IslandMix - Soca, Reggae, Zouk and Caribbean Entertainment - View Single Post

Marshall Town · 02-28-2007, 01:39 PM

http://bookerrising.blogspot.com/200...ccupation.html

BOOKER RISING OP-ED: An Anti-Occupation Proposal
With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon clinging to life in an Israeli hospital, everyone is talking about implications for the peace process between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Meanwhile, a far bigger occupation - that has historically been far more brutal - rages on. I'm talking about Arab occupation of black land in Africa - which they invaded - and their gross human rights violations towards black populations. White folks have (rightly) been called to task for their historical brutality against black folks in Africa, while Arab folks continue to get let off the hook. It is long overdue to have this discussion.

There are now almost 200 million Arabs in Africa. There are almost as many Arabs in Africa (169 million) as there are in the Middle East (187 million). The Arab world's largest city and largest university are both on the African continent, and not in the Middle East. Yet these are points that few people know, or if they know it, they conveniently overlook while talking about occupation.

This Wikipedia entry outlines the history of Africa and the start of the Arab invasion: "In the 7th century occurred an event destined to have a permanent influence on the whole continent. Beginning with an invasion of Egypt, a host of Arabs, believers in the new faith of Islam, conquered the whole of North Africa from the Red Sea to the Atlantic and continued into Spain. Throughout North Africa Christianity nearly disappeared, save in Egypt (where the Coptic Church was allowed to continue), and Upper Nubia and Ethiopia, which were not subdued by the Muslims. In the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries the Arabs in Africa were numerically weak, holding the countries they had conquered only by military superiority; but in the 11th century there was a great Arab immigration, resulting in a large absorption of Berber culture."

If Arabs and their diaspora (and their Iranian allies) can argue for a Jew-free Middle East, then black Africans and those of us who are part of the diaspora can argue for an Arab-free Africa. After all, Arabs have been occupying black land and committing massive atrocities against blacks - atrocities that far surpass anything Israel has done to the Palestinians - for 1,400 years. And while Jewish presence in the Middle East long precedes that of Islam and Jews are indigenous to that region, this is not the case for Arabs in Africa.

While there is no African country where Europeans are a majority, this is not the case with Arabs. Using Arabs' own logic, how about they return to the Arabian Peninsula where they belong? Why should I get upset about Israel's tiny sliver of land in the Middle East (and mind you, I support a two-state solution) when Arabs occupy huge portions of land in Africa, are enslaving black folks to this day in Sudan and Mauritania, razing black villages in Sudan and undermining black religiosity through their 'Arabization' campaigns in places like Mali, and every year there is seemingly a new country on the continent gets called Arab? More importantly, where is the outrage from black folks?

Examples: "To be Arab is to stake out a certain political and cultural history although you may live on the African soil. The culture that identifies Arabs as Arabs originates in Arabia; African culture originates in Africa. To have Arabs in Africa who exercise their Arabness against the people whose land they occupy is to raise a new level of African international debate. Indeed Iran has recently given Sudan 300 million dollars to purchase Chinese weapons to prosecute its war against the southern [and black] Sudanese. But Iran has extracted its pound of flesh from the African country. Sudan has been asked to make every Moslem woman wear the chador to veil her face. In fact, the Islamic Sudanese have been required to give up their own traditional dress for the Iranian style. Failure to follow the regulations means that women are whipped."

Northern Africa, where most Arabs in Africa live, is not Pan-Africanist (an idea that I support, but with a capitalist twist), but Pan-Arabist. Their occupation in Africa has occurred for far longer than the existence of the state of Israel. Yet why is the cause of the Palestinians more noble? Their lighter skin? "We got that land fair and square, by the sword", Arabs may respond. Fine. How is that different than the Jews and the military ass-whooping that they gave the Arabs in the Six-Day War? Perhaps black folks should start suicide bombs in Cairo, Tunis, Rabat, and Algiers to draw attention to this issue. Then again, we have something the Arabs are just now getting: a history of civil rights and democracy. And they don't have an Arab Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

