also being of colour tend to get a free pass by current Black Nationalists since acknowledging this chapter of history conflicts with their simplistic black and white (pun half intended) views. In fact Islamic slavery of indigenous Africans gave European Imperialism moral cover as conquest of Muslim controlled territories like the Sudan was seen as a moral crusade.

It was Africa's history of repressive governments even after independence that kept the Black Panther Party from embracing Black Nationalism and an uncritical Pan Africanism. Black Nationalism they argued would only lead to a Black Bourgeoisie and a Black oppressor class.  

But lets leave Africa for now and lets move onto Asia or as Malcolm called them the "Yellow men".

 I listen today to the radio, and watch television, and read the headlines about the collective white man's fear and tension concerning China. When the white man professes ignorance about why the Chinese hate him so, my mind can't help flashing back to what I read, there in prison,about how the blood forebears of this same white man raped China at a time when China was trusting and helpless. Those original white "Christian traders" sent into China millions of pounds of opium. By1839, so many of the Chinese were addicts that China's desperate government destroyed twenty thousand chests of opium. The first Opium War was promptly declared by the white man. Imagine!
　　Declaring war upon someone who objects to being narcotized! The Chinese were severely beaten,with Chinese-invented gunpowder.
　　The Treaty of Nanking made China pay the British white man for the destroyed opium; forced open China's major ports to British trade; forced China to abandon Hong Kong; fixed China's import tariffs so low that cheap British articles soon flooded in, maiming China's industrial development.
　　After a second Opium War, the Tientsin Treaties legalized the ravaging opium trade, legalized a British-French-American control of China's customs. China tried delaying that Treaty's ratification;Peking was looted and burned.
　　"Kill the foreign white devils!" was the 1901 Chinese war cry in the Boxer Rebellion. Losing again, this time the Chinese were driven from Peking's choicest areas. The vicious, arrogant white man put upthe famous signs, "Chinese and dogs not allowed."Red China after World War II closed its doors to the Western white world. Massive Chinese agricultural, scientific, and industrial efforts are described in a book that Life magazine recently published. Some observers inside Red China have reported that the world never has known such a hate-white campaign as is now going on in this non-white country where, present birth-rates continuing, in fifty more years Chinese will be half the earth's population. And it seems that some Chinese chickens will soon come home to roost, with China's recent successful nuclear tests.

I'm sure those Zen meditation types have a land of peace and equality right?

Oh, I guess not

To be fair to Malcolm he is right China suffered horribly at the hands of Europe and America, I mean you can't get more disgusting then the Opium Wars. Chinese refer to this period as the century  of humiliation to this day, and frequent policy announcements in the People's Republic claim to have ended that century by building a new China. But he forgets that Japan was also involved, not only did it go on to carve up China it also helped put down the Boxer Rebellion.In fact they were the largest military component of the alliance.

The Japanese were noted for their skill in beheading Boxers or people suspected of being Boxers. General Chaffee commented, "It is safe to say that where one real Boxer has been killed... fifty harmless coolies or laborers on the farms, including not a few women and children, have been slain."

 So again this Collective label doesn't really stick. Also China itself before being brought so low by its rivals was itself  quite an expansionist power. Though to be even fairer to Malcolm this belief in China as a peaceful neighbour isn't just a few I've heard peddled by Nationalists, I've heard some liberal historians say similar things. I can only assume Orientalism to be at work since only a brief glance at Chinese history proves this to be nonsense.

The closest I've heard to an elaboration of China being a land of peace was to either chance the subject to discuss China's many contributions in philosophy, or scapegoat the Mongolians who had seized control of China in the 13th century. Its true that being incorporated into the Mongolian Empire led to Chinese forces being led into foreign fields but it doesn't cover everything. For just one example China has a very long history of invading and occupying Vietnam.

But even if we accepted this explanation we also have to concede that all the territories of Modern China to be inherently Chinese, which would be a unique concession indeed and something the Uighurs and Tibetans would probably query.

But even if this weren't the case, there's still plenty of domination in Chinese history. The Chinese Emperors were not particularly benevolent, women could be treated viciously, foot binding comes to mind but so does the concubine system. Then there were inter ethnic rivalries, the last Imperial Dynasty of China the Qing were Manchu's from Manchuria. There corruption and impotence against foreign powers inflamed ethnic Han Nationalism so much so that if it wasn't for the leaders of the Kuoming Tang (KMT) like Dr Sun being so outspokenly republican and inclusive of China's ethnic groups the 1911 Revolution may well have resulted in the replacing of the Manchu Court with a Han one.

