Sunday, 31 March 2013
Sunday, 10 March 2013
THE LIFE & LEGACY OF BROTHER-LEADER HUGO CHAVEZ!
incorporating the commemoration of the 1916 Irish Easter Uprising and launch of Let Freedom Ring! coalition
Saturday, April 13, 2013
5:30pm until 10:00pm
North London Community House,
22 Moorefield Road,
next to Bruce Grove railway station
SPEAKERS (more speakers and performing artists tbc):
Oscar Guardiola-Rivera (Colombia)
Esther Stanford Xosei (Pan-Africanist)
Mounir Saidoune (Algeria)
Nu'man Abd Wahid (Yemen/england)
Speaker from Basque Country struggle
Sukant Chandan (chair)
Hugo Chavez was one of the few leaders of the Global South who championed the cause of independence and sovereignty against imperialism of our peoples in the homelands, and also struggled for their rights to collectively control the wealth from the land and our labour. He was one of the few to give political leadership on the international struggle, a leadership which is severely lacking and needed in the world today.
This event seeks bring together our specific challenges of anti-imperialist internationalism in the context of these islands, of which the Irish Easter Uprising of 1916 is the most important political event, and how the leadership of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela informs these tasks.
This is is an event jointly organised by the Tri-Continental Anti-Imperialist Platform (antiimperialist.net, website to be launched shortly) and the Let Freedom Ring! coalition (www.theglassishalffull.co.uk), the latter of whom will be having their london launch as the first hour and half part of this event.
This is a free event, which will also have limited free food and drink. donations will be requested, we don't expect people attending to be stingy with the donations :)
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
Chavez cannot be white-washed
When he was alive they white-washed him, now he has passed, this will intensify
Sons of Malcolm
05 March 2013
Chavez has joined the ancestors. Usually it is only when the greatest of our revolutionary leaders pass away that the enemy and the enemy's infiltrators in our ranks start the white-washing of the personality to ensure that her/his potency is whittled away so our masses cannot imbue themselves for the purer revolutionary example that they set.
The enemy - the imperialist white power structure - has done this to all our revolutionaries They try to turn Malcolm X into a hippy figure stripped of his militant and consistently brave advocacy of the world revolution of the masses against imperialism and white supremacy, be it the Chinese socialist state acquiring the nuclear bomb, or his support for the Mau Mau resistance in Kenya and his support for Lumumba and then his subsequent support for the resistance in Congo against the lynchers of Lumumba masterminded by the imperialists. They have done this with Che Guevara, one of the greatest personifications of militant anti-imperialist and socialist internationalism that we have had in the last century.
They tried to turn Che Guevara into merely a romantic figure from a rich white family in Argentina, and not the Che Guevara who saw in the example of socialism in Asia - especially Vietnam, 'north' Korea/DPRK and China the best example of socialism for the world, not the Che who went to Africa (Congo) to struggle with our family there (and with the father of the current president of Congo) against imperialism.
They conduct this white washing against so many: including Steve Biko, Frantz Fanon and countless others. This is because they are a potent threat when they are passed, sometimes more so than when they were living.
Usually imperialism and its tools white wash our revolutionaries after they have passed away. However, the white washing of Chavez was well under way when he was alive, from early on in his leadership of the socialist and anti-imperialist revolution in Venezuela.
Why did this start when he was alive, while with the other figures quoted the white washing started after they passed away? It is because Chavez's leadership was at a time when the world revolution took a historical nose dive. Chavez leadership arose at the end of the 1990s, ie., the worse period of the entire century since 1914 because the 1990s was the period of defeat after imperialism and its allies smashed the Eastern Socialist Bloc of countries that, despite its limitations, was a beacon of socialism and direct support by all means necessary of the international world revolution for independence from imperialism.
The white washing of Chavez started from the early part of this leadership of Venezuela post-1999 because Chavez did not go along with the tide, he did not go along with what the western imperialism imbued left thought was fashionable. The white washing started because Chavez was true to our revolutionary legacy, ideologies, traditions and ancestors from the previous period of massive upsurge of revolutionary struggle led by China and and Mao Tse Tung and the other revolutionary newly independent and often socialist states of the GlobalSouth who had freed themselves, with support from the newly expanded anti-imperialist and socialist world, from imperialism and colonialism.
