PART I
I have been wanting to tell you this for some time now, you know.
I think Americans have a Stockholm Syndrome for the British particularly. Yes, yes, I know… This is a nation which has managed to assert its place as the modern age leading empire, its influence spreading far and wide across the globe. A nation which has managed to, very intentionally, very painstakingly, carve out an image for itself as heaven on earth, as the very epitome of the grandness attainable by the human being. ‘In America you can be anything you want to be’—a nation for the fulfilment of dreams. First on the moon; first on earth… In all things earth, first. First economically, first in science, in technological advancements, in art; a nation leading the course of our time… “America is great!” You see how I put that in quotation marks? That is because they do not even wait for you to say it; they make sure to tell you so. This nation, suffering a Stockholm syndrome for another nation? It sounds absurd, I know.
I hear them using this word ‘Anglophile’ in description of what the feeling is between them and—one can say—their past overlords, particularly Britain, a lot. But if you witness this supposed Anglophile-ness, you can’t help but smell some Stockholm lurking behind it—at least a tiny dose of it. Granted, it is not as dire as ours is to the West… Because for one thing their colonialism, that which planted this seed, this Syndrome in the American, was totally different from ours. It didn’t proceed from an immediate past of slavery, of degradation as ours did, but a voluntary exeunt. But that’s not the point of this article. We will have to look at this matter in a later article.
What I have in fact been meaning to discuss with you for some time now is the fact that during the 17th century, when the Brits, Scottish, Irish, Germans, French, the Dutch, Jews, etc. migrated to subsequently form the USA, they, in need of labour to build this new world began dabbling in slavery. And it is not the slavery you and I have been used to hearing about. This was the White folk using fellow White folks as slaves. There, these men and women were in 17th Century Europe, tired of their home nations of Britain, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, France, Denmark, etc., and seeking economic, sociological, political freedoms. And there lay this supposed ‘new world’, America, presenting prospects of a better life. These men and women desired to leave their home nations of Europe, yet for many the question remained: how? The question regards the purchasing power to do so—the ‘exiting’ power, if you will.
For the rich and powerful, migrating into this new land was easy—just a ship-sail away. But after these rich folks got into this new land, there was the issue of the demand for human resource capital to till the land. These rich, powerful people needed labour. And it just so coincided with the fact that for many of the low-income earners, this desire of migration was always impeded by the ‘how’. How does one afford the ship sail? The search for answers to this question is exactly how the issue of indentured slavery came about. To find their way into this new land, these men and women had to willingly submit themselves as slaves to the rich folk, get the cost of their transportation borne by these powerful people, and in return, submit themselves as labourers, slaves to these rich folks for a stipulated duration—mostly 5 to 7 years—when they safely arrived in America. Men, women, children, held as slaves for 5 to 7 years in exchange for the free transportation granted them into this new world.
This was a bondage distinct from that experienced by serfs in the feudal system. The rights of these slaves were limited in ways not typical of the historical serf. For one thing, these White slaves could not marry without the consent of their masters. They couldn’t engage in trade outside the work that their masters subjected them to. Any attempt at escaping before the agreed upon term, and these slaves were further bound—having their term of service under the master extended. Indeed, this indentured servitude experienced by the European was a state worse than serfdom, yet, admittedly, nowhere as gruesome as the slavery the African was made subject to.
It was indeed a good time to be a rich White capitalist in this new world.
Yet this ‘free’ labour wasn’t enough for the White capitalist. So, what do they do? Go out in search of more free labour. And that is when the kidnapping came in. You would be a European, minding your own business—probably a skilled middle-to-low-income earner, probably a vagrant, a criminal, a man, woman, or child, wandering about, and the next thing you knew, you were bound in ships headed for the new world—America. During this period of the 17th century, kidnapping and trafficking became the norm in Europe. In fact, in 1680, it was estimated that about 10,000 people were kidnapped from European countries to America. The usual victims were skilled carpenters, blacksmiths, weavers, etc. In one year alone (1627) about 15,000 children were shipped from these European countries into the colony of Virginia in America.
