Fantan Mojah : reflections

Jamaican Reggae artist Fantan Mojah’s recent passing (14th of July, 2026) is one that I relatively strongly “felt”. It was moreover premature because he was only 49 years old, in fact a few years younger than me. Recently he was dealing with heart condition problems, that was known. Still, relatively young, and a pity.

REGGAE CLUB HITS

I know several of his songs, well-known in Reggae scenes all over the world, including some “Reggae club hits” such as Hungry, Only Jah Love, Stronger, Murderer, and especially Rasta Got Soul, and further some collaboration tunes, such as Dem Nuh Build Great Man (with Jah Cure). I heard them in Amsterdam (Netherlands), where I live.

With such hits at dances or in clubs, Fantan Mojah made quite a name of himself as artist among Reggae fans internationally, as representative of the “New Roots” current, often with Bobo Ashanti affiliations, like Capleton, Sizzla, Anthony B. and others..

The ‘Bobo Ashanti’ are one of the “mansions” (branches/subgroups) within the Rastafari movement, known as relatively strict and disciplined. Prince Emmanuel Charles Edwards played a founding role in it in 1958. Other Rastafari adherents in Jamaica belonged to the oldest Nyabinghi order (since the 1930s), or the more liberal Twelve Tribes (founded in 1968, by Vernon Gad). Members of these separate “mansions” – as they are called biblically – all have influenced Reggae music and its lyrics, especially since the 1970s.

NEW ROOTS

The new “conscious Reggae current” (“New Roots”) since the 1990s was for some reason relatively strongly influenced by members of the Bobo Ashanti mansion within the Rastafari movement, including thus Fantan Mojah whose debut single Hungry was released in 2004.

As Rastafari sympathizer – and lover of conscious Reggae music – I appreciated this new Roots Reggae current by the likes of Sizzla, Capleton, Anthony B, and others, and enjoyed their music, and could agree with the lyrics (mostly).

I still wondered, though, why specifically this Bobo Ashanti branch/mansion within Rastafari became so influential in this later stage. I heard suddenly references to Prince Emmanuel I in newer Reggae, more than in older Reggae, wondering who that was.

Soon I found out, of course, that Prince Emmanuel was the influential founder of the Bobo Ashanti mansion in 1958, a mansion I little by little got to learn more about, due to a curiosity triggered by these newer Reggae artists. A bit older than the Twelve Tribes of Israel mansion (founded in 1968), but newer than the “organic” or “original” Rastafari movement represented by the Nyabinghi order.

RASTAFARI MANSIONS

Even if in some sense divisive within the movement, the history and time-frame behind these Rastafari mansions is interesting. Nyabinghi – known for the heart-beat drumming – arose more or less organically with Rastafari as movement itself in Jamaica (since the 1930s), the Bobo Ashanti was as said founded by Prince Emmanuel in 1958, and 10 years later, in 1968, the Twelve Tribes of Israel mansion was founded by Vernon Carrington (Gad). The latter was thus founded in the “hippy”, “flower power” time in the Western world, but I am not sure whether this reached Jamaica.

There have been travel between Jamaica and the US (migration, tourism, touring, seasonal work) at that time too, of course, as well as mass international media, but either way: there are for some reason similarities in Twelve Tribes views with what people consider “flower power”: progressive, “left-wing”, open- and free-minded, equality across races and gender, but also differences. The Twelve Tribes associated itself also with Biblical Christianity, albeit in a very free way. The “hippies” in the West (Europe, US, etc.) – on the other hand – tended to follow such Flower Power movement precisely because they left behind that Christian, small-minded doctrine of their parents or teachers (be it Protestant and Catholic). There are still some parallels, as also among Protestants and Catholics there arose people who maintained that faith but in a looser, hippy-like way, such as in the Netherlands where I grew up. Some left more conservative, religious (protestant, catholic) political parties for one with more progressive, left-wing views, mixing it somehow. Also the concert venue Paradiso in Amsterdam was – as still visible inside it - once a Church (of a relatively liberal protestant order), but changed in that Flower Power era since the late 1960s, even selling marijuana/weed inside. Sign of the times.

I myself adhere to Rastafari tenets in my own personal way, so do not get stuck in tribal, or divisive thinking: the organic history and the drumming and natural living focus of the old Nyabinghi order appealed to me most, also because it mostly lacked a strict hierarchy. Twelve Tribes had appealing aspects (open-minded progressive, socialist thinking) – at least to me, because of my background - , but also some side-paths I was less interested in (astrology etc.). But to each his own.

BOBO ASHANTI

What ticked me off at first when I learned about the Bobo Ashanti/Shanty mansion, now, was its strict nature, including separation of the sexes, hierarchy (with priests), and taking the Bible too literally, to the point where it loses its deeper sense (in my humble opinion). This translates into sometimes irrational life rules, some limiting/degrading females, we already know too well from other world “religions” (Christianity, Islam, Hindusim, etc.). Conservatism with no sense, to put it in some way. The uneasy relationship between men and women - wanting to separate them, or keeping women subservient - also seemed not really intelligent or mature to me, giving evidence of either male insecurity, or sexual frustration, which maybe some good psychological counseling can help resolve.

The (scholarly) article ‘Rastawoman as rebel: case studies in Jamaica’, written by Imani M. Tafari-Ama, part of the collective volume ‘Chanting down Babylon : the Rastafari reader’ , published in 1998, says specifically about Bobo Ashanti (quoting Tafari-Ama):

“The House of Rastafari is divided into many mansions {……] Patriarchal dogmas all encountered in all realms, and one exists with them – or in spite of – them. One mansion that most clearly organizes around differentiation of roles is the Bobo Shanti […] where gender differentiations, especially as they relate to sexuality, are pronounced”..

BIBLE

Some Rastafari adherents I know found the Twelve Tribes “too Christian”, but the Bobo Shanty are no less Biblically based, even taking more literal its texts. This can even be seen as a unwitting Eurocentric aspect as when Protestantism arose, with the founder Martin Luther in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517, and after spread throughout especially Northwestern Europe, the focus on the “literal” Biblical text was emphasized by Luther, with book printing available, now to be read by each believer. This was Luther’s response to the (in his view) “corruption” by Catholicism’s “intermediaries” (priests, cardinals, the pope, etc.) interpreting it for the masses (often illiterate), but the Bible texts were by the early Protestants often taken very literal and authoritarian, in line with vested interests. This ruined Protestantism’s “free-thinking”, individualistic potential from the start; individualism seemed only valued for material well-being (making money, allowing interest on loans, etc.).