Chavez, like Morales, Correa, Lula and Dilma in the region, know very well who they are loyal to presently and historically, as they seem themselves very much a continuation of those who they and we have learnt from: the veteran movements and struggles of our peoples across the three southern continents.
The trendy liberal imperialists and fake socialists will champion everything about Chavez but that which is truly revolutionary about the Great Man, as they do with everything that is truly revolutionary, they turn it into a bougie boutique artefact, however, the onus is on our international family who stay loyal to indeed do likewise to Chavez and our traditions: i.e., stay loyal to Chavez in his entirety, and not that which is dictated by imperialist prejudice and radical posturing.
The difference between now and the revolutionary period of the 1950s-1980s is that there is not the kind of world revolutionary leadership we had in that period, because in that period due to the force and effectiveness of the revolutionary world leadership the fakes could not easily white wash our leadership as it was all to obvious and powerful what the nature of our leadership was. After the disaster of the collapse of the Eastern Socialist and Anti-Imperialist Bloc, the fakes could talk 'breeze' to quote the street parlance of our youth in london.
Here are some things that you will not find the snakes, fakes, fools and tools of imperialism raising high about Chavez. These are merely things to those who positively understand our struggle will find not to be controversial in the slightest, but the A B C of revolutionary leadership and strategy.
Chavez was loyal historically to our greatest revolutionary leaders, including one of the greatest: Mao Tse Tung, about whom he said was a "great strategist, great soldier, great statesman, and great revolutionary", and said to his Chinese comrades in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese state that Venezuela was finally "standing up" for itself, just as China had done "under the leadership of the great helmsman, Mao". (Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Gott, p26)
Chavez aligned himself with some of the greatest veterans of the socialist and anti-imperialist struggle such as Robert Mugabe, arguably one of Africa's greatest revolutionaries who has continued to defy a veritable seige of war by imperialism since the late 1990s for the support he has given Africa against imperialism and the land reforms against white settler farmers in Zimababwe. Chavez gave Mugabe the most prestigious award in Venezuela, the sword of Bolivar on Mugabe's visit to the country in early 2004, and said to him in presenting the sword: "I give you a replica of liberator Simon Bolivar's sword [..] For you, who like Bolivar, took up arms to liberate your people. For you, who like Bolivar, are and will always be a true freedom fighter [...] He [Mugabe] continues, alongside his people, to confront the pretensions of new imperialists." (source)
Chavez understood that in the world today it is fundamental to develop close strategic relations not only with Peoples China, but also with Russia. While imperialism did not want to embarass itself too much, it was little reported that the Russians and Venezuelans made a historic victory for the world revolution in december 2008 when they had a joint military naval exercise in the Caribbean waters right under the nose of usa imperialism. Chavez recognised that Russia is a good and strong friend of the GlobalSouth that develops relations with respect and without any arrogance towards us, and has a powerful military that GlobalSouth countries can ally with in a common struggle against imperialism. Putin likewise commented on his comradeship with Chavez "Throughout the many years of our friendship, you have convinced me more than once that you are a true fighter, a brave man, a man of strong will." (Global Times). Chavez also awarded Putin with the prestigious sword of Bolivar.
So many fakes and snakes supported the nato war on Gaddafi and Libya when Castro, Farrakhan, the Sandinista's Ortega and Morales, Correa and Chavez all stood by their comrade Gaddafi in the face of this imperialism onslaught. While the Libya issue remains the most illuminating chapter of modern history which showed up every one who was weak minded coward in the face of that massive imperialist offensive, it was Chavez was stood out early on in the attack and stated that Gaddafi had been "someone who has been my friend and our friend for a long time, without knowing what is happening in Libya ... I am not a coward, I am not fickle."
While so many exposed their own fickleness and cowardice in the face of empire, Chavez showed the world what true comradeship, internationalism and revolutionary loyalty means. And how right were Chavez and Gaddafi too as to the real nature of that british-imperialist-led nato and allied death squad putsch, and how sorry and pathetic are those who still remain the cowards they exposed themselves to be at the time.
