The above quote is an illustration of one of the reasons that I undertook to write a review of the Politics of Racism written by Naomi Klein (Harper, 2009, volume 319, number 1912). The analysis is brief, but I expect upon reading it other writers with means beyond mine would continue to propagate meaning on the global dynamism.

Paraphrasing Klein, before the United Nations (UN) held its Conference on Racism (UN Conference) the Israelis, Arabs, and Westerners cleverly managed to play the game of protagonist and antagonist in order to prevent agreement on reparation for the centuries of forced enslavement of Africans.

For Klein, it was as if the Arabs handed the western bloc the perfect opportunity to undermine the objectives of the UN Conference. That is during a planning meeting in Tehran, the Arab representation insisted on language that equates Zionism to Racism even though such words would not have been inserted in the final declaration. Hence their assertion, i.e., Zionism is Racism, became the excuse Israel used to claim that it was a victim of the UN Conference and; therefore, the United States (US) and European Union (EU), in keeping with their stated support for Israel, decided to also boycott the UN Conference.

Although Israel maintains its people were the victims of the holocaust in Germany during the first half of the 20th Century; for a lot of observers, today Israel has become the oppressor. These witnesses, e.g., former US president Jimmy Carter, point to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians on the territories that it occupies to suggest that Israeli governance strongly resembles Apartheid, which was the rule in South Africa renamed Azania by the Pan-African Congress (PAC), and the Racist system currently in place in the US and Europe. Therefore, Mahmmoud Amahdinejad, President, Islamic Republic of Iran, the only participating head of state at the UN Conference, during his speech focused mainly on denouncing Zionism. However, unlike Klein I do not make a scapegoat out of the Arabs because the call for reparation must come from Afrika. Hence it was proper for President Amahdinejad during the UN Conference to defend the noble cause of the liberation of Palestine, which for geopolitical reason makes sense because it provides Iran the mantle of moral power in the eyes of Muslims throughout the world, which includes significant numbers of Africans both in Africa and the Diaspora.

Interestingly, Klein went on to brilliantly show that the absence of the US Delegation at the UN Conference was a severe disappointment to the prominent African Americans rather the US-based Diaspora that has been working on lawsuits hoping to eventually win reparation on behalf of the Diaspora.

In my judgment, this nonattendance only serves to illustrate the fact that Afrikan and Afrikan Diaspora lack the organization, centralization, and common purpose to influence and change US policy that primarily concerns them. For if Barack H. Obama, President, US, did not deem it necessary to send a delegation to participate in a UN-sponsored dialogue on Racism and its impact on African and Afrikan Diaspora, probably due to the pressures that the different US-based Israeli groups and the foreign ministry of Israel exerted on his administration, then it can be said the Afrikan and Afrikan Diaspora have not yet mustered the kind of public policy expertise to shape the post-racial world.

Surprisingly, Klein did not address the absence of the president of the African Union and the other presidents and prime ministers from either the Caribbean and/or Pacific Islands at the UN Conference.

In a sort, I encourage All Afrikan People to reject the implied classic adversary scheme in its place I suggest a more appropriate approach, which can be summed up by the global dynamism. Nonetheless, this necessity to focus on the intrinsic values could be rather elusive unless we turn our attention to Mesopotamia, whence the Bible came the land between the two rivers Euphrates and Tigris, to realize that from the so-called cradle of civilization African suffered its first conquest, imposition, fragmentation (notwithstanding desertification), and so on.

After the 26th Dynasty, called the Saite Dynasty, circa 525 BC the Assyrian followed by the Greek, e.g., Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and the Roman succeeded in implementing their Reign on Egypt, Afrika ruling it until 30 AD (a fact that the archaeological findings displayed at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, corroborate). It is important to note the National Geographic magazine in its February 2008 edition literally had the Pharaohs of the 25th Dynasty, western propagandist and the so-called Egyptologists call it the Ethiopian Dynasty, painted black in order to make the point that they were the conquerors of ancient Egypt. Evidently, this is absurd because in the words of Nkrumah “Afrika cannot conquer itself.”

Alas, at some point during that era, the Solomonic Kingdom made its way to Ethiopia itself. For instance, in the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopians inscribed their connection to the Mesopotamian Reign beginning with the birth of Menelik I from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba and ending with Ras Tafari the 259th Monarch of Solomon’s Kingdom, his name Anglicized Haile Selassie I means the power of the Trinity, who it is said possessed kinship with Menelik I. On this matter of the Christianisation of Ethiopia the reader is encouraged to read the latest remark by Mutabaruka encouraging Africans to go beyond the Bible.

Again, I am surprised that Klein did not elaborate at all on this historical legacy and tradition, which Sellassie I sought to improve by education while being opposed to change, underlying the collusion she observed between the Europeans, Israelis and Arabs. Nonetheless, she did mention the slavery of Africans that ensued from the Tri-Angular Commerce (Mercantilism), at the beginning of the 16th Century throughout the Americas the so-called New World. It must be noted that following the initial conquest, and subsequent imposition of definite cultural codes such as tribe, e.g., Twelve Tribes of Israel, slavery developed in Afrika because, according to Ayittey, captives from another tribe could not become members of their captor’s tribe. Thus while not condoning slavery in Africa it must be pointed out that it was non-racial whereas in the New World racism served as justification to maintain slavery, incarceration and segregation rather social death.

In the final analysis, Klein eloquently showed that in the so-called free world racism, which has become internalized oppression, continues unabated. Most important, it can be implied that she demonstrated the need for a single Government of Afrika with the specific focus of advancing the territorial sovereignty and governmental integrity of the continent and the Diaspora; the prosperity and security of Afrikans; as well as the necessity to build coalition with the right partners, e.g., other indigenous Folk.

To these ends, it can be concluded that the teaching of Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of Ghana, remains relevant. It is pertinent because Nkrumah has been able to identify and articulate the culture of Afrika, rather aspects of the way of life from the Agrarian, Communal, to Scientific Socialism inherent as the set of concept for Afrikan and Afrikan Diaspora to make our way through the world. And as noted previously, the current configuration of Pacific-African-Caribbean could become a dynamic bloc to effectively overlive throughout Afrika, the Diaspora, and the other Territories of Indigenous Folk.