Sobukwe on the African and Race Question: A case against the liberalisation of Sobukwe

“The is only one race, the human race”- R.M Sobukwe

This is probably the most misconstrued quote by Sobukwe. Over the years the quote has been used for narrow gains by the reactionary forces in the fight to liberalise Sobukwe and the PAC. What these reactionary forces conveniently miss, is the context in which Sobukwe was making this claim. Before I am accused of making the same mistake, let us revisit the speech where Sobukwe makes these claims

“And now for the thorny question of race. I do not wish to give a lengthy and learned dissertation on Race. Suffice it to say that even those scientists who do not recognize the existence of separate races have to admit that there are borderline cases which will not fit into any of the three Races of mankind. All scientists agree that all men can trace their ancestry back to the first Homo sapiens, that man is distinguished from other mammals and also from earlier types of man by the nature of his intelligence. The structure of the body of man provides evidence to prove the biological unity of the human species. All scientists agree that there is no “race” that is superior to another, and there is no “race” that is inferior to others. The Africanists take the view that there is only one race to’ which all belong, and that~ human race: In our vocabulary, therefore, the word “race” as applied to man, has no plural form”

What is very clear from the above is that Sobukwe is clearly speaking from a biological perspective. The argument is against the so called “scientific racist” who argued that black people are biologically different and inferior from white people. It is not an argument for multiracialism or nonsense of that sort. In that very same speech Sobukwe went on to give a case that there are 3 nation groups in South Africa, and that is the European, the Indian and the African. If indeed, Sobukwe, on the level of politics believed that “there is only one race, the human race”, then the question becomes, why then did he feel the need to go further and give clarity on the nation groups in South Africa. In that clarification in his speech, he clearly puts the European as a foreigner. This is what Sobukwe has to say about this group.

“In South Africa we recognize the existence of national groups which are the result of geographical origin within a certain area as well as a shared historical experience of these groups. The Europeans are a foreign minority group which has exclusive control of political, economic, social and military power. It is the dominant group. It is the exploiting group, responsible for the pernicious doctrine of white supremacy which has resulted in the humiliation and degradation of the indigenous African people. It is this group which has dispossessed the African people of their land and with arrogant conceit has set itself up as the “guardians”, the “trustees” of the Africans. It is this group which conceives of the African people as a child nation, composed of Boys and Girls, ranging in age from 120 years to one day. It is this group which, after 300 Years, can still state, with brazen effrontery, that the Native, the Bantu, the Kaffir is still backward and savage, etc. But they still want to remain “guardians”, “trustees”, and what have you, of the African people. In short, it is this group which has mismanaged affairs in South Africa just as their kith and kin are mismanaging affairs in Europe. It is from this group that the most rabid race baiters and agitators come. It is members of this group who, whenever they meet in their Parliament, say things which agitate the hearts of mi1lions of peace-loving Africans. This is the group which turns out thousands of experts on that new South African science — the Native mind.”

It is clear then that Sobukwe differentiated the European from the African, the disposed. He argued that the African “are the most ruthlessly exploited and are subjected to humiliation, degradation and insult.” There is clear contradiction that Sobukwe is calling us to see here. It is what Fanon calls the zone of being and non-being. We can see from Sobukwe’s analysis that those who occupy the zone of being are the European foreigners and that those who occupy the zone of non-being are the Africans.

In a statement released by my beloved organisation earlier this week, it seems as if my leaders have forgotten the fundamental contradictions in this country. In a media statement released by the office of the national spokesperson of the party, Kenneth Mokgatlhe, the party calls upon all its members to physically protect settler journalist who have yet to bring back the land to the rightful owners. The statement goes on to praise the South African sell out constitution that comes out as a result of a sell-out negotiation settlement of CODESA.

When called out by members of the Party on the statement the party replied to the people in the following manner

“The basic document of the Party outlines clearly without fear of contradiction that colour in reference to human beings has no significance as such those who purport colour in relation to matter at hand are ignorant if not ideologically bankrupt. there is only one race the human race for we are not blacks neither do we recognise the notion of so called whites.”

Clearly, it seems as if our leaders in the national office suffer from selective reading. On the part of only one race, I think my above analysis on that quote by father Sobukwe is sufficient. What I would like to know is, if colour has “has no significance as such”, why did Sobukwe go on to outline the three different nation groups in this country and outline clearly the position they have. Was it black and white people that came and disposed Africans? Is it both black and white who, according to Sobukwe, “are the most ruthlessly exploited and are subjected to humiliation, degradation and insult.”?