The fakes and snakes in our midst will now go all out to delete most of the above from the legacy and revolutionary life of Hugo Chavez, or will fundamentally disrespect the person of Chavez by criticising his choice of comrades and strategical approach. One can only treat this as pathetic, as none of these people are worthy of washing Chavez's socks, let alone passing judgement on someone who defined the minimum standards of revolutionary leadership of the last generation.
The white washing of Chavez is part and parcel of the constantly escalating imperialist campaign of war, distortion and lies against our peoples internationally, as Chavez was an internationalist leader respected by our masses throughout the world. However, it is especially in Venezuela and the region that imperialism will be taking their chance to roll back the advances made by our family in that region against imperialism, against white supremacy and for the rights of our land and people and for socialism. It is to be welcomed that the leadership in Venezuela has expelled some imperialists already and Foreign Minister Maduro, someone who is clearly one of the best leaders after Chavez's passing has stated: “Venezuela’s political and military leadership is united, we call on the people to close ranks, to unite forces, and to pray for our comandante,” (source)
Like our leadership is asking of their/our people in Venezuela, we likewise take this call to close our ranks tighter than ever with all our assertive GlobalSouth leadership from Beijing to Delhi, from Moscow to Harare, from Algiers to Caracas to join in prayer to inform our vigilance and loyalty in action to the challenges sent to us by our ancestors, with another great ancestor - our Dear Brother Leader Hugo Chavez - joining with them and inspiring us further.
Chavez, he nurtured us all with unshakeable revolutionary love, for us to then nourish
our children towards freedom!
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Sunday, 3 March 2013
[video] ZAMBIAN CRITIC OF wESTERN DOMINATION IN AFRICA SPEAKS ON IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC UNITY WITH CHINA
China can transform Africa: Dambisa Moyo
ZAMBIAN economist Dambisa Moyo is an outspoken critic of international aid, arguing for years that foreign hand-outs stifle Africa's development, perpetuate corruption and hinder the continent's growth.
A New York Times bestselling author, Moyo first grabbed international headlines with her 2009 book "Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa."
Since then, she's penned two more books, on the subject of the decline of the West, and the effects of China's commodities rush.
In a new interview with CNN's Robyn Curnow, Moyo explains why she's optimistic about the future of Africa. She looks at the positive impact that China can have on the continent and details the key drivers that will spur Africa's economic growth.
CNN: The aid debate is so different from before ...
Dambisa Moyo: So much has happened in the last five years -- whether you're in Africa, South America or Asia, nobody talks about aid anymore.
Policy makers themselves are going out and issuing debts in the market. My own country, Zambia, did a fantastic bond, a $750 million 10-year bond, last September. The discussion is so much more about job creation and investment, which is such a fantastic story and it's obviously partly to do with the fact that the traditional donors are having a financial problem, fiscal problem, on their balance sheets. They just don't have the capital anymore to hand out cash like they did in the past.
CNN: The Chinese story has been thrown into the mix, has that changed the landscape?
DM: Yes, absolutely, but in a strange way it's exactly what we need in terms of delivering economic growth and meaningfully reducing poverty. We need jobs, we need investment, we need trade, we need foreign direct investment, whether investment domestically but also from the outside.
It's not some magic pill, everybody knows that this is the formula, and finally the Chinese are showing up, again, not just in Africa, but around the world with that elixir, that mix of opportunities to really transform these countries. Remember, 70% of the populations of these places is under the age of 24. There is no escape: we have to create jobs.
CNN: A lot of people are critical of Chinese "neo-colonialism" but you argue that's not the case.
DM: Well, it's not, because China has so many economic problems in itself. You know, this is a population of 1.3 billion people with 300 million people that live at the level of Western living style. So they've got a billion people to move out of poverty. The notion that they would be spending their time trying to colonise other places is just, frankly, absurd.
I'm not saying that China should be given a red carpet, carte blanche, to come into Africa or, indeed, anywhere in the world, and do what they like. We do need the investment, we need job creation and we do need actual trade in these places. But I think what's really essential is to focus on what China can do for Africa, as well as what Africa can do for China. And I think that discussion is not had as objectively as it should be.
