“The risk of a wrong decision is preferable to the terror of indecision.” Maimonides (Spanish Philosopher)
In the world we live in today, there is so much hate for Westerners- some say it is Christianity: which I contest (read on). Indeed, at the heart of this hate is what I refer to as Western adventurism and tepid reactions of various people to the historical and ongoing adventures of the Aryan race. When George Bush and Tony Blair travel, two men often seen as the leader of the Western world, the protests journey with them. They are hated, and hated upon. Carrying the passport of Western nations might indeed be a passport to kidnapping and untimely death in most part of the world especially in Asia, South America, creeks of Africa and indeed in the Middle East. The rate at which anti-Western sentiment is creeping up in different parts of the world is alarming. After the September 11th attack and the consequent reaction militarily of the Western world to this affront, the tempo of hate have increased. Questions asked after 9-11 were very similar to the theme of this article: you often hear “why do they hate us?”
But rather unfortunately, while the leader of the Western world (read King George II) and his coterie of spin doctors have attempted to answer this question, this author thinks these attempts have been half hearted, half baked approach to a very deep and disconcerting albeit discomforting reality. The hatred of the white man, indeed the Western race, is because of history. This hatred is rooted in a history of adventurism, of exploitation of peoples of other races and obtaining wealth and influence by deceit, conquest, force of arms and inhumane methods. The terror of today is not a product of two decades of bad policy or ten decades for that matter, it stretches back to the times when the ancestors of modern Europeans of today, deciding that the harsh reality of Europe will leave them backward, desolate, and undeveloped unless something radical was done decided to move outwards. First this was supported by trade; the desire to expand trade was supported by voyages and adventure which rather quickly degenerated to expeditions and conquest as was the case with the Spanish Conquistadors in Latin America or Royal Niger Company in Niger Area. Employment of carrot with stick, which involved deceit, plain dishonesty, and underhanded method, was the hallmark of European desire to trade in human flesh as in slavery, or conquest of large chunk of Asian, African, and South American resources.
The purpose of this piece is however not to drill into this history which have been well recanted in the past, but is to examine the reactions of different geographical blocs to the same history and to spotlight the reaction of Africa or lack of any. For the purpose of this discourse the world shall be divided into five large geo-political blocs: the West (Australia, New Zealand, Europe and N. America excluding Mexico), Africa (excluding the Arabian Africans), Middle East (Islamic Sphere of Influence in Asia & N. Africa), Latin America (South America and Mexico), and Far East (everywhere else). The reactions of these various body polity have not been the same, indeed it is variegated structure of hatred that depends largely on the genetic make up of its occupant ( better examined in the future) and their history with Western adventurers, looters or interlopers depending on the way you see them. My examination shall be by way of comparison and abduction, rather than deductive reasoning.
Indeed, the Middle East has the highest incidents of Western hatred to date. Many scholars have traced this back to the struggle between two religions: Christianity and Islam which dates back to the rise of Islam, and then the Crusade which later resulted in British and European domination of the Middle East areas and finally the creation of the Modern State of Israel in hitherto Palestinian colonial territory. Since the 1940s the turbulence in the Middle East has known no bounds. Revenge has been the key language of the revolt, while the West on the other hand have interpreted these reactions as plain fundamentalism or terrorism as is the case with their preoccupation with ideologies that end with “ism”, unfortunately the people of the Middle East are by genetic nature action people that care little less about ideology, this to date have been the bane of Western diplomacy and adventure in that region.
The history of the West with the Far East on the other hand is more respectful and by far less ideological but definitely as violent. This history culminated eventually in World War II with Japan at the eye of the storm, but the reaction of the more introspective, goal and profit oriented Mongolians and Indo-Asian region was to embrace peace in return for attaining similar if not better standards of living as the West. Hence today Japan, India, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, China etc. are economic forces to be reckoned with. It is not as if there are no anti-Western sentiments in this region but by and large they have been suppressed to the willingness for trade with the West, learning the skills of economic rejuvenation at their feet and what you might call “if you can’t beat them, join them” policy. Indeed, the few countries that harbor higher than average anti-Western sentiments in this region have done so at the expense of their economic prosperity: Indonesia, Pakistan, Burma, Vietnam, and North Korea comes t o mind.
However, the case of Latin America is a mixture of the two breeds discussed above. Those that really hate the West and would rather not deal with her at the expense of economic realities like Venezuela, Cuba and lately Bolivia (funny most of them are core-Christian nations) and those that will continue to position themselves to reap maximum gains from Western collaboration and are far less confrontational like Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico thereby becoming economic powerhouses of Latin America. It is very true that South America is in a battle for her soul between those who hate the West and those that desire less confrontational approach: this battle fortunately have been extended to the enrichment of the democratic process as it shows across elections in this part of the world first in Venezuela, Brazil and then Bolivian and more recently Chile and Mexico. This is unlike the Middle East where this battle and ultimately the hatred of the West led to diminishing democratic influences and tendencies towards either totalitarian regimes supported by the West or Theocratic dictatorships supported by the common wish (as in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and more recently Iran and Egypt).
Largely, the region of the world with the worst brush with the white man desire to conquer, subdue, and dominate is Africa. Quite interestingly however this region as usual has been bereft of a sure approach to deal with her history. Her leaders and indeed citizens by complicity of silence and indifference have turned to willing tools even in the modern era to destroy their motherland, while complaining and whining. While the Middle East have decided to be confrontational and is indeed feared and have managedto be on the radar of the powerful, and the Far East have decided to be willing collaborators for economic gain, Africa is content with her backward siddon look approach. Even though riled, beaten and suppressed, kidnapped, shipped, and crated, abused, defiled and derailed, deceived, taunted and conned – she has remained un-contemplating and unwilling to choose a camp to be reckoned with. South America is making those conscious choices and adapting, carefully choosing to move in a plural fashion towards one of either camp but definitely managing to be taken serious as a part of the world to be reckoned with. But where goes Africa?
My question is how long can Africa afford to do nothing? How long would we be standing by while our hair is shaved in our absence? When are we going to restore the dignity of our wom
en and children and act true to our heritage to either harvest Western goodwill or repudiate them? Inaction is not an option and it is time to act. If you doubt what I say consider the fact that the Islamic world that hates the West so much is involved in more trade and get so much more foreign aid and attention than Africa. Conclusively, while DC will want you to believe that the reason why the Islamists hate the West is their hatred of freedom; do not be deceived, it is a case of a dead ghost coming to hunt down the noose man that dispatched it to the early graveyard. For the record, neither North Korea nor Venezuela is beholden to Islamic ideology and freedom is not “anyone’s father’s” (sic) property. Western adventurism has left a bitter-sweet taste in the mouth of the world, but no regional bloc can afford not to react as Africa has chosen to do. As any kindergarten kid will tell you, inaction is an unwise action to a schoolyard bully- you either become his ally or an enemy.
Join the discussion