"They switched from the old openly colonial imperialistic approach to the benevolent approach. They came up with some benevolent colonialism, philanthropic colonialism, humanitarianism, or dollarism. Immediately everything was Peace Corps, Operation Crossroads." - Malcolm X.
I felt the need to explain why I have never been thrilled by Western charities. I have been telling whoever would listen that the so-called aids that the Western nations pretend to be giving to Africa are unnecessary.
Various reasons invited these opinions. First and foremost among these is historical: No nation, no society has ever been developed by outside aid however generous and, I believe, none shall ever be. We can make this into Femi's First Principle of Economic Development.
Secondly, foreign-aid presupposes that international relations (relations between nations) are conducted on altruistic or sentimental basis, this is wrong. As the Americans are wont to say, 'It is a jungle out there,' every nation for himself, and God for us all.
If the Albinos are salving their consciences by pretending to be do-gooders, it behoves Africans to stop disbelieving the nonsense. As I have said millions of times, the genius of the Western nations lies in their ability to cloak their selfish interests in humanitarian haloes. Their dogged pursuits of their selfish interests are always portrayed as great philanthropic enterprises for mankind.
Lets us take a short trip back into history.
When the hordes of European invaders descended on Africa with their Maxim guns and their Bibles, they committed unspeakable atrocities. They violated our land and desecrated our gods. They stole and took over one-hundred million of our brothers and sisters to their plantations in their 'New-World' in the Americas. They said it was a trade. Why do you need to come with guns and gun-boats if your intention is to engage in honourable TRADE?
Our brothers and sisters slaved for over four centuries building the wealth of America! They were not paid a dime for their labor. They were treated like the chattel properties of the people who are today the shakers and movers of 'God's own country.' They were whipped and branded like common cattle. The slave masters raped their women slaves and engaged in incestuous sex with their offspring. At the end of it all, when slavery became too odious to be tolerated, the slave owners were compensated for their great humanitarian work; the slaves got nothing! Even the promise of forty acres and a mule that was made to them remained unfulfilled unto this blessed day. It is impossible to read the accounts of their treatment without the blood running cold. How did the Europeans explain all these enormous crimes?
They were on a civilizing mission! The good-hearted, God-fearing European was bringing Christian light to the barbarians of the 'Dark-Continent.' European scholarship went into over-drive, churning out tons and tons of useless theses to justify this patently absurd claim. To anyone who knows history, the notion of Europeans going on civilizing mission to Africa draws laughter of derision, not anger. Even their so-called religion is a plagiarized form of an ancient African religion which their one-track, materialistic minds cannot comprehend.
One instance of history should suffice. England was among the leading European powers that despoiled Africa. Who are the English? Originally called Angle, the English were a sub-tribe of the Saxons. When these Anglos were roaming the forests and swamps of the Island that now bear their name, there were empires in Africa. When the Anglos were still living in caves, Africans were living in cities. We could say that the English did not see the light of civilization until the Normans conquest of 1066. So primitive were the English that one invading Roman general wondered if he could make successful slaves of them!
I do not write this to deride the English; this is simply an historical fact. The first emperor of a modern state in all of Europe was Charlemagne, who ruled most of Western Europe from 800-814. That gives us a history of less than two thousand years old. When we compare that with Ethiopian, Nubian and Egyptian civilisations, we see how hollow Europeans claim as bearers of civilisation really is. After those ancient civilizations were destroyed Africans continue to build: We had the old Ghana Empire that flourished until the 13th century! Ghana is by no means the oldest of African empires. We still have the Malian Empire which lasted until the 16th century. The Songhai Empire was bigger than anything Europeans have been able to forge in terms of empire.
Why did European scholars refused to teach this history? Why are Africans compelled to read about European vain-glories, and not the glories of their own past? Why are student in Africa continue to be taught about Holy Roman Empire, when the Malian, the Ghanaian and Songhaian empires remain untaught. We are Africans, and those were genuine African achievements, why are they denying us knowledge of them. And more importantly why are we denying ourselves the knowledge about how own history?
It is for one single purpose: To lead credence to the Europeans monstrous lies about their 'civilizing' mission in African. If the Ghanaian knows these things, he would be asking of the English, "If my fathers and mothers were building houses, cities and empires when your parents were still living nomadic lives, how come you are here to civilize me?" The Senegalese, the Malian will ask the same of the French.
