BlackFor30
Liberation is a philosophy that must first exist in our minds before manifesting through our actions.
BlackFor30
Colonial Shadows: The Theory of the Comprador
The episode critiques colonialism’s lasting impact through the lens of the "comprador effect," a Marxist theory highlighting how intermediary classes in post-colonial societies align with foreign interests, reinforcing economic dependency and inequality. We explore how these systems persist under a façade of morality.
Our conversation also delves into cultural identity and community loyalty, examining how capitalism and colonialism disrupt traditional values.
We begin by challenging the notion of autonomy for Caribbean nations, questioning how independent they truly are from former colonial powers. With a keen eye on Jamaica, Barbados, and other Commonwealth countries, we expose the limitations imposed by acknowledging the British monarch as head of state. Our conversation expands to Haiti's reparations to France and U.S. interventions, highlighting how tourism and foreign influence on fiscal policies undermine sovereignty.
Finally, we explore how colonial legacies continue to shape modern economies through corporate influence and interventionist tactics. By using the United Fruit Company as a case study, we uncover how elite collaborations and U.S. expansionist policies perpetuate cycles of dependency in regions like Central America.
BlackFor30 is a place for exploring Pan-African theory and praxis through discourse. Send us your thoughts and questions @blackfor30 or via email at admin@blackfor30.com.
Support BlackFor30
At BlackFor30, we believe that liberation begins in the mind and manifests through action. Your donation helps us amplify Afrocentric perspectives, foster critical conversations, and create initiatives that challenge narratives and inspire change. Together, we can keep the mission alive and impactful. Thank you for being part of this journey.
Fast forward to today. You know, when you consider, for example, like the restrictive immigration policies of the US and other imperialist countries, it reveals a clear disconnect and even hypocrisy in light of the impact of their interferences in our country. They won't allow us to come to their countries, but then they're the very reason as to why we want to leave other countries.
Speaker 2:I have a dream today. Is it too much to ask you to grant us human dignity? Who taught you to hate the texture?
Speaker 3:of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin to such extent that you bleach?
Speaker 1:For so many, many years, we were told that only white people were beautiful.
Speaker 2:You're afraid that if you give us equal ground, that we will match you and we will override you. Black is beautiful Green. Say it out loud, water free.
Speaker 1:Green, ustakango ni dumbo pawakachirwa, which means don't forget who you are or where you came from. Welcome to Black for 30. Thank you for coming through and joining us in another discussion on Black for 30. And, of course, before the episode begins, we just need to observe 15 seconds of just being quiet, just so you can wrap up whatever it is you're doing, and then we can fully engross ourselves in this discussion to come. So the 15 seconds starts now.
Speaker 1:8 billion people on earth, silent murderers, non-profits, preachers and church crooks and burglars. So that's a excerpt from kendrick lamar's song worldwide steppers. Right, where he critiques the pervasive influence of silent murderers. Right so, societal institutions and individuals, who, whose actions through indirect harm or, you know, I guess, indirectly harming or exploiting others. And he examines how, with its corporations, nonprofits, the media and religious institutions, how they reinforce societal norms which subtly damage, you know, individual identity and consciousness. And he goes on to talk about how that ultimately contributes to a culture of objectification and psychological erosion.
Speaker 1:Right, and throughout the song he reveals how that harm is not only inflicted by explicit violence but, you know, by slow, insidious pressures of societal systems that control and suppress, often under a moral or charitable guise, and his song is basically like a prelude to our discussion today, because we'll be exploring what's known as theprador effect, which is basically a theory rooted in Marxist economy or economics, rather, and it examines intermediary classes in post-colonial societies who acted as conduits between local populations and foreign powers, and often prioritizing outside interests over those of their people.
Speaker 1:So the concept highlights how these comparative groups, particularly within African and African-descended communities, so particularly within African and African-descended communities, how they perpetuate economic dependency and societal inequalities by aligning with these foreign or capitalist dangers, and that ultimately undermines our autonomy and self-determination. So throughout the discussion, we aim to encourage people to reflect on how these dynamics manifest today, examining their impact on identity, freedom and what true liberation is within those African and African-descended communities. And we intentionally chose to include the diaspora context to not only highlight the parallels and the experiences but, more importantly, to reinforce the idea of how being African is not limited to the continent. So, to really get into this discussion, I'm joined by my co-host hello everyone.
Speaker 3:Good to be back. It's been a while life is lifing right yeah, real hard right now. Um, you know, uh, just to go get some groceries. You've got to really consider your life, so yeah well, I feel you man it's interesting, isn't it?
Speaker 1:but at the same time, like I'm I was like, really I don't know whether it's the time or the topic, or maybe both, you know, like I'm definitely keen on, you know, getting into into some of this and especially because, like I guess, I feel like this is a slightly different take to all the other discussions we've had, in the sense that, like you know, we're getting to cover, I guess, like the breadth of what you know of african context, as opposed to you know one specific to a particular group. We'll slowly work through each of them and I guess maybe um a good place to start would be looking at the caribbean context and it's kind of, like you know, um fresh in mind as well. Like I was, I was recently reading a paper written by her name's Wendy Seal, or Wendy Sealy. Um, she's um a senior lecturer, um at, I think, the University of I don't know, sheshista, I don't know how they call it, uh which one uh, I think it's Sheshista.
Speaker 1:I don't know like it call it, which one. I think it's Sheshista. I don't know Like it's someone in the UK.
Speaker 3:One of those weird English names.
Speaker 1:C-H-I-S-T-E-A, okay, yeah.
Speaker 3:Something ridiculous when, given what's spelt and what's pronounced yeah, I know they don't match. Kind of like Worcestershire.
Speaker 1:Yeah, exactly, you know what I mean. So she wrote a paper on the new colonial structure of caribbean tourism, you know. And then within that she reflects the deeply entrenched colonial legacies and how they continue to upload, how they, those, continue to uphold structures of economic dependence, you know, and I think that will be a narrative which would be really consistent throughout our discussion. So she talks about how caribbean nations gained institutional or constitutional independence I think it was in the 60s which, along with a lot of, you know, african countries as well, right, but economic strategies remain tethered to foreign influence, you know, in their case being tourism which was promoted as a primary economic driver by global financial institutions and yep, you guessed it IMF and World Bank. So they linked structural adjustment policies with foreign investment case, unlike what happens across the continent where it's usually heavily resource-based, like natural resource-based. In the case of the Caribbean, it was incentivizing tourism expansion over self-sustaining industries. So tourism's economic impact has remained uneven.
