The Roman Republic was the period of time when Rome was governed by a complex constitution, which centred on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances and established a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy in 509 BC and lasted 482 years until its subversion in 27 BC into an Imperial form of government. A very interesting phase though is the last two generations of the Roman Republic, when it was falling apart and collapsing, and it is to this phase that I direct my comments today.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, there were several Roman civil wars. Part of the reason for these civil wars was the increasing disregard of the Roman constitution and the breakdowns in separation of powers and checks and balances, combined with increasing militarism, rising debt, rising welfare policies, and increasing centralization of control in the executive offices in the capital of Rome.
This civil war period began with the Social War (91–88 BC), continued with wars between various top politicians and generals who pretended to want to restore the republic (Sulla's first civil war (88–87 BC), Sertorius' revolt in Hispania (83–72 BC), and Sulla's second civil war (82–81 BC)), then had a phase where people stopped pretending it was a republic anymore (Lepidus' rebellion (77 BC) and the Catiline Conspiracy (63–62 BC)), and ended with a series of wars over who would be the new dictator (Caesar's civil war (49–45 BC), Post-Caesarian civil war (44 BC), Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC), Sicilian revolt (44–36 BC), Fulvia's civil war (41–40 BC), and the Final war of the Roman Republic (32–30 BC)). I'm most fascinated by the Catiline Conspiracy, because it was at that point that I think people knew that the Republic was dead.
Catailine was a Roman politician and general who attempted to overthrow the Republic in 63-62 BC. His desire to do so lay mostly in ambition for power, but he and his followers appear to have been driven by a sense that they were being denied power that was due to them (their comments have a vague sense of entitlement to them) and it also appears that he and his followers had accrued massive amounts of debt that they wanted to cancel or wipe away in the fall of the government. He had multiple plots and schemes going, involving slave revolts, raising of various armies, and a plot to assassinate Senators in Rome, but before those schemes could come to fruition, he was exposed, fought valiantly, killed, and the plot collapsed. But the damage had been done- people had seen that the republic was dead, that the rule of law didn't exist any more, and that the age of rule of men had started. Even though he was unsuccessful, he demonstrated the template that one could follow to dictatorship, and soon the Republic was dead.
Jonah Goldberg began a recent article When Did the Rules Change? with the line "When Rome was “falling,” did it feel like it?". His article is about how the rules of the game are changing, how liberalism is dying and how are nation will once again be a conservative nation of rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. I'm not as hopeful though.
Increasingly, I feel like the damage has been done by the Obama and the Democrats, damage that is too great and too traumatic for America to overcome. I'm still hopeful that it can be done, but the damage that they have inflicted in so many ways both big and small will take a generation to repair, if that generation has the intelligence and willpower to do so.
Although Obama might only be a one-term President and although the Democrats might lose power, they'll be back, sooner rather than later. They have seen how easy it is to get anyone elected President, even someone with no intelligence and terrorist friends who may not even like America. They have seen how easily it is to fool people into giving them large majorities, where they then jam through massive complicated bills changing the very fabric of our nation without even reading them. They'll fight a ferocious and tough rear-guard action to keep these in place, and eventually voters will get stupid again and put them back in power. Although we may have dodged a dictatorship this time, it is my great fear that the damage is done, and that after a couple Republican Presidents (Romney's two terms and Palin's one) we'll put a Caesar in power and that will be the end of great American experiment in republic.
Catailine = Obama ?
Role of the President: Commander in Chief
As a teacher, eventually I get to a unit on the President (next week my civics students will be on this unit). One of the ways that I teach this unit is by going through all the roles that the President can be said to play in our political system (or the different hats that he wears, if that helps you). Let's take a look at one of these roles today, the role of Commander in Chief. Let's talk about this role, and then evaluate Bush and Obama in their ability to do this role.
Even though the President of the United States is not a member of our armed services, in our country, the President is commander in chief of the military. He controls (primarily through the executive cabinet-level Department of Defense) a military that is very powerful- one of the biggest in numbers, one of the best in training, and certainly the most well-financed (the US accounts for over 50% of all military spending in world). This means that the President is in position to control a very powerful military.
Prior to becoming President, Bush was a member of the military. You can debate the quality of his service, but he did serve, so he was in that environment, and learned the principles of warfare and the honor of sacrifice. He handled military hardware, and was comfortable around their use. His ability to fulfil this part of the Commander in Chief role was not the best, and certainly not as good as McCain's, but it is considerably more so than Obama, who has no military experience, knowledge, or interest in the military to speak of. Again, Obama has little to no experience or known abilities in this part of the role.
Although most President's are rather hands off with the actual strategy, that doesn't mean they have to be- LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln all directed battlefield strategy. The President has the authority to send troops in to other countries for limited amounts of time (limited by War Powers Act, he needs congressional authorization for more than 60 days). The President is in charge of the purchasing of weapons, such as Reagan focusing on SDI, and the President is in charge of the selling of weapons, letting some states purchase surplus/used military hardware while other states can not.
Prior to becoming President, Bush was an officer in the military, so did learn how to order troops into battle, and must have studied or learned about some aspects of this. Again, his ability to fulfil this part of the Commander in Chief role was not the best, and certainly not as good as McCain's, but it is considerably more so than Obama, who has no military experience, knowledge, or interest in the military to speak of. Again, Obama has little to no experience or known abilities in this part of the role.
Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, our President can be expected in times of great crisis or war to assume emergency powers, such as issuing orders to regulate industry, set price controls, ration food, or take other actions. This is a tough thing to do, but you want a President who is willing to break an egg every now and then to make an omelet- during WWII or the Civil War, civil liberties were broken, but for the good of our nation. Can the President make these tough calls? Can he resist the call of too much power, and not become a dictator, and battle with himself about how much power the President should have?
Bush has continually struggled with this- in that he has tried to fight the War on Terror while keeping us as free as possible. You might contend that he sacrificed too much- but he was willing and able to make the tough calls he thought were necessary for keeping our country great during times of crisis. Obama has denied that we are at war, and has failed to answer the call for every crisis that our country has recently faced, displaying an inability to make tough decisions. One wonder what happens if we do go to war- would he be weak and indecisive, or overcompensate by wielding too much power?
Just some thoughts to think about today.
The "Colonialism-Imperialism" Paradigm Is Kaput (2 of 2)
Modern Grievances against the West
External Props of African Despots
Historically, every foreign entity that goes to Africa does so to pursue their own interest, not those of Africans. Witness the scramble for Africa in the 1880s. The Chinese do not go to Africa because they love black people soo much. They go there to pursue their interests. Exactly the same can be said of the Cubans. This competition for influence in Africa became pronounced during the Cold War, when super-power rivalry led to the establishment of client states across Africa. The West supported the likes of Mobutu Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, Hastings Banda, Felix Houphouet-Boigny, etc. etc. The East supported the likes of Mengistu, dos Santos, Mattieu
Kerekou, Sassou Nguesso, Samora Machel, etc. etc. Arab countries also backed their clients in Africa: Sudan, Mauratania, Chad, etc.
Cold War Intrigues and Machinations
Each side in the Cold War provided billions in aid to their clients to protect their security interests in Africa. Angola, Ethiopia, and Mozambique all received substantial amounts of Soviet military hardware. For example, Mengistu Haile-Mariam of Ethiopia received more than $11 billion in military weapons between 1975 and 1990. Angola received at least $2 billion annually
in military assistance from the Soviet Union in the 1980s (The Independent, London, Feb 19, 1992). In 1991, $4 billion of Angola's $8.7 billion foreign debt was owed to the former Soviet Union. On July 1, 1991, President Eduardo dos Santos said: "military debts were not usually honored," implying that Angola would not pay it (The New York Times, July 8, 1991). Soviet aid was stingy.
