UFC fighter Ronda Rousey is 1/16 Black…Does it make her African?

Ronda2..

Well what do we have here.  It seems as though mixed martial arts fighter Ronda Rousey as some “black” in here bloodline.  I noticed in this picture she has braids in her hair. Maybe she’s trying to get in touch with her “African roots”.  Who knows right?  I had a co-worker tell me she was part black last year.  Of course I didn’t believe it all.  But after a little research I found a little information on it. But it wasn’t a big deal me.  There are many white celebs that have a black relative from waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day.  But I guess the subject came up again when TMZ released a recent video with Rousey and her mother.

Of course this is not totally shocking but most white celebs don’t mention their black ancestry.  That information is usually dug up by someone else because there is no real advantage to admitting some black ancestry in a racist white society. This is the break down of her family background. She is the daughter of Ann Maria Rousey DeMars (born Waddell), a judoka and author, and Ronald John Rousey.

Ronda’s maternal grandfather was of Trinidadian and Grenadian descent (including African, Spanish, and English ancestry). Ronda’s other ancestry is English, 1/16th Polish, German, Scottish, and distant Dutch.

Ronda has said that her ancestry is “half venezuelan, a quarter English, a quarter polish, 100% American”. Her reference to “Venezuelan” ancestry likely refers to the fact that the island of Trinidad, where her grandfather’s family was from, is just 11km off the northeastern coast of Venezuela. Ronda’s first three fractions are not quite correct: she is of one quarter Caribbean ancestry, not half, she has English ancestry, to one degree or the other, from all four of her grandparents, and her Polish ancestry is one sixteenth, not one quarter.

Ronda’s paternal grandparents were John Edward Rousey (the son of Clarence James Rousey and Theresa Ellen De Moss) and Jean Orvetta Zifka (the daughter of Charles O. Zifka and Lenice O. Dilley). Charles was born in Wisconsin, to a Polish father, Lawrence Zifka, and an American mother, Elzina Smith.

Ronda3..

Ronda’s maternal grandfather is Joseph Arthur Waddell (the son of Alfred Ernest Waddell and Emelia/Amelia Maria/Mona Castillo). Joseph was born in New York. Alfred was born in Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago, to Joseph Waddell, who was English, and Claudine Angus Abbott, who was from St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Amelia was born in Trinidad, to Pedro Castillo and Maria Hernandez.

Ronda’s maternal grandmother is Marcella Ann Austin (the daughter of Anthony Austin and Reva/Rena Landon). Marcella was born in Illinois. Anthony was born in Indiana. Reva was born in Illinois, to Laurence Landon and Mayme Price.

Now you have silly ass negroes going around saying she should be considered a black woman.  This is insanity! I covered this issue once before last year.

https://kushiteprince.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/shailene-woodley-is-a-black-woman-and-other-myths/

But this is NOT a black woman.  She is not African. I don’t care what Rousey’s mother says. Just because a white person has a great-great grandparent that was black or mulatto does not make them black. This is once again that crazy “one drop rule” gone wild. Blogger Authenic African Vanguard once said:

“The Ignorance Of Blacks/Africans Accepting The False One Drop Rule Has Caused A Lot Of Confusion Among Africans. Which Is Why The IMA Constantly Promotes It To Keep Africans In The State Of Disarray. When The European/IMA Has Control Over Your Own Racial Identity,He Is Able To Manipulate Africans Into Accepting His Bastard Offspring And Even Put Them In Positions Of Power Over “Authentic” Africans. Recently A IMA Female Actor Meryl Streep Said In Front Of An All White Film Panel (“There is a core of humanity that travels right through every culture, and after all we’re all from Africa originally,” she added. “Berliners, we’re all Africans really.”) The Deceptiveness Of “We Are All Africans” Minimizes And Ignores Crimes & Injustices Committed Against Africans Worldwide, Based Solely On The Fact That They Are “Authentic” Africans. This Is Why There Is An Urgent Need For ACBN Thought Among Blacks/Africans Internationally. The World Is Ran By Individuals With A “Racial” Group Identity. Individuals Linked Together Simply By A Distinctive Phenotype.”

Those are very true words! Very well said statement by an intelligent man.. And we as black people must stop trying to claim every single person that has some black ancestry from way back in the day.  It makes us look pathetic trying to claim people who obviously don’t look like us or want to have anything to do with us.  We should be a prideful people and embrace our African culture and heritage. And we definitely don’t need to claim some overhyped,overglorified unattractive white martial artist fighter.  This white woman has NO African traits. Skin color,hair texture or phenotypes. So let’s keep it real.

Ronda1...

So I hope this helps you with any confusion you may have. She’s not one of us.  And I don’t give a damn if she puts her hair in braids,dreadlocks or bantu knots.

 

Patrice Lumumba- Congolese Warrior

Patrice1...

During his exile in the 1980s, Mr Holden Roberto – president of the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) – and one of his collaborators, visited me in my office at Howard University in Washington. In order to counter accusations (incidentally well-founded) levelled at his party, of colluding with American imperialism and selling out on their commitment to Pan-Africanism, my two visitors began by reciting in its entirety Patrice Emery Lumumba’s famous speech at the Congolese independence ceremony on 30th June 1960. This gesture – which strongly affected me – shows the attachment you still find across the whole African continent, even among its lost sheep, for this martyr for African nationalism and the struggles of oppressed peoples all over the world.

