Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.  If you broadcast our audio commentaries please consider a recurring donation to Black Agenda Report.

Arab/Black Conflict: A Colonial Gift to Africa That Keeps on Giving

  • Sharebar
    Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

     

    by Mark P. Fancher

    The U.S. and European media frame “racial” conflicts among the peoples of Africa as endemic to the continent, rather than a legacy and tool of colonial rule. However, “the crisis in Mali is not a simple conflict between two racial groups that can’t get along, even if race is somewhere in the mix.”

     

    Arab/Black Conflict: A Colonial Gift to Africa That Keeps on Giving

    by Mark P. Fancher

    The fingerprints of imperialism are all over the crisis.”

    West Africa teeters on the brink of disaster because of an armed conflict in Mali that escalated after a Tuareg secessionist movement gained control of northern regions in the country. The situation became even more intense when, according to reports, the armed movement was hijacked by extremist elements that are alleged to have used torture and mutilation to enforce what is purported to be Islamic law. These extremist forces are also accused of having connections to terrorist formations.

    Although the situation in Mali is rooted in a claimed desire for self-determination for the region that secessionists call “Azawad,” there are no doubt many outside of Mali regard it as yet another conflict between Arab and/or Islamic communities and “blacks.” A BBC News report stated: “The pale-skinned Tuaregs, who inhabit northern Mali, have long complained of neglect and discrimination by the government dominated by [southerners] in far-off Bamako.” The story reports that a Malian arson victim complained of retaliation for the Tuareg insurrection. “People started attacking anything Tuareg. They burnt houses, cars and attacked anyone with white skin – even Arabs.”

    Mali is not the only place in Africa where a conflict has lent itself appropriately or inappropriately to a solely racial analysis. With varying degrees of accuracy the media and other observers have posited this Arab versus black paradigm in Sudan. In Libya, there actually were racial conflicts that were underreported. In that country, among those who sought Gadhafi’s overthrow were explicitly anti-black forces that carried out racially targeted torture and killings. Some even called themselves “The Brigade for Purging Slaves, Black Skin.”

    Many outside of Mali regard it as yet another conflict between Arab and/or Islamic communities and ‘blacks.’”

    Little is gained by trying to understand the crisis in Mali, or other African conflicts, with only a racial analysis. Race may play a significant role, but the complexity of the history and context of seemingly racial conflicts is explained very well by Frantz Fanon in his classic work, The Wretched of the Earth. He described how actual and perceived racial antagonism can be traced back to European colonizers. He said the bourgeois elements in Africa have “…totally assimilated colonialist thought in its most corrupt form…” and they have established “…a racial philosophy which is extremely harmful for the future of Africa…”

    Fanon elaborated by explaining: “Africa is divided into Black and White, and the names that are substituted – Africa South of the Sahara, Africa North of the Sahara – do not manage to hide this latent racism. Here, it is affirmed that White Africa has a thousand-year-old tradition of culture; that she is Mediterranean, that she is a continuation of Europe, and that she shares in Greco-Latin civilization. Black Africa is looked on as a region that is inert, brutal, uncivilized, in a word, savage. There, all day long you may hear unpleasant remarks about veiled women, polygamy, and the supposed disdain the Arabs have for the feminine sex…”

    Fanon condemns both black and Arab bourgeoisies for the racist thoughts that travel in both directions - north and south of the Sahara by saying: “By its laziness and will to imitation, [the bourgeoisie] promotes the engrafting and stiffening of racism which was characteristic of the colonial era.” Even the post 9-11 “niggerization” of Arabs and Muslims has not completely erased much of the racial division Fanon observed in the 1960s.

    Racial confusion serves well the interests of imperialism because race becomes the quick, easy explanation for wars when a more detailed analysis would reveal the true nature and extent of exploitative practices of external political and corporate forces. Mali is a case in point. It is not racial conflict, but a U.S.-trained captain in Mali’s army who can be largely blamed for having escalated tensions to crisis level. Amadou Sanogo led a military takeover of Mali’s civilian government purportedly to devote more resources to crushing the secession movement. However, it was during the post-coup confusion that secessionists were able to make their move and gain control of northern territories.

    Fanon condemns both black and Arab bourgeoisies for the racist thoughts that travel in both directions.”

    Hilary Clinton and the leadership of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) have been busy behind the scenes trying to pressure regional African governments to intervene in Mali militarily. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) recently resolved to send 3,300 soldiers from Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso and other African countries to regain control of northern Mali. This was certainly welcome news for the U.S. because the prospect of a “terrorist” stronghold in northwest Africa must be an imperialist’s nightmare given the amount of oil imported from countries in the region.

    Algeria has resisted the call for intervention in Mali because of the potential for a regional war. Algeria’s terrorism and security advisor said: “The question in Mali is an internal matter and there is no need to further internationalize it.” Another Algerian official said: “We have not stopped emphasizing that a way out of the crisis, through dialogue between the Malian authorities and the rebel groups in the north is completely possible.”

    Clearly then, the crisis in Mali is not a simple conflict between two racial groups that can’t get along, even if race is somewhere in the mix. The fingerprints of imperialism are all over the crisis. Lessons should be learned from Sudan, where the U.S. lurked and meddled while claiming there were racial tensions. After the balkanization of the country the U.S. slithered in and began making preparations to ease or avoid sanctions that had prevented U.S. oil companies from competing with China for access to South Sudan’s oil.

