The Dichotomy Between African and American
By Edwin “Tariq” Turner
*1st published by MinutesFromSix*

Before I engage in the topic of discussion at hand, I would like my readers to know that while writing this document I have set aside all emotional attachments to the subject matter in this essay and I ask that they do the same. I have come to realize that emotion tends to distract the mind from analyzing the facts in a manner that would permit us to reach a constructive conclusion about the information presented to us. The information that I am presenting to you is only in hopes of engendering progressive thought and a deep understanding of, and connection to marginalized communities within the United States. With that, I hope that you see who I truly am and enjoy the reading.

Since my transition from existing in a state of ‘unawareness’ to becoming politically, economically and spiritually aware of the circumstances around me, I have frequently been asked the question, “Do you consider yourself American?” Upon reflecting on this frequent occurrence, I decided that it would be politically imperative for me to share this perspective with all those who have a vested interested in stopping the suffering that is rampant within specific communities of the human family.

In preparing an answer for this type of question there are a few things that I must consider, namely, what type of information is the individual asking this question trying to receive? By asking this question, does this person mean was I born in the geographical region called North America? If so, then the answer to this question is a simple ‘yes’. I was born in the geographical region called North America. But if this is not what was intended by the question, and we are not talking about region of birth, then the question becomes more complex, and the answer is in need of a more in-depth explanation.

Most of us in the United States are of the opinion that the term ‘American’ is simply a title given to individuals who are citizens of the United States, and that that word has no political significance. But that term, ‘American’, and subsequently the definition of citizenship was created by the leaders of what is known as the “American Revolution”, representing specific values and interests and encompassing a specific political community. It is obvious to those who ask me “Do you consider yourself American?” that there is no ambiguity as to whether or not I was born in the US, yet, there is ambiguity as to whether or not I identify with the values and interests of those who founded the American ideology, and those who currently represent that ideology.

Before I go into detail about the conceptualization of the American ideology in relation to the political family who created it, while focusing on all of its manifestations, in conjunction with its historical and current implications, I must give context to who I define myself as, and thus, the community I currently represent.

I recognize that my ancestors were kidnapped and taken away from the Motherland (Africa). They were treated like merchandise, and forced to assimilate in to a system of brutal subjugation called chattel slavery. It was via this system that their history, languages, religion, culture, etc. was stripped away from them through a process of generational disenfranchisement. I am the product of that disenfranchisement.

While travelling on the path of “Awakening”, I, and those of my ethnic brothers who are “conscious,” recognized the need to reconstruct our current attachment to the Motherland (Africa). Because we lost all connection with our native tribes and clans, we have lost our ability to identify ourselves by our native traditions. We recognized the need (of course for our ethnic survival) to acquire an understanding of all cultural traditions that Africa has produced so that we may become manifestations of Africa and live through its traditions. I have inherited the cultural traditions of “Islam” from our black, liberating, Arab prophet Muhammad Al-Mustafa; distant descendant of Ethiopia, direct descendant of the cultural traditions of Ausar, Rah and its people (Egyptians).

For this reason, I, and all those directly descended from the Motherland are not Nigerian, Kenyan or Somalian, we are African, representing the unity between all African countries and its people, we are cosmic man recognizing the need to place consciousness within our spirit (Ruh, Rah) so that we may be directly connected to the source of existence. We are warriors of submission to the divine source standing up for justice and equality. We are one with all human beings: black, white, brown, yellow. With this being the case, the question then becomes, “Can an African be considered American?” The answer is an emphatic “No!” And this is why.

In America, the ‘American Revolution’ is frequently characterized as a group of brave individuals devoted to true Democracy and justice rising up in arms against the tyranny of Britain. Yet, the identity of these individuals prior to the revolution are briefly discussed if at all. Their identity prior to the revolution is important in understanding the implications of the document that they created, and their constitution. It is within this document that the American ideology was codified, and so we must analyze the relationship of these individuals, and their perception of African peoples, in order to understand to what extent did the American ideology and Constitutional benefits embrace Africans.