The PAC further goes on to say that “for we are not blacks neither do we recognise the notion of so called whites.”

Since when does the PAC not recognise the notion of “so-called whites”? If we never recognised “so-called whites”, then why did the PAC break away from the ANC? People must not liberalise Sobukwe while we still alive. In an interview with Gail M. Gerhart, it was Sobukwe, when answering to the question of why did they not agree to the freedom charter, who said

“We objected to the whole thing. Raboroko wrote an excellent rebuttal to it, emphasizing the impossibility of whites and Africans being considered “brothers” in South Africa. We knew that every white person— no matter how sympathetic he was to us—benefited from the South African set-up. And enjoyed privileges based only on color. Whites would say to us, “What can I do? Give up my salary? My house?” And what could we say to them? We had no answer for them, but we knew they could never be seen apart from the material situation. The Freedom Charter said something ridiculous about how the land has been taken from us, we blacks and whites together. But how could they try to avoid the issue of whose land had been taken by whom? They were trying to gloss it over.”

In this one answer, Sobukwe mentions the word ‘white’ 4 times. He also says that “every white person- no matter how sympathetic he was to us- benefited from the South African set-up and enjoyed privileges based ONLY ON COLOR”. The question then becomes when the PAC says “War against the enemy, peace amongst African” in an article that tells us, members of the Party to physically protect white settler journalists, from a movement of black only people, has the enemy changed since Sobukwe’s time? Are white people no longer the enemy anymore? Can whites and Africans become brothers in hands and fight other Africans now?

It is clear from Sobukwe that we are not all the same. He even disagreed with having white people in the programmes of the organisation. He even says that “I recognized there were some non-Africans who fully identified with us and were prepared to sacrifice, but as a matter of principle we couldn’t let these people take any part because of the bad psychological effect this had on our people.”

Can someone who thinks race is insignificant or that there is only one race say that the involvement of one group in a program has “bad psychological effects” on the other?

This raises the question to us then, why do we still allow white membership in the party? Have the bad psychological effects of their involvement suddenly disappeared? Do they no longer benefit from the South African set-up purely based on their colour only? These are the tough questions we need to ask ourselves. I argue that the allowing of white people into the movement was an ideological blunder that could also be responsible for the current bad reading of race politics we find in our party today.  White people have always been and still remain the oppressors and the dispossessors of our land, they still are privileged in the country purely based on the colour of their skin. And as such we cannot be brothers in arms fighting together in the same movement for the emancipation of our people. However, I think that this is a debate that will need more time and space than this essay can provide.

What is clear, however, is that the ideological degeneration in the party is deep. It is the job of the young other ideologically clear members of the party to reconcile the national headquarters of the party with the basic principles of the party and remind them of the fundamental contradictions in this country which are that of the dispossessor(White) and the dispossessed(African).

 

Advertisements

Critiquing the ANC better: In defence of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma Candidacy

Sometime last year, at a discussion that was had in Kilombo on the relationship that we, as self-proclaimed fallists, should have with ANC people, Chumani Maxhwele asked a very interesting question. He asked, do we treat all ANC members and supporters in the same way? Do you treat that SANCO active community street committee person the same way that you treat Cyril Ramaphosa? I have been grappling with this question for the longest of times. What I understood to be the fundamental essence of Chumani’s question was ‘are all members and supporters of the ANC in the ANC to loot and knowingly sell-out the revolution or are there those who honestly think that the ANC and its policies are the right way to liberate our people?’

For a long time, I could not answer Chumani’s question, but I think that I now can, and my answer is NO. There is no way that we can treat ANC people the same way. Both strategically and politically. The well-known ANC factions show that the ANC is not a homogenous body and in many instances, those factions can be strategically used to move us closer to the betterment of our people’s lives. It is also an uncritical and a-Historical to argue that all ANC members are just there to loot. I argue that the fact of the matter is that there are people who honestly believe that the ANC liberated this country and it is now up to the current generation to further defend the gains of the Mass democratic Revolution as fought for by the Mass Democratic Movement. Whether we like it or not, there are people who believe in the Mass Democratic Movement’s three stage revolution as articulated by the SACP. To then say that these people should not be engaged with is to first undermine your own intellectual capacity to convince and it is incommensurate to beliefs of a revolution in Azania because the overwhelming majority of the critical mass for a revolution in this country are either ANC card carrying members or Supporters of the party that would choose to rather stay away from voting than to vote against the ANC.

