Bodiliy integrity: control and autonomy

What really is “bodily integrity”? That is a question I ask myself not only for this post, but it is in fact something I asked myself during a large part of my life, subconsciously, later consciously.

It is a good and necessary question for human beings, consisting in essence of an elaboration of our own innate survival sense (“spirit”, “soul”).

It goes beyond the body, and that is where it gets tricky, and connected with all manmade corruptions and wickedness. Violence, rape and molestation, enslavement, confinement, are all sensed bodily, yet reflect overall power differences, the lack of an “own input” or “say” in it, so to speak, to whatever is done to our body. Therefore to us.

Crucially, in human rights discourses, the “freedom of movement” is often seen as part of this “bodily integrity”, not as a distinct, separate “right”. This makes perfect sense, yet in practice is still separated by higher authorities, with manmade boundaries, and border control. Recently with imposed curfews, supposedly in relation to a pandemic (some say plandemic). Bodily integrity, as long as you don’t move or travel too much or freely..

This corruption and confusion is so strong and even taken for granted to some degree.

As Bob Marley – as so often – put it simply yet eloquently in his lyrics for the song Rebel Music: “Why can’t we roam this open country? Why can’t we be what we want to be? We want to be free..” .

GYPSY IDEAL

There exists something of a “gypsy ideal”. The feel of total disconnect with responsibilities, living by the day, no steady place, while travelling free. As modern societies became sedentary, the echoes of the “nomadic” human forebears, were both feared and missed.

That gipsy romanticism is found in parts of Europe with relatively many actual “Gypsies”, now more known as Roma or Romani. Roma people – most probably originally from North Western India (Rajasthan) – got known as “calé” (from their own language) in Spain. In Western Europe, Spain is the country with historically relatively most Roma (Gypsies) inhabitants, while in Eastern Europe, Bulgaria and Romania have relatively most Roma “gypsies” , and quite some also in some other countries in the Balkan region.

Music and songs made by Gypsies in Spain, and in Eastern Europe, often convey that “nomad” or “gypsy” spirit of freedom and roaming, against confinements and obstacles from the sedentary surroundings (discrimination, limitations, persecutions, etc.).

The genres are different, as many Gypsies are active in South Spanish Flamenco music, which is exactly that: South Spanish music in origin, with different historical influences in that region (inc. Moorish ones, local ones, a.o.), but with later added Gypsy/Roma influences.

Flamenco is thus not “Romani/Gypsy music” as some think, as such, but South Spanish music, later indeed influenced by Romani.. Many Flamenco artists are however Roma/Gypsies, so through this best-known Spanish music genre, Roma/Spanish gypsies certainly contributed to Spanish culture internationally, even its image.

The Romani people of Bulgaria, Rumania, and the Balkan also were influential musically. They mostly, likewise, picked up mixed international influences from other cultures – with their travelling – adding their own style, such as what is known as Tallava in the Balkan countries (Bosnia, Albania a.o.). Due to their nomadic living, the Romani could not preserve fully original instrumental genres of themselves, only some vocal songs, and more general recurring characteristics they add from their culture to other genres found along the way, in music (e.g. hand-clapping) and dancing.. This is noticeable also in Flamenco.

In Europe and the entire Western world, most Romani now also settled/became sedentary, and the “nomadic” lifestyle became essentially outlawed, and strongly discouraged.

Maybe there is some symbolism in the fact that one of the few persons of Romani descent that obtained a high political position was Juscelino Kubischek, the founder of Brazil’s new inland capital Brasilia (his mother was of Czech and Romani descent).

The “freedom of movement” is therefore in itself framed and limited even on a local level, while crossing a national border can in none of these controlled societies be really done unnoticed, only relatively.

Looking at “bodily integrity” as such, there is much more of this systemic corruption slipping in these modern societies. Partly this is connected to medical care, but also to uniform school systems, required presence and obedience.

Also, for adults: going through life without working yet still eating every day, and having a place to rest one’s head, is impossible, unless depending on someone else. Humans are thus forced to participate in this (money-based) system, which of course in itself conjures questions of “bodily integrity”.

In the strictest sense: the right for your body not to be touched, chained, violated, or penetrated by others, without permission, seems in the recent century a bit more accepted by authorities. When you think about it, though, not fully. In judicial and police spheres there are legal exceptions, and in the medical field, with so-called emergencies.

This last aspect I would like to discuss in the remainder of this post, along the way reflecting on the current times.

COVID 19

There is a lyric by another great Reggae artist, Gregory Isaacs, about his time in prison (for gun possession, they say, some say cocaine), a song called Out Deh: “I was tired of the jailhouse, but the jailhouse wasn’t tired of me”..

That is how I feel right now about this lasting, frankly dystopic, “corona/covid 19 crisis”. I came – after careful studying - to the conclusion that it is a hyped-up virus, and that this is about elite economics and control, and not about health. I wrote some songs about it myself, heard insightful and convincing explanations and counterarguments by many intelligent people and true scholars. I also wrote about it before on this blog.

I guess that after this, my saturation point is reached – let’s face it: viruses had sometimes my interest but never was my passion..why would it? I find that theme not that interesting, as a person. I know by now well what there is to know – and what is wrong – about the plandemic. I prefer to look to better alternatives: reviving and retrieving the freedom and culture we lost. To show with my life how freedom and culture are the essence of being human. Despite even opposition, giving the example. After screaming what’s wrong, comes showing what’s right.

I maintain my same stance, however: this “corona crisis” (I prefer to call it “lockdown policy” or “pLandemic”) is about control, not about health. This brings us back to “bodily integrity”.

The quite sudden “urge” to control of authorities was somehow – successfully - camouflaged by the pandemic threat and disease “emergency” thrown into the world. Internationally coordinated policies against this supposed virus threat, included some new policy measures, including “lockdowns”, quite unknown in democratic societies, yet presented as necessary.

They were neither necessary nor effective (against viruses) those “lockdowns”, yet the basic human rights “bodily integrity” and “ freedom of movement” were corrupted again. The Covid 19 virus is not severe enough: now at an Infection Fatality Rate even under the 0,20%, with moreover specific vulnerable groups.. but like I said: this is not about health.

Curfews were unknown in the Netherlands, where I live, since the German Nazi occupation (1940-45), and the curfew imposition reminded citizens in other countries of former dictatorships (of Franco, Mussolini, Ceaucescu, Honecker a.o.) too.

Being punishable when walking out your own front door. Huh, how did that become illegal? Only propaganda and fear-mongering could make this acceptable without mass rebellion (safe in a few countries where authorities dared not to impose mass curfews). Of course a far cry from the “free, nomadic spirit” still somewhere in us humans.

More unacceptable restrictions became acceptable with these ever-expanding or prolonged corona policies, absurdly supported by most people. “Supported” is perhaps often a big word: some people “support” such limitations (having some interested goals, or for ideological reasons), while some “accept” it, like many accept taxation, paying the rent, or having to work: a necessary, inevitable evil. What can you do about it?

It is here where a danger lies. Governments deciding if private businesses can open and at what hours is absurd, but became only accepted because of a fabricated “emergency”, which is actually a hype, as it is a health problem that could be solved, well, medically, without lockdowns, as countless actual medical experts and professors have already said (often more or less censored).

Testing and vaccine requirements (even obligations!) touch most directly “bodily integrity”. Nonsensical (you can only infect others when really sick, vaccine/gene therapy not fully tested, potential side-effects, little effective and – just as important – not urgent or necessary). Nonsensical, and therefore even more violating “bodily integrity” rights.

This bodily integrity is important to keep in mind, as boundaries that are pushed by this plandemic should be pushed back. When you are not sick with symptoms, you should be able to go where and when you want, how you want, uncontrolled: no test or vaccine proof (private matter anyway), no required face-mask, no forced distance when interacting. You know why? Because you are not ill with symptoms, you cannot infect others more than usually. You are no danger or disturbance. You’re just a human being living naturally, further like always of course keeping in mind things like legality, and not bothering/respecting others, etcetera.

We are far from that now in many countries worldwide, during this absurd, totalitarian plandemic.

As could be expected, this extra corona legislation in many countries, provide more excuses for discrimination of specific groups, hitherto “difficult to control”. The mentioned Romani or Gypsies were before (and partly still) one of those “difficult-to-control” groups/minorities. This is – in my opinion – probably one of the goals of the plandemic – controlling the relatively less-controllable, but others may have another analysis or opinion about this.

Culture and free gathering are limited and affected most strongly, and connected “night life”. Curfews in “festive” countries with rich musical cultures like Jamaica, Cuba, or Brazil were very impactful and, well, destructive, and demoralizing. Luckily not fully. Again, accepted because many people do not know the virus is not so severe (comparable to the flu, now). Propaganda worked well. Instilling fear works.

So there it is: people are conditioned, even many in “defiant” countries (with rebellious histories), to (self-)control, with an added “annoying cop” in their heads, judging their own formerly natural behavior, like freely moving about, gathering/socializing, distance when interacting with others.. moving and doing, thus “bodily integrity”. For no good reason: there is no extraordinary emergency in a medical sense.

Just as bad that authorities and big business want this control (for money and power), is the popular acceptance. Not universally, but broadly. Apparently people who get by financially, and do not consider “doing outdoor cultural things” that important for their happiness. They have after all loved ones at home, a tv, and an internet connection, but also people simply “feared and terrorized” accepted it, and “stayed home”.

TRIMMED FOCIBLY

I see a parallel with a recent case in Jamaica, certainly concerning “bodily integrity”. That of a 19-years old Jamaican woman, Nzinga King, recently “trimmed” – i.e. her natural dreadlocks were cut off forcibly in a police station after arrest (for, they say, “disorderly conduct”). There is no good reason for this. It has no justification, rationally or morally.

Yet it was common practice in Jamaican history, in the first decades after the Rastafari movement arose, during the 1930s, following the coronation of Haile Selassie in 1930. Even up to the 1970s. Reggae singer Max Romeo explained that even into the 1970s, Rastafari people with dreadlocks had to “hide” to several degrees in Jamaican society.. At first beards were grown among early Rastas – and some copied Haile Selassie’s Afro-like hairdo - , later (in the course of the 1940s and 1950s) “dreadlocks” became more common, some say in imitation of Kenyan Mau Mau warriors against British colonizers.

Jamaican conservative authorities feared the Rastafari movement for their anticolonial, anti-authority stances. They had own, free communities - and outlawed income sources - the state had difficulty controlling.

HYPED UP

There is the parallel: the danger of Rastafari in Jamaica was: “hyped up”, exaggerated through propaganda, as it disturbed the social order. Like now, a mass hysteria or psychosis of sorts was stimulated around this among common folk too. This narrative was accepted by a part of the conservative Jamaicans (mostly Protestant Christians), more accepting of authority and the (neo-) colonial order.. Some out of conviction, some out of necessity: again: a necessary, inevitable evil for functioning in society..

There was never a real, extraordinary danger from Rastafari people in Jamaica: they were no criminal organization targeting other people. Their outlawed activity was marijuana cultivation: after all a plant being called (unjustly) a “drug”..

Still there was perceived or fabricated “danger”, legitimizing harsh treatment of state forces, against Rastafari groups, often - as elsewhere often too - with some invented pretext or excuse (supposed crime,even rape or murder). This in turn triggered police’s unlawful arrest, physical violence against Rastas, and, yes, the trimming of the dreadlocks, cutting this hair by force.

I consider natural hair as intrinsically part of the body, so that is part of the physical violence against persons, and thus the violating of “bodily integrity”. Likewise, being discriminated for your looks, goes against “freedom of choice”, but also“freedom of movement”: sure, you can walk and move about, just expect to be bothered and insulted. It still tramples that right.

Rastafari gained more and more acceptance in Jamaica over time, especially since Bob Marley’s rise to fame, and the connection of many Rastafari to successfully internationalized Reggae music, as known Jamaican export. Further insights and “civilizing” developments toward human and cultural rights recognition, also made that “forcibly trimming dreadlocks” by now seemed mostly over, and a thing of a grim Jamaican past, up to at most the 1970s.

That explains the just outrage among the Rastafari community in Jamaica (and internationally), as the dreadlocked hair has a “religious” or “spiritual” significance. Even without that “religious” meaning, cutting off someone’s hair (if e.g. too long) for a minor arrest is of course absurd and immoral by itself, but with Rastas extra disrespectful toward their cultural and religious rights.

Some of the fiercer critics of the corona/covid 19 “lockdowns” and measures in countries, call these measures a “war against individual autonomy”, and, relatedly, a “war against culture” (also a name of a song by me), or even “joy” as such. It seems like it, anyway..

