"World-a-Riddim" : different rhythm types and functions globally

It seems cool to say – as a percussionist – that few instrumentalists in this modern world are as intensely “multicultural” as a percussionist/percussion player. Potentially, but even to a point inevitably.

As a sweeping, more sociopolitical,statement one can even claim that “percussionists are the only true multiculturalists” in this world.. but that is perhaps too sweeping for now..

The exceptions are those deeply specialized in e.g. purely Indian instruments (tabla) to fit in India’s musical structures, or similar all too mono-cultural percussionists in Arabic (e.g. with darbuka’s), Japanese (e.g. taiko’s), or other specific cultures, even within percussion-rich Africa.

Especially in the Western world, most percussionists in modern “pop”, “rock”, and world music, however, combine instruments from the Americas – often the African Diaspora (Afro-Brazil, Afro-Cuba) -, with African, Middle Eastern, European, or modern Western additions.

Some of these Western modern instruments are based on African or Latin American models, but either way new sounds arose, such as the metal “flexatone”, with some “singing saw” characteristics (known historically a bit in Slavic folk music), combined in sets of many percussion players with African or Afro-Cuban drums (djembe, conga’s), woodblocks, bells (found both in Africa and Asia), the relatively more European tambourines, originally Amerindian “scrapers” , or even Spanish castanets.

Like I said, a truly multicultural mix, this “tool kit” of percussionists in many “pop” or “world” music bands..

THE FUNCTION OF RHYTHM

That is: instrument-wise. It is also a fact, however, that musical “rhythm” is not uniformly defined across cultures worldwide: regarding its function in music in different cultures.

Drums and rhythm play a role in very different cultures, but are just the “tools” used according to different values and with different goals throughout world cultures.

One used to Afro-American and African percussion – like myself – can often not get into Indian “rhythms”, Japanese, or Arabic “rhythms” that easily. Even when you are musically and rhythmically flexible and adaptive – which I claim to be – dancing to it does not go as automatic as to Yoruba, Reggae, or Samba music.

In fact, some music with drums and “rhythms” in some specific cultures are not even meant to dance to (other “social”, artistic, ritual, or narrative functions). Certainly not as is common in African-based rhythms – “dance music” , or European music which we are used to. In a part of European music “rhythm” - or eventually present percussion/drums - is not even that dance-oriented, but rather serving as a harmonic base.

I myself as a percussionist am instrument-wise certainly very multicultural, rhythm-wise admittedly less. I enjoyed - selectively – some Asian, Middle Eastern, or other non-Afro – rhythms in music, some even felt a bit danceable to me, but Afro-American and African swing and polyrhythm, or clave-based music, remains more my “thing”, rhythmically. My main love.

I am a Reggae fan, and a nice thing about Reggae is that it mixes “straight rhythm”, clave, and polyrhythm aspects, with Swing, as known from Jazz and Blues. In that sense it is rhythmically between Afro-Cuban music and Afro-US music (Jazz, R&B, etc.). A good African Diaspora mix.

That is my personal rhythmical world and taste, and it is a personal trajectory, based on own choices and tastes.

OTHER MUSICAL CULTURES: SUMMARIZED

I do wonder, though, how my “world-a-riddim” (ha!) compares to the other ones I mentioned. Music follows culture, so the function of rhythm in a culture’s music reflects that culture.

In this sense “keywords” can be useful. Are there short ways to describe rhythm’s functions in different cultures?

Through Google, AI (a google plus, really), Wikipedia, and some paper sources, I could derive these keywords/short characterizations, related to some representative cultural “zones” in this world..

It is of course terribly simplified, and not all existing musical cultures are mentioned, but it is about main trends.

Africa: polyrhythm (simultaneous, interlocking rhythms) and timeline (clave). Cross rhythms too. Layered vertically.

India: cyclical time and tala (story and language based). Monophonic, linear and mathematical. Horizontal (differing from “vertical”, layered rhythm building in African music).

Western classical music: rhythm subdued to melody and harmony, later more metric flexibility and syncopation.

Celtic music: rhythm built into melodic playing (mixed), also on nonpercussive instruments (like a fiddle, pipe, or harp). Often story based. Flowing, “floating” feel, “rolling” and linear, more “ornamented” than e.g. Germanic music, and also more syncopation. Frame drum use common.

Germanic music: strict, symmetrical meters, strong first downbeat: “marching” and Waltz as archetypes. Mathematically precise, tight on-beat rhythms.

Slavic music: asymmetrical and less strict than Germanic music, some syncopation.

Arabic music: cyclical rhythmic modes, as a structural but looping skeleton, flexible to allow ornamentation. Monorhythmic. Follows melody.

Turkish music (incl. Balkan): sophisticated rhythm cycles, irregular and asymmetric meters “limping” effect), aditive meters (bouncing, "swing" effect). Further similarities with Arabic rhythm cycles.

Indonesian music: colotomic structure (gamelan): architecturally precise. Gongs/metal dominant, skinned drums secondary.

Chinese music: not a metronomic rhythm but an elastic framework. Empty space valued. Following energy flow.”Breath”-based. Slight heterophony. Mostly linear, but fluid.

Japanese music: also breath-based – not metronomic -, and gives likewise importance to empty space “ the rhythmic power of silence”. Aids in story-telling and community.

Tibetan music: paces meditation, monorhythmic, non-metric rhythm , but instead - again – breath governed, and elastic. Rhythm aims at stabilizing the mind, and an inward focus though slow repetitive beats. No loops or cycles, but guiding rituals or texts.

Amerindian (or: Shamanic) music: monorhythm, “heartbeat” of nature-based, spiritual functions. Deep bass drum sounds.

Inuit music: asymmetric meter, story-based. Voice-drum interactions. Rim-hit frame drums common, differing from “deep bass” sounds of Amerindians in e.g. Bolivia.

Flamenco (Spanish): music: asymmetric elements / limitedly metered but freer, 12-beat rhythmic cycles. Nonwestern in most rhythmic aspects, including frequent syncopation, and even polyrhythm. Flamenco is rhythmically exceptional within Europe, due to different cultural influences (Roma/Indian, Moorish, African), mixed in with local Andalusian folk music.

STEREOTYPES BUT NUANCED

All this seems to more or less confirm stereotypes (Germanic music tight and “marching” like, complex story-based in India, deep heartbeat among Amerindians, “floating/flowing” Celtic sounds, meditative in Tibet and China, “groove” and polyrhythm-based in Africa), but also shows nuances. Syncopation is not only limited to Africa, for instance.

In several cultures rhythm follows a horizontal, textual “story” or “melody” of some sort (Asia and Europe), but not everywhere. Rhythm is indeed the least subdued to melody or harmony in African music: another stereotype confirmed, albeit not an offensive one (in my opinion). I am of the opinion that words/language/texts are after all also tools to lie and mislead. Their primacy over natural “rhythm” therefore suspicious.

This summary also shows how Japanese culture is partly influenced or derived from older Chinese culture, sharing cultural values of “breath” and “empty space”, in line with spiritual ideas around energy flows, as found in Buddhism (see Tibetan music), Taoism, and Shintoism.

Complicated rhythm structures in India also support ancient cultural “stories” and principles, in this case from Hinduism, showing in drums imitating spoken language.

In its syncopation, “later” Western music (pop, “rock”) certainly underwent African and Afro-American influences (via Blues, Jazz, etc.).

Logically, as part of music, rhythm follows and supports cultural specific structures and goals. In many cultures these align with local spirituality and even “sacred” or “holy” music, albeit with secular versions.

SIMPLIFIED DINSTINCTION

Looking at rhythm’s function in traditional music world wide, this main, oft-repeated – simplified – distinction bears some truth: Europe emphasizes harmony in music, Asia melody, and Africa rhythm.

Still simplified, and all music have harmonic, melodic and, rhythmic aspects, but in essence it holds: in by themselves also differing Asian music cultures (Arabic, Chinese, Indian, a.o.), rhythm almost always supports “melody” or “stories/texts” (textual stories of melodies), while in Europe indeed rhythm often tended to support “harmony”, as noticeable in “classical” music (Bach, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, etc.), though in older folk traditions (Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Basque), supporting the stories or “melodies” also was a function of rhythm.

Polyrhythms as meant to dance to, ritually or not, remain typically and originally African. Of course, however, lyrics and singing also play a role in African music, even a guiding one, but often also rhythmically-oriented (call-and-response), seldom supporting non-rhythm as in other cultures.

SACRILEGE?

I am not the type of guy who plays the “sacrilege” card too soon, though I have my own, largely Rastafari-based spiritual views. Musicians and artists furthermore need to think creative and free to add value. That humans are born to be free, and think free, is after all also my (spiritual?) opinion.

In addition to this, one must beware of no selectiveness or bias regarding this: all too easy use, distortion, or appropriation of (even spiritual) African musical principles seems more tolerated in the West for even commercial music producers, than if e.g. non-initiates play Indian or other Asian instruments that in many minds connect more to “pure” or “sacred” ancient religions (Hindusim and Buddhism), implicitly to be respected more.

Not the same degree of “respect”, let’s just say, painfully reflecting the disparaging historical treatment of equally ancient African culture in colonial history, The same reason that India – while once a British colony – kept it’s Hindu-based culture, whereas Igbo , Yoruba, - also colonized by the British – largely “Christianized”, or elsewhere “Arabicized”/ Islamicized.. More trampled upon.

Even among African descendants in the African Diaspora – and even within the Afro-centric Rastafari movement - , there exist disparaging view of Vodou and related “spirit invoking” or “ancestor spirits” veneration in Africa.

In Central Africa (around the Congo region), ancestor worship has long been traditionally important, whereas in the Nigeria-Benin-Ghana region specific deities/spirits – connected with e.g. nature, like rivers, thunder (Shango, Yemayá, etc.) - “mounting” believers, long was. All this “spirit possession” occurs through rhythm and drumming patterns, with trance-like effects, and while dancing.

The relative importance and primacy of rhythm and drums in sub-Saharan Africa relates to these faiths.

Christianity and Islam tried to limit that, but African percussion found a way to survive, now more secularly. Think of the Djembe drumming culture and circles in nominally Islamic areas like Mali, Guinea, Senegambia, Burkina Faso, and around

This secular “djembe” drumming gained even international popularity, mostly without a proscribed spiritual goal other than “community” or “musical bliss”, though rhythmic patterns played might derive originally from ritual or “religious” celebrations in Mande cultures, such as male circumcision, initiation, etc. They became secular, though.

REGGAE PERCUSSION AND RASTAFARI

Opinions among Reggae percussionsists in Jamaica differ. These tend to be Rastafari-adherents, where a Biblical/Protestant influence (via British colonialism) still made some condemn African Vodou and related “spirit possession” faiths in Jamaica (Obeah, Pocomania), as devilish and divisive. “Obeah” and Vodou are said in some Reggae lyrics to use their “science” mainly to sabotage/attack enemies, and put wicked spells against their brothers and sisters.

Some Rastas, like Mutabaruka, however deplore this as an unfortunate Western/colonial remnant – once meant to disparage and destroy the African heritage – still within the otherwise Afro-centric Rastafari movement, that chose to be Bible-based.