Speaker 1:As large international hotel chains, they extract a significant portion of local revenue and that's either through tax incentives, foreign repatriations and profit retention, outside of the Caribbean, of course, and these foreign conglomerates they profit disproportionately, while local workers are relegated to low wages, unskilled labor and they obviously gain minimal economic benefit.
Speaker 1:And a good example of that is, you know how international hotel corporations. They often employ foreign management and impose employment barriers. So um, that excludes many qualified locals and perpetuates those social inequities. And this dynamic maintains a power imbalance where, despite contributing essential labor, these Caribbean workers remain economically marginalized within their own industry. And then, when you look at the local elites and government officials, they often facilitate this dynamic, you know, by prioritizing policies which favor foreign investors to secure short term gains over, you know, sustainable, equitable development. And additionally, you know, tourism development in the Caribbean limits local access to valuable coastal areas. You know how we were talking about some resorts claiming ownership of public beaches. And this post-colonial economic model mirrors the plantation economy's extraction of wealth from region for export to the metropoles, reinforcing this structural inequality and hindering genuine social progress. So when you look at that, what does the Caribbean tourism industry reveal about that broader relationship between post-colonial societies and former colonial powers, particularly in terms of dependency and autonomy?
Speaker 3:Firstly, I don't think we. The word autonomy there, I think it's a buzzword, and what I mean by that is people that think that the Caribbean is, I guess, free to just rule itself as each state sees fit is incorrect, because all you have to do is look at the fact that most of those countries are still attached to their colonial um overlords I guess this is the word I can say um, you still have, you know, jamaica, barbados, all of those under the commonwealth. They're still under the commonwealth right. So you're not, you're not free, you're not autonomous. So the head of government, the head of state, is still the king right. And then you've got the Francophile countries as well, as, you know, the Dutch colonies and Spanish colonies, and so on and so forth. They are still administered by the colonial governments. Yeah, administered by the colonial governments. Yeah, the only thing that's changed is how, how they pay their um, their their jews you know, what I mean.
Speaker 1:How d-u-e-s, by the way, people, in case you know that was starting to ruffle feathers. But yeah, keep going.
Speaker 3:If your feathers are ruffled, you're probably one of them, right, that was starting to ruffle feathers. But, yeah, keep going. If your feathers are ruffled, you're probably one of them, right, but that's another chat for another day. But essentially, there's no autonomy anymore, because let's take a look at Haiti, for example. Or Haiti, sorry, they are still paying reparations to the French to this day. Right, Tell me how a former slave colony that then you know has fought for independence is told if you want your independence, you're going to have to pay us for the loss in the income of our slave trade. Right, and look at Haiti now. Like what's going on? The slave master has changed from the French directly to the Americans, right, and they've been intervening in that country and I use the word intervene very loosely since somewhere around World War II, maybe even earlier. Right, since somewhere around World War II, maybe even earlier, right?
Speaker 3:People seem to believe that all of these countries, regardless of whatever economic state you're in, is due to their own smarts or their own fault. But we only have to just look just behind the curtain to find that those exact same people who were preaching about the fact that they're happy, that these countries are all independent, and so on, are still very much heavily involved in their state of affairs. They're still very much collecting heavily on those taxes and they're the ones who then dictate what sort of economic policy that is dispensed in each area. Right mentioned that. Uh, you know, places like jamaica, barbados, they um rely heavily on tourism. Yeah, and in that tourism sector there's, uh, there was a stat that I read that said that jamaica is pretty much mostly chock full of private beaches which are owned by different um companies. Right, and locals can't even access that, those places, and that's in their own country. So you know.
Speaker 3:That then comes right back to saying you know, I don't really believe autonomy is a word I guess that we can use. Or if we are, then I guess we've fallen for the trick, because there's nothing to do with free will when a foreign government pretty much tables your economic policy to you. Because how does someone who lives in america know what the people of antigo need economically, right? How does someone who you know is from the state of california then able to dictate that your fiscal policy for this year, you know, you in in jamaica, is going to look like this without there being some sort of monetary or economic reward for them specifically? So they tell you to. You know, to enact these economic policies, and then they tell you who is going to be. You know the company or the organization that you're going to pay to enact these policies, and it'll be one of their companies, won't it?
Speaker 3:so there is when it comes to, and we can start, and I, you know, we're starting in the caribbean, because I think a lot of people just assume that because they never had to go through, you know, like a war of independence, or they're not really complaining about any sort of western backed government. That's, you know, destroying something that you know the caribbean is fine and and you know if for all, for you know, most intents and purposes, they're doing well, you know places like trinidad, they're doing, you know very well, you know, but they're attached to the us dollar. They're attached to the fiscal policies that washington hands down right, which just goes to show that, yes, they're attached to the US dollar. They're attached to the fiscal policies that Washington hands down right, which just goes to show that, yes, they're autonomous in their day-to-day stuff. But when it comes to the important stuff, like your defense, your economic budget, everything else, someone else is telling your government what to do.
Speaker 3:So, in terms of, guess, you know the whole colonial structure, it, yes, it may have been, it's not dismantled. I wouldn't say it's dismantled because things like the commonwealth have taken its spot. It's just changing name, um, and in some instances, the, you know, the, the manager of said colonialism has changed. So, for example, it's changed from the UK or from England or France and it's now America, right, so the only thing that's changed is the label, but it's still the same one. So, in terms of autonomy, I personally don't feel as though that's. Caribbean. Countries have or, you know, exercise their right to self-determination to the point where they carry out their own economic policies based off of the people that they're, you know, based off their resources and their people and what their people want. And you know, same with everything else in terms of in terms of their administration.
Speaker 1:And you know, same with everything else in terms of their administration and like you know one of the interesting things around their case as well is you know those common actors you find.
Speaker 1:You know where there's smoke, there's fire, right.
Speaker 1:So you can't keep seeing organizations like IMF and world bank involved like even if you were, you know, to deny it right.