The trimming of Rasta’s dreadlocks has unfortunately a longer history –as explained – in Jamaica (and elsewhere in the Caribbean, in Africa, and Latin America), from way before this corona crisis. Also the documentary Bad Friday : Rastafari After Coral Gardens (2011), relating events of violence against Rastas and dreadlocks trimming in 1963, documents this.

The essence is remarkably similar, though: a hyped-up emergency to legitimize violation/abuse of human rights, of bodily integrity, and with the underlying goal to “control” dissident, difficult-to-control groups in society - like once in some countries the Romani/Gypsies, or the Jews for that matter - , not fitting well in the elite’s wider economic plan. Especially a “culturally” (i.e. Afrocentric) dissident group like the Rastafari – in a pro-European, (neo)colonial context - was seen as a nuisance or danger for authorities and their societal control.

CLEVER PLAN

Using “health” and an “infectious disease”, as powers that be/authorities/”Babylon” does now, proved a clever plan for this control goal, perhaps more clever and effective than “public order” or (supposed) “criminality” as was used before to oppress people. Poor people did not like disorder, and even less crime, but could understand, grasp it, as very human and contextual. A virtually unknown, infectious and dangerous/”deadly” virus is another story.

Against this new clever plan of “Babylon”, as the Rastas call the “powers that be” or authorities (including the wealthiest 2% in this world, Bilderberg group, WEF, etcetera), Rastafari should hold firm to its principles of “cultural autonomy”, human and bodily integrity, and “(individual) freedom” against the prevailing, repressive, “streamlining” system. It did so since its start in the 1930s, and inspired even several resistance movements worldwide, alongside other Black Power and Human Rights organization.

On a personal note, as I listened and liked a lot of Roots Reggae lyrics since my teens in the 1980s, and even got into the Rastafari Livity definitely and more fully in 2010 (before that I sympathized), this Rastafari wisdom of rebellion against a powerful system, autonomy, freedom from mental slavery, cultural self-respect, and essential human freedom, helped me to “prepare” for even this totalitarian covid 19 nonsense, Babylon now came with.

“Just the same old Babylon, trying to run things to a wreck”, as summarized well in Richie Spice’s song Righteous Youths, but many Reggae lyrics more or less predicted this totalitarian “Babylon control”, against popular (poor people’s) freedoms and rights. It is in the historical line since conquest, colonialism, enslavement, capitalist exploitation, cultural repression, poor people’s oppression, so common in many countries in the world, mostly started or stimulated by Western powers, and a wealthy few.

That is one way to push those boundaries of violating bodily integrity and freedom back: the Rastafari sense of cultural and human autonomy. Even if it is against all odds, as it is necessary. We should not make acceptable what is not..

That 19 year old Jamaican young woman, Nzinga, whose dreadlocks got trimmed by a police officer, was arrested for disorderly conduct, a minor offence if any, but the initial reason (or excuse) of her arrest was in reality one of those Covid 19 rules: she did not wear a mask (on her own face, without symptoms, masks that besides do not protect well, etc.). It all interrelates..

Apart from this regrettable incident, I fear that – and in fact notice it already – that Rastafari culture will be repressed with “covid measures” as welcome pretexts/excuses” for this. In Jamaica and elsewhere. Apart from just the dreadlocks as symbol, the attack and war on the people and their culture, by outlawing cultural gatherings, concerts - “live” culture let’s say - along with increased censorship in the online context people are relegated to.. All this seems all too welcome for people who do not want Rastafari’s message to be spread too openly and freely among people, as it goes against their interests and power base.

Mental slavery: Garvey and psychoanalysis

“Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..” (Marcus Garvey).

This quote is perhaps best known from Bob Marley’s classic song Redemption Song, a song justly loved by many, poignantly yet soulfully “summarizing” in its lyrics the history of African enslavement. I think that in this case, mainly the lyrics make the song great.

Good messages with simple words were Bob’s strength – as Lee Perry once said of him -, but for Redemption Song, he quoted Marcus Garvey in the above line.

Marcus Garvey, the early Black Power leader and activist, surely focused on this “mental slavery” as self-evident part of his emancipation movement for African people at home and abroad.

Both psychologically and sociologically, there are intriguing ways to look at mental slavery.

OMNIPRESENT

The phenomenon “mental slavery” is in fact omnipresent in our world of unequal human relationships. Anything in the course of our lives when we do something we “have to” instead of “want to” –when we compromise – we become kind of a “mental slave”. Childs have to go to school and focus on school (subjects) since a quite tender age. Preparing for what? Citizenship, society, or just economy?

In time, many get caught in the system of “having to” work several days a week for a boss, simply for sustenance.

Of course, Garvey focused on the emancipation of Black people, and their “mental slavery” (self-deprecation due to the colonial past) relative to the White and other races. I argue, though, that Garvey often referred to deeper and more “universal” meanings, psychologically.

The “colonized mind” of Africans abroad, can even be seen as an aggrandized, extreme example of “mental slavery”, for all races to learn from.

PSYCHOLOGY

While I agree with people who consider this “Eurocentric”, I think that in this case it is at least “educational” to analyze in how far the “big names” in Western psychological studies, like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, might relate to Garvey’s treatment of an essentially psychological phenomenon (mental slavery). Was Garvey more a Freudian or more a Jungian, for instance? Or, to please the anti-Eurocentrism people: “who of Freud or Jung was more Garvey-ite?”.

Or: showed perhaps Garvey’s life whether Freud, Jung or others were right about human behavior?

FREUD

Sigmund Freud was a Jewish Austrian neurologist and psychoanalyst who was of course quite influential. I have studied Freud before, and I personally remained intrigued by some of his known theories, testing whether they are realistic.

The whole line of Freud’s view, that sexual/biological energy is the primal urge behind everything, do I agree with that? I still don’t know, to be honest. Human history seems to reflect this as quite plausible. Substitutes for this primal sexual urge indeed seem to include “wars to conquer”, “destruction”, “subjugation”, addiction, greed, and enslavement.

In my own personal life - and even more of others I know of - , I do not always see a clear “sexual primal urge” underlying everything I do, everything I enjoy, or undertake. Substitutes for that sexual energy, in some way? I am not denying it, but it stretches the mind that e.g. “beating a drum” or “playing a guitar” are redirected sexual energy, while music offers a sensory sensation of its own, sensual, but not merely “sexual”.

Garvey’s large UNIA (Universal Negro Improvement Association) movement in the US (and Americas), the largest up to then among Black people, with millions of members (in the US and Americas).. redirected sexual energy?.. No.. I would say: redirected love energy.. Love toward his people and fellow humans: thus a much broader energy.

Freud also argued that humans are determined by their history (others, like Jung, deem the present more determining, including current life goals).

In Garvey’s case, both Freud and Jung seem right, but also in the case of most human beings, when I think about it. After all: if you don’t know your past, you don’t know your present.

JUNG

Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist/psychoanalyst, and I studied his theories too, and like with Freud: I see some things confirmed among humans, some things seem less plausible to me.

Like Freud, also Jung gave Western languages many terms describing simply existing phenomena, which only needed to get a good “name” for them: word power. Inferiority complex, repression, subconscious, “extrovert/introvert”, archetypes, alter-ego, libido, persona, defense mechanism, projection, etcetera.

Jung came with the term “collective unconscious”, as one of the theories in which he differed from Freud. It represents shared, “cultural”, even ancestral, mental concepts in people’s unconscious.

That can somehow be related to Garvey. Marcus Garvey referred a lot to the enslaved ancestors and those before and after, and connected himself to them symbolically, for action today, . In this regard, Jung might have had a point, and is there something like a “shared” subconscious among nations. On the other hand: Garvey had a strong (“Freudian”) individual personality, as I also read in his biography, a bit contradicting that.

Another difference with Freud, is that Jung considered human psyches as teleological: working toward a goal, not just following biological urges, as Freud emphasized. That also seems to fit Garvey’s life and goals (Africa for the Africans, repatriation, African upliftment).

NEO-FREUDIAN SCHOOL

Then there is the “neo-Freudian” school, following up and deviating from Freudian psychological theories. Born Hungarian Alfred Adler was a main representative of this. This school places more emphasis on social relations and less on biological urges, as Freud did. Also, it focuses more on personal creativity and “life style” of humans as social beings, and on the “ego” in relation to others.

Adler argued that humans feel inevitably inferior and aim at superiority, relative to others: Adler more or less coined the now known term “overcompensation”. Relatedly, according to Adler, humans have an inherent “urge for power”.

In Marcus Garvey’s biography titled ‘Negro With a Hat’ by Colin Grant – with much attention to the person Garvey as well -, one might be able to suspect an “urge for power”, “ego”, or overcompensation. In my opinion, though, this does not apply fully, as Garvey seemed more focused on plans and collective goals, than on individual ego plays or individual competition.

In that biography by Grant, much attention is paid to Garvey’s “competitive conflict” with the other influential Black leader in the US at the time (around 1917) W.E.B. Dubois.

Garvey sometimes criticized Dubois’s adaptive, moderate stances as pleasing the White establishment, and found Dubois elitist toward the mass of labourers (Dubois thought that a Talented Tenth among African Americans should lead the other 90%), while Garvey rather sought to speak for these masses. On the other hand: Garvey sought open contact with Dubois, and invited him to his speeches and gatherings. Yet Dubois largely ignored Garvey, and soon ridiculed his influence among the masses as untrustworthy. Garvey felt offended by this, and paid back with interest, lamenting Dubois as too dependent on Whites.

Here, some “ego” aspects become clear (on both sides), as well as a “will/urge for (social) power” .

GESTALT

The later “gestalt therapy” school emphasizes “present human relations” as defining human personalities, rather than past or future goals. The life of Garvey (and others) show a planning for the future, thus contradicting it, although his relations in the presence shaped his directions and own style.

While aiming at democracy and politeness, Garvey dominated strongly his movement with his ambition, powerful speeches, and leadership, hereby even trumping ambitions of others within his movement, “chasing” some former comrades away, so to speak. Unintended mostly, but representing the versatile present, as in the Gestalt theory.

FROMM

Another psychologist is Erich Fromm, a Jewish German, who belonged to the “humanist psychology” school. Fromm pointed at the difference between humanistic and authoritarian ethics. He also analyzed why people made themselves submissive to dictatorships, even as collaborators, relating this to sado-masochism (demeaning codependency).

Though Garvey was accused of a big ego, and personal dominance, his movement the U.N.I.A. , and related endeavors (newspapers, repatriation efforts, economic initiatives a.o.) were relatively accessible for common Black people, even for expressing themselves. Garvey’s dominance can be seen as ego-based, but also as overly enthusiastic, as he mostly wrote and spoke about how to improve the position of all Black people – Africans, within world affairs.

This reflects a bit some theories of Fromm: a human urge for “positive freedom” and “love” to search for sense. Fromm’s rejection of both Socialism (deeming it too rational to be human) or Capitalism (prioritizing external material “things” over own humanity) has some similarities with Garvey’s views. Garvey identified with labourers, yet strived overall more to “own businesses” and economic independence of Black people from other races.. thus expressing their own (internal) worth and “humanity”, instead of following external, cold rational plans (communism) or things (capitalism) as in the main Isms..

GARVEY

Interesting is now whether Marcus Garvey had a perspective that the mentioned known Western psychologists lacked or disregarded, though he was not a psychoanalyst.

I think rather that some aspects of Garvey’s thought are a crucial addition to – or correction of – psychological studies (Freudian, Jungian, or otherwise).

The emphasis of race as physical appearance is one of those aspects, and how it results from colonialism, and the history of slavery. Another one is his more pronounced critique of elites.

Though some of the psychoanalysts I mentioned belonged to a persecuted Jewish minority (Freud, Adler, Fromm), and had to escape Nazism, the hierarchical race-class interjunctions in former slave plantation colonies like Jamaica, Suriname, Haiti, Martinique, Barbados, partly the US and Brazil etcetera, offers new psychological insights.

Whereas Jews like Freud, Adler, or Fromm indeed might have had some experiences with “othering”, discrimination, or dehumanization, in Germany, Austria, or elsewhere, the structural dehumanization through poverty and discrimination of black majorities in a country like Jamaica – ruled by a wealthy minority lighter-skinned elites – and the attempts of deculturalization of Africans, offers added insights into psychological responses, hitherto less explored. Garvey (and other Black power thinkers) explored this.