It is, therefore, based on this argument that I write this paper. It is not a paper to convince people to join the ANC, I write the paper as part of the process of starting to critique the ANC better through engagement with its’ members. Ever since the ANC Women’s league have pronounced on their support of a women president for this country and COSATU and SACP’s shocking endorsement of Cyril Ramaphosa, there has been an ongoing smear campaign against Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma by the popular liberal news agencies in the country, especially the Mail & Guardian. What has been shocking in the critique of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s Candidacy has been that most of the criticism has not been on the women herself but on those who support her. There have been three main arguments against Dlamini-Zuma’s candidacy: She is another Zuma, The ANCWL is a joke and She did not do much in the AU.

I would like to deal with each of the arguments put forward separately. Firstly, the fact that Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was married to the current unpopular President is no basis to disregard her as a presidential candidate. This argument is first of all very patriarchal and second of all it lacks any intellectual reasoning. I was so shocked when a whole UKZN professor who is a political analyst on Radio 2000 put this argument forward. How does someone who is a Professor at one of the so-called best universities in Africa have this kind of analysis? It just shows how mediocre white academia is, but that is a story for another day. The fact that Dlamini-Zuma was married to Zuma does not mean that she has no autonomy, that she just follows her ex-husband ways. This argument just shows how patriarchal our society still is. This argument does not see Dlamini-Zuma outside Jacob Zuma, according to the argument Dlamini-Zuma is Jacob Zuma and that there is no difference between the two. In her article to the Huffington Post, Ferial Haffajee points out to the devastating effects of always referring to her as only the ex-wife of the current president, when she, in fact, has a long history in the fight against apartheid and in government post 94.

The second tactic that has been used by the liberal white media to discredit Dlamini-Zuma has been to simply attack those who support her candidacy. In an article by Stephen Grootes on The Daily Maverick today he argues that “… the league’s proposal seems to be flawed… because of the people it wants in the top six positions”. The shocking part, however, is that Grootes went on to discredit all of the women that the leagues propose but fails to mention anything about Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. When one reads the article it seems as though Grootes is telling us not to support Dlamini-Zuma’s presidential candidacy because the people that she has been mentioned with are not leadership quality. There is nothing on the qualities of Dlamini-Zuma herself, but she is automatically discredited because other women candidates that have been put forward to run with her are not leadership quality. It is even debatable that the argument against the leadership qualities of those other women is a valid one, but that is not the point of this paper. What I am interested in is to show the flaw in the tactic used to discredit Dlamini-Zuma. We all know how flawed the ANCWL is, however, to discredit everything put forward by the ANCWL because we don’t take them serious is disingenuous. It is like saying because we do not take ANC serious we should therefore never support anything they say even if they were to say let us take back the land without compensation.

The last argument that is used by the liberal news agencies is that she has not done that much in the AU. This is a blatant lie used as the last ditch to discredit the outgoing AU Commission chair. This is a person who Has served two terms and was later asked by the AU member states to stay for a further 8 months because they could not find someone to match her calibre. In fact, many states still wanted her to run again. The argument that she has done nothing as the AUC chair is used despite the fact that under her leadership Africa has agreed to have the biggest free trade region in the world from Cape to Cairo, with only one economic region not forming part of the agreement. It is also under her leadership that the AU has come up with the pan-African passport, with only national governments left to adopt the passport at their respective national legislatures. The AU has also come up with a strategy to complete the Cape to Cairo rail system that has already been implemented in the West African region. Also under her leadership, the AU has taken a sharper stance in unconstitutional changes to governments, with the example of the expulsion of CAR from the community. Even though there is still much that needs to be done in conflict resolution, but it is only the intellectually dishonest that can say that the AU has not taken a firmer stance in recent years to conflicts in Africa. After years of the issue of illicit financial flows being ignored by the AUC, it was in under her leadership that the commission decided to investigate how much the continent is losing in illicit financial flows through the High-level panel on Illicit Financial flows chaired by the former South African President, Thabo Mbeki. It was also under her leadership that the AU adopted the Agenda 2063 that seeks to accelerate, in its own liberal way, the Pan-Africanist agenda. It is, therefore, clear that she has focused a lot on intra-continental connection amongst African citizens. We also know how she turned around the Home affairs department before handing it over to Malusi Gigaba. That department was in turmoil before she took over. Also in her Huffington Post article Ferial points out to just some of the accomplishments that Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has.  It is, therefore, clear that her accomplishments in politics are unquestionable, yet the liberal media still insist on trying to portray her as someone who has no leadership accomplishments whatsoever. This is all done so that the focus for all those that are going to be making the decision in December this year is only fixated at Cyril Ramaphosa.

