I cannot think of any other primitive ideology that can be worse than the assumption that a person is as good as his/her race is good. Or, that the other person is as worse as his/her race is bad. Just as can be cascaded down to tribal or ethnic considerations, racism is an insane ideology.
Humanity has had insolvable problems, since Adam. But, I suppose none has been as formidable as eradicating racism. The consideration of race or ethnicity, can be complicated, especially, where religion is also brought into the fray.
The diehard racists should be forgiven, as merely portraying the effects of what is systematically brewed in colonial politics. However, there is no scientific evidence to prove that another race was created to be more superior to others.
Colonialism appears as chiefly to blame, in planting the seeds of racism, among those affected—regardless of racial background. However, had consideration of race not been in the lime-light, colonialism could have been a necessary vehicle in promoting progressive ideals for humanity.
The principle of colonialism appears as having had its own good intentions, which, unfortunately, the diehard racists cannot readily appreciate. Such racists include the so-called pan-Africanists, choosing to pretend being blind about the noble intentions of colonialism.
Colonialism, should not have been viewed as aiming at subjugating the natives, necessarily. Of course, such negative realities could not be avoided. But they deserved to be given less significance—when appreciating progressive principles of responsibility, even by the colonized.
There were many other countries involved with colonization. But, for purposes of projecting my discussion, I will use Britain, as responsible for the colonization of my own country. As much as colonialism can be condemned, it should also be credited for providing a necessary phase in the development of humanity.
Of course, there may have been poor communication between the colonizers and the colonized. But, either side could have taken the responsibility to initiate good communication—necessary for addressing whatever was problematic.
The initiative in communication could have, either come from the colonizer or the colonized—depending on who would be enlightened ahead of the other. Firstly, the colonized ought to have concentrated on the good intentions of colonialism—focussing more on positive, rather than negative effects of colonialism.
For instance, the package of colonialism included education and modern health-care awareness facilities, for the natives. The colonized did not have such provisions in place. Nothing was also wrong with the construction of road networks and other infrastructural developments, in colonized countries. The white settlers ought to have been regarded as a blessing to the colonized.
Looting mineral resources by the colonizers, may have also been inevitable, as it would be unrealistic not to expect such—from carnal human beings. But the colonized ought to have regarded the value of basic education—to obtain necessary training in running a country—ahead of everything else.
The black people needed to focus on sustainably valuable projects—rather than consideration of temporary circumstances. The emotional behaviour of the black people during colonialism, cannot, necessarily be wholly blamed on former white settlers. The white people had frailties just as black people had frailties.
In his book, ‘The story of my Life,’ Joshua Nkomo mentions that in about 1950—he and his friends William Sivako and Grey Mabhalani Bango, visited one of Zimbabwe’s shrines in Matopo hills, where the god of the land was believed to reside. The trio expected the spirit to give them the best guidance, through which to attain Zimbabwean independence.
However, Nkomo says out of the rock, came a voice, stating that a lot of blood would be shed before the attainment of independence. The reason given was that King Lobengula had ignored an instruction to treat the white settlers as brothers, instead of treating them as enemies.
This is not what the trio had expected to hear. All along they had regarded the white settlers as enemies of the black Zimbabwean people. Nkomo says the voice could not predict anything else, other than the imminent bitter armed struggle. This was due to Lobengula’s failure to appreciate that simple instruction from the shrine1
The year, nineteen fifty, had been about ten years before the initiation of the guerrilla armed struggle in Zimbabwe. But the most interesting revelation is what was projected in that voice from the shrine—stating that the white settlers ought to have been treated as brothers—rather than enemies.
Undeniably, it is well-known that some of the former British colonies—like Canada, Australia and New Zealand—surrendered to the white administrators—did not experience failures. These developed into first world—as to economically match their former colonizers?
Of course, anyone can argue that these were kith and kin of the former colonizers. But that does not take away the fact that those countries also became independent of the yoke of colonialism, just as ought to have been the case with their black counterparts.
The former colonies in black Africa, could have also done well, had the consideration of race not been a factor. It is important to note that the consideration of race and the actual race of a person, are not synonymous?
