The killing of Kajieme Powell: “a good shoot” is an oxymoron

I received the following note on Facebook:

“Bro. Asa, I’m also distressed about the recent killing of Kajieme Powell. I understand Police having to protect themselves but this young man was acting erratically and after viewing the video ; it looked like “suicide by cop”. Are the cadets trained on how to disarm someone acting in a bizarre manner who is probably mentally ill without killing him. One officer years ago told me that you can drop someone by shooting them in the legs/knees/arms. He’s never had to kill anyone. They cuffed this young man and it was clear that he was down and unable to attack anyone. I guess I’m wondering given your law enforcement expertise; (when you have the time) if you can address these issues on your blog. I also understand the precariousness of doing so given your profession. I would like to see more Officers with the intelligence, common sense and expertise of Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson! I feel like you do. Thanks for hearing me out!”

My reply:

Dear Sis. Carolyn,

Like you I’m also distressed by the “executing” of our Black men and boys by the police.

As a Black man, a Black father of a young Black son and a Black police officer, I have a certain… maybe even an “unique” perspective… into these situations. However, I made a conscious decision to not do a blog post, so as to add to the deluge of intellectualized placebos from all quarters, which only real and lasting accomplishment is to further desensitize our society to the genocide being committed against those of African descent… those with black and brown skins… worldwide. The Word states that “there is nothing new under the sun”. It’s all been said, discussed and debated before, as well as now. The truth is that whether it’s 1614, 1714, 1814, 1914 or 2014, the terrorism that is white supremacy continues to be unleashed upon us, ironically even more so under the administration of the first USA “black” President and his “black” Attorney General.

However, as you are my sister and I know of the sincerity of your empathy, I will offer my “two cents” to you… to spend as you wish.

In the Kajieme Powell incident, what compounds the situation was the fact that he was mentally and emotionally disturbed. I don’t know about Kajieme’s personal history, but I do know that in an effort to reduce health care costs, there is a trend to release those with mental and emotional problems into society, when they actually should be in facilities that are adept in treating their conditions, or at least monitoring and stabilizing it with medication. They are being released into the custody of those who do love them, but aren’t capable in handling their conditions if it deteriorates. It then more often than not, becomes a police problem. However, police officers aren’t trained to be psychologists. Simply put: we’re trained to eliminate a threat with extreme prejudice… which means different things to different police officers. As a police officer in Canada, we’re specifically trained that when you’re dealing with someone who is mentally and emotionally disturbed, who is armed and making threats, including asking to be killed by the police, you’re dealing with one of the most erratic, irrational and dangerous situations you will ever face as a police officer. From what I know, this training is similar in the USA. Regardless of one’s training, the response to these situations is ultimately made by the individual officer(s). This response would be influenced by a number of factors such as the officer’s upbringing, how he/she is socialized and their resulting prejudices; their views on race, class, gender; as well as their own physical, mental and emotional abilities, capabilities and shortcomings, etc.

Looking at the video, it is my belief that other interventions could have been utilized before the decision to shoot and kill Kajieme became the final solution. Disengage, back up, contact family members, his social worker or mental health specialist etc, to speak with him. Get some police shields (from Ferguson) and rush him with an officer prepared to discharge a Taser to incapacitate him. I don’t want to be a “Monday morning arm chair quarterback” because I wasn’t there, but from what I can deduce from this situation, these are some of the options I personally would attempt or discuss with my fellow officers, before deciding that I had no other choice but to shoot and kill him. However, based on the training they (and I) have received, this would be classified as a justifiable, legal response to this situation… i.e., “a good shoot”. It is my opinion that any shooting by a police officer that takes the life of an individual, whatever the circumstances, certainly should be viewed as a tragedy for all parties involved. A “good shoot” is therefore an oxymoron.

As a “black” police officer, I’m so proud of Captain Ron Johnson and how he is handling the crisis in Ferguson. I understand and  empathize with the trials, tribulations, as well as the emotions he’s going through. He’s in a tough position as most people… both white and black… want him for their own self interests, to fail in bringing some peace and order to the community… a community he grew up in. It’s bad enough that his (white) superiors and (white) colleagues have been pulling stunts to undermine him every step of the way, but that’s expected. What annoys me most are the pseudo-intellectual, wanna-be black revolutionary social media activists, sitting in the safety of their homes, in their comfortable swivel arm chairs in-front of a computer, discrediting and referring to him as an “uncle tom”, “sellout”, “token” and “stooge of the white man sent to pacify the negroes”.

What these pseudo-intellectual, wanna-be black revolutionary social media activists don’t understand, which I do, is that Captain Johnson is the shepherd keeping the wolves at bay, who are more than ready, willing and able… and are only waiting for the right opportunity to slaughter their prey. Believe me, I know of what I speak. I’ve been in policing situations where my presence and forceful intervention in certain situations, have prevented the shooting and possible death of a Black male, as well as saved some of them from being criminalized for minor indiscretions. What these pseudo-intellectual, wanna-be black revolutionary social media activists fail to realize, which I do, is that the military equipment deployed against the peaceful protesters was not a show of force, but a use of force. It was only by the grace of God that one of the trigger happy cops didn’t start shooting into the protesters, which would have caused a conditioned natural chain reaction by the other cops to start shooting too. It would have resulted into another Sharpeville massacre. Believe me, I know of what I speak. I was on a tactical emergency task force. The reason these same pseudo-intellectual, wanna-be black revolutionary social media activists want Captain Johnson to fail, why they not so secretly welcome the slaughter of innocents, is the simple fact that it will provide the needed fodder for their next Facebook, Twitter and blog rhetoric and posts, which will undoubtedly bring more “hits” and notoriety to their sites.

