Wednesday 6 August 2008

To blame for Africa

Whatever one may think of French foreign policy and especially their occasional adventures in Africa, which must surely undermine the frequent Gallic attempts to claim the moral high ground in this arena, the latest claims by the Rwandan government that France played an active role in the genocide during the early 1990’s, are troubling, not least because of the wider implications.

There is, of course, a potential for schadenfreude when names such as that of the oleaginous ex French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin and former President, Fran├žois Mitterrand, neither of whom could lay claim to being friends of Britain, are in the frame. However, such frivolous, if understandable, instincts should not obscure the dishonest and dangerous undercurrents at play here or the potential for mischief which this involves.

There will be many, including those at the incurably politically correct end of the European politics, who will delight at the opportunity to hold a European power accountable for an African genocide. Particularly of one which, in terms of the speed at which the victims were butchered over a short space of time, exceeded the ferocity of even the holocaust.

When such people find an allegation which they want to believe, that allegation invariably grows legs and continues to run even if the original claims are disproved.

Furthermore, can we doubt that, were French involvement to be proven albeit if only to a minor extent, every commentator with a modem will work tirelessly to exaggerate French guilt in the public mind whilst minimising the culpability of those who actually wielded the machetes?.

Although claims that France was aware of the preparation for genocide are unlikely to be proven and the alleged involvement of French troops in the actual killing lacks anything approaching credibility, these opportunist accusations gain credence beyond their true worth because they have been cynically tacked on to the main basis of the claims against the French, which is that they trained the Hutu troops who were the main perpetrators of the 1994 genocide.

Of course, the truth is not as simple as that, prior to 1994 the Hutu were effectively the government of Rwanda, and the Hutu troops whom the French trained were the Rwandan army of the day. In much of Africa, political power often rests with the tribe which is in the ascendant, and that was very much the case in Rwanda, where the civil war was in simplistic terms the result of rivalry between a largely Hutu government and an increasingly ambitious Tutsi tribe, who had previously attempted to overthrow the Government in 1990 in the guise of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

The tribal system is a reality which governments across the world have to accept when dealing with Africa, however much they might officially seek to distance themselves from it.

On the other side of East Africa, the British army have been training Kenyan troops for many years, which, given the reality of Kenyan politics means that we have been training a Kikuyu dominated army, which as recent events on the Mount Elgon region of Western Kenya, not to mention the outbreak of tribal violence earlier this year demonstrated, can have some problematic outcomes.

Kenya is in the same region of Africa as Rwanda, similar ethnic tensions exist there and have exploded into violence on a number of occasions over the years. The Mau Mau uprising of 1950’s is still sold as resistance to white rule, but largely descended into tribal violence, and even at a conservative estimate the Mau Mau murdered almost 100 Africans for every white person they killed.

Since independence in 1964 ethnic tensions, although bubbling under the surface, were largely kept under control in what was until recently viewed as a rare African success story. However, outbreaks of violence have occurred over the years, and, as we all know, at the beginning of this year, following almost certainly rigged elections, the country exploded into tribal violence resulting in the deaths of some 1,500 and the displacement of around 6000.000 people. As the violence escalated the world held its collective breath fearing that we were witnessing another Rwanda.

It didn’t happen then, but it came close and, sadly, the factors which could have caused all out civil war are still in place and still as potent.

If Kenya 2008 had turned into another Rwanda 1994, or if the still simmering ethnic tensions explode again next week, next month or next year, but this time escalates into genocide, what will be Britain’s position, and, indeed, what will Britain be blamed for?

In fourteen years time will fingers be pointed at us, will the world be reminded that our soldiers trained Kikuyu soldiers and that our government supported a Kikuyu dominated government? Those facts are certainly true on face value, but how would they be interpreted years later following the sort of bloodbath we saw in Rwanda?.

Our troops in Kenya have already been confronted with ludicrous and palpably trumped up charges, which the media has pretended to take seriously out of malice and political correctness, do you think they, or our many enemies at home and abroad would pretend to treat claims of genocide any less seriously?