According to Max Weber, Protestant values historically enabled eventually what we call “capitalism”, but unfortunately (religious-wise) not really “free thinking”, but more a moral sense of superiority just for knowing what is said in the Bible.

When Britain colonized Jamaica (capturing it on the Spaniards in 1655), Britain was already a proud Protestant nation, and this (unwittingly) influenced also the Afro-Jamaicans, up to the Rastafari movement, as it – as Mutabaruka pointed out – had to be based (first in the 1930s) on something they knew: e.g. British Christianity as colonial legacy in Jamaica. This is thus even noticeable within such “literal” Biblical influence in Bobo Shanty, who otherwise are Africa-focussed, and call for Black separatism, and living apart from Western Babylon. Ironic, but historically explainable, as so many contradictory issues.

My personal opinion is that the Bible is mostly not to be taken literally, but metaphorically – alongside other perhaps useful writings, world wide -, that all individuals (whatever gender, race, class, o.o.) are equal despite Babylon system's interests, and that Jah lives within each individual, that we should live healthy lives in balance with nature, and that Marcus Garvey and Haile Selassie are pivotal figures in the Rastafari movement, and Africa – and its history - as continent important.

Mostly these aspects seemed shared among all the mentioned “mansions”/branches within Rastafari, so I did not really bother aligning myself with one in particular.

Still, some chose to, including recent and earlier Reggae artists. Bob Marley was associated by some with Twelve Tribes, but neither he seemed to pick consequently any preferred mansion. Dennis Brown the artist also was associated with the Twelve Tribes (in a concrete manner too, community work, etcetera), but seemed to be quite loose too.

TRUE ARTISTS

Maybe the psychological conundrum is that interesting (musical) artists have to have strong, unique personalities – and Reggae luckily knew many of those – which is hard to combine with tribal “group” thinking, with set rules and hierarchies for belonging. Or living as too "disciplined" for that matter. True artists think free.

Rastafari tends after all to value “thinking for oneself” too, as also sung by Burning Spear (on e.g. It Is Good). Burning Spear is also one of those artists who mentions the Twelve Tribes in his lyrics here and there (his “hit” Columbus, for example), but further seems loose and “above” such divisions.

Fantan Mojah thus came to prominence in the Reggae world a bit after Bobo Shanty-adherents Sizzla and Capleton, who came with conscious Reggae since the 1990s, and like them, Fantan certainly had good songs, and a distinctive, intriguing voice, capable of transmitting both militant and more “soulful” messages. He (like Sizzla and others) surrounded himself with Jamaican Reggae musicians who knew how to play it, or sang on extant, but good and timeless “riddims” (instrumentals).

An interesting difference is that Fantan Mojah did not engage much in (digital) Dancehall, as his precursors Sizzla and Capleton partly did more, remaining mostly in the Reggae realm, only in some later songs.

I did not really notice much of the Bobo Shanty vibe I spoke about in his songs, in the sense of making his songs different from e.g. artists without that alliance, apart from mentioning Prince Emmanuel I, as Fantan Mojah does in some songs. Several songs of Fantan Mojah are truly spiritual in a broader Rastafari sense, for instance, others broader militant.

MARCUS GARVEY

AI (advanced Google as I see it) claims that the Bobo Ashanti place Marcus Garvey at a higher level than the other mansions, just praising Selassie. Bobo Ashanti claim to uphold a trinity of Haile Selassie, Marcus Garvey, and Prince Emmanuel . This has doubtful aspects.

I heard Marcus Garvey being mentioned and respected in several Rastafari-inspired Reggae artists (Burning Spear!), also by non-Bobo Ashanti. That Prince Emmanuel takes the liberty to place himself in the company of two great, revered figures by Rastas - and to be equally revered - seemed a bit an ego trip to me, and not very modest. This puts me a bit off, as it reeks of a “cult” around a self-aggrandizing person.

This, combined with a hierarchy, (male-led!) separation of sexes, and some women-unfriendly practices – considering menstruating women as “impure” and therefore to be separated from men – further made me take some distance to it, sticking to the old Nyabinghi order of Rastafari, developed as organically as nature itself, combining it perhaps with selected “progressive/hippy-like” ideas (as also in Twelve Tribes) fitting my personal (family) background, or with aspects from the devoted energy of the Bobo.

Still, I did not get an unpleasant “strict” or “zealot” vibe from most songs of Sizzla, or Fantan Mojah for that matter, I liked. After all, they had many fun-loving and party songs lyrically, also about marijuana, and positive lyrics about peacefully living together.

It is said that even stricter than the other mansions, Bobo Ashanti maintain that smoking weed is strictly meditational and “never” for fun or recreation. A strange contradiction – good fun is in my opinion also in a sense “meditational” . This “pure for meditation” use is formally upheld, yet conflicting with some “ganja (marijuana) as fun” lyrics by Sizzla, Anthony B, Capleton, and other Bobo artists.

As individual artists they don’t take it all so strict or literal, apparently, which I appreciate. Else lyrics become “pushy” and “preaching” in a wrong way. I seldom have that with the “new Roots” with Bobo Ashanti dominance.

They, including Fantan Mojah, tend to express their Rastafari faith in a pleasant, accessible manner lyrically, with good musicianship and songs. So, not as conservative “tight-asses” bothering us with their authoritarian, rigid world view. Only here and there (regarding homosexuality, sexuality) some strict or intolerant views came to the fore, as became known of Sizzla.

Funny, how Capleton – in response to critics – said that “fire” or “bu(r)n” references in lyrics, even “burn battyman/gays” – are meant metaphorically, not literally.

Some of the stricter views of Bobo Ashanti, however, derive from taking the Bible, with ancient Hebrew prescriptions taken more literal than in other branches of Rastafari.

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Bobo Ashanti also live more separate from society than the Twelve Tribes, known to just participate in (Western) society, when inevitable (“normal”, Babylonian jobs), while the Bobo Ashanti strive to self-sufficiency, in own communities. The best known is that at Bull Bay (about 16 km east of Jamaica’s capital Kingston), known as “Bobo Hill”.