As part of this, Garvey paid much attention to resulting psychopathological effects among people of African descent. Garvey criticized Black newspapers in the US for having advertisements for skin bleaching, or the lengths other African American organizations, such as W.E.B. Dubois’s NAACP, went through to please White authorities, despite a somewhat comparable activist focus (racial pride, African connection).

So he noted among many Black people a (Neo-)Freudian defined “inferiority complex”. Likewise, the “overcompensation” from the Neo-Freudian school, Garvey noted too, as he lamented some of his race (some even darker than him) in Jamaica, trying to be, for instance, more British than the British themselves, thus denying their own race and cultural heritage..

Also the “Uncle Tom” notion – or as related term “Boasy slave” in Jamaican English/Patois – for an adaptive, overly obedient slave to White masters, stems from the slavery history, and has become common parlance, also of common Black folk, including related terms like “house slaves”.

This “uncle tom” phenomenon has self-evident psychoanalytical connotations and implications that can be found in the theories I discussed (self-deprecation, overcompensation, inferiority complex, repression, ego, split personalities). I argue that it has relevance beyond Black history, namely everywhere where masses are oppressed (ethnicity, politics, poor people, labourers, women, minorities) by powerful elites.

It is here where “mental slavery” gets his historical and sociological meaning, somewhat summarizing this all. It represents a crucial expansion of Western psychoanalytical thought, derived from the African diaspora, but relevant for all mankind. Garvey contributed to that.

SPLIT CONSCIOUSNESS

Psychoanalytical concepts like “inferiority complex”, “repression” apply, but certainly also Fromm’s notion of “authoritarian ethics”, in this case during colonialism and slavery. Though enslaved and forced, there were degrees of collaboration among a part of the enslaved Africans, betraying other (rebellion- or escape-planning) slaves, for some gain. Also, the internalization of European superiority, and therefore one’s own origins’ inferiority, was unfortunately successful among many Afro-Americans, leading to a disdain of much of preserved African culture. This results in another psychological phenomenon: schizophrenia, or “split personalities”, also a theme Freud treated.

Interestingly, Freud saw a split personality or consciousness as a way of avoiding a rupture of the ego, by effecting a division of itself.. It is also seen as a defense mechanism. Surely, also the term “cognitive dissonance” – combining opposing values mentally – is relevant.

Alongside these Western, scholarly psychological explanations, a main “psychotherapy” is found in the beautiful variety of Afro-American cultures that developed over time. Carnivals as parodies by Africans of European culture. Combining song types from colonizing countries, quadrille, English sea chants, Spanish folk styles, with own African influences, gave birth to several music genres, some more “African” sounding than others, but also with various instruments, including European ones, such as the predominant originally Spanish (with Moorish and Persian antecedents) guitar, or e.g. pianos, saxophones, or synths. All resignified with African musical patterns.

Most clear, the lost languages, replaced by Africanized variants of European languages (Creoles), and the lost family names of enslaved Africans, to be replaced by European ‘slave owners’ names, bear in themselves this “split personality” or symbolic schizophrenia.

This can be seen as a main theme throughout Marcus Garvey’s ideas and actions. This shows both from his writing, as from a biography on him. Divisions within himself, and among Black people generally.

DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS

This “mental slavery” relates mostly to this “double consciousness” and it is quite ironic that the term ‘double consciousness” among Black people in the US came from a nemesis – or competitor – of Garvey among Black leaders, namely W.E.B. Dubois, coining this term in 1897.

After all, despite their conflict, Garvey and Dubois seemed to agree (in different wordings) on some themes, but also Caribbean thinkers like Paul Gilroy and Frantz Fanon, had theories very similar to Dubois’s “double consciousness”, and so did Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Turé), as part of the Black power movement. And Garvey. They owe this to Garvey at least as much as to Dubois and other thinkers.

Mental slavery refers to “double consciousness”, but so do other of Garvey views and statements. His emphasis on self-knowledge and self-confidence, own organizations and businesses, and to not look up to the White man, were all efforts to make Black people’s consciousness less “double”, or at least more focussed on own pride, you might say.

The “duplicity” in it is however there regarding the framework of European-centered – or modern Western - values: modern industries and technologies, money, and power politics, to which this pride inevitably relates and is bound. There psychoanalytical ideas on the “ego”, “overcompensation”, and an “urge for social power” – all from the Neo-Freudian school (Adler a.o.) – certainly apply.

Marcus Garvey added to this “positive freedom” – present in many cultures, but theorized in the Western world by humanist psychologist Erich Fromm, who opposed it to self-deprecation and sado-masochism under authoritarian (and slavery/colonial?) rule.

RASTAFARI

Rastafari now, take this even further, as the Rastas as a Jamaican scholar said; “used Garvey to go beyond Garvey”. Garvey was by necessity influenced by European culture, growing up in a British colony.

From what is said in Grant’s biography on Garvey, his cultural tastes were partly little known, but included global art (pottery, including European), biographies (including of Europeans like Napoleon Bonaparte), and were discussed by him according to British academic norms. Rastafari partly abandon these colonially inherited norms, seeking African spirituality and natural connection, and cultural expressions (life style, music, festivities). The cultural stage following on an actual freed and independent African people, free from subjugation by other races.

The importance of the Bible within much of Rastafari seems again “split”, especially as some Rastas dismiss African magic- and “spirit of the dead” folk beliefs like in Vodou or Kumina, like also Protestant Churches in Jamaica dismiss these as evil. Ethiopia in Africa being an early Christian country, before much of Europe, however kind of compensates for the colonizers perceived misuse of the Christian religion, and indoctrination.

This in fact exemplifies the past- determined (Freud), present-determined (Gestalt), as future-aimed (Jung, Fromm) psychological explanations. Especially Erich Fromm’s idea that humans psychologically inherently “search for sense”, explaining behaviours, can be related to part of the Rastafari ethos and goals. The sense in this case an African identity of people after all of African descent.

Also it responds to Jung’s idea that humans seek “wholeness” and the “social power and relationships” of the later Neo-Freudian and Gestalt schools. The urge to return to one’s biological/genetic roots/origins, has moreover some Freudian aspects.

Thus, Marcus Garvey’s very life proved them all wrong and right at the same time.

MENTAL SLAVERY TODAY

The analyzed “mental slavery” or “double consciousness” is still a wide phenomenon among people in today’s world, not just Black people, colonially indoctrinated. All people having to work for a boss, part of this surrounding material economic system, are somehow mentally enslaved, ignorantly or cowardly adapting/inconveniencing themselves for survival, as still are women in a largely male-dictated world.

We knew this already, about all this inequality in power structures worldwide, but I argue – finally – that this was not realized enough, questioned enough. We could e.g. have followed Garvey’s example (or Dubois, Fanon a.o.) of mental emancipation and self-determination vis-s-a-vis the wealthy capitalist minority in this world (a few % of billionaires), seeking to exploit the world at the cost of the poorer masses: starting wars, dominating economics, politics and governments.

COVID

The mass submission – or economic war against poor people - was tested over time with upcoming Neoliberalism (“hard profit-driven capitalism” aided by government policy), eventually to result in what even to more and more first gullible and government-friendly citizens, appears to be a covid “plandemic”. Seemingly less to do with actual health problems – the mortality rate and severity of the new strain Covid 19 soon in 2020 dropped to flu levels – than with an elitist aim of economic restructuring at the cost of democracy and human freedoms.

The fact that a prison/penitentiary term like “lockdown” became normal in democratic countries (before this only in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes) for a policy tool, and even accepted sado-masochistically (dixit Erich Fromm) by many common citizens, is worrisome to me, and, well, limits democracy. The psychological Uncle Tom-effect of easily bribable people – from the African Diaspora – is certainly noticeable in these obedient responses to such drastic (and medically unproven!) measures as lockdowns, quarantines, curfews, etcetera.

It moreover showed how the masses became indoctrinated with fear for this new Sars virus, making them collaborate with their own imprisonment end oppression, even long after the truth could be found out. Some obedient or “enslaved” mind-set or confinement keeps them from searching the truth. Garvey has some lessons to teach here.

This coronacrisis was and is maintained largely with instilling fear, effective even if largely irrational. So was slavery, of course: fear of punishment and violence made many slaves obedient, or even cooperative. Equally irrational racist theories of skin color or superior or inferior races, not making any objective sense, aided this then. Now a hyped up flu virus, related to Sars.

Now the same elitist – Rastafari people would say “Babylon” – forces, use fear and violence psychologically for such control and confine functions of annoying or dangerous masses. We must free our own minds first from this.

ATTACK ON CULTURE

Another shocking similarity – making Garvey’s and African Diasporan ideas equally relevant – is the attack/effect on culture of the coronacrisis. Banning gatherings, closing public places and cultural events cannot but limit and halt cultural development. The online replacement is only a meager alternative, leading only to a repetitive stagnation, not “living culture”.

Keeping Africans away from their cultures and own communities was purposefully done to mentally displant and use slaves economically, unhindered. Mental slavery, alright, and the power of the people tamed. Probably also for some economic reset, benefitting a few. Can’t say Garvey never warned us.

Also other psychoanalytical ideas seem confirmed in this crisis, with quite a lot of Freudian, male “phallic” and penetration symbolism (vaccine/injection, intra-nostral/anal testing, possessiveness (no parties with others, but state-sanctioned penetration), punishment, and stimulating primary fears.

The Freudian term "projection" (accusing others what oneself is) is likewise very evidently present in these p(l)andemic policies, largely consisting of powerful people stimulating fear for a virus - and infection through other people - whereas they themselves and their oppressive plans should really be feared.

As Garvey wrote in his 1927 long poem The Tragedy of White Injustice: "Capitalists and money sharks, make life unsafe, like ocean barks.." (quoted in a Wailing Souls song).

Jung’s collective consciousness (culture) and emphasis on relations, and Fromm’s “positive freedom” are sensed more than ever (in absence). Fromm’s idea on “sense seeking” obtained a deviation, though, as what is at conflict now is those that “invent” sense (fearing a disease more than required) as a part of psychosis or cognitive dissonance, and those that search actual sense in a world that confuses and worries them.

FREEING OUR MIND

“None but ourselves can free our mind”, is another intriguing line by Marcus Garvey quoted by Bob Marley in Redemption Song, that sure is confirmed now, with governments all over the world in love or seemingly even hooked on rights-trampling “lockdowns” as policy tools. People have to free themselves from such powers that be (“Babylon”) – corrupted governments - fighting against the people (and their culture), not with them or for them.

A nice way in this freeing of our own mind, is another line in Bob Marley’s Redemption Song, namely “Have no fear of atomic energy, cause none a them can stop the/Jah time”. There is a higher truth of essential humanity and inherent self-worth we all have within us.

Power is an illusion, yet this “positive freedom” (as Fromm called it), or “repatriation” or “sighting Rastafari” as others define it, other forms of spirituality, or even as “finding one’s self and identity”, remains there as a way to give sense, and keep our good senses. In that sense I agree with some of Erich Fromm’s theories.

This sense-giving positive freedom must awaken and reign among people to achieve an eventual freedom from this “mental slavery”, caused by hidden dictates from a wealthy, powerful few, resulting in psychological warfare.

A wealthy few that is – after all – also historically racially privileged.

There is in that sense nothing new under the sun.

Migration is freedom

In reality, it is an example of how we ended up in a strange world: the often problematic and politicized use of “migration”.

Humans, after originating in Africa, roam from the beginning, seeking livelihoods, greener pastures, even adventure and joy, populating the world. Humanity is in that sense interwoven with migration, and with that human “culture”. In an episode of the Migrant Journal, nr. 6, titled Foreign Agents (2019), the author/editor writes in the introduction: “the grounds of culture rely on a capacity to develop local traditions, which are then transmitted not only across social groups, but also across time and space. The very foundations of culture appear inseparable from the logics of migration”.

Of course, separate civilizations developed, urbanization, modernizations, distinct nation states, and hierarchies of power, up to the 21st c.. During this process, “migration” became “framed” as intrusive and disturbing an order. Man kind lost an essential and existential – and original! – freedom. Migration is essentially freedom.

Dutch critic of Neoliberalism, Ewald Engelen, justly argued that in today’s world, movement of “capital” is problematic and detrimental, not movement of “people”.

Yet, it became accepted policy to halt people crossing over to another piece of the earth, while using their natural freedom of movement. Most of this world is after all not an unorganized, small-scale and fragmented “society” through which one can freely roam around – unbound – like a Gypsy or nomad. There are upheld boundaries.

Rhetorics of “national protection” against all things foreign are widely accepted, being in fact an off-spin of warring empires and kingdoms from ancient times, the times of Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, way before AD.