Ramaphosa’s endorsement by the media is being done through the flawed discrediting of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. I, therefore, urge the true leftist in the ANC to be careful of this tactic by the liberal media. If there is any way that the ANC can further say fuck you, South Africa, is by electing the person that is very much involved in the killing of 34 workers in cold blood and has never given any apology for the incident. The only reason why Cyril Ramaphosa is being endorsed by the media is because he is as white as it gets and the white monopoly capital know that he has proven his allegiance to them with the Marikana massacre of August 2012. The radical left and Africanists within the ANC must reject the counterrevolutionary stance by the SACP and the anti-worker position taken by COSATU to support Cyril Ramaphosa. An Endorsement of Cyril Ramaphosa will further move the ANC away from the people and move it closer to a quasi-Democratic Alliance. If there are any progressive cadres within SASCO and Youth League they will reject the stance taken by the liberal media imposed ‘leader of FMF’ Mcebo Dlamini. What does it mean for a whole fallist to publicly endorse Cyril Ramaphosa as the saviour of our country? Of the people that have been posed to contest the position of president in the ANC, there is none that has proven to be more anti-poor and anti-worker than Cyril Ramaphosa, and to have the two organisations in the Tripartite Alliance that are supposed to represent the left to endorse this person as a president as beyond shocking just to say the least.

If the ANC wants to further distance itself from the ordinary masses of our people it must elect Cyril Ramaphosa as its’ next president.

When Myths Become Truths and confusion is the order of the day

In a journal article earlier this year Achille Mbembe wrote the following

“the questions we face are of a profoundly intellectual nature. They are also colossal. And if we do not foreground them intellectually in the first instance; if we do not develop a complex understanding of the nature of what we are actually facing, we will end up with the same old techno-bureaucratic fixes that have led us, in the first place, to the current cul-desac.”

Lately I have heard comrades who I deeply admire blame the problems that we face on feminism. It is said that feminism is the death of our revolution. I therefore took the time to debunk such theories before they become the undisputed truths in our circles. It is important that in our analysis of the revolution we are not lazy to go to the deep intellectual dungeons.

From my analysis of the black radical feminist school of thought I have found that this ideology carries with it some panacea to the ills of the black masses. It was for this reason that our three Pillars made sure that this ideology is included. It must be noted that I speak here of Black Radical feminism. Yes the ideology has it’s own shortcomings just like any other. It is not perfect nor is it immune to critique. Just like no ideology is. However, our critique of it must never be a lazy one. it is very easy to find scapegoats in a midst of intellectual confusion. People should not be lazy to seat down and look at the situation that we find ourselves in, in a holistic manner
Those who truly believe that feminism will be the death of our revolution should come forth with the intellectual analysis of such conclusions and that analysis will be put under scrutiny. I find it very difficult for anyone to disagree with the fundamental aims of feminism as an ideology. From my understanding of the philosophy is that above all, it seeks to liberate the black women from the shackles of patriarchy that they find themselves in our current epoch. Now as a black activist I cannot standby when a black child is crying out and saying they can’t breathe.  We must at all times remind ourselves of the philosophy of Fallism as conceptualised by the masses who have carried out it’s mandate throughout 2016. They did so even when the goal seemed untouchable, when the revolution was unpopular, as some would put it “when the country was not woke”. The philosophy of Fallism says that all that is a symbol of oppression must fall. Whatever form that oppression comes in. The job of the Fallist is to discover it and dismantle it without fear or favour. It is the true interpretation of the preamble to the constitution of the great Pan Africanist congress of Azania when it says “we are against all forms of domination”.  I would therefore find it very hard to fathom that when one is using the fallist tools of analysis would still come up with the conclusion that the liberation of the black women is the death of the revolution.

What is going to be very important in our analysis of our problems is the clear distinction between a person and the philosophy they advocate. As a Pan-Africanist I do not necessarily have to be loved by all Pan-Africanist. However, just because someone disagree with me on something it can never mean that now Pan-Africanism is the death of the revolution.