This aspect of self-sufficiency appeals to me more, as both “big business” and “big state” in the Western (Babylon) world, have proven to be oppressive, and continu to be today, with new “scams”, like covid, war/military industry, digital ID, control, etcetera, added to their continuing neoliberalism and neocolonialism.

My mother told me that “if people know that you are dependent on them, they will abuse you..”. So for Black, African people in a White-led Western society and economy, self-sufficiency is certainly a good idea. It also is in line with Marcus Garvey’s views, even if outside of ancestral Africa, to which repatriation remained an aim.

The mental strength of trusting in one’s own capabilities might explain the energetic ambitiousness, and work ethic, of some Bobo Ashanti artists, making them dominate the “New Roots” of conscious Reggae music: less diluted by “society” or commercial demands.

RESPONSE TO GANG CRIME?

My personal hypothesis is that I relate it to the risen gang-related and gun-crime in Jamaica since the 1980s. The risen popularity of the “strict”, disciplined mansion of Bobo Ashanti within Rastafari, might well be a response to the inner-city “chaos” of crime, violence, and slackness – especially since the 1980s in Jamaica -, demanding a fierce response, separating from a society enabling this, by way of own communities, such as the one at Bull Bay by the Bobo Ashanti: less temptations of crime there. Thus, Bobo artists like Sizzla came to the fore by the 1990s.

In the end it is – on the other hand – an individual process, guided by individual wisdom. Malcolm X had a chaotic, opportunistic life of crime before he went to jail and joined the (also strict and separatist) Nation of Islam (NOI), but became influential not because he belonged to the NOI, but due to his strength of character, “charisma”, and shown and uttered wisdom. NOI members eventually turned against him, as is known, so “collectivistic group thinking” is not the way. Many criminals in recent times converted to Islam in prison – known in current times in England, for instance - possibly influenced by Malcolm X’s story, often even from non-Muslim backgrounds (e.g. Caribbean), but many of them lacked the personality to be anything more than “wannabe’s”, or even worse, continued with crime thereafter.

VERSATILE

Also an artist like Fantan Mojah clearly seemed to have an own free mind and strong personality, showing in his versatile songs and lyrics, including militant, socially critical, spiritual, emotional, and joyful – in other words broadly “human” - vibes, that resounded well with his and Reggae fans. For that reason, he had many “hit songs” in the Reggae scene, internationally..

LYRICS

Having mostly "conscious" lyrics, attacking injustice, poverty, "Babylon" or spiritual tunes (praising Jah), for good measure Fantan Mojah also made some nice, catchy love songs, often also making it "to the clubs and dances" as well (e.g. She Makes Me Feel So Nice).

Capleton was the one who more or less guided Fantan Mojah in the Reggae music industry, also giving him the name Fantan Mojah, after he embraced Rastafari. Before that Fantan (born Owen Moncrieffe) named himself Mad Killa, after artist Bounty Killer.

His "slave name" Moncrieffe sounds a bit "French", but is originally Scottish (region Perth) and Gaelic, pointing at the specific origins of the European family who once owned his family during slavery days, of course. In the British Caribbean about 70% of the slave owners originally came from England, and about 30% from either Scotland or Wales.

Fantan Mojah has a bit more love songs than his "mentor" (in part) Capleton, who has few. I thought once none, but in time I found out that also Capleton made some love songs. Of course their own choice, but perhaps no extreme is good: only lovey dovey songs? are there no social problems in this world?, or: no personal feelings or love songs? are you not a person of flesh and blood? The balance seemed in this regard okay with Fantan Mojah..

VOCAL STYLE

I personally like several songs of him, noting good musicianship (good Jamaican instrumentalists, including the drumming for a nice, danceable groove) – albeit often on known riddims - and catchy melodies, as well as intriguing, “wailing”, round and thunderous vocals with a unique energy, both for conscious tunes or occasional love songs. Songs with varying themes, from “Babylon a Murderer” to “When Will I See You Again”, therefore equally convinced.

Difficult to compare Fantan Mojah’s singing voice, though it has some similarities with Pressure Busspipe, or with new artists like Stranjah Miller. A slight “tunnel” feel, one might say.

His vocals can be seen as part of the “sing-jay” realm, increasing its popularity within Reggae since the 1990s: chorus melodic/sung, while the verses are dee-jayed/chatted/toasted more rhythmically. Fantan tended to vary melodically, though, even within such verses, also in “tempo” or pace. This added variation and intensity..

LEGACY

Songs that – due to good musicianship – never seemed to grow old, such as his most famous song Reggae Got Soul, which I heard many times in Reggae clubs (Café the Zen in Amsterdam, when it still existed, up to 2020), perhaps hundreds of times, but still I repeatedly enjoyed it. That is a sign of enduring quality.

I met Fantan Mojah in Café the Zen, Amsterdam (Netherlands) in 2017, when he gave there a small-scale “club concert, a kind of intimate one among fans, which was nice as change from the big venues (e.g. Melkweg or Paradiso in Amsterdam) where thousands of people fit, or on festivals. The intimacy gave a “community sense” to the songs we knew – I would even say: more meaning - , differing from the anonymity or (in part) commercial artifice of big venue-concerts. Money talks too loud, there.

After this Café the Zen “club” show in Amsterdam, he stuck around in Café the Zen and partied along with us to Reggae from a selecta/deejay played, and took photos with audience members. Nice vibes. (photo underneath: I-man with Fantan Mojah in 2017)

I saw shows by him in bigger venues too, such as the Melkweg, Amsterdam. The last time being in January 2025, with a good show, with some of his classic songs and club hits coming across well, with not too much interruptions or “flow breaks”. Little did we know this would be his last concert there, though it was known he had health issues.

Fantan Mojah leaves behind several good and catchy Reggae songs with good, positive messages. The dee-jay/selecta “tributes” and mixes made of his songs recently appearing online (e.g. on YouTube) testify to that. Also an older one, at https://youtu.be/fj77YLxJ5rM?si=aGyFTY1wopGqd4cf , by DjEasy mixmaster, I can recommend.

