Imperialism by invitation

By Onwubiko Agozino

 

Imperialism by invitation is a common sign of neocolonialism under phantom bourgeois rulers. Maybe the US will invite Africa to come and strike their domestic terrorists too and Americans will not applaud such a foreign intervention at home no matter what for. 

 

If it is the abundant gold deposits in Northwest Nigeria that Trump is greedy for, he does not need to bomb Nigeria to get some for his family. If he wants to buy oil from the South East and Niger Delta, all he needs to do is place orders at fair market prices. There is no need for gangsterism by invitation, Africans are ready to sell their produce to interested buyers, we will not eat the gold nor drink the oil.

 

There is probably more killing of Christians in the US than in Nigeria and there is definitely more kidnapping in the US than in the whole of Africa. Kidnappings per Country 2025 Data pertaining to the number of people kidnapped around the world, sorted by the country in which the kidnapping took place... 

 

There is no example of the defeat of terrorism through militarism. All the armed conflicts in the world tend to be settled through dialogue around a conference table - Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, South Africa, Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leon, Liberia, Rwanda, Columbia, Northern Ireland, Ukraine, you name it. On the contrary, everywhere the US intervenes militarily, tends to be ruined back to the stone age. 

 

The solution towards silencing the guns, according to AU, is to recognize the militants as legitimate political parties. Let them run for office nonviolently in line with the African philosophy of Ubuntu, and if they win a local government area or a state or country, let them govern without corruption to show that they can govern better than the corrupt politicians and war mongers. 

 

Let there be gender parity is all offices; and let there be ranches where the cattle will be kept and food and water brought to them instead of fighting feudal wars over land at a time that the economy is evolving into an industrial one that depends on knowledge and not on land ownership. Defund the military and invest in education, agriculture, housing, roads, hospitals, technology, sports, arts, and culture.

 

Let the African states that committed genocide against their own citizens apologize to the victimized and offer reparative justice. Let Africans erase the colonial boundaries for a united States of Africa or the Peoples Republic of Africa. Never again should any republic of ants try to swallow the African elephant without facing insecticides. 

 

Donald Trump pardoned those who attacked law makers and law enforcement officers, he has no business bombing fishermen in the Caribbean and African youth - al Shabab - even if some Caribbean or African crooks invited him to do so in order to protect them while they loot the economies. Yes, Africa needs help from friends. What we need to see in Africa are more books and not bombs.

 

Down with imperialism! Down with recolonization! Decolonization Forever! 

 

Dr. Agozino is a Professor of Sociology and Africana Studies, Virginia Tech.

My 'Stupid' Hypothesis

MY ‘STUPID, CRAZY, INSANE AND DUMB HYPOTHESIS’ ABOUT RACISM AND TERRORISM

By Biko Agozino

Have you heard the news from the BBC that one of the Boston Bombers was influenced by right wing white supremacist literature and that he was heard to have said that ‘Hitler had a point’? When I hypothesized that there appeared to be a link between that act of terror and racism, a white male senior professor of literature called the hypothesis ‘crazy’ on an African internet discussion group and a Nigerian school administrator who fancies himself as an ‘intellectual’ joined him in attacking a straw man on that newsgroup, claiming that he did not see the hypothesized link between x and y or between racism and terrorism. They could be forgiven because in their line of work, they may never have stated or tested a hypothesis according to the logic of social research.

More seriously, the editor of the newsletter of a professional association of black scholars in May called for articles on campus climates following the Boston bombing and I immediately sent a report of the responses (below) to my hypothesis. The report was accepted for publication with the offer by the editor to reproduce my original blog but when the issue of the newsletter appeared in July, my report was not included and no explanation was offered. I wonder what the colleagues will say now about this BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23541341

A senior white male professor also called my office number on 4/29/13 with heavy breathing. He immediately told me that he thought that my blog post about the Boston Bombing was ‘dumb, stupid, a waste of time’, etc. I thanked him for his time and reminded him that it was only a hypothesis.

After he dropped the phone, I decided to send him an email thanking him again for his time and this email chain ensued. I have only deleted his name and field of specialization for anonymity but the rest of the email exchange is left intact so readers can advise me whether I handled this exchange very well. To read the original hypothesis, please go to: http://massliteracy.blogspot.com/2013/04/racist-motive-of-boston-bombers.html

“Dear colleague,

Thanks for taking time off your busy schedule to discuss my blog post in my office today (4/29/13).