In modern times, passports, visas, and citizenship cards keep people in control, and essentially bound to nation states. Loss of original human freedom, that many now even take for granted.

The large wealth inequalities in this world, shocked some humans into going back to that original and inherent “migrant” within, that always remained there. Illegal migrations from nearby poorer areas are well-known, such as from Mexico to the US, and from North Africa to Europe.

Not to dwell too much on an abstract level, I will now make it more concrete and topical.

CORONA

The “corona crisis” since Early 2020, in relation to a proclaimed pandemic, showed how we took more freedoms for granted: free migration we gave up already, now with unprecedented “lockdown” policies, which I personally am NOT in favour of, for a variety of reasons (Covid 19 is not severe enough, being a main one), but that’s not the issue here.

The long ago loss of free migration of humans was limiting “where” we go, while recent, enforced, international measures (like obliged facemasks, forced closing of places, keeping distance, gathering bans), deal with “how” we go. Other draconian measures, like travel restrictions and curfews, come closer to that “original loss of free migrating”, impacting on “where we go” , limiting even more and in a detailed manner our freedom of movement.

The Main Stream Media is lost and utterly corrupted in this stage in human history. The uncritical propaganda for the corona policies of mass media, raise suspicion of corruption (mentally or financially). As part of this, even large popular demonstrations against corona policies, lockdowns, curfews, etcetera, are either downplayed or ignored, like in fact all critics or opponents.

In reality, there are worldwide many opponents – and skeptics - of these corona policies, increasing with consciousness, lamenting the loss of freedoms. Justly, in my opinion.

PERSONAL STORIES

I wish to elaborate deeper on the human search for freedom though migration, by discussing personal stories of migration I have encountered – or am connected with. I live in the Netherlands.

I myself am Netherlands-born, and a son of immigrant parents, my father came from Northern Italy, my mother from Southern Spain, via Madrid, both in the 1960s. Both the different countries my parents came from, plus the fact that I was born in the Netherlands, while my family roots lay elsewhere, made it difficult for me to embrace a “national protection” or “national purity” idea. Many Dutch people have less difficulties with that, I noticed.

“The paradox is in the ugliness of vanity”, as singer Vaughn Benjamin from the Reggae band Midnite sang. The ugliness in this case being the judging by “locals” of people on their descent or presence, not their behavior or personality, of treating foreigners – in worst cases – as polluting hindrances. As absurd as it is cold and evil.

To make sense within this evil absurdity, I will discuss a few of the “migrant” stories I heard in my life, mainly from “foreigners” in the Netherlands I know.

One main fallacy, I soon learned, is the simplifying as “one-dimensional” of migrant motivations. Of course, escaping poverty is a main motivation (or sending money to poor families home), but even with that there are nuances. Others, refugees, escape political oppression or persecution in their own country.

SYRIA

One such refugee I know told me a lot about his travelling and “migrations”. He is a young man from Syria, the civil war in which, seemed “eclipsed” in the global news, by everything related to corona/Covid 19. That Syrian civil war has been in fact going on since 2011, so now over a decade there is war in Syria. The war and conflict is still continuing in Syria during the now pandemic policies, though less intensely. This Syrian I know, was accepted as refugee, and obtained the Dutch nationality.

He told me stories of bombing by state forces where “rebels” hid, fearing it, when rebels hid near their building. He told about intense corruption dealing with Syria’s bureaucracy, state control mechanisms, obligated military service, and Syria’s wider political context under the Assad dictatorship.

I understood through him, that for all intents and purposes, Syria is a dictatorship, even in the classic sense. It can be compared to what we heard about Saddam Hoessein’s Iraq, but also harkened back to other known dictatorships: big photos of Assad in the streets and in every school, artists must first praise Assad in their work, before censorship might loosen. Hard to “breathe” in such dictatorships, is what you often hear. Another analogy is of a life “without colours”. Of course worsened with the tensions of civil war.

SPAIN

In fact, I found comparisons with the story of my mother, similarly “escaping” a dictatorship under Franco. The dictatorship with photos of the “leader”, state propaganda, censorship, reducing gathering and demonstrations, seemed to have parallels of the stories of my Syrian friend. One difference being maybe that in Spain “democracy” lost to Franco’s Fascist dictatorship in the period 1939-1975, while the ongoing conflict in Syria is between myriad forces, some of which are pro-democracy, but others not much more democratic than President Assad himself.

My mother was officially a labour migrant. Though not made easy, under Franco’s Spain travelling or migrating out of the country was partly allowed, also to limit the strain on the economy. Spain was then poorer than the Netherlands, surely, and she found a job in the Netherlands, near Haarlem, in 1966.

This was part of the “guest labourers” program, with labour migrants from the wider Mediterranean area, doing work that Dutch, German, Belgian, French, or Swiss people did not want to do anymore.

There’s more to it, though. Having talked a lot with my mother, I found out she was also a kind of a refugee.

“Bullied away” you can say, but anyway, she told me that having to work to contribute supporting her younger siblings and parents, she noted the harsh treatment and exploitation at virtually all workplaces in Spain. She felt treated “like a slave”, she even said to me. This related to the Fascist doctrine of Francoist Spain, where poor people’s “obedience” to bosses and work was promoted, and “Left-wing” democratization discouraged. My mother told me she did not feel “free” in Franco’s Spain: neither at workplaces nor in society as a whole (Spain was then more or less a police state), though with differing intensity (and arbitrariness).

Her migration to the Netherlands, was as much an escape toward wealth, as one toward “freedom”. This is an essential birthright of humans: finding another place, maybe better. Being a good guest when the host treats you good, is likewise natural for most migrants, I argue. Loyalty is however not an obligation, and human dignity comes first. Having crossed a border can never be an excuse for trampling one’s rights, though it has become that.

UNPLANNED

These, and other migrant stories, point at other aspects that are often disregarded in politicized “migration” debates. The haphazard, chaotic, and “unplanned” steps one takes toward eventually migrating to a foreign land. A land of which one does not even know or speak the language, as both was the case of my Syrian friend and my mother.

Many migrants, especially pre-digital ones, did not even know that the Netherlands actually had an own (Germanic) language. Even in European countries like Italy and Spain, some thought that people spoke French or German in the Netherlands. Of course, they found out soon enough about that own language.

INTEGRATION

Also, I learned from migrant stories, the confrontation with the other culture of host countries, in this case the Netherlands, was also multidimensional: haphazard, changing, and contradictory. Of course, some Dutch people likewise criticized immigrants’ behaviours and cultural customs, and still do. My Spanish mother attributed such demeaning remarks about South Europeans (such as the countries of my parents) to Dutch “jealousy” and thus a hidden inferiority complex. That is a way to look at it.

DIFFERENCES

Many irritations uttered about “other cultures” are also “guesses” about human behavior, less recognized from one’s own background. In time they understood or accepted the differences more, I noticed.

The “speaking loud (or fast)” norm among many migrant groups (including Spaniards) in the Netherlands, versus the “speaking soft” norm in the Netherlands, being an example of anecdotal difference. Controlled temper and emotions (Dutch “reserve”), or the Dutch fame for being “Protestantly” economical with money, other differences.

Politeness with strangers is not very common anymore in the Netherlands, causing some cultural misunderstandings. Harsh insults as sarcastic “jokes” are for instance sometimes accepted among close friends in countries like Spain or Italy, but not by strangers just met on the streets, as occurred with Dutch people making harsh (racist?) jokes toward them. Like in Britain and Ireland, Spain and to a lesser degree Italy still have a norm of “public politeness” in social life. The Netherlands is in that sense “freer” and rougher (especially in the cities), but even to that many migrants become accustomed, dealing more with Dutch people.

Often, such traits are both admired and ridiculed concurrently. At the same time, noting them shows a genuine curiosity in people with other cultures. It is no cold detachment or dehumanization. This curiosity is not static, but always continuing and changing. All too human, and as natural as the original human urge to travel.

The interesting thing is that even poor, individual immigrants over time tend to influence local cultures, but organically and voluntary. Cultures with not very developed cuisines (Britain, the Netherlands) enriched their food choices, and for instance Jamaican migrants attributed to British youth culture, and also in part Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands.

Even other migrant groups are influenced by other migrant groups, such as Moroccans in the Netherlands, using Surinamese terms, or in the choice of music genres. There is no force in such processes; it is all voluntary and organic.

Only racist or nationalist ideas, or feelings of cultural superiority or conservatism, make many object to such “multicultural” mixtures and ways. In reality, it innovated and broadened culture and creativity. It increased options for all.

Even without “bigger”, geopolitical contexts, highly individual stories of migrations – often involving simply sense of adventure – migration is not by definition “negative”. Somehow that was put in our heads: migration is a bad thing.

Falling in love, just wanting a change in life, or limited options due to direct family or surroundings, are less “sensational” than heroic stories of “escaping deep poverty”, “escaping war”, or “escaping a dictatorship or repression”. They are still “all too human”. I think they are also legitimate migration reasons for free human beings.

ITALY

The northern Italy, where my father came from, became soon after World War II, more industrialized and wealthier than Spain, where my mother came from. Like in Germany (but less disciplined), Northern Italy experienced a kind of “economic miracle”, after being on the wrong side during the preceding devastating war. Many industries developed, e.g. manufacturing, textile and automobiles. My father even told me that because of this rapid growth, wages in many companies in parts of Northern Italy for low-wage workers, were even higher than in the Netherlands he migrated to. He just migrated for several reasons, partly economic, largely relating to personal circumstances, and including the search for freedom.

There is nothing wrong with that: that is personal freedom.

The crux of the matter is that the now politicized “migration” falsely is depicted as an ‘invasion”, as if it were an invading army “taking over” and imposing its will. An inappropriate and unfounded “war” terminology, especially when dealing with individual poor, virtually powerless immigrants.

REGGAE

Being a Reggae fan for decades now, I more or less specialized in Reggae music, including its lyrics. Relevant to this post, I can mention that “migration” is a theme in Reggae lyrics, but especially with regard to Jamaicans going to wealthier countries like US or Britain.

Also, the Jamaican national hero and intellectual – important for Rastafari adherents – Marcus Garvey, was migrating for various reasons: economic (labour- and poverty-related), political, and personal. It can be seen as part of Garvey’s studying of the wider world, and particularly the downtrodden position of Black people in it.

In Reggae lyrics, other, contemporary migrants are also discussed, including common Jamaicans who went astray, as they got caught up in urban and modern confusion and temptations abroad.

Linton Kwesi Johnson’s classic song Inglan Is A Bitch exemplifies in its autobiographical lyrics adequately the poor Black immigrant labourer’s life – and social position of poor newcomers - in Britain.

Mutabaruka’s Johnny Drughead, and Don Carlos’s Cool Johnny Cool deal with a Jamaican migrating to New York and it going wrong, ending up addicted, or involved in crime.

Also Lutan Fyah’s discusses this “migrants gone astray” theme in the lyrics of Rough A Yard, also as a “cautionary” tale against losing yourself.

This may seem a negative or pessimist take, yet only goes to show that with freedom of course should come responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is dangerous. Responsibility without freedom is slavery.

More positive, in some lyrics, hard-working immigrants are praised.

Success stories are discussed less in Reggae lyrics, beyond the impressive movement Marcus Garvey – against all odds - set up for Black Americans in the US since 1917, pioneering even the Black Power movement as such in the US.

Meanwhile, being a poor and problematic country, many Jamaican artists migrated too, some temporarily (such as Bob Marley to Britain, following a shooting of him), some for good.

POLITICIZED

Over time, many Right-wing politicians raised objections against “free migrations” (especially of poor people with “other” cultures) as disturbing. They used economic and cultural arguments, and some Extreme Right parties even racist arguments. This denies the fact that, as I outlined above, humans are inherently migrants, historically. As natural as walking or breathing, and therefore limiting it, simply infringes on humans’ natural freedoms and rights.

CORONA AGAIN

The “freedom of movement” came under attack again with the current corona policies, and its increased “control focus”. Some opponents even speak of “psychological warfare”, in this regard. This did not lead to a massive global uprising, as many world citizens thought the restrictions had actually to do with a pandemic or health (I myself lost that belief in the course of 2020). I see it as an aim of a world elite to control the world population even more strictly than before, and indeed a psychological warfare.

Curfews, lockdowns, or gathering bans, in essence make that where before you were impeded to “cross national borders” – limiting that freedom -, these stricter corona policies now go further: even impeding leaving your own house (curfews), or limiting what you can do outside of your house, forced to show you are not infected with a flu virus, which is not even that grave or extra infectious.