02-28-2007, 01:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
Marshall Town Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Jumieka Posts: 483 Credits: 161	Mi kyaaan tek di arab dem ! http://bookerrising.blogspot.com/200...ccupation.html BOOKER RISING OP-ED: An Anti-Occupation Proposal With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon clinging to life in an Israeli hospital, everyone is talking about implications for the peace process between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Meanwhile, a far bigger occupation - that has historically been far more brutal - rages on. I'm talking about Arab occupation of black land in Africa - which they invaded - and their gross human rights violations towards black populations. White folks have (rightly) been called to task for their historical brutality against black folks in Africa, while Arab folks continue to get let off the hook. It is long overdue to have this discussion. There are now almost 200 million Arabs in Africa. There are almost as many Arabs in Africa (169 million) as there are in the Middle East (187 million). The Arab world's largest city and largest university are both on the African continent, and not in the Middle East. Yet these are points that few people know, or if they know it, they conveniently overlook while talking about occupation. This Wikipedia entry outlines the history of Africa and the start of the Arab invasion: "In the 7th century occurred an event destined to have a permanent influence on the whole continent. Beginning with an invasion of Egypt, a host of Arabs, believers in the new faith of Islam, conquered the whole of North Africa from the Red Sea to the Atlantic and continued into Spain. Throughout North Africa Christianity nearly disappeared, save in Egypt (where the Coptic Church was allowed to continue), and Upper Nubia and Ethiopia, which were not subdued by the Muslims. In the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries the Arabs in Africa were numerically weak, holding the countries they had conquered only by military superiority; but in the 11th century there was a great Arab immigration, resulting in a large absorption of Berber culture." If Arabs and their diaspora (and their Iranian allies) can argue for a Jew-free Middle East, then black Africans and those of us who are part of the diaspora can argue for an Arab-free Africa. After all, Arabs have been occupying black land and committing massive atrocities against blacks - atrocities that far surpass anything Israel has done to the Palestinians - for 1,400 years. And while Jewish presence in the Middle East long precedes that of Islam and Jews are indigenous to that region, this is not the case for Arabs in Africa. While there is no African country where Europeans are a majority, this is not the case with Arabs. Using Arabs' own logic, how about they return to the Arabian Peninsula where they belong? Why should I get upset about Israel's tiny sliver of land in the Middle East (and mind you, I support a two-state solution) when Arabs occupy huge portions of land in Africa, are enslaving black folks to this day in Sudan and Mauritania, razing black villages in Sudan and undermining black religiosity through their 'Arabization' campaigns in places like Mali, and every year there is seemingly a new country on the continent gets called Arab? More importantly, where is the outrage from black folks? Examples: "To be Arab is to stake out a certain political and cultural history although you may live on the African soil. The culture that identifies Arabs as Arabs originates in Arabia; African culture originates in Africa. To have Arabs in Africa who exercise their Arabness against the people whose land they occupy is to raise a new level of African international debate. Indeed Iran has recently given Sudan 300 million dollars to purchase Chinese weapons to prosecute its war against the southern [and black] Sudanese. But Iran has extracted its pound of flesh from the African country. Sudan has been asked to make every Moslem woman wear the chador to veil her face. In fact, the Islamic Sudanese have been required to give up their own traditional dress for the Iranian style. Failure to follow the regulations means that women are whipped." Northern Africa, where most Arabs in Africa live, is not Pan-Africanist (an idea that I support, but with a capitalist twist), but Pan-Arabist. Their occupation in Africa has occurred for far longer than the existence of the state of Israel. Yet why is the cause of the Palestinians more noble? Their lighter skin? "We got that land fair and square, by the sword", Arabs may respond. Fine. How is that different than the Jews and the military ass-whooping that they gave the Arabs in the Six-Day War? Perhaps black folks should start suicide bombs in Cairo, Tunis, Rabat, and Algiers to draw attention to this issue. Then again, we have something the Arabs are just now getting: a history of civil rights and democracy. And they don't have an Arab Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.