Ancient China also practised slavery and that did include the rare African (Chinese explorers and merchants made it to East Africa and the middle East).

And furthermore to hammer home the Class>ethnicity theme I'm getting at those very same rulers of China Malcolm rightly points out got a raw deal from the white powers had no problem relying on the support of those white powers when their own privilege was threatened. For example remember Gordon? the man who died in Khartoum well he had an unusual nickname "Chinese" Gordon. He got helping the Chinese Empire to victory in Taiping rebellion which was after the Opium Wars.

And during the Boxer rebellion the Imperial Court favoured siding with the foreign Legations over the Boxers but only changed their minds due to the popularity of Boxers amongst the population.

"Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?"

And even then Imperial forces were more likely then not to fire on and detain boxers rather then unite to drive out the foreign armies. Naturally this uncertainty had a disastrous effect on the conduct of the
 rebellion and it was inevitably defeated.

And of course we have the last Emperor of China, Puyi  deposed in 1912 at the ripe old age of 6. Not only did Puyi and his predecessors employ outright slaves (the Eunuchs) but after being fired he eventually found a new job administrating the lovely land of Manchukuo. Japanese annexed Manchuria giving legitamacy to the Empire of the Sun's vile exploitation and crimes.

An example of the leisure activities of Puyi's benefactors

No account of my childhood would be complete without mentioning the eunuchs. They waited on me when I ate, dressed and slept; they accompanied me on my walks and to my lessons; they told me stories; and had rewards and beatings from me, but they never left my presence. They were my slaves; and they were my earliest teachers.

In conclusion none white nations were just as prone to violence and domination as anywhere else. The only difference was that whitey was more successful at the Empire game, which effectively boils none White Nationalist arguments down to a case of jealousy. As much as I admire and respect Malcolm X's intelligence and opinions his theses on world history needs more work. A shame he'll never get the chance to revise his work thanks the "Honourable" Elijah Muhammad.

*He became Carthage's Suffete (similar to Rome's Pro Consul) but his policies were unpopular and the Carthaginian Aristocracy the real rulers of Carthage force him into exile.

Enemies of the Internet

Yep this is another one of them preachy posts, once again accompanied by a nice Infographic from the good people of Open-Site, for a quick recap of similar posts click on the following links:

Technology production
Piracy
Online Activism


 Today's theme is sort of a companion piece to the one about Activism (though arguably they are all interconnected) its about those whom threaten all the good things the Internet gives us, including pornography and fan sites about obscure television shows an out of print pulp series.

From Open-site.org 

If you think that identity theft is the worst-case-scenario of Internet use, you clearly don’t live in any of the nations that make the list of top “Enemies of the Internet.” Not only do these governments monitor their citizens’ web activity, but they also make it nearly impossible for them to safely share and gather information through anonymous microblogs, Facebook pages or Twitter accounts. One nation sports a cyber police force that is larger than the city of Orlando, Florida. And when protests erupted in another country, Twitter accounts were created for the sole purpose of diverting citizens from spreading information. Although these nations represent the extremes of national cybersecurity, the measures they use are based in legislative bills like SOPA, PIPA and CISPA. Check out the following infographic to find out which nations make this list. The next time you surf the web, think carefully about who’s watching you and who’s blocking you.

 If you're finding the graphic a bit small you can get the full sized version here.

Anyway I believe this is a fairly comprehensive list of nations that have less then liberal attitudes to the world wide web. In fact do take a look at both lists in the second image, we have the usual suspects China, Burma, Belarus, Russia, Cuba etc all well known for Authoritarianism but we also have a few surprises, Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia, all of which had until the Arab Spring been well known for tourism and an accommodating attitude to Westerners.

And yet all of them at least embraced legislation that allowed their security forces to monitor the web. Why is this necessary? Well its quite easy to co-opt mainstream or old media either nationalise it or keep it in private hands and reach an agreement with the owners. Murdoch used to be the perfect example of this in the UK before the phone hacking scandal ruined his credibility and usefulness to government. Remember private ownership of the media doesn't necessarily equal independent or free.

Of course the problem with that framework is lying about a problem doesn't make the problem go away. People whom are frustrated and not getting anywhere through official means often go "underground"  and the internet has made this much easier to do and more effective to reach a larger audience. Owning the Times and Government FM simply won't stop dissent from spreading hence monitoring programs, and criticism laws (which we'll get to later) and don't hold your breadth for the new governments in Egypt and Tunisia to get rid of these particular laws. You would be surprised how useful such measures are once someone else has done the hard work and took the flack for implementing them.