On that score, racism is not associated with the skin colour of any person. But we have to trace the actual source of racism, so as to be able to handle the effects. Just as handling all problems of insanity need cool heads, racism cannot be handled out of emotion.
Racism was subtly projected by the British government—stemming from their desire to maintain the supremacy of Britain. Having decided to relinquish colonialism, the former colonialists struggled with the question of remaining valuable, without losing the dignity—associated with racial class.
White supremacism was, therefore, a factor, in deciding who would take over the running of the former colony. The white settlers had acquired experience in dealing with black Africans. But, they could not facilitate the ascendance of the most suitable blacks to take over ruler-ship from former white settlers.
The most incapable African leaders would, therefore, be the ones to be installed as new leaders. This would leave the black African people exposed to stupidity, through the foolishness of the newly installed black administrators. Strategically, this would prove that the white administrators are superior to black administrators.
Alternatively, new leaders would be expected to prove that they would protect British interests. Under those circumstances, the former colonial settlers would appear as having ceded power. The former settlers would remain fully in control, through those they would use as puppets. But those puppets would be left to absorb criticisms for any ensuing political and economic blunders.
However, a mere incapable leader, would also be tactfully positioned to be in power, but not necessarily as a puppet. The incapable leader would only be effective, in proving that whites are generally better administrators than blacks. This ensures the maintenance of white supremacism.
Through such manipulations, the incapable black administrators would still be treated kindly, by the former colonizer. Yet being used as projecting proof that people of black skin colour, are generally poor administrators.
Let us pick on the former President Mobutu of Zaire, as an example. Can the former colonizers honestly state that they facilitated the installation of Mobutu, because they viewed him as the suitable leader of that country? Were they aware, or honestly not aware of Mobutu’s corrupt penchants?
Careful analysis shows that the former colonizers, actually, preferred corrupt leaders with dictatorial tendencies in Africa. This was as long as the white interests were protected. One of those interests was, obviously, to project whites as better administrators than blacks.
Principle was to be considered, only as it protected the British interests. It seems, strong leaders of the calibre of Mobuto, Idi Amin and others, were preferable to the British, than others—appearing as moderate and more principled?
But, while racism can be used as scapegoat, it is a question of how non-racists react to acidic forms of racism. When falling into the trap of becoming a racist, because another person is racist, you also become one. Racism appeals, only to the insane minds, regardless of skin colour.
I am aware that the then existence of cold war, pitting Russia against Western countries, may have caused Britain to take sides. But, cold war could not have been an issue where sincerity in communication skills would be adopted.
What appears as having taken place, is that the white settlers did not want to understand blacks, because of insincerity and racist policies of Britain. The early black nationalists, faced an unenviable challenge of dealing with a people preoccupied with the desire to be considered superior to other races.
The fear of communism could not have been an issue, if sincere communication with the blacks had been adopted. Some African countries had to be persuaded to accept communism, due to hardheartedness of the British government, based on racism. The bottom line being that the former white settlers considered themselves as more superior to blacks.
For instance, Britain could have displayed sincerity by promoting integrity among new black administrators. A policy like induction training for the new African leaders, before transferring power, could have been one way of displaying sincerity on the part of British government.
What appears as having taken place on the African continent, is Britain seeking to prove that the white people were more superior to blacks. This they did by tactfully ensuring that the most unacceptable leaders were manipulated into power. There is no written policy to that effect, but actions speak louder than words.
This is how racism appears to have been brewed in Britain—being another way of sustaining white supremacism. Anyone can blame individual voices, adjudged as being racists, but the reality of racism was brewed in Britain.
The racist comments, now coming from individuals, being now projected as racists, are mere effects. Those people project facts on the ground—concerning greedy African leaders. But, to an analytical person, all this is just an effect and not the cause of racism, necessarily.
For the cause of racism, we have to look at the behaviour of the former colonizers, in handling their former black colonies. Our Zimbabwean example can reveal a classic example of the British duplicity. Was President Robert Mugabe a hero of the African people, or a hero of the British government?
Credible historians would state that Robert Mugabe was an outcome of British machinations, more than Mugabe’s election was an outcome of democracy. In chapter 19 of his same book—‘NKOMO The Story of My Life,’ the late veteran ZAPU leader, reveals possible machinations by the British government2.