Ultimately, the responsibility of how China engages in Africa is really at the domain of the African governments. We would not be worried about the risks of neo-colonialism or abuse, environmental abuse and labour issues, if we trusted the African governments to do the right thing.
CNN: How do you see the trends playing out in the next decades?
DM: I'm an eternal optimist. I'm probably the wrong person to ask, because I do believe that the structural and fundamental structures of Africa right now are poised for a very good few decades. If you look at an economy through the lens of capital, which is basically money; labour, which is basically how many people do, you have and what skills do they have; and productivity, which is just, how efficiently they use capital and labour, the trend is very clearly in favour of Africa.
We've got a very solid fiscal story. The debt-to-GDP ratios in Africa today at the sovereign level are nowhere near the burdens that we are seeing in Europe and the United States.
The labour story is very positive - 60-70% of Africans are under the age of 25. So a young population dynamically needs to be leveraged, so definitely we need to invest in skills and education to make sure that we get the best out of this young population. And then, in terms of productivity, this continent is a great absorber of technologies and all the things that can help us become more efficient.
Therefore, these three key drivers: capital, labour, and productivity, help spur economic growth. Now is it going to be smooth sailing? Of course not - there will be volatility, but I think the real investors in Africa will be able to make delineation between risk and uncertainty.
CNN: And it's about a country's resources, too, right?
DM: That's a brilliant question, because actually the answer is no. I think it's really about the structural things that I mentioned: capital, labour, productivity.
Why do I say that? Let's take a look at the African stock market. There are about 20 stock exchanges in Africa and about 1,000 stocks that trade in Africa -- 85% of them are non-commodities. We're talking about banking, we're talking about insurance, we're talking about retail, we're talking about consumer goods, logistics companies, telecommunications companies, those are the stocks that are on the African stock market.
CNN: Do you feel a sense of responsibility to represent the African success story?
DM: Well, I suppose, for me, I feel a responsibility to tell the truth. This is a great continent. I went to primary school on this continent, secondary school, university, I've worked on this continent and I think that it's a great disservice that, for whatever reason, people have usurped an imagery of Africa that is absolutely incorrect.
They focus on war, disease, corruption and poverty. That is not all about Africa and I think it's really essential if we're going to turn the corner, we need to take that responsibility, as governments, as citizens, not just Africans, global citizens to say, "that's actually not true."
There are more poor people in India than there are in Africa; more poor people in China than there are in Africa, but somehow there's a stigma for decades that's been associated with the African continent that is completely unjustified -- and it's that I find objectionable.
In the words of a friend and in response to this imperialist twisting of issues on the Korean natural disasters that created hunger and famine in Korea, which the imperialists blame the Korean socialist government about:
The tragic famine that hit the North after several years of flooding that makes Katrina look like someone left the tap on upstairs.
And what was the US response? To reinforce sanctions and cut off food aid.
Someone has blood on their hands. But they arent in Korea.
Still, wasnt it Mad Albright who said a million dead kids in Iraq as a result of US sanctions "was a price worth paying"? This is what sanctions look like. Be proud. You did this. Now go wash your hands.
- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm
Based on this speech of Thabo Mbeki made in Feb 2012
1. “the Western powers have enhanced their appetite to intervene on our Continent, including through armed force, to ensure the protection of their interests, regardless of our views as Africans”
2. These powers “will use the argument that they are our unique friends as defenders of our democratic and human rights, obliged to act in this regard especially when our Continent, through the AU and our regional bodies, can be presented as having failed to act to defend these rights”
3. These powers “will act as they did in Libya especially if, in situations of internal conflict, which they would also foment, they can argue that they are implementing” the R2P doctrine.
4. “In all instances we must expect that such interventions will be supported by some native forces, our own kith and kin, which the world powers concerned will present as the genuine representatives of our peoples, without regard to the truth in this regard.”
5. The West will attempt to harness multilateral institutions to support their narrow interests, such as in applying sanctions against a given country, and they will especially misuse the UNSC.
6. The West will “use the global media to demonise whomsoever they view as their enemy, and present in the best possible light whomsoever they determine is their friend”
7. Disunity in Africa “opens the door to our ‘recolonisation’”, esp as the West attempts to prevent a strategic alliance between Africa and China.