Speaker 1:But you can't keep seeing them in in environments that have the same sort of issues, right, like whether you're looking at their involvement across the continent, in africa or, in this case, in the caribbean. Right for them. They push political incentives that you know put these countries and or rather former colonies, in positions where they're basically there to to serve them, you know, before the local people, and it creates that element of dependency across a lot of different fronts as well. You know, whether you look at that from, you know you could look at it from a political or economic sense right, when you're looking at the nation in itself. But that also trickles down to social institutions, right, and those social institutions then also impact how people think, right, and so the same way our governments are virtually kissing ass. You know that trickles down to us and like the way we then see ourselves and the way we then treat ourselves when you step into certain spaces is subconsciously believing that you know, we are a third world. We are, you know, lesser than or underdeveloped.
Speaker 3:So therefore, you know, I should act as such right at what point are we going to put two and two together and realize that any time the WEF, the World Bank, the IMF, any of these monetary and bank institutions, whenever they come in, it's poison chalice? That's pretty much. They come in with a poison chalice. They say we've got this money for you, but you have to do a through z, and usually it's at, you know, uh, at the cost of whatever programs that you already had in place. Or at least the people that suffer the most are, yes, you know, your, your general population, your taxpayers and and the thing is, you know, know again.
Speaker 1:Another like, because obviously this is the core theme of our discussion. Right, like just that role that the elites play, you know, and government officials, in terms of allowing this to happen. Really, because you can't overstate just how much of a role they play in all of this. Right, because, like, ultimately they are the boots on the ground you know, Looking at Latin America one of the things.
Speaker 1:I was really curious about is, I guess with this whole discussion, is the idea of state formation and nation building ultimately have never really had that autonomy to be able to define what our states or nations are. You know what national identity means for us. You know it's always kind of had an influence which is external right and in the context of Latin America. You know I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Monroe Doctrine so that was ushered in by the old US president and the policy was basically to protect Latin America from European imperialism. And so the US was a certain itself, almost like A protector.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the protector of the Americas, you know, and obviously what that meant was that policy was to be used as a tool of US dominance and that would obviously allow them to intervene and secure American economic interests. Yeah, interests, yeah. And then roosevelt then came along and expanded that doctrine, given the us authority to intervene in any latin american country which they deemed to be unstable. You know, and you know, stop me when this starts starting to sound a whole lot familiar. Um, and this led to, you know, repeated us military interventions right, and again, I don't like the word interventions right, because really it's an invasion right, so you can stop calling them interventions.
Speaker 3:You're declaring war on all these countries.
Speaker 1:And even, not even if you're not declaring war the moment you step foot with your military in my house, like you are. I mean we understand the whole. You know, trespassers will get prosecuted. Was that prosecuted?
Speaker 3:Prosecuted, yeah, persecuted, prosecuted, prosecuted, I don't know. One name, one say I think people use that interchangeably. You know what I mean. Others probably mean I'm going to kill you, others are going to call the cops Exactly.
Speaker 1:Because, like, yeah, I'm not really feeling the call of cops, but um, so you know. So this led to, like you know, repeated us military um invasions, right, um, often backing authoritarian leaders who prioritized american interests over the rights of the people right um and america by here I mean not america.
Speaker 1:And then the local politicians, you know, military leaders and business figures were crucial in aiding these US intervention policies. So they aligned with US economic and political goals in exchange for financial or political power, right. So they endorsed the US occupations and, like in countries like Nicaragua, honduras, framing them as you know, honduras, framing them, as you know, necessary for stability. And they also worked against, you know, any labor movements, any nationalist leaders challenging the US control, you know, and this was also like around the time of, like the Cold War, so, like anything you know, against communism, right, and you know, helping suppress unions and populist movements which threatened their shared interest with foreign capital.
Speaker 1:So, through these legal reforms and agreements, these comparators, or elites, facilitated American corporate interests by liberalizing trade, maintaining low labor costs, you know, and granting favorable land concessions. So this collaboration between them and the US entrenched the US's influence while securing the comparator elite's economic and political power and that, you know, thus reinforced a system of dependency and consolidated wealth within these monoculture economies. And it also tied them to you, us dominance. So, fast forward to today, you know, when you consider the, for example, like the restrictive immigration policies of the us and other imperialist countries. It reveals a clear disconnect, you know, and even hypocrisy, in light of the impact of their interferences in our country. You know they won't allow us to come to their countries, but then they're the very reason as to why we want to leave other countries.
Speaker 3:It's a crazy. It's a crazy thing when you realize it Right, and like specifically what you, specifically what you said just now, when you said they won't allow us into their countries, but then they're the ones who are coming in and destroying ours, right? Yeah.
Speaker 3:What makes me laugh about all these nationalist movements is that they scream to high heaven that their country should be for white people only right now. Again, I'm not an expert on on geography and migrations I'm fairly certain and again they teach this in their schools that places like america, australia, new zealand, can, canada and pretty much South America and the Caribbean they had people there right. So when these white people say America for Americans, I become confused, because the native Americans that were there before you know the land was supposedly discovered, you know they were coming from elsewhere. You know Germany, italy, ireland, england, scotland, france, whatever, right, that's where they came from.
Speaker 1:And were they convicts?
Speaker 3:In Australia. Most were Ahs in in australia most were uh um but in america only somewhere okay, the others were what were they called um, this religious group of people? They were called the puritanicals or something like that. You know the ones they used to wear back in the day, when they used to wear those belt buckle type hats oh, yeah, yeah yeah, yeah, puritans, puritans, um.
Speaker 3:So yeah they, they came on a ship called, I think, the mayflower, one of them. So they voluntarily left the old world because they feared religious, uh, persecution. And then, you know, come to america to exercise their own persecution on the native amer. So their mindset was either be a victim or victimize someone else. So they just went we're not going to take it, we're going to give it to someone else. So, in terms of the policies that are created and that's the other thing I think that people have to realize especially with Africa and South America and the Middle East, we contribute some of the highest immigration rates to Western countries.