Let me share an article with you about the shooting and killing of a mentally and emotionally disturbed teenager in Toronto, Canada by a police officer: “The Killing of Sammy Yatim”. It’s very informative on a number of different levels. First it shows the similarities in police training, in Canada and the USA, at handling these types of situations. More importantly, the article humanizes both the victim and the officer. Too often the media, particularly social media, demonizes and dehumanizes those they see as their adversaries. We need to always remember that both are human beings with families who suffer in their own way.

Let me also share with you a post I did in 2009 entitled: “A day of blogging for Justice – Standing up against the pre-trial electrocution”. It speaks for itself and further addresses your questions.

Finally I’ll end with the words of our musical prophets Bob Marley and Peter Tosh:

God continue to bless you my sister and provide you with the wisdom you’re ever seeking.

Asa.

“Gadaffi, Dictators and faint memory if any” by Nkwazi Mhango

On 30^thDecember 2006, the world witnessed humiliating hanging of Saddam Hussein, former Iraq’s tyrant, after being arrested bolted in a spider hole. Many thought other dictators would make a note of the sudden and unceremoniously demise and downfall of Saddam. Go figure. They didn’t because of arrogance and faint memories.

In essence, dictators are like goats. When you shout at a goat to stop damaging your garden it thinks this was long time ago. When you shout again, the goat thinks this was yesterday. But when you pick a stone and land it on it, that’s when the goat realizes it is today. This was five years down the line. Just recently in February 2011, two strong men in Egypt and Tunisia were pulled down, not to mention Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast. Again, other dictators like Col. Muamar Gadaffi who followed six months thereafter, did not take any note, save to ridicule the wave and wind of change.

When Gadaffi, a self-made-king of kings of Africa was asked his views and how domino effects in Egypt and the impact they would have on his country, he dismissively retorted saying that Libya was not Egypt. Therefore, such a thing would not happen to his regime. Little did he know it would happen just within six months!

Now that Libya’s tyrant Gadaffi has fallen from grace quickly and unceremoniously, many would think other waiting potentates would take a note. Their mindsets make them blind and thus do not to see the impending danger that always hovers over their nasty regimes. Are the seating spared of this hallucination and blindness? Nay!

Just like allied forces did to Saddam, Gadaffi was brought down after international forces struck him, especially NATO, that broke the backbone of his regime. Now that Gadaffi’s rule is history, will he and his sons face the same fate Saddam an his stupid kids faced? Will the waiting dictators make a note of what transpired in Libya really? Methinks, nay. If anything, African dictators will not miss Gadaffi, but the petrodollars he stole from his poor people and used to throw at them so as to buy their leverage.

If dictators had any memory, Africa South of Saharan dictators would make a note that what they regard as powerful regimes they man, are but houses of cards. They will crumble just easily shall the hoi polloi decided to take on them. Again, will they take a note? Nay, they won’t. Why? Because most if not all are but megalomaniac, full of myopia and hallucination to put it simple. Unfortunately, dictators think they are smart while in actual fact are but dolts. Take it from me. Many dictators still wrongly think like Gadaffi used to think, that what happened in Libya cannot happen in their countries.

What happened in Libya though leaves one question, when will people in SSA take on their dictators? This is very important. For there are many of Gadaffi like in SSA in countries like Uganda, Rwanda, DRC, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Senegal, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, The Gambia, Gabon, Togo and Sudan. So too, in the same Maghreb, are countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and Syria in the north. Will those dictators ruining those countries take a heed? To know how actually goof, look at how Yemeni Dictator Abdullah Saleh was badly injured and yet still wants to return in office despite all noises of Saleh go.

Just like other dictators in the Sub Saharan Africa, Saleh still thinks that, despite the writings on the wall, his regime will not crumble just like Gadaffi’s. Those in the south still goof saying what happened in Maghreb are for Arabs not Africans. In simple terms, dictators in the south, like fallen Gadaffi, are authoring their own demise and exit. Will the wave and wind of change sweep across Sahara?

Why did Gadaffi repressive regime crumble easily in the first place? Firstly, it had two cracks within. One was the fact that power was within the hands of a family and a few congliore. Secondly, NATO’s ferocious attacks. Though NATO played a decisive role in suffocating Gadaffi, looking at what happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Cracks within the regimes are the major cause of their demise so to speak.

There are some lessons from the fall of Gadaffi and other dictators. First of all, many weapons dictators pile up to defend themselves, are the best capital when citizenry decide to take on them.

Secondly, the vacuums and vaingloriousness dictators create is another nugget when it comes to topple them. For when faced with threats of being toppled, the system that depends on one person, finds itself overwhelmed with the burden of decision making at the time of emergency. The shape and scope of the system is basically determined by one person.

Thirdly, apart from being delusional, dictators are like barking dog that does not bite. They use all types of threats whilst at hearts they know how bogus and coward they are.

Fourthly, almost all dictators are cowards that hide their weakness behind immense powers they command.

Fifthly, all dictators live in the state of hallucination and phantasmagoria, believing they won’t fall at any circumstance, hence become myopic about their fates and plights. So too, even though their regimes are the most hated, dictators daydream that they are loved. It is even sad to find dictators like Yoweri Museveni who toppled other dictators live just like them.

Sixth, African Union has proved to be as useless as never before. For when the crisises in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia started, it was left out, thereby the Arab League taking over the role it would have played. Also it must be noted, AU was openly supporting dictators thanks to being comprised of many member countries ruled by dictators.

In sum, though Gadaffi is going down as one of the most autocratic ruler, he’ll be remembered for his support to liberation movements in good and bad light. A last killer fact is that Gadaffi despite all his extravagance, different from other African fallen dictators who left their countries in abject poverty, left billions of dollars the west froze and unfreeze for the new regime to begin with. This is the good side of the fallen tyrant.