While “the whole world” did not stand up against this as one (unfortunately, in my opinion), of course there was protest, critique, and opposition to such corona policies.

CONTRADICTORY

Somewhat contradictory in all this was that the formal political opposition was - at least in the Netherlands - not of (most of the formally “Left” parliamentarians), who were remarkably supportive of this elitist new order plan, but more often of Right-wing parties, combining corona policy critique in some cases with anti-immigration stances. This I consider contradictory. Migration is after all freedom, and represents the essence of human freedom: the same essence now trampled upon with these corona policies. Open up the society, but do not let those poor immigrants with other cultures in to be part of it?

A somewhat smaller political party (FVD: Forum for Democracy) in the Netherlands is critical about the corona policies and its negative effects, saying some sensible things in this regard. On the other hand it also pleads to not allow much more “poor” migrants entering in the Netherlands, and for instance proposing to send back Syrian refugees to “safe areas” in Syria (with less war activities).

The biggest and governing Right-wing political party in the Netherlands, the VVD, holds similar (though more diplomatically worded) views, but supports strongly the corona policies and the nonsense of ineffective lockdowns (for whatever reason). At least they are consistent in their attack on and fight against human freedoms and rights. Consistently wrong and immoral.

Also Right-wing presidents like Trump in the US and Bolsonaro in Brazil (both having made some anti-immigration and xenophobic statements), were a bit downplaying regarding the Covid 19 virus, with fewer restrictions on freedoms.

Again contradictory, also because those Right-wing policies do the same as what in my opinion is fundamentally wrong with this “lockdownism” of international corona policies: it “dehumanizes” people, reducing them to soulless – potentially annoying - “numbers” or “factors” that can be manipulated without consent or involvement. Without respecting their freedoms, fundamental rights and desires, their humanity, physical integrity, and birthright to self-determination.

Some things the mentioned Syrian friend of mine also told me can bring this point home.

When I mentioned that idea of some Dutch politicians of having Syrians return to “safe“ parts of Syria, he responded that “if I could return to live among my people and family there, I would”. Politicians not knowing actual situations in countries, and like so often (and now with the corona policies) reducing individuals to abstract, one-dimensional factors to be controlled, not as complex persons with complex stories.

Even more significant was therefore another thing this Syrian friend said to me, as we were facing more and more absurdly strict “anti-corona” measures in the Netherlands: besides the patronizing facemasks and “1,5 m distance between persons rule”, these included a ban on groups over 2 or 3 people, and there was even a curfew, where Dutch citizens could not leave their own house between 21:00 and 04:30, as in more countries around the world. Meanwhile demonstrations were roughly disbanded, and dictatorial methods like censorship became more common in Dutch mainstream press, especially against anti-corona policy voices.

In response to this police state-like measures, my Syrian friend said: “I exactly left Syria because of these kind of things, for a free country like the Netherlands. Now it’s here in the Netherlands too..”

Nuff said.

African string instruments

I always found the global variety in musical instruments interesting. I am surely not the only one. Since young kind of musically inclined, like my older brothers, that interest was continuously fed.

Over time I tried percussion instruments, drums, rattles, Spanish castanets, or harmonicas, that we had at our home, while my brothers eventually took up guitars: one of them bass guitar, the other one mainly Spanish guitars.

Of course I tried guitars too – in my ten years -, but I found the pressing of fingertips against strings somewhat uncomfortable and hard to get used to, and for that reason, I first took up playing keyboard.

Besides this practical reason, it also relates to musical preference. The keys/piano focus might have related to my early interest in Stevie Wonder. Moreover, I am musically broadly interested, but tended to favour music with strong, groovy rhythms: Funk, Reggae, African music. Therefore, I gravitated soon toward percussion and drumming, which I eventually took up.

GUITAR-PLAYING BROTHERS

It is however not as simple – or clear-cut - as that. Guitars and rhythm can of course combine. My older brothers could play a bit rhythmically too, and my bass playing brother loved Reggae too (as well as jazz and funk), and of course I could appreciate on occasion too nice guitar solos (in any genre), the rhythmical playing in Flamenco, and in Brazilian and Cuban music. The guitar patterns in Bossa Nova, for instance, originally more or less imitate Samba percussive patterns, in a “jazzy” way.

My Spanish guitar-playing brother pointed out, moreover, that you’re more a “complete” one-man band with a guitar, as it enables combining harmony, melody, and rhythm. I of course heard some good examples of that, with convincing “full” songs, with just a guitar.

AFRICA

Broader, the association of string instruments with “European music”, and percussion and drums with African or black music, is also simplistic. I already assumed that, more or less, having heard that the banjo is of African, Congo-region origin, and about “musical bows” like the Afro-Brazilian berimbau.

The fact remains, however, that “chord structures” as such are not really present in African music originally, notably in sub-Saharan Africa, where other ways to achieve “harmony” are used, as part of wider polyrhythmic pieces. The emphasis on “rhythm” gives a larger role of percussion in all its variety throughout Africa. A varied, intriguing field, that strongly influenced my own percussion playing, with much polyrhythmic “Congo” or “Congo via Cuba” influences.

Africa is, however, a large and varied continent. Even smaller Europe is after all musically quite varied, with different instruments per region and culture.

The “Spanish guitar” (also “Classical guitar”) developed in Southern Spain under local, Persian and Moorish influences, in time from a four-string to a six-string instrument with nylon strings. Its form would serve as model for all global “guitars” to come, so it seems. Perhaps due to Spanish colonialism, although Classical guitars were soon fabricated more in France than in the Spain of its origins, spreading it soon internationally.

Smaller forms of the original Spanish/Andalusian guitar appeared in the Portuguese-speaking world, variants in the Canary Islands and parts of Latin America, while in the US a different steel-string type of guitar, called “country & western” guitar, developed, much used in US music, Country, Blues, and even more the later electric guitar.

Lutes, zither and harps are further known historically in the Middle East and Islamic world, in Europe, and are mentioned in the Bible. Violin-type instruments developed in Italy. The Hawaiian ukulele, furthermore, is based on a Portuguese/Madeira small-guitar model. So string instruments are international, yet somehow concentrated, you might say.

What intrigues me, however, as an African music-oriented percussion player, is whether there are truly indigenous string instruments in sub-Saharan Africa too. Not imported or as a reworked foreign influence (as e.g. the ukulele in Hawaii). Also, if they are a foreign influence (e.g. from Arabs or Portuguese), how are these string instruments “Africanized” through African musical principles?

GRIOT AND FOREST

An interesting distinction – I find this so interesting that I discussed it several times on this blog – is that between “Sahel” or “Griot” Africa on the one hand, and “forest Africa” on the other, a musical distinction made by scholars like Robert Farris-Thompson. It explains also musical influences of enslaved Africans in the Americas, giving through the generations birth to several music genres like Blues, Reggae, Son, Samba, Rumba, Merengue, Cumbia, Calypso, etcetera.

Well now, it is pointed out by Farris-Thompson and others that the “swing” element – playing “around” the beat – found in Jazz and Blues - stem from Griot African musical culture. More specifically relating to the use of string instruments in “Sahel” parts of Africa: the Senegambian, Mali, and Guinee regions. A region with historically Islamic influences, and known local string instruments as the Kora and Ngoni, used by the “Griots”, who were like travelling musicians and chroniclers.

The “Swing” around the beat, thus relates to the characteristics of string instruments, whereas in “forest Africa” (southern Ghana, Benin, and Nigeria, Congo region a.a., Bantu-speaking regions) drums and percussion – and thus “straighter” rhythms – and polyrhythms – were more common. The latter influenced e.g. Afro-Cuban and Afro-Brazilian music.

The Griot “swing” style, on the other hand, clearly influenced Blues, also due to the relatively strong presence of Senegambian and Guinee region slaves in the Mississippi delta, where Blues originated.

By comparison, in Cuba, relatively many enslaved Africans came from “forest Africa”, notably the Congo region (estimated at about 40%), and from the Yoruba area (now southern Nigeria, Benin), shaping its music’s rhythmical structure. Perhaps not even in the case of Cuba, as a Spanish colony, all “guitar use” can be attributed solely to the Spanish/Andalusian influence from early on, or from the Canary islands. The influence from Southern Spain and the Canary islands is strong in early Spanish colonialism in Cuba (regarding early “white” inhabitants), to be sure (even on some music genres in Cuba, such as Punto Guajiro). It however got mixed, as guitars became part of Afro-Cuban music.

GUAJEO

When listening to how these string instruments are played, rhythmically, in Cuba, one hears often African influences, with echoes of the African thumb pianos like the Mbira, or derived Kalimba. Thumb pianos are undoubtedly indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa, found not just in Zimbabwe, with the well-known Mbira, but also in Central (“Congo”) and Western Africa, with metal or bamboo tines.

An example of an “African guitar pattern” in Cuba can be found in a very influential pattern in Cuban music, stemming from the Son Changüí genre in Eastern Cuba: the original, more African Son from the Guantánamo region and around (musically Congo/Bantu-influenced). It included a large thumb piano (called later “rhumba box”), bongo drums (two attached drums of differing size, later spread internationally), shakers, scrapers, and guitars or tres (Canarian type double-stringed) guitars.

The typical “guajeo” pattern – syncopated offbeat/on beat - of guitars in Son Changüí, were the model for later (piano) patterns in later Son, but also for Salsa, as some would recognize. That “guajeo” is with a guitar/tres, but is as much about the “rhythm” and “groove” as it is about melody.

INDIGENOUS

Time to focus on the African continent, and my main reason for this post: the search for ‘indigenous African string instruments”.

Are the Ngoni and Kora truly indigenous to the Mali/Guinee region? If so, what differentiates them from other “string instruments” as known in Europe and the Islamic world?

Some may know this already, but I have yet to learn something about this. I played shortly a Ngoni at a friend’s place, learning that you did not use all your fingers (only two of each hand) to play, due to the grip. This differs from the Classical Guitar, where even missing one finger tip due to an accident can be problematic, as some well-known guitar players found out, like Django Reinhardt, that could use it to their advantage by creating their own style. More or less I saw how the one-string Afro-Brazilian musical bow called Berimbau (used in Capoeira) is plucked, but that’s about it. The Kora sounds nice and like a harp. How it is played I only vaguely know.

Time to learn more about it, and I do that not just by reading or Internet video searches (anyone can do that by themselves), but also through conversations with or questions to people I know in my personal circle playing those African string instruments (often combined with percussion), asking them some questions.

BERIMBAU

Carlos, a relative of mine, active in the Netherlands for an organization providing information on Afro-Brazilian and Capoeira culture (called Stichting Agogo) danced/played Capoeira himself, and played accompanying music, including on the “musical bow” the Berimbau.

The Berimbau can be considered a string instrument. Carlos himself described it a string instrument “in its initial stage”. It has only one string on a wooden, flexible bow, a resonator (usually calabash), but cannot produce too many tones (“two or three”), though variation is achieved with added objects like a coin when plucking.

Its playing is essentially rhythmic, Carlos emphasizes, having moreover a “leading” role in the music accompanying Capoeira (let’s call it “Capoeira music”). The Berimbau leads the “groove”, so to speak, which other instruments (drums, shakers, tambourines, scrapers) follow, or respond to.

In light of its limited tonal variety it can be considered rhythmic and percussive. After all, also by using your hand well, you can get different tones from hand drums too (muting, slapping, open tone, heel-tip, even with elbow, such as later conga players, etcetera).

The “string” of the Berimbau - however – certainly gives it a feel of atmospheric “tension”, remotely similar to the swing, though based on straight rhythms, as Capoeira’ – and the Berimbau’s - origins in Angola suggest.

I studied it before, and musical bows – like the models for the Angolan Berimbau, can be found in a large part of Central and Southern Africa, notably the Bantu-speaking Southern half, from Angola and DR Congo, to Zambia, Swaziland, or even Madagascar. The musical bow “Malunga” in India got there with East African immigrants.

Besides in Brazil, also on some Caribbean islands, such as Curaçao and Guadeloupe and Martinique one finds such African-descended musical bows, sometimes played with the mouth as resonator..

These one-string bows are however mainly seen as a percussion instrument, or as an “initial stage” of a string instrument.

NGONI AND KORA

The Ngoni, a harp-lute from Mali is made of a gourd and animal skin, having now between 6 or 18 strings. Variants of the Ngoni exist in the wider Senegambian and Guinee region. On Wikipedia, and in other sources, its history is confirmed as indigenous to the Mali region. So yes, indigenous (full) string instruments historically exist, not only in Northern Africa, but also in e.g. Mali, e.g. the Ngoni.

