industrial revolution – Engaging Peace

Civilized, Barbarians, Savages, Part 1

Posted on April 9, 2020April 9, 2020 by kathiemm

By Antonio C. S. Rosa

A civilization or culture is defined as a set of customs, traditions, ethics, values, language, music, dance, gastronomy, clothing, religion, and social and political organization of a people, ethnic group, tribe, or nation.

British scholars of the 19th century classified the peoples and races as Civilized, Barbarians and Savages, based on their respective “evolutions.” Such classification was based primarily on three factors:

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution;
the Industrial Revolution in the beginning of industrial capitalism; and
the Reformation of the Catholic Church, the schism from which Protestantism arose.

False premises that led to false conclusions.

Such a classification made the field fertile for the appearance of a Capitalist/Protestant ethic, which would produce today’s capitalist system.

The Theory of Evolution (not a science, but a theory) postulates that only the most capable, among the various species of living organisms, survives and evolves. Darwin labeled his theory Survival of the Fittest. This competition for survival and evolution would be in genetic, biological, adaptive and/or mutative terms, in relation to the environment from which they would have evolved and where they would live. Human beings have been labeled Homo Sapiens, representatives of the supposedly most evolved species–the most apt. The civilized, barbaric and savages represented an attempt to hierarchize Homo Sapiens.

To speak of capitalist ethics is to incur a contradiction in terms as capitalism does not have an ethic, but a single overriding value: profits. On the other hand, a Protestant ethics is based on the Old Testament of the Bible and on the doctrine of Martin Luther that God, a supposedly elderly, male, white entity, distributes His blessings in the form of material wealth, power, good life to those most deserving and for whom He feels greater affection. The subtext is that the poor are poor because they are sinners. And Jesus, the messiah son of that God, was a white Jew. The pieces fit together historically.

In the Civilized category would be the European, white and Christian colonial empires, with Anglo-Saxons being the civilized par excellence.
Labeled as Barbarians would be Asians (yellow skinned, in their classification), nomadic peoples, Arabs and North Africans, Eskimos, all non-Christians (pagans), as well as all dark-skinned races that were not in the category of savages, such as the Indians (from India).
Finally, the Savages would be the inhabitants of black Africa, the Indians of the American continent, the so-called primitives of the Pacific Islands: Aborigines, Maori, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, etc., and cannibals.

The only two other civilizations respected by this novel Western Civilization were the Greek and the Roman, their progenitors–not very civilized to be sure, built and sustained by wars, conquests and slavery.

There were also the Slaves, captured like animals from the Savage group, who in the 19th century came predominantly from the native peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. Christians believed that these savages, like animals, did not have a soul. Hence the legality and morality of their objectification by Christians who sold them as merchandise. Arabs also exploited the slave trade, a major source of investment/profits.

A corollary of such doctrines and beliefs were attempts to ‘civilize’ barbarians and savages through Christian missions that would take European religious organizations to evangelize the African, American and Asian continents, as well as the Pacific Islands. Such missions gave rise to genocides and exterminations of nations and native peoples who refused to be ‘evangelized’ and ‘civilized’. Spain (Corona de Castilla) is an extreme example of this in South and Central America where its conquistadores decimated the Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations among others. The religious missions exist and persist today, albeit in derisory numbers and without much influence and credibility.

Antonio Carlos da Silva Rosa (Antonio C. S. Rosa), born 1946, is founder-editor of the pioneering Peace Journalism website, TRANSCEND Media Service-TMS (from 2008), an assistant to Prof. Johan Galtung, Secretary of the International Board of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, and recipient of the Psychologists for Social Responsibility’s 2017 Anthony J. Marsella Prize for the Psychology of Peace and Social Justice. He is on the Global Advisory Board of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies and completed his B.A., M.A., and graduate Ph.D. work in the fields of Communication-Journalism and Political Science-Peace Studies/International Relations at the University of Hawai’i. Originally from Brazil, he lives presently in Porto, Portugal. Antonio was educated in the USA where he lived for 20 years; in Europe-India since 1994. Books: Transcender e Transformar: Uma Introdução ao Trabalho de Conflitos (from Johan Galtung, translation to Portuguese, 2004); Peace Journalism: 80 Galtung Editorials on War and Peace (2010, editor); Cobertura de Conflitos: Jornalismo para a Paz (from Johan Galtung, Jake Lynch & Annabel McGoldrick, translation to Portuguese, 2010). TMS articles by Mr. Rosa HERE. Videos HERE and HERE.

AFRICAN BORDERS AND THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION: REVISITING THE COLONIAL PAST, Part 2

Posted on May 28, 2016July 7, 2016 by kathiemm

Emmanuel Mbaezue interviewing some immigration security personnel I met at the border between Nigeria and Niger Republic. Posted with permission from Emmanuel Mbaezue.