Nkwazi Mhango is a Tanzanian living in Canada. He writes regularly for “The African Executive” and also has a blog entitled “Free Thinking Unabii”. He is a regular contributor to AfroSpear.

Blackout of humanitarian crisis in Cote d’Ivoire

In the wake of the enormous media coverage of the uprisings and so-defined “revolutions” in North Africa and the Middle East, I am hard pressed to find any media coverage of the escalating atrocities and impending civil war in Cote d’Ivoire. The “blackout” of this media coverage I am referring to is not within the mainstream media… which is understandable… it’s within the AfroSphere itself. One can read more on Chris Brown… even on Charlie Sheen… on blogs, news sites and webzines within the Black/African blogosphere, than on Cote d’Ivoire. 

The sad thing about this is that in this age of the power of social media within the creation of communities of interest, the recent histories of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Kenya are being repeated today in Cote d’Ivoire (here)… and we don’t care. It’s an indictment on all of us, from President Obama… “a son of Africa”… to those of African descent within the continent, the Diaspora and the AfroSphere. We do nothing, then we get pissed and question the motives and sincerity of the Bono’s, George Clooney’s and Mia Farrow’s of the (white) world when they take up the causes of African people. 

In saying all this however, I must acknowledge and give props to Patrick-Bernard at Cry Me An Onion for his post “The Ivory Coast Saga” in December 2010. He is one of a handful within the AfroSphere with a global perspective and understanding on the importance and significance of these issues on those of African descent regardless of where we reside. 

Henceforth, the first step to do something… anything… about this is awareness. Below are some resources on Cote d’Ivoire that bring knowledge and perspective to what is happening there now:

1. Aljazeera: An Ivorian Miracle?
2. Crossed Crocodiles: Ivory Coast – What Happened? What Next? (excellent background and references on current situation)
3. The African Executive: The Ivory Coast: Unlocking the Impasse
4. Pambazuka News: Cote d’Ivoire: Forces behind the crisis and what’s at stake

Post something on your blog or webzine to bring attention to this crisis. Hundreds have been and thousands will be massacred. Atrocities such as mass murders and rapes, other crimes against humanity including genocide is forthcoming. Obama and the European allies argued that they had to intervene in Lybia to prevent a humanitarian crisis… what about Cote d’Ivoire?

Enlighten those during discussions about the so-called “Jasmine Revolutions” as well as debates surrounding military intervention in Lybia, about the fight for democracy and the current humanitarian crisis in Cote d’Ivoire. This should be our primary concern.  

The mainstream media may ignore the plight of the people in Cote d’Ivoire… that’s expected… our blackout of this event… is self-imposed. The guilt will be ours.

Byts and Bytes

1. Psycho-Slavery: Black Boys, White Female Teachers & the Rise of A.D.H.D.  

2. How China has created a new slave empire in Africa

3. Afro-Futurism: The Marketing of Revolution

“Revolution and the Muslim World” by George Friedman

Article from STRATFOR

The Muslim world, from North Africa to Iran, has experienced a wave of instability in the last few weeks. No regimes have been overthrown yet, although as of this writing, Libya was teetering on the brink.

There have been moments in history where revolution spread in a region or around the world as if it were a wildfire. These moments do not come often. Those that come to mind include 1848, where a rising in France engulfed Europe. There was also 1968, where the demonstrations of what we might call the New Left swept the world: Mexico City, Paris, New York and hundreds of other towns saw anti-war revolutions staged by Marxists and other radicals. Prague saw the Soviets smash a New Leftist government. Even China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution could, by a stretch, be included. In 1989, a wave of unrest, triggered by East Germans wanting to get to the West, generated an uprising in Eastern Europe that overthrew Soviet rule.

Each had a basic theme. The 1848 uprisings attempted to establish liberal democracies in nations that had been submerged in the reaction to Napoleon. 1968 was about radical reform in capitalist society. 1989 was about the overthrow of communism. They were all more complex than that, varying from country to country. But in the end, the reasons behind them could reasonably be condensed into a sentence or two.

Some of these revolutions had great impact. 1989 changed the global balance of power. 1848 ended in failure at the time — France reverted to a monarchy within four years — but set the stage for later political changes. 1968 produced little that was lasting. The key is that in each country where they took place, there were significant differences in the details — but they shared core principles at a time when other countries were open to those principles, at least to some extent.

The Current Rising in Context

In looking at the current rising, the geographic area is clear: The Muslim countries of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula have been the prime focus of these risings, and in particular North Africa where Egypt, Tunisia and now Libya have had profound crises. Of course, many other Muslim countries also had revolutionary events that have not, at least until now, escalated into events that threaten regimes or even ruling personalities. There have been hints of such events elsewhere. There were small demonstrations in China, and of course Wisconsin is in turmoil over budget cuts. But these don’t really connect to what is happening in the Middle East. The first was small and the second is not taking inspiration from Cairo. So what we have is a rising in the Arab world that has not spread beyond there for the time being.

The key principle that appears to be driving the risings is a feeling that the regimes, or a group of individuals within the regimes, has deprived the public of political and, more important, economic rights — in short, that they enriched themselves beyond what good taste permitted. This has expressed itself in different ways. In Bahrain, for example, the rising was of the primarily Shiite population against a predominantly Sunni royal family. In Egypt, it was against the person of Hosni Mubarak. In Libya, it is against the regime and person of Moammar Gadhafi and his family, and is driven by tribal hostility.

