ŠNW NW DHDH/Shenu Nu Dekyahdekyah:
[Cycle of Revolution]
The Moral Response of an Oppressed People!
Ambakisye-Okang Olatunde Dukuzumurenyi, Ph.D.
[Public Policy Analysis]
“If slavery were abolished...the
Negroes amongst us would be slaves to the social system, instead of slaves to
individuals; the restrictions of the law would be more hard than the control of
a master." [Mhenga John L.
Carey, c. 6086 KC/c. 1845 CE]
All
of the socio-political economic examples of ŠNW NW DHDH/Shenu
Nu Dekyahdekyah from the War of National
Liberation in KMT/Kemet to the Cuban Revolution have provided support for the
proposition presented by John Locke that a people living under a government
that is despotic and arbitrary will overturn that government when it recognizes
its oppression caused spiritual, cognitive, affective and psycho-motor
physiological trauma. The hypothesis of
this paper has been repeatedly stated throughout that Global Afrikan peoples
have a moral duty to the Wahenga na Wahenguzi, the q R, NTR ‘З/Netcher-aa [Kush/Kemet:
The Great Spirit or Ancestor] and the Beautyful Ones Not Yet Born to remove the yoke of arbitrary, oppressive
government. By way of a case study it
will be shown that the Afrikan residing in America has an ethical obligation to
engage in regime change and socio-political economic regime change in the heart
of the current Eurasian global imperial order. That the government of the
United States of America has been arbitrary with regards to the Afrikan is
undeniable. In the North American
pseudo-democratic system of the United States it is a matter of socio-political
economic theory only that government is of the people by the people and for the
people. The government of the United States of America is representative in
social and political philosophy and economically driven by a pluralist elite. The pluralist American elite originally was a
white male propertied elite but has over time coopted racial minority groups
and white women in order to give the façade of change. The Eurasian pluralist
elite mentality is expressed by Marimba Ani in comparison to the Afrikan as follows:
"The mode or determining
structure of the western world view is that of power, control and destruction.
Realities are split into pairs of opposing parts. Conventionally, one of these
becomes valued, while its converse is understood as lacking value. One is
"good" and the other is "bad." It then becomes
necessary(valued behavior) to attempt to destroy one (the "bad"),
while the other ascends to supremacy. The human response to the universe, for
instance, is separated into "Reason" and "Emotion."
"Reason" then becomes the valued aspect of humanity. It must be used
to control or deny "emotion" in order for us to be properly human. (The
African conception is quite different. In it spirit and emotion are the essence
of humanness.) Other opposing pairs, in the European are
"knowledge/opinion," "objective/ subjective,"
"science/religion," "mind/body," "male/female,"
"man/boy," "white/black," and so forth." To the
African, on the other hand, the universe is made up of complementary pairs.
These "pairs" are forces, or principles of reality that are
interdependent and necessary to each other, in a unified system. The Divine
Essence, for instance is both female and male and therefore able to reproduce
itself. It does so in the form of male and female twins that then pair in order
to continue the process. The determining mode of the African world-view is
harmony. In the African world-view the human and the divine are not hopelessly
separated, as they are in western theology, where the divine is defined as
being the negation of all that is human. (It requires a miracle for them to
interact)...”[1]
Mhenga Amos N. Wilson, as the result of
extensive research over several decades, concluded that there were a number of ‘constants’
in the historical relationship[2] between the Mabila [Kiswahili: Ethnic Groups] of Afrika and
the tribes of Eurasia, in particular the historical interactions linking the
two broad divisions of Ubinadamu [Kiswahili: Humanity] over the preceding
half millennium. During the last five centuries the structure, function and
dynamics of the socio-political communication, economic interchange and
military engagements, which are defining components of the interrelations of
Afrikans and Eurasians, were initiated and shaped by Eurasians according to
Eurasian elite needs. The needs of Eurasians elites as delineated by Eurasians culture featured certain significant
aspects which were unchanging. Given
the xenophobic, violent, globally expansive for the purpose of empire-building,
hegemonic nature of European culture, the preponderance of coercive force in
the form of mechanized weapons on the side of Eurasian powers; and the
xenophilic, socially conservative, regionally centered non-globally expansive
integrated kingdoms and imperial territorial states resulting primarily from
annexation for the purpose of regional security, cooperative nature of Afrikan
culture, and the near dearth of mechanized weaponry in the hands of Afrikan
militaries, it is in no way ambiguous as to why the essential character of
Afrikan and Eurasian interactions was so heavily weighted in favor of Eurasia.
