the 20th century witnessed numerous anti-colonial movements where oppressed peoples fought for independence and self-determination against colonial powers. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi in India, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam mobilized their populations to challenge colonial rule, often facing brutal repression. These struggles were rooted in the belief that self-determination was essential for achieving justice and equality. Accepting a narrative that diminishes the importance of such movements would have likely stifled these liberation efforts and perpetuated colonial oppression.
The contrast between Western revolutions that empowered people against divine authority and the imposition of change by authoritarian rulers in the Muslim world highlights significant differences in how power is derived and exercised. While Western societies have historically moved toward popular sovereignty through grassroots movements, many Muslim-majority countries have experienced top-down reforms that often lack legitimacy and popular support. This disparity has led to complex dynamics where local populations resist imposed changes while seeking authentic representation that aligns with their cultural and religious identities.
A Call to Action: Unifying Against Neo-Colonialism and Reclaiming Our Heritage 🌍🔥
As I reflect on the recent return of 297 few months ago, and now over 1400 antiquities from the US to India, worth millions of dollars 💸, I'm reminded of the urgent need for a unified Pan-African response against neo-colonialism 🚫.
The legacy of colonialism continues to afflict African nations, perpetuating inequality and disenfranchisement 🤕. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85, which carved up Africa for colonial exploitation, established a racialized framework of private ownership that ring-fenced resources for colonial powers 🔒.
It's time for us to come together and demand restorative justice, sovereignty, and sustainable development 🌈. We must develop a robust protocol for the AU Charter on Human and People's Rights, establishing minimum standards for engagement with former colonial powers 📜.
Read the full story on the US returning antiquities to India: [ https://cnn.it/3Ay4EAN] 📰
Let's unite in our pursuit of justice and equality ✊️. Share your thoughts and let's continue the conversation! 💬
#PanAfricanism#PostColonialAfrica#RestorativeJustice#Sovereignty#SustainableDevelopment#AfricanUnity#Decolonization#Reparations#HeritageRecovery#CulturalPreservation#EconomicEmpowerment#SocialJustice#HumanRights 🌎💖
Historical realities and backstory. The pursuit of and maintenance of Empire has always led to the loss of them. For the imperial impulse has sown when it the very seeds of its destruction in innumerable evils and corruptions born of avarice and hubris. Thus is the irony of empires. For they all make the very mistakes and commit the same evils which set them upon a path to oblivion. If you wish to break this pattern you must learn from both your own personal ways seeing them as they are in all their mixtures of corruptive proclivities, vulnerabilities and propensity for self deception. Hence why the light of the truth is necessary to reveal to you what you could not see in yourself nor around you without it. For in this you are granted the vision to see what is and what is not and what has been and what can be and what will be if humility and courage does not reign supreme in the hearts and minds of the leaders and people alike.
As for people so too for the nation.
Othniel Max Daves
The ban on slavery in the colonies introduced during the revolution was rescinded under Napoleon. When he entered parliament in 1839, Tocqueville was appointed rapporteur to the committee established to abolish slavery again. His report, submitted within two months, proposed abolition as of 1853 and was a compromise that went far to appeasing the colonial lobby.
While slaveholders would receive compensation for their loss of property, the former slaves – some 250,000 in the West Indies – remained deprived of all means of production. They were banned from buying land for a fixed period of time. The transformation of this enslaved contingent into a landless proletariat was intended to turn them into bonded labourers. The decision confirmed that the propertied class required a subaltern class kept firmly dispossessed to secure an adequate pool of labour which would continue to work at the lowest possible price. Tocqueville was equally disparaging about the working class of his own nation as he had been about its colonial subjects. This set his declaration of the fundamental universality of the human race at odds with the enduring domination of the overwhelming majority by a small minority, whether within or beyond the boundaries of the nation state.
Colonial expansion was founded on the permanent domination of the conquered lands and peoples. At least, as long as resistance to deprivation of the right to self-determination could be repressed. That was the purpose of the dividing line between the dominating and the dominated race. For Tocqueville, stringent segregation was the perfect way to consolidate the exercise of colonial power in Algeria. He expressed his admiration for how a handful of Englishmen held the entire population of South Asia locked up in their power from a distance. Such despotism was incompatible with the universal validity of the liberal order he aspired to achieve. This paradox could be negated, or at least extenuated, with the argument that the superiority of one group and the inferiority of the other was due to lacking development rather than exclusion. I conclude that the democracy that Tocqueville held dear did not extend beyond the propertied classes of the supreme white race.