Why has it come together now? One reason is that there was a tremendous amount of regime change in the region from the 1950s through the early 1970s, as the Muslim countries created regimes to replace foreign imperial powers and were buffeted by the Cold War. Since the early 1970s, the region has, with the exception of Iran in 1979, been fairly stable in the sense that the regimes — and even the personalities who rose up in the unstable phase — stabilized their countries and imposed regimes that could not easily be moved. Gadhafi, for example, overthrew the Libyan monarchy in 1969 and has governed continually for 42 years since then.

Any regime dominated by a small group of people over time will see that group use their position to enrich themselves. There are few who can resist for 40 years. It is important to recognize that Gadhafi, for example, was once a genuine, pro-Soviet revolutionary. But over time, revolutionary zeal declines and avarice emerges along with the arrogance of extended power. And in the areas of the region where there had not been regime changes since after World War I, this principle stays true as well, although interestingly, over time, the regimes seem to learn to spread the wealth a bit.

Thus, what emerged throughout the region were regimes and individuals who were classic kleptocrats. More than anything, if we want to define this wave of unrest, particularly in North Africa, it is a rising against regimes — and particularly individuals — who have been in place for extraordinarily long periods of time. And we can add to this that they are people who were planning to maintain family power and money by installing sons as their political heirs. The same process, with variations, is under way in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a rising against the revolutionaries of previous generations.

The revolutions have been coming for a long time. The rising in Tunisia, particularly when it proved successful, caused it to spread. As in 1848, 1968 and 1989, similar social and cultural conditions generate similar events and are triggered by the example of one country and then spread more broadly. That has happened in 2011 and is continuing.

A Uniquely Sensitive Region

It is, however, happening in a region that is uniquely sensitive at the moment. The U.S.-jihadist war means that, as with previous revolutionary waves, there are broader potential geopolitical implications. 1989 meant the end of the Soviet empire, for example. In this case, the question of greatest importance is not why these revolutions are taking place, but who will take advantage of them. We do not see these revolutions as a vast conspiracy by radical Islamists to take control of the region. A conspiracy that vast is easily detected, and the security forces of the individual countries would have destroyed the conspiracies quickly. No one organized the previous waves, although there have been conspiracy theories about them as well. They arose from certain conditions, following the example of one incident. But particular groups certainly tried, with greater and lesser success, to take advantage of them.

In this case, whatever the cause of the risings, there is no question that radical Islamists will attempt to take advantage and control of them. Why wouldn’t they? It is a rational and logical course for them. Whether they will be able to do so is a more complex and important question, but that they would want to and are trying to do so is obvious. They are a broad, transnational and disparate group brought up in conspiratorial methods. This is their opportunity to create a broad international coalition. Thus, as with traditional communists and the New Left in the 1960s, they did not create the rising but they would be fools not to try to take advantage of it. I would add that there is little question but that the United States and other Western countries are trying to influence the direction of the uprisings. For both sides, this is a difficult game to play, but it is particularly difficult for the United States as outsiders to play this game compared to native Islamists who know their country.

But while there is no question that Islamists would like to take control of the revolution, that does not mean that they will, nor does it mean that these revolutions will be successful. Recall that 1848 and 1968 were failures and those who tried to take advantage of them had no vehicle to ride. Also recall that taking control of a revolution is no easy thing. But as we saw in Russia in 1917, it is not necessarily the more popular group that wins, but the best organized. And you frequently don’t find out who is best organized until afterwards.

Democratic revolutions have two phases. The first is the establishment of democracy. The second is the election of governments. The example of Hitler is useful as a caution on what kind of governments a young democracy can produce, since he came to power through democratic and constitutional means — and then abolished democracy to cheering crowds. So there are three crosscurrents here. The first is the reaction against corrupt regimes. The second is the election itself. And the third? The United States needs to remember, as it applauds the rise of democracy, that the elected government may not be what one expected.

In any event, the real issue is whether these revolutions will succeed in replacing existing regimes. Let’s consider the process of revolution for the moment, beginning by distinguishing a demonstration from an uprising. A demonstration is merely the massing of people making speeches. This can unsettle the regime and set the stage for more serious events, but by itself, it is not significant. Unless the demonstrations are large enough to paralyze a city, they are symbolic events. There have been many demonstrations in the Muslim world that have led nowhere; consider Iran.

It is interesting here to note that the young frequently dominate revolutions like 1848, 1969 and 1989 at first. This is normal. Adults with families and maturity rarely go out on the streets to face guns and tanks. It takes young people to have the courage or lack of judgment to risk their lives in what might be a hopeless cause. However, to succeed, it is vital that at some point other classes of society join them. In Iran, one of the key moments of the 1979 revolution was when the shopkeepers joined young people in the street. A revolution only of the young, as we saw in 1968 for example, rarely succeeds. A revolution requires a broader base than that, and it must go beyond demonstrations. The moment it goes beyond the demonstration is when it confronts troops and police. If the demonstrators disperse, there is no revolution. If they confront the troops and police, and if they carry on even after they are fired on, then you are in a revolutionary phase. Thus, pictures of peaceful demonstrators are not nearly as significant as the media will have you believe, but pictures of demonstrators continuing to hold their ground after being fired on is very significant.

A Revolution’s Key Event

This leads to the key event in the revolution. The revolutionaries cannot defeat armed men. But if those armed men, in whole or part, come over to the revolutionary side, victory is possible. And this is the key event. In Bahrain, the troops fired on demonstrators and killed some. The demonstrators dispersed and then were allowed to demonstrate — with memories of the gunfire fresh. This was a revolution contained. In Egypt, the military and police opposed each other and the military sided with the demonstrators, for complex reasons obviously. Personnel change, if not regime change, was inevitable. In Libya, the military has split wide open.