Therefore MaAfrika we cannot let confusion run unchecked. Therefore the point is feminism has never been the death of the revolution, our lack of intellectual honesty though and the deep seated denial of the issues that feminism is bringing to the national discourse will be the death of our revolution. A true decolonial project is one that gives and is open to critique itself. It must critique everything… even critique the decolonial project itself.

Student Activism and student governance in 2015

The year 2015 has been an interesting year for student politics. From the actions of Chumani Maxwele to Mcebo Dlamini and Zizipho Pae. What I want to interrogate in this paper however is not these events and their merits but rather I want ponder on student activism and governance in the 1970’s with today. Back in the days of SASO and later on PASO, one could’ve never been able to separate student activism and student Governance. There is a number of reasons why  this is the case. Mainly, however, is because these two organisations were for black students and one could not be black student leader without addressing the issues facing black people at the time. There was a sense of agency from black students then to drastically change the lives of the black masses.

When one engages in a cogitation of student movements back then we can see students active engagement with community issues in various ways. In ‘Frank Talk’ Steve Biko speaks a lot about why the black ‘middle class’ needs to get involved in community projects instead of trying to legitimize the system by going into it’s structures and ‘trying to change the lives of the black masses from the inside the system’ referring to the Bantustans. One can also heed this culture of community involvement from the Pan Africanist Student Organisation (PASO) popular slogan in the 70’s “PASO by day, APLA by night”. This shows that student organisations were not only interested with student governance but rather the total liberation of the black masses.

What has been happening in recent years is that this culture has slowly died in student politics. Student organisations are merely there for student governance so that they can pimp their C.V’s in preparation for an ever competitive working environment outside Higher education and Training. It is for this reason that today, unlike the 70’s, one cannot honestly say that they cannot distinguish between student governess and student activism. Student bureaucrats are interested in power, control and C.V enhancements where as, when we talk of student activist we talk of people who are actively involved in programs on the ground that are aimed at improving the lives of the proletariat, which is mostly the black masses.When we talk of student activist, we talk of people like Chumani Maxwele, Masixole Mlandu, Siyabonga Njica, Athabile Nonxuba, ye man… We are speaking here of the students who dared the university authorities and occupied their offices in Bremner, We are speaking here about the entire #RhodesMustFall movement.These students, just like those student of the 70’s, see their struggle as inseparable to the struggle of the black masses on the ground.

In the actions of Chumani Maxwele on the 9th of March this year, we saw a beam of student activism. We saw it again on the 21st of March with the launch of UCT PASMA, which came out with a branch leadership that is undeniably filled with student activist who run various programs in communities, and an apt theme for the events of this year. The launch was themed “A birth of a new revolution”. As members of the movement we need to continually ask ourselves “what does a new revolution look like?”

On the same night of the launch, the #RhodesMustFall movement started their occupation of Bremner in calling for the decolonization of the university. During this years Vac members of this branch and other UCT students went to Centane in the Eastern Cape to make the ground fertile for the building of a library there, as part of the organisation they started called ‘let’s build institutions’. This is what I consider student activism. This year we are seeing a revival of this student activism culture with the formation of many student movements across the country calling for the decolonization of the Higher education sector. For me this is what we mean by “a birth of a new revolution.”

UCT PASMA’s decision not to run for SRC elections is indicative of this growing culture of student activism. PASMA needs to constantly ask itself “What is our mandate and goal, can these be achieved outside the SRC, and to what purpose does occupying SRC seats serve in the liberation of our black masses?” If the objections of the movement can be achieved outside student governance, then we should not feel obligated to run for SRC’s. In the movement we must foster a culture of student activism rather than a culture of obsession with student governance. However, we must remember that there are some struggles that SRC seats can help us in, such as NSFAS and exclusions. Not to say we cannot fight these from outside SRC because we can.If we fail to foster this culture, then I dare say that we will never see a free Azania, whose people are free from the shackles of poverty.

Calling out Black Capitalists

In this piece I speak to the black folk. A specific kind of the black folk. I speak to those who say they fight for the liberation of the black people,yet their commitment to this struggles is only seen on social media.

The kind I am speaking to here is the one that is not involved in any black community projects. I like to call them social media activist. I have many friends who fall under this category and I have never called them out, and I think today is that time. In a world where it has become cool for liberals to pretend as if they care for the poor, more and more people are popping out on social media with cool hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter or #RhodesMustFall. But you never see them in any on the ground work. And they spend a lot of their time in ‘cool’ white clubs in Long street or Claremont trying to show to their white friends how they are different from those radical blacks who think everything is about race.