It was under Britain that the campaign to kidnap and subjugate African peoples for economic exploitation was initiated. It was under Britain that thousands of African people died on slave transportation boats crossing the Atlantic from Africa to the Americas. It was under Britain that the system of chattel slavery was initiated; that the forced subjugation of African peoples was established within the American colonies for the benefit of European males. With this being the case, what do we say about the individuals working in office under British colonial rule during this time? There is no evidence that there was anyone “morally” opposed to the treatment of Africans during that period of white supremacy, yet, 69% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence held office under the British Colonial Regime. A revolutionary historian by the name Howard Zinn states in his book A Peoples History of the United States:

“…Indeed, 69 percent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had held colonial office under England.” (AT.P.75)

In striving to understand the connection that I, as an African, am to have with these so-called Founding Fathers, curiosity compels me to inquire as to what motivated these individuals to rise up in rebellion against British rule? Was it because their sincere devotion to justice and equality for “all” as is commonly presented in American history books? Or was it some moral commitment to assist African people in escaping captivity, rape and exploitation? I do not find their list of grievances and justifications for separating from British colonial rule a psychological and/or spiritual inability to allow their African brothers to continue to suffer. In fact, in a famous court case that occurred in 1857 within the highest court in the land of freedom and equality (the United States Supreme Court), Chief Justice Tracey illuminates the racist perception of Europeans before, during and directly after colonial times regarding Africans. He states:

“They (Africans) had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man were bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, wherever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at the time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private, pursuits as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion”. (Scott v Sanford, 60 il.s. 393)

Logic compels us to conclude that the first conceptualization independent of Britain did not involve the interest of African peoples. The first process in the creation of the American ideal was initiated by people who saw Africans as an inferior race of beings. The so-called Founding Fathers who claimed to practice a spiritual tradition that was produced by a man who was an indirect descendant of this inferior race of beings (Christianity and Jesus). The American Revolution was not a revolution for African liberation and thus, the first manifestation of the American ideology was a representation of the continued subjugation of African peoples.

Patriot is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary of American English as: “A person who loves their country and defends it when necessary”. But I ask, how could African people love a country whose revolutionary establishment was rooted in the subjugation of their ancestors? How can African people feel anything but disdain towards a country who constantly celebrates the murderers and kidnappers of their ancestors? How can we, African people, define ourselves by what our historical oppressors defined themselves by: American?!

The revolution was a means to change the position of disgruntled members of the British colonial government from economic inadequacies, to economic superiority. It was motivated by the desire of a small group of white men to take power away from Britain to create a new elite.

Howard Zinn states: “Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the race of a new, privileged leadership.” (APH, 59)

This small group of white men thought it was necessary to do away with British colonial rule to do its oppressiveness towards and unpopularity with its colonial settlements. They not only desired to replace the British elite, but to also quell the frequent rebellions caused by the British capitalist system, and its policies. This was mainly accomplished by and codified in the United States’ Constitution. Howard Zinn states:

“The constitution, then, illustrates the complexity of the American system; that it services the interest of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a brand base support, the slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable this elite to keep control with a minimal of coercion, a maximum of law – all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity”. (APH, 98-99)

The United States Constitution – was, and still, is a document that legalizes the stratification of society in to classes. These classes are subjected to a permanent state of social stagnation, unable to move above their predetermined social status. Through this reality we see an inherent social mechanism of control within the Unites States Constitution.

It is commonly believed by most Americans that the US Constitution is the most democratic document ever known to the world; a document representing the interest of all men irrespective of race, gender or creed. But most Americans analyze the meaning of the Constitution by assessing the definition of the words in it, in isolation from the circumstances that existed during the time that it was written. In order to understand what the people, who in the past and currently, represent and pledge to defend the constitution are actually defending, we must understand the intent behind the Constitution…

According the Howard Zinn, the Federalist Papers were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, in support of the creation of the US Constitution. These papers reveal the true intent of those who advocated for the advancement of the United States Constitution.

“As part of his argument for a large republic to keep the peace, James Madison tells quite clearly, in Federalist #10, who’s peace he wants to keep: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts; for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union than a particular member of it.

When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.” (AH, 96-97)

We must then ask ourselves what circumstances contributed to the codification of the desire of the new American elite to exploit society mainly economically.

