did he make the foreword to it?
This is gonna sound harsh but if one's born in Africa and born to South Asian, Lebanese, East Asian, Jewish parents etc., due to some legacy of colonial political economy, more likely than not, you might have to check if they were there merely as laborers or actually as colonial middlemen, between the relatively most oppressed local peoples and the direct oppressors themselves.
That ain't just me talking, I recall Walter Rodney talk of this
A peasant growing a cash crop or collecting produce had his labor exploited by a long chain of individuals, starting with local businessmen. Sometimes, those local businessmen were Europeans. Very rarely were they Africans, and more usually they were a minority group brought in from outside and serving as intermediaries between the white colonialists and the exploited African peasant. In West Africa, the Lebanese and Syrians played this role; while in East Africa the Indians rose to this position. Arabs were also in the middleman category in Zanzibar and a few other places on the East African coast.
Cash-crop peasants never had any capital of their own. They existed from one crop to another, depending on good harvests and good prices. Any bad harvest or fall of prices caused the peasants to borrow in order to find money to pay taxes and buy certain necessities. As security, they mortgaged their future crops to moneylenders in the middleman category. Non-payment of debts could and did lead to their farms being taken away by the moneylenders. The rate of interest on the loans was always fantastically high, amounting to what is known as "usury." In East Africa, things were so bad that even the British colonial government had to step in and enact a "Native Credit Ordinance" to protect Africans from Asian businessmen.
However, in spite of some minor clashes between the colonialists and the middlemen, the two were part and parcel of the same apparatus of exploitation. On the whole, the Lebanese and Indians did the smaller jobs which Europeans could not be bothered with. They owned things such as cotton gins which separated the seed from the lint, while of course Europeans concentrated on the cotton mills in Europe. The middlemen also went out to the villages, while Europeans liked to stay in towns. In the villages, the Indians and Lebanese took over virtually all buying and selling, channeling most of the profits back to Europeans in the towns and those overseas.
Trading companies also had their own means of transport inside Africa, such as motor vessels and trucks. But usually they transferred the burden of transport costs on to the peasant via the Lebanese or Indian middlemen. Those capitalist companies held the African farmer in a double squeeze by controlling the price paid for the crop and by controlling the price of imported goods such as tools, clothing, and bicycles to which peasants aspired.
Part of the explanation for the lack of African capitalists in Africa lies in the arrival of minority groups who had no local family ties which could stand in the way of the ruthless primary accumulation which capitalism requires. Lebanese, Syrian, Greek, and Indian businessmen rose from the ranks of petty traders to become minor and sometimes substantial capitalists. Names like Raeeah and Leventis were well known in West Africa, just as names like Madhvani and Visram became well known as capitalists in East Africa.
There were clashes between the middlemen and the European colonialists, but the latter much preferred to encourage the minorities rather than see Africans build themselves up. For instance, in West Africa, the businessmen from Sierra Leone were discouraged both in their own colony and in other British possessions where they chose to settle. In East Africa, there was hope among Ugandans in particular that they might acquire cotton gins and perform some capitalist functions connected with cotton growing and other activities. However, when in 1920, a Development Commission was appointed to promote commerce and industry, it favored firstly Europeans and then Indians. Africans were prohibited by legislation from owning gins.
The settler colony of Algeria displayed similar characteristics. Only 20 percent of the secondary pupils in 1954 were denoted as "Muslims," which meant in effect "Algerian" as distinct from European. Other minorities also did better than the indigenous population. For instance, the Jews in North Africa and especially in Tunisia played the middlemen roles, and their children were all educated right up to secondary standards.
Uh, closest class traitor Engels I can get is Neville Roy Singham - he's pretty pro-China, a patron of the PSL, ANSWER Coalition, and husband of Jodie Evans, who helped found Code Pink
In a world full of Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, Koch Brother networks, George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation, he's an ok guy
rest well, shahid Saleem Al-Ashqar, and others like you
death to Pissrael, free Filastin!
It's merely the subtitles but here it is on tankie.tube. Note that only part 1 and 2 are finished, so beyond 1:22:00 there are no subs yet.
Huh I heard of this... I haven't looked further into it.
Italians and other immigrants long persecuted by the Anglo majority fought alongside the Jews.
Something about WASPs not even liking foreign peoples that were only recently considered white. And that was one of the more whiter times.
Huh, orientalism to add to their racism, alongside antiziganism, antisemitism, and so on.
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11640811
By Vladimir Like Mint
By Vladimir Like Mint
view more: next ›
whistles Aquarela Do Brasil