The economic aid the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) provided to sub-Saharan Africa in 1985 was $300 million. Of this, Ethiopia received by far the most (57.9 percent). Next were Mozambique (13.8 percent), Egypt (6.6 percent), Madagascar (4.2 percent), Angola (2.8 percent), and Tunisia (2.1 percent) (West Africa, Dec 12-28, 1988; p. 2320). Angola and Mozambique benefited more from arms supplies. The $300 million aid was only 5 percent of total Comecon bilateral disbursements and only 3 percent of the total aid flow to sub-Saharan Africa.
Furthermore, the little Soviet economic aid that did flow to Africa had strings rigidly attached. Loans and trade credits supplied could only be spent in the Soviet Union and Comecon countries (100 percent tied aid). In addition, the Soviets supplied the technical personnel and the equipment for project construction. Repayments of loans were often by barter, but to the
decisive advantage of the Soviet Union. For example, in Guinea, Soviet help in building a bauxite plant at Kindia was to be repaid with deliveries of two million tons of bauxite ore a year for 30 years.
Barter arrangements also hurt Soviet clients in Africa in a different way. For example, repayments of loans Nkrumah of Ghana took from the Soviet Union were to be made in kind with exports such as cocoa. But the Soviet Union had little use for Ghana's cocoa. Re-export of cocoa by the Soviet Union helped depress the world market price of cocoa in the mid-1960s.
China, an active player in Africa, sought to win adherents to the Chinese brand of socialism. Zhao Ziyang, China's foreign minister in the early 1960s, reminded African leaders of the presence of Chinese coolies in Africa. China's perception was that Moscow, not Washington, was its principal enemy. Its strategy was therefore to weaken "social imperialism at the expense of monopolistic capitalism" (Snow, 1988). West Africa observed that "in Africa, China increased assistance to old friends such as Tanzania and Zambia. The 2000km Tan-Zam railroad was meant to overshadow the Soviet-built Aswan High Dam in Egypt. China also made friends with old enemies such as Mobutu, helping him during the Shaba uprising in 1978-79; in 1980 they helped him build a naval base at Kinkuzu in southern Zaire to threaten Angola" (Aug 15, 1988; p. 1473).
China's fortunes in Africa quickly turned into mirages, however. At first, China's anticolonial stance was welcomed by African liberation movements. But as independence was gained, China's emphasis on subversion and its intense enmity toward the Soviet Union became less and less appealing or relevant to Africans. In fact, as early as 1963 Julius Nyerere of Tanzania
complained of a new scramble for Africa between the Soviet Union and China. Because their actions were anti-Soviet rather than pro-African, the Chinese themselves did not achieve much by way of influence.
Furthermore, China was no less immune to blunders than the Soviets. Less wisely than the Soviets, China meddled in Burundi ethnic feuds. In 1963 China backed the Tutsi expedition by training a number of Tutsi in guerrilla warfare in China. The subsequent massacres in Burundi earned China much opprobium. China also supported the Biafran secessionists in Nigeria's civil
war (1967 to 1970) simply because Moscow backed the Federal Government of Nigeria. Similarly, in Angola, China supported the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola) because Moscow was backing the ruling MPLA.
In Mali and Congo-Brazzaville, China made some headway. But a spate of military coups brought to power new rulers distrustful of China. Only in Tanzania did China achieve some diplomatic and ideological success. China agreed to fund and build the 1,200-mile Tan-Zam railway line at a cost of 166 million pounds sterling, free of interest. The railway was both an
engineering and a political achievement. It was completed two years ahead of schedule and was much touted as a model of what foreign aid could do for Africa. But it was one thing to build the railway and quite another to run it efficiently. Maintenance was poor, services degenerated, and the Dar es Salaam terminal became chronically clogged to the point of immobility. Although the Chinese had nothing to do with these shortcomings, their reputation suffered.
Zimbabwe received technical and military aid from North Korea and China. For its part, the West also poured billions into Zaire, Liberia, Kenya, Nigeria, and other African countries.
Each side also sought to undermine African regimes that were hostile to it. Lumumba was assassinated by the CIA operatives and the 1966 coup against Nkrumah was orchestrated by the CIA. In this sphere, the French were the worst, intervening directly to remove African leaders they did not like in Francophone Africa. For the French, independence did not mean a retreat from Africa. France left hundreds of officials in Africa as advisers. Behind the doors of many key ministries in the Ivory Coast and Senegal or Gabon, discreet but powerful French officials kept a close eye on policy. The French also sent teachers to Africa and brought African students and civil servants to France for training. France secured the right to maintain a
heavy military presence in Africa. In 1989, for example, France had a significant number of military advisers in 16 African countries and permanent Forces d'Intervention in seven. Total strength of French troops in Africa exceeded 12,000 in 1990. In France itself, the Forces d'Action Rapide, numbering 47,000, could be mobilized in less than 48 hours for action anywhere in Francophone Africa. These forces played an economic policing role and backed up French diplomacy and paternalism. They supported "approved" Francophile governments such as those of Leopold Senghor of Senegal and Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Cote d'Ivoire.
After 1960 the French intervened on many occasions to prop up unpopular African regimes against internal dissatisfaction and disorders. The most notorious such occasion was in Gabon in 1964, when French troops were used to reinstate President Mba after a coup. Noting that the French did not intervene to save President Youlou in Brazzaville in 1963, critics charged that intervention was predicated on mineral wealth. (Gabon is rich in oil.)
Now, each foreign entity operating in Africa pursues its own interests. It was ONLY the West which propped up hideous dictators in Africa. A foreign prop is a foreign prop is a foreign prop, regardless of its origin. An African leader is supposed to pursue the interests of his PEOPLE. If he doesn t, remove him from power but did we? Instead, we argued ad nauseam that, since the West put Mobutu, for example, in power, it was the responsibility of the West to remove him. This was ridiculous because if Mobutu was serving Western interests, why would the West remove him? And even if the West removed him, who do you think the West would have installed as a replacement? Another Mobutu !
It is clear that we have drawn no historical lessons from our dealing with the West and other foreign blocs. Here s a popular adage: If someone cheats you once, he is the fool but if he cheats you again, you are the fool. If you agree, then why are we talking about the Second Scramble for Africa ? And have we not learned that if you give an African problem to the Americans, Brits, French or the Chinese to solve it, each would solve it to their advantage? Does the mantra, African solutions for African problems, make sense to you?
Again, prop or no prop,
You cannot claim that it was the West which told Mobutu to loot the Zairean treasury. Nor claim that it was the North Koreans who told Mugabe to butcher over 20,000 Ndebele in 1980 (Matabeleland massacre). Neither can you claim that it was the Arabs who ordered Idi Amin to
butcher over 200,000 Ugandans. Nor can you claim that tell me it was the French who ordered Gnassingbe Eyadema to cling to power for 34 years and amass a personal fortune worth $3
billion.
True, the French and indeed the World Bank knew these African despots were stealing money and looked the other way. But who is an African leader accountable to? To the French, the World Bank or his PEOPLE? Prop or no prop, these leaders must be held accountable for their actions.
In fact, these days the charge of foreign meddling in African affairs and the specter of sinister and greedy multinational corporations lurking in the dark, waiting for a chance to pounce and exploit Africa confute reality. Foreign investors have fled Africa as the continent remains unattractive. Is it not African governments who have been drawing up elaborate and fancy
investment codes to ATTRACT them back? And is it not African governments themselves who take their budgets to foreign capitals for approval in order to get foreign aid? So who ALLOWS the meddling in African affairs?
Even then, the West has shown little interest in meddling in African affairs in the past few decades. If anything, the West has been in retreat from Africa! Recall the statement by presidential candidate, George Bush, that Africa was not of strategic importance to the U.S. And was it not the same African leaders who were complaining after the Cold War that Africa was
being marginalized ? So which is which: Is the West meddling in African affairs or the West marginalizing Africa?
