LETTERS TO THE PRESS

LETTER  (1)

 RESPONSE TO NATALIE CLARKE'S ARTICLE ON SPEAKER'S CORNER PUBLISHED IN THE 'EVENING STANDARD' ON 13/5/1996

                                                                                                                        16 / 5 / 96.

Dear Natalie,

                        Congratulations for writing an interesting article in the Evening Standard on Monday, 13 May 1996. I think it is a valuable contribution to Free Speech, Democracy,  civilised behaviour and Civil Society.

            It is remarkable how extremes tend to converge. President  Mandella (alleged champion of anti-Apartheid) of the Republic of South Africa securing an audience with Farakan (alleged champion of the Nation of Islam whose policies include "black" separatism, anti-semitism, the "one million men march to Washington" and visiting notorious regimes in Africa and the Middle East.

             In other words, the colonial and cold war paradigms constructed a binary framework in which Fascism, racism, sexism, nazism and xenophobia were perceived as a "Rich","European" and "white" phenomenon "oppressing" the "Poor other"  "Oppressed non-European", "black peoples" or "black world" or euphemistically "Third World".

            Amazingly,  the extreme left tends to accept this binary perspective by labelling individuals  wearing non-"white" and "black skins" as "blacks" (including, fascists, racists, sexists, fundamentalists, casteists and elitists) or as "victims of oppression" and must be given unconditional support.

             Do you think there will be protests from the so-called "blacks", anti-racists or Anti-Nazi League in Speakers' Corner if a member of the BNP (a speaker wearing a "white skin") was preaching about the superiority of the "white race"? If so, why aren't there any protests made when similar racist bigoted speeches are made by other individuals wearing a "black skin"?

            I am sorry to bore you with such insignificant mumbo jumbo.

            Imagine you are a young girl playing somewhere in Africa witnessing the politics of aggressive masculinity sanitised with words such as "conflict", "civil war" and "crisis", and one day a team of British surgeons with skilful hands and  love in their hearts residing thousands of miles far away from your home, removed safely a lethal bullet from behind your right eye.

            Would you support anyone to hate, hurt and contemptuously treat other humans simply because they happen to be wearing a different colour or shade of skin?

            Let us pray that  prejudice, intolerance, sexism, fundamentalism, racism or fascism do not destroy the love within us and make us afraid to speak, write and be happy.

            Please accept a copy of 'THE HORSE...' as a humble token to your honourable, noble and courageous undertaking.

Although the events described took place two years ago I hope you may find some of its contents  interesting.

Keep up the good work!

There will be exciting times ahead!

You'll be very busy!

See you in the park!

Yours sincerely,

                          "The Horse".

P.s.  If you have the time, please write and send your comments. It will be appreciated.

LETTER (2)

RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE 'ECONOMIST'

                                                            (Revised)                                                        

                        23/4/2000.

The editor,

The Economist,

25 St James's Street,

London SW1A  1HG.

                                    Sir/Madam,

"WHAT IS ABSENT IS A COOL, PROFESSIONAL APPROACH"

- Response to an article published on page 70, 'The Economist', April 15th - 21st,  2000.

            'The long struggle for Zimbabwe's land' was the title of a short, interesting, factual and informative account of land dispute in a "developing" country.

Although I enjoy reading the article I had some problems with a few ideas that appear unclear due to the use of certain terms to interpret the facts.

            As a subscriber to the weekly journal -- 'The Economist', I have a very high regard for the professionalism and expert literary style of its contributors. Perhaps this may  explain my high expectations.

            I realise how difficult it is to attempt to cater for a global readership with varying cultural, political and socio-economic backgrounds.

I am also aware of the necessity of being politically correct to avoid the onslaught of a multitude of prejudices, bigotry and extremist views.

Furthermore, I am mindful  of the potential risks involved when the global mosaic of readership is free to imagine, interpret or misinterpret whatever is written on their terms.

In this delicate situation, my response is not to assume anything but to make my own analytical response.