Friday, 1 March 2013
Compensation for colonialism's crimes are the minimum demands of our struggle
Sons of Malcolm
01 march 2013
"Dr Nick Draper from University College London, who has studied the compensation papers, says as many as one-fifth of wealthy Victorian Britons derived all or part of their fortunes from the slave economy."
This is a quote taken from the article below which explains some of the findings of the english university college london's research on what is known as 'slavery' or the 'slave trade', better understood as the national campaign of white europeans at the industrial kidnapping and genocide of African peoples. This quote gives some idea of how important this genocide was to the economy of britain, which is one of the most important economies historically, if not the most important economy in the collective world imperialist system.
However, it was not just this aspect of colonialist genocide that took place at that time or since. While the founder of modern socialist thought Karl Marx is rightly criticised in some quarters of having a certain amount of eurocentricism, on the other hand he supported all anti-colonial uprisings across the world in his lifetime (something which cannot be said of the western white left at that time or ever since until this day), and was totally upfront and blunt about the immoral nature of the modern captialist system when he stated "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production." (source)
This points to at least two other factors taken with the genocide against African people that directly led to the rise and domination of modern imperialism in the world: 1, the exploitation and genocide against the people of Asia and 2, the exploitation and genocide against the native peoples and their land in the Americas.
These and the many subsequent wars of conquest and genocide by europeans and their states are that continue right until this day, and which europeans continue to intensify their war of domination, are all issues that requires from the peoples of the GlobalSouth and their progressive junior partners amongst white anti-imperialists, a strategy for total justice and liberation. The only world leader who has ever brought this up in front of the world's nations was Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in septemeber 2009 when Libya was the chair of the united nations general assembly. In the article below, it is good to read that Barbados is in a process of seeking compensation for the crimes of the brits there, and there are some moves with the African Union to do the same.
A strategy for total justice and liberation means that every single penny stolen in super-profits from our peoples must be returned, every death as a result of the white man must be compensated for, and all destruction of our natural environments must also be compensated for at the very minimum. And furthermore, the desires of the near entire populations of the GlobalSouth to have open access to the lands of the 'west' must be respected and put into being, ie., a total open border policy for our peoples into the imperialist countries with a view of getting our justice back.
These strategies and challenges are the start of the liberation movement in which we are inheritors of from our ancestors, it is not the end goal, but the minimum program for liberation that we require. Our focus in all our revolutionary work, be it internationalist or grassroots, must have these central strategies in mind if we are to move towards liberation as peoples with dignity and self-respect and an on-going loyalty to the ancestors.
Colonial slavery shaped modern Britain and we all still live with its legacies. The slave-owners were one very important means by which the fruits of slavery were transmitted to metropolitan Britain. We believe that research and analysis of this group are key to understanding the extent and the limits of slavery's role in shaping British history and leaving lasting legacies that reach into the present. The stories of enslaved men and women, however, are no less important than those of slave-owners, and we hope that the encyclopaedia produced in the first phase of the project, while at present primarily a resource for studying slave-owners, will also provide information of value to those researching enslaved people. - Brother Garika Chengu
Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition
David Cameron's ancestors were among the wealthy families who received generous reparation payments that would be worth millions of pounds in today's money
The true scale of Britain's involvement in the slave trade has been laid bare in documents revealing how the country's wealthiest families received the modern equivalent of billions of pounds in compensation after slavery was abolished.
The previously unseen records show exactly who received what in payouts from the Government when slave ownership was abolished by Britain – much to the potential embarrassment of their descendants. Dr Nick Draper from University College London, who has studied the compensation papers, says as many as one-fifth of wealthy Victorian Britons derived all or part of their fortunes from the slave economy.
As a result, there are now wealthy families all around the UK still indirectly enjoying the proceeds of slavery where it has been passed on to them. Dr Draper said: "There was a feeding frenzy around the compensation." A John Austin, for instance, owned 415 slaves, and got compensation of £20,511, a sum worth nearly £17m today. And there were many who received far more.