Speaker 3:Right Now, if you look at any of those regions, there's always instability, about always, and from throughout all the years that you know, I've been able to sort of read and put together geopolitical issues that are happening, same as cultural and class, I guess, ideologies that meet and clash and do all sorts of things. A few things then become quite clear. So when you talk about colonialism, right, people from one place went to another place, and then you know whether it was started off nicely or it just started off. You know bad from the jump, where they came to take over and eventually you know, take your resources and turn them into theirs and then subjugate the people there, make them work and earn a living for things that they never really needed before. So you put that system into place hundreds of years, 200 years, whatever it may be. You've got a system going and you enforce it brutally, and in that time you're preaching about how good your country is, how free it is, how great it is, and yet you're not there, right? That's problem number one. And then you get surprised when people from those areas that you're mistreating they think that they don't get mistreated from where you're from. So let me go there and improve my social, my, you know my financial outlook.
Speaker 3:Right, because odds are, if that country that you're from has gained independence in the last 50, 60 years, economically it's doing pretty bad. Right, and that's because the people who were once pillaging your resources are now under the guise of a new foreign policy. They're just changing it up, but they're still pillaging your resources are now under the guise of a new foreign policy. They're just changing it up, but they're still pillaging your resources. They just do it now in with things like agreements, treaties and trade organizations and all those things right. So when we look at specifically at like south america and the monroe doctrine, that was in 1823, right when it first started about, we're in 2024. So for the last 200 years America has been enacting this foreign policy just so that they can extend their influence over certain parts of the world Out of the world yeah.
Speaker 3:Now and as you were saying that, you know they just show up and they call it an intervention. But anytime you show up to any other country unannounced with troops, that's a declaration of war, Whether or not you say it out loud. It's like if I come to your house and I jab you in the face, I'm pretty sure you're already gonna know what I'm about. Do you know what I?
Speaker 1:mean. It's even crazy how they because basically what they're saying is you know, because in a few of those cases, whoever was in government who was against the us influence and the in central america, for example, like when they told the americans to stay away, of course you know they insisted how they wanted to protect their interests. So you know, so for them, they felt it was right to bring their military.
Speaker 3:It's like the audacity dude do you know what?
Speaker 1:I mean, and I think a really good example of that you know in that region is the United Fruit Company, you know. So for a bit of context. So the United Fruit Company was founded back in 1899 and it became a powerful US-based multinational corporation and it dominated banana production and distribution in Central America and I think there was also some work in the Caribbean as well. So it was nicknamed the octopus for its extensive influence.
Speaker 3:That's a weird name for a fruit company, don't you think? Right, what are you guys up to?
Speaker 1:And of course, they monopolized the industry, you know, from plantations to transport networks, shaping economies in Guatemala, honduras, costa Rica and Colombia, right, and all of this was done with the support of the local elites. So UFC entrenched a banana monoculture which made national economies dependent on its practice. And again, this is similar to the Caribbean context, right, where for them it was tourism, and the compadre elites enabled ufc's dominance by granting land and suppressing opposition as well you know, and often they used force against labor movements and a good example of that is like um, the banana massacre.
Speaker 1:I think that was like in uh in colombia, where they killed, I think it was like thousands of people. And in guatemala they collaborated with ufc and us officials the cia, yes, to label land reform efforts as communist threats, right, and again, this was around, you know, the cold war period and that led to the cia back coup in 54 which restored ufc's control and and it's how you you see, like the interplay between the government, private enterprises and and the military, and on that as well, like you know, you know. So the UFC in itself, like, obviously like influenced, like you know, us foreign policy, like across Central America, and it supported American economic and political interests, right, and the company's operations shaped these US interventionist practices, you know, and they actually started to call them banana wars, you know where, basically, american forces protected ufc assets, right, and it kind of also set a blueprint for corporate driven foreign policy, like you know, and you see examples of it today when you look at corporations like amazon, firestone, apple, google yeah, exxonmobil, right.
Speaker 3:The crazy thing is it's no longer examples like that's just regular policy these days.
Speaker 1:And that's the thing, right, because it's been running for so long. So it's like that's the status quo, so like we don't think of it in any other way except for it just being normal. You know where they expand globally and to led to, you know, economic dependency in Central America and it also contributed to, you know, ongoing poverty and political instability, and again, these are all like really familiar themes, right.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And the similarities become quite clear. You know. So, whether it's in the Caribbean, latin America or Africa, the US and other imperial powers' interference has left us overly dependent on export industries, and those industries primarily serve their interests. You know, and it brings to mind like a question I was recently asked, recently asked right friend of mine was like we've seen an africa shaped for europeans, we've seen in africa for arabs. When we will see an africa for for africans? And I think the same question could be asked of latin america or the caribbean right of course because now we see africa and south america shaped for americans.
Speaker 3:No, so the only thing that's changed is the names from the, from england to the united states, and things like coups are now called lobbying right, because that's essentially what united free company did. They lobbied the government, who then sent the cia to train, arm and fund a bunch of people who then deposed a democratically elected president. Wow, right, like, yeah, like we say, like they reported themselves as if it's, you know, just normal. They painted him out to be a communist. So then, what?
Speaker 3:and even if he was a communist, it's none of your business, it's our president business that company united fruit company should be paying the taxes and obeying the laws of said country. You don't run to another country and then say, hey, they're not allowing me to make my money in this country and then that country comes running like how insane is that?
Speaker 3:and that's what boggles the mind in that people pretend as if this is just regular, this is just normal, and then no one decides to look at other examples that they try to use, like I wouldn't even go that far back as the 50s. I'll use um evidence from today, this today, this year alone, right In Venezuela. I don't know if you're across much of what's going on in Venezuela at the moment.
Speaker 1:No.
Speaker 3:So for the last couple of years, the president his name is Nicolas Maduro right, he's been accused of being he's a left, he's a left-leaning politician. I'm not sure how exactly left, because you know, outside of being in Venezuela or South America, I'm not really going to get you know the political scene of the country so unfortunately, you know, we have to rely on a lot of the Western media, Media and I'm not talking like legacy media like you know your CNN and all that crap.
Speaker 3:No, no, no, like you know, this is through independent journalism and all that stuff. For all intents and purposes, he's a left-leaning president, right Democratically elected. Venezuela is so resource-rich they're the second, if not the largest, oil producer. It's between them and Saudi Arabia, I can't remember, but then they're like the gulf between them and whoever's third is insane right.