Indeed, I have researched a period more deeply Vodou, Santería, Myal, Obeah, etc…, and such African “spirit possession” faiths, and their tenets and practices. I concluded it is more about “harmony”, “community”, and “healing” – i.e. the “good” – than wicked tricks and spells against people as the European stereotype indoctrinated people with.

Good and bad/evil are more clearly formulated and distinguished in text-based Christianity and the Bible (and the Quran), which might attract believers wanting to improve the(ir) world and take a clear moral stance, but a lot of that is hypocrisy and hidden power play, as the “conquering” religions Christianity, Islam,..clearly showed with their history of enslavement and second-class citizenships for nonbelievers or, well, women.

Even with this condemning of Vodou by some Rasta percussionists, they still admit that they draw on Vodou, Pocomania, Kumina, Burru, Yoruba, drum patterns or notions, when fitting musically in a Roots Reggae context. Repurposing “spirit possession”, and of course “ancestor worship” long common in Congo regions, can be seen metaphorically as honouring/respecting ones African foreparents, knowing their roots n Africa, so important for Rastafari.

This makes “sacrilege” not a very useful term for creative, rhythmic musicians. Rhythm is everywhere, it is life itself, and thus in all humans, enabling each one to express oneself through it. Just like you can get in a “trance” or meditate in quite different ways: sitting down and silent, or dancing/ moving, and singing.

Still, some “sacrilege” or “disrespect” objections were made by rigid critics against free-thinking” world music” instrumentalists who dared for instance to use a Nepalese singing bowl outside of the Buddhist lithurgical context, such as for a jazzy musical piece, or the double-sided Yoruba Bata drums in Cuba, used normally in spiritual contexts, when used in too secular “party” songs (Salsa, Latin). Those “purist” objections will remain, I think.

Rastafari adherents have at least the good argument that Rastafari arose in Jamaica among Afro-Jamaicans as a reconnection with the African roots and values (i.e. via Kumina drumming), as a broader goal “overruling” petty ritualistic considerations.

Rastafari’s Nyabinghi drumming with the characteristic “heartbeat” drum patterns is partly rooted in Congo-based Kumina drumming of Central African descendants in Eastern Jamaica, and Kumina was originally aimed at ancestor spirit invoking. Later it was replaced – or repurposed - by Rastas with Biblically based “chants” aimed at one God/Jah”, on the same drum pattern.

Some flexibility there, with fruitful results in developing Rasta culture. Culture is after all not static, but dynamic. Influenced by different cultures over time. In this case an own “Black” interpretation of the Bible.

FLEXIBILITY

Just like people are flexible too. Percussionists in the Western world, e.g. in Pop or Rock bands (or Soul, Funk, Reggae, Latin, etc.), or part of bands in Europe or the US, cannot escape being multicultural, with almost inevitably African musical elements, mixed with other ones. Standard percussion sets include Afro-Cuban instruments (conga’s, guiro, bongo), and often also African and Afro-Brazilian ones, along with Asian influences or modern factory variants, with often Afro-Latin models: examples are the now metal Cabasa shaker, based on the traditional beaded Shekere, or the Vibraslap rattle, based on the older (e.g. Peruvian) “donkey jaw”. All in all an intriguing variation of instruments, with own histories

On the other hand: many “pop” or Rock songs in Western music with standard structures (chorus-verses, bridge) are also “stories, more or less derived from Western poetic and prosaic traditions, and rhythm supports these, somewhat reminding of rhythm’s function in Asian traditions (Indian, Arabic, Chinese): supporting main melodies and stories, with timed sounds. Additionally, it also must fit a European harmony structure.

This is the musical playground, wherein it’s fun and inspiring to play, according to one’s own preferences: atmospheric, repetitive, polyrhythmic, syncopated, straight on the beat or swing. And yes, also “free space” and “breath” – as in Asian/Chinese musical culture – plays a role in this rhythmic work, (tension building, rest, etc).

What I like about Amerindian music (Peru, Bolivia, etc.) is the direct spiritual reference to nature of the drum TOOK-took-took-took, TOOK-took-took-took, like a beating heart and life line. That’s somehow part of many grooves in other genres too.

CONCLUSION

It’s good to focus on the “function of rhythm” for me as percussionist, but also as songwriter which I de facto also am, including vocals and lyrics (see my Youtube Channel).

When making/writing songs, I sometimes follow some Western pop standards (bridge, chorus, verse) and elements, mostly genre-wise Reggae, with (e.g.) often Afro-Cuban or Jazz influences adding syncopation and polyrhythm.

In other compositions of mine I depart from such “modern pop” formats and I try to make more traditional African polyrhythmic music, Salsa songs, Flamenco songs, or in European or Caribbean folk genres, with other musical structures: more asymmetric or unmetered.

Spanish Flamenco came early in my life, as my mother was from Southern Spain, and with a large family there. Some distant family members of my grandmother’s side – surname De Tena - are even Flamenco artists/singers I understood (like Miguel De Tena), so really in that culture. I like some genres and aspects of Flamenco enough to make Flamenco-like songs too, haha. This is aided by the aforementioned summary/description that Flamenco is one of the few European genres that has “polyrhythm” and further a non-Western rhythmic base. More toward “Africa”, let’s say, like Andalusia’s geography.

On the other hand: also Alpine Italian accordion music (my father was from Northern Italy), North African, or French chansons, grabbed my interest for periods.

That shows that I like to experiment with different global rhythms, even straying quite far outside my relative favourite African or African Diaspora genres (Reggae, Rumba, Son, Funk, African genres). Hoping to also find beauty in them.

That’s what an open mind – also a “musical open mind” - is: wanting to see beauty everywhere. Wanting to see possibility and inspiration everywhere.

Eventually, despite this, – usually – the “prodigal son returns to his own” to use a Biblical reference, used in also Catholic countries, as my Spanish mother used this expression regularly, for “returning “home”, where you feel in the end most at ease, and in some way “loved”, after curious wanderings.

My percussion playing on jamsessions in clubs (mainly in Amsterdam) can also be seen online, on my Youtube channel, and it also is flexible and “multicultural”, with varying patterns from e.g. Afro-Cuban Rumba and Abakua, Brazilian Samba, African bell patterns, Conga-fied Reggae basslines, Cumbia, Flamenco, but also classical music, “rock” or Pop , folk/Celtic, or Middle Eastern elements, which I try to flexibly add to the songs: usually nice covers of Rock or Funk classics.

I use thus a variety of multicultural, modern and traditional percussion instruments, but also adapt to the different functions of rhythm in Pop or Rock, while adding syncopation and counter-rhythms, without distracting from the main basic songs. This can be also “ornamentation” known in Celtic, Arabic, and Flamenco music rhythms, but also “vertically layered” on top of as well as interlocking with the main bass-drum beat, as in polyrhythmic sub-Saharan African music, hopefully to good “driving” effect.

This all is the multicultural and groovy fun of it.

Russell Brand's 'Revolution': a review

For some reasons, I wanted to read the book ‘Revolution’ (2014) by Russell Brand, recently. Of course because I knew the author, mainly from his online videos and “podcasts” I saw around the period 2020, when the world got in the “corona craze”. I recall him being one of the few dissonant voices, in this seemingly massively shared fanaticism about a supposedly dangerous virus, criticizing the veracity of the corona “hype”. Justly, in my informed opinion.

Brand stood in that sense out positively as alternative thinker, and - along with others I encountered a bit before - helped to break down the foolish corona narrative, and wider elite policies it was part of. Awakening more people.

PODCASTS ONLINE

So I watched some of his “podcasts”, maybe seeking some “confirmation”. Following confirmation, comes – hopefully – edification and education, but for that next psychological stage, there were many critical thinkers in the alternative media, I could reliably count on. Not only to further analyze what the hell was behind that imposed global corona hype – that was insightful, but got boring and repetitive later. Still some remained critical and came with new insightful information about how later, current global elite policies (warfare, energy, climate), are part of the same Agenda 2030.

Me myself, I am not really a “political animal”, so also that I took in small doses, but still try to keep myself informed about the alternative movement’s critique of elite policies, and different perspectives.

CONFIRMATION

Brand thus played a role in my earlier “confirmation” step, but only because I lacked time to continue watching his podcasts. He was – moreover – often a bit too “busy” and “frantic” to my temperament. Still, I pleasantly remember I agreed with some things he said, often with some humour.

While I was following other things and people – including selecting others of the many, many podcasters – I later found out Brand underwent a change, others in the alternative movement deplored. It seemed even condemned as if it were a “betrayal” by David Icke: Brand became a born-again Christian, returned to mainstream Christianity. With all its conservative, “powers that be” connotations, that was ill-understood, and seen even as hypocritical. Criticizing the powers that be, while joining them.. something like that.

I am not sure whether it is just some spiritual relief he personally sought, but separate from his continuing social criticism, or if it is indeed “betrayal” of some sort.

Be that as it may, Russell Brand as a person I found intriguing enough, also because I remembered he talked at least around 2020 vividly and with some wit. Enough to read his book about “Revolution”.

REVOLUTION

The theme intrigues too, but “revolution” is not by definition a positive term – maybe only for the Cuban Communist regime, and some other such regimes in the world – but it just means “radical change”, even a “total turn-around or restart”, of a situation, radical, not gradually as in an “evolution”.

Knowing Brand a bit, though, I imagined his ideas about a “revolution” could be something even for me desirable, toward democratization and freedom “of the people”.

Indeed it was. His anti-elite criticism became clear from the start in the book, but not just the vague “state”, or abstract politics or governments, but concrete manifestations in our daily lives, notably consumerism.

Brand relates about his past life, including addiction, and fortune and fame: apparently he was a well-known actor in the US, while British: I missed that, I must admit. When I saw his first podcasts around 2020, I did not even know what he actually did in the UK or elsewhere (stand up comic?). I just noticed he said some sensible things –read: I agreed with.

His rich, “jet set life” as well as his escapist addictions (alcohol a.o.) taught him lessons about what really gives satisfaction, aided in this – he tells – by Yoga, meditation, and related thinking. Fair enough. Everyone has his own way. I found it in nature and African “dance religions”, and eventually Rastafari.

Brand looked spiritually a bit more to India, I more to Africa and the Caribbean, but that’s okay.

I largely agreed with him in this book, just like I did with his earlier “Left-wing” podcasts: against big business, their political allies (“big politics”), greedy capitalists, consumerism, and those participating in it.

ELITES

Such elites – he states – control the masses of the population “the people” with confusion and binding them to their economy without input (modern capitalist slavery).

Again, the “confirmation” modus entered me, because I knew all this already before. Even before 2020, I knew more or less what he described, partly because I studied a lot of human (political) history, including e.g. colonial history. So not “mind-blowingly” new to me – the notion that a wealthy and powerful elite wants to remain like that, therefore keeps down and binds the masses.. I knew that already. I still found pleasantly “confirming” that someone agrees with me, putting some rest in my mind. More like relaxing and sitting down when tired, than an inspired thrill of excitement. Still pleasant, though, and interesting to read about from someone who is from another country (UK), and had another life than me.

