The UN launched 2011 as The International Year of People of African descent 2011. Through this symbolic action the UN wants to stress the importance to eradicate racism, of which according to the UN, people of African descent all over the world are the most important victims.
This more than 50 years after most African countries gained independence and nearly 50 years after the US Civil Rights Bill was passed (1964), giving equal rights to black people in the US and abolishing formal segregation.
When thinking of people of African descent, or the African Diaspora, people often think automatically about the African-Americans in the US and sometimes black people in Brazil. We often overlook the fact that there are black people all over Latin America (from Mexico to Chile), Europe and even as far as Pakistan, Iran and India where little communities of African descendents often live an isolated life (For more info on Siddi click here). The year is a chance to bring the presence of peoples of African descent all over the world, and their history, into focus.
Check the video below from the UN webcast in which the International Year of People of African Descent was launched. It is pecular to notice how everybody avoids the use of 'black' as a valid word to designate the group of people they talk about. The choice goes for 'People of African descent' or the new word combination 'Africa Descendants'. These choice of words is in itself worth a through research entitled 'From Negroes to Africa Descendants. On How Black People Have Been Named and Defined throughout Western History'. Basically they are right to do so, as Africa Descendents are often not literally 'black'.
Another interesting contribution on the topic can be found on the OBV (Operation Black Vote) UK-website on this link
Paul Gilroy’s Black Atlantic (1994) is a difficult read but it’s a very influential book. An author who builds further on Gilroy’s work and who writes very accessible books about blackness is Livio Sansone (professor of anthropology at the University of Bahia, Brazil). His book ‘Blackness Without Ethnicity’ (2003) was a very insightful read that I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. In this book he compares black Brazilian experience and cultural production with the African American experience (check this blog www.afrobrazilamerica.com on the difference between black US and black Brazil experiences). One of the chapters of the book even goes further and is based on his research among black youth in Amsterdam compared to black youth in Bahia and Rio. Generally Sansone has written interesting articles about balckness and Western Afro cultures (check this article) . Below I will give my understandings and perspectives on the Black Atlantic, as an inherent part of the broad social and cultural entity called ‘The West’.
There are black people living in all countries of the Americas, in Europe and of course in Africa. The history of all these black populations is interrelated and all in reference to their relation to white European culture. African nations are (unfortunately) a consequence of European history and international affairs. African elites have often Europe and European languages as a reference point for culture, knowledge and social emancipation. The same thing can be said in an even more thorough sense of Latin America. All these cultures, or at least its elites and urban populations are therefore according to me part of the same Western world.
But the black populations of these nations are not all the same, just as all these countries differ from each other although being interrelated in history. Black Brazilians experience race in a very different way than African Americans. Black Britons do not express their identity within the UK in the same way as Black French communities in France. Each country has its own dynamics, history, culture and identity. Still there is also much in common which is all centered around three elements: history, race and Africa. Race
Race as a social concept has been created through the history of Europe’s self-identification. Not only did Europe create its own identity in contrast to the (predominantly Muslim) East, but also in contrast to the ‘primitive’ black Africans in the South. Creating the concept Europe meant creating ‘whiteness’ and defining it in contrast to all it is not. This history lives on in current societies in Africa, Europe and the Americas. It took different shapes and contents but has kept a common framework in which the lighter one’s skin is, the better the person is perceived (also in Africa).
History
It would be too complex to bring all different forms of blackness in all countries bordering the Atlantic in one post, but the Black Atlantic is definitely an interesting starting point for a whole new historical and social analyses of the Atlantic world with its common history of racism, slavery and colonialism.
While the US have had in the 20th century a dominant place in the culture, economy and political arena of the world, their concepts and expressions of race have had a big influence on the black populations from Kenia, France till Peru. But we can not only focus on appearance and jump to conclusions. Black populations found American elements of blackness and incorporated it in their local culture. Although black urban culture form the US has influenced black kids from Paris, Cape Town, Dar-es-Salaam, Berlin, … it has often shaped the form, not always the content.
Africa
Africa has played a major role in the creation of the African American identity. This happened in retrospect, i.e. the black populations of America rediscovered their African heritage in the 20th century and used Africa as some kind of reservoir of symbols from which to draw inspiration to create an identity. Why creating an identity? As we can read in the works of Booker T. Washington or W.E.B. DuBois and later Césaire , blacks in the West wanted to be accepted as an inherent part of the cultures they inhabited and had assimilated. Unfortunately the racism that Europe had created in the creation of its own identity didn’t make this possible. Being black meant not being fully American, not being really French, not being accepted as a full member of the nation … (Brazil’s political leaders incorporated the concept of "raça mestiça"’ (mixed race) as an inherent part of its identity starting in the 30’s, in Cuba it only started in the 60’s while the rest of Latin America only recently acknowledges its mixed identity, still Africa keeps a marginal place in this mix). In a world where blacks felt home but rejected by the white reference they felt the need to rethink their identity. This rethinking has resulted into African American culture with its Harlem Renaissance and Dubois as its most important intellectual. This American experience dripped down to all black populations in the world, and has put a mark on the form of many black communities throughout the Atlantic world (as the experience of exclusion through racism works essentially in the same way throughout the Western world).
The Black Look, The Local Style
While black kids in Brazil wear the same sneakers, caps and golden chains, and even greet each other the same way as their black contemporaries in Alabama and Marseille, they do not all consume the same culture as such. While French urban youth listen massively to rap music, their rap music is not the same thing as rap in the US, ‘funk’ in Brazil’s big cities, reggaeton in Panama or dancehall in Kingston, Jamaica. All this cultural expressions look the same, are dominated by dark skinned, often poor, urban youngsters, but they are all very much rooted in the local culture and mentality.
Today black French or black Brazilian also look directly at Africa, directly and not through the US spectrum only. They look at the content, but mostly take the forms (the masks, the symbols, the colours, rhythms, styles …) for inspiration and self identity. While e.g. the Jamaican Rastafarian movement drew its inspirations from Ethiopian symbols it gave it another content. This new Rasta culture was picked up by Africans afterwards and given again a new content, while black French mixed other African symbols from West-Africa with Jamaican symbols and North American ones to create yet again a new identity. And this goes on and on.
On the surface you might be tempted to think that being black in London, Amsterdam, Paris, Chicago or Sao Paulo is the same thing. Well it looks the same thing, its rooted in a common historical and social framework but it is not exactly the same thing. It’s a constant dialogue between cultures. They all wear the same clothes and their music is all rhythmically based and mixed with rapping styles and soul vocals. The form is definitely based on the American example and reference for the whole Atlantic world. The content though, is determined by the local social dynamics, the local history, language and culture. You can’t just transplant black experience in the US on the life of blacks in the whole world. Although all black people of the Atlantic world share a common framework of racial stereotypes. The way these stereotypes are played out locally is often very different.
