|
White European Barbaric Savagery & Uncivilised Behaviour
'It takes a good man to stand and do nothing for an evil man to succeed’ Edmund Burke
So just how did Cecil Rhodes and Ian Smith, and the apartheid founder and oppressor of Zimbabwe succeed and retain power for so long. Were there no good men, but surely there were, many good people died and were tortured fighting against this from the Black Community, so why did it continue considering the White population were smaller in number.
People would have us believe that there are many White skinned people who opposed and were disgusted by the whole regime. But the question I ask is how did they oppose it, by turning down their face. If so many opposed it wouldn't it surely have been torn apart much earlier. It took the situation to be exposed to the world and for outside pressure to bring these ugly regimes to an end. Where were the so called 'good men'? They were definitely in the minority.
Where were these so called good White powerful people (people with actual rights of citizenship) when the regimes were in full force. Were they sitting indoors enjoying the comfortable lifestyle the benefits of the regime provided. Or were they out there on the front line fighting against it with the Black community who were oppressed from these regimes. Aside from a few White liberals who did go that extra mile, some few unsung heros (who were deemed as an embarrassment to the White governments in these countries) they were not to be seen. Most just didn't pay attention to it and never bothered to question or oppose it, it was simply accepted as a way of life and 'how things were'. I have spoken to people who lived through the apartheid in South Africa and many of them simply say it was how we grew up, we didn't know it was wrong. How can that be possible, how can someone mistreat other human beings and see them as not being their equal and thing that could possibly be right? I find that a hard justification and excuse to accept whilst I understand everyone is a product of their environment, how can we see an unequal environment and possibly think that is acceptable. The slum townships outside Johannesburg and other major cities were very evident and not hidden from sight. How could you look at that and not see the inequality and demand a change? The lack of rights to vote, how can you live in a country whose original inhabitants are not allowed to vote and you settlor are? How could people not see that, or is it that they didn't want to see it, comfortable with their lavish economic lifestyles.
Both situations denoted superiority to Caucasians, which meant in reality, if the Black community rebelled, it was labelled as ‘native savagery’ and fought against with all the might the racist regimes could muster. But if the sprinkling of White people opposed it, it was labelled an embarrassment as the Whites were deemed as superior by the racist governments and if some Whites didn’t agree with the situation then it gave rebellion more weight to other people. There were a few instances where this did happen and it was quite effective, for instance :
Donald Woods – journalist friend to Steve Biko was a white man who had to flee South Africa with his family as his life was in danger. His fellow white people were ready to kill him for his political views.
But still I am confused at why more of the White population did not stand up against this situation more. Surely if more white people had opposed these regimes, the life span of said regimes would have been much shorter.
For a community to function as a community must pull together, the White society in Zimbabwe and in South Africa, were not African first and foremost White (Rhodesian or Afrikaaner) people who still had allegiances to their colonial countries, Rhodes and Smith for instance thought that they were going to take over or colonise the whole of Africa for Britain. However even Britain became hugely embarrassed by their blatant human rights abuses and eventually distanced themselves from the whole situation. They for the most part were not interested in a normal lifestyle where noone had benefits simply based on merit, they wanted the benefits based on race. They formed an elite little European population within Zimbabwe owning the best farmlands and even after independence they still retained ownership of this land.
We have to admire and bow down to Madiba he is a shining example of humanity and compassion, Nelson Mandela who managed to lead South Africa out of that situation without a civil war and nationwide genocide occurring against the White South African populous. Which further could have led to a lawless state with countless rebel factions destabilising the government, leading to civil wars which would have ruined the whole economy. As according to victim persecutor cycle that could easily have been the fate of South Africa. We have seen how Zimbabwe has struggled to come out of this situation successfully without the country practically going bankrupt due to bad leadership and a man that can't let go of power almost throwing the country into civil war in the process.
Then we look into the whole issue of colonisation and the Berlin Conference, just how did a bunch of European White guys sit down in Germany and cut up the African continent into countries that are meaningless, share out the spoils and assign the countries to European countries for ownership rights? What on earth posessed them to imagine they had the right to do that?
How did King Leopold manage to suppress Congo in the manner in which he did and justify dismembering people’s body parts (inclusive of private parts) for rubber. If White European thinking and theology was so advanced as White European accounts of history claim and was so against so called 'barbaric practices' and they were so ‘civilised’ as they would have us believe, how did these things happen to begin with? The only difference between White and Black barbaric practices and savagery it appears to me was that White European people decided to harness their savagery and barbaric practices for economic advantage and even inflicted this savagery on a often nation wide scale.
Doesn’t this then raise issues about which cultures were really morally civilised after all, as assigning material gain and collectively organising exploitation and perpetuating barbaric and savage acts to uphold this expoitation merely indicates moral inferiority. More organised crime or development of evil weapons does not indicate even intellectual superiority just lack of moral restraint.
So countries that participated in such practices often claimed moral superiority over their victims which was propaganda and deception on a mass scale. Implemented and orchestrated by a mass of corrupt people and opportunists with barbaric and uncivilised mentalities devoid of any moral character.