Rare are the African countries where one does not find streets, even main roads, named after Lumumba. Many African children born after his assassination have ‘Lumumba’ as their forename. The former executive secretary of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (2002-5) and president of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (2010-11) is called Patrick Lumumba, and his passion for change and eloquence recalls those qualities in his namesake.

These two references to the political heritage of Lumumba show how the assassination of this great African leader resonated – and continues to resonate – with Africans. In his excellent book, The Assassination of Lumumba, Belgian sociologist Ludo de Witte shows the significance of this particular assassination in the history of Western tactics against the anti-imperialist revolutions of the 20th Century – from Mossadegh’s Iran to Nasserist Egypt, Castro’s Cuba, Lumumba’s Congo and Sankara’s Burkina Faso.

It is in this context – the struggle between the interests of the international bourgeoisie and those of the popular masses – that we must understand the factors contributing to Lumumba’s assassination, its political consequences for Congo, and the place of this Congolese hero in the pantheon of universal defenders of the emancipation of peoples.

The assassination of Lumumba was the outcome of two conspiracies closely bound together with the American and Belgian governments, which relied on the complicity of certain Congolese leaders and a Belgian firing squad composed of soldiers and policemen under the Katanga puppet regime.

Patrice3...

Patrice Lumumba – the man and his political project

Who is Patrice Lumumba, and why was he so violently assassinated by the forces of counter-revolution? Born on 2nd July 1925 in Onalua, a small village in the region of Katako-Kombe, Lumumba received his education at primary school as well as among Belgian Catholic missionaries at Tshumbe Sainte-Marie and the famous Methodist mission in Wembo Nyama. He was not appreciated there, neither among the representatives of the colonial trinity (the State, big business, the Catholic Church) nor by the American missionaries – themselves fervent believers in the ideology of white supremacy prevalent in the Southern states of the USA, and too weak to contest colonial repression. An intellectually precocious pupil who rebelled against the thundering paternalism of the missionaries, the young Lumumba decided to leave Sankuru in 1944 without obtaining his certificate of study in order to spread his wings elsewhere. After several months in the region of Kindu, he would go on to pursue a career as a bureaucrat in Kisangani (then Stanleyville). It was during this long stay at Kisangani (1944-57) that Lumumba developed his characteristic traits; moral and intellectual integrity, immovability on points of principle, and exceptional bravery even in the face of death. As one of the members of the firing squad which killed him recalled, Lumumba maintained a glacial calm in front of the executioners.

At Kisangani, Lumumba distinguished himself as president, vice president, or secretary, of at least seven organisations of Congolese évolués – literally meaning ‘evolved people’, this term was used by the Belgian colonial establishment to distinguish a class of ‘Westernised’ blacks. An autodidact, with the exception of a year of professional training at the École Postale in Kinshasa (then Leopoldville), he succeeded in acquiring immense knowledge about the contemporary world through extensive, self-guided reading on politics and history. According to Thomas Kanza, his collaborator and biographer, Lumumba ‘read all that fell into his hands’. As leader, he was a convincing and effective representative for the Kisangani evolués, liaising with the governor of the province, the Belgian minister of the colonies, Auguste Buisseret, and the young king, Baudouin I, during his first visit to Congo in 1955. Still a believer in the idea of the Belgo-Congolese community, promulgated by amicales belgo-congolais, clubs comprising evolués and those Belgians open to a gradual process of integration, Lumumba was invited to Belgium for the first time in 1956.

Fearing his perspicacity and well-founded criticisms of colonial racism, the colonial authorities welcomed his return from Brussels with a charge of tax avoidance, followed by a sentence of two years in prison by a trial court in Kisangani. The public prosecutor, judging this punishment insufficient, made an appeal, but the court of appeal in Kinshasa confirmed the sentence of two years. This punishment was reduced to four months, which he had already served in preventative detention, followed by a royal order granting grace, signed on 27th August 1957.

If Kisangani had given him the political apprenticeship he needed to master the mysteries of organisation and political practice, these two experiences of Kinshasa, of the École Postale and his incarceration, contributed in a decisive way to the awakening of his political consciousness. During his training in postal service administration in 1948, Lumumba made a short visit to Brazzaville, on the right bank of the River Congo opposite Kinshasa. Thirsty from walking, he stopped outside a café with the hope of finding a waiter who would give him a glass of water. To his surprise, it was the European café patron who noticed him, and invited him to sit where the whites were seated and brought him, not tap water, but mineral water. For the sociologist Pierre Clément – for whom he would work as a research assistant four years later –here was the first time that Lumumba realised that another world was possible, habituated as he was to the system of apartheid practised in Belgian Congo. Reinvigorated by the model of assimilation among the French in Congo-Brazzaville – though the ‘card of civic merit’ in 1948 and formal registration in 1952 did not succeed in guaranteeing equality of access to jobs, medical treatment, housing, social services and recreation – an évolué Lumumba felt his long-cowed spirit emboldened enough to dream of a more beautiful country than Belgian Congo.