In case you did not know, the West is thoroughly fed up with Africa, which it regards as a cry-baby, hopelessly incapable of solving any of its problems and is constantly crying out for help. What do you think the expression donor fatigue means? That is the diplomatic way of saying that the international community is fed up with incessant African appeals and begging. Today, there is famine in Ethiopia, tomorrow, there is a refugee crisis created by war in Liberia, or Somalia. Then there is genocide in Rwanda, starvation among refugees in eastern Congo, Ivory Coast, and on and on. Haba. Africa is now synonymous with war, destruction, famine, refugees, starvation, instability and chaos. Year after year since 1985, one African country after another has imploded, scattering refugees in all directions: Ethiopia (1985), Angola (1986), Mozambique (1987), Sudan (1991), Liberia (1992), Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Zaire (1996), Sierra Leone (1997), Congo DRC (1998), Ethiopia/Eritrea (1998), Angola (1999), Ivory Coast (2000), Togo (2005).
The implosion of these countries had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the slave trade, nothing to do with Western colonialism or imperialism, nothing to do with artificial colonial borders, nothing to do with an unjust international economic system; in short, nothing to do with so-called external factors. They all had to do with one thing: POWER the adamant refusal to relinquish or share political power. If GENERAL Siad Barre of Somalia, GENERAL Juvenal Habryimana of Rwana, GENERAL Pierre Buyoya of Burundi, GENERAL Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, GENERAL Samuel Doe of Liberia, GENERAL Joseph Momoh of Sierra Leone, GENERAL Robert Guie of Ivory Coast, GENERAL Gnassingbe Eyadema, etc. etc. had been willing to step down or put in place power-sharing arrangements, each of their countries would have been
saved. Note the frequency of the title, GENERAL.
The rule is this and you can call it Ayittey Law: "The adamant refusal of an African head of state to step down or share political power will ultimately lead to the destruction of his country." If Mubarak of Egypt, Museveni of Uganda, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Ghaddafi of Libya refuse to leave the political scene or share power, their countries will be destroyed. This is not rocket
science and it has nothing to do with the West. It is a personal or political failure that cannot be blamed on Americans, Chinese or Martians.
Back in 1986, President Museveni of Ugana said that no African leader should be in power for more than 10 years. What happened to him? He has been in power for more than 16 years and still counting. Finally in the late 1990s, African leaders wrote Constitutions in which they inserted the two-term limits. What happened? They are the very same ones who are now using their parliamentary majority and various devious maneuvers to override or repeal the two-term limits in Chad, Guinea, Namibia (Nujoma before he retired), Uganda, and even Nigeria.
Benin, Cape Verde Islands, Sao Tome & Principe, South Africa and Zambia all saved themselves from implosion because their leaders agreed to power-sharing arrangements crafted out of sovereign national conferences. South Africa would have blown up if the whites had not sat down with the blacks in a Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) to craft a new
political dispensation for the country. Rwanda blew up because the Hutu-dominated government of GENERAL Juvenal Habryimana refused to share power with the Tutsi minority and, instead, decided to exterminate them. "No Tutsis, nobody to share power with" was the macabre and brutal logic. More than 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in a orgy of violence and brutal massacre. That, in itself, was an excellent example of "intellectual astigmatism".
We could see with eagle-eyed clarity all the repugnant and inhumane brutalities of the white apartheid system in South Africa but we were hopeless blind to the equally heinous tribal apartheid regime in Rwanda. If the racist apartheid regime in South Africa had butchered just 2,000 blacks, even Idi Amin, who himself slaughtered more than 200,000 Ugandans, would
have arisen from his grave to attack South Africa with 3 dilapidated helicopters! But we said nothing when 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered. Instead, we blamed the WEST for NOT intervening to stop the genocide. In fact, at its July 2000 Summit in Lome, Togo, the defunct OAU demanded a Marshall plan style compensation package for Rwanda. The demand for
compensation was part of the OAU inquiry into the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which blamed Western powers for failing to intervene to stop the mass slaughter. Naturally.
The OAU inquiry singled out France and the United States for particular blame for failing to prevent the genocide in addition to the United Nations Security Council as a whole. France was culpable because, having high level contact within Rwanda s Hutu-led government, the OAU report argued, could have exerted pressure to prevent the death of 800,000 people. The OAU
enquiry also blamed the US for failing to use its influence in the Security Council to authorize a military intervention to prevent the killing. The report argued that the West failed Africa despite the availability of copious evidence that the mass killing had been about to begin. In
conclusion, the report noted, a simple apology as already made by the United Nations was not enough and called for compensation, alluding to the $13 billion Marshall Aid plan the U.S. launched for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. And what did these self-righteous leaders do to prevent the killings going on right under their very noses? And how can these
leaders complain about foreign meddling in African affairs and at the same time blame the West for NOT INTERVENING in an African problem to stop a massacre?
These days appeals by African leaders fall on deaf ears. OECD aid to Africa fell by 22 percent between 1990 and 1996, decreasing by 18 percent to sub-Saharan countries between 1994 and 1996 alone. (DeYoung, 2000a; p.A1). Even humanitarian aid to Africa has been shrinking. Contributors to United Nations aid and development programs have provided slightly more than half of the $800 million requested in 1999 for African countries suffering from "complex emergencies" -- the term is applied when war and failed institutions, often combined with a natural disaster, leave vast numbers of people homeless and starving. Specific programs for some particularly problematic areas, such as the Great Lakes region of Central Africa
including the two Congos, Rwanda and Burundi, have fared even less well (DeYoung, 2000b; p.A1).
In Sept 1999, the U.N.'s World Food Program announced it would curtail its feeding program for nearly 2 million refugees in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea after receiving less than 20 percent of requested funding. An emergency appeal during the summer to feed and shelter at least 600,000 Angolans who had been displaced in that country's long-standing civil war
brought minimal initial response and predictions of mass starvation. In Africa's Great Lakes region of Congo, Burundi and Rwanda, where wars have produced nearly 4 million refugees, the United Nations estimated it would need $278 million to take care of them. By Oct 1999, only 45 percent of that amount had been donated. Nearly 80 percent of the United Nations humanitarian appeals in 2004 were to address African problems, but the response was disappointing as to be non-existent. "I remember sitting in this very room last summer (2004) asking for five helicopters to save thousands of lives in Darfur (Sudan). In the end we had to hire helicopters commercially as no Member States were willing to provide them," Under-Secretary-General Jan Egeland, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the chief of the UN humanitarian office told the Security Council meeting on humanitarian challenges in Africa in January 2005 (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?). Even Irish rock star, Bob Geldof, who organized Band Aid and Live Aid to provide famine relief to starving victims in Ethiopia in 1985 is now fed up with Africa. He said this on Jan 31, 2005, of his work in Africa: "I'd dearly love not to have to go there the day after tomorrow. More often than not, it bores me profoundly - the pace of change is far too slow, and Africans excuse their own complicity in exactly the same way as our politicians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4222373.stm).
Private organizations are also having difficulty raising funds for African relief operations. According to Mario Ochoa, executive vice president of the Maryland-based Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), which operates relief projects out of its own donations and under contract with donor governments, If I were to go now and make an emergency appeal for, say, Rwanda, for $500,000 for food, I'd probably get about seventy or eighty
thousand" in contributions (The Washington Post, Nov 26, 1999; p.A1).
True, every now and then, a major effort is launched in the West to help Africa. Africa s plight follows a ten-year attention deficit cycle: 1985 (Live Aid to save famine victims in Ethiopia), 1996 (a Special U.N. Session to boost aid to Africa to $25 billion), and now (2005). It is so humiliating to have the salvation of Africa tied to the success of rock concerts. And 20
years later, Ethiopia still can t feed itself and is appealing for food aid. Who do you blame: The white kids who did not give enough charity at the rock concerts or the stupid policies of Ethiopia s leaders?