For example in South Africa the ANC kept very unpopular Apartheid era laws in case their Administration faced an insurrection. Or did you think they just forgot about the legal justifications to arrest and beat them when they were the people's Vanguard?


Bahraini bloggers have often faced arrest and fines and that was before the protests against the Monarchy kicked off in full. Now you can expect a night raid and assault.

You may also wonder why Australia and France are on the list, after all those are civilised "Democratic" Western liberal nations. So why are they playing follow the leader with the Moustachioed Despots? Put simply because the same tensions that make surveillance and arbitrary detention so attractive to Governments exist in all nations. Can you honestly think of a nation that is completely homogeneous in outlook and harmonious? I can't... well that's not true North Korea (As its government portrays it anyway) seems pretty orderly, but given that its society is heavily militarised and has an extremely powerful police and intelligence service suggests that harmony is manufactured to some extent. And even they have very restrictive internet monitoring programs.

In the UK Tory and Labour governments have been blocking sites since the 90's. Some because of allegations of terrorism promotion and child pornography but, sometimes file sharing, I can't access Piratebay.Se anymore to give a recent example. In fact if I remember correctly in the 90's most websites blocked or shut down were Scatological pornsites (I'm not checking to make sure, you do that if you want too) which while unpleasant content wise isn't exactly what I'd call and economic or societal menace.

And of course I'm sure we're all familiar with the Alphabet bills in America and the EU trying to increase restrictions on the internet in our lands. SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA and so on. This initiatives need to be fought, not because they'll take away free films and music (even though its been debunked that piracy negatively affects those industries) but because they all legalise attacks from both government agencies and corporate "Rights holders" to attack our democratic space. You are naive in the extreme if you don't realise that these measures open the door to censorship of ideas and groups. And maybe you don't care all that much when the groups being shut down are "terrorists" or of the political and social opposition, but can you honestly guarantee that that is were the line stops? Would you be so complacent if the party bringing in these policies was one that opposed your beliefs and tried to silence your activism and debate?

Again credit to the Open-Site for the infographic.

More from this series:

Technology production
Piracy
Online Activism

Power to the Online People!

The nice people whom sent me this and this have once again shared a lovely infographic on a subject close to my heart Internet activism. And this ones animated too!

"Where were you when news of the tsunami hit Japan in 2011? How about when Michael Jackson died? Probably online, according to many experts who claim that social media has become the main media source for hundreds of millions of people. Not just in the U.S., either; Facebook alone has more than 900 million users spread across the globe as of 2012. Other social media giants like Twitter have facilitated revolution against unjust leaders and warned people of impending natural disaster. In fact, so many people regularly interact online that if the Internet were a nation, it would exceed the Americas, Europe and the Middle East combined in population. No wonder more than 13 million members of the online community used Reddit and other media platforms to protest SOPA, a proposed Internet censorship bill. Keep this graphic in mind next time you log on, because knowledge is power — and a little knowledge goes a long way in the Internet Age."

Naturally as a blogger it shouldn't surprise to learn that I'm in general agreement with most of the points it makes. I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the point about the AID's protein but this site has some interesting information on it. I have to say though it surprises and impresses me.

 My area of "expertise" as far as the internet goes lie in activism and what is now called crowd sourcing. I think sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo whilst far from perfect and often used to fund vanity projects will and are offering inventors and artist types whom for one reason or another have difficulty securing funding in our corporate/government dominated investment and development sectors.

And of course the internet has enabled charities and support groups to raise awareness and funding. Before the internet advertising was limited both in frequency and audience. Also the time delay between a situation occurring and a response being coordinated has been drastically reduced. Action alerts and emergency appeals can start raising funds for emergency almost as soon as they develop.

 And then we get to my bread and butter, activism. Naturally being a politically minded fellow living in a remote village in an oft forgotten province I do a lot of stuff online. I should also mention I do a lot in my community too its just that opportunities are more limited. Anyway its undeniable that the World Wide Web has opened up some breathing room for "Radical" thought and given small groups s set of tools to agitate and recruit.

For example I only became aware of the Morning Star after doing a research project on British Communist groups on the internet. Regular readers of this blog will know that's my favourite and only regular newspaper. And that paper has a nation wide circulation and an extensive network of supporters.

And of course since the 90's there has been a blossoming of internet news sites, radio and video channels all representing many different view points and areas of interest. The infographic to my left wouldn't exist without the Internet. Now of course there are some out there whom are rather cynical about the use of the internet, words like "slacktivism" have been thrown around. And I have to disagree, there's an old Anarchist saying that goes "If Voting ever changed anything they'd make it illegal" I agree with the sentiment but disagree with the example since you know a lot of nations have indeed made voting illegal and according to some American Republican State governments are attempting to limit access to the ballot boxes so if that statement is true voting must have an effect.

