Take a look at this picture. Do you know who it is?

Most people haven’t heard of him.

But you should have. When you see his face or hear his name you should get as sick in your stomach as when you read about Mussolini or Hitler or see one of their pictures. You see, he killed over 10 million Africans in the Congo.

His name is King Leopold II of Belgium.

He “owned” the Congo during his reign as the constitutional monarch of Belgium. After several failed colonial attempts in Asia and Africa, he settled on the Congo. He “bought” it and enslaved its people, turning the entire country into his own personal slave plantation. He disguised his “business transactions” as philanthropic and scientific efforts under the banner of the “International African Society”. He used their enslaved labor to extract Congolese resources and services. His reign was enforced through work camps, body mutilations, executions, and his private army.

Most of us - I don’t yet know an approximate percentage but I fear its extremely high - aren’t taught about him in school. We don’t hear about him in the media. He’s not part of the widely repeated narrative of oppression (which includes things like the Holocaust during World War II). He’s part of a long history of colonialism, imperialism, slavery and genocide of the African continent that would clash with the social construction of the white supremacist narrative in our schools. It doesn’t fit neatly into a curriculum which trains young white people to be, as my friend puts it, “little racists”. Its bad to “say racist things”, but quite fine not to talk about African genocides perpetrated by European capitalist monarchs.

Mark Twin wrote a satire about Leopold called “King Leopold’s soliloquy; a defense of his Congo rule“, where he mocked the King’s defense of his reign of terror, largely through Leopold’s own words. Its 49 pages long. Mark Twain is a popular author for American public schools. But like most political authors, we will often read some of their least political writings or read them without learning why the author wrote them (Orwell’s Animal Farm for example serves to re-inforce American anti-Socialist propaganda, but Orwell was an anti-capitalist revolution of a different kind - this is never pointed out). We can read about Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, but King Leopold’s Soliloquy isn’t on the reading list. This isn’t by accident. Reading lists are created by boards of education in order to prepare students to follow orders and endure boredom well. From the point of view of the Education Department, Africans have no history.

When we learn about Africa, we learn about a caricaturized Egypt, about the HIV epidemic (but never its causes), about the surface level effects of the slave trade, and maybe about South African Apartheid. We also see lots of pictures of starving children on Christian Ministry commercials, we see safaris on Animal shows, and we see pictures of deserts in films and movies. But we don’t learn about the Great African War or Leopold’s Reign of Terror during the Congolese Genocide. Nor do we learn about what the United States has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, potentially killing in upwards of 5-7 million people from bombs, sanctions, disease and starvation. Body counts are important. And we don’t count Afghans, Iraqis, or Congolese.

There’s a Wikipedia page called “Genocides in History”. The Congolese Genocide isn’t included. The Congo is mentioned though. What’s now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo is listed in reference to the Second Congo War (also called Africa’s World War and the Great War of Afirca), where both sides of the multinational conflict hunted down Bambenga and ate them. Cannibalism and slavery are horrendous evils which must be entered into history and talked about for sure, but I couldn’t help thinking who’s interests were served when the only mention of the Congo on the page was in reference to multi-national incidents where Africans were eating each other (completely devoid of the conditions which created the conflict no less). Stories which support the white supremacist narrative about the subhumanness of Africans are allowed to be entered into the records of history. The white guy who turned the Congo into his own personal part-plantation, part-concentration camp, part-Christian ministry and killed 10 to 15 million Conglese people in the process doesn’t make the cut.

You see, when you kill ten million Africans, you aren’t called ‘Hitler’. That is, your name doesn’t come to symbolize the living incarnation of Lucifer. Your name and your picture doesn’t produce fear, hatred, and sorrow. Your victims aren’t talked about and your name isn’t remembered.

Leopold was just one part of thousands of things that helped construct white supremacy as both an ideological narrative and material reality. Of course I don’t want to pretend that in the Congo he was the source of all evil. He had generals, and foot soldiers, and managers who did his bidding and enforced his laws. It was a system. But this don’t negate the need to talk about the individuals who are symbolic of the system. But we don’t even get that. And since it isn’t talked about, all the privileges that white people gained from the Congolese genocide is hidden. Privilege is made, like usual, invisible.

If you haven’t heard of Leopold, its because of white supremacy.

I’d like to direct people’s attention to two on-going issues currently being discussed in California. The first is the battle to overturn Proposition 8, the homophobic initiative which was meant to end marriage equality in California. The second is efforts to embrace a sane approach to drugs and legalize marijuana statewide.

There is a very good argument to be made that if Proposition 8 is overturned and marijuana is legalized, that similar efforts might succeed in other states. For example, while other big states like New York have yet to legalize same sex marriage, they have passes measures saying they will recognize marriages from other states that do allow them. A victory for marriage equality in California will send ripples throughout the country and be a significant blow to the rightwing cultural agenda. It will be, similar to the Obama campaigns shift away from overtly oppressive and demonizing language, a significant blow to patriarchy in the United States - both culturally and institutionally.