I have no specific favourite songs of Fantan Mojah as such, though among them would probably be Tell Lie Pon Rasta and Murderer, both engaging in their Rasta militancy and tune-wise, or the vocally varied Jah Time. More songs I like, though.
Rest In Eternal Power.

Marcuse, de Eendimensionale Mens, en deze tijd : een perspectief

Het boek 'De Eendimensionale Mens' is een filosofisch werk uit 1964 door Herbert Marcuse, lid van de (blijkbaar) roemruchte Frankfurter Schule, binnen de filosofie. Marcuse was Joods-Duits (vandaar Frankfurt), die later in de VS ging wonen. Diens boek was historisch invloedrijk en had zelfs een “cult status” bij onder meer Flower Power adepten/aanhangers – die later in de 1960s opgang maakten -, begreep ik, waardoor ik het ook wilde lezen.

Het boek had ook een “linkse”, anti-kapitalische teneur vernam ik her en der, wat mij ook niet afstootte. Ik had geen vooringenomen ideologie die dat niet toe liet, zeg maar.

Ik trof een debat op YouTube, ooit gehouden in de Balie – debatcentrum te Amsterdam -, in 2023, dat ging over dat werk, met interpretaties van andere Nederlandse filosofen van Marcuse’s werk, met name het boek de Eendimensionale Mens, dat ik enkele jaren terug al las, en inmiddels deels “herlees”. Dat debat was naar aanleiding van een “nieuwe vertaling” – volgens panelleden een toegankelijker vertaling (naar het Nederlands) – dan die veel eerdere Nederlandse vertaling welke ik nog lees (uit 1968). Het gaat echter uiteindelijk om de inhoud.

Terwijl ik dit schrijf, vindt het WK voetbal van 2026 in VS-Mexico-Canada plaats, dat ik eigenlijk ook wil volgen. Ik heb toch iets met voetbal – als sport - , wat ik nog steeds kan combineren met mijn intellectueel zelfbeeld, ondanks de loze commercie en het primaire tribalisme wat er ook bij voetbal op dat niveau is. In mijn leven volgde het historisch op elkaar. Ik was als kind best een fanatiek voetballertje, volgde competities, las de Voetbal International (deels), en verdiepte me zelfs in speltactieken.

Trainen vond ik wat saaier, en toen ik brildragend werd (rond mijn 12e) werd het voetballen zelf lastiger, en ging ik eigenlijk heel organisch en terloops meer lezen, en werd lid van de openbare bibliotheek. Vreemd genoeg legde ik sindsdien een vergelijkbaare mate van passie voor lezen, over met name landen en culturen, voor de dag, als daarvoor met voetbal. Zo fascineerde mij rond mijn 11e al het land Tsjaad in Afrika: deels in de Sahara, culturele en etnische verschillen tussen noord en zuid. Ik werd hoe dan ook een boekenwurm, direct nadat ik een tijd een “voetballer” was.

Met technische – of “beta” - onderwerpen had ik minder, dus vrijwillig ging ik vooral menselijke geschiedenis, samenleving, en cultuur, bestuderen, en dat wereldwijd, soms gespecialiseerd.

Bij dit alles bleef ik voetbal als sport een leuk vermaak vinden, en mogelijk meer dan dat. Mogelijk dient het psychologisch als “tegenwicht” voor lezen, denken, studie en diepzinnig, abstract doen, naar het echt tastbare, fysieke, en concrete – directe actie en reactie – van het voetbal. Van theorie naar praktijk.., zoiets.. Als een rare, soms ongemakkelijke variant van “yin en yang” uit het Chinese Taoïsme.

TAAIE KOST

Op dit moment loopt dat voor mij wat ongemakkelijk door elkaar heen, tijdens dit WK voetbal van 2026. Herbert Marcuse’s boek de Eendimensionale Mens is interessant en – vind ik – treffend over de Westerse samenleving (al in 1964!), maar is qua schrijfstijl – taalkundig ook – “taaie kost”. Lange zinnen, met veel bijzinnen en verwijzingen. Het vocabulaire vond ik niet ingewikkeld, met mijn woordenschat (laten we zeggen HBO en hoger). Herlezen voor goed begrip bleek echter wel vaak nodig, vooral door de lange zinsbouw. Ik herlees het boek nu na jaren, en moet nog steeds zinnen soms herlezen bij het herlezen.

Ook tijdens dat debat in de Balie in 2023, welke ik noemde, erkende men dat het boek “taaie kost” was. Het is diep filosofisch en vol met lange, gecondenseerde, betekenisrijke zinnen.

Wel wat diepgaander en veeleisender, dus, dan voetbal kijken op het scherm, in essentie naar 20 mannen die achter een bal aan rennen, en een land vertegenwoordigen.

“Taai” of ingewikkeld om te lezen, Marcuse’s boek, maar uiteindelijk vervullend en leerzaam, ervoer ik. Marcuse’s punten worden uiteindelijk duidelijk, nadat hij eigenlijk – via aanvullende voorbeelden – in herhaling valt over een aantal thema’s.. met heel wat complexe zinnen. Het punt is op een gegeven moment wel duidelijk, al blijft het interessant omdat hij verschillende maatschappelijke aspecten en ontwikkelingen van toen (1964) bespreekt, die zeker vandaag de dag nog relevant zijn: zowel economische als culturele aspecten.

De ondertitel “Studies over de ideologie van de hoog-industriële samenleving” geeft helder de focus en context aan van Marcuse’s essay, namelijk van een steeds meer geïndustrialiseerde samenleving, inclusief automatisering, en een belangrijke rol voor technologie.

Zijn boek/essay De Eendimensionale Mens bekritiseert eigenlijk het toen (door technologie) moderne kapitalisme, vooral waar het zich totalitair uitbreidt naar “cultuur” en de “vrije tijd”, terwijl Karl Marx het nog vooral over arbeiders en productieverhoudingen had.

INKAPSELING

Marcuse heeft het er eigenlijk over hoe gewone burgers, en die arbeiders, betrokken worden bij dat exploiterende kapitalisme via consumentisme: dingen kunnen kopen, en de schijn-vrijheid van in je behoeften voorzien door te kopen producten, of diensten. Je zo ook als individu zogenaamd te laten gelden, een identiteit te vormen. Met technologische vooruitgang, en via taal, wordt dat consumentisme zo vanzelfsprekend gemaakt, totdat mensen het systeem niet meer bevragen omdat ze “ingekapseld” zijn, ook in hun vrije tijd. Aldus het betoog van Marcuse.