His avowed determination to achieve emancipation for all and sundry collapsed in its denial in political practice. The onslaught of imperialism meant that, by the turn of the century, the doctrine of racial inequality had become respectable wide and far. It is difficult to argue persuasively that Tocqueville resisted this retrogressive mindset intellectually and politically. His version of liberalism denied freedom and equality to the lion’s share of humanity, which remained excluded from both fundamental rights. His judgement on the colonial question was in no way different to his reactionary perspective on the social question both within and beyond the borders of his homeland.
434p 2024
Amsterdam University Press
https://lnkd.in/g6hJgE4B
My latest for South Asia Times, in which I argued that: From rising religious #extremism to widening wealth gaps, India's democracy grapples with complex challenges. Will the world's largest #democracy overcome these threats and remain a beacon of secularism?
The survival of democracy and equality requires a choice between preserving religious, and ethnic diversity, and rejecting the forces that cause disharmony.
Read more 👇🏼
https://lnkd.in/gF_pzuDZ
The ban on slavery in the colonies introduced during the revolution was rescinded under Napoleon. When he entered parliament in 1839, Tocqueville was appointed rapporteur to the committee established to abolish slavery again. His report, submitted within two months, proposed abolition as of 1853 and was a compromise that went far to appeasing the colonial lobby.
While slaveholders would receive compensation for their loss of property, the former slaves – some 250,000 in the West Indies – remained deprived of all means of production. They were banned from buying land for a fixed period of time. The transformation of this enslaved contingent into a landless proletariat was intended to turn them into bonded labourers. The decision confirmed that the propertied class required a subaltern class kept firmly dispossessed to secure an adequate pool of labour which would continue to work at the lowest possible price. Tocqueville was equally disparaging about the working class of his own nation as he had been about its colonial subjects. This set his declaration of the fundamental universality of the human race at odds with the enduring domination of the overwhelming majority by a small minority, whether within or beyond the boundaries of the nation state.
Colonial expansion was founded on the permanent domination of the conquered lands and peoples. At least, as long as resistance to deprivation of the right to self-determination could be repressed. That was the purpose of the dividing line between the dominating and the dominated race. For Tocqueville, stringent segregation was the perfect way to consolidate the exercise of colonial power in Algeria. He expressed his admiration for how a handful of Englishmen held the entire population of South Asia locked up in their power from a distance. Such despotism was incompatible with the universal validity of the liberal order he aspired to achieve. This paradox could be negated, or at least extenuated, with the argument that the superiority of one group and the inferiority of the other was due to lacking development rather than exclusion. I conclude that the democracy that Tocqueville held dear did not extend beyond the propertied classes of the supreme white race.
His avowed determination to achieve emancipation for all and sundry collapsed in its denial in political practice. The onslaught of imperialism meant that, by the turn of the century, the doctrine of racial inequality had become respectable wide and far. It is difficult to argue persuasively that Tocqueville resisted this retrogressive mindset intellectually and politically. His version of liberalism denied freedom and equality to the lion’s share of humanity, which remained excluded from both fundamental rights. His judgement on the colonial question was in no way different to his reactionary perspective on the social question both within and beyond the borders of his homeland.
434p 2024
Amsterdam University Press
https://lnkd.in/g6hJgE4B
#Great#Read: “Colonialism, Capitalism and Racism. A Postcolonial Chronicle of Dutch and Belgian Practice” by Jan Breman.
For a long time, Europe’s colonizing powers justified their urge for expansion with the conviction that they were ‘bringing civilization to territories where civilization was lacking.’ This doctrine of white superiority and indigenous inferiority was accompanied by a boundless exploitation of local labor.
Under colonial rule, the ideology that later became known as neoliberalism was free to subject labor to a capitalism tainted by racialized policies. This political economy has now become dominant in the Western world, too, and has reversed the trend towards equality.
In Colonialism, Capitalism and Racism, Jan Breman shows how racial favoritism is no longer contained to ‘faraway, indigenous peoples,’ but has become a source of polarization within Western societies as well.