Examples
Still, the Black Atlantic exists and is most ‘visible’ in musical productions and all expressions surrounding it. I was stunned to hear the champeta music in Cartagena, the black capital of Colombia, and realize it sounded just like the soukous and ndombolo styles of Kinshasa and nowadays most parts of black Africa (which was inspired in the 70’s by Cuban rumba). I was just as surprised to see how Central American youngsters re-interpreted dancehall music from Jamaica and called it reggaeton . I was amazed to see how the black crowds of South Africa incorporated techno and house into their local kwaito music . I was charmed to see how street kids in Nairobi imitated US rappers but mixed it with the traditional rhythmic story telling style of their forefathers. I fell in love with the mix of techno, reggae and hip hop that resulted into the British scenes of UK garage , jungle , drum&bass and ultimately grime/dubstep and 2step. And most recently I experienced how Angolan kuduro (itself an interpretation of US hip hop) became a new style of techno in Lisbon through the productions of Buraka Som Sistema. This kuduro sound is right now influencing Brazilian funk. There is so much to experience and tell.
Dialogue in Black and White
There is a constant dialogue between populations of the Atlantic, a dialogue dominated by its black populations is what is called the Black Atlantic, a dialogue that existed before internet and only intensified since then. This dialogue isn’t exclusively black in a racial sense. Blacks have always incorporated mixed race people within their communities, blackness is in a way a cultural expression of mixing and hybridity. It is those parts of Western culture which Western culture rejects as being part of its own identity. It therefore becomes ‘black’ or ‘world’. The Black Atlantic doesn’t exclude white people, on the contrary. Many whites are and were important actors within the cultures of the Black Atlantic, but it is a culture dominated by the poorest and predominantly dark skinned peoples of the Atlantic, a culture of bricolage and mixing, meeting and creation.
Often, once great many people with no biological dominant African ancestry adopt the cultural expressions of the Black Atlantic, the mainstream (white) establishment is prepared to integrate it into what is called ‘Western culture’. Then it becomes colorless, i.e. just French, American, Western, … and the term black is faded out. Examples are today found in house music , techno, electro and rock, but also in the way painters such as Picasso integrated African elements within the high culture of Europe. If Picasso would have been a mixed race person of African or black Caribbean ancestry I guess his paintings would have been defined as ‘afro’.
In this Black Atlantic, Africa and its history functions as some kind of reservoir of symbols, from which we all draw inspiration to create and re-create our identities. That is what blacks in Paris, Berlin, Rio, New York, Amsterdam all do, that is what the Black Atlantic actually is. Today this re-interpreting of our African heritage within the Western world is still in full swing and it’s still a struggle to make the West (or at least our home countries) aware of their African heritage.
Drum&Bass and Jungle
For me personally Jungle music and the culture surrounding it expressed in a perfect way the symbiosis of black and white within my world. This is/was music that brought all together, all styles and all colours. It was the 90’s, it was fresh, it was ‘black’, but it was immediately assimilated by white youth too. It’s urban, and it definitely has its roots among the poor urban minorities of the UK. But it’s music for all. Therefore I want to end this post with 3 video’s: first an interview of Goldie in 1996 (and check his very LAST WORDS), second a video of Congo Natty, junglist nr1. Who emphasizes the black nature of jungle music and finally a track (Brown Paper Bag) from the best selling jungle album (and a must have) from Roni Size, which was out in 1997. Still so fresh!
Last year I went to Berlin to visit a friend who moved there. During my trip I experienced something special. Most of my friends told me I was totally crazy to have done what I did. They might be right, but I think that this story deserves a place on this blog.
It was a last minute decision so I couldn’t get a seat reservation anymore in the high speed train between Cologne and Berlin. I decided to go anyway and ended up in an overcrowded train sitting on the floor in the hallway. Sharing the hallway with me were, among others, two Russian dudes who looked kind of tough. Bald head, bomber jacket, big chains. They had plastic bags full of beer cans and were drinking the whole time. I tended to ignore them, they definitely looked like skinhead hooligans and I supposed they wouldn’t consider me a potential friend. It turned out I was wrong. I read a book and tried not to look up at them. I succeeded quiet well during the first hours (the trip took about 6 hours), but I noticed that one of them gave me a sympathetic nod once in a while. It crossed my mind for a few seconds that he might be gay, but I quickly decided against it. They looked definitely very straight. Some time halfway between Cologne and Berlin one of them asked me in perfect German if I wanted a beer. I hesitated for a second, it was too early in the day for being drinking, but being tired of reading the same book for more than three hours in a row, I thought why not and accepted the offer. It was a holiday anyway. We started to chat, they turned out to be more German than I thought. I saw it as a good opportunity to oil up my German before reaching Berlin.
They shared more beers with me until there were none left (and they had brought many). I decided to buy some in the bar and to pay them more drinks. Half an hour before reaching Berlin we had drunken all the beers there were in the train’s mini bar. I felt kind of drunk and they were definitely a bit drunk too. But it was clear that they were better drinkers than I was, more used to heavy drinking. Everybody was looking at us, a strange trio, but we couldn’t care less, talked all the time and laughed together.
The time I passed with them drinking beer was very pleasant. They were curious to know where I was from and I explained. I asked them the same question and they turned out to be Germans of Russian descent, but also the other way around, Russians of German descent. I didn’t understand immediately and they started to explain their story.
Actually since the late middle ages until the early 20th century, Germans migrated to Russia for new opportunities. These people assimilated to Russian culture although some kept a distinct German identity. They lived all over the Soviet Union. When the iron curtain fell and the Soviet Union collapsed Germany accepted any person who could prove to be ethnically German to get a German passport and come back to Germany. Many Russians of German descent jumped on the opportunity.
These two guys were descendants of Germans who migrated to Russia generations ago, maybe centuries ago. Their surnames sounded German, but that was about the only thing German about them. They told me that their parents moved to Berlin in the early 90’s. They were still very young children then and they grew up in Germany. But they kept on speaking Russian in the household, lived in predominantly Russian neighborhoods and made mostly Russian-speaking friends.
They stressed the common experience they and me had as children of migrants, as people who never really belong, as people who share the experience of displacement and multilingualism. I liked that thought. And as our conversation evolved I started to ask questions too, about how they look, about how they can be perceived as racist skinheads and so on. They stressed that they weren’t racists, they said they were victims of racism too, that German people hated them.