PERSONALITY

Does Brand’s personality and character traits also differ from mine, despite sharing some social views? From what he writes, I think partly.

He seems more extrovert than me – loudly addressing strangers in unknown places, lacking shyness. He also seemed more “flexible” – or “easily affected” – than I think I am. Empty buckets go with every wind, while I was already as a child more steadfast, often quite skeptical and doubtful about what people – even adults - around me said or did.

For better or worse, since young, several people told me I have a “strong personality”, people who studied psychology, but also family members, ex-girlfriends, colleagues, concluded as much.. for better or worse. I take it as a complement – “a strong personality” - , though, even if I am not fully sure of its significance. I experienced it does not make you many friends, to put it one way. Empty buckets are after all more useful.. ha!

Even as a youth, I was at times skeptical about “fashions” and “trends”. Sure, some things seemed cool and fun to me for a while, but if someone followed a fashion I found nonsensical, I tended to let that know, losing even some potential friends in the process. I just liked to think for myself, and go my own way, I guess.

Brand seems more adaptive, and more of a “social animal”, which need not be bad or morally deplorable. Even in me, there is a “social animal” somewhere. In the case of Brand – though – he gave me the feeling that he was insecure, not knowing what he was doing, thrown off-balance by lust and greed – and insecurity – doing regrettable or “ugly” things. The insecurity he shows in his name-dropping, as well as in his image building of a cool guy somehow “above it all”. We all have an ego – me too -, so I get that too: keeping face.

However, the “failure” trope, such as in Woody Allen movies – the Jewish “schlemiel” story tradition – is at times a welcome change to such boastful “I got it all under control” attitude.. No you don’t, say e.g. those Woody Allen movies. We’re all searching losers, who can fail and make mistakes. That’s closer to the truth: we’re only human.

Again, caressing one’s own ego is maybe more deplorable, but also very human, and that makes him more accessible. If you lived some life like I did, you learn that people who uphold a rigid, “righteous” image, showing no weak sides, tend to be, well, “wicked” imposters. Often with a (blue collar, white collar, or street) criminal past. In high and low places..

So, I could appreciate the sincerity of Brand in this book (addiction problems, admitting his mistaken attractions). Not total sincerity, though. He escapes through his life philosophy about a more just society (“revolution”). This is after all the book’s theme. Also a way to escape his own psychological doubts, but that is in a way also endearingly human.

INSPIRING EXAMPLES

Interesting is how he refers to different philosophers, philosophies, books, persons, or (international) historical epochs, he stumbled upon, and found relevant. Most I knew already, but not everything, and he puts it – combines them - in another light, adding thus analytical value.

His spiritual ideas were at the time of this book more in the Yoga (kundalini) and Hindus spheres, but with references to “God” as well. He mixes this well in, I must say, with his general message to make his point: how can people regain control of their own lives, from the economic and political elite. An economic and political elite on top, keeping the majority of “common” people in today’s modern (somewhat moderate) wage and debt slavery.

Politics and elections are also a façade, serving the maintenance and strengthening of this wealthy elite, Brand also concluded, also to explain why he never votes in any elections.

COVID

Mind you, this 2014 book was written years before the “covid hype” since 2020, during which those same elites, showed another absurd, yet cruel, side. Politicians in most countries followed orders and the corona playbook of the elite, as if it were a military drilling. Vaccines/injections were promoted globally, along with harsh social measures and restrictions, including war-time (and or: "prison-like") measures like lockdowns and curfews. During an evening curfew in Amsterdam (starting at 21:00, later 22:00) I remembered staring at my front door from inside: if I walk through that door, I will be breaking the law, I realized. I felt weirdly imprisoned.

The president of Tanzania of the time, John Magufuli, “did not get the memo” – or was truly rebellious enough -, - and criticized/ignored corona policies in 2020 - so was gotten rid of. They say he died of “covid”.. Oh, irony: the same disease against which he found policies nonsensical. Of course, I do not believe that he died of that. Interests are too big. Before I get into legal trouble, I’ll leave it at that, just my opinion, haha. He died – anyway – in Late March 2021, and was conveniently replaced by a more pious (scarfed muslima) and especially more “compliant” president. Just coincidence.

SOLUTIONS

Brand in this book and I thus seem to have the same enemy. Some other ideas (due to my more Left-wing background) I also share with him, or partly. We also share anarchist views.

“It takes a revolution to make a solution”, Bob Marley sang, so what about the solution to this inequality problem of elite dominance, Brand has to offer?

Do they make sense? I think so. Direct, small-scale democracy, in self-organized communities, with no top-down rule. Self-rule, owning the production means, as in anarcho-socialist views. That’s more or less his proposal.

ANARCHISM

Indeed, Brand sees the anarchist experiments during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) – which general Franco unfortunately won – as good, working example. In parts of Spain, like Catalonia, there were also left-wing anarchists, among the socialists, or moderate democrats, and others (the Republicans) opposing Franco’s Right-wing, Fascist coup. For a period during the war in “republican” areas , everything was made communal and “popular”, even bars. No more bosses and owners. This loose and chaotic approach led to conflicts with more structured Communists in Catalonia itself, causing division within the “Left” and among Republicans. Sadly, it also meant a weaker, less united front against Franco’s troops, who were more militarily prepared and experienced.

The anarcho-socialist movement – and anarchism in general - was stronger in Spain than in Northern Europe. The reason for that – as historians point out – is that while places like England, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, industrialized relatively early and stronger, Southern Europe remained longer in agrarian stages, with limited industry, thus less “factory-like” structures, as shaped Communism and Socialism (and trade unionism) in Northern Europe. A freer idea of popular freedom arose, so you will, beyond in-factory, worker-friendly favours.

Russell Brand, speaking from the UK, being the first industrialized nation of this world (financed by colonialism), realizes that in the UK a lot has to change to realize this.

COMPASSION AND HOPE

He shows compassion and optimism with some elite members – as ultimately human and unhappy with the skewed situation -, quoting Che Guevara, who said that many elite people of power will defend their interests only to a point, but will give up as society no longer rewards them. Thus making the revolution victorious for all in the end.

Good to dream, but is it realistic? A long way to go, to say the least. Giving up one’s generationally built wealth like that, seems not very realistic to me. Some will hold on to it stronger than one might think. Millions or billions (money and acres) one possesses in this world, ideally (in their mind) go to their children, their offspring. Not to “society” as Brand’s revolution foresees. It is almost an identity – used to one’s own family power – that is defended at all costs. Historically shaped elite positions, connected to pride, ego, survival (the reptilian brain reflex), superiority delusion.. probably all that, but either way stubborn.

This explains “controlling” corona and climate policies, other global control increases (secret services, NATO, WHO, EU), the military-industrial complex, the banking system, international, economic “oil”-related conflicts,..

INTERNET AGE

This expanded more - with some seeming "panic" - especially when information became more freely available, historically: the rise and spread of Internet, since roughly the 1990s. Too many common people came to know too much. Too much free knowledge.

This also shows in the recent increase in censorship even in Western so-called democracies, including calls to limit free access to Internet, cunningly disguised behind “ID” or “protection” arguments.

This increased however strongly after this 2014 book by Brand, so understandable he does not mention this, but he does see Internet as potentially democratizing for common people. It was already corrupted by commercial parties (thus: economic elites) and consumerism – wanting your money for their products – but in recent years political parties try the same, now wanting your obedience..

REVOLUTIONS GONE WRONG

A good point, Brand repeats throughout his book, is that well-meant popular revolutions can go wrong, as an elite often just replaces another one, as history showed in several instances. A “hegemon” shift, nothing more, not benefitting the masses of people. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions, and other “communist” revolutions soon degenerated into totalitarian, oppressive regimes, to several degrees, with new, hypocritical elites. Including Cuba, I am sad to say, from my own travel experience.. Even without US economic “bullying” this would often have occurred: ego, hidden interests, nepotism, etcetera. Again, the excluded masses, expected to work for an elite.

In the case of Cuba, someone like Carlos Moore (an Afro-Cuban refugee), even saw a racial/cultural component, as Fidel Castro (whom Moore once worked for as translator, before his disappointment with the Cuban Revolution) had - according to him - no affinity with Afro-Cuban culture, showing in limiting, repressive policies. The oppressive treatment of Tibet and Uygurs by Communist China are other cases in point.

Aware of this danger, Brand among other things takes what he calls the “Spanish revolution”: periods of localized, anarchist rule in parts of Spain, during the Spanish civil war (1936-39), as main example to follow.

Brand does not really believe in “nations”, favouring a world of truly democratic and local, self-ruled communities, with “bigger government” or “economics” only having temporal, “admin” functions, as he calls it – for specific purposes - , with no lasting social power.

CAVEATS

A nice theory, though there are some things I think one should be aware of, in this idyllic, naïve picture painted. Humans will be humans, often still with big ego’s, and many insecure men (and some women) would still like to dominate, only on a smaller scale. Personal ego’s, but also other inequalities (race, gender, background) might persist in such groups. Women’s emancipation and equality seems reached in some Western, liberal countries, but in many parts of the world, yet also in many male minds in the Western world, women are still “second-class citizens” to men.

Also: do all people really want to interact voluntarily, intensely with other ethnicities (not the one of your family/parents, let’s say), if given a choice? Studies of some Western cities – including Amsterdam where I reside – showed after all that about 80% of all people mainly interact socially within the own ethnic group (Dutch, Moroccans, etc.), subtly eschewing other ethnicities, expect when inevitable (e.g. professionally). Don’t be on forehand too optimistic about man’s “open mind”, is all I’m saying.

Self-ruled, democratic groups can thus lead to fragmented societies, with racial, religious, and ethnic preferences, creating islands of peoples, who want to stay apart from others. “Live and let live” measures – as Brand proposes – can limit that, but a very stimulating, varied world does not arise, isolated in a uniform group, including possibly even social control of wayward members, as prejudices and personal interests still might persist.

People who have participated in the Flower Power period “democratizations” of the 1960s and 1970s – some of whom I met – in hindsight found the debates and decision-making in “hippie or squatter communes” chaotic, ineffective, and skewed. Nepotism and a big mouth determined directions and decisions, rather than a balanced, democratic weighing of options. Many only in theory want democracy, and only for themselves. Still better than a top-down humiliation and wage slavery for unknown bosses and interests, but neither perfect. So we must remain careful.

To Russell Brand’s proposals I would therefore add some more spiritual and psychological dimensions to protect this democratization from corruption from within. Like I said, Brand seems more adaptive and more a “social animal” or “group thinker” than me, and I believe more in “healthy individualism” or better: a “healthy individual focus”, as we Rastas do not like “isms”. Respecting each individual as valuable – beyond race, sex, nationality, or other attributes – should be ingrained in society’s make-up. Even in “democratic sessions” in such self-ruled, self-chosen human communities, this should not be forgotten.

The “I and I consciousness” in the Rastafari movement – arguing that divinity is shared throughout all living things, but also in each human being. Jah (“God”) – or “the divine” is according to most Rastafari adherents also “within” each man or woman. Not in some, but in each person.

