Black Studies

Black Studies

Black studies is defined as the study of African-Americans, their culture, and contributions to society. Black studies covers aspect of the institution of slavery and progression of segregation in post-civil war United States. Likewise, the African-Americans had triumphed throughout these perilous times. African-American leaders began to emerge and create movements that would establish a Black identity; some of these movements include the Black Arts Movement, The Nation of Islam, Civil Rights Movement, Black Power Movement, and the Black Nationalist Movement/ Universal Negro Improvement Association.

The Black Nationalist Movement was one of the most groundbreaking movements of Black history. This movement was a political and social movement which promoted the education and political recognition of black Americans.[1] Some people have traced this movement Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association. This association sought to gain economic power and incorporate blacks into the idea of a community.

Likewise, The Black Nationalist Movement under Gravey’s leadership was primarily based to enhance the life of African-Americans. This movement had two core values which were black pride and racial separatism, ideally Gravey wanted African-Americans completely separate from white society. Judging by what caused these movements they accurately represent responses from a hostile white society. I take reference from a book titled the Production of the Afro-American where it reads “black nationalists maintain that in order for Afro-Americans to liberate themselves from oppression, some degree of autonomy from the dominant society is essential.” Marcus Garvey strongly believed that this separation would allow for blacks to take control of their communities, maintain economic stability, and promote peaceful living environments. [2]

In addition, while looking at the Black Nationalist Movement we must not forget the movement of the Nation of Islam by Malcolm X. This movement was a religious movement that captivated hundreds and thousands of African-Americans, so much that they converted to the religious Islamic practice. During this movement the Nation of Islam taught Muslim beliefs, created black businesses and schools, and rehabilitated former drug addicts into their former functional selves[3]. These participants of this movement were perceived to be the conscious of blacks and ones who would help blacks to achieve some form of success. Many people began to follow this movement because to some it is because of the Nation of Islam that they got their lives back and enjoyed life as they did before drugs.

In contrast, this movement became under fire when the Civil Rights Movement began by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The Civil Rights Movement was a movement of protests and political action by thousands of American citizens. The start of such a monumental movement has been attributed to Rosa Parks a woman whom refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. This is the spark that had lead to one of the biggest boycotts in American history.[4] These boycotts would lead to certain businesses economic demise since there would not be any protestor’s patronizing their businesses. This movement is known for being a non-violent movement. Police would resort to inhumane methods of crowd control by hosing people down and attacking them with dogs, yet the protestors stood their strong waiting for their voice to be heard.

Lastly, the Black Power movement was a movement started by the Black Panthers. This movement was hailed as the positive force that helped blacks achieve full equality with whites. This movement installed a since of racial pride, self-esteem, and promotion of political participation.[5] The Black Power movement encouraged individuals to instill racial pride and unity. It is from this movement that the Black Art Movement occurred where young black poets, authors, and visual artists found their voices and shared those voices with others. This movement sought out a black audience.

It is through these different movements that the emergence of Black Studies emerged. The objective is to analyze the economic and political reason for slavery in America, provide valuable information regarding blacks and their lives in America. In addition to providing the role of geography plays a role in determining slavery and its effects on the world.

Ancient Kemet played a major role in World History since it established one of the first educational systems the world has ever seen. Egyptian believed that their purpose in life was to live and become a God, this created a society that is heavily based on its divinity. Formal education was one way Egyptians used to attain life’s purpose. Kemet’s scholars taught the Seven Liberal Arts in the Mystery Schools to liberate the person’s soul from its body, which would allow the student to ultimately reach the level of Spiritual Consciousness. Education was to bring out and develop the “good” or “divine” already inside a person. For example, Studying Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic, for example, would remove a person’s “irrational tendencies of behavior” because these subjects were conveyors for moral development. [6]

The legacy of Egypt is debated because it flourished around 3000 B.C. which is inconceivable to those who view Jerusalem as the start of civilization. In addition to this, the idea the Africans began and maintained one of the most advanced civilizations on the planet seems inconceivable. This starts a debate which has lasted hundreds of years .The Kemet tradition naturally belongs to the blacks.[7] We were here before the colonization of Egypt and therefore the land quite naturally belongs to the Africans. During this time the whites came and occupied this land which they exploited for their own goods since it has close proximity to the Nile River.

It is important to study Ancient Egypt and Classical African Civilizations be integrated into African-American studies since it is an ancient civilization in Africa. Egypt should not be taken out of studies because it was originally Kemet which is a part of Africa, there has only been a name change. The contributions of this people and their society should still be noted in African-American studies. This helps in establishing a foundation in African-American studies; it allows us to see exactly what our people had to endure and the hardships that we had to endure. Without doing so the history of African-Americans will remain untold, this creates a perception of partial truths. The complete history of African-Americans should be explored.

The purpose of both of these compromises were to stop the spreading of slavery, although they had similar motives their methods could not be any different. By 1818, the state of Missouri had gained enough population to be entered into the Union. Due to its settlers coming from the South it was expected that Missouri would become a slave state. [8] In 1819, Representative James Tallradge proposed an amendment to ban slavery in Missouri, which is what the South’s economy was based upon. It is through Sen. Henry Clay this compromise was created. The Missouri Compromise stipulated that all the Louisiana Purchase territory north of the southern boundary of Missouri, except Missouri, would be free, and the territory below that line would be slave.