Unjust International Economic System
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, this argument had much validity: The international economic system, dominated by western multi-national corporations, was rigged in favor of the rich countries. Prices of cash crops were fixed at artificially low levels; markets were cornered by giant western corporations, paying low wages and raking huge profits. While prices Africa received for its exports remained low, the prices Africa paid for imported manufactures soared astronomically (declining terms of trade). But today, with the onset of globalization, this argument carries little validity.
First, there is much competition on the international market. Asian corporations are now some of the big players. Second, African governments have done next to nothing to add value to their exports. Ghana still exports much of its cocoa in raw beans form. Third, every market has its ups and downs. We complain when the markets are down but conspicuously silent when
the market booms. Did we complain about an unjust international economic system when copper prices reached record levels in the late 1970s? When gold prices soared in the 1980s, cocoa prices in the 1990s? May I mention oil prices? By the way, what did we do with the windfall we reaped from the high prices? We squandered it!
Fourth, Africa s share of world trade fell from more than 3 percent in the 1950s to less than 2 percent in the mid1990s and to only 1.2 percent, excluding South Africa (The World Bank, Can Africa Claim the 21st Century;p.20). This erosion of Africa s world trade share in current prices between 1970 and 1993 represents a staggering annual income loss of $68 billion. This loss is not due to an unjust international economic system. Fact is, Africa has not been producing and you can t trade on the international market if you have nothing to sell. The physical volume of exports has been declining and therefore it is not a question of Africa not being able to earn enough because of low prices. Burundi s coffee exports, Ivory Coast's cocoa exports, and Sierra Leone s diamond exports have been devastated not because of low world market prices but by senseless civil wars. Even with food, we don t produce enough to feed ourselves and spend $19 billion a year on food imports. Nigeria spends $3 billion a year on food imports and has now brought white Zimbabwean farmers to teach it how to become self-sufficient in food production. What a disgrace!
Much of the decline in agricultural production in Africa is due to price controls, naked exploitation of Africa s peasant farmers, and senseless civil wars that have devastated the countryside and uprooted millions of people. Refugee camps are full of women and children, who produce the bulk of Africa s foodstuffs. State marketing boards fixed at ridiculously low
prices to milk the peasant farmers and they REBELLED. In Senegal, peanut (groundnut) farmers were receiving less than 20 percent of the world market price for their produce; in Ghana, cocoa farmers were receiving less than 30 percent for their produce in the 1980s. Those who complain about the Western conspiracy to fix prices for African exports at artificially low levels obviously do not see the ridiculously low levels their own State Marketing
Boards fix prices for peasant farmers.
Unfair Trade Practices, Trade Barriers and Subsidies
To be sure, unfair trade practices -- trade barriers and agricultural subsidies -- are legitimate issues of concern for the Third World. It is hypocritical for the West to preach free trade to the developing countries and yet put barriers in its place. But there is hypocrisy on both sides.
According to Columbia University economist, Jagdish Bhagwati, there is greater tariff protection on manufacturers in the poor countries . . . and autarkic trade barriers make domestic markets more lucrative than exports, leading therefore to an incentive bias against exports. So even when the rich country markets are opened further, one s own trade barriers can prevent the penetration of these markets (The Wall Street Journal, Jan 18, 2005; p.A16).
More importantly, the rich countries protect themselves against unfair trade practices, so why shouldn t African countries? A case in point is U.S. s anti-dumping law. Known as the Byrd Amendment for its chief author, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W. Virginia), the law passed by Congress in 2001 provides that when foreign manufacturers are found to be dumping goods in the U.S. market that is, selling at unfairly low prices any anti-dumping duties that are imposed can be handed over to the U.S. companies that brought the dumping case, rather than to the Treasury. It has benefited U.S. firms in industries including steel and pasta, with one of the largest beneficiaries being Timken Co., an Ohio maker of bearings, which collected about $40
million in 2004 (The Washington Post, April 1, 2005; p.A4). So, what have African governments done to protect their countries against dumping? NOTHING!
Even then, trade barriers are peripheral to the core issue of Africa's under development. Africa s exports consist mainly of cash crops (cocoa, cotton, coffee, bananas, sisal, etc.) and minerals (gold, diamonds, oil, titanium, cobalt, copper, etc.). Trade barriers and agricultural subsidies in the West affect only a few African exports, such as cotton (Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan), peanuts or groundnuts (Gambia, Senegal, Sudan), sugar (Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa), tobacco (Malawi, Zimbabwe), and beef (from Botswana, Namibia). Only a few African countries such as Ivory Coast, Mauritius, and South Africa export manufactured goods, which can encounter
trade barriers in the West.
It is not Western agricultural subsidies, however, that have hurt African food agriculture. Food production per capita has been declining and Africa's food import amounts to some $19 billion annually. The recent civil war in Ivory Coast, for example, cut the country's cocoa exports by half and disrupted agricultural exports of neighboring countries that pass through Ivory Coast. In Burundi, coffee production has dropped by more than 50 percent because of civil war/strife that has engulfed that small country of 8 million people since 1993. In Malawi, crime has risen so sharply that some farmers have refused to grow crops. And while the U.S. maintains import
quotas against Zimbabwe's tobacco exports, the industry has virtually been destroyed by President Robert Mugabe's violent seizures of white commercial
farmland to remedy "colonial injustices .
Wailing over agricultural subsidies in rich countries amounts to shedding crocodile tears since it gives the false impression that African governments care much about agriculture. The erosion of Africa s share of world trade was caused not so much by trade barriers but rather a host of internal factors. Among them are the neglect of agriculture occasioned by the over-emphasis on industrialization, raging civil wars, crumbling infrastructure, and misguided socialist policies that exploited Africa's farmers through a system of marketing boards and price controls. For example, trade barriers do not block exports of oil, diamonds, gold, col-tan, and other minerals from Africa. Yet, paradoxically, countries that produce them -- Angola, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Nigeria, Sudan, among others -- have been wracked by war, poverty and social destitution. In fact, Africa's diamonds have fueled such barbarous civil wars in Angola, Congo, and Sierra Leone that human rights activists in the West have called for a boycott of Africa's "conflict diamonds.
A key note speech by the new African Union (AU) secretary-general, Amara Essy, to mark the New Year on Jan 3, 2002 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, did not provide Africans with hope or assurance. He "accused the international community of failing the continent; their refusal to alleviate Africa's huge
debt burden continues to compromise its development" (IRIN, Jan 03, 2002). Same old drivel. Rather, it is African leaders who have failed the continent. The externalist paradigm by which African leaders blame everyone else but themselves for Africa s woes, is now KAPUT. The African people no longer buy it. Why then does this paradigm still have avid adherents? Four
reasons.
First, it is naturally the credo of most African leaders since it exculpates them from any blame for the current mess. Some evil external force did it! But the people don t buy it. Witness the huge credibility gap between the rulers and the ruled. Second, advocacy or veneration of the externalist paradigm constitutes a passport to career advancement. Those African scholars and intellectuals who rail against the World Bank, IMF and other external enemies are often rewarded with ministerial posts and government appointments. Rail against British colonialists and President Robert Mugabe will reward you with a government post. Such was the case of Jonathan Moyo.