Speaker 3:So they've got insane oil reserves, among other natural resources. You know agriculture and so on and so forth. So the Americans because Maduro did not want to do business with them the way that the Americans wanted they've been on an active campaign not only to oust him but to destabilize the country. In the elections that happened a few months ago, maduro won right. There was independent electoral observers that were there. They said it went off without a hitch. There was no violence. Nothingica cried wolf the whole time saying they were not democratic.
Speaker 3:People are crying of this and that and then when you look at the people, you can obviously see a plant. You know what I mean. You know a plant when you see one, someone who's you know burning down businesses and protesting for what? Those are the businesses of your people that you're burning. So it doesn't make sense. But they have been waging a disinformation war against maduro, calling him a dictator, to the point where he even went on national tv to say that elon musk paid people to try and assassinate him. Now he then became involved in a war of words on twitter, ironically with elon.
Speaker 1:Now elon didn't deny or confirm any of this stuff, by the way, he then became involved in a war of words on Twitter, ironically, with Elon.
Speaker 3:Now, elon didn't deny or confirm any of this stuff. By the way, I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but when the president of another country says that he knows that you paid for an assassination on him, and then he says it out loud in front of millions, there might be something happening there. You know what I mean. So we don't even like. We look at you know what United Fruit Company was doing. That's just one example. America is still enacting those foreign policies to this day, not only in Venezuela, in Colombia, in Guatemala. They're still in all of those countries actively operating. We know that. You know we hear the drug cartels are doing this and doing that, but they're allowed to exist. And why is America right, for example, in Colombia, fighting the drug cartels? What does Colombia have to do with the United States If you say? And one of the reasons that they say is well, where we're combating drug trafficking, just secure your border I was going to say have they solved the the drug issue in america?
Speaker 3:right, you have they. So their reasoning is that because these drugs come from other countries and are being funneled into the americans but guess what? It's by the americans themselves.
Speaker 1:So it's weird, right, that they have to go to those places in order to put a stop to it there it's even interesting when you when you look at how their role you know the us and their alliances with these compradors is like creating this social stratification right, I was reading work by um, this brazilian sociologist named rui marini I think I'm maybe butchering his name there- um he developed this concept called super exploitation right, and it's just a framework for understanding the social stratification and roll off the comparable class in central american economies.
Speaker 1:You know how they were dominated by these monoculture plantations right you know, large, low wage labor forces, you know, were necessary for these export economies, which led to the rise of a local elite. And they aligned with foreign corporations, like the ufc, you know. And these elites were often, um, you know, powerful landowners and political figures. So they collaborated with US interests, protecting corporate gains in exchange for political and economic advantages, right. So Marini argues that the competent class acted as internal agents of neocolonialism, working against local development in favor of foreign profits. And you know, his thesis further connects to racial stratification, you know. And one of the areas where you can see that is in panama, like the panama canal zone, you know. Know, where the US had segregation policies which apparently were similar to the Jim Crow laws, you know, shocking, yeah. And so that then meant Black Caribbean workers were relegated to low wages and poor living conditions, you know, thusening panama's racial and economic inequalities, right, and so according to.
Speaker 1:According to him, super expectation locks peripheral economies into dependency, right and yeah, you know, prioritizing cheap labor and export industries while neglecting internal development, and this leads to a constant outflow of resources while at the same time enriching the metropole economies. So these local elites perpetuate this cycle, enforcing conditions that benefit foreign capital rather than investing in domestic growth, and ultimately we have this neocolcolonial structure. What would drive individuals to align with foreign interests, even when these actions harm their own people? Right and and and sometimes you know when you say, uh, their own people, because you have to have to realize that, like, a lot of these elites have relatives and like, because it's not the whole family, that's like you know, suffering, um, get in the bag, right?
Speaker 1:like there's a lot the whole family that's like. You know suffering. Get in the bag right, like there's a lot of them who are subject to. You know these hard working conditions. You know poverty and so forth. How does this reflect?
Speaker 3:you know deeper values about loyalty look, I always say not all skinfolk is kinfolk, right and it's, it's just it's okay, we just leave it there right because, like, how do you explain the mindset that you have to have to see your own people?
Speaker 3:You know I wouldn't even talk about the general population. Let's say, there's you, you've got your aunts, you've got your cousins, you've got your friends, family, people that you know that are not in the same economic situation as you, right, situation as you, right. You see them suffering by the conditions that you are helping a foreign entity create in your own country, that you were born and raised in, that you most likely die in right and that your family will continue suffering in right. You are okay with this. Not only are you okay with it, but you are actively helping these people come in rape, murder, pillage, loot and then leave. If you were to go to that country with what you look like, I 100% guarantee you won't be treated like how you treat them where in your country. Right, and that's and that's a common fact. You know, how many movies have you seen where you know the, the bad guy who or sorry, the guy who double crosses the good guys, then ends up getting killed by the bad guys because he's not loyal? Right at the end of the day, if you're a snitch, you're gonna die like one. That's how it works, right? The people that you are helping don't care about you. The people that you are hurting care about you, but they don't know that you're doing this to them. They're the ones who would help you out in a pinch, rather than the ones you are assisting, because they don't give a shit about you, right?
Speaker 3:But those people don't have that loyalty, and I guess it comes down to you know what you said about identity as well. Your sense of identity, you know, is also tied into your cultural group, right. And if your loyalty is to, you know, made up money, then I guess we know just about how far you are willing to go for your own people. I don't think they count as your own people anymore if you're loyal, if you're loyal only to money, if you're loyal only to economic gain, right. So I think, and the simplest way I think, that we can explain how or why these people do what they do is just that they have no identity. That, you know, ties them to their own people, ties them to something that gives them a sense of pride in where they're from, right? So if you don't give a shit about where you're from, you will. You would gladly watch it burn, right.