During the period immediately after the United States Revolution, the members of the colonial settlements were energized with agitation towards policy that created economic hardships and inequality within the colonies. Those who directed the revolution, and inherited the system of governance from Britain, did little to bridge the economic gap between the rich and the poor. The new white elite initiated the same system (with minor changes of economic distribution) – capitalism – which made legal the private acquisition of capital and natural resources, and subsequently access to those resources. Howard Zinn states:

“The problem of democracy in the post-revolutionary society was not however, the constitutional limitations on voting. It lay deeper, beyond the constitution in the division of society in to rich and poor. For if some people had great wealth and great influence, if they had the land, the money, the newspapers, the church, this educational system – how could voting, however broad, cut in to such power”. (APH, 75)

It was not the intentions of those whom we call Founding Fathers to establish justice and equality for all. It was their intention to establish the system of capitalism in order to ensure the permanent governance of the majority by this new small white elite in which they codified in the United States. These intentions, along with system of capitalism inherently oppose to human elevation. Because the system of Islam focuses on the unity of humanity, and the spiritual elevation of the individual human being, it would be monstrous for a Muslim to accept as its constitution a document that is rooted in racism, materialist and economic exploitation. The United States reflects an interest of a small group of white men to exploit society for its own political and economic advantage. It is one segment of society that has been the main focus of this exploitation and that is America’s African Community. During the period in which the constitution was written, African’s were not even considered human beings and were regulated to the lowest position of American society.

After the Civil War, lower class whites were organized in to a middle class buffer against the upward mobility of African’s within the American political and economic system. In the Islamic political system, the intentional stratification of society is an abhorrible crime. Where there is a need to deny individuals equal access to opportunity and privilege then society has been infected with unfettered Materialism. In Islam, The only owner of the world and all that is within it is Allah/God. Man has rights to this earth and its possessions but also have obligations. Because the founders of the United States Constitution transgressed beyond these established rights and obligations, they have an interest in conflict with human elevation and subsequently African peoples (Muslims also).

Because we know that the intentions of those whom we call the founding fathers was to establish a system that would give them and their descendants perpetual control over the US economy and political apparatus, it is not hard to realize that the constitution in which they created did not reflect the interest of Africans, women, natives and lower class whites. Howard Zinn states:

“Four groups, Beard noted were not represented in the constitutional convention slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the constitution did not reflect the interest of those groups.

He wanted to make it clear that he did not think the constitution was merely to benefit the Founding Fathers personally, although one could not ignore the $130,000 fortune of Benjamin Franklin, the connections of Alexander Hamilton to wealthy interest through his father in law and brother in law, the great slave plantations of James Madison, the enormous land holdings of George Washington. Rather it was to benefit the groups the founders represented, “the economic interest they understood and felt in concrete definite form through their own personal experience”. (APH, *90)

The Unites States Constitution was and still is a social contract between members of the white political community organized directly after the revolution. It is a document that structured society in a manner that ensured economic superiority for the white elite, while giving enough economic incentives to pacify the middle class whites directly under them, and creating a buffer to African mobility. Justice Taney states in the case of (Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393, 906-07):

“It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of new political body, but none other; it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterward by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the constitution and the principles of which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities in to one political family. Whose power for certain special purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States…”

The United States Constitution is a document that represents a compromise between two opposing perspectives on the form, that American imperialism and colonialism should take. “The constitution was a compromise between slaveholding interest of the south and moneyed interest of the north. For the purpose of uniting the thirteen states in to one great market. For commerce, the northern delegates wanted laws regulating interstate commerce, and urged that such laws require only a majority of congress to pass. The south agreed to this, in return for allowing the trade in slaves to continue for twenty years before being outlawed.” (APH, 97)

It was never intended for Africans to be a party with vested interest in this contractual document called the US Constitution. Their position of perpetual inferiority was established under Britain, and codified in the US Constitution.