This dream of radical change would reinforce itself further during his months of incarceration, during which Lumumba had the occasion to lead a serious reflection on the future of Congo and to read the famous ‘Plan de trente ans pour l’émancipation politique de l’Afrique belge’ by A.A.J Van Bilsen, a little known professor at the Colonial University of Anvers, together with the two Congolese reactions to this document: first, ‘Manifeste de la Conscience Africaine’, the work of a group of catholic intellectuals represented by Joseph Ileo, Joseph Malula (future cardinal) and Joseph Ngalula; second, the counter-manifesto by l’Alliance des Bakongo (ABAKO), an ethnic association led by Joseph Kasavubu. After leaving prison, Lumumba installed himself in Kinshasa where, from 1957, he launched himself into the political struggle. Joining up with Ileo and Ngalula, he succeeded, in October 1958, in taking the leadership of the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC), a political organisation started up with the intention of eventually becoming a credible political party at the national level.

By a happy confluence of circumstances, the year 1958 ended with the emergence of Patrice Lumumba as one of the principal leaders in the struggle for independence. The turning point was the visit to Kinshasa by two east African leaders on their way to the first ‘Conference des peuples Africains’, held in Accra between the 5th and 13th December 1958. Concerned that a large country like Congo risked missing out on this great African rendez-vous, A.R. Mohamed Babu of Zanzibar and Tom Mboya of Kenya asked a hotel worker where they could find the political leaders of the emerging independence movement. The worker in question was very happy to bring about a meeting with Patrice Lumumba, then the commercial director of the Brasserie du Bas-Congo (Bracongo), which produced the beer Polar. Lumumba often offered this to clients, ostensibly for promotional purposes but often using this as an opportunity to awaken the clients’ political consciousness. Babu and Mboya were so impressed by Lumumba that they sent a telegram to the Pan African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) asking for money to bring a Congolese delegation to Accra.

And so Patrice Lumumba, Gaston Diami and Joseph Ngalula accompanied Babu and Mboya to Accra, where Lumumba attracted the notice of the delegates at the conference, which brought together representatives from the 8 independent countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia) and those of the political parties, trade unions and other organisations of the civil society of the Pan-African world. There he met the leaders of national liberation movements such as Félix-Roland Moumié of the Union des Populations de Cameroun (UPC), Frantz Fanon of the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) of Algeria, and Amilcar Cabral of the Parti Africain pour L’independence de Guinéeet du Cap Vert (PAIGC), and he established strong working relationships with some great African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Modibo Keita and Ahmed Sékou Touré.

On his return to Kinshasa, Lumumba organized a popular demonstration on Sunday 28th December to inform the Congolese population of the resolutions of the Accra conference and their implications for the independence movement in Congo. Following the refusal by the first Belgian mayor of Kinshasa to allow ABAKO to hold a similar meeting the following Sunday, 4th January 1959, the population of Kinshasa rose in a three-day rebellion which sounded the death knell for the Belgian colonial regime in Congo. “Indépendance immediate”, the slogan of protestors, became a non-negotiable demand in the struggle of the Congolese people for their total freedom. Instead of the thirty years suggested by Van Bilsen in 1956, independence was obtained in four. The mobilisation of the population by radical political parties like ABAKA and MNC-L was responsible for the erosion of legitimacy, as much as the repressive abilities, of the colonial regime. Lumumba benefited from this new situation by placing the MNC-L throughout all the provinces of the country, to the point that his party became the spearhead of the Congolese independence struggle.

BELGIUM LUMUMBA

The assassination of Lumumba        

For more than 128 years, the US and Belgium played key roles in fashioning the destiny of the Congo. In April 1884, seven months after the opening of Congress in Berlin, the US became the first country in the world to recognise the claims of King Leopold of Belgium to the Congo basin territories. When the atrocities linked to the brutal economic exploitation of Congo led to millions of deaths, the US joined with other global powers to force Belgium to put an end to the status of Congo as a personal possession of King Leopold II and to give it the status of an ordinary colony. During the colonial period (1908- 60), the US saw Congo’s strategic advantage due to its abundant natural resources, above all its uranium, which was used to created the first atomic weapons, the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

With the launching of the Cold War, it was inevitable that Washington and her Western allies would not be disposed to give Africans control over their own strategically valuable natural resources, for fear that they would fall into the hands of their Soviet enemies. Because of this, Patrice Lumumba’s attempt to secure an authentic independence and to obtain effective control over the resources of Congo, with the aim of improving the living standards of our people, was seen as a threat to Western interests. In their fight against him, Washington and Brussels used all the tools and resources at their disposal, including the United Nations under Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld and his U.S. assistant Ralph Bunche, Lumumba’s Congolese political enemies, and his assassins.

In Congo, the assassination of Lumumba is, for good reason, considered the ‘original sin’ of the country. Occurring less than seven months after independence (30th June 1960), it was a stumbling block for ideals of national unity, economic independence, and the African solidarity for which Lumumba had advocated, as well as being a terrible blow to the hopes for freedom and material prosperity of millions of Congolese people. In place of this, the country was divided into four parts: the west of the country under the central government of Kinshasa; the north west under a rival central government led by Lumumba partisans; and the mining provinces of Katanga and Sud Kasaï under the secessionist regimes of Moïse Tshombe and Albert Kalonji, at Lumumbashi (Elisabethville) and Mbuji-Mayi (Bakwanga) respectively.