    Until “Arabs,” “blacks” and other racial and ethnic groups in Africa become simply “Africans,” the U.S. and others in the imperialist camp will remain able to engage in low-profile political manipulation and military intervention by creating, exploiting or fanning the flames of mistrust that exist among the many diverse communities that live on the African continent. Notwithstanding interracial feelings that range from simple suspicion to, in some quarters, intense hatred, it remains possible for Africans of all backgrounds to recognize shared political interests even if, in some cases when it comes to culture, religion and social relations there is no common ground.

    Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be reached at mfancher@comcast.net.

    Share this

    RealHistoryww.com Tackles Question When Ancient World Went From

    BLACK & Brown, to white. It deals specifically w the North African 'Arab' issue at their section found @ http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/North_Africa/North_African_History.htm

     

    Its now universally known that Africans were the first people to develop on Earth. FYI: Now even [white] scientists are saying [admitting] that advent of white-skinned blue-eyed blonde-haired folk is a relatively new phenomenon in the World, from the post ice-age Nordic regions of Europe- occuring as recently as 4000 BCE. That means that they could NOT have been any-where near Africa [IE: Egypt], Palestine-Israel [The Canaanite-Phonecians & the Hebrews], the Mesopotamia [Sumeria & Persia], the Indus valley, etc, etc, etc creating agriculture, culture, technology & civillizations in these regions at the same time that they were first making their appearance in the remote Nordic regions of Europe. In fact we may have to come up w a new model of how civilization began in Mediterranean Europe itself [IE: ancient Greece & Rome- see: 'Stolen Legacy', The World & Africa'  & 'Black Athena- The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical {aka Greek} Civilization'].

    So where did caucasian Arabs come from if the ancient peoples of both N.Africa & the Arabian Pennisula were Black? [& they were]? The conquest of the Greeks of Afro-Asiatic lands under Alexander was the first historically verifiable deep excursion of a 'basically' non-African / non Afro-Asiatic people deep into the ancient Black & Brown World. Then w the defeat of the legendary African General Hannibal by the Romans under Scipio [who got the title Africanus = Conqueror of Africa- for his conquest]- the Roman Empire was extended along the entire Mediterranean coast of Africa. Just prior to the advent of Prophet Muhammed, infamous European tribes IE: the Vandals also raided [vandalized] parts of N.Africa.

    With the rise of Islam, including the African Islamic Moors' conquest of Iberia [the Castilian Christians finally expelled them circa 1492] the Euro-Christians counter-reaction was the Crusades circa 1100ACE - 1300ACE. Involved in this struggle for the Holy-Land were a people who adopted Islam but were clearly identifiable as non-African / non Afro-Asiatic in heritage IE: the whitish Asiatic Ottoman Turks. The Rise of the  Ottoman Turk empire began circa 1300 ACE [thru 1922] immediately after the Crusades. They became the most influential Caliphate outside of the African Moors' control of Iberia. Their empire extended across the African Mediterranean coast from Morocco to Egypt, into Palestine-Israel & the Mesopotamia, & deep into the Arabian Pennsula- including Mecca & Medina [IE: the Ottoman Turks controlled the 3 Holiest Cities / sites in all of Islam- Mecca, Medina & Jerusalem- for over 600yrs]. IMO this is how N.Africa went from Black-African to kinda-sorta whitish-Arab [Its an interesting fact, as documented at Real History's site, that  Black Islamic Princes often had whitish-Turkish women as 'concubines' in their Harems, just as whitish-Arab princes often had African women for 'concubines' in their Harems]. YET There are still many millions of Black N.Africans & Blacks in Arabia, as there are Black indigenous elements scattered thru-out the so-called Mid-East- including Palestine-Israel.    

     

    PS: In N.Africa [& else-where] the distinction between 'Arab' & North African is often [deliberately] blurred. Hence if folk live in the Saharan / Sahel region & are Muslims -&- especially if they speak some form of Arabic, they're often called 'Arabs' no matter how dark-skinned they are. IMO the original Arabic peoples were a dark-skinned African / Afro-Asiatic type people, but today most people think of Arabs as those that look like the Saudi Royal family which, if my previous statement is true, means the Saudi Royals are NOT representative of the original peoples of Arabia [NOTE: One the the main Royal Saudi Princes is Faisal al Turki bin al Saud- Faisal al Turki literally means Faisal the Turk / of Turkey. This implies that the Saudi Royal family's origins likely actually lie in Turkey]. Thus sometimes 'Arab' is used to designate a Racial / ethinic type & sometimes its used to designate a cultural / religious / political affiliation - despite skin color- as it suits the narrator(s)' agenda(s).

    The racial purges in Libya last yr [& still on-going] showed that just because Libyan's are Muslims & likely speak the same or similar language as their NTC Militia persecutors, their dark-skin meant they were NOT seen [by the NTC, the GCC nor FUK-US NATO] as Arabs but as Black African Slaves. The Dafur situation also shows a case of a dispute [manipulated by the US, Israel, etc] between a so-called 'Arab' Sudanese Gov't [whose Pres is darker than Obama] & so-called 'Black' African Islamic Sudanese Dafurians. So in N.Africa especially the term 'Arab' [& its related geo_poly-trickal term 'Middle East{ern}' which has only been part of the geo-political lexicon for 100 - 150 yrs] can be very nebulous. 

    Clicky Web Analytics