“The inferior position of blacks, the exclusion of Indians from the new society, the establishment of supremacy for the rich and powerful in the new nation – all this was already settled in the colonies by the time of the revolution. With the English out of the way, it could now be put on paper, solidified, regularized, made legitimate by the constitution of the United States. Drafted at a convention of revolutionary leaders in Philadelphia.” (APH, 88-89)

It is a folly that we as African people have been conditioned to believe that it is possible to seek any meaningful change within the parameters of a system that was, and still is sustained by our continued subjugation. Africans have been subjected to a perpetual state of poverty, mainly by the unequal distribution of the state’s resources. We have been conditioned to believe that our hope of true liberation lies in our loyalty to the Democratic Party, and support of the civil rights movement. A party who is only willing to improve our condition to the extent that our continued exploitation goes undisturbed and a self-serving movement who infects us with the illusion that seeking inclusion within this capitalist system is our most effective option, while the murder of African peoples continues to be sanctioned by the state and federal government, and civil rights leaders receive community recognition and economic benefits from capitalist organizations.

We as Africans cannot celebrate the genesis and historical origins of the American ideology and its political manifestations, because to do so would mean that we are celebrating the origins of our anhelation and the inception of our generational disenfranchisement, we would be identifying ourselves with a people who suppress the natural position of their women in society. How could we do so, where in African and Islamic cultures our women enjoy a position in society where their intellectual and innate womanlycapabilities equally contribute to the elevation of society as men. The Founding Fathers of American chauvinism treated their women as tools for their self-gratification. Their women (white women) and women in general were excluded from participation in the decision making process as to which direction the country should go. Modern Americans have inherited this chauvinistic disease, as we see a reaction of our women “today” to this disease in cries of “rights over our own bodies etc.” (However sometimes unreasonable). Howard Zinn states:

“The use of the phrase “all men are created equal” was probably not a deliberate attempt to make a statement about women. It was just that women were beyond consideration as worthy of inclusion, they were politically invisible. Though practical needs gave women a certain authority in the home, on the farm, or in occupations like midwifery, they were simply overlooked in any consideration of political rights, any notions of civic equality” (APH, 73).

The Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines “capitalism” as “an economic system based on private ownership of property and business with the goal of making the greatest possible profits for owners”. It is the duty of every government to organize society in a manner that would facilitate equal access to state resources by every member of the state. This is the number one democratic rule that makes government “neutral” in dealing with the members of society. The Founding Fathers manipulated the people’s desire for government neutrality and equality to gain support for the rebellion against Britain. But the Founding Fathers never intended to interact with all segments of American society in the manifestation of their Christian values – such as freedom and equality for all, which is reflected in their economic policies that only benefitted the wealthy, few as it continues to do to this day.

“Meanwhile, the government of the United States was behaving almost exactly how Karl Marx described a capitalist state. Pretended neutrality to maintain order, but serving the interest of the rich, not that the rich agreed amongst themselves, they had disputes amongst themselves over policies (Democrats and Republicans). But the purpose of the states was to settle upper class disputes peacefully, control lower class rebellion, and adopt policies that would further the long range stability of the system. The arrangement between Democrats and Republicans to elect Rutherford Haues in 1877 set the tone whether Democrats of Republican won, national policy would not change in any important way”. (APH, 252)

The underlying policy that sustains the intentional inequality in which Capitalism creates is “Privatization” of state resources. Giving immoral, materialistic men the right to “own” the states resources and the means of production is similar to giving a child the right to have anything he wants. In effect, you would be legislating the right for this child to trample over the rights of others. Like the child, the immoral, materialistic man is incapable of prioritizing the interest of society as a whole over his own selfish needs. Since its inception, the United States government has given racist chauvinistic white men the right to own state resources at the exclusion of African peoples, Indians and lower class whites.

“By 1850 fifteen Boston families called the “associates” controlled 20 percent of the cotton spindleage in the United States, 39 percent of insurance capital Massachusetts, 40 percent of banking resources in Boston”. (APH, 215)

Privatization created and continues to create a wide gap between rich and poor. This laid the foundations for the creation of the new white elite.

During colonial times, white men produced capital mainly by exploiting African labor. The goal of white plantation owners and white industrialists was maximum profit. The desire of maximum profit was directly connected to the level of strategic brutality present within African exploitation. Capitalism was (and still is) the system that legalized African exploitation. The US government continues to use the fiction of neutrality while paving the way for white business owners to monopolize state resources. What would motivate a government to enact policy in support of corporations over the well-being of society. A government whose origins and current representatives worship this phenomenal world (Materialism) and rooted in immorality. When you have a system that prioritizes economic profit over social well-being, society starts to deteriorate.