Speaker 3:That that's these people. They have no identity, they have no sense of loyalty to their own people. They, you know, especially if it's some of those self-made people with uh, you know an ego where they finally got a lucky break and then all of a sudden, this big company comes and says, hey, we'll pay you to do this and this. They'll jump at that because they may not want to go back to that poverty, not knowing that all they have to do is just get together with their own people and start creating a situation whereby everyone lives comfortably or at the very least, you know, has good, favorable working conditions, right, but instead you're okay to continually watch your country burn as long as you still live in a fancy mansion. So you know, in terms of loyalty and identity, they have none of that that is tied to their culture or their people. Yeah, it's. It's all about economic gain, it's all about their identity. Is greed, that's.
Speaker 1:That's as simple as I, as I think you'd be able to put it, because even thinking about it just makes me mad and like, like you're right, right so the question is on two fronts in a way. Right so there's the question of capitalism. Right so there's that greed element.
Speaker 1:You know, and then there's the racial element, and I see it playing in a couple of ways too, like where? So, as he said it best, right, you're still a nigga, right? So because when you do step into those spaces and and we have seen it right like, whether on tv or not, like where these elites will step into in certain spaces and they mistake their money to think that it makes them white, or they mistake the alliances that they have with these foreign entities to mean that they are actually being accepted. Because if you look at it this way, right, if you're willing to sell out your people so you could get a buck, I have no respect for you, but I understand the value you mean to my ultimate agenda, so I will keep you close to me for as long as you're useful right and so the thing is so, from from their end, you know, they are playing themselves.
Speaker 1:You know, because it's an element of like them wanting to, you know, be accepted in in certain spaces. Because our concept of like you know what is valuable is really based of the capitalist model. Right, like we've divorced ourselves from our, our traditions or traditional values, of you know what life means. And like you know, like the japanese, for example, like, I think you know people will talk about, like ikigai, right, you know purpose, right, and we have the same thing. But we have strayed so far from it that what we cling to are Eurocentric models of you know those understandings. So, for them, they are okay to watch their relatives struggle and be in poverty due to their actions and, on top of that, they'll flex on them. And the reason also being because, you know, one of the things that colonialism has bred is this nefarious thing where we just always want to compete against each other, you know.
Speaker 1:So, whether it's who's lighter than who, uh, who's darker than who, um, you know, or who's much more close to whiteness than the other, you know what I mean, like speaks better english yeah, like, so we're always competing on so many levels, so for them also there's that element like where competing on so many levels, so for them also there's that element like where they are the one percent in our countries, right, so they get to emulate that figure that they see, that they aspire to, whether consciously or subconsciously you know. So yeah, how can we redefine success to include loyalty to one's community and resistance to external exploitation? I mean, I know it's, like you know, probably a hard question, but, like you know, no, no, it's, it's simple in its complexity.
Speaker 3:Um, put simply, for us to change, we have to dismantle the system that's currently in place. We, we favor economic gain over personal growth. We favor, you know, being able to get one up on our competition. In favor of collective improvement, right, sorry? In lieu of collective improvement, sorry. We congratulate one another when you know you've pulled off the deal of the century by hoodwinking certain people into selling off their life, assets or whatever, or so that you can make a commission, you know, in lieu of that person feeding their family for the next couple of weeks or their job security, we, this society that we are in now, prioritizes individual accomplishments, especially over one another.
Speaker 3:Rather than, you know, that collective ideology that, like I'll say, for for africans at the very least where I mean, we've all heard that phrase it takes a village, right, that village looks after each other, because we understand that all of us have different you know, things that we're good at, that we can do. We all have different strengths. And rather than you know, screw over one person because you're smarter, um, you know, and then you take their things. You say, okay, I'm good at this, so I'll do this, and then you're good at this, you do that and then we'll work together and then do this. So that whole idea of of, you know, a collective society working together for one common goal is no, is non-existent, and you know that came with the advent of of borders. Right, communities were free to move about however. They felt like you could break off your community, go, start off another one based off mutual interests or whatever. And it was fine because you weren't doing it at the expense of someone else. Right, you just decided what was good for you and your family and you either did your own thing or you came together as a community and you did that thing together.
Speaker 3:Right, and in as far as colonialism is, is, is is seen, right, we, we've we've come a long way from what we used to believe in as a group of people. You know, the term vanu meant us, the people. Right, it didn't just mean a group of people, it meant that specific group of people, whether it's Shona, whether it's Ndebele, whether it's whatever, you were talking collectively, because that group as a collective were after the same things. We want to feed ourselves, we want same things. We want to feed ourselves, we want to survive, we want to protect ourselves, simple, whereas with the advent of colonialism that shifted from the community to me, and you can see it all across the board in Africa.
Speaker 3:When I won't even go and say Africa, I'll say Zimbabwe. I wouldn't even go and say Africa, I would say Zimbabwe Just the family dynamics. You know a lot of people. We try to do the traditional things. You know we have the hierarchy where we've got Baba Emusha, you know the father of the house, we've got Anatete, we've got this, and that Everyone has a specific role, right, but for all intents and purposes, you know, you know, before colonialism there wasn't just africa, was zimbabwe, wasn't like a patriarchal society, right, everyone had their, their, their importance and their use and no one was better than the other.
Speaker 3:Because, because without one side you can't function properly, regardless of how well the other side functions. Right, it's kind of like a wheel If there's a chunk missing in that wheel, is it going to be a smooth ride. So when you look at that system and what it promotes and then when you look at what African culture used to be prior to colonialization, right, you see a very simple thing we have to stop trying to emulate the capitalist model and go back to. You know, essentially, I mean it was an agrarian society, but still, I don't think we'll ever be able to find out how africa would have stayed spared um, sorry, would have survived in the you know modernization of everything else, because we weren't the ones driving our own growth, right? And I don't think we'll ever fully find out how truly great or how truly independent we could have been had we successfully defended ourselves or had there been no colonialism. Right, and that's the unfortunate bit in that we lost so much of our society because it was done by force. And then we've gone from this to you know, being forcibly made to do this, while still trying to maintain some sort of semblance of identity there.
Speaker 3:So, of course, there's going to be, you know, all these sellouts and all these snitches and all these compradors, right, because they have completely shifted their mindset and said, no, I don't want whatever this is, which is, you know, your original society. I want whatever these guys are showing me, because money means I can buy material things and I want all those material things, and that it doesn't matter at what expense, right? So I guess the question there is to ask these people is what can you possibly buy? What is humanly available for you to buy with your money that you're willing to destroy your own country for? I think that's probably a better question, because that might at least give us an idea as to what their motivations are. You know what I mean? Because their loyalties are to this thing that's made up.