Outside Africa are the third and fourth groups. Black Americans, drawing upon their own horrific experience, unfortunately have a radically different perception and understanding of Africa s woes. Most black Americans do not distinguish between African leaders and the African people and see Africa as a victim of Western neo-colonialism and imperialism just as they see
themselves as victims of racism, white supremacy and the lingering effects of slavery. Given their history and experience, black Americans tend to see only white devils because their oppressors and exploiters in the past were all white. Black Americans have never lived under brutal tyrants such as Idi Amin, Samuel Doe or Sani Abacha and therefore cannot relate to black
tyranny. This partly explains why black American leaders led the campaign against the heinous apartheid system in South Africa but were conspicuously absent in the campaign against the equally heinous de facto apartheid regimes in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and elsewhere in Africa. It also explains the tendency of black American leaders to embrace those African leaders that spit venomous anti-West vitriol: Minister Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Ghaddafi of Libya. Thus, black American perspective on Africa often clashes with that of the people. In fact, when President Clinton appointed Rev. Jesse Jackson as special envoy to Nigeria in 1994 activists threatened to stone him if he ever stepped foot in Nigeria. Five years later, Sierra Leonians were outraged when Rev. Jackson compared Foday Sankoh to Nelson Mandela. Sankoh was the late leader of RUF (Revolutionary United Front), the murderous gang of savage rebels whose signature trademark was to chop off the limbs of those even children and breasts of women who stood in their way.
The final group of strict adherents to the externalist doctrine consists of some African scholars and intellectuals in the diaspora. They are mostly in academia and have made heavy emotional, personal and professional investment in the externalist paradigm. Their bible continues to be How Europe Under-developed Africa. Their careers have been advanced, promotions secured and books written, propagating the externalist doctrine. It would exceedingly difficult for them to admit that their books and scholarly works are no longer relevant to the immediate needs of Africa. Political correctness pervasive in academia and black American influence also make
it difficult and embarrassing for these African scholars to admit that African leaders have failed their people. They erroneously think such an admission would amount to washing Africa s dirty linen in public and provide ammunition to racists. But who is fooling who?
The African people know that the leadership and/or government are the primary obstacles that stand in the way of poverty reduction in Africa. Said a tribal chief in a rural farming community in Lesotho: "We have two problems: rats and the government" (International Health and Development, March/April 1989; p. 30). Amina Ramadou, a peasant housewife, came up with a
creative way of solving Zaire s economic crisis: "We send three sacks of angry bees to the governor and the president. And some ants which bite. Maybe they eat the government and solve our problems" (The Wall Street Journal, Sept 26, 1991; p. A14). When the presidents of Algeria, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa traveled to Kananaski, Alberta (Canada) on June 26,
2002, to present NEPAD to the G-8 Summit for funding by the rich nations, Mercy Muigai, an unemployed Kenyan was irate: All these people [African leaders and elites] do is talk, talk, talk. Then if they do get any money from the wazungu [white men], they just steal it for themselves. And what about us? We have no food. We have no schools. We have no future. We are just left to die (The Washington Times, June 28, 2002; p.A17).
In July, African leaders will be heading to another G-8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, to beg, beg, and beg for more foreign aid. I will be going there myself to represent Mercy Muigai. Let the other African scholars continue to read How Europe Under-developed Africa by Walter Rodney.
The Nigerian Civil War Photography of Hakan Gottberg
More hereThis note is essentially a condensation of an email received from Hakan Gottberger a Swedish photographer, who had spent 6 months in Biafra between 1968-1969 - not as a photographer, but as a volunteer with the Red Cross. He was however able to document some of the work of the Red Cross in Biafra and by his own account spent time behond the lines in such theatres as Item, Olona and eventually at Uli, where he participated in the night movements of relief materials into Biafra- hazardous work as we now know. I was introduced to Hakan by an old-school mate and friend- Ebele Obumselu, also a Historian in his own right.Hakan set up a photographic museum chronicling his works in general and the images he captured during the Biafran war. His mission and the motivation of Ebele Obumselu and myself in publicising this obeing not to inflame sentiment and arouse emotions, but to give spotlight to an incredible body of work that has not achieved wide exposure and has not been published in any of the popular photographic works of the Nigerian Civil War we are familiar with. These photographs are the creation and private property of Hakan Gottberger done with his own hand and skill and whatever your position on either side of the divide, they should be appreciated for what they are, another original chronicle of a watershed in Nigerian History.
Magic Tree House CD Edition Books 17-24 (Magic Tree House Collection)
BOOK #17: TONIGHT ON THE TITANIC: Jack and Annie are whisked away to the decks of the Titanic, where they must help two children find their way to a lifeboat - and are in danger of becoming victims of that tragic night themselves.
BOOK #18: BUFFALO BEFORE BREAKFAST: Jack and Annie travel to the Old West, where they roam the Great Plains with a Lakota boy.
BOOK #19: TIGERS AT TWILIGHT: While in India, Jack and Annie have adventures involving a tiger and other endangered jungle animals.
BOOK #20: DINGOES AT DINNERTIME: Jack and Annie are whisked Down Under to the land of Australia, where they save several animals from a raging wildfire.
BOOK #21: CIVIL WAR ON SUNDAY: Jack and Annie are transported to the time of the Civil War, where they meet Clara Barton.
BOOK #22: REVOLUTIONARY WAR ON WEDNESDAY: Jack and Annie travel back to the time of the American Revolution and help Gen. George Washington during his famous crossing of the Delaware River.
BOOK #23: TWISTER ON TUESDAY: Jack and Annie travel back to the Kansas prairie and gain an understanding of how hard life was for pioneers when they experience the terror of a tornado.
BOOK #24: EARTHQUAKE IN THE EARLY MORNING: The Magic Tree House takes Jack and Annie to San Francisco in 1906, in time for them to experience one of the biggest earthquakes the United States had ever known.
Happy Memorial Day and Decoration Day! Personal Relections
Happy Memorial Day Everyone!
Memorial Day means different things to different people- to some, it is the honoring of fallen soldiers, who died in service to their nation, like my distant relative James, who fought and died in the Civil War.
My grandfather passed this story on to me recently. On Jan. 27,1864, James was just a farmer, but he still went off to do his duty to keep our nation one nation, undivided, with liberty and justice for all. James enlisted in the 17th Infantry Regiment. He was mustered in on Feb. 11, 1864. His Company soon joined the regiment at Annapolis, MD on April 9, 1864- some of the worst battles of the Civil War were about to take place.
He fought in the Battle of the Wilderness in Virginia, in May, 1864, and then fought in the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Virginia, which a vital crossroads which controlled the shortest route to the capitol of Virginia. It was here at Spotsylvania on May 12 that James was taken prisoner and shipped to the notorious Andersonville Confederate prison camp in Georgia. Some months later James died there of dysentery, and was buried in the National Cemetery, Andersonville, GA. He was only 40 years old.
His widow was left with 7 children- her Army pension was $8 a month, with $2 extra for each of her 6 minor children, until they reached the age of 16. James served our nation for 4 months and did his duty and died a true patriot. Thank you James, for all that you did.
To others, Memorial Day is a day to remember our roots and those who have gone before us. My grandfather remembers trips that he used to make a youth on Decoration Day (what Memorial Day used to be called) to visit their old family farm and the old cemetery too. Since the family had a poor section of the cemetery, they would all pitch-in and weed, cut the grass and put flowers on the graves. When they had done everything there, they would drive back to the old farm where they were raised and have a picnic and remember their family. When they were too old to do it together any more, some of the family continued the tradition.
Also on Memorial Day, it my grandfather's family tradition to take flowers to the graves of family members and remember them on this day, whether they died in war or not. It may be called Memorial Day now , but my grandfather is right- to all those who went before us and who raised us, they deserve our attention and respect and honor and thoughts too on Decoration Day.
Happy Memorial Day! Happy Decoration Day!