In opposition, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was created. The act was created when Senator Stephen Douglas wanted to build a transcontinental railway which had to pass through the Nebraska. Douglas suggested that the territory become two states, Nebraska entering as a free state and Kansas deciding by popular sovereignty. [9]This nullified the Missouri Compromise entirely however the South agreed. People in the North against the expansion of slavery paid for people to move to Kansas and vote against slavery. This angered the South and resulted in Southerners crossing the border on voting day to vote in for slavery. Violence erupted and a civil war broke out in 'bleeding Kansas'.[10] This can be called the spark of the Civil War since it successfully put the Northerners and the Southerners at war with each other.

---

[1] Gordon, Dexter. Black Identity: Rhetoric, Ideology, and Nineteenth-Century Black Nationalism (Southern Illinois Univerisity Press, 2003), 37

[2] Gordon, Dexter. Black Identity: Rhetoric, Ideology, and Nineteenth-Century Black Nationalism (Southern Illinois Univerisity Press, 2003), 39

[3]PBS. “The Story of the Movement-The Nation of Islam and Malcolm X”. PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/11_noi.html (accessed March 11, 2010)

[4] Levy, Peter. The Civil Rights (London: Greenwood Press Westport, 1998) 127

[5] James McEvoy and Abraham Miller. Black Power and Student Rebellion. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1969), 233

[6] Suite101. Ancient Kemet’s World View. Suite 101. http://africanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/ancient_kemets_world_view (accessed March 13, 2010)

[7] Henderson, Anthony. Afrocentrism and World Politics: Towards a New Paradigm. (Wesport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1995), 89

[8] Jones, Charles. Missouri: The Heart of the Nation. (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson Publishing, 2004), 110

[9] Goodrich, Thomas. War to knife: Bleeding Kansas, 1854-1861. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press., 2004), 42

[10] Civil War. Secession Crisis. http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html (accessed March 14, 2010)

ftn5[ � p �? � oFootnoteText>[5] James McEvoy and Abraham Miller. Black Power and Student Rebellion. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1969), 233

[6] Suite101. Ancient Kemet’s World View. Suite 101. http://africanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/ancient_kemets_world_view (accessed March 13, 2010)

[7] Henderson, Anthony. Afrocentrism and World Politics: Towards a New Paradigm. (Wesport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1995), 89

[8] Jones, Charles. Missouri: The Heart of the Nation. (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson Publishing, 2004), 110

[9] Goodrich, Thomas. War to knife: Bleeding Kansas, 1854-1861. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press., 2004), 42

[10] Civil War. Secession Crisis. http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html (accessed March 14, 2010)

Cinco de Mayo: the Mexican celebration not celebrated in Mexico...

Image of Cinco de Mayo celebration in Saint Paul, Minnesota

Cinco de Mayo (Spanish for "fifth of May") is a holiday celebrated in the United States and primarily limited to the state of Puebla in Mexico. The holiday commemorates the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of Mexican General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.

The battle of Puebla in 1862 happened at a violent and chaotic time in Mexico's history. Mexico had finally gained independance from Spain in 1821 after a difficult and bloody struggle, and a number of internal political takeovers and wars, including the Mexican-American war and the Mexican Civil War had ruined the national economy.

During this period of struggle Mexico had accumulated heavy debts to several nations, including Spain, England and France who were demanding repayment. France was eager to expand its empire at that time and used the debt issue to move forward with goals of establishing its own leadership in Mexico. When Mexico finally stopped making any loan payments, France took action on its own to install Napoleon III's relative, Archduke Maximilian of Austria, as ruler of Mexico.

France invaded at the gulf coast of Mexico along the state of Veracruz and began to march toward Mexico city. The French army encountered strong resistance near Puebla. A small, poorly armed militia estimated at 4500 men were able to stop and defeat the well outfited french army of 6500 soldiers, which stopped the invasion of the country. The victory was a glorious moment for Mexican patriots, which at the time helped to develop a needed sense of national unity and is the cause for the historical date's celebration.

Althought the Mexican army was eventually defeated, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. With this victory, Mexico demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves of any foreign intervention. Especially those from imperialist states bent on world conquest.

The Battle of Puebla was important for at least two reasons. First, although considerably outnumbered, the Mexicans defeated a much better-equipped French army. "This battle was significant in that the 4,000 Mexican soldiers were greatly outnumbered by the well-equipped French army of 8,000 that had not been defeated for almost 50 years." Second, it was significant because since the Battle of Puebla no country in the Americas has been invaded by an army from another continent.

According to a paper published by the UCLA Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture about the origin of the observance of Cinco de Mayo in the United States, the modern American focus on the people of the world that day first started in California in the 1860s in response to the resistance to French rule in Mexico. The 2007 paper notes that "The holiday, which has been celebrated in California continuously since 1863, is virtually ignored in Mexico."

In the United States, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to be known as simply "5 de Mayo" and unfortunately, many people wrongly equate it with Mexican Independence which was on September 16, 1810, nearly a fifty year difference.

Image of Cinco de Mayo dancers greeted by then-President George W. Bush.

In Mexico, Cinco de Mayo is a regional holiday limited primarily to the state of Puebla. There is some limited recognition of the holiday in other parts of the country. For the most part the celebrations combine food, music, and dancing.

In the United States Cinco de Mayo has taken on a significance beyond that in Mexico.The date is perhaps best recognized in the United States as a date to celebrate the culture and experiences of Americans of Mexican ancestry. Cinco de Mayo is observed by many Americans regardless of ethnic origin. Celebrations tend to draw both from traditional Mexican symbols, such as the Virgen de Guadalupe, and from prominent figures of Mexican descent in the United States, including César Chávez.To celebrate, many display Cinco de Mayo banners while school districts hold special events to educate pupils about its historical significance. Special events and celebrations highlight Mexican culture, especially in its music and regional dancing. Examples include baile folklórico and mariachi demonstrations held annually at the Plaza del Pueblo de Los Angeles, near Olvera Street. Commercial interests in the United States have capitalized on the celebration, advertising Mexican products and services, with an emphasis on beverages, foods, and music.