The neo-colonial regime of Kinshasa was born from the dismissal of Lumumba by president Kasavubu in 1960 and the coup d’etat of 14th September by which colonel Joseph-Desiré Mobutu claimed to neutralise both protagonists of the institutional crisis. Based on an obscure article of ‘La Loi Fondamentale’, the temporary constitution bequeathed to Congo by Belgium, this action ran contrary to all the political conventions of a parliamentary system where the prime minister enjoys a majority in parliament. This was the case with Lumumba: the two chambers rejected Kasavubu’s action as invalid. The Western puppet-masters understood then that there would have to be a military intervention to remove Lumumba from power, and Mobutu had already been making preparations to this end from the beginning of the Congolese crisis in July. A former ally of Prime Minister Lumumba, he was at the same time linked to the forces of the counter-revolution as an informer for the Belgian and American security services.

It was this man who became the real master of Kinshasa, in his role as head of the Binza Group. So-labelled because its members lived and met up in the well-off residential district of Binza, this powerful clique drew its power from its members’ influence over crucial institutions and politicians; the army (Mobutu); the police (Victor Nendaka); the ministry of foreign affairs (Justin Bomkoko), the ministry of the interior (Damien Kandolo), the Central Bank (Albert Ndele). These individuals worked in close collaboration with Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula and President Kasavabu, and no important decision could be taken by these last two without the approval of the Binza group, the hub of neocolonialism in Congo.

Patrice4...

The secessions of Katanga and Sud Kasaï

Of these two secessions, that of Sud Kasaï is the lesser-known one yet it also played an important role in the political and physical assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Proclaimed on 8th August 1960 in Lumumbashi, the Sud Kasaï secession forged close links with its Katangan counterpart, siding with the interests of international high finance and the counter-revolution, with La Societé Diamantifère Forminière in Kasaï playing the same role – of money-lender – that the Union Miniere du Haut Katanga (UMHK) played in Katanga. The smaller secession took place as the Lumumba administration was receiving logistical assistance from the Soviet Union in order to fight a war against the secession in Katanga, due to the refusal of UN Secretary General Dag Hammerskjöld to allow the Security Council to perform its remit of helping the Congolese government expel the Belgian forces and white mercenaries and put an end to the secession. The soldiers of the National Congolese Army (ANC) en route to Katanga received the order to put an end to the small secession of Sud Kasaï before crossing the border. Unfortunately, the undisciplined soldiers committed atrocious massacres against innocent civilians, including close to a thousand men, women and children who believed themselves safe from danger in the sanctuary of the Catholic Cathedral of Mbuju-Mayi (today Bakwanga).

Dag Hammarskjöld defined these killings as ‘genocide’ against the Luba and pointed the finger at Prime Minister Lumumba. Aside from the fact that the atrocities committed in Sud Kasaï did not correspond to the definition of genocide in international law, these odious crimes were not the sole responsibility of the head of government, but of the entire chain of command: the superior officers on the ground; the Chief of Staff, Mobutu; Prime Minister Lumumba; and President Kasavubu, in his capacity as supreme commander of the armed forces. As such, neither Hammerskjöld nor Kasavabu had any justification either for accusing Lumumba of genocide, or for illegally dismissing him when the responsibility for this incident was largely a collective one.

The capital of Sud Kasaï would be baptised ‘la boucherie’, because it was the chosen site for the summary execution of Lumumbists whom the neo-colonial regime of Kinshasa wanted to destroy. The most famous among the victims is without doubt Jean-Pierre Finant (1922-61), the first democratically-elected governor of the eastern province, of which Kisangani is the capital. Of mixed Belgo-Congolais descent and father of the famous Congolese singer Abeti Masikini (Betty Finant, 1954-94), he was executed on 17th February 1961, exactly one month after the assassination of Lumumba, with eleven companions, including Jacques Lumbala (a former colleague of Mobutu), Emmanuel Nzuzi and Jacques Fataki. As in the case of Lumumba, who was handed over to Katangan secessionists, the Binza group saw no contradiction between collaborating with the secessionist regimes which it needed to destroy, and assassinating their common enemies, the Lumumbists.

The secession of Sud-Kasaï collapsed through its internal contradictions, mainly due to the struggle for power between Joseph Ngalula and Albert Kalonji, who was proclaimed Mulopwe or emperor of the Luba-Kasaï, a people who had never been under the leadership of a single leader since leaving their ancestral birthplace in Katanga in the 18th century. Having returned to Kinshasa to become minister of education for the central government, Ngalula plotted with the Binza group to destroy Kalonji and bring an end to the secession. This came about in September 1962, following an armed revolt under the direction of Kalonji’s Chief of Staff.

Contrary to the Sud-Kasaï secession, where the internal dimension was as crucial to its failure as it was to its birth; in light of the Lulua-Baluba conflict and its poor management – by first, the Belgians, later, Lumumba – the external factor was a defining one in Katanga. As Jean Ziegler aptly described it in his work La contre revolution en Afrique, in its progression towards the south of the continent, the African national liberation movement hit the wall of counter-revolution, whereby the white colonists, mining companies and their right-wing allies in the West, banded together to defend their privileges. Then, from Katanga to the Cape of Good Hope, the white counter-attack manifested itself in the creation of states controlled by white colonists, either directly, as in the case of South Africa, in Namibia and in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland, indirectly through the colonial state (Angola and Mozambique), or via a puppet government of paid-up blacks (Katanga). The essential continuity was that all these regimes succeeded in defending and promoting the interests of colonialists and of the corporations that sought to maximise their profits through the exploitation of badly-paid and quiescent labour. In the context of the cold war, the counter-revolution had no problem in inserting itself in the hegemonic discourse of Western values, Christian and democratic, which excluded communism, atheism and authoritarianism.