The possibility of rigging was to be further highlighted by one of the key persons in ZAPU military intelligence, Dumiso Dabengwa: https://www.dailynews.co.zw/articles/2013/02/03/british-govt-rigged-1980-polls-dabengwa.
But more of British machinations were even revealed by Professor Jonathan Moyo, through the succession disputes that have created factionalism in ZANU PF. Professor Moyo exposed the contents on a document termed as Blue Ocean document, whose objectives would have catapulted Emmerson Munangagwa into power, after President Robert Mugabe’s demise.
The preference of Munangagwa, by the British government, could be quite interesting. This is when considering Munangagwa’s background, as associated with the debilitating economic conditions in Zimbabwe and the atrocious developments in Matabeleland, in early eighties?
The destabilization of the former British colonies can be viewed as advantageous to the British. Firstly, the failed administration, under a black leader can then be used as good proof that whites are naturally superior to black administrators.
Secondly, the destabilization, itself, provides the British government with an opportunity to loot known resources, in the pretext of helping failed states. Britain would not be to blame, after all, except the black leader who would then be labelled as despotic dictator.
The way this strategy works is in that, the person catapulted into leadership enjoys the leadership benefits, while Britain also benefits, behind the scenes. However, the ordinary people and the resources of the country, are the ones to bear the brunt of such machinations.
Imagine, what happened in Matabeleland, in early eighties, in disguise of fighting the dissident menace? Britain would like everyone to believe that they were blind to what was happening—because Harare had been Britain’s strategic ally?
During that period, the Queen of England, actually, conferred Knighthood on President Robert Mugabe? However, the same British government was to later revoke that Knighthood, about twenty years later.
The reason being that President Mugabe had suddenly become a bad leader, because less than ten white farmers had been killed over farm inversions? As far as Britain was concerned, the less than ten white farmers were more important than the over twenty thousand blacks, having been killed in Matabeleland?
The world remains blind to the fact that, right here, Britain was projecting the systematic racism of all time. People, like Marc Faber, may now be viewed as real racists. But Faber’s accusers may be those, unaware of the actual groundwork for racism, based on British government policies.
There may, eventually, be changes in British policies, as far as such manipulations on African politics are concerned. But the sporadic taunts of racism are the effect of what has all along been systematically manufactured in Britain.
Racism has, basically been the problem affecting most of the former colonies, due to the machinations of the former colonial powers, like the British government. Their former colonies were granted independence, whose leaders would be conferred with power—but without independence. Call this wisdom?
Like any dishonest behaviour, based on follies of pride—it eventually turns out to haunt the originator. The term, “you reap what you sow,” is as true as it has remained true, for all ages. The effects of British chicaneries will crack against Britain, some day.
Such machinations appear as having been effective, as most African leaders continue to believe that their former colonizers are superior. But, this is not true; yet like any person lacking freedom, they believe such lies. They seek to play according to the whims of their former colonizers, so that they can be protected.
If the former colonizer had not looted enough during colonialism, black leaders, used as puppets, make it easier for them to loot as much as they can, without taking responsibility. Meanwhile, the common men would view all this as signifying the fact that black leaders are inferior to white leaders.
Nevertheless, the patent failures by those black administrators should not be associated with the skin colour. The consideration of skin colour, may have been used to put incompetent black leaders—for the sole purpose of proving that black people are inferior to the whites.
However, the actual skin colour as compared with the consideration of the skin colour, cannot be related in determining good or bad leadership. Of course, it may not be necessary to waste time proving that you do not have to be white to be good, just as you do not have to be black to be bad.
All human beings are basically good. It is only the circumstances that they go through, in life, that make them behave normally or abnormally. In other words, it is what happens in the course of their historical existence—causing them to be stuck in a particular condition.
All this can be heightened by greed, affecting all humanity. The life-style of the former colonizers became admirable to the newly installed black administrators, because of the inferiority complex, affecting those lacking self-confidence.
Incompetent leaders in government suppose that they ascended to positions of leadership because they were more intelligent than the rest of the populace? This is why most of them find the idea of democracy quite intimidating. See [The problem lies in Zimbabwean people’s low self esteem].