It was indeed a great time to be a rich White capitalist in this new world. With all this free labour at one’s disposal, economic prosperity was only natural. To be in the position of—to put oneself in the position of—taking advantage of fellow human beings this freely and profiting so greatly, it indeed was a great time to be a rich White capitalist.
But then again, neither the indentured slave nor the kidnapped slave could prove enough to satisfy the White capitalist bent on making a great nation of this new world, America—one that would perhaps rival their home nations in Europe, particularly, England. And that is where this very free other human capital came into the picture—the Black man and woman.
In the year 1619, the Black person was brought into Virginia to join the White slave in satisfying the capitalistic urge of increasing profitability. There are some historians who suggest that the initial plan of these White capitalists for these African slaves was only temporary—and that as more White people found their way from Europe into America, this batch of slaves would be phased out. Be this true or not, years after their introduction into the American economic system, the African found themselves being poured into this new nation in their numbers to slave away—replacing the White slave in cheapness and availability. And the rest, they say, is history.
PART II
Someone used this term in description of our African leaders: petty bourgeoisie, and I am not particularly sure how I feel about it.
This is derived from the French term ‘petite bourgeoisie’. It is a word whose fullest essence is only derived when juxtaposed with its polar end, the ‘haute bourgeoisie’. The first signifies smallness while the other, grandness.
It is a politico-economic term coined to describe a sub-segment of this social class—the middle class of the 18th and somewhere early 19th century. They are often described as a social class which is not entirely autonomous, and one which derives its ideologies—be it political, economic, sociological, moral, cultural, from this class higher up than it—the haute bourgeoisie. This class is a wanna-be of a sort, in that they have no strong foundations of their own. They are but copycats of the haute bourgeoisie. They seek to be like the haute bourgeoisies—it is from this class of people that they derive their sense of self.
With this explanation given, one cannot help but see why someone, seeking to personify nations in the grand scheme of things, chose to refer to African countries—particularly African leaders by this term, the petite bourgeoisie. It is an unfortunate term, really. To be called a mere copycat. To be referred to as a person lacking a mind of your own—lacking a solid foundation, one rooted in your own essence… That is really an unfortunate situation to find oneself.
And how did this whole mess happen?
The thing is, during the centuries of slavery, beginning in the 15th century and ending in the 18th; and the colonialism that followed—beginning in the 18th century and ending somewhere mid-to-late 20th century, the White folk instituted a form of government—a pseudo governance—over the African, one which mainly consisted of taking the money, taking the people, and running away… It wasn’t governance at all. It was a selfish, self-seeking pseudo-political system instituted with the sole purpose of bleeding the African, together with their lands, dry. Natural and human resources alike were syphoned, in such large quantities from the African borders to enrich the White folk’s lands and bellies.
But at last, it all came to a halt in the 20th century—it all ‘supposedly’ came to a halt. African nations had attained independence from White imperialistic thievery. But here’s the thing though: when care is not taken, it is mighty easy for the abused to become the abuser. Like a child learns from their parents, it is very easy for the oppressed to take note from their oppressor. It is also very easy for Stockholm syndrome to set in, and cause the abused, even after the unfortunate period of their abusing comes to a halt, to cling to the abuser still, seeking to derive their survival and their very essence from this abuser. Why? I don’t know. It is a whole psychological mess. And also, it is human nature. Oftentimes when people are decrying something, it is not really the act that they are condemning, but the fact that they are not the instigator and beneficiary of that act—the fact that they are not in the shoes of the perpetrator.
So even as we, Africans, were decrying colonialism, fighting for, and working at its cessation, the people who were, years later, to become our leaders, were doing nothing but picking notes from these oppressors, envying them in their enjoyment of the fruits of thievery, learning from them, biding their time: “Our time will come” they seemed to have been assuring themselves. Oh, no wonder we, Ghanaians, have been famous for butchering the part of our anthem that says: “Resist oppressor’s rule…” How could we sing it right when, subconsciously, we have had no true intention of actually obliterating the oppressor, together with whatever they stand for?