I was fascinated and listened while the conversation evolved to football and Saint-Petersburg, the team they both supported. One of them was even such a big fan that he travelled all over Europe to see all matches Saint-Petersburg had to play abroad. He said he liked to travel, to see different places and that his love for football was a good excuse to do it. But still I couldn’t stop thinking that the guy really looked like a prototype hooligan who might be nice to me now, but who would have kicked my ass in very different circumstances.
When getting closer to Berlin they asked me if I already had plans. I actually didn’t, I only planned to see my friend in a few hours as he was still at work. So I still had some time to kill. They invited me to join them. They would go to one’s place and have some more drinks there and watch some video’s. They told me they had nothing to do that day, they worked hard for several weeks on a construction site and had some cash to spend now. Again I hesitated. Where would I end up? What would a black guy with dreadlocks do with skinheads? Did they try to trick me into some man hunting? The wildest thoughts went through my head? But my intuition, more than movies or politics, told me these guys were really all right. They were actually very friendly, warm, generous and sympathetic. My adventurous, crazy and anthropological me said just to go for it. So I accepted their offer and followed them into Ost-Berlin. After half an hour with metro and busses we arrived at some apartment blocks. I had kept a sharp eye on the itinerary so that I would easily find my way back. First we went to the shop to get some more beers and then went to one of them’s place.
We started drinking again and watching Youtube. I drank slowly. They wanted to show me video’s of hooligan fights in Russia, some hip hop video’s and so on. They started to roll joints, two more skinheads came in. All were friendly to me although I saw some surprise in their eyes. They spoke Russian with each other sometimes, so I couldn’t understand but I was tempted to think that they saw me as a potential danger to them too. Who was I? What was I doing there? All understandable questions, and I guessed the other two assured them that I was OK.
I spend around 2 or 3 hours there, the owner of the place was getting very very drunk, too drunk actually. He started to put some Saint-Petersburg Hooligan video’s with songs. He sang them along and he started to do the Sieg Heil sign while singing. I was kind of embarrassed about it, and I noticed that the three others were too. They tried to assure me that it’s just football and that I shouldn’t feel threatened. The thing is that I didn’t feel threatened. Was I naïve? Maybe so, but the truth is that nothing happened to me, the atmosphere was very relaxed and everybody was friendly and nice to me. I even went out once with one of the new guys to get some more beers and he was actually very soft, he wanted to know about me, was curious about my experience of being black in Europe and so on. I thought that I may have been the very first black person this guy actually talks to (instead of shouting racist slurs to). These guys were not stupid, they were just low class immigrants with a lot of frustrations, just like many other immigrant kids. They were put into a situation in which they had to talk to me as human beings to human beings.
I had stopped drinking after a while, I didn’t want to lose control. The two guys I met on the train were way out there now. Fortunately the two others were still kind of sober. The main language spoken was often Russian now and I couldn’t really follow. I said that I had to go now, as I had a meeting with some friends, we shared e-mails and phone numbers, gave each other ‘man hugs’ and I left. Still, I didn’t feel like having a lasting internet relationship with these guys, so I gave an e-mail I nearly never use and a wrong phone number. I never tried to reach them again though.
Later that evening I told my story to my Berlin friend who said I was lucky not to get killed. I knew the stories of Adriano and other black Germans who were killed by skinheads in Germany. But I still don’t know, I think that the context gave me an opportunity to discover something I only had prejudice against and didn’t know. At the same time, without wanting to do it, I let them experience something they didn’t know. Still, they were the ones who offered me a beer, they were the ones who smiled sympathetically at me, and they were the ones who invited me in their home. I realized that I could have met the exact same 4 guys in a very different situation and that they would have seen me as an easy target to ventilate all their aggression and frustration, they could have killed me. But the thing was that at that time and place they wanted to be my friends.
The next day I was eating a quick snack in an antifa (antifascist) vegatarian snack bar in Friedrichshain and reading a magazine that lay there for customers. There was an article about hooligan skinheads and their use of fascist symbols, mostly by Russians. A study had shown that many of the kids using the nazi symbols didn’t even really know what these symbols stand for. They know it’s anti-communist and they know it is anti-establishment and that it shocks and scares people. As far as they are concerned it works for their purpose, it is not about history repeating itself, it is about expressing anger, aggression and frustration. Against everything that’s politically correct and socially accepted. Maybe they saw my dreadlocks as an expression of the same thing.
It’s maybe not all that strange. Skinhead culture has black roots after all, check these video’s below to discover a strange twist in musical history and racist attitude.
This is of course about England in the 70's, and not about Russian-German Hooligans in the 21st century. Still, I think that being a skinhead is first and for all an anti-establishment style, more than a political stance. Of course I do not ignore the dangers this 'style' has for all people who look like me.
Today I want to write something about Côte d’Ivoire. Why is this relevant on an Afro-European blog? Because the current situation in Côte d’Ivoire is about conflicting interest between Africa and Europe. Because the Ivoirian community of France is clearly expressing its frustration in the way France (and generally the West) is involved in local issues in Africa (see video's below). In this post I will try to clarify what is exactly going on as I think this story is relevant for most ex-colonies in relation to their past and Europe, this story is relevant for all Europeans of ex-colonial origin.
Rich but poor
Côte d’Ivoire is on the brink of a civil war. Again. People disappear, others are threatened. Côte d’Ivoire has long been considered an example of how it should be. But while being the greatest cocoa exporter in the world, while being a economically prosper country, Côte d’Ivoire still has its majority population living in utter poverty. Many countries in Africa have the poorest populations in the world while they often are very rich countries. The reason for this is complex. There is the colonial heritage, there are Western financial interests, there are disloyal and corrupt leaders, demographic explosion, … Côte d’Ivoire is today another victim of all these elements. Big boys with different interests are using the African people to gain their advantage, whether black or white, Ivoirian or French. Côte d’Ivoire has long been a prosperous country. It is the world’s lead cocoa exporter and Africa’s biggest palm oil producer (palm oil is an important raw material in the manufacture of soaps, washing powder and other hygiene and personal care products, besides biodiesel).
Even before independence Côte d’Ivoire was economically the most important region of French West Africa (which was administered as one colonial entity, only divided by France during the independence struggle). Many people from all over French West Africa migrated there for work. After independence this trend didn’t stop. These migrations have been going on for decades now, and many people who are born and raised in Côte d’Ivoire have foreign roots in other formerly French West African countries. Many live in the north and urban areas, with a concentration in the economical center of the country: Abidjan (the capital being Yamoussoukro).