Events tied to Cinco de Mayo also occur outside Mexico and the United States. For example, a sky-diving club near Vancouver, Canada holds a Cinco de Mayo skydiving event. In the Cayman Islands, in the Caribbean, there is an annual Cinco de Mayo air guitar competition. As far away as the island of Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, revelers are encouraged to drink Mexican beer on May 5.

Image of Cinco de Mayo performers at the White House

Information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo

http://www.mexonline.com/cinco-de-mayo.htm

http://clnet.ucla.edu/cinco.html

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

The Massacre of Casinga

Cassinga Day is a national public holiday in Namibia remembering the Cassinga massacre. Occurring on 4 May yearly, the day "remembers those (approximately 600) killed in 1978 when the South African Defence Force attacked a SWAPO base (refugee camp) at Cassinga in southern Angola". Commemorations are marked yearly by ceremonies at Heroes Acre, outside of Windhoek. These ceremonies are attended by many important national political figures, including Presidents Hifikepunye Pohamba and Sam Nujoma.

At daybreak on May 4, 1978, South African planes flew over Cassinga, a Namibian refugee camp in southern Angola. Claudia Ushona, who was then a sixteen-year old refugee living in the camp, recalls, “We were gathered outside to salute the flag when we saw white things falling from the sky. We thought it was our president [Sam Nujoma, president of SWAPO] sending

us candy. We were eager to see him. We said, ‘The president is coming! And he is bringing us candy!’ We were living in a refugee camp, we were all dreaming of the candy the president would bring us. But they were bombs."

After the bombs came the paratroopers. This was the massacre of Cassinga– more than 600 Namibians, mostly women and children were slaughtered by the soldiers of Apartheid. A United Nations delegation that visited Cassinga a few days later reported: "What the South Africans did was criminal in legal terms and savage in moral terms. It reminds us of the darkest moments in modern history."

Western governments barely reacted to the massacre. In the UN Security Council, the United States and its allies opposed sanctions against South Africa. President Jimmy Carter, self-styled champion of human rights, told reporters, "The South Africans claim that it was just a retaliatory raid against the SWAPO forces who had invaded Namibia with small strikes, and they’ve claimed to have withdrawn and have not left any South African forces in Angola. So we hope it’s just a transient strike in retaliation and we hope it’s all over."

A few weeks after the massacre, the first group Namibian children, six hundred strong, most of whom were survivors of Cassinga, arrived in Cuba to study and grow up far from the South African bombs. The Cuban embassay said 'No other country in the world opened its doors so widely and so generously to the Namibian refugees'.

A Cuban unit that had been based at Tchamutete, 16 kilometers south of Cassinga, immediately advanced under the strafing and bombs of the South African planes to confront the aggressor; 16 soldiers died and more than 80 were wounded. Looking back, the South African historian of the operation wrote in 1982, "the South Africans who monitored their approach with such foreboding that day pay tribute to the courage of the Cubans who pushed forward in spite of the imminent danger of being knocked out by aircraft against which they had no defenses at all."

A decade later, on May 4, 1988, the South African Defense Force (SADF) celebrated the tenth anniversary of the massacre with a military parade in the northern Namibian town of Oshakati. General Ian Gleeson, chief of staff of the SADF, boasted that the raid had been "the most successful paratroop operation of its kind anywhere in the world since World War Two." The parade was "an impressive show of strength," the Johannesburg Star noted, but the Namibian people commemorated the massacre with an unprecedented show of defiance. Holding black banners with the words, "Cassinga, 1978-88 – We remember," demonstrators congregated in massive rallies and marched through the streets of Katatura, the black township adjoining white Windhoek, and other Namibian towns, defying rubber bullets and teargas. "Only when Namibia is independent will there be no more Kassingas," the General Secretary of the Council of Churches in Namibia declared. "It makes us weep more bitterly when we know that the Western countries which like to speak so loudly of democracy and human rights (Britain, United States and Germany) actually collaborate with South Africa to perpetuate our suffering and delay our independence. We refuse to accept their hypocritical excuses that we, the Africans, would suffer most if mandatory sanctions are imposed on South Africa. We refuse to be consoled by spokespersons of these governments until these governments have become reasonable in terms of human rights. ... We cry and refuse to be comforted because we value and respect life, liberty, freedom and independence of all our people. We are children of God who are entitled to take our rightful place as a free people amongst the nations."

Politically, the operation was a disaster for South Africa. Although one of the parabats was specifically tasked to take photographs and media releases managed in order to counter hostile claims of killing innocent civilians, it was SWAPO that made the first announcements about the attack, as operations in the border areas were continuing. This caught the South Africans by surprise, as they were expecting SWAPO to downplay the raid. Instead, SWAPO maxmised the propaganda opportunity, describing the base as a refugee camp and claiming the SADF had slaughtered 600 defenceless refugees. Despite armaments being found and photographed at Cassinga, and documents to the contrary, the International Red Cross stated that the camp was in fact both a refugee camp and a military base. The bodies were buried in two mass graves at Cassinga, with gruesome pictures of them being used very effectively by SWAPO for propaganda purposes.