Strengthening African Leadership
Africa has long been saddled with poor,even malevolent, leadership: predatory kleptocrats, military-installed autocrats,economic illiterates, and puffed-up posturers. By far the most egregious examples come from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe—countries that have been run into the ground despite their abundant natural resources. But these cases are by no means unrepresentative: by some measures, 90 percent of sub-Saharan African nations have experienced despotic rule in the last three decades. Such leaders use power as an end in itself, rather than for the public good; they are indifferent to the progress of their citizens (although anxious to receive their adulation); they are unswayed by reason and employ poisonous social or racial ideologies; and they are hypocrites, always shifting blame for their countries’ distress. Under the stewardship of these leaders,infrastructure in many African countries has fallen into disrepair, currencies have depreciated, and real prices have inflated dramatically, while job availability,health care, education standards, and life expectancy have declined. Ordinary life has become beleaguered: general security has deteriorated, crime and corruption have increased, much-needed public funds have flowed into hidden bank accounts, and offcially sanctioned ethnic discrimination—sometimes resulting in civil war—has become prevalent. This depressing picture is brought into even sharper relief by the few but striking examples of effective African leadership in recent decades. These leaders stand out because of their strength of character, their adherence to the principles of participatory democracy, and their ability to overcome deep-rooted challenges. The government of Mozambique, for example, brought about economic growth rates of more than ten percent between 1996 and 2003, following the economic catastrophe wrought by that country’s civil war (which ended in 1992). And in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki has strengthened civil society, invested in education, and removed barriers to economic entrepreneurship instated during the repressive rule of Daniel arap Moi.The best example of good leadership in Africa is Botswana. Long before diamonds were discovered there, this former desert protectorate, which was neglected by the British under colonialism, demonstrated a knack for participatory democracy, integrity, tolerance, entrepreneurship, and the rule of law. The country has remained democratic in spirit as well as form continuously since its independence in 1966—an unmatched record in Africa. It has also defended human rights, encouraged civil liberties, and actively promoted its citizens’ social and economic development.
GOOD APPLES
What has enabled Botswana to succeed where so many other African nations have failed? Some observers point to the relative linguistic homogeneity of the country. But Somalia, which remains unstable despite a similar uniformity, shows that this factor is far from sufficient.Others point to the century-old teachings of the congregational London Missionary Society—the peaceful, pragmatic outlook that is inextricably bound up in the country’s political culture. But this explanation also fails to explain why the same positive effects have not been witnessed in other countries with a history of Christian teaching, such as in neighboring Zambia. Nor are Botswana’s plentiful diamond reserves responsible:Angola, Gabon, and Nigeria all have abundant natural resources, but none has seen comparable returns for its people.It is Botswana’s history of visionary leadership, especially in the years following independence, that best explains its success. Sir Seretse Khama, Botswana’s founding president, came from a family of Bamangwato chiefs well regarded for their benevolence and integrity.
When Khama founded the Botswana Democratic Party in 1961 and led his country to independence, he was already dedicated to the principles of deliberative democracy and market economy that would allow his young country to flourish. Modest, unostentatious as a leader, and a genuine believer in popular rule, Khama forged a participatory and law-respecting political culture that has endured under his successors, Sir Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae. Although operating in very differerent circumstances, Mauritius’ first leader,Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, held to the same leadership codes as Khama.Ramgoolam gave Mauritius a robust democratic beginning, which has been sustained by a series of wise successors from different backgrounds and parties.Both Khama and Ramgoolam could have emulated many of their contemporaries by establishing strong, single-man, kleptocratic regimes. But they refused to do so.Effective leadership has proved the decisive factor in South Africa, too: without Nelson Mandela’s inclusive and visionary leadership, his adherence to the rule of law, his insistence on broadening the delivery of essential services, and his emphasis on moving from a commandeconomy toward a market-driven one, South Africa would probably have emerged from apartheid as a far more fractured and autocratic state than it did.Too few African leaders have followed the examples of Mandela, Khama, and foreign affairs . Ramgoolam. Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, and Senegal are all showing promise. But in many other African countries,leaders have begun their presidential careers as democrats only to end up, a term or two later, as corrupt autocrats: Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, Moi of Kenya,and, most dramatically of all, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Other leaders, such as Sam Nujoma of Namibia and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, may be heading in the same direction.
A BOLD INITIATIVE
To build on the positive leadership examples, a select group of prominent past and present African leaders who met over the last year decided to confront the continent’s pathology of poor leadership with deeds as well as words. At the conclusion of a series of private meetings(the final one of which was held in Mombasa, Kenya), they established the African Leadership Council, promulgated a Code of African Leadership with 23 commandments, issued a Mombasa Declaration promoting better leadership,and proposed a series of courses to train their political successors in the art of good government.Members of the council believe that absolute standards of leadership are both appropriate and attainable. Good leaders deliver security of the state and of the person, the rule of law, good education and health services, and a framework conducive to economic growth. They ensure effective arteries of commerce and enshrine personal and human freedoms. They empower civil society and protect the environmental commons. Crucially, good leaders also provide their citizens with a sense of belonging to a national enterprise. Conscious that Africa’s poor are getting poorer and that good governance is essential for successful economic development, the council sees itself at
the vanguard of fundamental reform in the continent. Its approach certainly goes far beyond the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (nepad) and proposals for the African Union. The Code of African Leadership, for example, says in its first commandment that leaders should “offer a coherent vision of individual growth and national advancement with justice and dignity for all,” implying that most leaders today do not. Other commandments demand that African leaders encourage “broad participation,” adhere to the letter and spirit of their national constitutions (especially term limits), encourage dissent and disagreement, respect human rights and civil liberties, strengthen the rule of law, promote policies that eradicate poverty and improve the wellbeing of their citizens, ensure a strong code of ethics, refuse to use their offices
for personal gain, oppose corruption, and bolster essential personal freedoms. This uncommonly bold agenda seeks to avoid renewed patrimonial leadership debacles, such as those presided over by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Moi in Kenya, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Jean-Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic. The council is highly conscious,too, of the hijacking of Zimbabwe’s government by Mugabe, which has resulted in starvation and drastically reduced living standards.The council is chaired by former President Sir Ketumile Masire of Botswana and includes former Nigerian head of state General Yakubu Gowon,Vice President Moody Awori of Kenya, former Prime Minister Hage Geingob of Namibia, and a dozen other present and former prime ministers and cabinet ministers from Sierra Leone to Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda. All are regarded throughout Africa as men of unusual personal probity and esteem and as accomplished proponents of good governance. The council intends to recruit additional members from the ranks of Africa’s outstanding democratic leaders, Francophone and Anglophone, female and male. Together they will serve the continent by advising international organizations, individual countries, and donor agencies on how to improve leadership. The group stands ready to assist civil societies in countries undergoing serious leadership crises. It will also urge greedy national leaders to attack corrupt practices and adhere to term limits (the current presidents of Gabon, Malawi, Namibia,Uganda, and Zambia, for example, have all had pangs of desire for illegal third terms). Next year(2005), it expects to begin holding special seminars for cabinet ministers and others. The council’s curriculum emphasizes constitutionalism, the rule of law, ethics, accountability,diversity, good fiscal management, coalition building, and the fundamentals of modern micro- and macroeconomics. Training courses will soon be launched.Whether the efforts of the African Leadership Council will reduce bloodshed,diminish corruption, and encourage more prosperity for citizens across Africa is by no means certain. But as a unique African response to the continent’s immense needs, this innovative endeavor is a promising, dramatic step forward.
By
Robert I. Rotberg
Reprinted with permission
Copyrighted 2004 Council on Foreign relations Inc. All Rights Reserved
Working on the Standards
Although this probably violates a confidentiality agreement I signed, I thought I'd write today about my recent work on the Michigan Merit Exam, or MME. The MME is the standardized test they use in Michigan, and is given to 11th grade students. It is basically the ACT supplemented by additional science and social studies portions.