This is my conviction, differing perhaps from those (e.g. Christians and Muslims), separating mankind from divinity or nature. Having the divine within, you also maintain an agency to stand up for your rights and dignity, and be no one’s subordinate or slave, as we are all equal. This ensures true democracy, according to me: a healthy individual focus, which I personally draw from the Rastafari tradition, but makes sense more broadly, I opine, for all people.

OTHER BLIND SPOTS

Other “blind spots” in this particular book by Brand – perhaps he addresses it elsewhere – are global inequalities. Fine that big companies, and their billions, are shared with society for the people, but let’s start with hungry, and suffering people world wide, outside the well-off Western world, even in medical need, before addressing “first world” or “luxury” problems like another hospital in a Western city. Brand does not exclude this, but does mainly give Western examples of money reinvestment for the people. The emphasis on “local democratic communities” need not make one myopic to the rest of the world. Nothing wrong with thinking global (also educationally), as long as it is not just for selfish power goals, as the Western, economic and political “powers that be” always have practiced since colonialism, up to neoliberalist and neocolonial capitalism now. You can still think international, as many do already culturally (food, culture, etc.), only now with equality in mind.

There is also corruption, local power elites, and discrimination of women and minorities, to deal with in other parts of the world, disturbing equity ideals.

DICHOTOMY

A final blind spot in this book is “culture”. Owning the means of production for work is okay, being self-sufficient and self-ruled in democratic communities, likewise a good idea, but life is more than working to pay bills/ and have food and shelter. People need the inspiration of culture and art too, in my opinion, so there is something to say for breaking that dichotomy, as Pablo Picasso also once lamented: that dichotomy between “having to work” on the one hand – as a sensed obligation, and “fun” and “culture” on the other hand.

An intertwined balance might make us in the end happier. Making and enjoying art or music every day, alongside working – preferably with some creative aspect to that work! -, to express your full humanity, instead of working for days in a row uninspired as a robot, and then some time for “fun” or creativity.. realizing then that you’re too tired for the latter, having worked too much. With the “clock” as persisting tyrant, even after a “revolution”.

We must somehow break through that too, if Brand’s proposed “revolution” for people’s self-rule is to really make all humans happier as individuals.

Still, Russell Brand expressed some good ideas in this book that I agree with, and with – as he did and does elsewhere – some interesting and funny stories to tell about his life, and other humour and wit, making this 2014 book both very readable, and insightful.

Misconceptions (or lies?) about the trans-Atlantic slave trade (1500-18XX)

The recent (25th of March, 2026) “recognition” of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade - with enslavement of Africans - as “gravest crime against humanity” by the UN – after a Ghana-led initiative - was celebrated by some as a victory. This crime took place in the period 1500-1800, it states. In reality, it was until well in the 1860s that slavery as an institute was finally abolished in the Americas, but roughly the trans-Atlantic slave trade as such was around that period (1500-1800). This recognized declaration connected textually with the need for “reparations” and “compensation” for Africa and African descendants, increasing a sense of triumph.
See: (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg06q36052o)

The problem with this UN recognition document, is only that it is not legally binding, so - for all intents and purposes – symbolic “window dressing”, or at best “increasing awareness”.

That awareness is what I will deal with in this post. The reactions on mainstream and social media were varied, and those critical repeated common misconceptions, mostly betraying lack of sufficient and proper knowledge. Or they consciously spread lies, that is also possible.

OWN STUDY

I think I can conclude that with some authority. I have worked for over 12 years in a scholarly institute on colonial history and present – specializing in Indonesia/South East Asia and the Caribbean, for its library, summarizing (“abstracting”) and indexing books and articles.

This was for the KITLV in Leyden, the Netherlands, explaining the geographical choices: the Dutch had colonies in those regions (Indonesia, Suriname, Netherlands Antilles).

I worked at the Caribbean department, having to study many books and articles about Caribbean history and present, in order to describe them well for the library catalogue.

Important for this post: a lot of these works were about slavery, and connected slave trade, being so crucial and formative for Caribbean development. The focus was on the (entire) Caribbean – not just the Dutch colonies, with some side steps to Africa, yet personally, later, I read some works about the African side of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as well as the European side.

The KITLV, I then worked for, had a conservative image, as it started/was founded during the Netherlands’ colonial era, aiding such policies, but modernized over time, having a balanced library collection with different studies and viewpoints. (http://www.kitlv.nl)

OPEN DEBATE

There was also an open debate in Dutch slavery studies then, which I think is healthy in academic circles. Scholars deemed as too “apologist” debated with more postcolonial thinkers, and vice versa, including opposing stances, always beneficial for truth-finding. This open debate seems to have been lost a bit in academic circles now, according to critics, especially when “bigger interests” are at stake (the military industrial complex, "security"/control, corona, climate), open debate is avoided, and critics marginalized or “cancelled”. The slavery debate at that time only got similarly corrupted – I recall – when “reparations” by the state were called for (i.e. “money”): suddenly more apologist, White scholars on slavery came then to lead the debate and could only speak in authoritative sources, but in time even these could be contradicted. I studied both sides.

From that professional, analytical context, I now recognize the misconceptions or lies about the slave trade and slavery in media expressions, by different commentators. Opponents of that UN, Ghana-led “gravest rime” declaration – especially – seemed to “invent” fictional histories, or repeated these. Apologist or not, but certainly not true.

Subjectivity of the term “gravest” aside, the declaration in itself makes sense: trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery were undoubtedly crimes against humanity, with tragic results (also over time) for Africans, and lacking up to the present proper compensation. What shape and form this compensation (reparation? Paid by who?) would take, is another issue.

Though not legally binding, it gave a moral message, that many critics sought to undermine. Predictably those on the Right politically, but also those with other ideological or material interests.

Main colonial powers of yesteryear – read: once involved/main culprits in the trans-Atlantic slave trade – Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands, a.o. – “abstained” in that UN vote, while as could be expected, mostly African, Latin American, Asian, and other “third world” countries supported it (a total of 123 countries). Only the US, Israel, and Argentina bluntly opposed this "recognition declaration". Israel nitpicked on the word “gravest” in relation to Jewish history, also knowing dispersion and slavery.

The US and Argentina – at least their political leaders - just wanted to “diss” Blacks, I guess.

British conservative leader – Kemi Badenoch - of Nigerian descent! - showed her best “uncle tom” and “boasy slave” side, by claiming that Britain should have voted against the declaration, as Britain fought (later, as crucial addition) against slavery. One of those misconceptions, or repeated lies (or something in-between).

That’s one of those misconceptions.

These politicians or leaders, but also many commentators in the mainstream and social media repeated ideas – seeking to undermine the “gravest crime” argument, or that Europe did this to Africa and Africans.

I repeat: from all that I read professionally in an academic setting, and after – by white and black authors, including both postcolonial and conservative (even apologist and their opponents) ones, etc. – I knew immediately some of these ideas some spread in media in response to the UN-declaration, were mistaken misconceptions, not having any ground or basis in actually proven history.

I will discuss the main ones, based on my acquired, balanced knowledge.

“AFRICANS SOLD SLAVES THEMSELVES”

Slavery is as old as organized man, globally. That’s harsh, but true. Especially with larger scales after earlier “communal” stages among humans, hierarchies arose, with serfs and slaves. From ancient China, to Ancient Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Greece, ancient Rome, Aztec and Inca empires, but also among the Germanic and Celtic peoples of Europe there was slavery. The Germanic peoples, forefathers of many Northern Europeans, including in Germany and England, knew a class of slaves and semi-slaves, some would not imagine, seeing the image of “wild, communal” woodland societies surviving historically about the Teutonic/Germanic tribes. St Patrick, who would become the patron saint of Ireland, was ironically a slave of Celts in Ireland, though Patrick himself was also a Celt (albeit from what is now Wales).

And yes, also Africa, especially societies outgrowing the small-scale, family-based “communal” stages (that all societies go through), developed hierarchies with slaves, often as prisoners of war. Generally these slaves were absorbed if subdued locally, as societies became more large-scale and power-based, to different degrees.

This, however, was relatively limited and enshrined. The trans-Atlantic slavery – or African Holocaust – being the topic here, was a result of more global and modern European demands, disrupting African societies, even if depending first on existing practices. These local practices were aggrandized and corrupted in the European colonial interest, albeit aided by some African leaders or disunity/warring African nations. The Europeans made opportunistically use of intra-African divisions (between kingdoms/states), becoming the main (economic) impetus for enslaving more fellow-Africans, than would have been under normal, local “feudal “ developments, as selling slaves to Europeans became big business.

Several authors have shown this process, in my opinion convincingly.

“WHITES/EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES/ENSLAVED TOO”

This argument is repeated too, usually referring to Barbary (North African, Islamic) slave trade and slavery, occurring in parts of Northern Africa, the Middle East, and even Moorish Iberia.

Historians having studied this Islamic slavery since Islam’s spread after Muhammad’s death (7th and 8th c. AD and after), from Arabia to Northern Africa and the Middle East (and beyond), came to the conclusion that Muslims in earlier and later stages enslaved people of different races, with relatively many sub-Saharan Africans, Berbers, and, okay, in later stages also Europeans.

According to Islamic doctrine, all nonbelievers could be enslaved (until they converted), offering an unfortunate wide base. Slave raids among Europeans took place, but places along the Barbary coast (now roughly Algeria) were multiracial, also regarding the slave population (including Europeans, true, but also Africans, a.o.). Even Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes (of “Don Quixote” fame) was temporary enslaved there.

Much more Africans were enslaved, however, also by Arabs and other Muslims. African women for harems, as concubines, African men often as guards or servants, in many cases these were even castrated by their masters, decreasing their influence. Sources speak of millions of sub-Saharan Africans, thus enslaved and traded by Muslims, prior to European colonialism.

Most sensible conclusion: Whites/Europeans were not singled-out - or even dominant - among the Islamic-led slavery in North Africa, Spain and the Middle East.

Also in Spain and Portugal, the Moors had often sub-Saharan African slaves, cementing – according to some less-politically correct historians – the image of the ”the black as slave” In Portuguese and Spanish minds. This would then translate in Portuguese seafarers later enslaving Africans, as first Europeans, aided by sea traders from other European areas (Genoa, Venice, Catalonia, in present-day Italy and Spain). Areas with maritime traditions, that Castilian Spain had then still less.

However, with Spain’s own colonization of the Americas after 1492, the Spaniards at first made use of this Portuguese monopoly/specialization in African slaves, increasingly “racializing” trans-Atlantic slavery toward (imported) Africans, after Amerindian enslavement largely failed. Britain, France, and the Netherlands soon jumped on that bandwagon, with their colonization, even innovating this trans-Atlantic slave trade in enslaved Africans economically.

“BRITAIN FOUGHT AGAINST SLAVERY”

With modernized methods, Britain imported relatively many African slaves to its colonies in the Caribbean, aided by bases on African coasts. The profit (“blood money” one might say) or slavery gains were invested differently by and in England, than before were more chaotically by and in Portugal and Spain.