Not only Africans moved to Côte d’Ivoire for work. In contrast to many African nations, the presence of French people more than doubled after independence while many other Europeans also came to work in Côte d’Ivoire. Today the white elite is fleeing the country.
Côte d’Ivoire is not just another African republic. Western nations, France first, have many financial and economical interests there. This is why they are getting involved so much. Below I will go deeper into Côte d’Ivoire’s history and the meaning of last elections for the international community.
Félix Houphouët-Boigny Félix Houphouët-Boigny was Côte d’Ivoire’s first president and he stayed in power until his death in 1993. Although having spend large amounts of public money for megalomaniac projects, he was and still is a very much respected and loved figure for the Ivoirian people. Félix Houphouët-Boigny has been instrumental in keeping the Ivoirian nation united, avoiding ethnic tensions and accepting Ivoirians of foreign origin as fellow nationals and Ivoirians.
Félix Houphouët-Boigny is a giant of the African emancipation. He is a name stated next to Senghor and Césaire. He left a stable and relatively prosper country behind him. Things would start to change dramatically after that.
Ivoirité
Bédié followed him up. He succeeded to divide his rivals and held on to power. To do that he emphasized the concept of ‘Ivoirité’, or Ivoirian identity, excluding his main political rival Allassane Ouattara, Houphouët-Boigny’s last prime minister. Although Ouattara was born in Côte d’Ivoire from parents who were also born in Côte d’Ivoire, he has roots from Burkina Faso, which made him in Bédié’s concept of Ivoirité a foreigner.
This excluded Ouattara from presenting himself for the presidential elections of 2000, but also excluded a great many people in Côte d’Ivoire from the Ivoirian nationality. Consequently the relationship between various ethnic groups became strained and a fire was sparked which is still burning today.
Bédié also tried to exclude potential opponents from the army. This led to a military coup in 1999 and the organization of new elections in 2000. That’s when Gbagbo got elected. Still, the concept of Ivoirité persisted in post-Bédié Côte d’Ivoire. Excluding Ouattara from the 2000 presidential election led to the civil unrest during the elections and eventually to a civil war in 2002.
Rebellion in 2002
The rebels controlled much of northern Côte d’Ivoire, where many Ivoirians lived who were excluded from Ivoirian nationality due to the Ivoirité policy. The rebels threatened to seize Abidjan, the economical center, but then France came into the picture. Under the official stance that French soldiers were sent to protect French citizens living there, many consider they were there to protect their financial and economical position. For many Ivoirians today the French actions worsened the situation in the long term. France didn’t learn from what happened then.
Alassane Ouattara took refuge in the French embassy, his home in Abidjan burned down. President Gbagbo stated, in a television address, that some of the rebels were hiding in the shanty towns of Abidjan where ‘foreign migrant workers’ lived. The police forces bulldozed and burned homes by the thousands, attacking the residents.
Transition under Gbagbo Eventually a few months later in 2003, Gbagbo and some rebel leaders signed accords creating a government of national unity. But that government prooved unstable. UN peacekeepers and French troops still controlled areas of the country and violent clashes occurred often. When the time for presidential elections came in 2005, it was deemed impossible to hold an election due to the lack of disarmament.
The 2005 elections were postponed until last month, november 2010. This time Ouattara was not excluded because of his so called Burkinabe origins.
The preliminary results announced by the Electoral Commission showed a loss for Gbagbo in favour of Alassane Ouattara who won with 54% of the vote (having received most votes from the Northern departments and the city of Abidjan). Gbagbo’s ruling FPI contested the results before the Constitutional Council, charging massive fraud in the northern departments. These charges were contradicted by international observers.
The Constitutional Council, which consists of Gbagbo supporters, declared the results of seven northern departments unlawful and that Gbagbo had won the elections with 51% of the vote. After the inauguration of Gbagbo, Ouattara, recognized as the winner by most countries and the United Nations, organized an alternative inauguration. These events raised fears of a resurgence of the civil war.
When I heard this news I was tempted to compare Gbagbo’s succes with the re-election of George W. Bush. But I couldn’t remember any official foreign reaction or support for Al Gore at the time.
I am not a Gbagbo fan. Since he came to power he has always used the ethnic card to gain popularity. Besides that he has questioned the French presence and economical interests in his sovereign country. This has led to ethnic tensions and to a worsening of the economical situation.
The first who suffer are the poorest, not the political elite. But Gbagbo blames the ‘foreign immigrants’ and the French. Ouattara represents both at the same time. Considering the election’s official results (51% for Gbagbo) I would think that Gbagbo’s discourse is not that convincing for the Ivoirian masses. Still, considering all this I wonder if it is a good idea to try to oust him from power right now. Certainly, I don’t think that it is the West’s role to do so. Sadam Hussein may have been a ruthless dictator, ousting him from power hasn’t improved the lifes of Iraqi’s. More on the contrary.
Ouattara Ouattara is considered by Gbagbo as a representative of foreign and Western interests. And he actually is. Ouattara was educated in the US and earned a PhD in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. He worked for the IMF and the BCEAO (central bank for the east African states) in Paris which makes him an advocate of the Franc CFA.
The Franc CFA is the common currency of most former French colonies. It is pegged to the Euro and according to many critics the cause of many economical problems and the economic dependency of these African states towards Europe. The Franc CFA is controlled and managed from Paris. Ouattara worked for the BCEAO in Paris until becoming its governor in 1988.
During the last years of Houphouët-Boigny’s rule from 1990, he was Côte d’Ivoire’s prime minister and actual leader once Félix Houphouët-Boigny got too ill. Ouattara was the one who announced Félix Houphouët-Boigny’s death to the nation.
After a brief power struggle bewteen Bédié en Outtara, Bédié became president en Ouattara resigned as prime minster. He went back working for the IMF as Deputy Managing Director and stayed there until 1999. After that he re-entered the political arena in Côte d’Ivoire leading up to the elections of last month.
Because of his career and marriage to a French woman (Dominique he often is considered by his critics as a representative of French and Western interests, and considered due to his northern roots and white wife, as not a real Ivoirian.
All these are false arguments of course. While understanding the critique against Western economical interests in Africa I don’t think that confrontation is the best tactic to improve the live of the Africans. It might get you elected, but then?
French Ivoirians and the Ivorian issue
Ivoirians in Paris supporting Gbagbo and protesting against French involvement (nr1):
One of the interviewees says: “Gbagbo is contested because he annoys the Western world, because he wants the wealth of Africa to be for the Africans … He is the man who can raise up Africa.”