Our continued activities in Africa are overwhelmingly well intentioned and we seek the best for the people of our ex-colonies, but, as France is the most recent European government to discover, they put us at significant risk.

Britain no longer rules in Africa, we can not control the outcomes, and as life expectancy in places like Kenya plummet, those who remember us with affection are rapidly shrinking in number, to be replaced by generations who know nothing of white rule, except what they have learnt from the radical and politically correct schooling of our age. As such, we are resented and at risk from any number of wild allegations, which those who make them, and much of the world will want to believe, however incredible they may be.

Africa is a land of staggering beauty and unfulfilled promise, for all her horrors, she beguiles on sight and most of those whom she has touched will love her to their graves, yet she is a poison fruit, and one which becomes more lethal by the day.

A century and a half of comparatively benign rule and relative prosperity were forever lost forty years ago in an ill begotten, and premature, wind of change. The chance of a successful future was sacrificed for the sake of ideology and expediency, as a result the speed of Africa's decline is now so rapid that it almost certainly can not be reversed. Soon the dark continent will be as dangerous a place for a European to set foot as it was when the first brave explorers ventured there three or four hundred years ago, it is already that dangerous for many of its own people.

Africa’s fate now seems inevitable, all that remains is the question of who will take the blame. There will be many seeking culprits from outside of Africa because it is not yet acceptable to blame those within. Those counties, such as Britain and France who still feel they have a role to play in Africa, should play that role with caution lest they are held accountable for what Africa now does to herself.


Anonymous said...

You write: "Our continued activities in Africa are overwhelmingly well intentioned and we seek the best for the people of our ex-colonies.."

I believe that you are wrong here. The present sorry situation in Africa was planned and orchestrated from the West, mainly from Great Britain.

In support of this argument, read 'The Battle for Rhodesia' and 'The Siege of Southern Africa' by Douglas Reed. Both books may be downloaded free from the internet.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

when I read people politically correct bollocks like "The present sorry situation in Africa was planned and orchestrated from the West, mainly from Great Britain."
I have to ask myself if the writer can't think or just don't bother to try.

Quite ludicrous, and really rather sad.

Anonymous said...

Onwa from Namibia said...

I am a child of africa born in africa and my formation years was in the 60's to 80's.

Apartheid was started in South Africa by Great Britain in the early 1820's when a clear division between indegenous blank tribes and the white settlers for Britain. "Apartness" will always be there. Diffrent cultures do not live together well. It places a huge strain on understanding each other whilst never accepting each other. So many times I have seen Europeans come to africa and take an African maid. The strain on the relationship takes it's toll soon. The cultural divide is big. Sir seretse Khama and Ruth Williams is a classical example. Whatever the politicians say, The british government of the late 50's would not accept the relationship. Sir Seretse Kahama died an alcoholic (White man's disease)

I believe that even the Blacks, Indians in the UK still hold on to their roots and ideals. I have travelled and lived in many countries in southern Africa. And even within the black communities, cultures, tribes there is non acceptances. The Owambo tribe on grassroot level speak derogartory of the Herero. The Potugese in Angola call the half caste in their communities Mulattos. In Botswana the Groups from the South of that country excercises "apartheid" with the "darker" nothernly groups. In commerce Black try to employ people from their ethninc groups.

We need to accept that we are different and that we can co-exist but not to marry or get involved in relationships across cultures and the colour bar. I am by no means a racist but merly a realist.

This thought so clearly brings back the TV clip so many years ago when a guy and his girlfriend was shot and killed in puplic by snipers in Bosnia. His "crime" He loved a muslim girl.

The western world must stop feeling sorry for Africa and give it support. Look closely at Botswana, is she really the sucess story made out to be by her sponsor, Britain. Go live there in the dirty streets, smashed pavements, and unkept basic roads and services. It is clear that even there the West fail to meet africa. Here in Namibia things are not much better. We are throwing 1st world technology and products at 3rd world countries. That does not gel.

