Global Politics

Understanding the American liberal conundrum!

Published

9 years ago

July 17, 2017

We cannot pretend that the currents in American Society, do not catch our eyes and ears, here in Africa. I find myself reading, watching and contemplating on that country a lot. I don’t know why, but here below are my thoughts.

The American Revolution (1765-1783) and The Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) gave birth to two types of “Rights” in America. One can hypothetically but factually categorize these as;

The Rights of Thomas Jefferson, and
The rights of Martin Luther King.

By timelines, these were two struggles 100 years apart; by agenda, the first was a bout independence and the second was about slavery. Thomas Jefferson and 6 others (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and George Washington) successfully led the American Revolution (1765-1783) against the British Crown. As a method to strengthen their struggle, they united the first 13 states to establish the United States of America for the first time. There were Americans who supported the British Crown in that struggle, even fought alongside the British. When Americans are talking about their fore fathers, they are in fact referring to the independence group, not the later. What is noteworthy from that era is that none of them was black.

About 100 years later, a new struggle had been building – the struggle of the rights of blacks on one hand and covering Latinos, Amigos and other minority races in America. The heroes of that struggle are found within the Civil Rights movement (1777-183454). This is the second type of rights of Americans, and its main hero is Martin Luther King who gave rise to Black nationalism within America and by extension the race war encompassing Latinos, Amigos, and other “minorities”.

In the current American political complex, it is clear that – Obama obviously is a proponent of the rights of Martin Luther King. He is the modern continuation of that struggle & his mere ascendance emboldened those old ghosts. In his own words, Martin Luther King articulated that“…the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights” and this is the direction that the proponents of these rights have taken. But these rights were not the sentiment of the American Revolutionary War. At the height of the inauguration of Obama, the frenzied masses were chanting “O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!” whereas at the height of Trump’s speeches, his supporters were chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!” That’s the difference – between Obama & Trump, Democrats & Republicans, the rights of Jefferson &b the rights Luther. Its the rights of individuals vs. the rights of the country, when they don’t intersect!

To make matters worse, America Revolutionary War history records that numerous black Americans were also Loyalists – to the British Crown. Patriots called them “persons inimical to the liberties of America”. Democrats tapped into the populist rights and got many whites to be sympathetic to the rights of Luther King. All this International Human rights, Geo-political alliances (with the exception NATO) implement in one form or another, the rights of Martin Luther King. Obama further liberalized it and tried to convince Americans that American politics is, and I quote “an intramural scrimmage” – a game in which all players belong to the same team as in a competition between houses.

The problem with an intramural scrimmage is that it is not played at the international stage. But America plays at the international stage. Obama was saying this even as his policies were being blocked left right and center and he had to pass many of them by Executive Order. The rise of gun violence, actually the rise of police violence in America under Obama, where cops shot blacks at unprecedented rate, was the response by those who belong to the rights of Jefferson, to the America that thrives on the rights of Luther King. It culminated in the rise of Trump.

Trump belongs in the rights of Jefferson. America First, America Great – all that means a foreign policy of bursting some heads. This has always got the adrenaline of the far right, running. Not some boring domestic policy. Trump was born in New York which was one of the 13 original Colonies to declare Indepdennce from Britain, and are on the 13 stripes on the American flag.

Obama’s presidency was an outright coup d’état. He overthrew the right wing – the rights of Jefferson. But that was temporary. On the global scale, this war is between the ultra-nationalists – those who believe in rights of those who are grounded in their lands, and the internationalists who believe in a global system of shared values. These are the democrats – shared values being at the core of unity.

Museveni likes saying common interests. But interests on their own only maintain the rich class pitted against the poor class. The rich fight to control the opportunities, the poor fight for the opportunities. Shared interests breed shared opportunism. That idea lead to where Marxist theory begins – the destruction of private ownership of property.

But shared values – we can make a sustained case for shared human values. Human Values are a social phenomena! I don’t think tthere is a race which has values that are more human than another race. Civilization has progressed from an encore of human values of all races. If you say, let me study and understand the way of life of Amigos, you will find in them something which, according to Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, can become a universal law.

We must know that equality is not about the rich apportioning some riches to the poor, the judges apportioning some justice to the poor, the strong apportioning some to the weak. That justice and equality should be before the law as it is before God. There is no one who can add or remove anything to what God has created. The richest blacks in America are dancers. So do they think they are going to dance their way to the moon, or mix-tape the path to artificial intelligence?

I’m not saying blacks we’re stupid but if a man has to kill a million people in order to become president of the remaining, you tell me if our faculties are okay. Let them each retrace their way home. We can entertain ourselves here, without anyone to remind us of our inherent ignorance. I delved into this topic with one question in mind: what was the role of the blacks in the American revolution. You see I have come to learn that in practice, rights originate from a time which calls you to fight, and you respond positively. That is why war remains one of the most loved brokerage for those who want rights.