Image of SWAPO propaganda with images from the massacre

Information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassinga_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassinga_massacre

http://emba.cubaminrex.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=6027

Muammar al-Gaddafi and his trouble with the West

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi1 (also known as Colonel Gaddafi; born 1942) has been the de facto leader of Libya since a coup in 1969. He is the longest-serving ruler of Libya. As an early follower of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Arab socialist and nationalism ideal, he took a part as a teenager in anti-Israeli demonstrations during Suez Crisis. An early conspirator, he begun first plan to overthrow monarchy while in military college. He received further military training in the United Kingdom.

On 1 September 1969, a small group of junior military officers led by Gaddafi staged a bloodless coup d'état against King Idris I, while he was in Kamena Vourla, a Greek resort, for medical treatment. His nephew the Crown Prince Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi had been formally deposed by the revolutionary army officers and put under house arrest; they abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. The 27-year-old Gaddafi sought to become the new "Che Guevara of the age". To accomplish this Gaddafi turned Libya into a haven for anti-Western radicals, where any group, supposedly, could receive weapons and financial assistance, provided they claimed to be fighting imperialism. The Italian population in Libya almost disappeared after Gaddafi ordered the expulsion of Italians in 1970.

Throughout the 1970s, his regime was implicated in subversion and terrorist activities in both Arab and non-Arab countries. By the mid-1980s, he was widely regarded in the West as the principal financier of international terrorism. Reportedly, Gaddafi was a major financier of the "Black September Movement" which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and was accused by the United States of being responsible for direct control of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that killed three people and wounded more than 200, of whom a substantial number were U.S. servicemen. He is also said to have paid "Carlos the Jackal" to kidnap and then release a number of Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil ministers.

Tensions between Libya and the West reached a peak during the Ronald Reagan administration, which tried to overthrow Gaddafi. The Reagan administration viewed Libya as a belligerent rogue state because of its uncompromising stance on Palestinian independence, its support for revolutionary Iran in the 1980–1988 war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and its backing of "liberation movements" in the developing world. Reagan himself dubbed Gaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East". In December 1981, the US State Department invalidated US passports for travel to Libya, and in March 1982, the U.S. declared a ban on the import of Libyan oil and the export to Libya of U.S. oil industry technology; European nations did not follow suit. The U.S. attacked Libyan patrol boats from January to March 1986 during clashes over access to the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya claimed as territorial waters. On 15 April 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered major bombing raids, dubbed Operation El Dorado Canyon, against Tripoli and Benghazi killing 45 Libyan military and government personnel as well as 15 civilians.This strike followed U.S. interception of telex messages from Libya's East Berlin embassy suggesting Libyan government involvement in a bomb explosion on 5 April in West Berlin's La Belle discothèque, a nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen. Among the alleged fatalities of the 15 April retaliatory attack by the U.S. was Gaddafi's adopted daughter, Hannah. Libya responded by firing two Scud missiles at the U.S. Coast Guard navigation station on the Italian island of Lampedusa, in retaliation for the bombing. The missiles landed in the sea, and caused no damage.

In 1984, British police constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration. A burst of machine-gun fire from within the building was suspected of killing her, but Libyan diplomats asserted their diplomatic immunity and were repatriated. The incident led to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.In late 1987, a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, was intercepted. Destined for the IRA, a large consignment of arms and explosives supplied by Libya was recovered from the Eksund. British intelligence believed this was not the first and that Libyan arms shipments had previously reached the IRA. An alleged plot by Britain's secret intelligence service to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, when rebels attacked Gaddafi's motorcade near the city of Sirte in February 1996, was described as "pure fantasy" by former foreign secretary Robin Cook, although the FCO later admitted: "We have never denied that we knew of plots against Gaddafi."

For most of the 1990s, Libya endured economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation as a result of Gaddafi's refusal to allow the extradition to the United States or Britain of two Libyans accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Through the intercession of South African President Nelson Mandela – who made a high-profile visit to Gaddafi in 1997 – and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gaddafi agreed in 1999 to a compromise that involved handing over the defendants to the Netherlands for trial under Scottish law.: U.N. sanctions were thereupon suspended, but U.S. sanctions against Libya remained in force. In August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction, Libya wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion – or up to US$10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims. The same month, Britain and Bulgaria co-sponsored a U.N. resolution which removed the suspended sanctions. (Bulgaria's involvement in tabling this motion led to suggestions that there was a link with the HIV trial in Libya in which 5 Bulgarian nurses, working at a Benghazi hospital, were accused of infecting 426 Libyan children with HIV.) As a result, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. Gaddafi's 2009 welcome to the return of convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who was released from prison on compassionate grounds, attracted criticism from Western leaders and disrupted his first-ever visit to the United States to attend a UN General Session.

Gaddafi appeared to be attempting to improve his image in the West. Two years prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons programme to international inspection. The Bush administration did not pursue the offer at the time since Libya's weapons program was not then regarded as a threat, and the matter of handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects took priority. Following the attacks of 11 September, Gaddafi made one of the first, and firmest, denunciations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader. Gaddafi also appeared on ABC for an open interview with George Stephanopoulos, a move that would have seemed unthinkable less than a decade earlier.

Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. US President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by stating that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. Many foreign policy experts, however, contend that Gaddafi's announcement was merely a continuation of his prior attempts at normalizing relations with the West and getting the sanctions removed. To support this, they point to the fact that Libya had already made similar offers starting four years prior to it finally being accepted. International inspectors turned up several tons of chemical weaponry in Libya, as well as an active nuclear weapons program. As the process of destroying these weapons continued, Libya improved its cooperation with international monitoring regimes to the extent that, by March 2006, France was able to conclude an agreement with Libya to develop a significant nuclear power program.