Academics from UCL, including Dr Draper, spent three years drawing together 46,000 records of compensation given to British slave-owners into an internet database to be launched for public use on Wednesday. But he emphasised that the claims set to be unveiled were not just from rich families but included many "very ordinary men and women" and covered the entire spectrum of society.
Dr Draper added that the database's findings may have implications for the "reparations debate". Barbados is currently leading the way in calling for reparations from former colonial powers for the injustices suffered by slaves and their families.
Among those revealed to have benefited from slavery are ancestors of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, former minister Douglas Hogg, authors Graham Greene and George Orwell, poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and the new chairman of the Arts Council, Peter Bazalgette. Other prominent names which feature in the records include scions of one of the nation's oldest banking families, the Barings, and the second Earl of Harewood, Henry Lascelles, an ancestor of the Queen's cousin. Some families used the money to invest in the railways and other aspects of the industrial revolution; others bought or maintained their country houses, and some used the money for philanthropy. George Orwell's great-grandfather, Charles Blair, received £4,442, equal to £3m today, for the 218 slaves he owned.
The British government paid out £20m to compensate some 3,000 families that owned slaves for the loss of their "property" when slave-ownership was abolished in Britain's colonies in 1833. This figure represented a staggering 40 per cent of the Treasury's annual spending budget and, in today's terms, calculated as wage values, equates to around £16.5bn.
A total of £10m went to slave-owning families in the Caribbean and Africa, while the other half went to absentee owners living in Britain. The biggest single payout went to James Blair (no relation to Orwell), an MP who had homes in Marylebone, central London, and Scotland. He was awarded £83,530, the equivalent of £65m today, for 1,598 slaves he owned on the plantation he had inherited in British Guyana.
But this amount was dwarfed by the amount paid to John Gladstone, the father of 19th-century prime minister William Gladstone. He received £106,769 (modern equivalent £83m) for the 2,508 slaves he owned across nine plantations. His son, who served as prime minister four times during his 60-year career, was heavily involved in his father's claim.
Mr Cameron, too, is revealed to have slave owners in his family background on his father's side. The compensation records show that General Sir James Duff, an army officer and MP for Banffshire in Scotland during the late 1700s, was Mr Cameron's first cousin six times removed. Sir James, who was the son of one of Mr Cameron's great-grand-uncle's, the second Earl of Fife, was awarded £4,101, equal to more than £3m today, to compensate him for the 202 slaves he forfeited on the Grange Sugar Estate in Jamaica.
Another illustrious political family that it appears still carries the name of a major slave owner is the Hogg dynasty, which includes the former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg. They are the descendants of Charles McGarel, a merchant who made a fortune from slave ownership. Between 1835 and 1837 he received £129,464, about £101m in today's terms, for the 2,489 slaves he owned. McGarel later went on to bring his younger brother-in-law Quintin Hogg into his hugely successful sugar firm, which still used indentured labour on plantations in British Guyana established under slavery. And it was Quintin's descendants that continued to keep the family name in the limelight, with both his son, Douglas McGarel Hogg, and his grandson, Quintin McGarel Hogg, becoming Lord Chancellor.
Dr Draper said: "Seeing the names of the slave-owners repeated in 20th-century family naming practices is a very stark reminder about where those families saw their origins being from. In this case I'm thinking about the Hogg family. To have two Lord Chancellors in Britain in the 20th century bearing the name of a slave-owner from British Guiana, who went penniless to British Guyana, came back a very wealthy man and contributed to the formation of this political dynasty, which incorporated his name into their children in recognition – it seems to me to be an illuminating story and a potent example."
Mr Hogg refused to comment yesterday, saying he "didn't know anything about it". Mr Cameron declined to comment after a request was made to the No 10 press office.
Another demonstration of the extent to which slavery links stretch into modern Britain is Evelyn Bazalgette, the uncle of one of the giants of Victorian engineering, Sir Joseph Bazalgette and ancestor of Arts Council boss Sir Peter Bazalgette. He was paid £7,352 (£5.7m in today's money) for 420 slaves from two estates in Jamaica. Sir Peter said yesterday: "It had always been rumoured that his father had some interests in the Caribbean and I suspect Evelyn inherited that. So I heard rumours but this confirms it, and guess it's the sort of thing wealthy people on the make did in the 1800s. He could have put his money elsewhere but regrettably he put it in the Caribbean."