Inderdaad valt het woord “ingekapseld” veel tijdens het genoemde debat in De Balie over Marcuse’s boek. Ontwapening door inkapseling via consumentisme.

Me dunkt nog steeds actueel, in 2026, stel ik. Die voetbalwedstrijden van het WK (nu van 2026) worden onderbroken en omgeven door reclames, waardoor het voetbal een bijzaak lijkt. Hetzelfde is gebeurd met ander “vermaak”, namelijk het Internet en YouTube, als je gewoon even zonder speciaal (te betalen!) abonnement wat liedjes wil luisteren, of clips wil bekijken.

Denkelijk is “top” voetbal nog veel commerciëler dan “pop” muziek: ergens kun je nog wel op YouTube bijvoorbeeld fijne historische muziekconcerten vinden van, bijvoorbeeld, Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, of Nirvana. Historische voetbalwedstrijden die voetballiefhebbers begrijpelijkerwijs nog wel zouden willen zien (finale WK 1970: Brazilië – met Pelé! – tegen Italië) kun je daarentegen wel vergeten: afgeschermd vanwege commerciële belangen.

Al deze steeds hinderlijkere commerciële afbakeningen en reclame’s bij bij de massa relatief populaire (passieve) cultuurbeleving anno 2026, illustreren goed dat Marcuse’s De Eendimensionale Mens uit 1964 nog steeds actueel is, en waarachtige tendensen aanwees, die zelfs toenamen. De inkapseling door het systeem, “the powers that be”, van het gewone volk, inclusief de arbeiders, van het hele leven, en niet alleen “werk”.

Panelleden in het voornoemde De Balie debat uit 2023 – Marian Donner en (min of meer) “Marcuse kenner” filosoof Thijs Lijster – vonden het inderdaad ook nog in deze tijd actueel.

Zo las ik dat boek ook. Vanuit mijn persoonlijke levenservaring, en mijn perspectief. Ideologische vooringenomenheid verstart – en beperkt – het vrije denken. Zo schijnt Marcuse – evenals anderen van de Frankfurter Schule – zowel door Karl Marx als Sigmund Freud beïnvloed te zijn, en inderdaad noemt Marcuse ze ook in De Een-dimensionale mens, evenwel zeker niet als dogmatische richtlijn: hij blijft als individu zelf redeneren, wat het ook leesbaarder maakt voor mij als individu.

SEKSUALITEIT

Behalve over arbeidsverhoudingen, technologische vooruitgang, taal als manipulatiemiddel, en vrije tijd, bespreekt Marcuse ook een specifiek onderwerp als seksualiteit. Voorspelbaar komt daar Freud om de hoek kijken, maar ook wat dat betreft denkt Marcuse echt zelf, en praat niemand na. De passages over seksualiteit vond ik tot de interessantste behoren, want “raak”, maar ook zelfs mijn “ogen openend”, of in ieder geval helder beschrijvend wat ik ergens al vermoedde.

Zijn beschrijving van hoe het “libido” door laten we zeggen “de elite” ingekapseld is in het systeem van technologische, economische vooruitgang vond ik interessant en herkenbaar. Taboes vielen weg in de 1960s, men mocht vrijer de seksualiteit beleven, maar dat bracht volgens Marcuse ook een “desublimatie”, een “onttovering” ervan teweeg. Via onder meer de porno-industrie werd seks derhalve genormaliseerd als deel van het systeem, en elke “vlucht” of geestelijke rebellie via “eros” of seks, tegen de bestaande verhoudingen of machten, zo handig door machthebbers onschadelijk gemaakt.

Om uit het boek te citeren (vertaling 1968):

“De technische vooruitgang en het comfortabeler leven maken het mogelijk, dat er in het geheel van produktie en ruil systematische libidineuse componenten worden opgenomen. Hoezeer het opwekken van de instinct-energie ook onder controle gebeurt (soms zelfs in die mate dat het een wetenschappelijk management van de libido wordt); hoezeer het ook dienst doet als stut voor de status quo – het blijft bevredigend voor de gemanipuleerde individuen, net zoals het leuk is met een buitenboordmotor te spelen, de gemotoriseerde grasmaaier te besturen en hard te rijden in een auto”..

Ware woorden, lijkt mij, al heb ik zelf met de laatste activiteiten te weinig ervaring om die met seks te kunnen vergelijken, haha.

Ook een voorbeeld van de vaak wat complexe, gelaagde zinsbouw in het boek, maar zeker een zinnige analyse.

TAAL

Veel van het boek gaat over hoe “taal” ook manipulerend gebruikt wordt, bij die “inkapseling” van het volk (of: de arbeiders): voormalige tegenstellingen worden opgeheven en verwarrend gemengd, ook voor militaire, politieke, of bedrijfsdoelen, waardoor alternatieve denkwijzen als het ware door de taal onzichtbaar worden, en de ware aard verduisterd. Dit dient het “operationalisme”, zoals Marcuse het noemt, van die machthebbers. Nog een citaat uit het boek, wellicht nog wat ingewikkelder dan die eerdere die ik gaf:

“..Hier brengt het functionaliseren van de taal een verkorting van betekenis tot uiting, die ook politiek gezien van belang is. De namen van dingen zijn niet alleen ‘een aanwijzing voor hun wijze van functioneren’, maar hun (feitelijke) wijze van functioneren bepaalt en ‘omsluit’ ook de betekenis van het ding, door andere wijzen van functioneren uit te sluiten. Het zelfstandig naamwoord beheerst op een autoritaire en totalitaire manier de zin, en de zin wordt een verklaring die aanvaard moet worden; het verzet zich tegen een bewijs, voorbehoud, ontkenning van zijn gecodificeerde en uitdrukkelijke betekenis..”

Een hele mond vol, inderdaad. Met flink wat even complexe zinnen herhaalt Marcuse ditzelfde punt in dit boek – mogelijk wat te vaak - , maar dat maakt het nog niet onwaar.

Marcuse heeft daarmee naar mijn mening zeker een punt, en een die vandaag de dag nog zeker actueel is. Manipulatie via taal is zo oud als de mensheid, en manipulatie via het geschreven woord zo oud als het schrift en de boekdrukkunst.