Well before the Rhodesian colonialist Ian Smith signed his ‘internal settlement’ with Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Pastor Ndabaningi and Chief Jeremiah Chirau in Zimbabwe, another agreement had already been negotiated in Congo, between the Conféderation des associations tribales de Katanga (CONAKAT) of Moïse Tshombe and Godefroid Munongo, the UMHK and the Union Katangaise – an association representing white colonialists – to allow Katanga to secede from Congo and become an independent state. In this sense, CONAKAT was just a way of giving voice to the interests of white colonialists through African mouths. Without the financial support of the UMHK, the military and technical support of Belgium, and the management of administrative and economic structures by the colonialists, Katanga could not survive as a political entity. Moreover, the secession relied on considerable external support; not only from Belgium, but also from France, the United Kingdom, and the US. In the country of Uncle Sam, the Katangan secession enjoyed solid backing in reactionary circles – lobbyists for the cause included influential senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona (a radical conservative), Thomas Dodd of Connecticut (a Democrat reprimanded by the Senate for corruption), and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (a notorious racist, despite having fathered a daughter with a black woman).

Following on from the assassination of Lumumba, the Katangan lobby in the US and Europe lost its influence with the key deciders such as John F. Kennedy and Paul-Henri Spaak, the Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs. These men understood that in the context of the Cold War, the territorial integrity of Congo was more useful to the West than a secessionist province which would continue to sow dissent across Africa and in the Third World in general, in turn raising difficult questions about the West’s responsibility for the death of Lumumba. Besides, these deciders no longer perceived a great threat to the economic and strategic interests of the West in Central Africa, given the physical elimination of Lumumba and the marginalization of Lumumbists after Lovanium. It is within this context that Kennedy would give the green light for the UN to put an end to the secession with force. Taking place on 29th November 1962, the UN intervention succeeded, with an agreement of capitulation signed by Tshombe on 17 January 1983. Ironically, the restoration of national unity to which Lumumba had given his life was realised by the interests of the imperial powers and their puppets in the neo-colonial regime in Kinshasa.

These efforts succeeded in putting an end to the Lumumbist regime of Kisangani in August 1961, to the secession of Sud-Kasaï in September 1962 and to that of Katanga in January 1963. The end of these three regimes would consecrate the rise of General Mobutu and his clique, the Binza Group.

Lumumba’s Legacy

Hardly had this process of unification finished before a radical social movement pronouncing a ‘second independence’ rose up to contest the neo-colonial state in Kinshasa and its pro-Western leaders. This mass movement brought together peasants, workers, the urban unemployed and students, alongside low and mid-ranking officials, who found an enthusiastic leadership among the former lieutenants of Patrice Lumumba, of which the majority had reformed to create the Conseil National de Libération (CNL) in October 1963 in Brazzaville.

Divided on the field into two wings – the Kwilu front, led by Pierre Mulele, and the Eastern front under Christopher Gbenye, Gaston Soumialot and Laurent-Desiré Kabila – the strengths and weaknesses of the movement can be used to gauge the global heritage of Patrice Lumumba, for Congo and the whole of Africa. The most positive aspect of this legacy is reflected in Pierre Mulele’s dedication to a radical program of change to satisfy the deep aspirations of the Congolese people for democracy and social progress. On the other hand, the Lumumbists of the Eastern front were more interested in power, and the privileges it conferred, than in genuine social change. In the latter case, it was all rhetoric and no action. In effect, the challenge for all those who want to follow in the footsteps of Lumumba is to make the leap from words into action.

A struggle that is far from over…

According to unconfirmed reports, Walter Kansteiner – US Secretary of State for African Affairs under George W. Bush, between June 2001 and November 2003 – designed a plan for the division of Congo into four countries. The justification for such a Balkanisation would be that, in its present dimensions, the country is too large and ungovernable. For the extreme right of the US Republican Party, and those with interests in the resources of tropical Africa – as is the case with the family business W.H Kansteiner, Inc of Chicago – this would facilitate access to resources, and make their transfer to outside markets easier. Besides, if Rwanda and Uganda could play the role of facilitator, why not?

For those nostalgic for the ‘White Man’s Burden’, and their lackeys in Africa, the reality is that their project for the recolonization of Congo will always stumble against the determination of the Congolese people to defend their unity, their national patrimony, and the territorial integrity of their homeland. The legacy of Patrice Lumumba, Pierre Lulele, André Kisase Ngandu and so many other martyrs brings women, men and children to shout “No” to balkanization and “Yes” to a “United Congo, a strong nation.” Just as the progressive leaders of the struggle for independence chanted this slogan on the eve of the achievement of sovereignty – united and nationalistic men and women of integrity – the real children of Lumumba continue to defend, against the odds, the greater interests of the Congolese nation.

Article by Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja

Thomas Sankara-Revolutionary Hero

Thomas4..

Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara (21 December 1949 – 15 October 1987) was a Burkinabé military captain, revolutionary, pan-Africanist theorist, and President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987. Viewed by supporters as a charismatic and iconic figure of revolution.