Ivoirians in Paris supporting Gbagbo and protesting against French involvement (nr2):
Ivoirians in Paris protesting against Gbagbo in favor of Outtara(nr1):
Ivoirians in Paris protesting against Gbagbo in favor of Outtara(nr2):
Considering the reactions of Ivoirians in France it is clear that even if Gbagbo stole the elections it is not the role of foreign nations to intervene in local matters. According to Ivoirians this can only worsen the situation and divide the nation even more. The Ivoirians have to solve their own problems.
As you can see in the video’s above the Ivoirians are divided, but they areready to talk. Most voices of whatever side are against war and violence and have a peaceful message.
According to me Ouattara should accept his unfair defeat and go into opposition. From there he should teach Gbagbo what is democracy and from there he can either trap him (blame Gbagbo for all problems or show that he doesn’t do what he says) and make himself popular to an even larger electorate.
Gbagbo plays the role of the ‘real African’, fighting against the Western interests and therefore ‘for the African people’. But at the same time he is throwing oil on the ethnic fire that is burning since Bédié’s presidency. Côte d’Ivoire is devided between North and South, between Muslim and Christian, between ‘foreigner’ and ‘autochtones’. But it is a false division that is hiding the deeper laying problems of a rich country with too many poor people, of a rich country where foreigners, big companies and corrupt politician are getting richer, while the masses are living in dire poverty. It sometimes seems to me that Gbagbo is copying French political style, where Frenchness is questioned (refering to Sarlozy’s ‘débat sur l’identité française’) next to the so called ‘immigrant Muslims’.
Today the country has been sealed off from the outside world by Gbagbo. Gbagbo is not considered a lawfull head of state by the UN, EU and US. They only recognize Ouattara as the lawfull president. But a president without power, and the West’s reactions is only worsening the local situation. Everybody is holding their breath.
Guinea
All this happens today in so exemplary Côte d’Ivoire while Guinea-Conakry, the bad boy of former French colonies (who rejected the Franc CFA and has its own currency), a country with difficult diplomatic relations with France, just had its first free and fair elections since independence (without France or the UN getting involved). The transition from dictatorship to military rule and then elections didn’t happen without problems of course. But it was a transition done by and for the Africans themselves. Let’s now wait and see what freshly elected president Alpha Condé will do for his country and its people.
Almost four London teenagers a day are victims of knife violence. And more than seven youngsters are robbed at knifepoint in the capital every day according to UK Home Office statistics.
to combat these numbers the London's Metropolitan Police are urging teenage boys to "choose a different ending" in an interactive publicity campaign running on YouTube. The campaign was launched a year ago and had 2.7 million net views since its launch on 6th July 2009.
Great idea, but does it really solve the problem? I remember when I moved to more the urban area of Amsterdam, that I asked my street wise black neighbour if he had any “street tips” for me. The first thing he told me was: “if you think of carrying a weapon, remember that if you pull it, you also have to use it. And it doesn’t matter whether it's a screwdriver or even a pen. Because If you don’t use it, then you will be in deep trouble.” Thanks to him I never carried a weapon.
Luckily I never even came close to a situation where I had to defend myself. It was the power of media indoctrination that made me contemplate the idea.
But I know that the situation in London is totally incomparable with my situation back then. The knife violence in London is dramatic.
Although I understand that an interactive YouTube video is just another tool to raise awareness, I don’t believe it will solve the problem. But what does?
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that a lot of black urban communities seem have similar problems. Teenage pregnancies, absentee fathers, educational problems and crime, are problem we have in the UK, the Netherlands, France, and in the USA.
And of course I don’t have the solution to these very complex problems. But there’s one thing I’ve learned: black people need each other.
My neighbour thought me an important communication lesson: if you show it, you have use it. I learned him how to use the computer I used for my study, and what he could to do to learn more about it. He changed my life, and maybe even saved it. I changed his life, because he took the computer courses, and finally went on working for a mayor consulting firm as a computer expert. Isn’t this just a peer to peer thing?
I know I am pretty naïve, but sometimes the power of naivety works. That high powered media campaign "choose a different ending" in the UK, will most certainly work. But that one minute free lecture of my neighbour did it for me.
Today France is celebrating it’s national day, Bastille Day. President Sarkozy invited for the event some 13 African head of states. All from countries celebrating their 50th anniversary of independence.
Troops from Cameroon, Gabon, Niger, Chad and Congo-Brazzaville joined the military parade under the leadership of French military officials. All this happened among heavy criticism on two levels. First that many of the invited head of states are responsible for grave human rights violations. Inviting them gives a certain legitimacy to leaders who have no wish to respect the human rights and increase the life quality of the country’s citizens. Second because of the symbolism. Marc Ona, a Gabonese human rights activist compares African leaders at the parade to "colonial governors who find themselves together with chief colonialist Nicolas Sarkozy to celebrate keeping Africa in international penury". Sarkozy’s argument is that African soldiers fought alongside French soldiers during World War I and World War II and that this is a way to honour them. But honestly I think there are better ways to honour the veterans then to invite their corrupt leaders to this parade.
Let’s not forget how France totally failed to grant the respect and rights of the African veterans of all post Napoleonic French wars. It is stunning how wikipedia’s entry on the Tirailleur Sénégalais fails to give more information about this insult towards the African troops who fought alongside Europeans during World War I en II.
It’s only in 2006 (after Rachid Bouchareb’s film on the Arab soldiers during WWII) that Chirac granted the pensions the veterans deserved. Most had died at the time. You can find some info on wiki in this article.
Some of France's African troops in Europe during WWII
Sarkozy further stated that the presence of the African troops just shows to the world the strength of the ties uniting France with its former colonies. And that is exactly what Sarkozy wants as in this globalized world the African nations have a lesser need to preserve the ties with their former colonizers as new nations (like China, Brazil and India) are investing and collaborating with them.
The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), an umbrella group for human rights organisations around the world, said in a letter to President Sarkozy that "It would be no small paradox that during a celebration of the values of the Republic, these values should be flouted by the presence of torturers, dictators and other predators of human rights, and that instead of pursuing them, France honours them."
Defence Minister Herve Morin said on national radio that there are no indications whatsoever that war criminals were present among the African units. Maybe not among the African units, and maybe not war criminals. But there are definitely criminals among the African head of states invited to France’s national day.