This is related to modern development, but also to cultural/religious factors, as Max Weber pointed out the role of Protestant values. Slavery profits were invested more in a productive, lasting economy, according to Protestant ethics in Britain, rendering the first industrial cities in the world – as such –, Birmingham and Manchester. This eventually led to capitalism.

Due to this modernization, by around 1800, slavery was no longer necessary or efficient, but has served its crucial purpose. Britain could therefore abolish the slave trade and slavery before other European nations. Modern tools required modern, moderate slavery/exploitation of labour, eventually developed in the West into dominant capitalist “wage labour”, some say “wage slavery”. Trans-Atlantic slavery helped shape and finance this very basis of modern Western society we all still live under now. There is thus a direct link between slavery and the Western, wage-based capitalist society of now. Many do not even know this.

The humanitarian goals of British abolitionists might be there, but were not the dominant motivation, rather serving as hypocritical disguise, and self-righteous stances against economically more backward colonizers (Spain a.o.), which they were coincidentally also competing with. The main motivations for Britain leading the abolitionist movement were – behind the scenes – rather economical and of national interest, not humanitarian.

Conservative British leader Badenoch used this argument, which I hope to have showed is ultimately flawed.

“THOSE INVOLVED (OUR FOREPARENTS OR VICTIMS) ARE NO LONGER ALIVE”

This argument I hear or read here and there, coming down to “water under the bridge”. This is used very selectively, as historical epochs have of course lasting consequences up to the present. Besides: Germany and Japan are still paying “reparations” to European countries, Jews, or Asian countries for their roles during World War II, while most who have lived that period are by now deceased.

Moreover, it is about “lasting (generational) consequences”, which trans-Atlantic slavery surely had, such as on the African continent: population loss, economic decline and stagnation, as shown in Walter Rodney’s recommendable work ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ (1972), the title saying it not all, but well. I wrote elsewhere on my blog about this work.

Walter Rodney, a Guyanese scholar, shows in this work not to be a bigoted activist, checking intelligently the veracity and neutrality of all sources (dismissing not just apologist White westerners, but also obviously pro-Black sources), before taking – in my opinion – just conclusions about the devastating effects of Europe’s imposing of the slave trade and later colonialism on and in Africa.

That colonialism in Africa started after Britain (and also France) outlawed slavery, but in reality built forth on the same structures of trade developed during slave trade. Walter Rodney shows that well too.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the African Diaspora in the Americas, the consequences of slavery are very evident. Slavery was dehumanization into work-horses, but also involved “deculturalization”, including the loss of family names, increasing the intense dehumanization.

This of course has lasting effects up to now, supporting the “gravest crime” argument, and with it making more sensible the “compensation” and “reparation” rationale.

Issues of “bodily integrity”, “dehumanization” and such, aligned with violence-based forced labour, combined with a cultural destruction or damage . You could – and I do – argue that all human beings have the right to know their family’s roots, being essential in this world.

Blacks in the African Diaspora – in the Americas – all have lost this, bearing now Portuguese, English (or Scottish), Spanish (or Catalan), Dutch, or French surnames – i.e. of their erstwhile European masters/owners -, with only vague family lore reminding them of their African roots.

An Afro-Cuban woman I befriended had Spanish surnames (two, as in Spanish tradition) – specifically both Catalan surnames, belonging to Barcelona elite families – referring to their erstwhile family owners, but with family stories reminding vaguely of “Congo” origins of their forebears, as many Afro-Cubans in Eastern Cuba (later confirmed with DNA tests, so accurate). Many Afro-Cubans know for instance of their Yoruba origins too, even with some tangible retentions of it, Jamaicans of their Ghanaian or Igbo roots, etcetera. Historical written records of the time itself (in e.g. colonial archives) can give some more specific insight of one’s family members, but are partly deficient.

The connection to their family history has been – however – systematically disrupted due to slavery, as regards to historical records, as they were assigned European names of their masters. DNA studies (which only arose since the 1950s) give now some more possibilities to trace one’s specific roots. Still, organic family ties (a basic human right) have been lost.

CULTURAL RESISTANCE

Within this overall tragedy, there is the beauty of cultural strength and revival. Enough African retentions and memories were kept alive to give birth to own cultural creations among Afro-Americans, including musical genres based on African principles. African principles also giving birth to folk belief systems, and other cultural expressions throughout the African Diaspora in the Americas, by necessity mixed with European culture.

Thus arose and were invented Samba, Salsa, Reggae, Calypso, Merengue, Jazz, Blues, Funk, and Soul.. just to name some known Afro-American musical genres, with elements that can be traced back to specific African principles and roots in what is now the Congo, Ghana, Nigeria, and other parts of Africa. A beautiful story of cultural survival and resilience, but amidst a tragedy of grave human rights abuse. Culture as resistance against dehumanization.

Depopulation in parts of Africa, already hinted at the “genocidal” effects of trans-Atlantic slavery, also need to be mentioned. Figures differ – I also recall from my own studying of slavery, professionally – but an estimated 15 million Africans died during the forced transport from Africa to the Americas – probably more, while those surviving had relatively short lives, due to the harsh, inhumane conditions of slave work. Population loss, genocide..

On top of this, they were enslaved, so had no property or income, to pass on to offspring, as other human groups in theory had. This kept them economically backward and dependent, up to the present. So, even if those directly involved no longer live now, it is present in the unequal socioeconomic position. In most American nations, Blacks – those of African descent - are at the bottom of the economic ladder.

“IT WAS AN ELITE THING”

This argument is somewhat more sensible, though not fully. The poor European people (the peasants, low-wage labourers, property-less) had indeed less stake in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery, of course started and benefitting the elite, moneyed classes: rich merchants, sometimes nobility, within European societies. They profited most of it, and in earlier stages, Portuguese and Spanish gains of slavery went to these elite families, building palaces, buying more grounds, gaining more political power in national affairs, with little “offshoots” benefiting poorer surrounding Portuguese or Spanish people: at most creating some extra, low-wage jobs in the margins of colonial activities (dockworkers, seamen, stores, sugar refining, housekeepers, etc.).

The “offshoots” became – however – more structural with the more investing, and overarching, Protestant approach of the British, redirecting colonial and slavery gains toward industrialization in England, and eventually capitalism. This created whole economic sectors – also indirectly - in British society, requiring many workers, and thus (albeit relative) wider economic prosperity.

The poor labourers in the factories in e.g. Birmingham or Manchester, that thus arose, were of course not from classes or families that ever had leading or decisive roles in colonialism or slavery within or by their country, but profited from it nonetheless. As known, Britain started the first “industrialization”, and left earlier colonizers like Spain and Portugal, economically behind as less-modern, while the Netherlands (with a Protestant ethic, but also a modern, financial strength) had more of these economically prosperous side-effects like Britain, as to a degree France.

Shortly, and somewhat simplistically put: slavery gains ended first up in some elite families in Portugal and Spain, but in time got invested more “smartly” in the entire economies in Britain, the Netherlands, and France, and with it wider Europe.

This has consequences - e.g. global inequalities between Europe and developing countries - up to today, aiding Europe’s and the West’s (also US) relative wealth in this world.

These are the cold, historical facts.

RACIALIZED

Important is also to add that it was “racialized” slavery. This increased racism. Race played a role in the initial starting of trans-Atlantic slavery by Portuguese and Spaniards around 1500, but in the early stage not even a dominant one. Principal motivations were at first economic: Amerindians could not handle the strain, and not enough Europeans wanted to migrate to the Americas, and Spanish colonizers then turned (as the Portuguese and Moors before them pioneered) to Africans.

Still, in time the dehumanization became cruelly racialized, with racist and discriminatory practices becoming the norm in colonial societies. Anti-Black racism, essentially.

Also this has consequences up to today. Economic and opportunity inequalities, persisting discrimination, racist policies globally (Apartheid ended only in 1990), but also inferiority complexes, are still realities of today, for who want to see them.

The Uncle Tom – or as put in Jamaican Patois “Boasy Slave” - syndrome: Black persons overly pleasing the White oppressor or boss, for some personal gain – of which the UK Conservative opposition leader Badenoch is now a particularly ridiculous example (at least in her response to the declaration), has been going on for centuries, also during slavery itself. In fact, many (for fear) compliant slaves kept the system working, but in still exploitation-based, albeit more moderate contexts, with less openly “brute” force, such as in present-day wage-based “modern slavery”, this phenomenon still shows, Badenoch only being a very noticeable example in higher circles.

Neoliberalism - modern, state-supported capitalism – stimulated since the 1990s “identity politics” to distract from economic inequality, benefitting the elite, and a part of the Blacks/people of African descent, seemed to have fallen in that trap, especially when taking a “politicized”, instrumental form within the system. Acting as “pro-Black” – even in a bully-like manner - to compensate for being a “boasy slave” elsewhere in their lives, occurs, showing the contradictory psychological disorders of people having lost touch with themselves and their history. That is the psychological dimension.

Even that is forgivable, as also many White people having to participate in this system likewise keep fooling themselves that it is their own free will (hiring and firing people, or on the low end: setting the alarm clock at 07:30 to go work for a boss), and maintaining the illusion that is not at all (labour, time, human) exploitation that they stimulate, or engage in. Just a job.

That is the unequal, make-believe world we are living in today.

Historically, this modern, moderate wage slavery of modern-day capitalism was financed by colonial slavery during the trans-Atlantic slavery period (1500-1800), which is historically both interesting and painful.

The African victims of that 1500-18XX trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery period can be seen as sacrifices for this.

On the basis of this, I opine that it indeed can be seen sensibly as “of the gravest crimes against humanity”, and making calls for reparation or compensation not at all irrational. How this should be worked out in a good manner, is another issue.

Anne Frank's dagboek

Voor veel mensen in Nederland, en zelfs de wereld, is het Dagboek van Anne Frank een “bekend” boek. Velen zullen erover gehoord hebben, meer dan het zelf gelezen hebben, of “ze” gelezen hebben, want het gaat eigenlijk om dagboekbrieven. Meervoud dus. Het boek is overigens in 70 talen vertaald.

Ik ben zelf nu boven de 50 – vanaf een bepaalde leeftijd vier ik geen verjaardagen meer of in ieder geval "minder", zoals mijn moeder ook zei - , maar dit moet ik wel even vermelden om de tijdspanne aan te geven van mijn leven.

Ik ben geboren in Nederland, en de laatste ruim 20 jaar woonachtig in Amsterdam. Daarvoor woonde ik ook niet ver van Amsterdam (Nieuw Vennep, NH: rustig, maar saai dorp), dus kwam er weleens, en vaker toen ik in Amsterdam ging studeren, in 1996. Ik was toen inmiddels al de 20 gepasseerd, en woonde naar (denk ik) goed Zuid-Europees gebruik nog wat jaren bij mijn ouders (Italiaanse vader, Spaanse moeder).

Anne Frank’s dagboek was al sinds kind bekend bij mij, het dagboek, de connectie met de Holocaust, het bijbehorende gebouw en museum in Amsterdam. Ik deed in 2000 een afstudeerscriptie bij Greenpeace International, gelegen naast waar Anne Frank schuilde (het Achterhuis), met nog – zei men mij - daarvoor dezelfde kastanjeboom die zij zag. Die afstudeerscriptie was voor de voormalige bibliotheek academie (HBO), nu in naam opleidend tot “informatiespecialist”.