            The terms I have identified as being problematic are those that I have also observed in popular discourses in the media and general literature. These terms  legitimise isms including racism, sexism, nationalism, fascism, essentialism, stereotyping and reification.

I am not suggesting that the possible confusions that may occur by these terms were intentional.

I am not out to convert anyone's views.

I am not being judgmental.

I am not giving an opinion.

I am not advocating a policy.

I am not representing any political party or ideology.

I am only commenting on an observation I have made by reading the article named above.

            These terms are:-

Rhodesia

Rhodesian colonialists                                                                                   

White farmers                                                                                               

Black peasants

Poor blacks     

rural blacks

Africans

The African people.

Zimbabwe                                                               

COMMENTS:-

a)   The colonial paradigm was popular during the heyday of "new imperialism" and beyond. The colonial paradigm constructed a binary racialised discourse whereby individuals were categorised or labelled as belonging to phenotypical "racialised" groupings defined "positively or negatively" as "white or black" respectively.

The terms "White" and "black" were used to phenotypically defined the unscientific idea of "race" using the colour of skin, eyes, and hair  as a criterion.

After World War Two U.N.E.S.C.O. conducted research on the subject of "race"  to establish whether the application of "race" theories had any scientific validity  as pretended by the  fascist regime in Germany during World War Two.

Here is an extract from U.N.E.S.C.O's. conclusion:-

[All men everywhere belong to a single species: As the case with other species. All men share their essential hereditary characteristics in common having received them from common ancestors . . . . . Race is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of race has created an enormous amount of human and social damage.] -  UNESCO

            In other words the concept of "Race" has no scientific validity.

            Although the idea of "race" has been scientifically discredited, individuals still continue to perceive, identify and categorise the human population into groupings based on a common-sense understanding of "race" using the colour of the human hair, eyes or skin.

For example, individuals who wish to call themselves "black" perceive themselves as members of a so-called "black race".

This raises interesting questions in terms of "race" and "anti-race thinking" for "Political Correctness" and social movements organising on the basis of "race" identification or implementing policies on "anti-racism".

For instance why is it OK or PC  for some individuals to perceive, identify or belong to a so-called "black race" as alleged "victims " of "racism" while simultaneously contemptuously excluding "other" individuals who are perceived, identified and belong to a so-called "white race"  as "evil racist conspirators"  or victimisers of racism?

            This perversion  of narrow binary constructed terminologies implies that to be "anti-racist" is to be "anti-white" since "whites" are perceived as "victimisers" of racist behaviour not as "victims" of  abuse however "racially" motivated by so-called "blacks".

            So-called "blacks" in turn are perceived not as "victimisers" of "racist" behaviour but as "stereotypical "victims" of "racist" abuse no matter how much pain or cruelty  they inflict on so-called" whites" or "non-black" individuals.

In short, political correctness excuses individuals who perceive, identify and belong to a so-called "black race" but censures mercilessly individuals who perceive, identify and belong to the so-called" white race".

Members of the so-called "white race" are perceived as "racists" while members of the so-called "black race" are perceived as "politically correct", "equal opportunity" and "anti-racist" while promoting the idea of a so-called "black race".

            "Under the slogan of "anti-racism", so-called Liberal anti-racists give unconditional support to so-called "black racists"("racists" wearing black or non-white coloured skins) to attack so-called "racists"(perceived to be "whites") or so-called "black racists" exploit, manipulate, intimidate or even blackmail  so-called "Liberals" into giving in to their demands by alleging they are victims of perceived "racists" threats, popularly known as "using the infamous race card".                                 

In the midst of this confusion the innocent always pay a heavy price.

            Since some individuals buy into the common-sense notion of "race" in a few  popular cultures. I am sure that if the terms "black" and "white" (that are often used to describe the "racialised other") were omitted from the article, there would have been a tremendous protest by some individuals who imagined  themselves to be members of  so-called "racial   communities" accusing 'The Economist' of publishing an article that was legitimising "racism", "racial discrimination" or "racist exclusion", meaning that their particular so-called "race" or "ethnic " grouping was not being recognised.