When that happens, you have reached a branch in the road. If the split in the military is roughly equal and deep, this could lead to civil war. Indeed, one way for a revolution to succeed is to proceed to civil war, turning the demonstrators into an army, so to speak. That’s what Mao did in China. Far more common is for the military to split. If the split creates an overwhelming anti-regime force, this leads to the revolution’s success. Always, the point to look for is thus the police joining with the demonstrators. This happened widely in 1989 but hardly at all in 1968. It happened occasionally in 1848, but the balance was always on the side of the state. Hence, that revolution failed.

It is this act, the military and police coming over to the side of the demonstrators, that makes or breaks a revolution. Therefore, to return to the earlier theme, the most important question on the role of radical Islamists is not their presence in the crowd, but their penetration of the military and police. If there were a conspiracy, it would focus on joining the military, waiting for demonstrations and then striking.

Those who argue that these risings have nothing to do with radical Islam may be correct in the sense that the demonstrators in the streets may well be students enamored with democracy. But they miss the point that the students, by themselves, can’t win. They can only win if the regime wants them to, as in Egypt, or if other classes and at least some of the police or military — people armed with guns who know how to use them — join them. Therefore, looking at the students on TV tells you little. Watching the soldiers tells you much more.

The problem with revolutions is that the people who start them rarely finish them. The idealist democrats around Alexander Kerensky in Russia were not the ones who finished the revolution. The thuggish Bolsheviks did. In these Muslim countries, the focus on the young demonstrators misses the point just as it did in Tiananmen Square. It wasn’t the demonstrators that mattered, but the soldiers. If they carried out orders, there would be no revolution.

I don’t know the degree of Islamist penetration of the military in Libya, to pick one example of the unrest. I suspect that tribalism is far more important than theology. In Egypt, I suspect the regime has saved itself by buying time. Bahrain was more about Iranian influence on the Shiite population than Sunni jihadists at work. But just as the Iranians are trying to latch on to the process, so will the Sunni jihadists.

The Danger of Chaos

I suspect some regimes will fall, mostly reducing the country in question to chaos. The problem, as we are seeing in Tunisia, is that frequently there is no one on the revolutionaries’ side equipped to take power. The Bolsheviks had an organized party. In these revolutions, the parties are trying to organize themselves during the revolution, which is another way to say that the revolutionaries are in no position to govern. The danger is not radical Islam, but chaos, followed either by civil war, the military taking control simply to stabilize the situation or the emergence of a radical Islamic party to take control — simply because they are the only ones in the crowd with a plan and an organization. That’s how minorities take control of revolutions.

All of this is speculation. What we do know is that this is not the first wave of revolution in the world, and most waves fail, with their effects seen decades later in new regimes and political cultures. Only in the case of Eastern Europe do we see broad revolutionary success, but that was against an empire in collapse, so few lessons can be drawn from that for the Muslim world.

In the meantime, as you watch the region, remember not to watch the demonstrators. Watch the men with the guns. If they stand their ground for the state, the demonstrators have failed. If some come over, there is some chance of victory. And if victory comes, and democracy is declared, do not assume that what follows will in any way please the West — democracy and pro-Western political culture do not mean the same thing.

The situation remains fluid, and there are no broad certainties. It is a country-by-country matter now, with most regimes managing to stay in power to this point. There are three possibilities. One is that this is like 1848, a broad rising that will fail for lack of organization and coherence, but that will resonate for decades. The second is 1968, a revolution that overthrew no regime even temporarily and left some cultural remnants of minimal historical importance. The third is 1989, a revolution that overthrew the political order in an entire region, and created a new order in its place.

If I were to guess at this point, I would guess that we are facing 1848. The Muslim world will not experience massive regime change as in 1989, but neither will the effects be as ephemeral as 1968. Like 1848, this revolution will fail to transform the Muslim world or even just the Arab world. But it will plant seeds that will germinate in the coming decades. I think those seeds will be democratic, but not necessarily liberal. In other words, the democracies that eventually arise will produce regimes that will take their bearings from their own culture, which means Islam.

The West celebrates democracy. It should be careful what it hopes for: It might get it.

“The Gaddaffi we did not know” by Nkwazi Mhango

No doubt that what is unfolding in Libya has left many shocked. Nobody would risk thinking that Libyan strong man Muamar Gadaffi would easily been cowered as it happened.

Two days after disgruntled Libyans took to the street, Gadaffi was nowhere to be seen or heard. Who would believe that Gadaffi who has been everywhere in Libya, from seating room to bathroom, would not come to defend his autocratic regime?

To save the face, his son Al- Saif Al- Islam Gadaffi (Uday Saddam Hussein of Libya) recorded a confused message that was aired by Libyan TV. Instead of helping his father, he poured yet more fuel to the already raging fire. He accused police and the army of being unprofessional. He played down the number of those that were felled by his father’s notorious regime. Who would believe that a sane person would argue that those that were killed in demonstrations were just 14 not 173?

Gadaffi’s son made some concessions after witnessing the fall of Benghazi, the second biggest city in Libya. He offered to change things to suit the demand of the mass. Nobody would subscribe to this bulimia thanks to the fact that Al Islam has no constitutional right to enter any concession with anybody. Being a tick on the back of his father, desperate Al Islam made up some allegations. He said that demonstrators were labouring under the influence of drugs and they wanted to divide Libya into Islamic caliphates. This is sick to hear. It is the first time Libyans and the world have ever heard of such a thing. Who is labouring under influence between demonstrators and Gadaffi’s son, who is labouring under power intoxication?

Gadaffi the son went a mile ahead claiming that Libya is going to be divided in tribe states. If this were the case it would make sense simply because his falling father is the fan of tribe chiefs in all Africa. Is this Iran-like hypocrisy, whereby Iranian barbaric regime supported demonstrators in Egypt? But when Iranians took to the street to do what the regime was supporting Egyptians for, it dispatched killers to finish them.