Dapper was a Dutch traveller in Africa in the 15th century. In his writings, he gave accounts of the type of political and social organizations and institutions he found in the places he travelled. He favorably compared Benin-City in Nigeria with the city of Amsterdam. The British invaded the ancient city, looted the treasures (they are still in the British Museum), what they could not cart away they set on fire. When their mythorians (myth-creators masquerading as historians) came, they wrote about the destructed buildings and wondered why Africans live in such wretchedness! Their works become classics - compulsory study at their universities.
When Europeans (Americans were present too) sat at Berlin and carved up Africa, how did they rationalized it! The White man was carrying the Black Man's burden. The white man was trying, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood to lift the Black man's to the level of the European. Europeans are never motivated by anything except altruistic considerations for mankind.
When colonialism became too odious, the Europeans quickly switched gear. They foisted neo-colonialism on Africa. Instead of European colonial administrators ruling over the colonies, stooges are put in place to carry out the dirty works. We had Mobutu in Zaire whose principal jobs was to guarantee the interests of Euro-American multi-nationals. Who can still remember how many times Belgian and French troops, supported by American logistics, have rescued him from the ire of his people?
The Albinos can therefore beat their chests and say, 'We did our best. The natives are now managing their affairs, and look what a mess they are making of things!'
They will never say that the natives are still being teleguided by the IMF and World Bank Consultants and Strategists. They will never say that there are in Africa at the moment more European administrators (call them, NGOs, 'aid-workers,' 'missionaries,' or whatever have you) in Africa today than at the height of the colonial period. They will never tell you that most of what they call aids were military hardware, given to dictators in Africa to repress their people in the interest of Western multi-nationals. Nigerian police and soldiers continue to wipe out whole villages in order to make the places save for SHELL exploitation. Mobutus forces are routinely pacifying Zaireans for the benefit of Western MNCs. And who give a fig how many African lives are being wasted so long as Western multinationals can continue to steal the resources of the DRC?
It is never bannered that even the so-called economic aid are tied to buying produce from the host country. And the most insulting of all, they do not tell us that the so-called aid is what got us in trouble in the first place. Aids are no charity; they are not gifts, and they are certainly not grants. They are loans, pure and simple. When Westerners make a song-and-dance about aids, they fail to say that under normal circumstances, it is a straight-forward proposition. The economic-aid has to be repaid back. How do you think Africa got into such huge indebtedness?
We are indebted to the West for their 'aid.' If I give you one Euro, and you have to pay me back ten, I am insulting you by claiming to be aiding you. The best you got was a bad deal and, if we have to be fair, I took you for a clean ride.
Then there is the question of self-pride. The notion of aid suggests a giver-taker, master-servant relationship. As people who receive the so-called social-security easily attest, aid dehumanizes the receiver - perhaps that was the original intention. It turns the receiver into a beggar. Little wonder the adage says that “It is better to teach a man how to catch fish and give him the means to do so, rather than giving him fishes.”
The fact of the matter is that the Europeans are lying when they say that they are giving aid to Africa. It is an obnoxious lie to anyone who knows anything about international affairs. Aside from our resources which these historical thieves continue to steal, Africa is yearly remitting to Euro-America more than ten billion US dollars. If anyone is giving aid to anything, it is Africa. This monstrous lies has been so often repeated that even Africans tend to take it as gospel truth. The Europeans claim is like the robbers who make a living by robbing people and, giving back a part of their loot to their victims, claim to be engage in humanitarian affair.
We can also use another analogy: Imagine for a minute a group of fire-fighters who go around setting fire to houses and, putting it out, claiming that their act is benevolent humanitarianism.
This is exactly what the Albinos are doing in Africa and all over the world. Take a part of Africa where there is conflict, any part. What do they do? They take sides, and rushed 'military- assistance' to their stooges. Lives are wantonly destroyed, so are infrastructures. A decade or so later when the combatants are too weak to feed themselves, we see the white people making appeal for donations – ‘We are the World’, ‘Een Voor Afrika,’ ‘Red nose day,’ and other useless jamborees organized to salve the conscience of a conscienceless people
“It might sometime be necessary to cut off the hand that feeds you it is stopping you from feeding yourself.” - Malcolm X