Although you strongly disagree with the original hypothesis which you called crazy, insane, dumb and stupid, I appreciate that you found the time to share your feelings about it.

It is only a hypothesis and if the null hypothesis is supported by the evidence or the original is confirmed, there will be no hard feelings on my part because they are just hypotheses.

Your strong emotional response, however, tells me that I am on to something with the hypothesis that there is a relationship between racism and terrorism and so I may investigate it more broadly. Please check the updated blog post for a NYT linked article that appears to support my original hunch.

As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts and especially for telling me that you consider me a serious scholar.”

Senior Colleague responds instantly:

“I agree that there is a big connection between terrorism and racism, but just not the specific link that you posit. The interpretation that you make is implausible on its face, and it is not falsifiable. Pursuing such an argument is, I believe, correctly described, in the vernacular, as I did. However my description of your argument as crazy, insate, dumb, etc., was not a scientific statement. It did however, use epithets that improperly stereotype the mentally ill, and that was unfortunate.

I read the NY Times article, and it does not contain evidence that your position is correct. Neither does the SALON article that you cite.

I have no hard feelings. When someone who I consider a serious scholar makes a bad argument, I cannot help but respond. I have done that my whole career. In addition, I always respond approvingly to good, solid arguments and to real achievements. In this case, I think this hunch is a real waste of time. Responding in person is not, however. Responding publicly would be gratuitously negative, would take too much time, and would lend legitimacy to the argument."

My response to colleague

“Okay …, but you appear to be falsifying what you just called the 'unfalsifiable' hypothesis. It is more of a question at this stage and not a full argument. The investigation may serve to confirm the null hypothesis in the end. But if the link exists generally as you say, it is not a waste if time to investigate if there is such a link in this specific case. The policy implications are huge enough to encourage us to explore the hunch further. You are of course welcome to disagree.”

Colleague’s response:

“I disagree and do not have much more to say about it. If it falsifiable, say how. Otherwise it is not worth our attention. Affirming the racism terrorism link does not legitimate your argument about the bombing. It is just an off the wall argument unless you can provide more than wild speculation. “

My response:

“Thanks …, I will agree to disagree with you without being disagreeable. I have never seen such an emotional response to a hypothesis as you display. You say that your choice of language is 'unscientific' and stereotypical of insanity but I have no idea why. It is just a hypothesis, calm down and let us hope that the evidence will support the null hypothesis: There is no relationship between x and y. I have no dog in that fight, as Vick would say.”

Colleague:

“I am passionate about the seriousness of what we do. And I can't stand nonsence posing as scholarly or reasoned discourse. And I especially do not think that anybody gets a pass just because they have a degree, position, etc. If it is my nextdoor neighbor, I couldn't care less. When I get old, I will not care anymore about this stuff. But as for now, I will be as reactive about the next piece of unreason as about this one.

p.s. the words "crazy" and "insane" used as I did are epithets and have no place in a serious discussion, and that is why I described my use of them as unfortunate. However, they were accurate in the context of everyday speech, which I should have stayed away from. “

My response:

“Thanks … for your courtesy. Nonsense to you does not mean nonsense to me, fortunately for us all. It is only a hypothesis that you are fuming about, get a grip. Just write a serious rejoinder without your 'unfortunate' choice of words and let us explore the variables further. Supported or rejected by empirical evidence, hypotheses do not deserve so much emotion from a serious … scholar like you.”

Colleague:

“You are allowed to diagnose me, but I can tell you that I am really ok, and you should not worry.

Nonsense is nonsense. I do not like it, and I say so. End of story. Your argument is not worth any more of my time, and it would legitimate a nonsensical argument for me to write a rejoinder. There is no benefit in me thinking about it anymore. I have reacted to you privately, and that is all I plan to do. “

Me:

“Thanks again …. No diagnosis on my part. I guess that I am the one who is a little crazy and 'if you walk a mile in my shoes, you will be crazy too with nothing to lose' (Tupac's nonsense). Your nonsense is not mine. End of discussion. See how much valuable time we have spent talking about nonsense? It must make sense enough for such investment of valuable time. Have a good day. I am off to write more stuff that will probably make no sense to you. No apologies. I can't say that I understand everything you write but I respect your right to write them and I do not think that they are insane.”