Despite that I do think a good measuring stick for the worries of the establishment is what they move to ban or restrict. And the internet has seen increased monitoring and many nations from USA to China, EU to Russia have been drafting legislation to restrict websites and online activities.





However I think it is important to mention some very important Caveats, if the internet is to have any value as a tool for change and human progress it can only do so if it inspires and motivates action. You can make hundreds of viral videos, tweet to a hundred thousand followers and have a million likes on Facebook, but if no one gets up and starts acting nothing will be changed. Lets take the Mubarak example to our left, 90,000 pledges is great but if it wasn't for the years of hard struggle by a core of activists and labour unions battling the security services and getting them to compromise and on rare but important occasions back down no one would of risked turning in to Tahrir Square.

Ben Ali of Tunisia didn't resign and flee because he was embarrassed that Wikileaks publishing of his expense accounts and shopping lists trended on twitter he left because those documents validated the arguments and struggles of dedicated opponents whom had been risking prisons and beatings.

There's also another rather dark problem with the internet in regards to activism. It is quite easy to spread misinformation. I'm thinking of Kony 2012 that brilliantly crafted propaganda video, now I have no love for Kony and at first I was pretty impressed that someone was trying to raise awareness of his banditry. Unfortunately it wasn't long before alarm bells started ringing. Denying that the Lord's Resistance Army had an ideology to keep them isolated from sympathy. Condemning the LRA for its wicked deeds, child soldiers, civilian deaths, torture whilst praising the Ugandan government whose army is guilty of much the same, and worst of all imploring the audience to get America to deploy troops to Uganda to "Stop Kony" even though the Ugandan army already defeated him and the LRA haven't been active in Uganda (where the film wants troops to be deployed) since 2005 making a deployment there useless if that was the intended goal.

Now that looks convincing doesn't it? remember a picture may be worth a thousand words, but there's no guarantee those words are accurate

But that isn't the only instance of a suspiciously manufactured viral campaign. I can remember several years ago when the US and Colombia where negotiating for a Colombian Free Trade Agreement and greater collaboration in the "War on Drugs" there was a big fuss made of the start of a Facebook "No to FARC" campaign, that grew into street demonstrations in Bogotá and other cities and still occurs every year. Several Liberal papers were touting this a momentous occasion that would signal the end of armed conflict and a damning indictment of the Guerilla movement. There are a number of problems with this analysis, first officially about 53% of the population have access to the internet. And in reality it is much lower because the population in areas ran by FARC are at best estimates. Second most of those whom do have regular access to the internet tend to be from richer backgrounds, and are therefore much less likely to have sympathy with the aims of FARC a Marxist group. Now that doesn't mean that their opinions don't count it does however mean that that population will have a natural bias on this subject. Third their experiences with FARC are not likely to be typical, the group is in control of territory and as such operates as a political and social entity in addition to its military activities. The wealthy urbanites of Colombia are very unlikely to have knowledge of these programs and if they have any experience with the group is in relation to its military operations which negatively impact there social group further limiting there objectivity.

In addition those particular marches were organised by groups known to support the government. And the government gave employees the day off and called on people to join them.

“We want to live in a country at peace, a country without kidnappings or violence,” President Juan Manuel Santos said in an address in the little town of Villeta in the central department of Cundinamarca.
“No one should stay at home, no one should stay in their offices, because we are all going to march with a single purpose, a purpose that unites us all: to say 'yes' to liberty and 'no' to kidnapping,” he said at an event late Monday, according to a presidential statement."

To me this is the equivalent of using the Orange Order marches in Glasgow and statements by the Conservative party (Or party of British Unity as it desperately tried to re-brand itself North of Berrick Upon Tweed) to make a statement that the whole of Scotland hates the IRA, or wants Ulster to be part of the Union. It could be true but the evidence presented doesn't bear that conclusion out, and in fact actually undermines it.

In summary, the internet is a tool that supports a means to an end, it is not the end in and of itself. It is also not impenetrable, governments and corporations  can and are increasingly active online doing their best to curb activism and information leaks.If we wish to keep the internet as a driver for human progress then we have to be wary of the dangers and warn other of them as well as trumpet there successes.