“It was a war waged by a government whose chief beneficiary – despite volumes of reforms – was a wealthy elite. The alliance between big business and the government went back to the very proposals of Alexander Hamilton to congress after the Revolutionary War. By World War II that partnership had developed and intensified. During the depression, Roosevelt had once denounced the “economic royalists”, but he always had the support of certain important business leaders” The economic royalists, denounced and derided… had a part to play now…” (APH, 488)

Throughout the history of the United States, the gap between rich and poor has only widened. This is not because of some innate inadequacies within individual citizens, nor, some minor defect within the operation of the system that must be reformed, yet it is due impart to the nature of the system of Capitalism itself. There is a need for the system of Capitalism to be exported beyond the boundaries of domestic markets, and this feature of the system exacerbates the poverty and inequality that it has created at home.
Howard Zinn states:

“The war had brought glory to the generals, death to the privates, wealth for the merchants, and unemployment for the poor. There was 25000 people living in New York (there had been 7000 in 1720) when the French and Indian war ended. A newspaper editor wrote about the growing “number of beggars and wandering poor” in the streets of the city. Letters in the paper questioned the distribution of wealth. How often have our streets been covered with thousands of barrels of flour for trade, while our near neighbors could hardly procure enough to have a dumplin to satisfy hunger?

Gary Nash’s study of city tax lists shows that by the early 1770s, the top 5 percent of Boston’s tax payers controlled 49% of the city’s taxable assets. In Philadelphia and New York to, wealth was more and more concentrated court recorded wills showed that by 1750 the wealthiest people in the cities were leaving 20000 pounds (equivalent to about 2.5 million today”. (APH, 60)

Capitalism cannot survive simply by white business owners monopolizing the resources of the state, but these white business owners need diverse markets to sell the products in which they create, Howard Zinn states:

“The overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problems of under consumption at home and prevent the economic crisis that in the 1890s brought class war”. (APH, 290)

The problem that arises when you have a system that engenders and legalizes the desire for maximum profit, over production becomes inevitable. When maximum profit is the essential component in the economic system of social relations, the lowest expenditures for economic production is desired motivating business owners to extract production from internal investment and transfer this production overseas for cheaper labor, and foreign markets. It is for these reasons that capitalism is an essential component in defining what it means to be an “American”.

Capitalism is the tool (system) that the Founding Fathers, and those who currently represent them used to transfer all power and control over the worlds resources and peoples to small elite. Where there is a need for external markets and cheap labor, there are two ways in which one could acquire them:
1) Covert, diplomatic genocide, where the destruction of a foreign people, their land and economy is negotiated away with their puppet government, and initiated by American corporations and the US military
2) Military assault and strangulation. The United States historically has relied upon the second option, and more recently has started to rely on the first option.

Howard Zinn states:

“During the war, England and the United States set up the international monetary fund to regulate international exchanges of currency. Voting would be proportional to capital contributed, so American dominance would be assured. The international bank for reconstruction and development was set up, supposedly to help reconstruct war destroyed areas, but one of its first objectives was, in its own words “to promote foreign investment” ……economic assistance is one of the most effective weapons at our disposal to influence European political events in the direction we desire…The creation of the United Nations during the world war presented to the world as international cooperation to prevent future wars. But the UN dominated by the western imperial counties – the United States, England and France – a new imperial power with military bases and powerful influence in Eastern Europe – the Soviet Union. An important conservative republican senator, Arthur Vandenberg wrote in his diary about the United Nations charter: the striking thing about it is that it is so conservative from a nationalist standpoint. It is based virtually on four power alliance…this is anything but a wild eyed internationalist dream of a world state…I am deeply impressed (and surprised) to find him so carefully guarding our American veto in the scheme of things”. (APH, 403-04).