Ik betoog zelfs (zong ik zo in songteksten van mij) dat taal vooral gereedschap om te liegen biedt, voor een groot deel althans.

Dit slaat los van meer pragmatische, direct-praktische woorden of termen in de taal die geen ontplooiing van hun betekenis nodig hebben, zoals Marcuse zelf ook erkent, maar daarbuiten biedt “gangbare taal” genoeg manipulatie en “propaganda” mogelijkheden, voor de commercie, politiek, macht, voor verhulling van onrecht, voor verhulling van machtsverschil, etcetera.

Deze inkapseling via taal en consumentisme – inspelend op menselijke behoeften – leidt dan tot een “gelukkig” maar “vals" bewustzijn, volgens Marcuse, bij burgers, als enig overblijvende dimensie van de moderne technologische rationaliteit. Die ene dimensie.

TRANSCENDENTIE EN SUBLIMATIE

In die technologische rationaliteit is dan zogenaamd het “obscurantisme” overwonnen, maar ook de “transcendentie” uit de werkelijkheid gehaald, waardoor de eendimensionale samenleving is bereikt.

Impliciet stelt Marcuse dus dat de wereld – of de mensheid – daarentegen die transcendentie nodig heeft, alsmede “sublimatie”.

Sigmund Freud zag in “kunst” een sublimatie van meer primaire driften (seks willen, met name), maar als die primaire driften dus (economisch, commercieel) ingekapseld zijn, zoals Marcuse stelt, wordt die kunst ook minder rebels en transcenderend.

Ook dat is anno 2026 nog relevant, en naar mijn inschatting bewaarheid in de steeds commerciëlere pop-cultuur en populaire muziek, met steeds minder en gemarginaliseerde maatschappijkritiek of “inhoud”, behalve in sommige genres die erom bekend staan (Reggae, “conscious” hip hop), maar die meestal ook niet commercieel succesvol zijn, en in niches blijven. Hetzelfde geldt voor literatuur, waarbij voorspelbaarheid, bevestiging, en goedkope en veelal verkeerd gerichte “identiteitspolitiek” beter verkoopt dan wezenlijke systeem- of maatschappijkritiek. Hetzelfde geldt voor andere kunstvormen.

Transcendentie is te vertalen als “overstijging”. Behalve maatschappij- of systeemkritiek kan dat ook een “bird’s view” of “uitzoomen” betekenen in een meer spirituele zin: buiten de dingen staan om ze te beschouwen, echt erbuiten staan. Ook dat is er steeds minder in de kunsten, maar ook in zogenaamd “linkse” kringen, of andere naar eigen zeggen kritische bewegingen.

De Balie had als debatcentrum ooit een “links”, vrijdenkend imago, totdat bleek dat bepaalde thema’s die vanuit de gevestigde politiek aangezwengeld en gepromoot werden – veelal op dubieuze, gebrekkige gronden – niet betwijfeld werden, en men “meelulde” om het op zijn Hollands te zeggen: het coronabeleid, het klimaatbeleid, LGBTI problematiek, en zelfs de NAVO (en het militair-industrieel complex) – toch ooit een populaire kop van jut voor “Links” – werden en worden gespaard, mogelijk vanwege financiering door die NAVO van De Balie, zoals een gedurfd interviewende Linkse podcaster (Left Laser) aantoonde. Corruptie, eigenlijk dus, en wat men eerder “Rechts” zou noemen..

Illustratief had men het bij het debat over Marcuse’s boek dat plaats vond in 2023 (na al die corona onzin dus) en diens huidige relevantie, alleen over het “klimaat” als probleem, en een vage maar lekker links-lijkende actiegroep als Extinction Rebellion.

Er was niet alleen onzin: ook het neoliberalisme werd meer terecht ook bekritiseerd tijdens dat debat, dat ik al met al wel okee vond. Marian Donner heeft leuke denkbeelden, en zij en Thijs Lijster vatten de kern van het boek grotendeels goed samen.

Het is daarnaast aan iedereen om Marcuse’s bevindingen toe te passen hoe men wil. Als je echt in klimaatopwarming wilt blijven geloven, dan pas je Marcuse’s stellingen daarop toe, bijvoorbeeld; nogmaals het verstarde en beperkte van ideologie. Mensen kunnen helaas maar al te makkelijk alles naar hun ideologie en vooroordelen toe redeneren.

Ik geloof wel in het bestaan van milieuvervuiling, maar niet zozeer in klimaatopwarming, omdat er eenvoudigweg geen wetenschappelijk bewijs voor is (hoeveel ik ook zocht), en het klimaatbeleid “the powers that be” wel heel goed uit komen: zo hoeven ze niet echt iets aan milieuproblemen door grote bedrijven te doen, en die machten kunnen ze zo ontzien. Mogelijk is dat ook de reden waarom de multinational Shell al vanaf het begin dus bij die klimaatdiscussie betrokken is.. Dubieus..

Dat idee van “inkapseling” is dus een centraal thema van het boek, waarvoor Marcuse ook andere, min of meer synonieme begrippen als “assimilerend” gebruikt.

ONONTGONNEN TERREINEN

Volgens Karl Marx zou het kapitalisme ten onder gaan aan zijn eigen contradicties, Rosa Luxemburg vulde echter aan dat het kapitalisme iets onontgonnens buiten zichzelf nodig heeft om toch (parasitair) te overleven, zijnde bijvoorbeeld koloniën in de tropen en hun grondstoffen, terwijl Marcuse dat “onontgonnen terrein” in de privé-sfeer, de “vrije tijd” van de arbeiders (“het volk”), ook in het Westen, zag. Dat hele leven van arbeiders en burgers zou dus ook geassimileerd worden in het kapitalistisch systeem, middels consumptie, ideologie, en taal/propaganda.

We kunnen echter nog verder gaan, en die “inkapseling” gaat in mijn analyse historisch – thans (sinds de 1980s) - door naar andere onontgonnen terreinen. De Trias Politica werd ontheiligd, met name sinds de opkomst van het neoliberalisme, sinds ongeveer 1980: staatsgesteund kapitalisme door grote bedrijven. Dit was na Marcuse’s tijd, maar zette de lijn van “inkapseling” voort richting politiek (door economische machtsverhoudingen). Politiek werd steeds meer ingekapseld door “big business” en multinationals.