No doubt. Like Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi has proved to be a coward that can be easily cowered and toppled altogether. For those conversant with the dynamics and theatrics of powers, Gadaffi will nary take long before being bundled out with his cronies. Being a wino, Gadaffi threw vitriol onto Tunisians and Egyptians when they took on their dictators. Now his turn has come, he is nowhere to be seen.

Analysts agree on one thing. What is happening in Libya is but the beginning of the end. The fire that started in Tunisia will gut the whole continent. This means even dictators and thieves south of Sahara should brace themselves for the show.

Gadaffi has been in power for 42 years. Though he does not have constitutional title of king, he has ruled like other Arab kings. Libya became his private estate. Who doubts this should ask himself or herself, if this was not the case, where did his son get the power to address the nation?

Archaic and myopic as Gadaffi’s rule has always been, now it is on its deathbed waiting to be buried any soon from now. Let keep our fingers closed to see another dirty regime cascading down to historical dust bin. To cut the story short, Libyans will give the world the worthy and unique gift by booting out their long time thief-cum-tormentor.

Good news, it is true, is the fact that Libyan army has boycotted more orders aiming at shooting to kill more protesters. Allah Akbar. Gadaffi is now showing his hate to Islam. If he could offer millions of dollars to build mosques all over Africa, what is wrong with having an Islamic regime in Libya? This means, Gadaffi was taking Muslims and Islam for a ride. What is the logic behind his son’s warning that Libyans should not allow Islamic regime to be formed? Hypocrisy and sheer lies. Ironically the meaning of Al Saif Al Islam is the“Sword of Islam.” What hypocrisy.

Thank Lord that now the world knows Gadaffi, who was hidden behind power and fanfares resulting from it, as the coward and harsh Gadaffi who could order the army to shoot to kill.

Nkwazi Mhango is a Tanzanian living in Canada. He writes regularly for “The African Executive” and also has a blog entitled “Free Thinking Unabii”. He is a regular contributor to AfroSpear.

“Who is next after Mubarak?” by Nkwazi Mhango

Looking at the way a new dawn is unfolding in Maghreb, one can comfortable assert that this is but the beginning of a new dawn for Africa and the Middle East.

It kicked off from Tunisia where a 23 years dictator was impelled to flee. This guy, Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali was a master of manipulation and intimidation. Tunisia was the most docile country in Maghreb. When some riots erupted, Ben Ali used to dispatch his army to quash them. Not once or twice, he succeeded. This made him goof believing he would rule ’til God called him.

Who could risk thinking that a jobless man would become a weapon and figure by which Ben Ali was brought to ground over night? Thanks to a fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi, Ben Ali is a fugitive now. How many Bouazizis does African have currently? Many many more of course.

After a successful show of people’s power in Tunisia, Egyptian tyrant Hosni Mubarak became another casualty whose days are but numbered. Anything, anytime can happen in Egypt, where demonstrators have defied all odds to see to it that this tyrant is dragooned for once and for all.

Practically, Mubarak just like other pro-American stooges, was but a face of the US in the Middle East. But as the days go by, the US is no longer interested in her what-used-to-be- good boy Mubarak. This can be seen in the tone and manner in which the US Secretary of State replied, when she was asked to comment on the on-going situation.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as thus: “We want to see an orderly transition so that no one fills a void, that there not be a void, that there be a well thought out plan that will bring about a democratic participatory government.”

Clinton’s words say it all. The US wants to see Mubarak out as orderly transition comes in and do business with. When demonstrators took to the streets in Tunis, US voice was openly for demonstrators as opposed to Ben Ali’s regime.

This can be taken as a stalk warning for all tyrants that have been in power for decades, that the US is changing her tacks. So should you want to retire honorably, think of relinquishing power you have held dear and hit the road as other competents take over. What you failed to realize in decades you have been in power, you can nary realized even if you are given a hundred years more to rule.

More on Mubarak. The issue is not if he is going to crumble but when. Next door another long time tyrant is gasping for air. This is none other than Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh. This illiterate ruler has been in power for over three decades just like Mubarak.

Just as it was in Tunisia and currently in Egypt, the core of all this is nothing but unemployment, corruption and impunity, nepotism, brutality, lack of vision, long stay in power, manipulation and poverty to mention but a few.

If one looks at how affluent Tunisia and Egypt are compared to South Saharan States, one wonders how our rulers are going to remain in power without tackling the aforementioned anomalies. This being the truth, methinks. Our currently rulers in the region should take a note and change things, before being changed like it is going on in Egypt.

I can bet Sudanese strongman Omar Bashir will be the curtain raiser for SSA. My shew stone tells me that after he lost South Sudan, life is likely to be tough so as to awaken the North Sudanese. Bashir was able to cling unto power thanks for petrodollars he used to get from China and other buyers, who do not bother with human rights. Now that oil-rich South Sudan is gone, where will Bashir get the money to cool down the people? I am told that since referendum, subsidies on oil and sugar is no more. This caused anger to students who took to the streets, but were quashed by the police. Is this the beginning of the end? Time will tell. Though things are still normal on the streets of Khartoum, the heat has already been felt and it is just the matter of time before Sudanese pent-up anger  erupts.

When it comes to East Africa, I understand that the region has a high population of youths. So too, it has high unemployment rates. Given that current young people can nary be easily cowered, it is just the matter of time for them to take to the street demanding for their God-given right, namely a better life.