  • He vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles in a matter of weeks.
  • He initiated a nation-wide literacy campaign, increasing the literacy rate from 13% in 1983 to 73% in 1987.
  • He planted over 10 million trees to prevent desertification
  • He built roads and a railway to tie the nation together, without foreign aid
  • He appointed females to high governmental positions, encouraged them to work, recruited them into the military, and granted pregnancy leave during education.
  • He outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy in support of Women’s rights
  • He sold off the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers.
  • He reduced the salaries of all public servants, including his own, and forbade the use of government chauffeurs and 1st class airline tickets.
  • He redistributed land from the feudal landlords and gave it directly to the peasants. Wheat production rose in three years from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare, making the country food self-sufficient.
  • He opposed foreign aid, saying that “he who feeds you, controls you.”
  • He spoke in forums like the Organization of African Unity against continued neo-colonialist penetration of Africa through Western trade and finance. • He called for a united front of African nations to repudiate their foreign debt. He argued that the poor and exploited did not have an obligation to repay money to the rich and exploiting
  • In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army’s provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country). • He forced civil servants to pay one month’s salary to public projects.
  • He refused to use the air conditioning in his office on the grounds that such luxury was not available to anyone but a handful of Burkinabes.
  • As President, he lowered his salary to $450 a month and limited his possessions to a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer.
  • A motorcyclist himself, he formed an all-women motorcycle personal guard.
  • He required public servants to wear a traditional tunic, woven from Burkinabe cotton and sewn by Burkinabe craftsmen. (The reason being to rely upon local industry and identity rather than foreign industry and identity)
  • When asked why he didn’t want his portrait hung in public places, as was the norm for other African leaders, Sankara replied “There are seven million Thomas Sankaras.”
  • An accomplished guitarist, he wrote the new national anthem himself

Sankara seized power in a 1983 popularly supported coup at the age of 33, with the goal of eliminating corruption and the dominance of the former French colonial power. He immediately launched one of the most ambitious programmes for social and economic change ever attempted on the African continent. To symbolize this new autonomy and rebirth, he renamed the country from Upper Volta to Burkina Faso (“Land of Upright Man”). His foreign policies were centered on anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalizing all land and mineral wealth, and averting the power and influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. His domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritizing education with a nationwide literacy campaign, and promoting public health by vaccinating 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever, and measles. Other components of his national agenda included planting over ten million trees to halt the growing desertification of the Sahel, doubling wheat production by redistributing land from feudal landlords to peasants, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents, and establishing an ambitious road and rail construction program to “tie the nation together”. On the localized level Sankara also called on every village to build a medical dispensary and had over 350 communities construct schools with their own labour. Moreover, his commitment to women’s rights led him to outlaw female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy, while appointing women to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school even if pregnant.

Thomas1..

In order to achieve this radical transformation of society, he increasingly exerted authoritarian control over the nation, eventually banning unions and a free press, which he believed could stand in the way of his plans. To counter his opposition in towns and workplaces around the country, he also tried corrupt officials, “counter-revolutionaries” and “lazy workers” in Popular Revolutionary Tribunals. Additionally, as an admirer of Fidel Castro’s Cuban Revolution, Sankara set up Cuban-style Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs).

His revolutionary programs for African self-reliance made him an icon to many of Africa’s poor. Sankara remained popular with most of his country’s impoverished citizens. However his policies alienated and antagonised the vested interests of an array of groups, which included the small but powerful Burkinabé middle class, the tribal leaders whom he stripped of the long-held traditional right to forced labour and tribute payments, and France and its ally the Ivory Coast. As a result, he was overthrown and assassinated in a coup d’état led by Blaise Compaoré on October 15, 1987. A week before his murder, he declared: “While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas.”

On October 15, 1987, Sankara was killed by an armed group with twelve other officials in a coup d’état organised by his former colleague Blaise Compaoré. Deterioration in relations with neighbouring countries was one of the reasons given, with Compaoré stating that Sankara jeopardised foreign relations with former colonial power France and neighbouring Ivory Coast. Prince Johnson, a former Liberian warlord allied to Charles Taylor, told Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that it was engineered by Charles Taylor. After the coup and although Sankara was known to be dead, some CDRs mounted an armed resistance to the army for several days.

Sankara’s body was dismembered and he was quickly buried in an unmarked grave, while his widow Mariam and two children fled the nation. Compaoré immediately reversed the nationalizations, overturned nearly all of Sankara’s policies, rejoined the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to bring in “desperately needed” funds to restore the “shattered” economy,[34] and ultimately spurned most of Sankara’s legacy. Compaoré’s dictatorship remained in power for 27 years until overthrown by popular protests in 2014.

Sankara’s visionary leadership turned his country from a sleepy West African nation with the colonial designation of Upper Volta to a dynamo of progress under the proud name of Burkina Faso (“Land of the Honorable People”). He led one of the most ambitious programs of sweeping reforms ever seen in Africa. It sought to fundamentally reverse the structural social inequities inherited from the French colonial order.

Thomas3..

Sankara focused the state’s limited resources on the marginalized majority in the countryside. When most African countries depended on imported food and external assistance for development, Sankara championed local production and the consumption of locally-made goods. He firmly believed that it was possible for the Burkinabè, with hard work and collective social mobilization, to solve their problems: chiefly scarce food and drinking water.

In Sankara’s Burkina, no one was above farm work, or graveling roads–not even the president, government ministers or army officers. Intellectual and civic education were systematically integrated with military training and soldiers were required to work in local community development projects.

Sankara disdained formal pomp and banned any cult of his personality. He could be seen casually walking the streets, jogging or conspicuously slipping into the crowd at a public event. He was a rousing orator who spoke with uncommon candor and clarity and did not hesitate to publicly admit mistakes, chastise comrades or express moral objections to heads of powerful nations, even if it imperiled him. For example, he famously criticized French president François Mitterand during a state dinner for hosting the leader of Apartheid South Africa.