The Kora – also a calabash-bodied harp/lute – is historically newer than the Ngoni, found also in Mande-speaking parts like the Ngoni, including Mali, Guinee, and Senegambia, and (northern) parts of Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, and Burkina Faso. The Kora has a wider range and has typically 21 strings.

That increase in strings (the kora developed after all later than the Ngoni, that had initially 6 strings) is interesting, since the model for the “Western” guitar – the Spanish guitar – also initially had 4 strings, later 6.

Anyway, also the Kora is described in historical sources as indigenous to that part of Africa. The Ngoni and Kora, moreover, were said to be the models for the Banjo instrument in the Americas, influenced by Mande-speaking slaves in some parts, e.g. the Mississippi delta, explaining the banjo’s presence in US folk styles (like Bluegrass), but it is also used in some Caribbean folk genres (Mento, Calypso a.o.)..

Interestingly, for this post, sources refer also to an indigenous, triangular guitar-like instrument among the Igbo in SE Nigeria, so more in “percussive” forest Africa, outside of “kora/ngoni” Griot/Sahel Africa. This Igbo instrument is called the “Ubaw-Akwala”, and is seen as another possible predecessor of the banjo.

Interestingly, because enslaved Igbo Africans ended up in parts of the US (Georgia, Carolina), as well as of the Caribbean, notably Barbados and Jamaica.

OVERVIEW

A friend of mine sent me a photo as an overview of indigenous African string instruments, pointing also at Ethiopian string instruments. I found interesting to see also an indigenous harp in the Congo/Gabon region (called Wambi).

Further, the Kundi is a five-string harp among the Azande people (DR Congo/CAR) in Central-Africa, well into more “percussive” forest Africa.. Also the Enanga – an arched 7 or 8-string harp among the Ganda in Uganda - is worthy of mention in more percussion-oriented Ganda culture. It is played quite percussively.

Through my own research I further found also that the Akan (Ghana) had an own harp (not unsimilar to the Kora), the Seperewa, (see https://ghanagoods.co.uk/ashanti-musical-instruments/), not shown in this photo. There are also some Northern African ones, but for this post, I more or less exclude Arab-influenced Northern Africa, not as a rejection, but because the topic is indigenous string instruments.

It is more complicated though. Berbers (Imazigh) were original inhabitants of Northern Africa, though said to be of Middle Eastern origin far back. Tambourine-variants, like the Bendir, are the most used instruments in Berber folk music, which in itself forms an interesting contrast with the more “string” oriented Arabs.

ETHIOPIA

The Ethiopian population is African, but mixed with migrants historically from the nearby Arabian peninsula. These spoke Semitic languages and were mostly male, explaining why – genetical studies showed - the Ethiopians still today have more Semitic/Arabian DNA on their paternal side, and more indigenous African (related to Nilotic peoples like the Nuer and Luo) or Hamitic/Cushitic/Somali) on their maternal side.

This pre-Islam Arabian peninsula migration nonetheless shaped the culture too, but was more “indigenized” than the Arab influence in Northern Africa with the later spread of Islam (since the 7th c. AD). The connection to the Holy Faith of Islam gave Arab culture after all a special status.

In Ethiopia this kind of privileging was not absent, although mixture was more common. The Amharic speak an (audibly Africanized) Semitic language called Amharic, are Early Christians, and have string-like instruments, without a strong foreign, colonizing input (only some Islamic or Portuguese influences).

These string instruments play a role, but also drums and percussions. The big, two-sided Kebero drum – distantly related to the Ugandan/Kenyan Ngoma) - is used often, also as standard in Ethiopian Orthodox Christian services (big kebero drums). For secular events smaller kebero drums tend to be used. This connection between drum/rhythm and spirituality is deeply African. Other percussion during such church services include rattles and shaked “sistrums” (of metal).

Ethiopian string instruments among the Amhara peoples and others include the lyre Krar (five strings).

Another, larger harp-like lyre is called Begena (said to be brought from the Israel region to Africa), and the more indigenous, intriguing bowed lute, known as Masenqo, with one string played like a violin, used by singers to accompany themselves.

Rhythms tend to be “faster” in the South Region of Ethiopia, while the Nuer in the South West have thumb pianos, and more variety in drums.

CONCLUSION

Africa therefore, neither sub-Saharan Africa, is not without its indigenous string instruments, even without Portuguese or Arab influences, such as harp types. The musical bows are a very primary form of a string instrument, capable of not many tones, used mainly percussively, but creatively.

It is also a matter of shape and material. “African music is mainly focused on rhythm” is too simplistic, even in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has an element of truth. Yet, the various thumb pianos like the Mbira, show a melodic, tonal tradition as well, essentially with the same musical functions as harps in Africa, or guitars (or pianos) elsewhere. These typically African thumb pianos have their unique characteristics though, influencing later “guitar”-playing patterns in Africa and the African diaspora, for instance in Conglese Soukous, but also in Cuban Son, up to Salsa (and Dominican Bachata, Jamaican Mento a.o.).

The harp and lutes with more strings are also long present in Africa, the Ngoni and the Kora being the best known, combining melodic and rhythmic functions, often combined with percussion/drums.

The original Spanish guitar, finally, was neither only meant or used “melodically” or “harmonically”, despite its Middle Eastern/Spanish origin. Flamenco music and some other folk styles in Southern Spain (e.g. Fandango, Sevillanas) have recurring rhythmic elements as well, even relatively much rhythm for European folk genres.

Some attribute this to colonial (Cuban) influences returning to Spain, but only in part. Sources point at also existing early “rhythmic ways” of playing the Spanish guitar before colonialism, also when combining with Spain’s best known percussion instrument, namely the clacking castanets, already present (the castanets) in Spain when the Romans went there, and probably of Ancient Egyptian/Phoenician origin.

Again, it is not so clear-cut or simple. I guess the innate musicality of all people in all cultures are influenced by international movements, but remain an own, individual reworking to a higher level, moving in the magical - often overlapping -spectrum between melody, harmony, rhythm, and, as well, “mood” and spirituality. The beauty of culture and art.

De gesel van het neoliberalisme: Ewald Engelen's 'Ontwaak! Kom uit uw neoliberale sluimer' (2021)

Zowel “neoliberalisme” als “technocratie” zijn termen waarvan ik eigenlijk alleen - tot voor kort - "ongeveer" wist wat ermee bedoeld wordt. Ik ben hoger opgeleid en heb jarenlang in een bibliotheek van een wetenschappelijke instituut gewerkt, maar toch kwam er tot voor kort geen sluitende definitie in mijn hoofd op van deze termen. “Neoliberalisme” associeerde ik met “kapitalisme”, het belang van grote bedrijven en banken, en verder, wel, de VVD. Wat het “neo” (nieuw) maakte wist ik niet precies.

“Technocratie” vond ik nog lastiger om goed te definiëren. Ik vermoedde iets van beleid gebaseerd op kille apparatuur en (reken)modellen.

Welnu, het pas (2021) verschenen en goed leesbare boek ‘Ontwaak! Kom uit uw neoliberale sluimer’ van Ewald Engelen hielp me uit de metaforische brand: het besprak beide thema’s, in relatie tot met name de recente Nederlandse geschiedenis.

Ik kwam het boek tegen in de sociale media, en had weleens eerder wat gelezen van Engelen. Ik was het over het algemeen wel met hem eens. Ook beschreef hij leuk sociaal-economische ontwikkelingen, niet zonder humor, alhoewel wel met soms complexe zinnen. Dat laatste zie ik ook als uitdaging.

Ook tijdens wat nu speelt, en dat ook mij meer raakte dan me lief was, namelijk de coronacrisis, bleken Engelen en ik het grotendeels eens. Laten we zeggen dat we beiden tot de linkervleugel behoren van mensen die kritisch zijn over de coronamaatregelen/het lockdownbeleid.

DUIDING

In dit boek uit 2021 was ik dus ook geïnteresseerd, omdat ik de thematiek interessant vond – mijn interesse is echter breed – maar ik vooral ook duiding zocht. Dit zeker ook in de corona tijd van pandemie, die Engelen ook in dit boek over neoliberalisme betrekt. Sommige tegenstanders van het coronabeleid gebruiken de term “plandemie”.

Zelfs als complottheorieën – zoals rond Bill Gates, WEF, Agenda 2030 etc. – waar blijken te zijn – mijn persoonlijk vermoeden: in ieder geval deels -, heeft loos speculeren over de achtergronden van het internationale coronabeleid nu geen zin. Althans: niet zonder een grondige analyse van de politiek en economie die er aan vooraf ging, zoals in Nederland. Dit leek mij een nuttige, historische duiding die ik zocht. Het is een lacune die het boek voor me vult, dat gaandeweg ook meteen “neoliberalisme” en “technocratie” duidelijk voor mij definieert.

Tenminste, dat verwachtte ik. Dit boek voldeed aan die verwachtingen, laat ik dat voorop stellen. Ik heb het met plezier gelezen, en kreeg ook het gevoel dat ik wat bijleerde. Het had iets van “bevestiging” van mijn denkbeelden – ik geef het toe -, maar zeker ook opende het boek mijn ogen voor andere ontwikkelingen en verbanden, die ik zelf nog niet zo zag. Ergens in het boek vat Engelen samen wat volgens hemzelf het kernthema van dit boek is: “de manier waarop hoogopgeleide experts het zogenaamde publieke belang misbruiken om de eigen belangen te dienen ten koste van die van laagopgeleiden.”.. Dat is nog eens duidelijke taal! Rond dit kernthema wordt veel interessants uiteen gezet.

NEOLIBERALISME

Ja, ik weet na lezen beter wat “neoliberalisme” is, hoewel een strakke, “catchy” definitie moeilijk te geven is. Engelen wijdde er zelfs een apart hoofdstukje aan met als titel ‘Wat is neoliberalisme?’, met als deel van de definitie: “meer macht aan aandeelhouders (eigenaren) van ondernemingen, en minder voor andere belanghebbenden (werknemers, klanten, en leveranciers). Dit leidde tot de karakteristieke, neoliberale focus op “winstmaximalisatie”. Het “neo” (nieuwe) ervan ten opzichte van het eerdere “laissez faire” liberalisme zit hem in de “ordening” via wetgeving en gerichte politieke steun.

Interessanter is hoe Engelen de dominantie van het neoliberalisme in het economische beleid van Nederland, en de rest van de Westerse wereld, beschrijft, hoe deze opkwam, en de status quo werd. De norm werd dat de vrije markt alles kan oplossen, simpel gezegd, en dat een minimale, maar effectieve, staat dit ondersteunt.

Dit Anglo-Amerikaanse kapitalistische model kwam inderdaad overwaaien uit de VS en het Verenigd Koninkrijk naar de rest van Europa. Dit was begin jaren 80 (1980s), met de University of Chicago als een leidend neoliberaal bolwerk, met internationale invloed. In Nederland, met een handelstraditie, was die invloed er relatief vroeger en sterker, zo vertelt Engelen, vergeleken met andere landen in Europa: landen als Frankrijk waar gemarginaliseerde economische “scholen” (Keynes, Marx e.a.) nog wel wat meer ruimte en politieke invloed behielden.

Engelen zet goed voor mij uiteen dat er weinig “altruïstisch” en “humanitair” is aan het neoliberalisme, en dat het cynisch genoeg inderdaad de belangen dient van een kleine, welvarende financiële elite in de wereld. Complottheorieën zijn niet eens meer nodig. Het idee van “trickle down economics”, dus dat de baten van winstgevende bedrijven iedereen, ook de arbeiders onderin (want meer werk) ten goede zouden komen, lijkt het cynische egoïsme te legitimeren.

Engelen spreekt zelf over een “proces” sindsdien, in plaats van een “complot”, een “gelijkschakeling” zo men wil, tussen alle machtige maatschappelijke groepen: politiek, de pers, met het grootkapitaal, tegenover “de massa”, en het “volk”. Deze gelijkschakeling -procesmatig, maar met welbegrepen eigenbelang - heeft zich volgens Engelen de laatste decennia in Nederland haast volledig voltrokken. Het omvatte ook puur machtspolitiek en druk, en subtiele omkoping ( zoals “job security” toch kan worden beschouwd).