And nobody should goof to think that this so-called Jasmine Revolution is for Arabs only. The way our youths look at life is almost the same the world over. Who doubts this should remember that it is the youths who brought change in America by voting for an African for the first time. To them taboos, “colourbarism” or loyalties are but nonsense. Theirs is good life. Good enough for them and bad enough for our rulers is the fact that most of them are educated. They know how many resources their countries have. So it is not easy for anybody to cheat them.

Who is next is the matter of how Mubarak will be dragooned out.

Nkwazi Mhango is a Tanzanian living in Canada. He writes regularly for “The African Executive” and also has a blog entitled “Free Thinking Unabii”. He is a regular contributor to AfroSpear.

Fela Kuti The Relentless Revolutionary Is On Broadway

There’s a New Show on Broadway, the likes of which has never been seen on the stage before! Fela! by
Bill T. Jones, famous director and choreographer, along with others have brought to the story of outspoken Nigerian Afrobeat musician and revolutionary social activist Fela Anikulapo Kuti to the American stage!!
Bill T. Jones does a great job of explaining his understanding of Fela and the reason he has brought his life to the Broadway stage.  Personally, I have only seen clips on TV and Youtube, but I can see that the show is spectacular!  The choreography showcases some of the most fantastic and energetic dancers and singers, and the multitalented Sahr Ngaujah, who plays Fela takes command of the role and becomes the man Fela!

The Broadway show starts with the performers slowly and sensually walking through the aisles of the theater to the stage, hips swaying as they pass the audience–hinting at the excitement to come.  First Fela’s female dancers, then Fela and his male dancers who encircle Fela, dancing bent over at the waist while Fela dances, standing upright.  The whole scene portrays Fela as being larger than life!  The performer, Sahr Ngaujah, reeks of gorgeousness and sexiness!  He’s one black man from whom you can not tear your eyes!!  HOT and Cool!!  This performer captures a bit the excitement and brilliance and contradiction of Fela Kuti!
As for the rest of the performers, I read a review here that sums it beautifully!!

SO WHO WAS Fela Anikulapo Kuti?  A Broadway show cannot begin to encompass the man.  Choreographer Bill T. Jones understood that fully.

Fela was born Olufela Olusegun Oludotun Ransome-Kuti in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria into a middle-class family on October 15, 1938.  His mother, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti was a feminist activist in the anti-colonial movement, and his father, Reverend Israel Oludotun Ransome-Kuti, who was a Protestant minister and school principal, was the first president of the Nigerian Union of Teachers.

FUNMILAYO RANSOME-KUTI (25 October 1900 Abeokuta, Nigeria – 13 April 1978 Lagos, Nigeria), born Francis Abigail Olufunmilayo Thomas to Daniel Olumeyuwa Thomas and Lucretia Phyllis Omoyeni Adeosolu. She was a teacher, political campaigner, women’s rights activist and traditional aristocrat. Ransome-Kuti’s political activism led to her being described as the doyen of female rights in Nigeria and was regarded as “The Mother of Africa.” Early on she was a very powerful force advocating for women’s right to vote. She was described in 1947, by the West African Pilot as the “Lioness of Lisabi” for her leadership of Egba women on a campaign against arbitrary taxation of women. That struggle led to the abdication of the Egba King Oba Ademola II in 1949.  Fela adored his warrior mother Funmilayo, for her powerful activism for women rights in Nigeria, yet Fela himself was considered chauvinistic and he was a polygamist!

Fela was sent by his parents to London in 1958 to study medicine, but he decided that he would study music instead at the Trinity College of Music. While there, he formed the band, Koola Lobitos, and they played a fusion of jazz and highlife music. In 1960, Fela married his first wife, Remilekun (Remi) Taylor, with whom he would have three children (Femi, Yeni, and Sola).

In 1969, Fela took the band to the United States. While there, he was introduced to the Black Power movement through Sandra Smith (now Izsadore)—a partisan of the Black Panther Party.  The Black Power Movement in America greatly influenced his music and political views.  He renamed his band, Nigeria ’70.
He later formed the Kalakuta Republic, a commune, a recording studio, and a home for the many people connected to the band.  He later declared the Kalakuta Republic independent and sovereign from the state of Nigeria.  Fela also set up a nightclub in the Empire Hotel, and named it the Afrika Shrine, where he and his band performed on a regualar basis.  Many artists the world over has visited the Afrika Shrine–Hugh Masakela, Roy Ayers, Paul McCartney (who didn’t want it known that he visited)–for a little taste of the creativity, the danger, the excitement, the sexiness and madness of it all! 
Fela was continually developing his political stance through his music.  What I respect about Fela is that he was struggling to recapture his “African-ness”, a battle that many of us are fighting.  He wanted black people to reclaim their black culture and, he wanted to help “re-Africanize the people through the music”  He decided to change his middle “slave name” from “Ransome” to “Anikulapo” which means, “he who carries death in his pouch”. 

Because Fela’s music spoke to the issues of oppresion of the people, it became very popular among Nigerians, and of course good protest music speaks to all people, so Africans across the continent became big fans as well.  In fact, he made the decision to sing in Pidgin English so that his music could be enjoyed by individuals throughout Africa.  As his music gained popularity with the masses of black people, he was hated more and more by the Nigerian government for his open condemnation of them and their tactics.

In 1977 Fela and the Afrika ’70 released the hit album “Zombie”, a scathing attack on Nigerian soldiers, using the zombie metaphor to describe the methods of the Nigerian military. The album was a smash hit with the people and infuriated the government all the more.  The government retaliated with a vicious attack against the Kalakuta Republic, during which one thousand soldiers attacked the commune. Fela was severely beaten, and his elderly mother was thrown from a window, which caused fatal injuries. The Kalakuta Republic was burned, and Fela’s studio, instruments, and master tapes were destroyed.

