One Bush Too Many in Africa

It would also seem fruitless to condemn dinosaurs, whatever the reason, simply because they are extinct. Besides, the condemning of disappeared phenomena will not likely aid in mending their ways. Unless, of course, such condemnation was issued with the express purpose of accruing benefits for posterity. But it requires a special turn of mind to imagine virtues that might obtain from condemning an extinct period that bears no special relevance to the present human condition, except deep in the psyche of White America. It is in this light that George W. Bush’s trip to Africa might be usefully viewed. For in condemning slavery at Goree Island in Senegal, George W. would in fact appear to be flogging a dead horse. Because it is hoped that slavery is indeed dead. But in contrast to condemning dinosaurs, the reproach of slavery would be more meaningful if Mr. Bush had chosen to deliver it in politically more pertinent contexts. Whereas dinosaurs have no known modern day descendants that might benefit from condemning their beastly forefathers, descendants of African slaves constitute an inseparable part of the American landscape and narrative. Thus the censure of slavery will only carry significance if the real intent is to redress the balances and right those cruel wrongs among a people still suffering the inhumanity of that legacy of White America. Regardless, Mr. Bush’s stand on affirmative action and his silence on reparations are too well known for such concerns to enter into his political agenda.

Mr. Bush claims that slavery made White America value freedom. This is perverted logic. Freedom being a natural human right, remained a persistent yearning among the enslaved, for what must have seemed to them in their state of bondage, an eternity. To White America, freedom – even in its distorted sense – was a given; to the enslaved it was hope unrealized and a dream to aspire to. To assert that slavery taught White America the virtues of freedom is to commit yet another Freudian slip of unwittingly justifying this heinous crime: that what constituted a natural human right should require that Whites enslave Africans in order for Whites to learn and appreciate the virtues of freedom. But for whom one might ask? We read of similar logic in the writings of Robert M. Pirsig (Lila: An Inquiry into Morals): that the Native American gave the world the idea that “all men are created equal” and that the frontier culture and freedom are native American-inspired. That may well be. But to so state arrogantly, and conveniently sidestep the horrors that Native Americans suffered in what is considered among history’s worst genocides and dispossessions on a continental scale, is to assert that as a result, White America appreciates the merits of freedom, justifiable by such gruesome acts against fellow humans. Quite the contrary, one would be inclined to reason that it is the dispossessed more than the aggressor that appreciate the true meaning of freedom, which continues to elude them. If the aggressors, in this case White America, are to even begin to comprehend it’s meaning, it will require they embark on an arduous path of self-discovery, one that will require abandoning their sense of superiority and invincibility.

It is doubtful that all African leaders, indeed Africans in general, are unaware of the fact that the American President, in his bid to garner and consolidate his conservative constituency, one of his first acts was to deliver a campaign speech to an institution, Jones University, where the practice of social apartheid was very much in vogue. He could not have been oblivious of that fact and in delivering a speech with no mention of such unconstitutional and blatantly racist practices, the President became a willing accomplice to the apartheid and confirmed his status as a thoroughgoing racist himself. It is not therefore unreasonable to suppose that such racist postures issue from deep inside, manifesting themselves in the now familiar supercilious disregard for people of color. Africans themselves, having lived under racist colonial yokes for decades, understand only too well the nature of the beast they are confronting. They are therefore unlikely to be convinced that Mr. Bush’s heart all of a sudden has developed a soft spot for Africans and is dying to help them.

To many, the offer of some $15 billion to help fight AIDS must seem like a godsend. Maybe. But with little doubt most of the money will be redirected to the coffers of American pharmaceutical firms. Now, having destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in one of the world’s poorest nations, the Sudan, and killing an unknown number of civilians in the process, the United States may not be in the mood to encourage African countries, now reeling under the devastating effects of globalization, to help nurture a pharmaceutical industry that will enable African countries to produce anti AIDS medications affordably. That would do little to placate the American pharmaceutical corporations who have shown scant regard for the millions of Africans that have already died and continue dying of this scourge. And it is to corporations that Mr. Bush owes his existence and hopes for recapturing the presidency in the next elections. That could well be one other compelling reason for Mr. Bush’s desire to visit Africa: to do the bidding of his corporate masters.

It also merits mention that Mr. Bush is reported to be in agreement with Thabo Mbeki, the South African President, over the questions of Liberia and Zimbabwe. Be that as it may, many corrupt and tyrannical regimes have fallen by the wayside, because Africans themselves are changing the political landscape via the electoral ballot. Zimbabweans are no doubt capable of following suit. But the real issue of who owns land in Zimbabwe is being obscured by Mr. Bush, presumably coming under the able tutelage of Mr. Tony Blair, both of whom are descendants of the world’s most efficient land grabbers. To date, however neither of the two leaders has updated us as to how many farms in their countries are owned by Black Zimbabweans. Their concerns cannot therefore go beyond racist and kinship ones with little regard for the masses of landless Africans in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. It therefore becomes quite clear that Mr. Bush must have other undeclared intentions behind this bizarre visit.

Dr. Kweli Nzito is an Assistant Professor and Scientist at the University of Miami. His e-mail addres is [email protected].