It is time that we call out these blacks. I know people who would be so progressive when speaking to me, but when the same topic comes up with white liberals around then for some reason they have toned down on their rhetoric in less than a week. When you call out that racist comment from your white friend in a table when out for dinner, they keep quiet and never support you and let everyone portray you as the angry black… again. A day latter they will tell you in confidence that they also think that was racist.

The most interesting of this group is the one that is a vehement supporter of capitalism while on one hand say they are fighting against one groups domination over the other.

Earlier in the week I was having a conversation with some friends of mine about why I think Capitalism is bad for us.The response I got when I said “capitalism still asserts one groups domination over the other” was “There is a difference between confirming dominance and assuming dominance”.

This comment struck me. And it explained to me why so many of my friends who are very progressive in fighting the black struggle still support capitalism. People still think that white people assume their superiority without any confirmation whatsoever (In terms of scientific evidence etc) but when one accumulates wealth in a capitalistic world where all ‘opportunities are equal’ (Firstly, you can never have equal opportunities in a capitalistic world, but that’s a a debate of another day) they confirm their dominance because they went to school and all that bullshit.

To this kind I only bring up one point. Maybe we have been looking at white dominance in a wrong way. What if white people don’t say they superior because they white but because they are the conquerors of Africa. There is no denying that the white folk did beat us in military power when they came to colonise us. Frontier wars were fought for a hundred years but we lost in the end. what if then if the white folk uses this justification for their dominance? According to these black capitalist supporters logic we shouldn’t be fighting against this white domination then because they have “confirmed” they dominance.

As black people we are forced to live with contradictions, however, sometimes the contradictions are sharp ones and those should be called out. Being a black person fighting for black liberation and still support capitalism is a contradiction. A sharp one

Revatilising Township Economies

REVATILISING TOWNSHIP ECONOMIES

Today I had the opportunity to attend the Daily Maverick’s Gathering. A space were some of the countries’ influential figures speak to the middle class of South Africa on the state of affairs in our country.

One of the issues that were brought up in the event was the revitalisation of township economies. This issue was brought up by the honourable Member of Parliament, Mr Paul Mashatile, in a panel with Zwelinzima Vavi and Mmusi Maimane. While many may think that revitalising township economies is good step that the government is taking and that it should pursue in this venture without fail. Very few will notice the flaw in the notion of revitalising township economies.

Well, let me spell it out to you. There is no way one can revitalise Township economies because there was never an economy to begin with. To revitalise something is to reintroduce or reinvigorate something that was there. Now Townships from their conception were never designed to be places to do business in and hence there were no businesses in the Townships. Township were simply a place of housing cheap labour that’s all. People were required to travel to towns to do business or to find a job and this is still the case today. It is therefore disingenuous of any one to talk about revitalising township economies. THERE IS NO ECONOMY TO REVITALISE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Perhaps then if one would speak of building township economies then maybe there is something. Even this I doubt though because the structure of townships is that it was not designed to be developed.

There needs to be a re-look by government in their strategy of how they deal with Townships, because this way is definitely not the answer.

White People always win, even when they help us

This simple yet powerful quote, I first come across a book co written by Andile Mgxitama. Can’t say I remember the book’s name, The quote was read out to me by a friend reading the book, I’m not really good at reading books. The sentence got me thinking, as many things always do. I then watched an episode on one of my favorite series, Scandal.

In the episode a black boy get’s killed by a white policemen. The policemen says that he was afraid for his life because the boy was reaching for a knife in his pocket. The typical white American policeman encounters a black man story. The policemen is found to have lied and ends up in jail. But yet something doesn’t seat well with me. I think of all those policemen in the States that were never prosecuted for killing innocent black lives. What if they were prosecuted? What then? It still doesn’t change the daily lives of millions of black Americans. They will still live in fear of the police. Those policemen that killed Freddie Gray are just few policemen in a whole capitalistic society that is against the poor. So at the end, even if their white friends in the police force and judicial system can find it in their hearts that what those policemen are doing is wrong, the brutality by police will still continue because the system is against poor people.

The only time the lives of black people will start to matter is when we change the whole system. What keeps happening now is that a few white people, with a good heart try and help black people enter the market. Many may call this an act of philanthropy, yet we forget that the lives of the poorest are still  the same. Again the white men still wins, even when helping blacks.

It is time as people to realise that capitalism has no place in society, it never had and never will.