In March 2004, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair became one of the first Western leaders in decades to visit Libya and publicly meet Gaddafi. Blair praised Gaddafi's recent acts, and stated that he hoped Libya could now be a strong ally in the international War on Terrorism. On 15 May 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction program. The State Department also said that Libya would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism. On 31 August 2006, however, Gaddafi openly called upon his supporters to "kill enemies" who asked for political change. In July 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Gaddafi. On 4 March 2008 Gaddafi announced his intention to dissolve the country's existing administrative structure and disburse oil revenue directly to the people. The plan includes abolishing all ministries, except those of defence, internal security, and foreign affairs, and departments implementing strategic projects. In September 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Libya and met with Gaddafi as part of a North African tour. This was the first visit to Libya by a US Secretary of State since 1953. In January 2009, Gaddafi contributed an editorial to the New York Times, suggesting that he was in favor of a single-state solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflicts that moved beyond old conflicts and looked to a unified future of shared culture and mutual respect.

On 30 August 2008, Gaddafi and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed a historic cooperation treaty in Benghazi. Under its terms, Italy will pay $5 billion to Libya as compensation for its former military occupation. In exchange, Libya will take measures to combat illegal immigration coming from its shores and boost investments in Italian companies.The treaty was ratified by Italy in 6 February 2009, and by Libya on 2 March, during a visit to Tripoli by Berlusconi. In June Gaddafi made his first visit to Rome, where he met Prime Minister Berlusconi, President Giorgio Napolitano and Senate President Renato Schifani; Chamber President Gianfranco Fini cancelled the meeting because of Gaddafi's delay. The Democratic Party and Italy of Values opposed the visit, and many protests were staged throughout Italy by human rights organizations and the Radical Party. Gaddafi also took part in the G8 summit in L'Aquila in July as Chairman of the African Union. During the summit a handshake between US President Barack Obama and Muammar Gaddafi took place (the first time the Libyan leader has been greeted by a serving US president), then at summit's official dinner offered by President Giorgio Napolitano US and Libyan leaders upset the ceremony and sat by the Italian Prime Minister and G8 host, Silvio Berlusconi. (According to ceremony, Gaddafi should seat three places after Berlusconi).

In September 2009, at a South America-Africa summit on Isla Margarita in Venezuela, Colonel Gaddafi joined the host, Hugo Chávez, in calling for an "anti-imperialist" front across Africa and Latin America. Gaddafi proposed the establishment of a South Atlantic Treaty Organization to rival NATO, saying: "The world’s powers want to continue to hold on to their power. Now we have to fight to build our own power."

Quotes made by Gaddafi

"God damn America" – Time magazine, April 2, 1973

"The statements of our Kenyan brother of American nationality, Obama, on Jerusalem ... show that he either ignores international politics and did not study the Middle East conflict or that it [Barack Obama's expression of solidarity with Israel] is a campaign lie. We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him."

"It is a response to greedy Western nations, who invade and exploit Somalia’s water resources illegally. It is not a piracy, it is self defence. It is defending the Somalia children’s food. If they (Western nations) do not want to live with us fairly, it is our planet and they can go to other planet."

"Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate -- is against Muhammad, God and the Quran,"

"There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Interview with Larry King

Information from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjNAGyMCEik&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJdk5ANcJIo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlpLpexwfk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wOaFfrQaYk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MrpigxYD4E&feature=related

British Evacuation Day in Libya

Libya celebrates the anniversary of the evacuation of British military forces in the country in 1970 after the British government agreed to pull out its troops from Tobruk “Al Adam” (present day, Jalal Abdulnasir Base), the air base they established after the Second World War broke out.

At the end of the Second World War, Libya associated much of its foreign policies in the West especially the United States and Great Britain while maintaining full diplomatic relations with Italy, Greece, France and the dissolved Soviet Union.

The military coup led by Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1969 resulted in the decision to close the American and British military bases in Libya and hoped to nationalize most of government’s properties including the fossil fuels resources and other commercial businesses in the country. Moreover, Gaddafi’s temporarily embargoed the transport of oil to the US and other countries in the west as a means to convince the Western nations to halt the political and military support they were giving Israel in 1973.

The last British troops left Libya in 1970 marking this day as one of the important turning points in Libya’s colonial history. Today, this is celebrated as British Evacuation Day. British Evacuation Day is considered to be one of the most important holidays in Libya but it isn’t celebrated with festivities inasmuch as how religious holidays in Libya are celebrated. The employed consider this day as a time off from work.

Information from:

http://aglobalworld.com/holidays-around-the-world/libya-british-evacuation-day/

http://www.bank-holidays.com/pop_up_holidays.php?fete_id=4092&pays_id=218&jour_sem=5&annee=0&id_langue=2

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/libya_pop_1974.jpg

Freedom Day in South Africa

Freedom day is a public holiday in South Africa celebrated on the 27th April. It celebrates freedom and commemorates the first post-apartheid elections held on that day in 1994. The elections were the first non-racial national elections where everyone of voting age of over 18 from any race group including non-citizens were allowed to vote. Previously, under the apartheid regime, non-whites had only limited rights to vote.

The national 2010 celebrations will be held at the Union Buildings in Pretoria. President Zuma will address the nation and later bestow National Orders on outstanding South Africans and eminent foreign nationals. This year the celebrations will take place under the theme: "Together deepening our democracy and celebrating our freedom". The celebrations coincide with the 20th anniversary of the release of one of the world's most respected freedom fighters and the first President of a democratic South Africa, Dr Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. Of special note is that the celebrations happen on the eve of the biggest sporting event, the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup, which will for the first time take place on African soil.