            That's the reason I am not criticising what these terms may mean but rather analysing the possible misunderstandings that may occur by how these terms might be interpreted or misinterpreted by  a "non-racist" but unenlightened readership. 

It seems that the habits, discourses and ideological prejudices of colonialism are  more difficult to change than some of us are prepared to admit.

Is "anti-racism" "non-racism"?

Is the enemy of your enemy necessarily your friend?

b)  "All sides-black peasants, white farmers, the government, the opposition and foreign donors-agree that Zimbabwe  needs far-reaching land reform, including redistribution. But there is no agreement on how this should be accomplished or who should pay for it."

            The above quotation is riddled with essentialised inclusive or exclusive categories ("All sides-black peasants, white farmers, the government, the opposition and foreign donors") without drawing out their interrelated aspects. This incoherent description of a dimension of the complex geography of human socio-economic relations with global implications does not contribute to lessen the confusion, frustration and pessimism of an unenlightened readership and in extreme cases may even  contribute in transforming what could be a peaceful resolution of apparent contradictions into so-called violent conflicts.

If this narrow superficial descriptive narration is the perspective of the officials that have assumed responsibility to resolve  the land dispute in Zimbabwe, it's not surprising that the self fulfilling prophesy of "no agreement on how this should be accomplished or who should pay for it" becomes an actuality.

c) "But donor countries uniformly refused to give Mr. Mugabe much help until he come up with a           good  plan for reducing rural poverty."

           I am impressed by the supreme optimism of the above quotation.

Does Mr Mugabwe have a plan?

If so, what are the obstacles involved in preventing a peaceful implementation of such a plan?

Is Mr. Mugabe the only potential planner available in the world?

If not, why is a satisfactory solution seems so far away?

The "globalisation" of the ecology of Zimbabwe that was constructed by colonialism has been transformed into a complex global  commodification process dominated by a few commercial, financial and industrial transnational institutions owned, control and run by prominent individuals belonging to privileged socio-economic status groupings(families, castes) commanded by  power elites who just happen to be based in the "former colonial", "colonial or mother country", "industrialised western countries" or "new industrialising countries."

The local "national" elites including the professionals, businessmen, bureaucrats including the government officials, army officers and civil servants, landlords and prominent members of the religious and traditional authorities are all linked to and have an inter-dependency  relationship with the global socio-economic order.           

   This state of affairs implies that within the macro global socio-economic environment  the power elites (national or international) despite the micro differences or apparent conflicts among or between their various self-interests regarding modest land reform issues, these "international" power elites do benefit from their control of a disproportionate amount of the wealth generated from, by or of the Earth - a sad fact.

Unlike most landless or propertyless individuals that are socio-economically marginalised to exist in insecurity, hunger and poverty by seeking opportunities to earn a subsistence livelihood by selling their labour power but who do not participate, share, control, have access, muchless own not even a part of the wealth being generated from the Earth.

In other words, the political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues involved with the ownership, control and management of land have global implications.

            The tensions between the owners, controllers and managers of property(private as well as corporate) and the property-less, landless or powerless of the Earth is a consequence of the  historically conditioned capitalist mode of production with its inevitable imperialist penetration, integration and eventual domination of all other modes of production existing within the remotest regions of the world.

Land reform is a global problem.

Land management, land degradation, pollution, soil erosion, desertification, poverty, inequality, injustice and  landlessness are global questions.

Poverty linked to land disputes has a global dimension.

            Could it be that historical factors played a role, however minute, in developing rural poverty in Zimbabwe?

If so, why does it appear that rural poverty is a global problem but in the case of Zimbabwe the solution is national, local and up to one single individual - Mr. Mugabe?

I am not suggesting that Zimbabwe should be re-colonise to impose a solution.

What I am implying is we need a new paradigm for the Twenty-first Century to appreciate and manage land, water and air for the survival and sustainability of animals, vegetables and possibly other life forms in our galaxy.

d) Rhodesia

                 A British colonial territory named after Cecil Rhodes - the famous explorer,          philanthropist and colonialist.