Leave Africa to her own ways.

Anonymous said...

Humans originated in tropical Africa where food is available all year round and hence little foresight or planning is necessary. The main determinant for survival is territorial defence and aggression against other tribes. The mental capacities which are selected by evolution in such an environment are aggression and grabbing what you want when you want it.

However, as tribes moved out of tropical Africa, they entered lands where food supply was seasonal and the climate often hostile. Living in these environments was intellectually challenging and the most intelligent survived.

The genes of the tribes who moved out of Africa consequently evolved for greater foresight, forward planning, delayed gratification and greater co-operation and technical organisation - for example in irrigation works and seasonal sowing, harvesting and storage of food in climates with a marked summer/winter or wet/dry season contrasts.

This is the reason for the huge difference in intellectual ability, levels of aggression and civilisation potential between the original tropical Africans and their immediate descendents and all other races.

Anonymous said...

The Rwandan genocide is the single incident of my life that has destroyed forever my faith in human nature, in the simple basic goodness of people. These weren't people from opposite ends of the earth; they were for the most part neighbours, people seen often. As soon as it became possible to hack your neighbours and their children to death with your own hands without fear of legal repercussions, they did it.

It is the lowest comon denominator of human badness: to do wrong simply because you can. It disgusts me.

Simple greed, expansionism and the prevailing acceptance of empire-building may have led us into Africa, but only humanitarianism keeps us there now. They haven;t done terribly well, the ex-colonies since the Europeans moved out, have they. The only thing that keeps warring factions from killing each other is a strong leader. Look at Tito and Saddam - you might not like their methods but the second they took their eye off the game, out came the guns and the old grievances again.

British colonialism isn't the only factor at work here. It's notable that in places where Europeans outnumbered natives - Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc - the countries went on to post-colonial success.

Jozie said...

Britain had no choice but to abandon her colonies and Africa; the Americans saw to that. Having engineered WWII in conjunction with German intrests, they ensured enslavement of the Britih to their almighty dollar, let Britain and her colonial allies take the beating at the cost of thousands of their best youth and run up untold debt with their "lease-lend". Finally coming in at the end to "win the War".

Impoverished Britain could no longer support her colonies and was forced to abandon them to lawless tribes, left alone to fight and kill as in the pre-colonial era. American dollar colonisation, previously witheld from them by Great Britain, France and Portugal was allowed free hand.

Destabilised Africa was now open to exploitation, the money moved in ostensibly to cretae jobs and wealth for all. Meanwhile foreign investors were left to rape the riches at a small investment of bribing the odd official and president.

Only South Africa remained. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyaaland was easily dealt with. Why two British Prime Ministers were involved in that calumny is probably due to the fact that Britain was still indebted to the US.

With Rhodesia out of the way, the borders to South Afruca were opened. Those politically correct apologists for the "inhumanity of apartheid" fail to ask, "Why was South Africa chosen as the scapegoat for human atrocities" when other countries were and still are far worse?

The Nationalist Government gave blacks the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to govern in the Eastern Cape with apalling results in spite of bolstering them up with masses of white taxpayers money. Why was this such a dismal failure? The answer that Northerners will not understand is that black males traditionslly do not work; the tilling of the fields and care of livestock are jobs for women and children. The men must hold their indabas and drink the beer prepared by the women; otherwise they must go out to kill the odd game or tribal rival.

In this modern day, politics are the indaba; there can be much talk and partying as of old and tribalism still exists. Those who have replaced whites in the working community are abhorrent of the labour involved, are quite ignorant of the necessity to maintain infrastructure (it requires work) and will reluctantly replace, at great cost and badly, broken equipment.

Everyone has the right to strike at the drop of a hat, disrupting cities and businesses, causing damage with their rampant toitoing, dancing around like packs of demented dervishes.