The Department of Arts and Culture issued a list of artists performing at the national Freedom Day celebrations. These artists include Arts Family Productions (Diski Dance), Big Nuz, Selaelo Selota, Ihashi Elimhlophe Rebecca Malope and Phuzekhemisi.

Other events give people from the other provinces the chance to celebrate. The programme will be characterised by indigenous games performances, cultural dance, music performances, exhibitions, provision of services (Home Affairs and South African Social Security Agency) etc.

"As we will be celebrating our Freedom as South Africans, we will be remembering the people of Haiti who still suffer from the natural disaster which befell their land through the Haiti solidarity walk and fun run on 27 April 2010 from the Aspen Spar to the Finnis Sport Complex," said MEC Xoliswa Tom, who is the political champion for the programme.

According to the South African Government:

"On 27 April 2010 we celebrate 16 years of deepening democracy and freedom in South African and the achievements we have made as a nation.

• 27 April marks another milestone in the history of our nation. It is time to reflect and celebrate the journey that we travelled to achieve our freedom and democracy.
• On this day we remember the heroes and heroines from all walks of life in South Africa who sacrificed so much to ensure freedom for the all South Africans.
• Nation building requires every South African, young and old, to recognise the values and principles enshrined in our constitution and avoid behaviour that may impact negatively on society.
• We celebrate a Bill of Rights which distinguishes us amongst the nations of the world and guarantees all South Africans freedom from the repression and hatred which characterised our past.
• We celebrate living in a system which garantees that never again will our human dignity be taken from any South African irrespective of their race, gender, creed or sexual orientation."

Information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Day_(South_Africa)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_South_Africa

http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/holidays.htm

http://www.info.gov.za/events/2010/freedom-day.htm

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10042010251002.htm

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10042015551002.htm

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/general/south-africans-in-dubai-celebrate-freedom-day-1.65823

Get to know the British Monarch: Queen Elizabeth II

Today is the 84th birthday of Queen Elizabeth II, the current queen of the United Kingdom and so here is some information about her!

The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She holds each crown separately and equally in a shared monarchy, as well as acting as Head of the Commonwealth, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Between 1956 and 1992, half of her realms, including South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon (renamed Sri Lanka), became republics. As a constitutional monarch, she is politically neutral and by convention her role is largely ceremonial.

The elder daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, she was born in 1926 and became Queen at the age of 25, and has reigned through more than five decades of enormous social change and development. The Queen is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and has four children and eight grandchildren.

When Elizabeth was born, the British Empire was a pre-eminent world power, but its influence declined, particularly after the Second World War, and the empire evolved into the Commonwealth of Nations. Her father, George VI, was the last Emperor of India and the first Head of the Commonwealth.

At the time of her birth she stood third in line of succession to the throne after Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII), and her father, The Duke of York. But it was not expected that her father would become King, or that she would become Queen.

Princess Elizabeth's quiet family life came to an end in 1936, when her grandfather, King George V, died. His eldest son came to the throne as King Edward VIII, but, before the end of the year, King Edward VIII had decided to give up the throne in order to marry the woman he loved, Mrs Wallis Simpson.Upon his abdication, Princess Elizabeth's father acceded to the throne as King George VI, and in 1937 the two Princesses attended their parents' coronation in Westminster Abbey.Princess Elizabeth was now first in line to the throne, and a figure of even more intense public interest.

Elizabeth and her younger sister Margaret were educated at home. On the outbreak of war in 1939, they were evacuated to Windsor Castle. In 1945, Elizabeth joined the war effort, training as a driver in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service (WATS). In November 1947, she married a distant cousin, Philip Mountbatten (formerly Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark), who was created duke of Edinburgh.

The couple, who had known each other for many years, were married in Westminster Abbey on 20 November 1947. The event was fairly simple, as Britain was still recovering from the war, and Princess Elizabeth had to collect clothing coupons for her dress, like any other young bride. They spent their honeymoon at Broadlands, Hampshire, the home of Lord Mountbatten, and at Birkhall, Balmoral.

George VI died on 6 February 1952 while Elizabeth and Philip were in Kenya. She returned home immediately, and was crowned at Westminster Abbey in June 1953. For more than 50 years, during a period of great change in Britain, the queen has carried out her political duties as head of state, the ceremonial responsibilities of the sovereign and a large annual programme of visits in the United Kingdom as well as numerous foreign tours.

Despite the controversies and scandals surrounding her children and other members of the royal family, she remains a respected head of state. In 2002, Elizabeth celebrated her golden jubilee (50 years on the throne) and in 2006 her 80th birthday.

Aside from her official religious role as Supreme Governor of the established Church of England, Elizabeth personally worships with that church and with the national Church of Scotland. She regularly attends Sunday service at Crathie Kirk when in Balmoral.Frequently, the Queen will add a personal note about her faith to her annual Royal Christmas Message broadcast to the Commonwealth, such as in 2000, when she spoke about the theological significance of the millennium marking the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. Elizabeth also demonstrated support for inter-faith relations, often meeting with leaders of other religions, and granting her personal patronage to the Council of Christians and Jews.