This would explain the need for corporate America to ensure that the majority of funds that are unjustly diverted away from the maintenance of its people are used to ensure its military superiority over other nations. The implicit rationale for the US putting billions of dollars in to its military machine where there are millions of poor people within its own borders, is to ensure the US corporate monopoly over foreign markets, and the continued economic enrichment of the white elite. Is it really because a poor Afghani Muslim is so in disagreement with the United States definition of freedom that he desires to one day destroy the US? Or is the US’s desire for military superiority rooted in a fear of a people getting tired of US intervention in the affairs of their country, manipulating their governments in a manner that would ensure US corporate freedom to monopolize the resources of their nation at the expense of its citizens such as in Iran prior to its revolution. This reality creates a war economy whose military spending only further exacerbates the deplorable conditions at home.

“It’s inevitable that we’ve got to bring out the question of the tragic mix up in priorities. We are spending all this money for death and destruction, and not nearly enough money for life and constructive development…when the guns of war become a national obsession, social needs inevitably suffer”. (APH, 453).

Capitalism did not exist in Africa prior to European colonialism. It is a system that engenders and is sustained off of hate in the form of competition. It is a system that acts as a vehicle for and legalizes the greedy consumption of materialist. Yet, Capitalism is so entrenched in the fabric of America that you cannot define what it means to be American without Capitalism being an essential component in that definition. How can a Muslim who recognizes the unity and oneness of the source of existence and humanity ever be defined by or accept a system that promotes competition instead of cooperation. There is a verse in the Holy Quran, which states and we allowed you to form distinct nations and tribes so that you may cooperate with each other (Holy Qur’an-al-Hwurat:13). In Islam, cooperation with others is a requirement with certain conditions. Competition is extremely detested.

A system whose policies are created and predicated on the desire for maximum material consumption over the well-being of society for the benefit of a few, has committed a crime against humanity. Any system that intentionally marginalizes any members of society from equal opportunity and access to state resources is a system of tyranny. The United States system of capitalism has always been, and always will be a system of oppression (mainly for African peoples). Racism is not a phenomena that we as a nation have moved on from. It is a concrete reality deeply rooted in the fabric of this country, a culture and tool, celebrated and used by the founders of this country and those who continue to run it today.

One of the most influential American Imperialist by the name of Winston Churchill, illuminates the fear associated with his racist conception of reality, in his analysis of the first Cuban revolution against European Spaniards.

“…the Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to “the establishment of a white and black republic”, since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother, was American and whose father was English – Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: – a grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are Negros. These men would in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country…the result being, after years of fighting another black republic. The reference to “another” black republic meant Haiti, who’s revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the new world. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the US Secretary of State: – in this revolution the Negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters…and the result of the war if the island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black republic”. (APH, 296)

Not only has racism; hatred of African peoples, been firmly rooted in the fabric of American culture, they are inseparable. There has been an intentional reluctance on the part of euro-Americans to give African people justice and equality for fear that one day they may liberate themselves and seek separation from the American state. This continues to be the motivating factor for the US government’s covert initiate to continue the subjugation of African people’s within its borders through policies that regulate them to the lowest position of society.

It is believed that Africans were freed by Abraham Lincoln. But how could this be when Abraham Lincoln was a white nationalist committed to sustaining the superiority of the white race in the US? He had no moral inclination to liberate Africans or give them equal rights.

“Two months later in Charleston in Southern Illinois, Lincoln told his audience: I will say then, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races (applause); that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people…and in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position assigned to the white race…the northern elite wanted economic expansions – free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufactures, a bank of the United States. The slave interest oppressed all that: they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as making continuations of their pleasant and prosperous way of life impossible in the future. Lincoln’s first inaugural address, in March 1861 was conciliatory toward the south and the seceded states. “I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so. And I have no inclination to do so.” (APH, 184)

His only desire was to settle the dispute between north and south and preserves the union. After chattel slavery was allegedly abolished, the 13th Amendment was ratified to the US Constitution and continues to exist to this day. This was the first transition of the US government from an explicit barbaric form of subjugation (chattel slavery) of African peoples, to a more covert, sophisticated form of subjugation. The US government has historically had, and continues to have a vested interest in the continued subjugation of African peoples and will always ensure that the interest is protected. Howard Zinn states in his book:
“With slavery abolished by order of the government – true, a government pushed hard to do so, by blacks, free and slave, and by white abolitionists. Its end could be orchestrated so as to set limits to emancipation. Liberation from the top would go only so far as the interest of the dominant groups permitted. If carried further by the momentum of war, the rhetoric of a crusade, it could be pulled back to a safer position. Thus, while the ending of slavery let to a reconstruction of national politics and economics, it was not a radical reconstruction but a safe one – in face a profitable one” (APH, 167)