They substitute wisdom with cheating. For them, remaining in positions of leadership, through dubious means, would be a sign of wisdom—as compared with those unable to stay longer. All this being display of effects of machinations by the British government.
The former colonizers, actually, prefer such incapable leaders in Africa—who they then use for the sole purpose of invalidating black people. At the same time being able to access free looting, from countries with such incapable leaders.
The former colonizers can pretend to condemn greedy leaders and even provide assistance to the newly formed opposition parties. They may even create fictitious conflicts with the establishment, just to portray being good?
It takes only the analytical people to see the duplicity of these former colonizers. While the former colonizers behave as the worst enemies, of the establishment, ordinary people themselves would be embroiled in confusion.
They find value in their former colonizers, more than they find value in themselves. This is because of the incompetent black politicians in charge of their countries. However, the same ordinary people would be unable to figure out why such leaders would be in power, yet so incapable?
If having some gripe with their leaders, such timid people seek refuge with former colonialists—rather than confront real problems at home. Most black Africans believe a lie, in supposing that Africans are generally inferior to the white people.
While the African leaders are used as puppets by the former white colonialists, it generally, ought to be blacks to first believe in themselves. Until there is radical transformation to adopt this viewpoint, there is no hope for the black Africans. See [The Greatest civilization emerging in Southern Africa].
Those in the province of studying human mind, would affirm that there is need for being freed from customs, traditions and religion, before a person can appreciate his real potential in life. Such studies can also reveal that religion, customs and traditions have got nothing to do with the skin-colour of a person, necessarily.
The subjugation is more to do with the background, rather than the person’s skin colour. Fighting colonialism may have been very necessary. But the principle of fighting colonialism should not have been advanced on a wrong platform—blacks pitted against white supremacism.
While the former colonizers appear as taking the crown on hypocrisy, all humans are, actually, susceptible to it. In other words, fighting ought not to have been premised on the basis of being black—thereby having to fight against white supremacists. See [Genuine conflict is between good and evil].
In history, there are names of people who stood up on the principle of distinguishing between goodness and evil not being associated with a person’s race. Such people identify with the spirit that is outside a person’s skin colour.
In recent times, we have such names like Indira Gundi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela. Unfortunately, these are just, but very few, when considering the magnitude of the deception associated with racial considerations, as influencing human behaviour.
Basically, a racist person reacts emotionally—thereby concluding matters on prejudice, rather than facts on the ground. Let us suppose a genuine accident took place, involving a white person on one side and a black person on the other.
An irrational judge would not even consider the circumstances, leading to the accident, other than putting the blame on the person with a different skin colour. The accident could as well have been racially motivated, but not always.
A good judge knows that on seeking to address the wrongness, there is difference between the personality and that which would be wrong. Justice should seek to address causes, before seeking to allocate wrongness, not necessarily rushing with speed, to terminate the person committing the wrongness.
Confusion implies inability to distinguish between two items. If I could be so confused as to make a mistake of pouring water into a gasoline tank—I would be in need of psychiatric handling. My confusion would not have anything to do with the colour of my skin, but a mental challenge.
The same applies to people who cannot distinguish between wrongs and causes of wrongs—let alone the skin colours of those concerned. Insanity can also imply inability to distinguish between two things of different shapes and sizes. But it also includes inability to distinguish between a wrongdoer and the causes of wrongdoing.
The way forward is to find new revolutionary leaders—encouraging black people to appreciate that their skin colour does not necessarily make them inferior to their white counterparts.
The former white colonialists should not necessarily be viewed as always being better than black leaders in Africa. All this starts with finding value in oneself, as all were created with value, whether black or white.
The new revolutionary leaders should be those who shun away from the idea of being called ‘chefs’, when in government offices. They also do not need to even assume that there was value in engaging in the armed struggle. But they need good communication skills, allowing everyone to take responsibility, where necessary.
NKOMO THE STORY OF MY LIFE; 2001 page 14: Southern African Political Economy Series
NKOMO THE STORY OF MY LIFE; 2001 page 213: Southern African Political Economy Series