The science and social studies portions are put together using teachers, who write the questions and approve the questions. There are several committees of teachers who look over these questions- a Bias Review Committee (which only looks at gender and race bias), a Content Review Committee (decides if the questions are too hard), etc.
What sorts of questions are on the social studies test? Here is a summary of all of the major topics tested in US history on the MME: Vietnam war was bad, Rosa Parks, South Africa sanctions, the Equal Rights Amendment, living constitution, Japanese internment in WWII, and Title IX funding. That's it- no questions about the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Roaring Twenties, etc. There were a couple New Deal questions... and a couple questions on the Civil Rights era and on the Great Society... a question on JFK, FDR, LBJ, and Truman. No questions on Teddy, Taft, Coolidge, Eisenhower, or Nixon.
What do you notice about these questions? They are all legitimate US history questions, yes, but there is no political balance in them. It is all the things that liberals like to talk about, and none of the things conservatives like to talk about. If you were to teach WWII, you do not have to teach the folly of appeasement, the sacrifice of our troops, the bravery of our soldiers, or any of the famous battles. You would need to teach Japanese internment. If you were to teach Civil Rights, you would not teach that the Republicans passed the major pieces of legislation- you would teach that JFK and LBJ signed them into law. If you taught Vietnam, you would focus on public opinion and opposition to it, and teach nothing else about it.
Based on the questions on the MME test, that every student in Michigan is tested on and that every teacher in Michigan uses to design their curriculum, the only version of social studies is a thoroughly liberal one. Liberal to its very core, with every single facet of the education business seeped in the liberal narrative of the world.
Ironically enough, the average score (before the phony math took over in the Cut Score Setting Committee) was a 28%- the students do so poorly because their minds, even after years and years of indoctrination, reject the liberal narrative as untrue, causing them to get many many answers wrong.
Book Review: Killing Lincoln
A couple months ago the publishers over at Henry Holt and Company sent me an advance copy of the book Killing Lincoln by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard. It took me a while to finish it- but only because I was rotating in several other books as well. Actually, I thought it was a great book and would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about our nation's history, the killing of Lincoln, or just wants to read a good tale.
It is important in our nation to learn about our greatest heroes- and also our greatest villains. By reading stories of people doing great things we are inspired to do great things ourselves; by reading stories of people doing bad things we are also inspired to act to stop these people form doing these bad things. And the story of the last several weeks of United States President Abraham Lincoln is a story of a man doing great things (Lincoln) and another man working to do a very bad thing (John Wilkes Booth).
The book begins with a riveting account of the final days of the Civil War, as Lincoln anxiously follows the news of the last several battles in the war. This exciting part of the book was perhaps my favorite because I enjoy military history so much and felt that the story of Grant vs Lee was a compelling one. But the book soon moves past this into a pattern where we get a glimpse into the work that President Lincoln was putting in to ending the war juxtaposed with glimpses of the plot to kill him.
Although the book is a nonfiction, it reads like a fiction novel, telling a compelling story that will draw you in and leave you wanting more. Even though you know the ending of the book (Lincoln is shot and killed), you keep hoping that there is some way that this great man will find a way out of the plot that is being put together to kill him- you keep hoping that if only he had more time he would have been able to leave the South and our nation in a much better position. And as Lincoln gets closer to doing the right things to end the war in the right manner, as he approaches a successful conclusion to the worst war ever fought in American history and the most damaging to our nation, you read with dismay the ever more sophisticated plot that John Wilkes Booth and his fellow conspirators were putting together.
The book ends much like real life- unsatisfying. You want Booth to come to justice, you want some sort of vengeance done on him for his evil and misguided acts, and you want him to die knowing that what he did was wrong- but instead he slinks away, spending some time in stinking forests, moves slowly south, and if not for a couple chance encounters he way have gotten away. His death is unsatisfying, as I imagine it was for our nation, especially for those who knew Lincoln and weren't just going based on propaganda put out by his political opponents.
Bill O'Reilly brings a readable style to the book that makes you feel like you were there during this time, and Martin Dugard is obviously the history expert and provides the right amount of detail to also draw you in without drowning you in the too many details that sometimes overwhelms historical novels. I highly suggest you pick up this novel and put it into your reading rotation.
It can be found on amazon.com by clicking on the link below. Enjoy!
Bolivia on the Brink of Civil War
Ahh, you have to admire those South American communist countries- they really are committed to creating a socialist utopia, even if they have to drive their own people into utter poverty and murder many. There is of course Hugo Chavez, who of course just just expelled human rights groups from Venezuela because they were documenting his human rights abuses.
So so everyone is clear, Chavez's political program is nationalized oil companies, nationalized healthcare, dramatic increases in state workers, more support for housing for everyone, increased taxes on large corporations, increased taxes on rich individuals, opposition to privatization in education, opposition to privatization in social security, an emphasis on multiculturalism, an emphasis on diplomacy with everyone in international affairs, anti-poverty efforts, anti-free trade, more support for labor unions, and friendliness towards the media. Got these off of wikipedia.
Incidentally, compare these goals to Obama's goals as President. I'm not going to say now that Obama is going to be like Chavez, but compare the two, and tell me what you think. Huh. The blueprint to change looks like it has already been implemented in several nations, and I agree- it definitely is a change!
Anyways, the whole point of this post was actually to point out that some in Bolivia has bought the poop Chavez was selling, and now their country is on the brink of a civil war. Guess that's not as interesting as what I already posted.
State Of The Nation: Soyinka, Achebe, Clark Warn Against Another Civil War
The trio of Nigrian literary icons; Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and J.P. Clark have called for a stop to the spread of violence across the country, warning that the country cannot afford another civil war at this time in history.A statement jointly signed by the trio and entitled “LET NOT THIS FIRE SPREAD!!! An Appeal to the Nigerian Nation Community”, reads in full:“The fears we have all secretly nursed are coming to realisation. The nightmare we have hugged to our individual breasts, voicing them only in family privacy, or within trusted caucuses of friends and colleagues – lest they become instances of materialising evil thoughts – has finally burst through into our social, physical environment. Rumblings and veiled threats have given way to eruption, and the first cracks in the wall of patience and forbearance can no longer be wished away. BOKO HARAM is very likely celebrating its first tactical victory: provoking retaliation in some parts of the nation...[continue reading]
image courtesy of iReports
'There was a Country' by Chinua Achebe
The defining experience of Chinua Achebe’s life was the Nigerian civil war, also known as the Biafran War, of 1967–1970. The conflict was infamous for its savage impact on the Biafran people, Chinua Achebe’s people, many of whom were starved to death after the Nigerian government blockaded their borders. By then, Chinua Achebe was already a world-renowned novelist, with a young family to protect. He took the Biafran side in the conflict and served his government as a roving cultural ambassador, from which vantage he absorbed the war’s full horror. Immediately after, Achebe took refuge in an academic post in the United States, and for more than forty years he has maintained a considered silence on the events of those terrible years, addressing them only obliquely through his poetry. Now, decades in the making, comes a towering reckoning with one of modern Africa’s most fateful events, from a writer whose words and courage have left an enduring stamp on world literature.
Achebe masterfully relates his experience, both as he lived it and how he has come to understand it. He begins his story with Nigeria’s birth pangs and the story of his own upbringing as a man and as a writer so that we might come to understand the country’s promise, which turned to horror when the hot winds of hatred began to stir. To read There Was a Country is to be powerfully reminded that artists have a particular obligation, especially during a time of war. All writers, Achebe argues, should be committed writers—they should speak for their history, their beliefs, and their people. Marrying history and memoir, poetry and prose, There Was a Country is a distillation of vivid firsthand observation and forty years of research and reflection. Wise, humane, and authoritative, it will stand as definitive and reinforce Achebe’s place as one of the most vital literary and moral voices of our age
May You Live in Interesting Times
Believe it or not, this is actually a Chinese curse, and not something that people actually want. And yet, reading what some are writing about Obama, and listening to what they say about Obama, you would think that people actually do want to live in interesting times- they want to live in a time of great upheaval and great change.