Infographic created by Open-site.org

The Revolution Spreads

Fortunately the Revolt in Tunisia is not fizzling out as protesters continue to demand the removal and expulsion of all the higher ups of Ben Ali's regime, and seems even segments of the police and security forces are defecting no doubt in an attempt to focus the people's anger at their bosses, and the army appears to be slowly coming to the side of the population and giving up there neutrality. Overall its looking more promising that this revolt will successfully rid the country of its corrupt ruling class.







And we have even better as the Revolution is spreading throughout the Arab world. Egypt looks to be next as its previously demoralised and suppressed anti Mubarak and NDP movement appears to have been reinvigorated and is taking on the security apparatus despite the Egyptian governments massive numbers of police officers and 40 year attempt to siphon off discontent with a series of fraudulent elections, the last elections were more fraudulent then ever and only received 20% participation as can be seen in this report. Despite the repression it is quite clear to anyone with eyes that the people of Egypt want Mubarak and the NDP gone and an end to the 40 year emergency security law that has strangled Egyptisn freedoms ever since the death of Anwar El-Sadat at the hands of radical Islamist'sincidentally current Autarch Hosni Mubarak was wounded during the assassination. And an end to Eqypt's close ties to Washington and Tel-Aviv especially its collaboration with the strangling of Gaza.



Once again the strength of the peoples anger seems to be surprising the pundits. For those who wish to stay on top of the developments in Tunisia and Egypt then I can recommend these blogs Frontlines of Revolutionary Struggle
and Egypt protests
Photo Source here and here.

Tunisia North Africa's 21st century Algeria?

Apologies for the lack of updates but my final term of uni will start up soon and I've been busy writing up my Dissertation. Its about the Soviet Afghan War for those interested.

Anyway to make up for it I offer up this quite enlightening interview by the Real News Network discussing the developments of the Tunisian Revolution and the environment in which developed and grew.



Unsurprisingly it seems the revolt was sparked after decades of corruption and false democracy supported to the hilt by the liberal democratic west (of course), including the USA, whose war on terror band wagon Tunisia like most oppressive regimes with an Islamic population jump aboard head first as it was the perfect cover for increased oppression at home without fear of any messy human rights violations inspired diplomatic incidents mucking up the waters, and with a good chance of getting discounts on weapon systems and increased financial aid.

Though of course the main accomplices to the Dictatorial regime in Tunis is France and the EU, the former has regarded North Africa like its own back garden and treated much like the US government treats Latin America with a lot of "de-weeding" and preferential use of miracle grow. With latter not batting an eye at a system it claims to find anathema so long as thousands of sun starved Euro plebs can shrug off their troubles and let off some steam by the beach on a package holiday.

Still things do look promising right now, of course given the rapid pace of Revolutionary moments that doesn't mean much. The army not defending the regime of the unlamented ex president Ben Ali is a mixed blessing. Its good that the military is refusing to attack its own citizens and become a blunt tool of the ruling clique, but on the other hand they haven't fully come over to the people's side (as an institution)as yet which does leave open the possibility that they will back another less radical "leader" against the Tunisian peoples wishes and then start to crack down on all this spontaneous organising, all in the name of stability. Still time will tell.

You know I've noticed a very disturbing trend, a hell of a lot of these tropical paradises and other holiday hotspots that seem like paradise to us Northern hemisphere folks are in actuality despotic nightmares for the people who live there. Tunisia, Egypt, Thailand, Spain first became a tourist hotspot in the 1970's during the dying days of Franco's regime, and Greece for much of the 20th century was run jointly by the military and Monarchy.

My family and I went on holiday to Egypt about 6 years ago, it was lovely, everything was sparkling and ordered..... inside the hotel once you got out into the streets amongst the beggars and security thugs (Tourist Police) and breathed in the real none plastic Egypt it wasn't long before my mood soured, I think it was when I saw six Tourist Police with Ak's strike a one legged beggar and then chuck him into the back of a van with his young child. Fortunately a few days later I saw the one legged man and his son again a few days later with only some bruising, I and my mother and father gave him all the Egyptian currency we had on us to assuage are guilt and then enjoyed the rest of are stay. But for me it was my last holiday abroad I just can't get rid of the bad feelings that I was in some small way oiling the wheels of tyranny*.

Oh, for those wondering the title alludes to a similarly turbulent chapter in the history of Tunisia's neighbour. Algeria and its struggle for independence from the yoke of French Colonial domination. Particularly the urban Guerilla movement and the street battles of the capitol Algiers, if you want a quick summary of the conflict then I strongly recommend watching The Battle of Algiers as a film it is stunning and is the most grown up and intelligent depiction of a insurgency war I've either seen it is a lot better then those Revisionist Vietnam war films the yanks came out with.


*I'm fairly certain I read that somewhere.