The TV chef Ainsley Harriott, who had slave-owners in his family on his grandfather's side, said yesterday he was shocked by the amount paid out by the government to the slave-owners. "You would think the government would have given at least some money to the freed slaves who need to find homes and start new lives," he said. "It seems a bit barbaric. It's like the rich protecting the rich."
The database is available from Wednesday at: ucl.ac.uk/lbs.
Slavery on an industrial scale was a major source of the wealth of the British empire, being the exploitation upon which the West Indies sugar trade and cotton crop in North America was based. Those who made money from it were not only the slave-owners, but also the investors in those who transported Africans to enslavement. In the century to 1810, British ships carried about three million to a life of forced labour.
Campaigning against slavery began in the late 18th century as revulsion against the trade spread. This led, first, to the abolition of the trade in slaves, which came into law in 1808, and then, some 26 years later, to the Act of Parliament that would emancipate slaves. This legislation made provision for the staggering levels of compensation for slave-owners, but gave the former slaves not a penny in reparation.
More than that, it said that only children under six would be immediately free; the rest being regarded as "apprentices" who would, in exchange for free board and lodging, have to work for their "owners" 40 and a half hours for nothing until 1840. Several large disturbances meant that the deadline was brought forward and so, in 1838, 700,000 slaves in the West Indies, 40,000 in South Africa and 20,000 in Mauritius were finally liberated.
African and American self defence in relation to imperialism
Are we going up the river without a paddle?
Sons of Malcolm
01 march 2013
On the one hand those who support independence of the GlobalSouth against the greatest threat to it: imperialism, cannot but welcome the comments made by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez a latter read out by Foreign Minister Elias Jaua to the III Africa-South America Summit (ASA), which is taking place in Equatorial Guinea. Chavez states to the Summit in the letter that: “It’s not by luck or chance…[that] since the Summit in Margarita (Venezuela) the African continent has been the victim of multiple interventions and attacks by Western powers”. (see full article below)
As the article states Venezuelan president argued that one of the objectives of these interventions had been to put a brake on the consolidation of African unity, in turn slowing cooperation between Africa and South America. This is all true. But one has to ask also that considering how close Chavez and other left-nationalist leaders of South America were with Muammar Gaddafi and the Libyan Jamahirya, where was the actual implementation of solidarity and unity with Africa in the case of the nato attack? And furthermore, what are the concrete plans of Chavez and others to develop such effective mechanisms of unity and protection from further imperialist attacks?
While one totall agrees with Brother-Leader Chavez that we must “not to miss the opportunity…to unite the capacities of our nations into a true pole of power”, is there anything discussed at this summit which will develop a meaningful mutual protection strategy in the face of growing war from imperialism against us?
On the agenda of the Summit in terms of building South American and African strategic unity are those of an economic nature, and perhaps there will be some limited cultural and media negotiations and deals too between the two continents.
However, there are two fundamental areas that have to be addressed if these two continents and the GlobalSouth in general are to develop effective concrete measures of self defence and internationalism against imperialism: 1, the media challenge, and 22, the military challenge.
On the media front it is of high priority that the GlobalSouth develop effective international media in the main languages used by the peoples of the world. The nato operation on Libya was only carried out successfully because the entire imperialist media went into brain-washing overdrive, and the resistant GlobalSouth media was left flat footed. The best we had was Russia Today, with Iran's Press TV for the most part (although myself and a few others were on quite often, and were never censored in any way for our anti-nato and even pro-Gaddafi analysis) feeding into the imperialist demonisation campaign against Libya. imperialism admitted itself that it could not have carried out the nato operation on Libya without the support of al-jazeera.
While GlobalSouth media is developing at a snails pace, this is obviously too slow in as much that imperialism is successfully preparing minds for wars against Algeria, Syria, Iran and many others, if not the entire GlobalSouth.
On the military level, and the only real guarantor of independence are three fundamental things:
i) A people-centred social system with a leadership that is has the confidence of the masses and is committed to safeguarding the independence of the country from imperialism
ii) That it has a strong and developing military capability, and
iii) That it develop mutual military defence agreeements with other countries in its region and internationality.