Many people do not know exactlty what the monarch does and according to the official Royal Family website, the Queen has many different duties to perform every day.Some are public duties, such as ceremonies, receptions and visits within the United Kingdom or abroad. Other duties are carried out away from the cameras, but they are no less important. These include reading letters from the public, official papers and briefing notes; audiences with political ministers or ambassadors; and meetings with her Private Secretaries to discuss daily business and her future diary plans. Even when she is away from London, in residence at Balmoral or Sandringham, she receives official papers nearly every day of every year and remains fully briefed on matters affecting her realms.As the current monarch of Britain her face is on all money and stamps.She also gives a special Christmas message on television every year on Christmas Day.

Information from:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Earlylife/Earlylife.aspx

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Marriageandfamily/Marriageandfamily.aspx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/elizabeth_ii_queen.shtml

The Landing of the 33 Patriots

The landing of the 33 patriots is a national day in Uruguay that commemorates the arrival in 1825 of Juan Lavelleja, an anticolonial leader, and his 33 fighters, who are known as the Treinta y Tres Orientales (Thirty-Three Easterners). This landing marked the first stage in the fight for independence from Brazil in 1828.

On April 15th 1825, Lavalleja and his men took ship from San Isidro, a Buenos Aires neighborhood on the banks of the Río de la Plata at the northwest outskirts of the city. They advanced carefully among the isles of the Paraná Delta, evading the vigil of the Brazilian flotilla. After nightfall they crossed the Río Uruguay in two boats and disembarked at Agraciada Beach in the dawn of April 19. There they planted what would become known as the Bandera de los Treinta y Tres Orientales (Flag of the Thirty-Three Easterners), a flag of blue, white, and red horizontal bars. These colors had been traditional since the times of Artigas, not only in Oriental Province but also in others of the Río de la Plata region. Long afterwards, in 1877, the event would be portrayed by the painter Juan Manuel Blanes, in El Juramento de los Treinta y Tres Orientales (Oath of the Thirty-Three Easterners, pictured) one of the images most deeply inscribed in the historical memory of Uruguayans.

The military expedition of the Treinta y Tres proceeded to attract countryside inhabitants to the cause of freedom from the Brazilians, and made way to Montevideo, where they arrived on May 20, 1825. On June 14, in the town of La Florida they installed a provisional government which in turn held an election of representatives. This was known as Representatives' Hall, or more commonly as the Florida Assembly. The goal of the assembly was to rewrite the laws of Oriental Province.

On August 25 the assembly declared the independence of Oriental Province from Brazil, and its alleigiance to the United Provinces of Río de la Plata. The United Provinces recognized the incorporation of Oriental Province on October 24, 1825. This instigated a declaration of war by the Empire of Brazil in December of the same year. The Argentina-Brazil War had begun.This conflict extended until August 1828. After mediation by Viscount Ponsonby, a British diplomat, Oriental Province was established as a state independent of both the United Provinces and the Brazilian Empire. This accord was the foundation of modern Uruguay. Known as the Preliminary Peace Convention, it was affirmed on August 27, 1828.

The true number of the group has been the object of controversy, based on the existence of various lists of members, published between 1825 and 1832. Albeit thirty-three is the officially accepted number, the names differ from list to list; it is unclear whether these differing names may be nicknames of the true members. According to Jacinto Carranza, Santiago Gadea is a name appearing in every list. Although called Orientales, not everyone was from Oriental Province. Among them were various Argentines from the isles of Paraná, as well as Paraguayans.

Information from:

http://www.answers.com/topic/uruguay-landing-of-the-33-patriots-day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_of_the_33_Patriots_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Three_Orientals

To what extent is feminism a single doctrine?

Until the 1960s feminism was viewed as a sub-set of liberalism and socialism rather than an ideology. It is certain that feminism is a cross-cutting ideology, encompassing the three broad traditions of liberal traditions, socialist feminism and radical feminism, but whether it is today a single doctrine or still simply a sub-set of others can be greatly debated.

The core traditions of feminism each contain rival tendencies and have spawned ‘dual-system’ feminism and new feminist traditions have emerged, particularly since the 1980s such as Black feminism, cultural feminism and psychoanalytical feminism. It is easy, therefore, to dismiss feminism as too fragmented to form a single doctrine. Also the fact that these traditions are characterised more by disagreement than agreement suggests that they cannot form a unified ideology and are sub-sections of opposing ideologies that are likely to disagree. Nevertheless a range of common ground themes can be identified such as patriarchy, the public/private divide, equality and difference and sex and gender, so feminism is unified to a certain extent.

It can also be argued that there are rival traditions within all conventional ideologues. Classic and modern liberalism have contrasting ideas in economic versus social liberalism and positive versus negative freedom while socialists are at odds over the goal of socialism and the road to achieve that goal. In this sense feminism is completely typical of conventional ideologies.

The first wave of feminism was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism. The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of individualism. Individuals are entitled to equal treatment regardless of sex and so any form of discrimination against women should be prohibited. Liberal feminists also do not wish to abolish the distinction between the public and private spheres and accept that women’s leaning towards family and domestic life is influenced by natural impulses and so reflects a willing choice. The focus in liberal feminism therefore seems to be more on the liberal aspect than the feminist as they see no need to push for the sexless personhood goal of feminism but prefer the equality principle of liberalism. This means that liberal feminism can easily be argued to be only a sub-set of liberalism not a tradition within a feminist ideology.

Socialist feminists argue that the relationship between the sexes is rooted in the social and economic structure itself and only profound social change or a social revolution can offer genuine emancipation. Modern socialist feminists have found it difficult to accept the primacy of class politics over sexual politics. Again it appears that more emphasis is placed on the socialist aspect than the feminist as the main goal of feminism, to liberate women, is placed second to liberating the proletariat. Therefore social feminism can also be argued to be only a sub-set of socialism.