POLITIEK

Alle “middenpartijen”, zo stelt hij, VVD, PVDA, CDA, D66, inclusief GroenLinks, voeren nu al een tijd neoliberaal economisch beleid uit, of propageren dat. Rechts-populistische partijen die het “ongenoegen” onder het volk willen kanaliseren - PVV, FVD – doen dat volgens Engelen met een verkeerde focus: op cultureel nationalisme, migratiebeperking, en harder vreemdelingenbeleid, daarbij het echte, diepere probleem, namelijk armoede onder dat volk door neoliberalisme, negerend. Partijen als PVV en FVD zitten in dezelfde “neoliberale” fuik wat betreft hun economische standpunten als de “middenpartijen” die ze zelf (als het “kartel”, zoals FVD voorman Thierry Baudet ze noemde) bekritiseren.

Het echte probleem, en dat vond ik een sterk punt van Engelen, is niet “migratie” of “mobiliteit” van mensen, maar mobiliteit van “kapitaal”.

Slechts de SP heeft een duidelijk ander economisch verhaal, volgens Engelen, terwijl de Partij voor de Dieren, ook wat meer afwijkend is qua ecologisch en economisch beleid van de “middenpartijen”, en minder in die neoliberale fuik zit.

WERELDBEELD

Wat is die “fuik” dan wel, en welk wereldbeeld zit achter het neoliberalisme? Dat vind ik interessant. Het “wereldbeeld” van het egoïsme, klaarblijkelijk, gedeeld door meerdere hoogopgeleiden. Daarnaast ziet Engelen ook het mensbeeld van de rationele, calculerende “homo economicus” terugkomen, sinds de stimulering van het neoliberalisme. Het gaat voorts, meer praktisch, uit van het “aanbod” (markten creëren) dan van de “vraag” van consumenten. Dit zorgt voor een – vanuit het perspectief van burger/klant - opdringeriger soort kapitalisme, met welbeschouwd ook meer leugenachtigheid (“behoeftes creëren” is the name of the marketing game), in vergelijking met de Keynesiaanse school van kapitalisme. Verrijking van het grootkapitaal, eenvoudig samen gevat, als belangrijkste uitkomst.

Overtuigend toont Engelen aan dat dit neoliberalisme – ondanks de “trickle down” pretenties – eigenlijk vooral negatieve gevolgen had voor de meerderheid van de bevolking. De bankencrisis van 2008 liet dat zien. Een kleine elite bleef er van profiteren, welke ook alsmaar rijker werd. Die elite werd juist politiek gesteund als antwoord op die economische crisis van 2008, en het neoliberalisme daarmee versterkt, ook politiek..

Hij zet ook uiteen hoe de analyses die ten grondslag liggen aan het neoliberalisme tot een “self-fulfilling prophecy” leiden: de scheiding van “feiten” en “theorie”, depolitisering van economie, samenhang tussen probleem en “oplossingen”. De interpretatie van feiten is inderdaad een heikel – en corrumpeerbaar - punt in meerdere wetenschappen.

ECONOMEN

Veel aandacht geeft Engelen ook aan “economie” als wetenschappelijke discipline. Met de dominantie van neoliberalisme sinds 1980 kregen academisch geschoolde economen - zo illustreert Engelen – veel macht en aanzien, resulterend in een combinatie van arrogantie en tunnelvisie. Hier gebruikt hij de term “technocraten” ook, alsmede “econocraten”. Kort door de bocht geformuleerd: meer geïnteresseerd in cijfers en winst dan in de bredere maatschappij. Of in zulke hinderlijke factoren als “het volk” of “democratie”.

Opvallend is ook – en dat verbaast mij ook, vanuit mijn tijd in een wetenschappelijk instituut – het gebrek aan open discussie in specifiek de economische discipline, het gebrek aan tegenspraak en twijfel. Wetenschap gedijt immers bij de twijfel, en elke “waarheid” erin is tijdelijk. In echte wetenschap dan.

Aan de neoliberale economen is dat over het algemeen weinig besteedt, verduidelijkt Engelen. Ze worden hierbij ook gesteund door de journalistiek, die dezelfde hoogopgeleide, technocratische positie en levensvisie delen, aldus Engelen. Het veelvuldig gebruik van de termen “topeconoom” of “topeconomen” in de media, wijzen op dat ontzag, als deel van een bredere kritiekloosheid. Dat de meeste politieke partijen diezelfde neoliberale focus hebben, eveneens.

Zo kregen deze technocratische economen veel invloed op het politieke discours, en “neoliberaliseerden” deze (mijn term) sinds de 1980s, zogezegd, tot op heden. In Nederland, en een flink deel van de Westerse wereld (en daarbuiten). Dit alles vergrootte de ongelijkheid tussen rijk en arm, en hoogopgeleid en lager opgeleid, maar vergrootte ook de ecologische schade.

MINACHTING

Voorts is een andere interessante lijn in dit boek van Engelen, het dédain of de regelrechte minachting van de hoogopgeleide “technocraten” voor “het volk”, met andere woorden: de lager-opgeleide (en armere) meerderheid. Dit uit zich volgens Engelen in een focus op “verdienste” (merit) van deze hoogopgeleide academici, voortkomend uit een vermeend superieur brein, waar goed gebruik van gemaakt is, door bijvoorbeeld die net-niet-zelfbenoemde topeconomen, en andere academische geschoolden in hun “bubble” en letterlijk of figuurlijk “gated communities”. Deze hoogopgeleide elite heeft een aura van internationaal, kosmopoliet burgerschap om zichzelf heen gecreëerd, geplaatst tegenover het al snel als dom, en xenofoob neergezet lager opgeleide “volk”, vatbaarder voor nepnieuws, populisme, en stemmen op Trump, of partijen als PVV, of voor nationalistische en racistische stromingen, etcetera.

RACISME

Terecht bekritiseert Engelen die hoogopgeleide hoogmoed, in Nederland ook sterk aanwezig, die generaliserend en onwaar is, ook wat betreft “racisme”. Het riekt ook nogal naar hypocrisie. De zwarte Amerikaanse komiek Paul Mooney gaf aan dat racisme vooral iets is wat (rijke) “blanken” DOEN (niet toelaten, niet aannemen, niet verstrekken), en dus meer is dan ergens “rancuneus PRATEN over andere rassen”, zonder verdere machtsmiddelen.

Die hoogopgeleide elite heeft die machtsmiddelen en zal de eigen groep daarmee bevoordelen. Ja, inderdaad vooral rijke blanke mannen, die al uit welvarende gezinnen komen. Daar ligt de hypocrisie.

Een autochtoon Nederlandse PVV-stemmer (werkeloos of uit de arbeidersklasse) die scheldt op teveel Marokkanen en andere buitenlanders in zijn wijk of omgeving, zal geen prettige of positieve persoon zijn, zeker niet voor individuele niet-Nederlanders, en andersom geldt dat ook voor leden van in Nederland etnische minderheden (Marokkanen, Surinamers e.a.) die alleen maar in rancuneuze en negatieve termen aan autochtone Nederlanders kunnen denken (vaak vanwege wat vernederende ervaringen), en contact met die Nederlandse meerderheid maar liever helemaal vermijden, ook al is dat wat generaliserend.

Deze “rancuneuze” mensen hebben door hun maatschappelijke positie echter weinig macht. Premier Mark Rutte, eindverantwoordelijke voor de “racistische” toeslagenaffaire, had daarentegen duidelijk wel macht.. Net als alle grote politieke partijen.

CULTUUR

Engelen betoogt dat de focus op “culturele” onderwerpen dominanter is geworden in het internationale politieke discours, met name sinds de terroristische aanslag (9/11) in 2001. De Islam en zich daarop beroepend terrorisme kreeg zeker overmatige aandacht van overheden, met strengere terreurwetten, en nieuwe, ingrijpende bevoegdheden, en meer inbreuk op privacy en lichamelijke integriteit. Populistische partijen in sommige landen maakten hier en daar gebruik van de Islamofobie, maar het werd ook deel van een breder “cultureel” discours binnen gevestigde partijen over de plaats van de Islam in Westerse samenlevingen. Het evidente feit dat de meerderheid van moslims geen terroristen zijn – en dat het vanuit de psychologie ook zomaar zo kan zijn dat individuele moslims hun religieus fanatisme gebruiken als uitlaatklep voor allerlei (eigen) frustraties -, werden daarbij gemakshalve veronachtzaamd.

Dat Islam-terrorisme was een “hype”, kun je concluderen uit wat Engelen in dit boek stelt, zelfs een afleidingsmanouevre om “neoliberaal” beleid te rechtvaardigen, via een sterkere, maar ondemocratische staat.

Hetzelfde vindt hij gelden voor de focus op andere “culturele”of “raciale” onderwerpen (naast de Islam in Nederland) in het maatschappelijke discours, en in de media in Nederland: “Zwarte Piet”, het Nederlands slavernijverleden of koloniaal verleden, emancipatie, standbeelden van koloniale moordenaars of slavenhouders, of zelfs thema’s als “genderneutraliteit”.

Dit dient vooral om “het volk” af te leiden van de macht van het “neoliberalisme”, en de ongelijkheid die het veroorzaakt, vindt hij. Verdeel en heers, met andere woorden, het volk (de “gevaarlijke” meerderheid) dus verdeeld houden.

Ik denk te snappen wat Engelen ermee bedoelt, hoewel ik het er niet 100% mee eens ben. De wetenschappelijke bibliotheek waar ikzelf ruim twaalf jaar voor werkte, had juist dat Nederlandse slavernijverleden (en koloniaal verleden) als thema, waarbij ik mij specialiseerde in het Caraïbisch gebied.

Ik heb er veel geleerd, maar vooral ook hoe belangrijk is om veel van dat slavernijverleden te leren: voor iedereen in de huidige wereld, en niet slechts mensen van Afrikaanse afkomst. Als slecht voorbeeld, voor het belang van mensenrechten en gelijkheid, en om de positie van bijvoorbeeld Afrika in de huidige wereld te begrijpen..

Ik vind het (Nederlands) “slavernijverleden” dan ook geen irrelevante “afleiding” zoals Engelen lijkt te suggereren, ook omdat de trans-Atlantische slavenhandel en plantage-slavernij in de Amerika’s, eigenlijk ook historisch aan de basis staan van het “kapitalisme” als zodanig, dus ook de huidige neoliberale variant, die Engelen in dit boek heftig bekritiseerd. De opbrengsten van de Britse slavernij financierden de bekende, eerste Industriële Revolutie, zoals wel wat bekender mag zijn.

Hetzelfde geldt voor racisme, waarbij Engelen wel terecht Martin Luther King citeert over de toch ook gedeelde belangen van arme arbeiders (van elk ras) met de Afro-Amerikanen – ook veelal van de arbeidersklasse – voor wie hij opkwam.. ze hadden dezelfde (neoliberaal-kapitalistische, rijke, witte) vijand. Nu nog steeds, zou je kunnen betogen.

Hoewel racisme bestaat, en discriminatie op uiterlijk en cultuur, ook in Nederland, aan de orde van de dag zijn, moeten de relaties met het dominante, ongelijkheid-bevorderende neoliberalisme niet vergeten worden, lijkt Engelen te stellen.

Enigszins samenvattend zegt Engelen treffend, achterin het boek:

“Het neoliberale middel bij uitstek is het creëren van een technocratie die de controle over de regels van de markten en de bescherming van de eigendomsrechten zoveel mogelijk buiten het bereik van volk en democratie houdt”.

Het doel van neoliberalisme is de staat gebruiken om markten verder te verdiepen en eigendomsrechten verder te zekeren, stelt hij tegelijkertijd.

Om dit te bereiken zijn ‘rampen” en “crises” welkome aanleidingen, en zo komen we bij een ander thema in dit boek: de corona crisis.

CORONA

Engelen schreef dit boek terwijl deze merkwaardige coronacrisis gaande is, wereldwijd, met een beleid van ongekende “lockdowns”, ook in Nederland, nodig geacht – of als zodanig gepresenteerd – om verspreiding van de virale ziekte (een nieuwe SARS variant) die via China de wereld over ging (sinds Februari 2020) tegen te gaan. Zoals we veel te veel in de media hebben moeten vernemen, wordt dit virus “Covid 19” genoemd.

Ik was onder de indruk van Engelen’s analyse van deze crisis, met name het politiek gebruik ervan.

Hij geeft zich niet over aan complottheorieën rond Bill Gates, Agenda 2030, the Great Reset, die veel criticasters van het coronabeleid aanhalen, maar refereert er eigenlijk wel indirect naar.

Interessant is echter juist dat hij het plaatst binnen het verloop van het Westerse neoliberalisme.