This article is based on a BBC News article you can find here
Below I add an intersting video analysis from Newsy.com
Black and white are not opposites. It is the social construct that expresses the norm vs. the anomaly. In the West the norm is white. White is just a physical feature though. To be white you just have to look white, that’s it. You can be white and rich, white and poor, white and smart, white and dumb, white and handy, white and lazy, white and sporty, … It doesn’t matter whether you are good or bad at football or dancing, whether you are better at math or are a good speaker. It doesn’t even matter what your favorite music style is. You are white because you look white.
Being black is unfortunately different. To be black you don’t just have to look black but you also have to ‘act black’. It means that you have to talk and walk a certain way. It means you listen to a certain kind of music. You should also be fond of sports and be good at dancing and singing. Then and only then you are ‘real black’. While white people can never be ‘fake whites’, blacks can be ‘fake blacks’. If blacks do not answer to the criteria set for blackness they are not real. You become a bounty or an oreo. You may hear from white people things like: ‘Yeah, but you are different. You are not really black.’ But what does that mean? Why wouldn’t I be a real black person if I do look like a black person, if I am confronted with the same prejudices as other black people? Because I have a master’s degree and a good job? Because I know how to speak properly? Because I know how to be polite? Because I prefer rock music to hip hop and reggae? Because I don’t talk like blacks on TV?
It seems that if we do not act as a stereotype we lose our integrity, we even lose our identity. The worst is that blacks themselves keep this phenomenon alive. Blacks all over the Western world often expect their fellow blacks to ‘act black’, otherwise you are not authentic. Blacks use the bounty and oreo terms much more often than whites do, and we know it is meant as an insult.
White people do not have the same issue. You can talk and dance whatever way you like, you are still white. Nobody will say you are not really white. Even a wigger (a white person who dresses and talks like a rap gangsta) is and stays white. There isn’t any clear image of what a white person is supposed to be, or how whites are supposed to act in order to be ‘real whites’. Eminem is white and will stay white, but president Obama has to pass the realness test to be considered a brother (and apparently he succeeded very well at this).
Whites are therefore free to fill in their identity just the way they like (and just the way they are). This makes them stronger as it broadens their perspectives on personal success. This while blacks are confronted with stereotypes on which they have to test their authenticity. I don’t want to blame anyone for this social phenomenon, I just want blacks to reflect on this. And while I ponder on this I keep in mind Obama’s great words said during his short speech at the Democrat Convention in 2004: Eradicate the slander that says a black kid with a book is acting white!
Jean Ping, African Union Commission Chairperson, with Louis Michel, then European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid
Next week (30/06/2010) the Democratic Republic of Congo will celebrate its 50 years of independence. As the former colonizer of the area Belgium is going through a real Congo hype this year. Media and politicians can’t stop to talk about Congo, the historical relation with Belgium and the current situation in Congo. In many cases I think this is good. Many Belgians want to come clear with their past. It is late to do so, but better late than never. Unfortunately some grab this opportunity to rehabilitate the colonial atrocities committed in the name of civilization and Christianity.
Tuesday Louis Michel, former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs (1999-2002), EU commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Development (2002-2009), and nowadays member of the European parliament, claimed that Leopold II is a Belgian hero and talked in positive terms about all the good Belgian colonization brought to Congo. This is unbelievable, considering the amounts of historical research that already proved that king Leopold II’s colonial project was cruel and unnecessarily harsh. Although Stalin, who wasn’t much less cruel and demagogue than Hitler, gets a heroic role in current Russian historical literature, I wouldn’t recommend Belgian historians to claim that its most ruthless former ruler was a hero …
A result of Leopold's colonialism, adults and children had their hands amputated when they did not meet demands for rubber.
Leopold II was the founder and owner of the Congo Free State, which was his private colonial project. The European powers agreed on Leopold II’s undertaking on the condition that it was as a civilizing mission to bring civilization and modernization to the peoples of Congo.
Of course just as all colonial projects, it was presented as a civilizing mission, but was all about the money. When the car and bike industry boomed and the need for rubber increased dramatically everything was permitted to get as much rubber as possible. Adam Hochschild wrote a very interesting book about the atrocities committed in Congo during its exploitation (King Leopold’s Ghost). If you want to know more about it a quick search in google of “Leopold II, King of the Belgians” will enlighten you in the big role he played during the African colonization.
Of course King Leopold II is not the only sinner of his age. His endeavor is comparable to most European colonial projects, whether it is the British Empire, France or Germany. There were no saints in this story, and the civilizing mission was just a cover up to make a lot of money. I believe the Belgian story is best known because Belgium is a small and insignificant country which is easier to criticize than the bigger nations of Europe. Furthermore the Belgian colonial project didn’t start as a political national project but a private endeavor of one man, therefore easier to single out. But, believe me, all European nations were guilty of comparable crimes.
Today a respected Belgian politician is rewriting history. In a interview in P-Magazine Louis Michel felt the need to defend Leopold II’s legacy. He said that the king was “an ambitious visionary” and that he instinctively feels that “Leopold II was a hero, a hero with ambition for a small country such as Belgium”. According to him “Leopold II doesn’t deserve the accusation he has been subjected to”. He said that the Belgians built railways, roads, hospitals, schools and increased the economical growth. Economical growth? As if all peoples of the earth were waiting for being part of the big capitalistic world? Concerning the railway and roads, they were build for European economical purposes only. The towns were build for the colonizers, not the colonized (except as work force). Only after World War 2 the European nations started to invest in schools and hospitals for the Africans, but never enough to educate all anyway. Ten years later they realized that the colonial endeavor wasn't lucrative any more for the state, certainly not if they had to follow their own humanist logic of 'same rights for all people'. But having privatised the major companies, these private European companies could keep on making money in an independent (but controlled) African state. Thus started the wave of independece in Africa.
When Louis Michel was confronted with the fact that people were ruthlessly forced to work in mines and plantations during colonization he waved this argument away saying that this was the way things happened then.
This is too easy. So we can’t judge things that happened in the past because they were considered normal at the time? That means that we can’t judge the lynching of blacks in the southern US, we can’t judge the killings of Jews, we can’t judge racial discrimination, we can't even judge slavery … because this is the way things were in those days? Please! This is total bullshit! With his argumentation the peoples of the world should be grateful to Europe for having colonized them.
Louis Michel is also saying that it is unacceptable to use the world ‘genocide’ to name what happened to the Congolese people in the first 30 years of colonization. Research showed that the population dropped dramatically during that period, due to forced labor, terror policy and illnesses. But I can agree with Louis Michel on this point, I don’t think it was genocide. A genocide is the organization of mass murder, with the will to exterminate another group of human beings. I doubt the colonizers wanted to exterminate the peoples of Africa, they needed them as a labor force. But if they killed so many so unscrupulously it is because they didn’t even consider black people human beings. This is the way things were done in those days, and according to Louis Michel we can’t judge this, because the only thing the colonizer wanted, was for the greater good and the benefit of all.