White European historical accounts always denotes a role of so called ‘saving nations from themselves and always justifies these colonial roles by accusing and associating the target they intended to conquer with savage and barbaric practices’.
We can see this from the accounts of colonisation from European history books, it was what happened throughout the African continent in attempts to justify colonisation of nations, we are often given the impression from White European accounts of history that the African continent was plagued with tribal warfare. However this was not the actual reality, most tribes lived side by side and got on with their lives. Occasionally there were some frictions between tribes however this is no different to what occurred on the European continent. The only difference being that European countries formed their own identity and borders and were allowed to retain this. Colonisation certainly didn’t solve any problems or cure any ills if anything it perpetuated greater ills and caused more frictions forcing tribes to integrate and live together in country format which was alien to the people being integrated.
Nothing really has changed though, except Britain now has an ally the US and is now using more stealth approaches. Now we can see this being replicated in the United States by the politicians over there. With America and Bush wading in to save Iraqi’s from a ‘dictatorial leader with weapons of mass desctruction’ in their own words, without any real weapons, of course another propaganda spin to deceive the masses and convince the populous their lives were at risk.
However were not the US just as guilty of such dictatorial tendencies themselves, when in the past they gave African Americans their own slice of African soil in the shape of Liberia, did this not continue for over a hundred years? When it all went sour did not the US support some of the factions in Liberia when it served their interests? Should not have someone waded in to stop the US then as a dictatorial force. If someone had done so would we then have seen the two civil wars in Liberia spanning 11 years between them? Did Liberia not continue to be ruled by the Americo-Liberians until as late as 1989? Is that so long ago? The Liberian war ended as rebels overthrew the Americo-Liberian governement. This civil unrest later continued as factions fought out the situation resulting in two civil wars. Why didn’t the US put a stop to its own dictatorship and occupation of Liberia and suggest a need for free and fair elections with all parties at the political table to fix the inequalities of the past 100 years? Why did it take a civil war to shift the balance of power? It smacks of hypocrisy and a continuation of the White European colonial mentalities which do not really seem to have disappeared but seem to have migrated into modern politics under the stealth of ‘protecting the world from terror’. Liberian - US affairs were a total mess with one dictator after another supported by the US, eventually things have settled and Charles Taylor the latest human rights abuser has been taken out of power. Didn’t the US also support this dictator too? He was given economic aid from the US, while he massacred people in neighboroughing Sierra Leone and the US government knew this, what about this dictator why was he not challenged, he used guns on his neighbours with free will, whilst the US built relations with him.
I have noticed that there seems to be a fear around White people to discuss these issues, they often look very uncomfortable when such issues are discussed. You have the apologetics who feel an inherent load of guilt (who think that throwing lots of economic aid to African countries will alleviate their guilt and somehow solve the historical injustices, little do they realise the programmes themselves are not really solving anything, they are often simply recreating dependency cycles with these countries toeing the line of the country supplying the aid, forming beneficial trade agreements with them, often providing more access to cheaper resources and supporting corrupt government regimes that possibly would not survive if it were not for the foreign aid being thrown at them which they ultimately embezzle before they have been ousted out of power by an internal faction), then you have the other side of thinking those who actually believe the hype and propaganda they have been taught in history classes at school and never bothered to question later in life that African countries needed to be 'saved' by the so called 'morally superior White European man'.
I think though these topics have to be broached openly and honestly, these deeds can never be changed as they are indeed in the past. However in the true spirit of truth and reconciliation they should be examined and talked about, their real essence exposed for the barbaric, savage acts they really were, the worlds children in schools should know the truth of the ugly history and how wrong it was, how we as humanity can avoid such instances happening again and learn how to avoid it such things occurring again in the future.
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ George Santayana
Until this happens and there is a reeducation of the masses within the Western community a rewriting of history so to speak especially in our general cirriculums within schools, with the truth of the events of history without the Whitewashed glean justifying or somehow trying to minimise the effects or the actual reality of the indefensible past crimes or simply not addressing the true nature of the acts. Can we or have we really learnt from the past? If so why are we still repeating it only this time with the US at the helm with Britain playing running mate?
Sometimes I wonder where this world would be if we had all advanced from a place of mutual respect and understanding with other countries and cultures, can you imagine if we had a world based on the best practices from all countries, what kind of world we would live in today? If we had found solutions from combinations that were originated in all cultures. Instead of this being dictated predominantly by what White Europeans deemed superior and right when they were definitely no more superior or right or more intelligent than anyone else?
Would our economic systems be superior, would our political and due process systems be superior to what we have had to settle for today? Would we have so much conflict, greed and terror accross the world? These are questions that must be asked and the historic European White savagery, arrogance and barbarism coupled with a lack of moral 'good men within these colonisers, apartheid founders and economic rapists' admittingly have robbed us of the answers. It was not only a historical injustice but also an injustice to our futures.
Copyright @ Jill Barraclough 2004
|