Those Indian labourers indented from the East because blacks would not work in the cane fields and who were onsiderably worse off than the indigenous tribes did their jobs, saved and bonded togeher to form units capable of entering into business. The Chinese did not sit around griping; they too got stuck in and became wealthy. Both communities built their own schools and ensured education for their offspring. The Cape coloured, clasified as black, is not averse to work, except on Monday morning after a weekend of indulgence in a wine of the Cape!

Blacks haave done absolutely nothing to better themselves peacefully. All has been obtained through violence; a violence that not only remains, but is escalating.

Sout Africa, more financially secured than was Rhodesia is nevertheless following the Zimbabwe route. Thousands of farmers killed and food production dwindling as the new black farmers allow land to lie fallow, incapable of maintaining their equipment or just leaving the fields to the women to grow sufficient food for their own needs.

Anonymous said...

Sarah -"when I read people politically correct bollocks like "The present sorry situation in Africa was planned and orchestrated from the West, mainly from Great Britain."
I have to ask myself if the writer can't think or just don't bother to try.

My Dear Sarah, was not the demise of Rhodesia, and therefore logically, in short order that of South Africa not only fully called for, commencing with sanctions in the 60's through to military support of Robert Mugabe's and Joshua Nkomo's gangs of terrorist criminal thugs orchestrated by Britian?

Was not the fate of Rhodesia and therfore south africa sealed at Lancaster House?

Was Robert Mugabe not hailed, hallowed and knighted by Britain at a time that he was massacreing 25-30000 innocent matabele civilians in remote rural villages of southern Zimbabwe in the early '80's. At the same time mind you that he was showered with honorary degress by various British universities?

Rest assured, the current sorry state that Africa, particulalrly Southern Africa is in is absolutely the fault of the British administratiions of the day that pushed black nationalism and condemned the white populations of those countries to a certain annihilation by black nationalists like Mugabe, Mandela, Mbeki for the duration of their cowardly "Armed Struggles" that persist to this day in South Africa with the slaughter of 35000 innocent unarmed white civilians since Mandela became the world's favourite and dearest black racist terrorist leader with his release in 1990. And may I remind you, that this black racist terrorist is an object of fawning worship and hysterical adulation - where? - none other than the very seat of British politics and commerce.

Furthermore while Britian was fully and morally supporting these black racist terrorist wars, which were nothing more than smoke screens for communist expansion in Southern Africa what provision did she make for the white populations of these former Southern African colonies? They were assigned pariah satatus and denied entry into the UK - having to flee instead to the remotest corners of the globe wherever they could find refuge purely and only on the strength of their potential to contribute positively to their adoptive countries. Unlike the black parasites that stream freely into Britian to bring with them their violent cultures of murder, rape and robbery as is monotonously evidenced daily by the current crime stats in any big UK city while the effigy of their hero and icon, the arch black racist terrorist, Nelson Mandela beams benign approval of their black racist atrocities perpetrated against the white children of the very generation that gushed so orgasmically about what wonderful people black africans are.

While these British endorsed "winds of change" galed throughout Southern Africa, at what point prior to that were generations of white Southern African supposed to say "Hey guys, we don't belong here, the fact that we were born here notwithstanding, the fact that we have nowhere to else to go notwithstanding, the fact that we have built these magnificent first world countries that the blacks covet to the point of terrorism notwithstanding; we nevertheless do not belong in Africa, so let's just give what we have built over to the blacks and go and commit mass suicide because we have been such terrible people for being born white in black Africa and have nowhere else to go..."?

Well the grand finale of the British and American led, endorsed and financially, militarily and morally supported transition to "Black majority rule" in Southern Africa is Zimbabwe under Mugabe today and I'm not going to go into any further detail here than the 4.5 million black Zimbabweans that have died or been murdered under the rule of The Honorable Comrade "Sir" Robert Gabriel Mugabe, President for life of the independant People's Republic of Free Zimbabwe - courtesy of the British.