Drawing such a conclusions is child like, immature, scandalous and shocking. That such a respected politician who doesn’t even have an infamous past as a racist or imperialist, makes such statements, makes it even more scary. Does this show the state of mind of mainstream European politics? If so, we better be prepared for the worst.
“What writing is for Jewish people, is making music for black people,” said my old Jewish High school classmate Ab a long long time ago.
His statement suddenly came to my mind while seeing a creative book video (see below), which I spotted on the blog De-cluttering my Mind
But is he right about black people? Of course there are lot of black writers out there. UK's Zadie Smith (picture), France's Marie NDiaye and my all time favorite, the American James Baldwin. I remember I had to defend my choice of Baldwin on my English literature list. Baldwin was not considered “literature”, at least not on my high school in Amsterdam.
Back to classmate and Jewish encyclopedia Ab. He added. “The reason why the influence of Jewish people in Hollywood is big, is also because there are many Jewish writers. We create are own heroes. That’s why black people don’t get Oscars.“
This reminds me of the global discussion about the underrepresentation of black people in the movies, and about the problems of black actors on ‘white’ stages. About these problem a black producer once said, “we need black writers who write black stories so we can create are own heroes in plays and films. “But,” he added, “ you need quantity to get quality.” I forgot to ask what he was implying. But I refuse to believe that what writing is for Jewish people, is making music to black people. If that’s true then black people will be chained to Hip Hop videos forever, and the rest of the planet will create their own stories and transform them into block buster movies.
Chuck D once called Rap music the black CNN. I think I’ve heard enough ‘black’ news by now, I would like to read some of it on paper for the change. And the oral history thing? It’s just another way of saying that we don’t read books.
Back to the video: the video is of course what story writing is all about: creating a reader’s experience. The moment you open a book you must feel as if you were sitting in a train heading west. You see the smoke of locomotive, feel the bumpy railway and hear the train conductor saying: “ tickets please.” Yes, I tried!
And for the one who wants to be a writer, here’s the cliché tip from the writers wannabe class: Read Tsjechov! Read some of his short stories here.
And Ab? He started a Klezmer band. So he was wrong after all.
Some who read this blog may think what the hell this is all about. Are we trying to imitate the USA and their ‘racial’ interpretation of society? Or we trying to pigeonhole the black people of Europe in a new category? What gives us the right to bring together topics related to black people in Europe in one blog? Isn’t it racist to categorize black people in Europe as one group? Based on what? Skincolour? Culture?
The central question is what a Nigerian in Italy, an Angolan in Sweden, a Jamaican in the UK and a mixed race Congolese in France or Germany have in common. Europe is not even united so how would black people coming from different nations feel united within Europe? We don’t even have a common language. Below I will give my opinion on this issue.
500 years What we have in common is the western and European experience, and the way we are categorized within Europe as a certain kind of people. Whether you are in France, Germany, Italy or any other European country, the majority white people of Europe perceive people of African ancestry in quite the same way. This categorization isn’t entrenched in the laws of European nations, but for centuries in the past it was. It isn’t something we can easily describe nor can we demonstrate it through clear facts and figures. However, through a history of relations between Europe and the darker peoples of the planet, the ‘black man’ has received a certain place. Although racial slavery has been abolished, and racist laws eradicated from law books, the concepts and ideas inherited from more than 5 centuries of African-European relationships are still there. Whatever the colour of our skin, we are part of this history.
An anomaly Black people in Europe, whether with brown or black skin, whether born there or not, whether having a white parent or not, whether adopted or not, whether they speak the national language or not, whether integrated or not, ...are all perceived as a certain kind of foreigners. They are not supposed to be there. But in reality most black people in Europe have built their homes in Europe, have adopted European cultures as their own and are perfectly integrated. If not the first generation, then certainly their children.
This experience; being perceived as foreigners from a common continent (whether being really a foreigner or not), is central in the creation of our identity. Identity is based on the relationship you have with others. I do think that most Europeans of African ancestry, i.e culturally integrated black people, would prefer just to be seen as part of the country where they are living, fully accepted as members of that society. In reality it is not so. Even when they have actually forgotten the cultures and languages of their ancestors and only know the Western world as their world, they will still be seen as an anomaly within the Western world, even after generations. (It is important to note here that Italians who migrated to France, Belgians who migrated to Sweden, etc. are assimilated after one or two generations). However, after centuries of African-European relationship Europe influenced Africa, but the other way around is certainly just as true. The presence of black people in Europe is a logic consequence of the African-European history. Europe seems not to accept this logic.
Europe’s relationship with the other, (whether Africans or people from the ‘Orient’) and the way it has described the other, has been the vehicle in the creation of a European and Western identity. Unfortunately black people do not fit into that identity. We could fight for being acknowledged as part of the European identity. But this means a total reconsideration of what being European means. When we look at the social and political reality of today's Europe there is an urge to defend and protect an essentialist view of Europe as 'white and pure'. Therefore today, black people in Europe are creating a new concept of self within the Western world, i.e. AfroEurope.
America Besides that there is the influence of the American media in Europe. Europeans, whether black or white, consume a lot of American media and are influenced by it. Whether you’re French, Swedish, Italian, … we all watch Hollywood movies, we all enjoy the same soaps and series. We all listen to Jazz, Hip Hop, Rock, Grunge, Metal, Soul, Reggae, House .... Our pop culture is impregnated with American pop culture (Predominantly from the USA but actually also from the Caribbean and Latin America). We are all, white and black, part of the Western world. This has a direct influence to how black people within Europe are creating an identity, and how they have been categorized within Europe.
Being ‘black’ is being Western Black people in Europe do not really have common cultural roots, but second generations feel more related to Western black culture as it is expressed in the Americas than through the culture of their parents. Black people in the Western world have very different roots and backgrounds but have a common experience. Their black identity only makes sense within a Western world dominated by white European culture.
In fact it’s because they have become part of white European culture that they are now ‘black people’ and not Yoruba, Bakongo or Banyarundi, to name just some of the many African peoples living in Africa. This is why, according to me, the European people of African ancestry are becoming black Europeans, AfroEuropeans (or Afropeans as some label us). This is why, according to me, today there is a blog called AfroEurope, informing the world about the African presence within Europe's culture and society.
Beware: In this article I will use the word 'mulatto'. I know that some people are sensitive about the use of this word due to its ethymology. The reason I use it is not because I like it but because I will tackle an issue about mixed race people and want to describe things clearly. If this shocks anyone please accept my appologies before starting to read this.