Ik hoorde er ook veel over (school, tv), maar ik moet helaas – wellicht tot mijn schande – erkennen dat ik me niet bewust kan herinneren het dagboek zelf gelezen te hebben, in al die tijd.

BOEKENWURM

Het kan zijn dat ik het ergens in een fanatieke boekenwurmen tijd die ik had na mijn “voetbal tijd” (tot ong. mijn 14e), zo’n decennium had (tot in mijn “20s”), ook “verorberd” had – dan wel deels – maar te midden van veel andere boeken en werken. Ik las toen veel over Afrika en cultuur, wist ik nog, maar ook wereldgeschiedenis. Ik vond “geografie” om een of andere reden intrigerend, en niet zo boeken waar je al zoveel over hoort, zoals enkele romans.

Dit ging allemaal veel verder dan wat van school moest, en thuis waren de meesten niet echt lezers. Het was vooral mijn eigen weg, nadat ik doordat ik een bril moest dragen (vanaf ongeveer mijn 13e) maar stopte met al dat voetballen: niet zonder spijt: de sport vind ik leuk. Ik vond gelukkig lezen en leren ook leuk en werd zelfs lid van de bibliotheek.

Mijn smaak was voorts eigenzinnig, maar wel breed en diep. Ik zocht meestal kennis die wat minder “mainstream” gepromoot werd. Harry Mulisch’s De Aanslag - een relatief bekende en ook verfilmde roman - las ik dan wel, en met plezier, maar dat was dan een van de uitzonderingen die de regel bevestigen, zeg maar. Op TV kwam Mulisch op mij grappig en interessant over, mogelijk daarom. Maar een “groot ego” boek als ‘Ik, Jan Cremer’.. daar kon ik mij niet toe zetten. Mogelijk vonden anderen het goed, maar ieder zijn ding.

Non-fictie begon me gaandeweg meer te trekken – met name over geschiedenis - , en de boekenwurm in mij bleek een intellectueel. Toen las ik wel werken van “bekende namen”, vanwege het historische belang, maar ook selectief, en, wel, op leesbaarheid. Het Communistisch Manifest van Marx en Engels las ik wel – leerzaam op zich -, filosofische werken van Herbert Marcuse, Miguel de Unamuno, en anderen.

Verder vooral ook van zwarte, antikoloniale auteurs als Walter Rodney. Diens onvolprezen werk over Europees kolonialisme in Afrika: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, is een aanrader voor iedereen. Zeker voor diegenen die zich als Rasta of “Afrika-vriendelijk” beschouwen. Daarnaast andere interessante boeken over deelgebieden (Rastafari, Cuba, Ethiopië), en leerzame biografieën van mensen met persoonlijkheden als Marcus Garvey, maar ook van muzikanten James Brown, Lee Perry, Peter Tosh, e.a.), veelal deels samenhangend met mijn sinds mijn “early teens” ontstane persoonlijke interesses (Rastafari, Reggae).

Maar mijn maatschappelijke belangstelling bleef breed. Een ander – toch – non-fictie werk als Anne Frank’s dagboekbrieven wilde ik eigenlijk ook lezen, vooral vanwege het historische belang. Ik had er veel over gehoord, maar dat hoeft niets te betekenen.

Als er teveel egotripperij om een boek hangt - een “hype” -, stoot het me af, maar rondom Anne Frank’s dagboeken hing dat niet zo, al werd het veel besproken in de media, soms met grappen, over wat voor iemand Anne Frank was. “Een vervelend kind, maar dat hoort ook zo op die leeftijd..”, herinner ik mij dat Jeroen Krabbé in een praatprogramma zei, toen het dagboek weer eens in het nieuws kwam. Wat flauwe grappen door matige comedians daar gelaten, hadden de meeste gesprekken rond Anne Frank’s Dagboek wel wat niveau en nuance.

Controverse – vooral als van een zeker intellectueel niveau - om een boek heen maakt me wel wat nieuwsgieriger, en ik ben het dan ook gaan lezen. In het Nederlands. Als een spreekwoordelijke “elephant in the room”, maar een leuke, lieve olifant, zeg maar. Het lezen was "long overdue”..

SCHUILEN

De premisse is al indrukwekkend. Een groep Joden, waaronder Anne met haar ouders en wat anderen, moest schuilen voor de Nazi’s die Nederland hadden bezet en met steeds meer maatregelen tegen Joden kwamen. Anne was 13 toen ze begon onder te duiken (voor nog een paar jaar).

Ik kan dat relateren aan wat ik elders vernam over die Nazi-bezetting en het Nazi-regime, zoals op school, via documentaire’s, of in tentoonstellingen als het Verzetsmuseum. Er zijn critici van de weergave van die geschiedenis, maar de grote lijnen leken mij wel waarachtig. In ieder geval veelzeggend.

De wreedheid van het Duitse Nazi-regime zat hem in de militaire kracht, zeker, maar vooral het gebruik ervan. Eigenlijk gingen ze heel leugenachtig te werk, nogal sadistisch, en in zekere zin “geniepig”, zeker aangaande de Jodenvervolging.

In Nederland hadden de Nazi’s het eerst nog over een vage “strijd tegen het bolshevisme”, later toegespitst op groepen, maar geleidelijk en martelend sadistisch. Ook de afvoer naar concentratiekampen werd niet openlijk gepresenteerd als “bestemming: dood”, maar als werkkampen en tewerkstelling, waarbij velen in die kampen in het ongewisse bleven over hun gaskamer dood, terwijl ze gedwongen werkten.

Dit diabolische geheel - concreter: een Duitse oproep tot tewerkstelling aan Anne’s oudere zus - deed ook Anne Frank en de anderen schuilen in het Achterhuis, letterlijk achter een bedrijf/magazijn (van vader Otto Frank), uit het zicht, aan de Prinsengracht in Amsterdam, vlakbij de Westerkerk. Vóór die tijd, woonde het gezin Frank aan het Merwedeplein in Amsterdam-Zuid.

De dagboekbrieven betreffen het samenleven daar van Anne met haar ouders, oudere zus, en bevriende Joden (waaronder echtparen en zoon, en een tandarts), en helpende niet-Joodse Nederlanders uit het verzet, trouwe werknemers van Otto’s bedrijf, die af en toe langs kwamen ter steun, en dus wel gewoon over straat konden lopen, zonder ster, en daardoor dingen en voedsel konden brengen, etcetera..

Dit hele naargeestige gegeven moet haast wel interessant leesvoer opleveren, wie het ook schrijft, en Anne was weliswaar wat jong, rond de 13 jaar oud, doch – ook noodgedwongen – vroegrijp.

SCHRIJFTALENT

Het prettigste bij het beginnen te lezen vond ik dat ik merkte dat Anne Frank plezierig schreef in haar toch persoonlijke dagboek: het las lekker weg, een aantrekkelijke, beeldende schrijfstijl, en niet zonder droge, relativerende humor. Ze had ook een goed observatievermogen. Zeker, er waren wat kinderlijke herhalingen en fixaties bij haar schrijven, maar dat is niet meer dan natuurlijk, evenals het “pubergedrag” af en toe. Ze had zonder meer schrijftalent.

Ik merkte vooral dat Anne toch een relatief intelligent kind was voor die leeftijd, en begon mezelf af te vragen of dat ook voor mij gold op diezelfde leeftijd (13-15 jaar). Ik was goed in taal (leerde snel Engels), maar herinner mij toch ook dat ik zelfs wat “diepe beschouwingen” rond die leeftijd had – zelfs met een voetbal onder mijn arm – die iets intellectueels hadden, over de maatschappij. Al pratende met mensen, tussen het praktisch, spelend, me vermakend, bezig zijn.

Anne Frank zat echter noodgedwongen binnen ondergedoken, en moest wel veel nadenken en reflecteren, met weinig tijd voor spel en sport, of ander “vrij buitenleven”. Ze schreef ook letterlijk dat ze vroeger (nog “thuis”, niet schuilend) veel minder nadacht dan in het Achterhuis. Daar zit een wat verhulde, maar aanwezige tragiek.

De Frank familie waren Duitse Joden afkomstig uit Frankfurt am Main, en spraken deels soms nog Duits, begreep ik, naast Nederlands, en Anne had in Amsterdam jaren onderwijs gevolgd.

Ze schrijft goed Nederlands, zelfs wat formeel en vormelijk – met nuance – wat ik wel sympathiek vond, om een of andere reden. Ik vraag mij af: had dat te maken met een ouderwetsere tijd in Nederland – praatte men toen in Nederland gewoon netter en formeler – of met hun Duitse achtergrond, als taal toch formeler dan het Nederlands (ondanks de gedeelde Germaanse taalkundige oorsprong)?

Die “gedeelde Germaanse oorsprong” van Duitsers en Nederlanders maakte de Duitse inval in Nederland – zo vertelde een geschiedenislerares mij ooit – wat gematigder, want Nederlanders waren volgens de Nazi rassenleer “een Germaans broedervolk” (letterlijk zo genoemd in de propaganda), mede-Ariërs, aan de goede kant van de raciale streep. De Joden en zigeuners in Nederland toen echter niet.

De eerste jaren waren nog wel gematigd, maar wat meer verzet, zoals de Februaristaking, leidde tot wat meer disciplinaire maatregelen, duidelijk van een bezetter, in heel Nederland, maar met extra strenge regels tegen Joden (langere “avondklok”, steeds meer plekken verboden), en uiteindelijk hun vervolging en afvoering. Anne’s dagboekbrieven waren van juni 1942 tot augustus 1944, dus spelen in die tijd.

In deze context, te midden van een oorlog met de geallieerden die opmars maakten, schrijft Anne Frank in haar dagboek, zogenaamd aan een fictieve vriendin die ze “Kitty” noemt.

RELATIES EN KARAKTER

Anne bespreekt in haar dagboekbrieven aldus haar relaties en irritaties met de huisgenoten (met andere namen gegeven), het soort gesprekken en ruzies, diners, hoe ze met haar ouders is, werktaken e.a.. Ze heeft een “moeilijke” band met haar moeder, maar lijkt meer affectie voor haar vader te hebben. Er is ook de wat oudere tandarts die in huis kwam “Dussel” (ook een Duitse Jood, eigenlijk Frits Pfeffer geheten) die ze vaak maar een raar, en soms vervelend iemand vond. Vooral toch het speelse gezeur van jonge meiden, en die Dussel vond hetzelfde over Anne. Speelse irritaties - soms wat naarder – maar normaal bij elk samenwonen, vooral als zo dicht op elkaar als in dat Achterhuis.

Kwam Anne als “naar” of “vals” kind over, wat sommige lezers later stelden? Nee, in mijn beleving niet. Ze praatte nogal genuanceerd, vaak zelfkritisch, ook erkennend als ze mogelijk te hard was of overreageerde (zoals op haar snauwende, over-opvoedende moeder), en ze was positief over sommige mensen (helpende Bep), zich vooral beklagend als ze zichzelf naar haar beleving te streng of te kritisch behandeld vond worden. Alleszins menselijk en redelijk. Ik vond haar zelfs té zelfkritisch over haar zelf, te onterecht onzeker.