By Emmanuel Mbaezue

The artificial boundaries and the false foundation laid by Colonialism accounts for the present day features of the African continent. Colonialism was largely a system that not only bred chaos in the internal politics of most African countries, but also continues to threaten the peace of the entire region.

From inter-state border-related conflicts caused by poor and depleting economies, high levels of forced migration and weak/porous borders, to intra-state conflicts fueled by undemocratic and exclusive governments, inept/moribund political institutions and weak nationalistic projects, it is evident that Africa’s mostly political woes are symptomatic of a malignant, external involvement that never prioritized the interests of the continent.

Courtesy of western civilization, the unique African communal ownership of lands that de-emphasized territorialization gave way to private ownership with all its extortionist tendencies. There was basically an anachronism between the continent’s colonial heritage and the dynamics of its societies. The African cultural boundaries experienced difficulty assimilating the new notion of an “independent State.”

As more African States gained their independence, there also came a general awakening to the realities left behind by colonialism. It was a distasteful heritage that could not be erased or made to operate properly. While some African countries called for the maintenance of the incompatible borders that the continent inherited, others agitated for a re-delimitation and re- demarcation of African territories. It was in the midst of this dilemma that the now defunct Organisation for African Unity (OAU) in July 1964, at its first Summit of the African Heads of State, resolved that Nation States on attainment of independence should preserve the existing borders.

The hallmark of the OAU’s effort to resolve the continent’s increasing number of border-related conflicts was attained with the establishment of the African Union Border Programme (AUBP). Nevertheless, problems stemming from colonization continue to plague the continent today and more horrific is the role they have further played in compounding the challenges posed by the spread of present-day religious extremism in the continent.

While we are certainly not calling for a revocation of the resolution of the July 1964 meeting of the African Heads of State on the inherited borders, we however cannot downplay the inefficacy of that resolution. Worse still, there is apparently a clear lack of commitment on the part of the African leadership to proffer workable solutions to this quagmire. To date, some African countries are annexing lands that do not belong to them, and in the process displacing a lot of border communities. The influence of ethnic Diasporas can still be felt aggravating the civil unrest in most countries as in the case of Rwanda, the DRC, and Burundi. Religious extremists still take advantage of the similar socio-cultural backgrounds existing between their countries and those they share borders with to clandestinely spread radical ideologies.

These continental problems that never seem to abate are particularly reflective of a societal gap yearning to be filled. In my view, unless pan-Africanism is given the same place as nationalism, politico-economic trivialities and partisanship will continue to remain the bane of the African society, regardless of any efforts made to remedy the ills of her colonial past.

AFRICAN BORDERS AND THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION: REVISITING THE COLONIAL PAST, Part 1

Posted on April 25, 2016April 26, 2016 by kathiemm

emmanuel image 1 african borders — Figure 1: Nigerian border. Photo by Emmanuel Mbaezue.

By Emmanuel Mbaezue

Once known as the cradle of civilization, endowed with a rich cultural heritage, and a communal style of living that was almost equal to none, Africa’s position in the World was once enviable. The Continent’s conservative but still “uncorrupted” nature allowed her to remain secluded and hidden to the rest of the world for centuries. For some, she was “the unknown world,” and for some others, the Dark Continent, but still in her solitary state, Africa amazingly thrived.

That tranquil and serene environment, and the gradual and peaceful evolution of the Continent, came to an end by decree of the West. In the years 1884-1885, the Continent’s fate was decided by the European powers in Berlin, Germany. Without her consent, an unwilling and un-participating Africa was arbitrarily divided into 53 mostly incompatible units, with little or no cognizance taken of her geo-demographic peculiarities.

Led by Otto Von Bismarck but mostly guided by their economic interests, the Europeans scrambled for the resources in Africa, resources they so desperately needed to feed the industrial revolution in Europe. In the course of all this, Africa not only suffered environmental and physical abuse as vast numbers of slaves and mineral resources forcefully left her shores, she also experienced deep sociological harm.

The arbitrary demarcation of African lands without any respect for its different constituents and cultural landscapes not only led to the forceful fusion of incompatible national groups into single entities and the imposition of artificial boundaries upon them, it also resulted in the distortion of entities that naturally belonged together. By their “divide and rule” system, Europe not only magnified the differentials existent in Africa’s diverse ethnic groups, but also, in some cases, arrogated more powers and privileges to one ethnic group to the detriment of others (as in Rwanda when the Belgians favored the minority Tutsis over the Hutus); thus, Europe set the stage for most of Africa’s bloodiest conflicts.

Mr. Chukwuemeka Emmanuel Mbaezue is a doctoral student of Peace & Conflict Studies, specializing in Boundary & Border Studies, at the University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. He is a co-founder and member of the Border Areas Development Initiative (BADI), a non-governmental organization focusing on the development and security of Nigeria’s northern borders and border communities through education, research, advocacy programs and addressing issues related to forced and undocumented migration. His research area is on the trends and challenges of trans-border radicalization of young people.