It is not secret, and is mentioned in Martin Sivak's biography of Evo Morales that Gaddafi tried and develop just such a mutual military defence pact with his South American allies, that he tried to develop a South Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to counter the threat from nato imperialism. There seems to be no sign of any similar developments taking place, although the Russian naval fleet have carried out military exercises with the Venezuelans in december 2008, which was itself a positive and historical development in anti-imperialist in the region and for Venezuela specifically.
Economic South-South development is of course very important for raising the capacity of our countries and regions and the well being of our peoples, but all of this development is in a highly precarious situation if the capacity for self defence, ie., military self defence is not matching it and ensuring the imperialists think twice before touching us, just as the imperialists fear the DPRK due to their wise approach to self defence.
Venezuela’s Chavez to Africa – South America Summit: We Must Unite
Mérida, 22nd February 2013 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in an open letter has urged countries of the South American and African continents to unite into a “true pole of power”, while railing against recent Western interventions in Africa.
The letter was read out yesterday by Venezuelan foreign minister Elias Jaua to the sixty-three countries at the III Africa – South America Summit (ASA), which is taking place in Equatorial Guinea.
In the letter, Chavez called for “an authentic and permanent link of joint work” between Africa and South America to search for strategies of sustainable development that could benefit both continents.
“It’s in our continents, where enough natural, political and historic resources are found…to save the planet from the chaos it’s been driven towards [by the capitalist system],” he argued.
The Venezuelan president further urged countries of the two continents “not to miss the opportunity…to unite the capacities of our nations into a true pole of power”.
He also wrote that while “in no way do we deny our sovereign relations with Western powers, we must remember that they are not the source of the comprehensive and definitive solution to the problems that our countries share”.
Venezuelan foreign policy during the Chavez presidency has held that greater cooperation between Africa and Latin America is important to the attainment of a “multipolar” world order, to counteract the dominance of the United States and its allies.
Venezuela has been a key nation promoting the ASA Summit initiative, hosting the II ASA Summit in 2009 and taking on the organisation’s secretariat. The first summit was held in Nigeria in 2006.
In his letter Chavez urged that the pace of integration between the two continents be picked up, and argued that priorities for cooperation should be energy, education, agriculture, finance and communications.
He also suggested that Venezuela’s proposals for integration projects be advanced, such as the University of the Peoples of the South, Petrosur, and the Bank of the South. Trade between the two regions has increased from US $7.2 billion in 2002 to $39.4 billion in 2011, Telesur reports.
Representatives of other South American countries also argued for the need to increase cooperation with Africa. Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño said that sometimes it had been difficult for the two regions to reach agreements.
He said that this was because “we don’t know each other well, we don’t have experience of joint work…there’s so much we can offer each other, and not only in terms of commerce”. The minister argued that the historic lack of cooperation between the two continents was rooted in the legacy of colonialism by European powers.
Chavez claimed in his letter that modern-day intervention by Western powers had interrupted the path of joint work between Africa and South America set by the ASA summit in 2009.
Referring to Western interventions in Libya and Mali, among others, Chavez wrote, “It’s not by luck or chance…[that] since the Summit in Margarita (Venezuela) the African continent has been the victim of multiple interventions and attacks by Western powers”.
The Venezuelan president argued that one of the objectives of these interventions had been to put a brake on the consolidation of African unity, in turn slowing cooperation between Africa and South America.
As such, Chavez repeated Venezuela’s “total rejection of all interventionist activity by NATO” in Africa and around the world.
The summit continues, with president of Bolivia Evo Morales and summit host and president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang, making speeches today.
The Venezuelan government released another update on Chavez’s health yesterday as he is recovering from a cancer operation undergone last December.
The official statement informed that “[Chavez’s] respiratory insufficiency, emerging in the course of the post operatory phase, persists and its tendency has not been favourable, due to which it continues to be treated”.
“However, medical treatment for the base illness [cancer] continues, without presenting any significant adverse effects up to now,” the statement added.
Chavez returned to Venezuelan on Monday after spending over two months in Cuba recovering from his operation. He will continue to receive treatment at the Dr. Carlos Arvelo military hospital in Caracas.