The next day, I received in my mail box from an anonymous person, a copy of Belinda’s ‘Gaia’ and wondered if it was some kind of apology, but it might just be a coincidence. The English translation that accompanied the Spanish verse says in part:

‘There is no progress in my pride,

I stained the air and my conscience,

I thought I was greater than God with

My intelligence,

So many false vanities,

I forgot what was important

And I was never the owner of your

Rightful inheritance’

Dr. Agozino is a Professor of Sociology and Africana Studies, Virginia Tech and the Chair of the Social Policy Committee, Association of Black Sociologists. agozino@vt.edu

Racist Motive of Boston Bombers?

By Biko Agozino

Why did the Boston Bombers target the finish line of the Boston Marathon? Perhaps, because the winners were most likely to be people of African descent! In the process, they killed three spectators and later executed a campus police officer but none of the dead was exactly an African even though one of the bombers carefully selected a spot with lots of Africans, in the picture on the right below, to plant his pressure-cooker bomb. The video footage of the first blast shows that it went off coincidentally just as a black-looking runner was passing but he appeared to have been unhurt. That is how racism works – it is a danger to everyone and not a problem for only those who are targeted because, as Bob Marley put it, ‘When the rain falls, it won’t fall on one man’s housetop.’

The Boston Bombers came from a violently racist Russia. Simply Google ‘Racism in Russia’ and you will find the most disgusting news items including one about a young man who distributed a video online about the execution of a Muslim by Neo-Nazis and only got one year sentence to a labor camp while the convicted executioners got only 10 years in labor camps. A few years ago Putin reacted to a comment that Russians and Africans have a lot in common by protesting vehemently that Russians were not cannibals. Surprise, surprise, just Google ‘Russian Cannibal’ and you will see the news of a former school teacher who cooked up a storm of human flesh for food. African university students in Russia were recently asked to be moved away from their hostel near a summer camp because the officials feared that they may rape the children.

That is the kind of country where the Boston Bombers were born and partly raised. They fled from war and violence there with their family to come to the US a mere decade ago. In Russia, Caucasus people like them are routinely targeted by the Neo-Nazi’s for elimination perhaps in reaction to the violent Chechen war against Russians since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I hypothesize that this background could help to explain why they targeted the Boston Marathon and as is the case with all hypotheses, this one might be wrong. 

There is a theory by bell hooks that one way many immigrants try to assimilate into white America is often by buying into the racism against African Americans. Joan Walsh concurs in her April 22 Salon.com column: 'Embracing racism and xenophobia, sadly, could be a shortcut to white status for previously non-white European immigrants.' This is not an argument against immigration but a testimony that racism is a problem for the entire society and not just for the targeted groups, calling for all to be committed against racism in all its manifestations.

What does racism have to do with the Boston Bombing? The two brothers came to the US and chose to specialize in sporting events that are dominated by black people. The older brother chose to become a boxer and the younger brother chose to become an athlete. Maybe they hoped to become the great white hope to beat black people in the events where they remain dominant Just as Hitler refused to shake the hand of Olympic gold-medalist, Jesse Owens, and also hoped against hope that Joe Louis would lose to Max Schmeling twice and thereby affirm the discredited Nazi ideology of white supremacy. Maybe the Boston Bombers hoped to qualify for the London Olympics and thereby win acceptance as honorary white Americans but blamed their failure on African American athletes. I wrote this on April 22 and on April 27, the New York Times confirmed my hypothesis in a detailed report.

 

Their problem may be that they did not stand much chance competing with a strong pool of African Americans in boxing and tracks. As the racist saying goes, they might have been going about complaining that they would have made it to the Olympics if not for those black sportsmen. So the big brother got radicalized quickly around the time of the conclusion of the Olympics trials in the US where he and his kid brother probably got their behinds whooped by world class performers. Lawrence O'Donnel reported on April 23 that the elder brother got suspended from his Boston Mosque after he disrupted a Martin Luther King Jr Day lecture by heckling the speaker for saying that Martin Luther King Jr was a prophet.