Fela and his band retreated to a residence in the Crossroads Hotel along with his commune.  In 1978 Fela married 27 women, many of whom were his dancers, composers, and singers to mark the anniversary of the attack on the Kalakuta Republic. Later, he was to adopt a rotation system of keeping only twelve simultaneous wives.  The year was also marked by two notorious concerts, the first in Accra in which riots broke out during the song “Zombie”, which led to Fela being banned from entering Ghana. The second was at the Berlin Jazz Festival after which most of Fela’s musicians deserted him, due to rumours that Fela was planning to use the entirety of the proceeds to fund his presidential campaign.

Despite these massive setbacks, Fela was determined to make a comeback. Interestingly, he formed his own political party, called “Movement of the People”.  In 1979 he put himself forward for President in Nigeria’s first elections in more than a decade, but his candidature was refused. During that time, Fela created a new band, and called it Egypt ’80.  He kept it all moving and continued to record albums and tour the country.
He further infuriated the political establishment by dropping the names of ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph, Nigeria Ltd) vice-president Moshood Abiola and then General Olusegun Obasanjo at the end of a hot-selling 25-minute political screed titled “I.T.T. (International Thief-Thief)”.

I was happy to find the following vimeo on Fela.  The title is “The Music Is The Weapon” and in it Fela talks openly about corruption in Nigeria, colonialism and its effects, culture and music. He and his Queens also talk about the attack they suffered at the hands of the government, and how they attacked and destroyed the compound.  The film is one hour long, but very interesting and informative–well worth watching in its entirety.  The narrator gives it a slight bit of a racist spin, but it’s easy to ignore.  In this vimeo, you can see Fela’s passion and love for his people–the film gives one a fuller understanding of the man.  I should warn that there are a few graphic photos when they speak of the Biafran War.

Fela Kuti – Music Is The Weapon from Green Grin on Vimeo.

In 1984, Fela was again attacked by the military government, who jailed him on a dubious charge of currency smuggling. His case was taken up by several human-rights groups, and after spending 20 months in prison, he was released by General Ibrahim Babangida. On his release he divorced his 12 remaining wives, saying that “marriage brings jealousy and selfishness.” Once again, Fela continued to release albums with Egypt ’80, made a number of successful tours of the United States and Europe and also continued to be politically active. In 1986, Fela performed in Giants Stadium in New Jersey as part of the Amnesty International Conspiracy of Hope concert, sharing the bill with Bono, Carlos Santana, and The Neville Brothers. In 1989, Fela and Egypt ’80 released the anti-apartheid Beasts of No Nation album that depicts on its cover then U.S. President Ronald Reagan, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and South African Prime Minister Pieter Willem Botha with fangs dripping blood.

The musical style performed by Fela Kuti is called Afrobeat, which is a fusion of jazz, funk, psychedelic rock, and traditional West African chants and rhythms. Afrobeat also borrows heavily from the native “tinker pan” African-style percussion that Kuti acquired while studying in Ghana with Hugh Masekela, under the fantastic Hedzoleh Soundz.  Afrobeat is also characterized by having vocals, and musical structure, along with jazzy, funky horn sections. The endless groove is also used, in which a base rhythm of drums, shekere, muted guitar, and bass guitar are repeated throughout the song.

Kuti thought that it was very important for Africans to fight European cultural imperialism, and he was a supporter of traditional African religions and lifestyles.  He was also a supporter of Pan-Africanism, and called for a united, democratic African republic. He was a candid supporter of human rights, and many of his songs are direct attacks against dictatorships, specifically the militaristic governments of Nigeria in the 1970s and 1980s. He was also a social commentator, and he criticized his fellow Africans (especially the upper class) for betraying traditional African culture. The African culture he believed in also included having many wives (polygamy) and the Kalakuta Republic was formed in part as a polygamist colony. He defended his stance on polygamy with the words “A man goes for many women in the first place. Like in Europe, when a man is married, when the wife is sleeping, he goes out and f**ks around. He should bring the women in the house, man, to live with him, and stop running around the streets!”

Rumours started spreading that he was suffering from an illness for which he was refusing treatment. On 3 August 1997, Olikoye Ransome-Kuti, already a prominent AIDS activist and former Minister of Health, stunned the nation by announcing his younger brother’s death a day earlier from Kaposi’s sarcoma brought on by AIDS. (Their younger brother Beko was in jail at this time at the hand of Abacha for political activity.)

More than a million people attended Fela’s funeral at the site of the old Shrine compound. A new Africa Shrine has opened since Fela’s death in a different section of Lagos under the supervision of his son Femi Kuti.
                                           *******************************
In 2008, an off-Broadway production of Fela Kuti’s life titled Fela!, began with a collaborative workshop between the Afrobeat band Antibalas and Tony award winner Bill T. Jones. The show was a massive success, selling out shows during its run, and garnering much critical acclaim. On November 22, 2009, Fela! began a run on Broadway at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre. Jim Lewis helped co-write the play (along with Bill T. Jones), and obtained producer backing from Jay-Z, Will Smith, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Stephen Hendel, and Stephen Semlitz. The show received rave reviews from The New York Times, saying that the musical  “Fela! doesn’t so much tell a story as soak an audience to and through the skin with the musical style and sensibility practiced by its leading man.”  Sahr Ngaujah was cast as the magnetic lead role, and Antibalas continues to provide the music, taking on the role of the Nigeria 70. On May 4, 2010, Fela! was nominated for 11 Tony Awards, including Best Musical, Best Book of a Musical, Best Direction of a Musical for Bill T. Jones, Best Leading Actor in a Musical for Sahr Ngaujah, and Best Featured Actress in a Musical for Lillias White.