Dat bescheidene en openlijk “onzekere” en twijfel over zichzelf toegeven, heb ik overigens vaker bij vrouwen dan bij mannen aangetroffen in mijn leven, en is sympathieker dan hoe mannen vaak met hun onzekerheden om gaan: eerder deze overschreeuwen door het af te reageren op anderen, anderen vernederen, de pestkop uithangen, valse agressie, loze competitiviteit, e.a.

Anne was ook “zacht” voor zwakheden van sommigen. Peter, de even jonge zoon van een schuilend echtpaar Van Daan, probeerde ze soms van zijn minderwaardigheidscomplex af te praten over bepaalde schoolvakken die hem minder lagen, bijvoorbeeld, door hem te zeggen waar hij wél goed in is. Dat heeft iets “liefs”. Anders dan wat ze tegenwoordig onder jongeren wel “(player) haters” noemen: mensen die je als een soort politieman alleen aanspreken om je te bekritiseren om wat je fout zou doen, mogelijk ter heimelijke demotivatie.

Wat ik ook leuk aan haar, Anne, vond was de typisch vrouwelijke relativeringen, een soort “bird’s view” die het ridicule van situaties goed weergeeft, wanneer nodig. Mijn moeder kon dat in mijn herinnering ook goed.

UITDAGINGEN

Ook haar “uitdagingen” waren typisch vrouwelijk, en ergens ook wel grappig. Een van mijn broers vond dat de taak van vrouwen in deze wereld is mannen te irriteren en ze (positief) uit te dagen. Eigenlijk als aanmoediging dus. Vrouwen plegen communicatief wat sterker dan mannen te zijn – wel mijn ervaring, althans -, en directer qua gevoelens, dus dat werkt dan ook zo. Zeker bij mannen die zich opsluiten in hun egoïsme, en dat zijn er nogal wat, in elke situatie en cultuur. Vrouwen en meisjes “halen soms toch dingen” uit dit soort mannen, meende dus onder meer een van mijn broers.

Anne Frank was al een paar keer ongesteld geweest – schreef ze -, zich dus ontwikkelend tot jonge vrouw. Ze noemde zichzelf een “bakvis”, en had ook kalverliefdes, terugdenkend aan een jongen met wie ze een tijd “ging”, toen ze nog vrij was, voordat ze moest onderduiken. Ze herinnerde zich zijn “mooie bruine ogen”. Later verplaatste haar genegenheid naar leeftijdgenootje, en mede-onderduiker in het Achterhuis, Peter.

Dit is veelzeggend op meerdere manieren, denk ik. Ook psychologisch. De verhulde tragiek toont zich hier in de “afgesloten” normale ontwikkeling voor vrouwen in vrijheid. Ze had nog hoop dat ze uiteindelijk vrij zou komen, hierbij de oorlogsontwikkelingen – opmars van de geallieerden – hoopvol volgend, samen met mede-onderduikers in het Achterhuis, zoals via de BBC radio. Volwassen Achterhuis-bewoners debatteerden ook over het nieuws.

Tijdens de oorlog nam onrust, maar ook diefstal, in Amsterdam toe en er waren inbrekers in het magazijn (voorhuis), met angst voor ook vinden van de onderduikers in het achterhuis. Momenten van angst, terwijl Anne’s verliefdheid op Peter haar afleiding van al die spanningen leek te geven.

De “verering” die meisjes en vrouwen bij dit soort verliefdheden soms hebben, was er ook bij Anne. Hoewel het niet-autoritair is, voel ik altijd wel wat scepsis bij zoiets. Mannelijke jaloezie van mijn kant: “wat heeft hij wat ik niet heb?”. Dat sluit ik niet helemaal uit, ware het niet dat het eerder realiteitszin dan jaloezie is. Goed en slecht zit in iedereen, en sympathie en aantrekking zijn subjectief.

MAN-VROUW

Ik denk daarbij ook dat die “verering” van een jongen niet echt van binnen komt, maar dat zo’n meisje het slechts zichzelf aanpraat, of doet alsof. Ik kan mij echter vergissen. Hoef je iemand echter echt te “vereren” om je in diegene (verliefd) te kunnen verliezen? Is dat het? Het heeft ook iets ongeëmancipeerds, lijkt het, voor zo’n intelligente, “vrij denkende” meid als Anne

Toch, Anne schrijft er dan soms wel “bakvis”-achtig over, maar toch relatief intelligent en reflecterend, gewoon eerlijk zeggend wat ze voelt.

Later in het dagboek bleek ze trouwens wel degelijk geëmancipeerd te denken, en betreurde ze dat mannen teveel de baas over vrouwen spelen, domineren over vouwen, in meerdere culturen. Toch iets anders dan wat we van sommige Islamieten vernemen. Het gezin Frank was Liberaal-Joods en andere Joden in het Achterhuis zelfs sceptisch over “religie”, wat dergelijke progressieve gedachten denkelijk ook de ruimte gaf. Er zijn anno 2026 nog steeds landen op de wereld waar vrouwen zelfs wettelijk tweederangsburgers zijn, dus Anne’s boodschap is niet achterhaald, en nog relevant.

Ik bleef haar bij het lezen eigenlijk wel sympathiek en grappig vinden, die Anne. Ze beschrijft – in haar dagboek – hoe ze een vagina moet uitleggen aan Peter, die daar volgens haar nog niets van wist. Vroegrijp, haha.

Dat doet ze duidelijk, ‘t vrouwelijke geslachtsdeel beschrijven, zij het wat plastisch. Dat doet mij denken aan hoe het was geweest als ik dit boek wel al las rond mijn 13e jaar, toen ik toch al naar de jeugdbibliotheek ging. Mogelijk het “o, zit dat zo”-effect bij mij, want ik had geen zus of nichtjes dichtbij. Zou niet eens zo slecht zijn, want zoals het hoort: via een meisje en leeftijdsgenootje, al past zoiets niet in alle culturen.

Mijn ouders gaven me in ieder geval weinig seksuele voorlichting, slechts vage waarschuwingen. Dat zal ook wel een cultureel ding zijn: Nederlandse vriendjes van me hoorde ik daar wél over.

Zuid-Europeanen waren daar te preuts voor. Of leken dat, want op Italiaanse en Spaanse feesten vond ik de sfeer vaak “flirteriger” dan op Nederlandse “feestjes”. Anne’s heldere beschrijving van de baarmoeder en vagina had geholpen, haha.

LEERGIERIG

Mogelijk omdat ze uit een bepaalde klasse kwamen (haar grootvader Michael Frank had zich in Frankfurt opgewerkt tot rijk ondernemer), en door andere sociaal-culturele factoren, werd studeren en lezen belangrijk gevonden in het Achterhuis, zelfs met een onzekere toekomst. Anne was zeker ook leergierig, maar ze beschreef ook hoe verschillende mensen in het Achterhuis verschillende interesses hadden. Zijzelf vond talen en geschiedenis het interessants, maar vond algebra niets. Ze wilde ook over andere geloven, en bijvoobeeld het Nieuwe Testament, leren. Een “Alfa” dus, zoals ikzelf ook, trouwens.

Anne bleef ook aantrekkelijk schrijven, over toch een beperkte leefruimte, met wel meerdere mensen. Soms een beetje van een “roddel”-gehalte wat je later ook wel in soap opera’s of sitcoms op TV zag (The Bold and the Beautiful, Friends), maar vaak toch ook dieper, met psychologisch en filosofisch inzicht.

HET JOODSE

Interessant vond ik ook hoe Anne “het Joodse” zag, haar volk. In de huidige tijd van “identiteit” – waar ook wel misbruik van gemaakt wordt – is dat ook wel leerzaam.

Volgens een criticus van het neoliberalisme (wat ikzelf ook ben, maar dat terzijde) als (in Nederland) Ewald Engelen dient de overdreven aandacht voor identiteit sinds ongeveer 1990 om sociaal-economische ongelijkheid te overschreeuwen, die toenam door Neoliberaal (pro-kapitaal) economisch beleid in Europa en VS. Een politieke afleidingstactiek dus via gender, ras, etniciteit, geloof, cultuur, zelfs seksuele voorkeur, etcetera. Als het maar niet over “klasse” en machtsverschil gaat, redeneert Ewald Engelen.

Ik kan deels met Engelen’s analyse mee gaan (gewenste afleiding van klasse), maar de “Joodse identiteit” heeft wat eigen kenmerken. Slachtoffers, maar toch in deze tijd een machtige lobby en invloed op sommige terreinen, zeker in de grootmacht (for better or worse) de VS. Christenen, Moslims, en anderen heb ik weleens horen zeggen over Joden: “ze vinden zichzelf uitverkoren door God, boven anderen, dus ze zijn zelf racistisch..”.

ZIONISME

Ook de vermeende invloed van “Zionisten”, - cynisch Israël ondersteunend via invloed op VS politiek - wordt in de huidige tijd als bovenmatig gezien in alternatieve kringen, niet eens alleen door crypto-antisemieten. Mensen als Kees van der Pijl hebben het over internationale machtslijntjes van “zionisten”, soms gretig gesimplificeerd door gefrustreerde moslims (Palestina), of andere Israël-critici.

In het begin van haar dagboek zegt Anne iets over “Zionisten” die zij kende en waar ze over las, maar wat ze als een wat radicale club afdeed, niet de Joodse mainstream. Van der Pijl stelde zelfs dat Zionisten niet per se Joden hoeven te zijn, wat het wel weer wat “vaag” maakt.

Misschien dat Joden voor hun aantal relatief veel invloed hebben in de wereld, maar ikzelf twijfel over die vergaande invloed van Zionisten in de Westerse wereld. Mijn intuïtie en (inmiddels vergaarde, ook professioneel) historische kennis zegt mij dat “zionistische” macht vooral een rookgordijn vormt voor grotere machten of complotten, meer Angelsaksisch van aard, in deze tijd.

Bankenstelsel, NAVO, Pentagon (etcetera, etcetera). Belangen van die partijen (veelal voortvloeiend uit historische wereldmacht/kolonialisme) zijn veel groter – en aantoonbaarder - dan dat van het relatief kleine land Israël, zelfs als in vijandig gebied (Midden Oosten), en wat rijke Joden die wel invloed hebben, maar slechts meeliftend op die Angelsaksische macht. Dat is mijn analyse.

UITVERKOREN

Elk land komt immers op voor het eigen nationale belang – sommige wat verbetener of met meer middelen, weliswaar. Ik ga nog een stap verder.. Ik denk dat stiekem elk volk zichzelf superieur en “uitverkoren” vindt, niet alleen Joden.

Terugkijkend en –denkend van wat ik allemaal gehoord heb: van mijn ouders, van familie in Italië en Spanje, van Nederlanders hier.. Ik kwam professioneel en sociaal ook veel mensen van andere nationaliteiten tegen, ben naar het Caraïbisch gebied geweest, de taal sprekend (Cuba, Jamaica), en woon ook in het internationale Amsterdam.