If indeed the hypothesis that the Boston Bombers were motivated by racism is supported by sufficient evidence, it should serve as a lesson to everyone that racism does not affect only the targeted group. One of the Boston Bombers is already dead and the other is on life-support possibly as direct victims of their own racial hatred. Timothy McVeigh killed a dozen black children or so but the vast majority of his victims were white. Hitler set out to find the final solution to the Jewish question and in the process wasted the lives of nearly 20 million Germans.

The Boston Bombers may have dreamed of finding the final solution to the domination of their chosen sports by people of African descent. This does not make every Chechen a threat given that the uncle of the Boston bombers denounced his nephews. It only goes to call for broad coalitions against racism even among immigrants because the cancer of racism affects everyone in the end. The media should also be more vigilant against racism instead of burying their talking heads in the sand and pretending that racism has nothing to do with the Boston bombings while the dots are there to be connected past the initial racial profiling of the suspect as a 'dark skinned man in a hoodie'.

As Series Editor of the Ashgate Publishers Interdisciplinary Research Series in Ethnic, Gender, and Class Relations, I wrote the following in 2001 (but before 9/11) as my Series Editor’s Preface to The Globalization of Terrorism by Ihekwoaba Onwudiwe:

‘I was intrigued by Dr. Onwudiwe’s use of World System Theory (WST) to explain global terrorism and we discussed his work as an African resident of San Diego offered to give us a ride across to Tijuana in Mexico before our departure. On that trip, evidence of the WST was everywhere before us. For example, there was no immigration check on the Mexico side where the poorer government was only too glad to have us come and spend our welcome dollars in their economy. However, on our return to San Diego that day, the queue to the border control was very long and when we eventually got there, the uniformed official checked the identity papers of the five Africans in the Mercedes Benz car but not those of the only Caucasian who was with us. This omission occupied us in discussion as to whether it was a simple error by a tired official or whether it was an indication of the racial profiling characteristic of the World System that treated individuals perceived to be peripheral with more suspicion than individuals perceived to be core. For all you know, the white guy could have been a rebel from Albania or Chechnya sneaking into the US while some of the Africans quizzed were actually American citizens.’ 

This is the original hypothesis: There is a relationship between x and y. Scientific minds will proceed cautiously by testing the null hypothesis: there is no relationship between x and y. If we find significant evidence to affirm the null hypothesis, then we will reject the original hypothesis. If we reject the null hypothesis, then we will affirm the original.

Let x be racism and y be terrorism. The news reporters overwhelmingly suggest that the x is religious extremism. Let us assume that they are right. Then let us ask if religious extremists tend to be anti-racist or virulently racist? That is a tendency, mind you; we cannot condemn all religious extremists as racist nor can we conclude that all racists tend to be religious extremists.

It may be argued that if they wanted to target fast-running Africans, they would have detonated their bombs one hour earlier. The brothers were apparently lone wolves who did not have a time-keeper to ensure that they targeted the winners alone. They had six more bombs with them in the police car chase but only two were successfully detonated. So their timing was off by 2 hours from the winners, but that is no proof that they did not have a racist grudge against Africans, perhaps for dominating their chosen sports. Yes, even some of those who come last in the race will be Africans (as the video of the first blast showed a black man running past) but it is no secret that the marathon is an event with disproportionate African participation.

The original hypothesis of a link between x and y may be a stretch but when you are born and raised in a country where the President calls Africans cannibals and where African students complain that monkey noises are so common that they no longer bother to report them, it is not such a huge stretch to hypothesize that young people socialized into white supremacy in such a society will tend to be racist.

Terrorism is a hate crime, so the hypothesized link between x and y appears logical. It was not too long ago that religious extremists rounded up black skinned citizens in Libya and executed them in front of video cameras. Religious extremists may try to convert non-believers to their faith but they cannot convert blackness to whiteness - hence the will to the final solution.

My suggestion is that we should not ignore possible racist motives (among other motives) because the disease of racism will spread and affect everyone. The bombers may have targeted black people but the whole society is paying the price. Racism-sexism-classism are challenges to all.