NCAA March Madness: Exploiting Black Athletes?

Slavery2...

Every March, people in The US create brackets, place bets on winning teams, picking teams, and winning money while watching March Madness.

But The NCAA on the other hand is making millions and billions from ad revenue for a 30 second ads and in fact, they extract over a billion dollars each year from the black community that is going in the bank accounts of mostly white coaches, commentators, athletic directors, and other high ranking white officials.

Slavery6...

The athletes that play in March Madness every year are the biggest losers in the tournament because the big universities they play for like Kentucky or North Carolina systemically keep them distracted by showing them with the fans, girls, draconian practice schedules, etc while they are behind the scenes counting the money they make off the exploitation of unpaid athletic labor.

These universities also systemically keep black athletes away from black students so that the black students wouldn’t fill their heads with “radical” ideas, especially during March Madness.

One example of this was a March 1997 black student protest at The University Of Kentucky that took place after a black woman named Tanya Clay was attacked by white male students telling her “If you don’t like your life here, we’ll end it for you” after she spoke about the racial issues that were happening on campus.

Slavery4..

The Kentucky Basketball Team was heading to The Final Four that year and the black students had asked the athletes to speak out about the issue and the athletes had zero interest in doing anything on behalf of their community and one of the basketball players had pulled a black male writer to the side and told him, “The coaches didn’t want them reading his articles because he was explaining why college athletes should be getting paid and the coaches didn’t even want them to know about that“.

One of the most eggregious forms of the exploitation of black college athletes by The NCAA happened a few years ago when Kevin Ware, a former Louisville Cardinals basketball player who won a national title with them had broke his leg in a nationally televised March Madness game against The Duke Blue Devils and there was an outpouring of support from NBA players, commentators, and fans.

But The NCAA decided to despicably exploit his injury by selling a shirt for $25 that had quickly sold out. While The NCAA, Louisville, and Adidas got their fair share from the shirt sales, Kevin Ware and his family didn’t even get a fraction of the money from the shirt sales because The NCAA doesn’t allow these athletes to profit off their own autograph, image, labor, and likeness.

The athletes are brainwashed by these big universities to believe that they are playing in March Madness to win and winning a national championship, but they are the biggest losers in March Madness and the universities only use these athletes up for a few years and dump them right back in the hood with a mediocre education. And like the rapper E-40 said many years ago, “They’ll find a new guy next year” and the title of the song he said that true statement in is called “To Whom It May Concern” and you can check it out on YouTube.

The Conclusion – Many former athletes that had the experience of playing in March Madness and The Final Four that got dumped back in the hood with a mediocre education need to speak up against this sick exploitation of our athletes, so the current athletes can also take a stand against the injustices of The NCAA.

Article written by Joe Davis

 

Presidential Bloodlines:Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are cousins

Donald Trump...

Presidential candidate Donald Trump may criticize rival Hillary Clinton regularly, but the Republican and Democratic front-runners are actually distant relatives. 

Both the real estate tycoon and former Secretary of State are the direct descendants of 14th century 1st Duke of Lancaster John of Gaunt and his third wife Katherine Swynford, according to the ancestry site MyHeritage.com.

Clinton claims the lineage to her 18th great-grandparents through the Rodham family of her father’s side while Trump is related to her through his mother Mary Anne Macleod, who was born in Scotland. 

The common relative means that the Democrat and Republican are 19th cousins.

John of Gaunt, a royal in the 14th century, was the son of King Edward III and featured in the Shakespearean play Richard II, named after his nephew.

Swynford was at first Gaunt’s mistress, but they later married and their offspring were legitimized.

Gaunt’s children by Swynford include Trump’s 17th great-grandfather John Beaufort and Clinton’s 17th great-grandmother Joan Beaufort, according to MyHeritage.

The Duke of Lancaster’s son by his first wife Blanche, would later go on to become Henry IV.

Various other descendants of Gaunt would claim his lineage to Edward III during the War of the Roses, a conflict that makes today’s political scandals seem laughably tame in comparison.

The war ultimately ended when Henry VII, a member of the House of Lancaster, defeated Richard III in battle and became the first Tudor king.

We must face the reality.  These elections are rigged.  How can so many Presidents be cousins?  How can so many candidates be related?  It’s hard to believe this is all a coincidence.  I know people are very scared of conspiracy theories.  It’s because people don’t want to do research and are scared of anything that doesn’t fit their perspective.  Even if that perspective is wrong.  It’s time for black people to wake up and use some critical thinking skills.  They told you as a kid that anyone could become President of the United States.  But it’s all a lie.  If you are not blood related to the King of England you can’t become President. This is just my opinion….you might disagree with me. I just provide the information. You can draw your own conclusion.

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/how-all-presidents-are-related-to-king-john/

Jaden and Willow Smith: Ambassadors for Gender Fluid Agenda

Jaden1..