In the following days after Michael Jackson’s death we have heard a lot of speculation about MJ’s fatherhood. During the ceremony we saw his children for the first time and many people were surprised to see that MJ’s children looked so white/Caucasian. Tom Vandyck, US correspondent for the progressive newspaper De Morgen (Belgium) expressed his doubts about MJ being the real biological father of these children. His doubts were based on Paris’s appearance. For him, biologically, she couldn’t be part of the Jackson family.
I was shocked as it reflected the fact that race is still perceived as a hard evidence. But my experience among mixed race people is that whether the parents look black or not, once there is some racial mixing in your background, the racial features of your children is a lottery.
According to an article in The Observer two years ago, nearly all African Americans have some white ancestors. This is the reason many African Americans do actually look like mixed race people with an African and European parent. Look at Colin Powell, Jeremiah Wright, Beyoncé Knowles, … and many more. They all identify as black and have a black identified mother and father. Therefore they are black in the US American context. But these people have white ancestors too and could have children with blond straight hair and blue eyes, certainly if they would choose a white partner.
When you are 'real mulatto', that is first generation black African & white European mixture, your children will generally look white if your partner is white, and black if your partner is black.
Below is a picture of Victoria Rowell, an actrice who has one white and one black parent. on this picture you can see her with her two kids. The white girl's father is white, the black boy's father is black.
Although we can’t really make a rule out of this. Different exceptions are just as common as the rule. My sister, who is half white half black has two daughters with a white Belgian man. The first girl looks white: bleu eyes, light brown hair. The second girl looks mulatto, but still with blue eyes. A good friend of mine who is half white half black has two children with an African man. They both look mulatto. One of my best friends has a mulatto mother and white father, he looks mulatto although his brother is blond and has blue eyes. Still, if you see them together you can see they are brothers.
When you look mulatto Africans can see you are not black and Europeans can see you are not white. Africans in East-Africa will call any white person ‘muzungu’, also someone looking like Obama will be called ‘muzungu’. It’s the same thing to them.
Europeans call light skinned blacks and mulattos also black. To most Europeans whether you are mulatto are not, you are just black. This means that a mulatto is ‘white’ or ‘black’ depending on the place where he is. Race is a relative thing.
I once asked a black street boy in Kenia whether he thought Beyoncé was white or black. He said without hesitating he thought she was white. He had a point, don’t you think so?
The only places on earth I know where people perceive the difference between black, mulatto and white is in Cuba and South Africa. Two places where many people of mixed race of all shades live. I have never been to Brazil, but there too, I heard it’s not just black and white, there is a whole world in between and people are very much aware of it.
My point is that based on the racial appearance of MJ’s children we can’t see if MJ is their real biological father or not. It’s pure guess work and it is wrong to say ‘they look white so therefore they can’t be his children’. Maybe they aren’t but that’s not for certain because of their skin colour. You can look white and still resemble you black father a lot.
Michael Jackson (before getting vitiligo) was a brown skinned black man, with the features of a mulatto. If you look at him, the ‘real black man’ (because having 2 black American parents) and the 'real mulatto' Obama; honestly they are the same type of black man, aren’t they?
Paris and Prince, if mixed race, are not the only mixed race children who look like white people. There are actually many. I will list some famous American ones.
This however doesn't prove that 'mulatto' people look white, this just proves that mixed people have all colours and shapes, and that they prove that race is just an illusion.
Mariah Carey, singer, father black (Afro-Venezuelan), mother white
Jason Kidd, basketball player, father black, mother white
And then last but not least: a little youtube video about biracial twins, one white, the other biracial as the world expects it (although called 'black' by the journalists). As twins this is rather special, but even then, brothers and sisters one white and one 'black' will become more and more common in interracial families.
Don't listen to what these journalists say nor the doctor they quote. The father might be 'black', he is certainly not a black African. He has clearly some white ancestors somewhere in his family tree. He looks mixed race.
The girls are not white or black, they are both mixed race. One looks white and is blond, the other looks dark and brown skinned.
If you keep on looking around you will find out that this phenomenon -maybe not twins but brothers and sisters having a totally different racial make up- is not a One in A Million case.
Fekete Pákó is the name of a TV star and singer in Hungary. His real name is Oludayo Olapite. He comes from Nigeria and came to Hungary in 1994 on scholarship to study Law, but later dropped out. His two Hungarian CDs have sold up to 31,000 copies. Enough to earn him golden platinum and make him a big star in Hungary.
On how he actually got into showbiz, Olapite recalls it was his friend, Molnár Sándor who came up with an idea. Sándor had asked what seemed to be a crazy question: "What if a black man sings Hungarian folklore?" The rest is now history.
You could think that the existence of a Black Hungarian TV personality is a beautiful example of integration and interculturalism within Europe. According to many, it’s quite the opposite. Fekete Pákó is a rather racist act that creates an image of sex obsessed, polygamous, human eating dummies.
The Hungarian tabloids are so obsessed with him to the extent of making him the spokesperson for Africans in Hungary even though it’s apparent that Pákó does not know much about African politics, culture and social life. Yet, they prefer him to those Hungarian Africans who are competent in this field, as well as speak more fluent Hungarian.
Headlines such as "Celeb Sex: Fekete Pákó in Online Cock Measuring Contest"; "Pákó Fekete Officially crowned Dumbest Hungarian"; "Cleb Dish: Szulak Stalked by "Cannibal" Pákó" is the kind of sensational misrepresentation you could read in Hungarian tabloids.
However, strong opposition comes from his own people. Fekete Pákó is not loved by his own people. Africans and especially Nigerians in Hungary simply hate him. They alleged he is denigrating black people in Hungary with his utterances and lifestyle.
Fredrick Konor, a Ghanaian who is a member of SANKOFA Cultural group, believes Pákó can’t sing but the guy has other characters like being funny, doing unexpected things that have lured Hungarian tabloids to him. "We should stop the jealousy," he says indignantly. "Our brother came from nowhere with a fresh idea to breakthrough a sector which is highly competitive. An African singing in Hungarian language!".
It’s true, he did something no one did before and he made a living out of it. And we could think if the likes of Snoop Doggy Dogg, Dr. Dre and 50Cent are not in the same way abusing ideas about black people to make a lot of money in the show business. But then again, maybe we should not take all this too seriously. Why not appreciate the irony and self mockery in all this?
This article was written thanks to an article from The Nation (Nigeria) by Olumide Olapite. Click here to read the full article.