Hij spreekt – vind ik terecht – tegen dat de hele crisis en het ondemocratische “lockdown-beleid”- wat opvallend veel regeringen nu hanteren - een “ommekeer” is ten opzichte van dat neoliberalisme.

Integendeel: hij ziet het eerder als een bevestiging ervan, zelfs een culminatie van hetgeen eraan vooraf ging. Net als bij de “terrorisme hype” sinds 2001, de politiek gebruikte “banken crisis” van 2008, ziet hij de corona crisis - of “corona hype” zoals ik het zelf wel wil noemen – als nog zo’n noodsituatie en crisis die de “powers that be” gebruiken om het neoliberalisme verder te versterken.

Er is zelfs een vergelijkbare rol van academisch geschoolde “technocraten”, wier woord wet lijkt, zonder de gebruikelijke toetsing en tegenspraak. Voorheen waren dat dus de (neoliberale) “economen”, nu dus de “virologen”, met eenzelfde neiging tot arrogantie en tunnelvisie.

Een desastreus gezag – veelal gebaseerd op zeker betwistbare “modellen” – welke zelfs basale burgerrechten en –vrijheden die we als Nederlandse burgers sinds 1945 voor lief namen, beperkten en afnamen. Voor het eerst sinds de Nazi-tijd een Avondklok, daarvoor al gedwongen sluiting van publieke gelegenheden, reisbeperkingen, samenscholingsverboden, en andere ge- en verboden die de lichamelijke integriteit zelfs aantasten (mondkapjesplicht, meer en meer gedwongen tests en inentingen, en quarantaine).

Engelen zegt daarbij dat de angst bij het volk voor het virus, het vergemakkelijkt voor die neoliberale elite om hun doelen door te drukken.

VERKIEZINGEN EN STEMGEDRAG

Engelen zegt in dit boek weinig over de ernst of aard van Covid 19, en of dat het beleid legitimeert. Of die angst voor corona bij “het volk” (een meerderheid, lijkt het) terecht is (overlijdenspercentage inmiddels minder dan 0,23%, aanwijsbare risicogroepen, is het nog wel een pandemie?) daar kun je ook een boom over opzetten, en genoeg mensen doen dat tegenwoordig nu ook. Terecht uiteraard. Zowel aan de linkerkant als de rechterkant van het politieke spectrum.

Viruswaarheid (rond Willem Engel) is naar eigen zeggen teleurgesteld in de “Linkse” steun voor het corona/lockdownbeleid, maar gezien de partijpunten voor de laatste verkiezingen (Willem Engel was zelf verkiesbaar voor Lijst 30), hebben hun sociaal-economische en culturele standpunten meer met pre-corona GroenLinks of Partij voor de Dieren, of zelfs de SP gemeen, dan met rechts-populisme. Niet erg “neoliberaal” dus.

Wel aan die rechtse kant zit de Forum voor Democratie (FVD), waar partijleider Baudet met Wybren Van Haga een sterke criticaster van het coronabeleid binnen heeft gehaald, kritiek die Baudet nu lijkt te delen (na eerdere steun voor het beleid). FVD was van de “cultureel nationalistische” school die Engelen bekritiseerde: met dus de verkeerde (xenofobe) antwoorden op de noden van het laagopgeleide volk. Met de “corona focus” van nu ook Baudet veranderde de partij wel wat.

Van Haga is minder met “cultureel nationalisme” bezig en probeert nuchter als ondernemer naar het coronabeleid te kijken, en zelfs of Baudet werkelijk een “racist” is betwijfel ik eigenlijk, ondanks wat ongelukkige uitspraken die de media haalden, of opgeblazen zijn. Sommige hardvochtige voorstellen als deel van hun plannen (van de FVD) gaan in die richting, maar verschillen ook niet zoveel van wat in ‘t VVD-of CDA-programma staat (“opsporen van illegalen”, kansarme migratie beperken, en meer van dat soort onempathische, rechtse onzin). De FVD is in ieder geval deels zeker Rechts en elitair, waardoor ze economisch ook gewoon meegaan met het neoliberalisme. Hetzelfde geldt voor de nog xenofobere PVV.

Daarnaast joeg Baudet met zijn recentelijke “obsessie” met het coronabeleid andere FVD-leden weg, die meer met “cultureel nationalisme” en xenofobie bezig waren, en die dat blijkbaar meer dan Baudet combineerden met hun smetvrees. Hetzelfde geldt voor Geert Wilders die het lockdownbeleid steunde, maar electoraal gewin zag in het tegen de draconische avondklok zijn.

Engelen (en zijn partner)’s eigen Partij Voor De Dieren is volgens hemzelf de enige waarvan het electoraat grotendeels bestaan uit mensen die én Links én hoogopgeleid én kritisch over het coronabeleid met mensenrechtenschendende – en niet-effectieve – maatregelen durven te zijn (avondklok en de meeste andere beperkingen).

Dat geldt ook voor Willem Engel en de zijnen, maar die haalde de kiesdrempel niet (volgens Engel zelf door fraude).. Partij Voor De Dieren wel.

Ook Van Haga lijkt beloond te zijn voor zijn anti-coronabeleid standpunt (enkele zetels), terwijl GroenLinks voor hun pro-coronabeleid – zo lijkt het - juist zetels verloor, bij een deel van hun achterban (immers populair bij Linksige studenten, die levendige studentensteden als Amsterdam, Utrecht, en Nijmegen in dystopische spooksteden zagen veranderen, met na een bepaald tijdstip alleen politie of bezorgers op straat).

Het stemgedrag is een ander thema in dit boek: waarom blijft de meerderheid van de Nederlandse bevolking die neoliberale “middenpartijen” (VVD e.a.) stemmen, die tegen hun eigen belangen in gaan, en die van een elite juist versterken?

Dat is een belangrijk thema van het boek: die “gelijkschakeling” en gevoelde verwantschap tussen hoogopgeleide technocraten, neerkijkend op het volk, met de media, en politiek, die de politieke en economische realiteit in hun voordeel hebben “geframed” (grote bedrijven laten groeien, winstmaximalisatie, meer markt is goed, “trickle down economics”), en steeds meer mensen daaraan mee hebben laten doen, afhankelijk van hebben gemaakt.

Denk aan het toenemende huizenbezit en aantal hypotheken onder Nederlanders, de afgelopen decennia.. Dat is deel van een neoliberaal wereldbeeld, naast andere dingen, die veel Nederlandse middenklassers bij de VVD maar ook bij D66, of het PVDA en CDA herkennen, waardoor veel mensen die partijen de afgelopen verkiezingen (17 maart 2021) gewoon weer in meerderheid stemden (of “leken te hebben” om de optie van fraude open te houden).

Dit “stemmen tegen eigen belangen in” lijkt raadselachtig, maar Engelen verklaart in dit boek zeer goed hoe dat zo kon ontstaan. Het is uiteraard ook niet zonder historische paralellen (onderdanige slaven op plantages die anderen verraadden, slijmen bij de baas, nepotisme etc.). Met de “corona crisis” kwam de factor “angst voor ziekte” of zelfs “smetvrees” (die laatste term is voor mijn rekening) erbij, ook misbruikt door neoliberale krachten.

Engelen geeft terecht kritiek op de waarheidsclaims van (nu virologische) deskundigen, die principieel betwistbaar dienen te zijn, inclusief de achterliggende aannames, maar dat niet zijn. Die claims van deskundigen (het OMT met name) lijken een eindpunt van debat te zijn, en niet een beginpunt van debat en waarheidsvinding, zoals in echte wetenschap.

Ik herinner mij dat uit mijn tijd in een wetenschappelijk instituut, over meer – zij het soms moeizaam - “debat-toelatende” thema’s als “slavernijgeschiedenis” en antropologie. Discussie was open en soms zelfs aangemoedigd, ook vanwege het evidente, scheve feit dat blanke academici schrijven/onderzoeken over zwarte/Afrikaanse geschiedenis.

Echter: toen heikele thema’s als “herstelbetalingen voor slavernij” besproken werden, onder meer aangekaart door Surinaamse wetenschappers, ging een deel van de (blanke) deskundigen op hun strepen staan. Het ging toen immers om geld van de overheid en de elite. De “apologistische” school van slavernij historici als Piet Emmer (die het leed en de omvang van de Afrikaanse Holocaust teveel zou relativeren) of (iets gematigder) Gert Oostindie, had veel macht – en ook meer toegang tot de politiek – lieten als blanke wetenschappers van zich horen via invloedrijke kanalen, hoewel ze genuanceerde kritiek kregen van andere (o.m. zwarte) slavernij deskundigen. De blanke “apologisten” onder wetenschappers speelden dus de machtskaart.

Dat zie je nu ook, wil ik betogen. Engelen lijkt dat te bevestigen. In de “epiloog” aan het einde, gaat hij meer in op het huidige coronabeleid.

Hij ziet de coronacrisis niet als “nieuwe kans” voor een groene en eerlijke samenleving, ondanks vage (en oncontroleerbare) pretenties van het World Economic Forum (club van rijkste mensen in deze wereld), en mensen als Bill Gates, maar ziet dat eerder als misleidende retoriek, om het neoliberalisme verder te versterken, via oneigenlijke middelen.

Het feit dat – zoals Oxfam Novib ook al concludeerde – de kleine, maar rijkste (financiële) elite van miljardairs in deze wereld sinds “corona” en lockdowns alleen maar rijker is geworden, terwijl wereldwijd de ongelijkheid, armoede, en honger juist toenamen, bevestigt dat. Dit is dan niet eens een "onbedoeld gevolg”, maar zou best weleens juist de bedoeling ervan kunnen zijn.

MORBIDE SYMPTOMEN

Engelen lijkt dat te concluderen, waarbij hij ook wijst op een soort “macht der wanhoop” en overschreeuwen door de neoliberale elite van zichzelf. Ergens is er het besef dat neoliberalisme niet werkt voor de meerderheid, maar dat besef moet overschreeuwd en onderdrukt worden. Vandaar dat gebrek aan wetenschappelijke tegenspraak, de virologische “technocratie”, de strikte, ondemocratische, vrijheidsbeperkende maatregelen voor het volk, en de merkwaardige terugkeer van dingen eigen aan dictaturen (vreedzame demonstraties verbieden, censuur), in wat we dachten een democratisch land was. “Overcompensatie door onzekerheid” zegt Engelend prikkelend over dit beleid, en terecht naar mijn mening.

Is het internationale coronabeleid – met lockdowns en restricties – eigenlijk een agressieve vlucht naar voren van een onzeker wordende neoliberale elite? Engelen citeert hier de Italiaanse intellectueel Antonio Gramsci, die sprak over “morbide symptomen”, als deel van die wanhopige, elitaire machtsgreep tijdens een crisis.

Zo’n agressieve “vlucht naar voren” is een constante in de wereldgeschiedenis, inclusief bij ondemocratische (fascistische of anderszins totalitaire) regimes, hoe deze zichzelf ook legitimeerden (fascistisch, communistisch, islamitisch, nationalistisch, e.a.). Bestudeer daarvoor maar het Italiaanse fascisme, de Rode Khmer, het fundamentalistische Talibaan-beleid, 't Ayatollah beleid in Iran, Pinochet in Chili, Franco en Salazar in Spanje en Portugal, maar ook – dichter bij huis – Hitler in Duitsland, die anders dan sommige andere dictatoren, niet via staatsgrepen of oorlogen, maar gewoon via democratische methoden in het centrum van de macht kwam, om de democratie daarna dus te vernietigen.

Die “schijndemocratie” is ook lang een euvel in Nederland geweest, maar totdat sinds Maart 2020 vrijheden en grondrechten geschonden werden (sluiting publieke etablissementen, samenscholingsverbod, lockdowns, avondklokken, reisrestricties, vraag om verplichte tests en quarantaines, mondkapjes, indirecte vaccinatiedwang etc.), kon de gemiddelde Nederlandse burger zich daar wat meer aan onttrekken. Al was het alleen maar door vrijelijk vrienden te bezoeken of ontmoeten, of vertier te zoeken, in toen nog “ongeproblematiseerde” en vrij toegankelijke culturele plekken of uitgaansgelegenheden.

“De neoliberale orde staat op instorten, bezweken onder haar eigen mislukkingen”, zegt Engelen stellig in de laatste paragraaf. Om het boek te eindigen met een oproep, en ook in de hoofdtitel van het boek, ‘Ontwaak!’.

Daar ben ik het helemaal mee eens!

Zeker lezenswaardig en leerzaam, dit boek. Aan te raden!