Many want Obama to be Lincoln, who, even though he was a great President, was head of a country that descended into a Civil War that was incredibly bloody and socially destructive. They want Obama to be FDR, who was the head of a nation that went into its longest and deepest recession ever and engaged in another bloody and destructive war. Or they want Obama to be JFK or LBJ, both of whom ran a country that was in the midst of some interesting times- riots, strikes, Vietnam, etc.
How come liberals and the media don't want to live in the 1980's, that was a long boring time of economic growth and rebuilding of strength. Or the 1950's, when our country returned to white picket fences and normal times (admittedly, I'm too young for this, but I always loved that show Wonder Years). Because those were the boring times under Republican Presidents, and were not times when liberals grew in power.
Via Ed Driscroll, here is what Jonah Goldberg wrote:
Listening to liberals gush over a "new New Deal" and Obama's call for us to emulate the "Greatest Generation," you'd think they want another Great Depression and World War.One can only hope that we don't live in interesting times, nor suffer the even more worse curses of you coming to the attention of those in authority, or our nation finding what liberals are looking for.
Indeed, liberals have long idolized the 1930s as a decade of great unity. It wasn't. The 1930s was a miserable decade of poverty, domestic unrest, labor strife, violations of civil liberties and widespread fear. If liberals really loved peace, prosperity and national cohesion, they'd remember the 1920s or 1950s more fondly. And yet they don't. Why? Because liberals didn't get to impose their schemes and dreams on the country in those decades. Behind all the talk of unity and bipartisanship and shared sacrifice lies an uglier ambition: power. The audacity of hope behind all this Lincoln-FDR-Obama blather is the dream of riding roughshod over the opposition, of having their way, of total victory.
The Chinese curse and cliche "may you live in interesting times" is on point. Liberals (and a few conservatives as well, alas) seem desperate to live in interesting times. Not me.
UPDATE: Powerlineblog has used the phrase "interesting times" in its blog post today as well! I think there is something to this curse. Also, there is a really good Terry Pratchett with the title "Interesting Times" too- I highly recommend it- Cohen the Barbarian and some of his geriatric colleagues combine with Rincewind the Wizard to take over the Chinese Empire.
Daily Education & Technology News for Schools 06/29/2011
-
Real Time Search - Social Mention
Social mention lets you track what people are saying about you, your school or more. It looks like it works a lot like Google alerts. Another great way for administrators to monitor "the buzz" about their school, particularly if it has a hashtag.
-
A lesson plan search engine for teacher lesson plans.
-
Website that sends you text messages to encourage literacy in their children. Great for parents or teaches. Interesting idea.
-
ShowMe - The Interactive Learning Community
The showme app on the ipad has some fascinating potential. I am going to play with this over the summer. Would love to hear from anyone who is already using it.
-
Mindshapes Launches Jellytoons Birthday Countdown for iPad and iPhone
Not sure how interactive ebooks will help students learn (dual encoding works) but here are some more interactive story books.
-
Flat Classroom teacher "alumni"
Our project coordinator, Lisa Durff, makes lists of the Flat Classroom teacher "alumni" so we can keep in touch. This is a great group of incredible global collaborative teachers who are doing it.
-
ISTE'11 ~ Diigo it - WebSlides
Suzie Nestico's webslides (made automatically from a Diigo list) for the diigo session at ISTE.
-
krillworkshops - Other Diigo Features
Lovely wiki about diigos. Lots of things from Michell Krill who pitched in to help in our diigo workshop.
-
Debby Atwater's Public Library | Diigo
Debby Atwater has some great links in her public library. Another example to review.
-
Vicki Davis's Public Library | Diigo
here is my public library of diigo bookmarks.
-
Neil Wetherbee's Public Library | Diigo
Neil is pulling over his bookmarks for his fourth and fifth grade classes. Here are some sample libraries from diigo users.
-
Lady Gaga accused of scamming charity - Live, Local, Late Breaking news, weather, and sports
Not everyone does what they say with money for charity. Lady GaGa is under scrutiny and criticism for not donating money to japanese quake survivors from the sale of her wristbands.
-
Worried about jobs, college women go 'geek' - CSMonitor.com
Some major computer science programs at top universities are seeing a slight uptick in the number of women going into the programs. Citing statistics from Harvard (up from 13% to 25%) and MIT (a 28% jump in 3 years), and Carnegie Mellon (from 1/5 in 2007 to 1/4 last year.)
Most think it is the economy although some attribute programs to get more women interested in the programs. -
MyRegistry.com - All Stores, One Registry® Gift Registry, Gift List, Wishlist
Interesting website for those who are graduating or getting married. This lets you create one master registry out of everything on the web. Interesting.
For nonprofits, you can create a list of the things that you need and people can put money towards those items. So, this could be used for schools too. Teachers could make a wishlist. Cool idea. -
Dragontape - YOUR TASTE ON MIXTAPES
Start mixing music. Got this information from an iste tweet (without the link.)
citation: RT kwinsper - Dragontape looks promising for creating mashups #ISTE11 -
Will Richardson's #iste11 presentation http://t.co/C9LkCCn
-
Wish I was at ISTE conference.
Wish I was at ISTE conference. RT“@dwarlick: Notes from Heidi Hayes Jacob's presentation: http://t.co/1WoqvW0 -- 3 thumbs up! #iste11”
-
The Nerdy Teacher: 10 Things I Hate About You (#ISTE11)
love this post!! “@thenerdyteacher: 10 Things I Hate About You (#ISTE11) - http://t.co/N2QSzVE - A new post for Tuesday.”
-
Emerging Tech Schools K-12 Horizon Report toolkit download #cosn #iste11 http://bit.ly/csUELC
-
Learning Tools Family Feud See the "Answers" to o
Learning Tools Family Feud #ISTEFeud See the "Answers" to our Crowdsourced Survey HERE! http://t.co/ZdFsKeQ #ISTE11 add Yours!
-
Pretty cool chat convo from my #iste11 session yesterday morning. http://bit.ly/jrsAoK Sincere thanks to all who joined in.
-
Top 50 Teacher Blogs by Innovative Educators
@coolcatteacher Woo hoo! Congrats! http://t.co/PCSoDOQ
-
DoInk Animation & Drawing for iPad on the iTunes App Store
RT @gazzabrown @Kdmiller4 LOVE DoInk. http://t.co/1vnIMM4 Will spread the word. @lisanash9 #iste11 #edapp #ipad
-
Teaching the Civil War with Technology. Ideas for teaching the Civil War
RT @pammoran: Just learned this term tradigital history http://j.mp/klt8Rr #iste11@MR_EHN @MrHadleyHistory @nksocialstudies @LPralleKeehn
-
ISTE 2011 - Day Two - Dr. G's Teaching With Technology Portfolio
Random thoughts from Day Two at #ISTE11 - http://t.co/hnlaQvz
-
ASCD Inservice: Eight Shifts for Teaching and Learning
Are we empowering & enabling students to create their own learning? 8 shifts for education http://bit.ly/jjuIpR #iste11 @willrich45
-
GREAT site of free eBooks geared for elementary & middle school: K12 Open Ed eBooks http://ow.ly/5rrTj via @kfasimpaur #iste11
-
Kathy Shrock's slidedeck is here - http://linkyy.com/infographics #iste11 (how cool is it that her son developed Linkyy?!)
-
315 Useful Webtools You Don’t Know Exist – 3fSimpleK12
5 Useful Webtools You Don’t Know Exist http://goo.gl/YgudI #ISTE11