 Take a good look at this boy.  He has a flower in his hair and nail polish on his fingernails.  This is Jaden Smith.  He is the son of actor Will Smith.  Jaden and his sister Willow seem to be at the forefront of this “gender fluid” agenda the media is pushing on us.  Jaden seems to be the male version of Jada…while Willow is the female version of Will.   Confusing right?   Yes this entire Smith family seems very confused.  This is the promotion of insanity disguised as sanity. You know how the white corporate elite love to use black people for their agendas.  Maybe it’s because we are trendsetters and we come up with all the cool slang and fashion.  So if we’re down with this agenda we can influence others to be cool with it too. But at any rate,this is a very sick agenda.  Will Smith and his wife Jada have apparently sold their children to these demonic people in power.  They have no problem letting their children be used in this manner. I guess they’ll do anything to keep their money and fame.

Jaden3...

You’re probably asking yourself what is Gender Fluid?  I know it’s hard to keep up with these European terms.  It seems like very other month they come up with a new one.  Sometimes you might hear the media also use the term “sexual fluidity”. It’s basically the same thing. Here is their definition:

Gender fluid is a gender identity which refers to a gender which varies over time. A gender fluid person may at any time identify as male, female, neutrois, or any other non-binary identity, or some combination of identities.

Jaden2...

This is Jaden Smith with biracial actress Amandla Stenberg.  Amandla is also down with this gender confusion agenda.  Earlier this year she came out bisexual. She said:

“It’s a really, really hard thing to be silenced and it’s deeply bruising to fight against your identity and to mold yourself into shapes that you just shouldn’t in,” she says in the video, which she also posted to her Tumblr. “As someone who identifies as a black, bisexual woman, I’ve been through it and it hurts and it’s awkward and it’s uncomfortable.I definitely believe in the concept of rebellion through selfhood and rebellion just by embracing your true identity, no matter what you’ve been told,” she said. “Here I am, being myself and it’s hard and it’s vulnerable and it’s definitely a process but I’m learning and I’m growing.”

Rebellion??  She thinks coming out as gay is a BIG deal??  She’s acting like this is revolutionary!   The entire Hollywood/Music industry is run by homosexuals and pedophiles. But you see how they’re trying to connect this lesbian/bisexual nonsense to the lack struggle.  This is a biracial woman who says she sees herself  both black and gay! The racist media knows exactly what they’re doing!

Keke1...

This is a picture of singer Cassie Ventura(left) and actress/singer Keke Palmer.  Keke is a beautiful and talented actress. I had high hopes for her.  But it seems she has sold out to the gay agenda as well.  Palmer posted the above picture on Snapchat of her kissing Cassie on the lips.  Of course this sparked rumors of her being bisexual. Cassie  was also featured in Palmers’ video “I Don’t Belong To You”.  Palmer said in an interview:

When asked about the video Keke told People Magazine,  “The video was to represent the young woman today – it’s not the traditional woman anymore – and not the specifics of ‘Am I gay? Am I straight? Am I bi? I’m making the rules for myself, and I don’t have to be stuck down to one label.” “I don’t belong to anyone else but myself,” she says. “I have to make my own decisions. Happiness is defined by me. My sexuality is defined by me. And that can change and this can change and I can make it what I want to make it because I’m the one who makes that choice.”

Traditional woman??  So a woman loving a man is some played out traditional role?  She doesn’t like one label? Men and women being together is NORMAL.  Bisexuality is abnormal.  Keke has lost her mind!  She has totally sold out!  You see what they’re trying to do?  They are trying to destroy the black family unit.  They are doing their best to redefine what is a family and what is normal.  This is not a coincidence they are all jumping on this gay bandwagon.  This is being done on purpose.  This is NO accident.  The powers that be are using black and biracial people to push this sick agenda.  So is gay supposed to be the new normal?  No wonder so many of our young kids are confused about their sexuality.  We have black celebs dressing in drag,homosexual/lesbian celebs and gay athletes.  This homosexual confusion is spreading like wildfire in the media.  This is an assault on our children and our families.This is what they want to push on African people worldwide.  And we can’t stand for this sick rubbish!!

 

“We must be clear that insanity is clearly insanity and that it undermines the possibility of having a real discussion. This problem must be addressed because so many of us are entering this discussion as if the european creation of reality really makes sense, that it is a viable path for us to follow, that it can be blended with whatever snippets of the Afrikan tradition we can safely feel like keeping, that it is a choice we can make and still live as Afrikans. We are allowing ourselves to continue participating in a debate flooded with invalid/illogical ground rules. In other words, some of us are trying to have a debate incorporating a reality that makes no logical sense, for us or any other human beings. This is the nature of what makes having this discussion with many Afrikans so problematic in the first place. It is past the time when we can afford to get bogged down in the politics of precisely replicating how our Ancestors formed consensus. We do not live in homogenous, uncompromised Afrikan communities. Every Afrikan voice is not worthy. The mentacidal among us firmly believe that american culture is not european culture (i.e., that it is multicultural, a flawed concept in its own right) or that european culture is an even more valid, progressive and appropriate way for Afrikans to live than Afrikan culture. These Afrikans are completely oblivious to the heart of the european mind. So, before we even begin, their discussion is already couched in an unconditional confidence in the european way. The mentacidal cannot see that Europeans can only be what they are within their culture. While their immediate goal has been physical domination of others, cultural domination has always been the ultimate desire. For only in making others into them can Europeans have and control a world where they are accepted and applauded for their insanity. This confusion must be removed from the table before we can move forward or it will continue to drag us back toward obsolescence. As long as it remains our minds will be drawn backward into it until, by dent of attrition, it has overpowered all sense of what it may mean to be Afrikan.”

Mwalimu  Baruti