#WortToRead#LibroRecomendado
The ban on slavery in the colonies introduced during the revolution was rescinded under Napoleon. When he entered parliament in 1839, Tocqueville was appointed rapporteur to the committee established to abolish slavery again. His report, submitted within two months, proposed abolition as of 1853 and was a compromise that went far to appeasing the colonial lobby.
While slaveholders would receive compensation for their loss of property, the former slaves – some 250,000 in the West Indies – remained deprived of all means of production. They were banned from buying land for a fixed period of time. The transformation of this enslaved contingent into a landless proletariat was intended to turn them into bonded labourers. The decision confirmed that the propertied class required a subaltern class kept firmly dispossessed to secure an adequate pool of labour which would continue to work at the lowest possible price. Tocqueville was equally disparaging about the working class of his own nation as he had been about its colonial subjects. This set his declaration of the fundamental universality of the human race at odds with the enduring domination of the overwhelming majority by a small minority, whether within or beyond the boundaries of the nation state.
Colonial expansion was founded on the permanent domination of the conquered lands and peoples. At least, as long as resistance to deprivation of the right to self-determination could be repressed. That was the purpose of the dividing line between the dominating and the dominated race. For Tocqueville, stringent segregation was the perfect way to consolidate the exercise of colonial power in Algeria. He expressed his admiration for how a handful of Englishmen held the entire population of South Asia locked up in their power from a distance. Such despotism was incompatible with the universal validity of the liberal order he aspired to achieve. This paradox could be negated, or at least extenuated, with the argument that the superiority of one group and the inferiority of the other was due to lacking development rather than exclusion. I conclude that the democracy that Tocqueville held dear did not extend beyond the propertied classes of the supreme white race.
His avowed determination to achieve emancipation for all and sundry collapsed in its denial in political practice. The onslaught of imperialism meant that, by the turn of the century, the doctrine of racial inequality had become respectable wide and far. It is difficult to argue persuasively that Tocqueville resisted this retrogressive mindset intellectually and politically. His version of liberalism denied freedom and equality to the lion’s share of humanity, which remained excluded from both fundamental rights. His judgement on the colonial question was in no way different to his reactionary perspective on the social question both within and beyond the borders of his homeland.
434p 2024
Amsterdam University Press
https://lnkd.in/g6hJgE4B
How can biased and American leadership having less conscience about India's civilization be authorised to speak against India, The Mother of Democracy?
Is biased & unconscious American leadership authorized to speak on India's strong political, societal & religious fabric?
Who authorized less conscious American positions to say word on constitutional wellbeing & parliamentary mechanism which is democratically recognized by Billions of Indians, and decision taken by highest Executive Council?
Who authorized less conscious & politically biased American positions, when their own party & political leadership is seeing leadership crisis & turmoil and not able to take constitutional decisions for their own people as well in foreign policies under International framework?
Who sanctioned politically appointed positions under their Presidential System, who is electorally unrecognised, to say word on Prime Ministerial System where everyone is electorally recognised
Who sanctioned American positions, whose biased reports are not even internationally recognized under International framework?
Who sanctioned American positions when their own country is facing leadership crisis and everyone is trying to becoming a power centre, resulting in collapse of conscious & constitutional development in their own country as well blunder in foreign policies that has cost the whole world due to Ukraine crisis & Middle East crisis, where different region's people are being seen in discrimination on religious, language & racial ground, and as per their own selfish interests to earn from the World's crisis as a bruised business, vote bank consideration & strategically corrupt system to remain at place?
Have they taken themselves granted for recognising Khalistan's Terrorism & illegal religious conversion racket in India under the guise of minority rights to think themselves above Indian Constitution where they unconstitutionally support India's non-ruling coalition based on vote bank consideration that is facing criticism from India, Russia and various countries based on their stances?
Om Namaha Sivay 🙏
Calling Bhartiya Upmahadwip as South Asia & calling West Asia as Middle East is symbolism of Colonial Slavery.
Catch all the colonial slave Experts in media & force them to decolonise.
#Decolonisation continues
14th April, 2024 Bharat's statement on West Asia
https://lnkd.in/dnTkZwPC
West Asia is how we call the region from Asia's viewpoint. The west calls the region as Middle-east because to them it is towards the East.
Very important to rectify the mistake of how we look at the Map.