On the other hand one of the distinctive features of second wave feminism is that many feminists moved beyond the perspectives of existing political ideologies. They believed that gender differences were regarded as important in themselves and needed to be understood in their own terms. During the 1960s and 1970s the feminist movement sought to uncover the influence of patriarchy in all aspects of social, personal and sexual existence. Through radical feminism, feminism has therefore gone beyond other conventional ideologies which were viewed as inadequate vehicles for advancing the social role of women and criticised for harbouring patriarchal attitudes and assumptions. Radical feminism signifies an advancement in feminism as it moves from building on the ideas of other ideologies to defining its own ideas that oppose those of other ideologies. Radical feminism is therefore the one tradition within feminism that comes from and is purely dedicated to the ideas of feminism.

Before the 1960s, particularly with the first wave feminism was a set of separate doctrines that took ideas from other ideologies and moulded them for their own purpose. However during the 1960s and 1970s when the radical feminism formed, feminism changed from being a combination of different doctrines to a single ideology. This is because traditions were able to form solely out of the ideas of feminism, making it strong enough to stand out of the ideas of feminism, making it strong enough to stand as an ideology in its own right. Indeed the number of new feminist movements that arose in the 1980s such as cultural feminism and black feminism emphasize this point further as they are tradition which build on the ideas of feminism, just like feminism previously built on the ideas of liberalism and socialism. Therefore, though in its early days it was a set of different doctrines, feminism has now grown and defined itself as not just a single doctrine, but a single ideology encompassing a number of doctrines.

Analyse similarities and differences between liberal feminism and radical feminism

Feminism is a cross-cutting ideology, encompassing three broad traditions: liberal feminism, socialist feminism and radical feminism. The first wave of feminism was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism while radical feminism is one of the distinctive features of second wave feminism during the 1960s and 1970s.

While liberal feminism is deeply influenced by liberalism, radical feminism view conventional ideologies as inadequate vehicles for advancing the social role of women and criticised for harbouring patriarchal attitudes and assumptions.

The first major feminist text by Mary Wollstonecraft argued that women should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as men on the ground that they are human beings. She claimed that the distinction of sex would become unimportant in political and social life if women gained access to education and were regarded as rational creatures in their own right. However some radical feminist emphasize the differences between women and men. If sex differences are natural then the roots of patriarchy lie within the male sex itself: men are the enemy. This has led for radical feminist to believe in separatism.

This has also led radical feminists to believe that sexual equality and harmony is impossible because all relationships between men and women must involve oppression. This has led to the development of political lesbianism. Other feminists however, including liberal feminists, believe that it is possible to establish harmony between men and women in a non-sexist society. Hence they believe sexual preferences are strictly a matter of personal choice and not a question of political commitment. This also reflects their opposing beliefs on the public and private divide. Radical feminists proclaim the personal is the political and analyse the politics of everyday life. Although liberal feminists object to women’s access to the public sphere, they also warn against the dangers of politicizing the private sphere, which in liberal theory is a realm of personal choice and individual freedom. While radical feminists wish to abolish the public/private divide, liberal feminists merely wish to reform it.

This is also reflected in their rivalling ideas of equality. Liberal feminists champion legal and political equality with men. Equality thus means equal access to the public realm. Radical feminists however are primarily concerned about equality in family and personal life. This shows that while liberal feminists focus on women in the public sphere, radical feminists focus on women in the private sphere.

Nevertheless both seek equality with men and to end patriarchy in society. On the other hand, they use the term patriarchy in different ways. Liberal feminists use the term to draw attention to the unequal distribution of rights and entitlements in society. They highlight the under-representation of women in senior positions. Radical feminists see patriarchy as a systematic, institutionalised and pervasive form of male power that is rooted in the family. The pattern of male dominance and female subordination that characterises society is a reflection of the power structures that operate within domestic life. Once again, the differences between liberal and radical feminists boil down to the priority of the public or private sphere.

Although radical feminism formed the distinctive feature of second wave feminism, liberal feminism also formed a significant components, particularly within the women’s movement in the USA. Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique highlighted the problem with no name, the deep unhappiness and despair many women experience because they are confined to a domestic existence and unable to gain fulfilment in a career or through political life. Liberal feminists have also assumed that men and women have different natures and inclinations and accepts that women’s leaning towards family and domestic life is influenced by natural impulses and so reflects a willing choice. Friedan discussed the problem of reconciling the achievement of personhood with the need for love. Friedan’s emphasis on the continuing and central importance of the family in women’s life has been criticised by radical feminists as contributing to a mystique of motherhood.

Radical feminists disagree that men and women are different, but see this not as a lean towards the family but as a lean away from men. Their acceptance of unalterable differences has led towards cultural feminism, a retreat from the corrupt, aggressive male world of political activism into an apolitical, women-centered culture and life-style.

As the first feminists text was by the liberal feminist. Many Wollstonecraft and the first wave of feminism was heavily influenced by liberal feminism, it can be argued that liberal feminism is the mother of feminism and its ideas. As radical feminism began in the 1960s, it can be seen as the child of liberal feminism began in the 1960s it can be seen as the child of liberal feminism, building it on its predecessor’s ideas. In this sense the similarities between the two come from the common goals at the heart of feminism and their differences are part of the growth of feminism as it built and strengthened its ideas beyond that of other ideologies. Radical feminism symbolises the development of feminism and its ability to stand on its own as an ideology rather than draw from other ideologies as it had done with liberal feminism.