Related Topics:American conundrum!liberalism Rights

Up Next

EAC Integration cannot stand on broken Constitutions

Don't Miss

The “GAPS” are in NRM “IDEOLOGY” itself

Birondwa Frank

A Pan African

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Global Politics

Israel: The Homeland for Jews

Published

2 years ago

October 1, 2024

Birondwa Frank

The creation of the State of Israel in the 22,145 square kilometers between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan is often portrayed as a convergence of Jewish aspirations, as articulated in Theodor Herzl’s 1896 manifesto Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”), and the political support of the British government through the Balfour Declaration of 1917. However, the land in question was not an empty space awaiting new inhabitants—it was Palestine, historically referred to as Canaan, the Promised Land.

Britain, holding a mandate over Palestine from 1920 to 1947 under the authority of the League of Nations, facilitated the partitioning of this land. This political maneuver laid the groundwork for the establishment of Israel but also ignited tensions between Arabs and Jews—tensions that endure to this day. The Jewish return to Palestine, though enabled by British and international politics, was not just a matter of politics; it was deeply rooted in religious history and identity.

But why did the Jewish people seek Britain’s backing, and later the support of the United Nations, to reclaim their ancient homeland? This question points to the intersection of politics and religion, a mix that has proved volatile in this region. The Jewish connection to Canaan—dating back thousands of years to biblical times—was a driving force, but the modern political context required international legitimacy and support. Herzl understood this when he sought to secure formal agreements from “the present masters of the land.” However, it was not just a matter of legal approval; it was about creating a framework that would allow for the survival and security of a future Jewish state.

The broader regional context is crucial here. The countries surrounding modern Israel are predominantly Muslim and governed by principles deeply rooted in Islam. The notion of creating a Jewish state in the heart of this region was not only a political challenge but a religious one. Arab opposition to the establishment of Israel stemmed, in part, from religious conviction—Israel’s existence challenged the Muslim claim to the land. Yet, the Arab world’s failure to make a robust religious argument against the Jewish return to Canaan, and instead focusing solely on the political mechanism, was perhaps a strategic error. By neglecting to challenge the religious foundation of the Zionist claim, they ceded crucial ground in the ideological battle.

Meanwhile, Britain’s motivations in supporting the Jewish cause were not purely altruistic. During World War I, Jewish leaders in Britain, including the influential Lord Rothschild, provided resources and support to the British war effort. The Balfour Declaration, in which Britain expressed its support for a “national home for the Jewish people,” was as much a political favor as it was a recognition of Jewish historical ties to the land. In this light, Britain’s role in the creation of Israel can be seen as an exercise in realpolitik, where self-interest and wartime alliances played a significant role.

Jewish determination, however, transcended diplomatic support. Herzl’s vision was clear: even if Britain and the United Nations had not endorsed the creation of Israel, the Jews would have pressed forward with their plan. The Zionist movement was not merely about securing a piece of land—it was about reclaiming a national identity, fulfilling a historical destiny, and establishing a sanctuary for Jews in the wake of centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust.

Moreover, the cultural and religious identity of the Jewish people played a critical role in shaping their aspirations. Jews are not Christians, and they do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah—a key theological divergence that has historically set them apart. This strong sense of identity, rooted in Judaism, fueled the Zionist drive to establish a homeland that reflected their ancient beliefs and traditions. Their resistance to assimilation, both politically and religiously, has been a hallmark of Jewish history.

Global Politics

When will Uganda’s “bourgeoisie” join the peaceful revolution?

Published

9 years ago

October 6, 2017

Revolution Media Reporter

When will Uganda’s “bourgeoisie” join the political revolution?

Uganda’s “Working Class” – is some of the most submissive people on the planet. A history of brutal presidents has taught the populations to always run into hiding, and keep quiet about the egregious acts and conduct of the leaders.

This does not spare the “learned” “intellectuals” “working class” “business community”, “the bourgeoisie” class of the country.

The presidential age is about to be expunged from the constitution- one would imagine that this is the last straw, the intellectuals are finally going to take a stand against the regime and act.

Whereas some politicians have come out and and said this is a “do or die” moment, and have already fought in parliament to stop it – this is too little too late.

This resistance against the regime slipping the country into anarchy, has the potential to get the full backing of the masses, and mass action, but the bourgeoisie are dead silent. No voicing, no sponsorship, no demonstration, no pulling services, no withdraw of workforce – it is business as usual.

Uganda would have the same political type as North Korea other kleptocracies (rule by thieves), where the state is the one which decides the political rights of the people – as opposed to democracy where the people are in control of political destiny of the country.

What is surprising is that there are ‘political elites’ on each side of this discussion, although the regime elites are relying more on the regime military groups to marshal the opponents while the bill read or ‘debated’.

There are very many observations that have been made, as the cause of Uganda’s degeneration from the democratic promise ushered in the 1986 revolution. And that is that the political class and working class have remained complacent as freedoms of assembly, free speech, mobilization, representation, justice, were being taken away by the state, and vested in the hands of the regime leaders. All institutions

Police
Army
Judiciary
Parliemnt
Civil Service

It is hard to find them working for the people. This is because the educated, have become complacent in this crime. The biggest contribution they can do is a Facebook post.