Wat ik hiervan leerde?: elk volk vindt zichzelf “uitverkoren”, zij het soms anders verwoord (superieur, “beschaafd”, nuchter, Herrenvolk, o.a.). Spanjaarden tegenwoordig met wat meer relativering (zo ook mijn moeder, die zich toch “gewoon” Spaans voelde, maar met humor en zelfspot).

Historisch “nieuwere” landen als Italië hebben die doorgeslagen trots vaak wat verbetener en humorlozer, merkte ik ook als verschil tussen mijn ouders, die elkaars landen ook bekritiseerden. Ook superioriteitswaan die (nog) steeds politiek-economisch bevestigd wordt (Angelsaksische, bijv, Engeland, VS) verliest helaas wat van die zelfrelativering, merk ik. Denk aan de culturele dominantie van de VS (Hollywood, etc.).

Anne Frank zei daar in haar dagboek iets moois en gevat over, in verband met een gesprek met Peter. Peter fantaseerde over “na de oorlog”, en dat hij dan liever als niet-Joods of Christen bekend stond in Europa, maar toch niet hetzelfde kon zijn want (wij) Joden waren toch het “uitverkoren” volk. Anne reageerde hierop met: ik hoop echter ook dat wij Joden ook voor iets goed “uitverkoren” zijn. Met andere woorden, niet slechts voor vervolging, discriminatie, e.d.

Anne voelt zich ook gewoon Joods, en zeker verbonden met het lang lijdende Joodse volk, dat sterk moet zijn, blijkt uit haar schrijfsels, maar stelt daarin ook het menselijke voorop, verlangend naar een tijd waarin ze gewoon mens en niet ”alleen Joods” was. Dit relativeert toch dat “identiteit als wapen” principe dat sommigen hanteren.

Naar mijn eigen overtuiging is het zo dat je eerst een individu bent, een mens, en daarna gevormd door je cultuur en opvoeding. Wat je daarvan mee krijgt en hoe je daarmee om gaat – plus met andere invloeden - , maakt jou als individu uniek. Niet allesbepalend, maar je kan ook niet zonder (cultuur). Dat is dan jouw identiteit, die echter individueel is. Sommige Afro-Amerikanen beschrijven dit type zelfverzekerdheid treffend met "knowing who you are", dus niet slechts "what" you are. Roots and routes.

Ik heb dat geleerd gedurende mijn leven van nu al zo’n 50 jaar, maar Anne leek dat inzicht reeds al wat te tonen rond haar 14e levensjaar, door moeilijke omstandigheden. Ook daarin toonde ze intelligentie, en ergens ook een “zachte” aard.

VERRADEN EN OPGEPAKT

Ik had eerder via de media al vernomen over de afloop van de Achterhuis ondergedokenen: verraden en in Augustus 1944 door de Gestapo opgepakt en vervoerd naar concentratiekampen – Anne overleed zo’n half jaar later aan tyfus in concentratiekamp Bergen-Belsen, net als haar zus.

Ze zaten zo’n 25 maanden ondergedoken in dat Achterhuis aan de Prinsengracht, te Amsterdam, en werden toch opgepakt.

Dit wist ik al en daardoor kregen de laatste pagina’s van haar dagboek wat extra lading, een extra dramatiek. De Duitsers/de Gestapo haalden ze op op 4 Augustus 1944, Anne schreef haar laatste dagboekbrief op 1 Augustus, dus enkele dagen daarvoor. Over haar innerlijke tweestrijd, aansluitend op haar eerdere zelfreflectie en omgang met haar vader, Peter en anderen. Gewoon, zoals Anne schreef. Nietsvermoedend, en blijkbaar kwam de Gestapo – zoals alle kwaadaardige krachten – bij verrassing, onverwachts voor betrokkenen. Het verrassingseffect geeft immorele, onzekere macht psychologisch extra glans, wat het geweten sust, en voor sadisten prettige zelfbevestiging van hun macht geeft.

Wie Anne Frank en de anderen in het Achterhuis verraadden, is nog steeds niet echt bekend, hoewel onderzocht.

ALGEHELE CONCLUSIE

Niet eens om “politiek-correcte” redenen, maar gemeend, kwam Anne Frank op mij als een sympathiek meisje/jonge vrouw over. Ik zou wel zo’n zusje gehad willen hebben.

Dit in verband met een discussie die ik ooit zag op TV, bij de NPO – ik geloof dat Jeroen Pauw presenteerde – over dat Anne eigenlijk een vervelend kind was – maar “gewoon puberde”.

Dat is te relativeren. Naar mijn indruk en ervaringen was ze relatief leergierig en intelligent en – niet onbelangrijk – zelfkritisch, met zelfrelativering. Een fijne combinatie, die je niet vaak treft. Veel mensen vinden zichzelf relatief intelligent, en in deze “neoliberale” tijden - om met Ewald Engelen te spreken – is leergierigheid maar al te vaak gericht op eigenbelang en economisch gewin. Niet bij iedereen, zeker nog niet bij kinderen van 13-15 jaar oud, maar dat zit in dit systeem.

In dat leergierige herken ik mijzelf van die leeftijd, ook wel in andere zieleroerselen van Anne. Ook begon ik rond mijn 13e jaar met schrijven (verhalen, songteksten, gedichten), zijnde toch een zogeheten “creatief type” (evenals Anne). Ook ben ik meer een Alfa (talen, geschiedenis, kunst) dan bijv. een Beta (technische jongens), zoals ook Anne, die volgens haar dagboek het vak algebra vermeed of uitstelde. Ik had daarentegen klasgenootjes (uiteraard jongens) die wiskunde juist het leukste vak vonden en “kickten” op algebra, wat ik dus niet begreep..

Ook wat verschillen, toch: ik was een jongen (meisjes zijn vroeger “seksueel rijp”), en ik was als tiener ook nogal met voetbal en daarna “coole” muziek bezig (andere jongens: met “techniek”), maar had wel relatief meer die intellectuele, “lees” en “bestudeer” neigingen, ook vergeleken met leeftijdgenootjes, die meer passief gangbare massacultuur beleefden (Mainstream media en amusement, TV, Hollywood).

Een ander belangrijk verschil zat hem juist in dat schuilen, het ondergedoken zitten van Anne, met een aantal mensen, in een beperkte ruimte: het Achterhuis aan de Prinsengracht. De buitenwereld figureert indirect, als herinnering en hoop. Zo’n opgesloten context, met onduidelijke uitkomst, doet dan als vanzelf de nadruk leggen op onderlinge relaties, stelt familierelaties op de proef, voor langere tijd. Tijdelijk maakt iedereen dat mee (krap op elkaar in vakantiehuisje, ruzies die eerder niet ontstonden, samenwonen na LAT-relatie), maar in dat Achterhuis dus uitvergroot en langer.

Alle gesprekken, eigenaardigheden, karaktertrekken, dagrituelen van de mede-onderduikers komen dan dichtbij. Dat maakt dit dagboek uniek, ook omdat Anne Frank goed schrijft, het goed duidelijk maakt: de beklemming, de sleur, naast spanning en hoop.

Je wordt op jezelf terug geworpen, wil het cliché dan, wat ook wel waar is. Ook leer je sommige mensen pas beter kennen bij intensieve omgang, al dan niet noodgedwongen, en ook jezelf. Anne dacht dus noodgedwongen meer na; in de vrije wereld kunnen we meer doen om niet te hoeven denken. Ook een verschil met mij, al woonde ik in een saai dorp: er waren mogelijkheden. Ik kon de deur uit, naar de buitenwereld.

Ongetwijfeld zullen opgesloten criminelen ook wel hun verhaal hebben verteld, maar in een andere context, en vanuit een ander perspectief. Adolf Hitler schreef Mein Kampf ook in (zij het tijdelijke) gevangenschap.

Ikzelf weiger het te lezen, maar ik ken mensen (niet eens neo-Nazi’s, maar wetenschappers) die Hitler’s Mein Kampf hebben gelezen, indirect dus Anne’s moordenaar (en van vele anderen, zoals haar).

Omdat het dus geen Neo-Nazi’s waren praatte ik gewoon met deze lezers van Mein Kampf, en zij vertelden over een “drammerige” toon, vol met ideologie, niets persoonlijks of kwetsbaars “eerlijk” van de auteur als individu, maar zich verschuilend in/achter een rancuneuze ideologie en “strijd”. Duitse, Germaanse superioriteit, (internationale) machten die het Duitse volk tegen werken, etcetera.

Waarschijnlijk om te provoceren zei boekenrecensent Rypke Zeilmaker op het alternatieve internet-kanaal Café Weltschmerz dat Mein Kampf hem qua teneur aan de Quran/Koran deed denken, of andersom, maar omdat hij wilde aangeven dat de Bijbel beter geschreven was.

Niet leuk voor mijn Islamitische vrienden, en mogelijk wilde Zeilmaker de Islam hiermee bashen, maar het onpersoonlijke en anti-individualistische – en een agressieve (en autoritaire!) heilsleer – deelde het heel oppervlakkig nog wel. Zowel de Quran – en eigenlijk ook de Bijbel – en ook Mein Kampf, zijn alle ook nadrukkelijk “mannelijke” boeken. Anne Frank’s dagboek duidelijk meisjesachtig/vrouwelijk.

Illustratief legt Hitler in Mein Kampf de schuld van al het slechte bij “anderen”, maar doet Anne Frank in haar dagboek aan zelfreflectie, en heeft het genuanceerd over goed en kwaad in ieder mens.

Wat de een teveel had, had de ander te weinig, kan een cynische conclusie zijn.

Jamaicaanse Rastafari denker/artiest Mutabaruka betoogde dat heilige boeken als de Bijbel en Koran/Quran door “onzekere” mannen (ook qua vrouwen) zijn geschreven, die dat echter goed verhullen. Dat stond hem tegen, ook al was de Rastafari beweging oorspronkelijk ook deels Bijbels gebaseerd (maar met een “Afro-centrische”/zwarte interpretatie).

Overigens is de wat poëtische Quran iets minder destructief/negatief dan de Hadith overleveringen rond Mohammed (oorlogszuchtiger, nog meer haat.. ook mannelijk dus) die fanatieke moslims helaas ook als richtlijn hanteren.

Hoe het ook zij, loze vergelijking of niet: in ieder geval is Anne Franks’ dagboek een eerlijk, menselijk boek, met een gezonde, individuele, zelftwijfelende insteek van een persoon. Eigenlijk gewoon van een open-minded, lief, intelligent meisje – met vaak goede, menslievende standpunten. Je leert haar plezierig kennen in dit dagboek, ook omdat ze “speels” schrijft.

Daarnaast heeft het dagboek aspecten die het uniek maken: de context (opgesloten in onzekere omstandigheden, in Amsterdam, schuilend, oorlogstijd/tijdsbeeld, Holocaust, etc.). Het woord “beklemming”, kwam in mij op.

Uiteraard had ik Anne een langer leven gegund. Ze wilde, zo schreef ze, schrijfster en journaliste worden, en ze was vast een goede geworden. Ze was het eigenlijk al..