Similarly, the legalization marijuana will be a significant win in the battle against racism and elite cultural supremacy. Over 60,000 marijuana arrests were made in 2001, over 60% of them being of people of color. Lowering this number essentially to zero (taking into account that some of those arrests probably had other charges as well), would be a tangible win that all progressives and anti-racists should celebrate. Like the precedent that would be set by overturning Proposition 8, it would undoubtedly being a cultural and institutional shift around the country.

Race will play a significant role in both struggles. Undoubtedly the Right will wage a racist campaign to prevent the legalization of marijuana and other substances. Progressives will need to position themselves to counter these claims and lies. Specifically, our message must be positive, accessible, and relevant if we are to overcome the rightwing anti-drug narrative.

The marriage equality movement will also need to transcend reactionary myths around the racial character of the “Yes on Prop 8″ vote. Intentionally planted and promoted by the Right, they would like nothing more than to see white advocates of marriage equality attack people of color who might be neutral or passive opponents on the question instead of reaching out to move them leftward and speaking to their progressive values on other issues. They would love to see a white-dominated anti-prop 8 movement which ignores, alienates, and refuses to elevate the voices of LGBT people of color. And finally, the Right would love to see a LGBT rights movement which sees marriage equality as its only issue, which ignores larger issues of patriarchy, heterosexism, and transphobia. Only justice-minded progressives, well-trained in messaging, effective strategy, and a vision of a post-patriarchal society can lead this movement in the direction it has to go. Will they take up the charge?

Over all I’m quite excited. While I haven’t heard enough about either issue to have any reasonable guess about where they’ll go, I’ll blog more on this issue as things develop.

Pakistan is pronouced “Pahk-ee-stahn”, or so my Pakistani friends have consistently told me. Tonight during the debate, Barack Obama correctly pronouced the country’s name.

In case you aren’t familiar with the process, after every presidential debates, one of the types of experts that give their analysis are “body language experts”. They tell you how each candidates’ body and verbal language might be received by voters.

After today’s debate, one such “expert”, Lillian Glass, a (white) body language analyst from Beverly Hills, gave her opinion on the Senator’s language. The LA Times reported that:

“She also thought his inflection might be a turn-off to some voters. “He’d say, ‘Pahk-ee-stahn,’ or ‘Tolly-bahn.’ You need to say Pakistan and Taliban like everyone else [sic].”"

Of course she’s probably right. Obama’s inflection might be a “turn-off” to some voters. The major issue is that the implications of Glass’s comment - namely issues of race and racism - weren’t brought up, as has been reguarly the case in this election. There was no question of who would be “turn[ed]-off”, and more importantly, who would be turned-off if he purposefully mispronouced “Pakistan” in his public appearances.

Jason Linkins of the Huffinton Post made a similar comment, throwing homophobia into the mix (because, I mean, why not?), comparing Obama’s inflection to marching in a Leather Pride Parade. (Really now?):

“10:10 - Jason Linkins: Obama hasn’t gotten the memo from every right-wing blog in the universe that pronouncing the word “Pakistan” PAHK-ee-STAHN is the dialectical equivalent of spreading arugula on your body and marching in the Folsom Street Fair.”

Will Obama change his inflection? We can only wait and see. He hasn’t thus far. But we can’t predict the future. We can prepare to call him out on his obvious BS if he does purposefully shift his inflection. And more importantly, we can call out the types of people who bring up such non-issues.

Obama is widening his lead over McCain. Every move McCain has been making is costing him more votes. Obama is playing a near-perfect game. States like New Hampshire are going from the “toss up” category, to “lean Obama”. States like North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri are going from “lean Mccain”, to “toss up”. Most of the swing states are leaning towards Obama - states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia. Even states like Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia are no longer “safe” for McCain. They only lean his way.

Unless something drastic happens, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. The political context of Glass’s and Linkins’s comments makes them even more disturbing. They aren’t suggesting that Obama needs to use racist language in order to win the White House (not that that would make it any less repulsive). They’re just saying it just because that’s what traditional electoral strategy “wisdom” says, despite the fact that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide of over 364 electoral votes (you need 270). But (white) voters get turned off by non-English words. Best to appease them and be safe the pundits say.

We can do better I think. We’ll see what happens at Hofstra.

White people fear not! You can watch the news, and despite hearing from dozens of (mostly white) Americans who are in deep financial trouble, they will attempt to slightly calm your mood by showing the arrest of one or more people of color at the end of the broadcast. Because its when we enter crisis that people start thinking more - for better or worst - and if they’re questioning capitalism, you certainly can’t have them questioning the white power structure as well.

(For the record I was watching CBS news tonight.)

Hey folks,

This is a vitally important contribution to the conversation on building long-lasting, sustainable movements that are about togetherness and liberation, instead of inequity, biogtry, prejudices, and divisiveness. Check out this pamphlet:

The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere: Making Resistance to Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements
http://www.pinteleyid.com/past/
A 32-page pamphlet for activists by April Rosenblum

Chris Crass, an organizer from The Catalyst Project says:

“In order to build powerful movements we must take on antisemitism as what it is: a divide-and-rule strategy that has served to maintain ruling classes, conceal who actually has power, and confuse us about the real systems of oppression that pit us against one another. … Rosenblum’s pamphlet needs to be studied and the lessons applied.”

Spread it around too!