South Africa in the meantime bubbles ominously with violent undercurrents of race hatred against whites and tribal hatred between the blacks that threatens to manifest in the racial killing of millions of whites and the further deaths of countless millions of blacks as the country hurtles into the abys under the most corrupt, murderous, criminal collection of black racist terrorists that ever had the gall to call themselves a government - every last one of them hand-picked and endorsed by the British god, Saint Nelson Mandela.

There are however two upshots in the whole British orchestrated demise of Rhodesia and South Africa - who I might remind you were the two biggest contributors of manpower to the allied war effort in both world wars; one is that the wealth of the British empire in the former Southern African colonies has now been effectively transferred to the last Penny to the neo colonialist Chinese Empire, and two - you know all those darling blacks that the evil white Southern African administrations so terribly oppressed with nasty things like healthcare, education, food, employment, freedom and peace etc. etc. ? - after having achieved their "freedom" from this nasty white oppression, have now fled the tender and bengign ministrations of their beloved Mugabe, Mandela et al to come and live mostly illegally in the UK where they exercise their "rights" to perpetrate violent crime against white British citizens, to prey sexually on white British girls and young women and while doing so to claim benefits on a scale that exceeds the annual incomes of the majority of the Brtish population and certainly with preference over white British citizens.

These people that the British have for decades welcomed adoringly with open arms into the UK while screaming obscenities and abuse at white Southern Africans are breaking your laws, abusing your benefits systems, obliterating the characteristics that define British culture and society by screaming "racism " with every breath and with every last one of these peculiarities of their "exotic culture" trample under foot all and every last thing that once could be called British.

Trust me Maid of Albion - the demise of white administrations in Southern Africa that Britain so stridently championed and that ushered in the black racist terrorist kleptocracies we see there now? - these are nothing but the consequence of British machinations and interference in the affairs of those countries and proof of that ranges from the Knighthood of that black racist terrorist Robert Mugabe with all his honorary British degrees to the effigy in Trafalger Square of his lifelong mate and comrade in arms, that other black racist, terrorist, the British god, Nelson Mandela.

AgainsTTheWall said...

"exceeded the ferocity of even the holocaust"

Much I would quibble with on this post but as a Denier casual remarks like the above attract my attention.

This my first comment here having recently discovered it. Its a fine blog. I would nt waste my time trying to encourage most bloggers to entertain a different viewpoint on the Holocaust but if you want an 'intellectual adventure' Sarah please find time to read this article by Jurgen Graf (slightly out of date but very readable). Its an excellent intro to why everything you ever thought was solid and real is nt.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Against the wall, I am pleased you enjoy the blog. However, I am afraid I can't get your PDF file to open.

I don't deny the Holocaust, I don't know enough about it to do so, I object to the fact that people are sent to prison for questioning it. That is an attack on thought and on speech, and is surely a form of "fascism" in itself.

However, even assuming that everything which is claimed about the Holocaust is true, it is a fact that more people were killed in Rwanda over a shorter space of time than in the Holocaust.

AgainsTTheWall said...

Im puzzled as to why the pdf wont open for you. Ive tried the link in Firefox and IE8 with no problems.

With regards to atrocities in general I adopt a sceptical view unless some strong evidence is presented.

I reckon the numbers often quoted for the killings (upwards of 50 million) in the Soviet Union to be untenable. Stuff like the Rape of Nanking and the scale of Serbian massacres of Muslims are unproven. Going back further the deaths at the hands of Genghis Khan for example are wildly exaggerated. As for the Old Testament - pure fantasy!

In addition to exaggerating the numbers of victims we often find the manner of their deaths to be fictitious too. The Nuremburg trials record several unlikely scenarios and Jewish survivors since have invented outlandish tales of Nazi brutality (eg pitchforking babies onto open bonfires).

Its not hard to see why these exaggerations have been laid on us. Writers have always sold more when they are sensationalist and the modern cult of victimology adds another powerful reason why atrocities are concocted where none exist.

Having said all that I am more inclined to accept the scale of the intent in Rwanda if only because a racial conflict can awaken very primitive fears and hatreds.