This power imbalance is especially true when one gives thought to the place and
use of religion and or spiritual systems in the cultures of Afrika and Eurasia.
In the cultures of Afrika religion and or spiritual systems are ways of life
encompassing the entire culture used for human development, where as in the
cultures of Eurasia religion and or spiritual systems are socio-political
institutions used to further elite political economic imperial agendas. However, as Mhenga Amos N. Wilson stated the
historical relationship has been continually defined by a series of ‘constants’.
These ‘constants’ were present in the initial phase of Afrikan and Eurasia
interaction five hundred years ago and continued to be underlying factors in
all subsequent socio-cultural interactions.
Mhenga Wilson is suggesting that as the
external behavior of Eurasians and Afrikans toward one another appeared to
change there were certain aspects of the relationship which remained consistent.
More specifically, considering that the distribution of coercive power was
skewed disproportionately on the side of Eurasians and therefore as a result of
the successful use of that power, Eurasians occupied the dominant position in
all socio-political economic interactions, and keeping in mind the correlation
of dominant group power and socio-psychological act of projection or the
ability to ascribe negative behaviors onto the other subordinate party, it is
more appropriate to say that as the external superficial behavior of Eurasians
towards Afrikans appeared to change there were certain substantive aspects of
Eurasian Afrikan interaction which remained unchanged. Provided that it is
understood that Afrikan behavior is generally reactive in this exchange, due to
the fundamental socio-political nature of the Afrikan culture in that it is
xenophilic and none expansive, sense can be made of the wisdom of Mhenga Wilson
by the apprehension of the salient aspects of the historical relationship of
Eurasians and Afrikans for the previous half millennium. For
it is this particular historical period of the past five hundred years that
Mhenga Wilson is particularly referencing in his analysis. Against the background of the work of scholars like Mhenga Amos
N. Wilson, the entire nature of the socio-political relationship that has
existed between the Afrikan and the American government has been one that is
incessantly marked with alienation and violent conflict. This situation remains
unchanged even in the light of the superficial apparent socio-political
economic change represented by the appointment of Afrikans to high positions in
American government and with the supposedly momentous occasion of the election
of an Afrikan as President of the United States of America. As Mhenga Amos N.
Wilson prophesied two decades before the ‘historic’ United States Presidential
election of c. 6249 KC [c. 2008 CE]:
“I often use that
phrase that you hear all the time, things change to remain the same. So often
you create apparent change to keep situations the same. The European learned of course that they
didn’t have to maintain a direct military presence, say on the Afrikan
continent or in other areas where Afrikans live in order to umm… protect their
political and economic interests. So uh… you uh… you create a ruling class uh…
an indigenous ruling class there, you see and there appears to be change and it
is a change of a sort, however, the basic economic dominance does not change at
all. I often talk about what I call the
constants you see in our relationships with Europeans and it’s important that
we look at the constants not the superficial changes you see. And often what
happens is that first the European makes superficial the Afrikan intellect and
makes superficial the Afrikan intelligence so that the Afrikan can be deceived
by superficial changes while the basic and fundamental relationship are not
changed at all. Down at the Institute of
Technology I was talking to my students the other day, ‘Now your electrical
engineers, but your fundamental relationship between uh… your fundamental
relationship to Whites is no different from your grandparents who were in
slavery, because that fundamental relationship is one of producing profits for
your European masters.’ And so if at some point making Blacks engineers,
letting them be engineers or letting them be computer technologists or EVEN
LETTING THEM BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES will maintain that
constant relationship that change will occur. And so often people then will
respond to that apparent change and miss the fact that the fundamental
relationship has not changed at all.”[3]
No comments:
Post a Comment