In lijn daarmee is een nieuwere inkapseling gaande, die met name tijdens de Covid periode pijnlijk zichtbaar werd. Wederom na Marcuse’s tijd, maar dezelfde tendens. Zelfs zogenaamd anti-systeem “links”, en activistische in naam anti-overheids en anti-big business organisaties bleken opvallend trouwe volgers van overheidsbeleid, zelfs als met zoveel losse eindjes en ongerijmdheden als dat wereldwijde Covid-beleid vanaf 2020, of als het verhaal – hoe onbewezen ook – dramatisch en “links-activistisch” klinkt, zoals de grotendeels verzonnen klimaatalarmisme hype.

Het etnische, gender, queer, en andere “identiteit” denken werd volgens meerdere auteurs (waaronder Ewald Engelen) gestimuleerd door het neoliberalisme sinds 1980, om af te leiden van klasse en machtsverschil. Ook duidelijk een voorbeeld van inkapseling binnen het systeem waarbij een identiteit nog steeds binnen de bestaande machtsverhoudingen van het moderne kapitalisme operereert, vaak met dezelfde terminologie, en dus onschadelijk, ongevaarlijk blijft.

Subsidiestromen van de overheid spelen hierbij een rol, maar net zo goed meer onbewust een totalitaire ideologie, waarbuiten het leven moeilijk wordt gemaakt. Dezelfde “ideologie” waar Marcuse over sprak, maar dat als monster ook steeds meer opslokte, inclusief dus nu zelfs kapitalisme-kritische organisaties.

Debatcentrum De Balie zelf illustreert die inkapseling, onder meer met dwaze afdwalingen richting “klimaat” en “extinction rebellion” zoals tijdens dat 2023 debat, gecombineerd met de bevinding dat de NAVO De Balie financierde, ter pacificatie van eventuele kritiek. Debatten – hoe wellicht divers qua standpunten ook - blijven dan binnen het systeem en de bestaande machtsverhoudingen. Het is feitelijk een subtiele censuur.

Het komt mij voor dat Marcuse zeker nog relevant is in deze tijd, maar dan met name gezien de inkapseling van politiek en activistische tegenspraak in de laatste decennia, chronologisch volgend op eerst het inpassen van de arbeiders – en hun privé-leven – binnen de ideologie van de op consumptie gerichte hoog-industriële kapitalistiche samenleving.

Daarop - met name sinds het neoliberalisme - volgde dus die inkapseling van “tegen-geluiden” en anti-systeem activisten, waardoor het nog totalitairder werd dan het al was. Daarbij kwam ook censuur, in verschillende vormen. Bij propaganda hoort immers ook censuur.

Het Covid en “klimaat” beleid zoals dat in Nederland gevoerd werd liet een geslaagde “ inkapseling” van activistische organisaties, zelfs de wat radicaal-linksere milieu-organisaties, of wat linksere politieke partijen die eerder kritisch waren op het systeem (SP, GroenLinks, Dierenpartij).

Met geld kun je veel kopen en “inkapselen”, een toenemende tendens waar Marcuse dus terecht op wees.

UITWEG?

Hoe komen we hier uit, uit die totalitaire “inkapseling”?, zoals Marcuse die beschreef, was een interessante vraag aan het einde van het debat in De Balie. Ook een moeilijke vraag.

Een pasklaar antwoord anders dan als een radicalinski “dit systeem moet vallen” zeggen (wel een nieuw begin, maar mogelijk ook onrust en chaos met oorlog), heb ik uiteraard ook niet. Groeiend bewustzijn is in ieder geval een goed begin.

Een bezwaar wat ik nog wel maken kan tegen Marcuse’s redenering is dat hij wat te simplistisch veronderstelt dat ieder mens als 'n passieve robot mee gaat in die “inkapseling” door machthebbers in het systeem via taal trucjes, onderwijs, (politieke) manipulatie, consumentisme, inspelen op je behoeften, propaganda en censuur, en dergelijke.

Veel mensen, ook laagopgeleide mensen, hebben toch nog een bepaald gezond verstand, een oer-intuïtie, of bewustzijn, dat er iets niet klopt: dat bedrijven producten aan je willen verkopen, je geld willen, dat politici liegen, machthebbers die macht willen houden. Dat wordt soms als “populisme” weg gezet, maar als het zich niet richt op verkeerde zondebokken (migranten, bijvoorbeeld) – of verblind is door ideologie – zit daar wel degelijk een volkse wijsheid in, die men ook wel “wisdom of the crowds” noemt. Mensen aan de onderkant staan toch iets losser in het systeem dan hoger opgeleide ambtenaren, of goed verdienende “account managers” in commerciële bedrijven, met voorspoedige carrières.

Zeker, velen van “het gewone volk” doen mee met die “passieve consumptie”, of laten zich ook in de maling nemen door politici of het hele systeem, maar hun belangen zijn minder verbonden aan dat systeem. Dat geeft hoop voor een groeiend bewustzijn en een “grotere weigering” waar men het ook in ’t debat van De Balie over had, en ook de naam van een werk van panellid Marian Donner ( ‘De Grote Weigering’).

Mensen proberen in zo’n totalitair systeem altijd hun eigen, semi-vrije draai te vinden, iets van vrije wil te behouden, als het moet verhuld. Dat kent men ook van totalitaire samenlevingen/dictaturen, waarin men zich weinig aantrekt van een alomtegenwoordige en opdringerige overheid, hoe dwingend aanwezig ook.

Ik merkte dat bij mijn Spaanse familie onder de Franco dictatuur in Spanje (1939-1975), waarvan de meesten geen “politieke dieren” waren, maar zichzelf veelal wel links of democratisch vonden.. en die Franco en zijn regime maar probeerden te negeren.

Hetzelfde is bekend van andere dictaturen of totalitaire samenlevingen, soms zelfs met een sterk gepropageerde ideologie. Als de ideologie een grote groep aanspreekt, veelal omdat het ”slim” appeleert aan basale, aanwezige driften (tribaal, competitie, overleving, oorlog, raciaal), zal het meer draagvlak onder een volk vinden, maar toch ook niet helemaal.