Speaker 3:So, yeah, put simply, it's just we have to be able to accept that this capitalist society is not made for us, right? It's not for us, it's not by us. So why are we living and dying for this thing? Let's switch to our own thing and see what happens. Yes, there'll be a lot of you know adjustments and growing pains, but I think we're at the point where we know it's necessary, because we know who the people are that are driving the chaos, Like when I was thinking about the African-American context.
Speaker 1:Right, and I guess because of the work I've currently been doing in hip hop, you know, one of the songs that came to me is Lupe's Bitch Bad right.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, where he critiques the impact of language in hip hophop, illustrating how terms like the bitch become normalized through music, right, and that ultimately shapes perceptions and reinforces toxic gender stereotypes, you know. And he illustrates how young people absorb, you know, misogynistic language from rap, associating words like bitch as cool or desirable, and this language not only distorts the value of women but promotes their objectification and conditions. Women, and others as well, to well, I guess mainly women in this context, to, you know, accept mistreatment. And in the final verse, you know, he advocates for a shift toward responsible languages, urging a deeper recognition of women's humanity. But ultimately, rather than rejecting hip hop, you know, he calls for a conscientious approach to, you know, understanding the power of language and how it shapes perceptions and relationships. And I think this dynamic parallels the complementary effect.
Speaker 1:Right, where members of a marginalized community unknowingly or knowingly uphold oppressive structures. Right, and when you're looking at hip-hop, right, whether it's rappers, artists, producers or the audience, you know they, or rather we, become compradors by adopting and promoting language which commodifies and objectifies women and a lot of it is often for commercial gain, right. And instead of challenging these oppressive norms, you know, it internalizes um and reinforces those norms. Right and ultimately that benefits external factors within the music industry while harming our community. So you know, I take Bitch Bad as a call for greater responsibility in language use and a cultural re-evaluation right which urges hip hop to reclaim what it once stood for as a force for resistance rather than complicity and oppression. So when you look at lupe's message right and how that connects with the idea of us being perpetrators of our own demise, like like, what are your thoughts about that?
Speaker 3:that song um again. It's a perfect example, because what Lupe does is he's a master at social commentary right.
Speaker 3:Whether it's race, gender, sex, culture, everything he can. He's a wordsmith and I like the context of that song because he uses kids as an example. And you know, one of the characters, or one of the kids, is a boy whose mom calls herself a bad bitch, but he loves and respects her and he knows the word bitch is bad, right. So then when she starts singing along to these songs like I'm a bad bitch, he's confused because he's like, wait, I love this woman and she's, you know, this force of strength and solitude for me. Why is she calling herself a bitch, right?
Speaker 3:And then in the second part he's got the teenage girls, or like preteen girls, who are on the internet looking at music videos and you know, they see their favorite rapper and he's got all these video vixens. And he's saying, yeah, I like a bad bitch, so they think being a bad bitch is good, video vixens. And he's saying, yeah, I like a bad bitch, so they, they think being a bad bitch is good. And then the late, the latter stage of that song is, you know, the boy and the girl are adults now and they meet up but they've got two conflicting views on what a batch, what a bitch means right, um. And then lupe goes on to say something like uh, the power is like disclaimer, uh, lupe. What does he say?
Speaker 3:lupe doesn't mean to offend, or something he just aims to clear up, you know the, the double entendres and so on and so forth, and that's like a perfect example of how society is played against each other in terms of what can benefit financially one group and what is detrimental to another group. So in that context excuse me, the um group that's benefiting financially is, you know, the record labels right? They have an agenda that they want to put out and that agenda and the artists too.
Speaker 3:But yeah, okay go look, are they benefiting much? The artists. My theory is this so the record labels are the ones who are making the most profit, right, and when we look at how artists are paid, we know that. You know they generally rely on bonuses and then they have to pay sorry on advances and then they have to pay the record label back right through albums, merchandise and so on and so forth. So essentially, that record deal is kind of like a loan to that, to that artist. Right, blow whatever money you want. Now we'll give you three million dollars, but then you've got to pay that three million dollars back plus interest, you know, with your album, with your merchandise, with your touring and all that correct. So essentially then, this artist is beholden to the record label.
Speaker 3:So in regard to that side of things, the artist is again losing. They just don't realise it because they think that just because I've got a bag now, all of a sudden I'm not facing the same issues. As you know the idiots who are buying my music, right, and then on the other end of the spectrum, you've got the culture. You know us idiots who fall victim to this messaging because you know the record labels promote people like Lil Pump and Megan Thee Stallion. I don't know who these new rappers are these days, so, but I just know that the music is trash right.
Speaker 3:It's gone from uh I don't know if you remember that that guy crank lucas uh you know I used to do those skits uh, where he'd say a rap in the seven, like in the 80s, 90s, 2000s yeah, he showed the different years, yeah yeah, and then someone commented and said we've gone from an era of listening to people who had to sell drugs to get by because of the economic situation.
Speaker 3:You know, like there's 80s, so the crack epidemic and so on and so forth, right to go into the 90s where people start talking about you know, I have to. So the 80s and 90s were like we have to sell drugs, you know, to make a better living for ourselves, right. And then you went into the early 2000s and it's now, um, just drug user music and it's it's sort of devolved now to the point where all they just do is jump onto a track, talk about I've taken've taken molly, I've taken eggs, I've taken coke and now I'm partying, right, it's devolved into basically just do drugs and see what happens. So now, when people hear rap music, what do they think of? They just think of you know's bitches, there's drugs, there's cars, it's an absurd lifestyle, right. That's all it is.
Speaker 3:So the real losers of that are us, the culture, right, the people who are actual fans of rap music and who it's marketed for. We are the losers, rap music and who it's marketed for. We are the losers Because then we are being portrayed by again these rappers and these artists as idiots who are only worried about getting high, driving the coolest cars with the fattest rims and getting women right. And you know if you're not a rapper, you're an NBA player or you're an NFL player, that's it. There's no other career options for black people in America other than those three things.