So then, as soon as White imperialism ended… As soon as the periods where the White folk just took our natural and human resource capital and ran ended, the Black folk, now in charge of running their own affairs, came in, doing no different—doing same, constantly taking the money and vamoosing. Pseudo-governance.
It must sting being called a ‘pseudo’ or ‘little’ anything—pseudo-government, pseudo-leader, little-bourgeoisie… A wannabe—a wannabe never actually ‘being’… Never anything in the grand scheme of things; little people meaning little… Inconsequential in the world of much consequence… It must sting being that person and/or nation.
PART III
The subjugation of fellow human beings in the bondage of slavery and servitude, that is not a biological trait; it is not something people are born with—not the oppressor, not the oppressed. One is not born with a genetic predisposition of master-hood, while the other, servitude. We cannot blame this one on God—the Creator has no hand in this. To survive our human ecosystem, we, humankind, since time immemorial, have engaged in the act of taking advantage of one another, whenever the chance is presented. We see how the White folk, notoriously stained with the history of Black subjugation, when the opportunity of the subjugation of their own race was afforded them, was quick to, without hesitation, subject one another to slavery, to servitude, just to meet this economic end of profitability. I know you are, at this very moment, picturing how our world would have been had the White European never stumbled upon the Black man and woman… It would have easily been a 15th-20th-century of the enslavement of the White folk, wouldn’t it?
That is the world we find ourselves in… We deem ourselves distinguished from animals and other living creatures, but really, at the root of our ecosystem we find this same underlying rule of the animal kingdom: the survival of the fittest, prevailing. We are constantly out in search of persons to make a fool of, to puppet around for our benefits. It is human nature; it is an economic reality; it is a jungle. You either go out in the hunt or be hunted. It is a dynamic which goes beyond our normal, individual human interactions to the interactions between nations. Countries are constantly out in search of other nations to take advantage of. When disintegrated, that is the core of diplomacy. It behoves any smart nation to guard itself against being used as puppets—serving other nation’s interests. It behoves great leaders to guard their nations from being used as mere playthings to the delight of other nations—side players to the West and the rest of the developed world’s position as the centre of the world, periphery characters in this globalised age. Nonentities.
It is a mighty pathetic position to find oneself in, isn’t it? Mere periphery characters, meaning little in this purposeful world. Side players—a nation of people, a race of people inclined to accepting the role as side players, as game for the hunting, as puppets, periphery characters, all together inconsequential in this world of much consequence. It must sting being a leader of such a nation, no? Sitting in one’s ivory tower—I misspoke, ‘ebony tower’… Like one’s past colonial leaders, having consistently poached the moneys from the people, having ‘obesed’ oneself with the gluttony, so much so that one is unable to even perform the ‘running’ part well… Sitting in this ivory tower of excess, yet, just like the people one has stolen from, still meaning nothing in the global, grand scheme of things. Rich with loot, yet, still inconsequential to the world around one. A mere Quisling. A pseudo-leader. A wanna-be, playing pretend—nkuro—in this world of real adulting. I tell you, this is enough to render one suicidal.
It is in this sense that I have always found the use of the term, ‘petty bourgeoisie’ in description of the incompetent African leader, inadequate. Because proponents of this description tend to make it look like these African leaders are in cahoot with the leaders of the West and the rest of the developed world in this looting of the African continent. As though the incompetent African leader sits at the same table with these leaders of the developed world, scheming and plotting this looting. Sitting at the same table scheming and plotting? As though these incompetent leaders are respected enough to be called on to partake in a scheming! Oh, please! Let’s get off our high horses already. The smartness, the savviness, required of a schemer isn’t a skill the incompetent African leader has ever demonstrated—let’s be frank.
So, we can boldly say this much: of scheming, the incompetent African leader is blameless—always has! They are, like us—the very people from whom they loot—in the grand scheme of things, mere victims of circumstance, mere casualties… A victimhood which they, with their selfish, pseudo-leaderships, have allowed upon themselves and the rest of the people whom they have been called to govern.
Such travesty.