Via inspelen op behoeften en dat “prettig verdovende” “gelukkig” of “vals” bewustijn via welvaart en consumptie – zoals Marcuse betoogt - is dat passieve draagvlak er ook, net zo als “raciale superioriteit” aansprak bij een deel van de Duitsers onder de Nazi’s (en eerder bij Britten en andere Europeanen in de koloniale tijd), of Italiaanse trots bij Italianen onder Mussolini, goed georganisserde staatsverzorging in communistische landen (ook verdovend, wellicht), of religieuze superioriteitswaan en tribalisme bij radicaal-Islamitische regimes.

Toenemend bewustzijn is de manier om een dergelijk pervers draagvlak – gebaseerd op illusies en propaganda – te ondermijnen of af te laten kalven, vooral als duidelijk wordt hoeveel slachtoffers dat totalitarianisme heeft, hoeveel mensenrechten het schendt, hoezeer het vrijheid en geluk – en gelijkwaardigheid – voor de meeste mensen als individu beperkt, als men maar voorbij particuliere deelbelangetjes kijkt: als man heb je het wat makkelijker onder de Taliban of in Soedan, Saoedi Arabië, of Iran, als rijke kapitalist in dit systeem, als partijlid in dictaturen, etcetera. Degenen die de klappen opvangen, die lijden, zijn “de anderen”, de zwakkeren. Jammerlijk ontbreekt solidariteit daarmee nog teveel.

Een ander kritiekpunt(je) op Marcuse’s stelling is dat hij de “passiviteit” van die inkapseling ook overdrijft in de zin dat hij lijkt te vergeten dat er ook “welbegrepen eigenbelang” bestaat, met gevestigde belangen.

Mensen uit welvarende families in big business, of met politieke macht – de “elite” -, weten heel goed dat de taal manipulerend werkt en van die gelaagde inkapseling van arbeiders door economie en technologie in het moderne kapitalisme (nu: neoliberalisme), en steunen dat omdat ze weten dat zij er goed uit komen, uit die ongelijkheid. Heel wat mensen steunen daarom bewust die “ideologie” , waar Marcuse het over heeft. Ze doen er eerder bewust dan passief aan mee. De passief-meedoende massa is voor dat systeem echter nog steeds nodig, en daar zit mogelijk een kiem van verandering, verzet, weigering.. met andere woorden: een uitweg uit die totalitaire “inkapseling” in die eendimensionale samenleving.

Een systeem gebaseerd op exploitatie van een meerderheid kan immers niet voor eeuwig stand houden, en die andere “dimensies” zullen er toch bij komen. De mens is immers – betoog ik - van nature ook niet “een-dimensionaal”.

Marcuse wees op het belang van transcendentie, ofwel “overstijging”, dus het herwinnen van echt vrij levensgeluk, eigen genot, via vrijheid, van individuele mensen. Ook betreurde hij – in zekere zin – de desublimatie (“onttovering”) van kunst, en andere menselijke gedragingen, door die technologische vooruitgang. Mogelijk biedt de “kunst” - of breder: cultuur - die nog niet ingekapseld is, via maatschappijkritiek of meer “spiritueel”, een uitlaatklep, maar ook wie weet een vehikel voor dat toenemende bewustzijn en geestelijke en daarna fysieke bevrijding van de onderdrukte mensen in deze wereld. Een internationale, en multiculturele dimensie lijken mij daarbij onontbeerlijk.

SAMENVATTEND

Mijn perspectief op en mening over Herbert Marcuse’s boek/essay De Eendimensionale Mens staat geenszins diametraal tegenover wat panelleden in dat filosofisch De Balie debat erover zeiden, zijnde Marian Donner en Thijs Lijster. Met hen was ik het regelmatig eens. Wel kon ik het meende ik aanvullen vanuit mijn perspectief en ervaring. Dat in De Balie, gecorrumpeerd door NAVO inmenging als we Left Laser mogen geloven, de door mij geconstateerde nieuwste “inkapselingen” van de politieke en linkse activistische tegenkrachten slechts mondjesmaat genoemd worden, maar grotendeels vermeden als thema, was te verwachten vanuit schuld- en/of schaamtegevoelens. Dan moet ik er maar mee komen.

Het blijft echter mijn persoonlijke mening, maar wel een “gedocumenteerde” mening gebaseerd op degelijke informatiebronnen en historische kennis, zeg ik er ter mijn verdediging bij.

Anderen, in Nederland en daarbuiten, filosofen of niet, zelfverklaard “links” of zelfverklaard “rechts”, hebben weer een ander perspectief op Marcuse’s werk en de huidige relevantie ervan. Dat betekent dat het wel invloed had, volgens sommigen goed, volgens anderen slecht, maar aantoonbaar in niet alleen het publieke debat, maar ook op universiteiten (zegt men), en op Flower Power en andere sociale bewegingen sinds de 1960s en 1970s, in meerdere Westerse landen. Rechtse (zelfverklaard “rechts” bedoel ik daarmee) ideologen bekritiseren het “cultuur marxisme” waar Marcuse en de Frankfurter Schule voor zouden staan, en dat universiteiten “links” gemaakt zou hebben, maar waarom dat zo slecht is wordt voor mij niet altijd duidelijk. Het lijkt mij ook onwaar of minstens overdreven.

Bovendien.. waarom zou de klassenstrijd geen invloed kunnen hebben op de cultuur? Dat lijkt mij zelfs realistisch als analyse. Het is geenszins een oproep tot “marxistisch geplande cultuur”, wat Marcuse nergens doet of betoogt: hij geeft slechts zijn analyse. “Denkrichtingen”, zo je wilt.

Deze, bovenstaande, post was weer mijn analyse van Marcuse’s analyse, waarbij ik “sturende” ideologie en vooringenomenheden er buiten probeerde te houden, maar wat meeging met Marcuse’s “denkrichting”. Ik observeer hierbij naar mijn idee slechts wat machthebbers in deze tijd doen ten opzichte van arbeiders/het volk, in nominale democratische landen als Nederland, en hoe totalitair dat eigenlijk is, en steeds meer wordt.

Marcuse's boek bood mij daarvoor een handvat, een "denkrichting" inderdaad, die ik wel zelf verder doordacht.

"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), additive 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 the 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” or “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 have been 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 survival. 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.