Speaker 3:Right. So the record label get what they want, they get their money and they also get to perpetuate negative stereotypes about people. The artist is basically just a puppet they use in order to perpetuate that message. Because when you look at the record labels, who owns those record labels? Is it majority black?
Speaker 1:or is it majority white people? The latter.
Speaker 3:Exactly. So how can then white people start to say, okay, this is what we want rap music to look like, and then tell black people that, where are you getting your information from? It's like if we started telling white people how we like rock music to look like and to sound like and then we started marketing it for them and then signing all these white artists and then turning them into rock stars and saying, yep, this is what we want you to portray. Does that shit make sense? Do you think they would allow that to happen?
Speaker 1:I mean to be fair. Rock is black music, or at least it started that way, but anyway until they stole it.
Speaker 3:You see that that's a whole other bag, that that's a whole different conversation like I mean like yes and no, but yeah, yeah, it's, it's, it's a.
Speaker 1:You know it's a complex conversation, but yeah, keep going yeah.
Speaker 3:So the real losers here are us, because again we know who really started this music thing. But yet elvis is, you know, labeled the king of rock and roll, when people like what was his name? Is it huey lewis?
Speaker 1:no, chuck berry chuck berry.
Speaker 3:There was a woman as well. I forget her name and I'm so embarrassing because that woman was an absolute killer when it came to the guitar. But a lot of people don't know that there's a black woman who did the the things that elvis copied.
Speaker 3:He stole from her down to the dance moves. It's wild behavior. I saw the videos and I was like holy. So then you know we should go down that that path. We obviously know it was stolen, but what they've done? And again they colonized black music. I think. There you go. Um, there it is. The music has been colonized because it got stolen right, and then they repackaged it and started telling us what else we should be doing. So, from a music perspective, again our music was colonized. Then they decided to package it and tell us this is what we want you to sing about, this is what we want you to talk about, and so the message has been changing over time into what it is now.
Speaker 3:So at the end of the day, the only people that lose is us, because we're allowing our music, our culture, our ideas to get twisted, to get formed into something else or in the name of and I think also like a lot of it changed, like when the dynamics shifted from rap being about real life to being predominantly about entertainment, you know.
Speaker 1:So the content of the lyrics has changed, the music videos and, like you know, the message behind that has changed the um. You know, as an artist or as a rapper, like you know there's a whole lot more to you now than just your songs and like you know, you kind of have to play out this persona that they, the labels, will create or expect you to to live out.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, including like alter egos and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, in the interest of us, like you know, getting onto the, the continental african experience, you know like and I felt to to leave this last also because, like you know, I guess it's a narrative that's really been spoken, you know well too. But you know, just to tie off our conversation, like I'd like to touch on, I guess, like the very common case of the drc, you know where. In that case, you know, you see the comparable effect in a vividly illustrated through, you know again, the local elites and government officials and how they collaborate with foreign corporations right, granting them access to vast reserves of cobalt, which is a mineral critical for electronics and renewable technologies.
Speaker 1:Right, In return these elites receive financial rewards and political backing, you know, and it doesn't obviously limit itself just to cobalt, but like all other resources as well.
Speaker 1:And while this arrangement yields tremendous profits for both the foreign companies and the local elites. Right, environment, health crisis from pollution, and it economically exploits the congolese communities. Right, most mining jobs are low wage and perilous, you know. They leave local populations impoverished, you know, despite the fact that drc is really rich in resources. Right, yeah, so this dynamic exemplifies the compadre effect. You know how these, how those in power facilitate, you know, foreign exploitation for personal gain. You know, and how that reinforces dependency on external capital and deepens poverty. Yeah.
Speaker 1:However, the compadre effect extends beyond elites and corporations.
Speaker 1:You know, I know that's what we've heavily been focusing on. But, you know, when you look at the DRC context, most of us own phones, laptops and other electronics right and they contain Congolese cobble, right, which makes most of us complicit to the condition of DRC. What we can argue is the degree to which that is the case. So, although there's broad awareness of the exploitative conditions under which these resources are extracted, we continue to purchase these products Again, so that perpetuates the demand for cobble and incentivizes these corporations to extract it under unsustainable conditions. Right. So, through this passive acceptance and sustained demand, we inadvertently uphold the same exploitive systems and reinforce the actions of elites and foreign corporations. And this shared complicity highlights a globalized complementary effect where, you know, we have become silent enablers of these inequities, fueling a cycle which benefits a few at the cost of countless lives and ecosystems, right in the, in the DRC in this case, To what extent do you think? You know we as consumers are responsible for products made from, you know, materials sourced from these exploitive and extractive practices?
Speaker 3:We are 100% responsible. A company is only as successful as its fan base right as its customers. The demand yeah a company is only as successful as its fan base, right as its customers. The demand, yeah. So the reason why they keep making it is because idiots like us keep lining up daily, monthly, weekly to buy these new products, whatever it is.
Speaker 2:You know, the new iPhone 8, the new Samsung, this and when you look at it most of the you know phones, that models that they released is barely like a change from the previous model.
Speaker 3:They might slightly tweak the shape, they might add in a button, they might take out a button, that's it, but the you know, then they mark that phone up thousands of dollars. People camp out to buy it. We are very much responsible, 100%, for what is going on, and instead we choose to make ourselves food better by making posts like pray for Congo, pray for Palestine, pray for this, pray for that right. That is the extent of our, I guess, activism. For most people is it's a social media post, but we are 100 responsible for what is going on. Um, in all places of the world. We just our inaction or our lack of action is also an action, you know, in and of itself. We are outraged in as far as how far we can see the images that just create a little bit of discomfort for us, but then we end up never doing anything about it in the end it's like the episode and arch I don't know if you remember when they go to um.
Speaker 1:You know that country, country in, you know South America or Central America or wherever it was, and that dictator, right, and someone from the agency complains about how that dictator kills an animal, right Think of Cheryl right and then he talks about you know the typical American, and then he talks about the typical American. You're happy to buy meat in the supermarket, but you're uncomfortable when you find out how it got to the shelf on the supermarket. And I guess, just to bring this conversation full circle, this is a question to leave to everyone what fatalities and reality bring you closure. And with that, thank y'all for coming through and, as always, stay black, stay black.