Rhodesian colonialists.

           Rhodesia was a British colony.

Wouldn't be appropriate to use the term British colonialists in Rhodesia?

 The term "Rhodesian colonialists" implies that Rhodesia had colonial possessions, an assertion some historians might contest.

White farmers, black farmers,

            Is the survival of an individual within the unequal socio-economic hierarchical patriarchal  order determined solely by the colour of the human skin?

If so:-

1)  what is the correlation between skin colour and socio-economic status?

2)  what are the factors involved in this process of determination?

3)  As regards land reform issues why is it  so-called "Zimbabwe" is such an exceptional case where socio-economic status groups such as peasants, landlords or farmers are labelled, categorised or identified with the "racialised" terms  "white" or "black"?

What is a "white farmer"?

What is a "black farmer"?

How does the colour of skin affect the cultivation of the land or agricultural production?

Is the colour of the skin of the farmer determines, reflects or corresponds to the personality, competence and responsibility of the farmer?

If so, the farmer must be perceived as a lifeless object with no will, creative potential or mind of his/her own.

If individuals buy into the racialisation of the agrarian occupational title  "white farmer", then "race", "racism" and "race prejudice" becomes legitimised.

Black peasants, Poor blacks, rural blacks

            What is the signification of the term black(s) in describing, defining or categorising "peasants", "poor" and "rural"?

What is a "black peasant"?

What role does the colour of the human skin of the peasant play in influencing the socio-economic status of the peasantry?

Furthermore, are there any peculiar features that are characteristic of the conditions of poverty and the rural environment principally affecting exclusively or inclusively so-called "poor blacks" and "rural blacks" respectively?

If the term black(s) is used to phenotypically identified individuals by the colour of their skins as if they belong to a particular "race" or racialised social grouping with deterministic discrete inherent qualities, then the term "black(s)" has racist connotations.

Furthermore, in terms of the rural environment, what is the difference between a farmer and a peasant?                                                              

Africans, African people.

            Objectively, the terms "Africa" and "African" have been used with reference to describe the geographical location of a continent including its ecological, human and cultural resources.

 Subjectively, most individuals existing on the continent of Africa appear to be preoccupied with micro socio-economic issues, provincial cultural and tribal  allegiances that tend to perpetuate regional identities and conflicts rather than developing a continental form of consciousness or identity that will transcend the narrow boundaries of national, cultural, tribal, family, caste, gender and socio-economic group identities to achieve a harmonious African unity.

            Historically, a vision  of Africa as a continental entity has been constructed by colonialists, trans-national corporations and pan-African nationalists pursuing their macro strategic political, economic and ideological interests respectively.

In other words, in terms of identity politics, at best  a continental African identity (or an awareness by individuals that all life species in Africa has a right to life irrespective of social status, caste, race, gender, nationality, culture, or tribe without prejudice, hate, fear and unfair treatment) may avoid some of the worst atrocious consequences  of tribal  conflicts  in the various regions on the African continent.

At worst a so-called African identity runs the risk of legitimising the ideology of  afrocentrism that will  further support, perpetuate and stimulate global segregation and  disharmony.

Zimbabwe

            It would be an ideal situation if it was possible to change objective reality by changing terminologies and their subjective meanings.

Changing the name of a geo-political territory from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe does not automatically imply that the negative psychological, historical, political, socio-economic, and ecological processes constructed by pre-colonial societies and during the  colonial era will be radically transformed.                                                          

Even if that was possible, what socio-economic model would the post-independent Rhodesia adopt?

Would it adopt the pre-modern anti-democratic values of the ancient Zimbabwe empire?

In other words what does the term Zimbabwe means or  stands for?

Afrocentrics would say only the "African" or the "African people" of "Zimbabwe" know the answer and should be left alone to decide their fate or seek solutions that compliment so-called "African" interests.

I dare not speculate!

CONCLUSION

"What is absent is a cool, professional approach"  not only  "by Mr. Mugabe's government" but by all free thinking civilised individuals including writers and readers.

  ++++