The 13th Amendment did not create “criminality” it redefined it. “Crime” in a truly free society occurs when citizens of their own volition decide to transgress beyond the boundaries in which the “law” has set. In this context “law” is colorblind. Law is simply implemented for the benefit of society as a whole irrespective of race, class or religion. When the 13th Amendment was ratified “law” became the main tool that the United States used to criminalize behavior that posed a threat to its interest, and a crime became whatever behavior was criminalized by the law.

“In pre modern times, the misdistribution of wealth was accomplished by simple force. In modern times, exploitation is disguised – it is accomplished by law, which has the look of neutrality and fairness. By the time of the civil war, modernization was well under way in the United States”. (APH, 235)

The story of Freeway Rick Ross and the CIA working with drug cartels in Latin American to funnel drugs in to the inner city Ghettos is not well known to upper and middle class whites. But well known to majority of conscious Africans. There are those who shy away from charging the United States with knowingly introducing drugs in to the inner city with the explicit intent of slowly destroying lower class African and Mexican communities. They allege that this is simply a conspiracy theory!! But is the assertion that the same government who for more than 200 years subjugated and killed African peoples attempts to this day to destroy the same community by more covert, indirect means farfetched? The same government who gives young African youths, disproportionate sentences for crimes that it strategically orchestrates. A government who gives a young, while male probation for driving drunk and killing multiple people because he was too rich to know right from wrong (Affluenza Teen) yet give a young African male 55 years for a crime he committed yet no one was injured (me).

Africans must snap out of the illusion that one day a system that justifies their oppression would allow them to be accepted as equals. Our European brothers and sisters must understand that they cannot assist in the liberation – of their African brothers and sisters only to the extent in which they (our European brothers and sisters) receive more benefits from this capitalist system. As a matter of fact this government uses economic incentives to lore a core group of freedom fighters in to redirect the focus of the people away from the reality of the oppressiveness of the system.

“Attempts began to do with blacks what had been done historically with whites – to lure a small number in to the system with economic enticements. These was talk of “black capitalism”. Leaders of the NAACP and core were invited in to the white house. James farmer of CORE, a freedom fighter and militant, was given a job in Richard Nixon’s administration. Floyd Mckissick of CORE received a 14 million government loan to build a housing development in North Carolina. Lyndon Johnson had given jobs to some blacks through the office of economic opportunity. Nixon set up an office of minority business enterprise” (APH, 450)

It is these same people (NAACP etc.) who urge African people to believe that true freedom could be accomplished through voting. But vote for who? A republican who is explicit in his hatred for Africans and expression of his white nationalist inclinations, or, a democrat who is covert in his hatred of African people, claiming to support the interest of the oppressed, while benefitting the same white corporate oppressors as republicans. The wealth of this nation has been concentrated in the hands of a few for so long, voting does nothing but legitimize the system that oppresses us all.

“It lay deeper beyond the constitution in the division of society in to rich and poor for if some people had great wealth and great influence, if they had the land, the women, the newspaper, the church, the educational system – how could voting: however broad, cut in to such power?” One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another. Small property owners against the property less, black against white, native born against foreign born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as shares of left overs in a very wealth country” (APH, 619)

I could never identify with an ideology that hides under justice, especially equality and religion to further its materialistic motivations. A system that is dedicated to the destruction of African people, my people! A system that needs to export its model of exploitation (democracy) to control and exploit Muslim lands. I am a lover of humanity, and every member of the human family (including those in the US) are my brothers and sisters. Society are made enemies of each other through the unequal distribution of the states resources via the 1%. We are all connected by the source of existence that dwells within all. We must create a system that engenders cooperation and partnership, not competition. Our true enemy are those who are opposed to this truth. Voting is not our solution. We must place our women back on the high status that they belong; the status that they once enjoyed in Africa. I am not, nor could any African Muslim ever be defined as American. Until what it means to be American changes drastically. I leave with you the words of Frederick Douglas:

“On the fourth of July, 1852, he gave an independence day address:
Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour”. (APH, 178)