An Island of Spice, Slaves and myths of Sovereignty

Apologies for returning again to the subject of President Obama's eligibility, but current events on the other side of the Atlantic, and the frantic efforts on the part of the President's supporters to vilify and ridicule those who dare to ask uncomfortable questions and to debunk, almost unseen, any scrap of evidence which might suggest that their idol may have been less than honest with them has been keeping me highly entertained this week.

As I indicated on Monday, I have no idea whether the document which has turned up purporting to be Barrak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate is the real deal or not, indeed there are certain aspects to it which are rather dubious, albeit, none of us are experts on this subject . It may still be genuine, but it would be unwise to bet the farm on the belief that it will definately turn out to be.

However, genuine or not, it remains an educational exercise to observe the behaviour of those seeking to debunk the document, and indeed to dismiss as "crank fofdder" the wider argument about Obama's eligibility to be President, by any means they can. The usual trick used by the left wing on both sides of the Atlantic is to mock and ridicule those who are merely seeking the truth on any matter in which they hold their own myths to be sacred truths, and this trick has been used with great ferocity by those attacking the so called “Birthers”.

However, it is hard to take seriously ridicule coming a group of people who are so pathetically desperate to believe every scrap of fraud reeking “evidence” of their beloved hero's unquestioned eligibility tossed to them by a progressively defensive Obama camp. It is not only their self imposed gullibility which damages their credibility, it is their hypocrisy and tendency for telling downright lies.

They continue to insist that Barry O “has produced a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate” in the full knowledge that the document he has produced is not a real birth certificate. They further claim that “Hawaiian officials have confirmed he was born there” whilst ignoring how carefully worded the statements of those Hawaiian officials used when addressing the subject. (What is an "original vital record" when its at home?)

In any event, under any other administration, they would be the last to accept the word of a government official who effectively says “Trust me, you don't need to see the documents, but I have and they are cool!” but in this case they are more than ready to accept any unsubstantiated assurance.

Of course, together with the ridicule, they inevitably resort to allegations of racism, which they have already used widely against anyone who dares to question “the one's” divine right first to be elected and now use condemn anyone who does not believe in his right to rule without any criticism. “Racist” and “racism” as we know are the most multi-purpose words in the English language, and amongst their myriad of meanings we find that they now apply to anyone who fails to support the doctrine that when a non-white person aspires to the most powerful job in the world, he or she does not need to produce the sort of documentation which anyone else would have to produce if they wanted to become an insurance clerk.

Their most recent weapon, before they became obsessed with debunking the alleged birth certificate with all sorts of pretend history, was alleged discovery of birth notices in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers announcing that Mr & Mrs Obama had been blessed with a bouncing boy called Barrack, which they insisted was the ultimate proof of their great leader's US birth.

Are you buying that? On the day I can take a newspaper birth announcement to the bank as proof of identity, and get a loan, I will take that argument seriously. A birth notice proves nothing more than that someone has paid for three line of space in a newspaper. The anti-birthers obviously missed all those movies where the crooks told the kidnap victims parents to put an ad in the paper saying something like “the Iceman has risen” meaning “We've left the cash under the bridge”. They can be placed for all sorts of reasons without supporting evidence.

I could walk into a newspaper office tomorrow and place an announcement declaring that I was marrying the rather well appointed American actor Matthew McConaughey but that wouldn't make it a fact, however much I might wish it was.

When the fact that anyone can place a birth notice whether true or not, is pointed out to the Obama worshippers, they mockingly cry “For what reason? How did thy know he would be running for president 45 years later?”. Such a response, which I have seen given a number of times. is totally dishonest. We all can all think of reasons why someone in 1961, might want their child, or grandchild, to have the advantages and security of a US citizenship rather than a somewhat less advantageous African one, and so can they. Someone might have an even greater motive if they had just been introduced to the truth of an African tribal marriage, and the disturbing potential for unreliability of the little one's daddy.

But don't expect honesty from an Obama worshipper attacking a “birther”.

Returning to the birth certificate, after the argument about when Kenya started calling itself a Republic, which I addressed on Monday, the second main argument they use to discredit the document is the claim that Mombassa was part of Zanzibar at the time Obama was born.

This is not only a totally disingenuous argument, but it brings us to some rather interesting events of British History, which is, of course, no longer taught in our schools.

As we all know, Zanzibar is a tiny island off the coast of Kenya and Tanzania, until recently when it became a tourist destination (best visited in the cooler months) it was known mostly for its spices and for being used by Arab slavers to hold African slaves before they were transported North. Meanwhile Mombasa is a coastal town in Mainland Kenya, which, by the middle of the 20th Century, had become one of the trading ports in East Africa.

Over the centuries the “ownership” of both Zanzibar and sections of the east African coast, including the sea port of Mombasa, changed frequently, partly as a result of the Arab slave trade, with records of Arab involvement going back to at least the 12th Century, followed by a short lived Portuguese settlement after the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498.

Zanzibar’s claim to sovereignty over Mombasa dates back to the early 19th Century when it was nominally annexed by the Sultan of Zanzibar, after a brief period as a British Protectorate. However, that sovereignty became merely theoretical after 1896 when Mombasa and most of Kenya’s coastal region became part of the British Kenyan protectorate following the Anglo Zanzibar war.

The Anglo Zanzibar war is now most famous as a question in Trivial Pursuit, on account of being the shortest war in history, as hostilities lasted a total of 38 minutes.

Needless to say, Britain won the war, and as a result, from 1896 until 1963, Mombasa was run and administered by Britain as part of Kenya, by British officials and civil servants. The sultan formally presented the town to Britain in 1898, although technically Zanzibar retained sovereignty this was in name only and the coastal provence, including Mombasa became part of Kenya and run by the British. Anyone born in Mombasa in that period was automatically a Kenyan (and British) subject. Mombasa was ceded to the Republic of Kenya in December 1963, when both Kenya and Zanzibar became independent.

Hence British and Kenyan civil servants would have certified any such document both in 1961 when it was part of the colony of Kenya and in 1964 when it was part of the Republic of Kenya. The theoretical role of Zanzibar, which played no part in governance of Mombasa at any point in the 20th Century, is a total irrelevance. A Red Herring thrown into the mix by liars to discredit what they most fear,

However, like the truth about Britain's role in coastal East Africa during the 19th and early 20th century, and the degree to our presence there was motivated by the long war we fought against slavery, the facts are hidden and distorted so as to produce the dishonest version of history we are now required to believe in.

Only a fool would bet what they can not afford on the Kenyan birth certificate proving to be genuine but only an even greater fool would expect honesty from those currently seeking to discredit the document.