Giving Away the People's Birthright for a Mess of Pottage: Land Grabs and the Recolonization of the Lands of Indigenous Peoples at Home and Abroad

by Arthur Dion Hanna Jr.

​

Dion is a Bahamian legal scholar, lecturer, researcher and community activist based in the UK

​

Summary: This paper explores the phenomenon of 'land grabbing' and the scramble for land in Afrika.

“Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality”.[i]

“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action –
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake”.[ii]

“In every Indigenous community I’ve been in, they absolutely do want community infrastructure and they do want development, but they want it on their own terms. They want to be able to use their national resources and their assets in a way that protects and sustains them. Our territories are our wealth, the major assets we have. And Indigenous people use and steward this property so that they can achieve and maintain a livelihood, and achieve and maintain that same livelihood for future generations”[iii]

In this paper, we explore the phenomenon of 'land grabbing' and the scramble for land in Afrika.[iv] Land grabbing has been described as the buying or leasing of large tracts of land and water resources by domestic and transnational companies, governments and individuals, which has become prominent since the global “2007-2008 world food price crisis”, which has witnessed much political and economic instability and social unrest in both poor and developed countries.[v] in this regard, estimates are as high as 63  million hectares of farmland in developing countries changing hands.[vi] 

In this respect, it has been pointed out that the phrase “global land grab” has become a “catch all” to describe and analyze the “current trend towards large scale transnational commercial land transactions”.[vii] However, it has been asserted that the term, while effective as “activist terminology” obscures “vast differences” in the “legality, structure and outcomes” of commercial land deals and “deflects attention” from the roles of domestic elites and governments as “partners, intermediaries and beneficiaries”.[viii] Investment in land in the 21st century has been criticized by Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and commentators as having a “negative impact” on local communities and it has generated significant engagement of international law.[ix] In Portuguese, land grabbing is translated as “grilagem”, which literally means “document aged by the actions of insects” but it has been pointed out that, for those living in the interior of Mozambique, the expression effectively reveals a “dark, heavy violent meaning” involving “abuses and arbitrary actions against the former occupants”, occasionally with “forced loss of possession” by the taking of land.[x] Holden and Page indicate that the term “grilagem” applies to “irregular procedures and/or illegal private landholding with violence in the countryside”, “exploitation of wealth”, “environmental damage” and the “threat to sovereignty”.[xi]

It has been argued that the world, relative to its human population, is quite large, being 123 billion acres in size, of which 37 billion acres is land, with a notional 4 acres of land available for every man, woman and child in the predicted 2050 population of 9 billion.[xii] Further, it has been indicated that the urban area, which is “humanity's footprint on the land patch is extremely small”, being 1.5% of the total land mass. However, as indicated by Cahill, “notional” is not “real”.[xiii] Of the total land mass, much is uninhabitable, with 37% being forests, 10% being covered by glaciers and 19% being “barren land”, deserts, dry salt flats, beaches, sand dunes and exposed rocks and 1% being fresh water coverage.[xiv] Much of the habitable land is in the hands of a few individual and family landowners, including monarchs, such as the British monarchy, the Catholic and other churches and religious institutions, with the Pope owning some 177 million acres, about 20-30% of Europe and much of Latin America. In the main, the mass of rural poor are landless or near landless and dis-empowered and with poverty “blighting” the lives of millions in Afrika, Asia and Latin America.[xv]

It has been pointed out that the land change science community has for decades focused attention on the accelerating pressure of the Earth's limited land resources caused by human environmental interaction.[xvi] Further, it has been indicated that human land use decisions play a “crucial role in driving changes in the land system” and the “dynamic interaction” between “socioeconomic and biophysical drivers of change”. In this regard, it has been asserted that the complexity of the “coupled human-environmental system” is widely acknowledged and the “portfolio of drivers of change” is continuously developing as a result of “evolution or radical shifts in economic, social, cultural or environmental conditions” and that the “recent global crises” in food, energy, finance and the environment has driven a “change in perspectives of land ownership”, as powerful transnational and national economic actors acquire large tracts of land outside their own national borders in order to provide food and energy security at home.[xvii] In this regard, it has been pointed out that the terms “teleconnection” and “land grab” have emerged to describe the “disconnection of demand and production spaces” and the “explosion” of global commercial land transactions revolving, around the “production and sale” of food and biofuels, with land grabbing being an “emerging”, prominent factor on the list of “significant drivers of land system change” in certain parts of the globe.[xviii]

In this respect, it has been indicated that the lands of the “Global South” are increasingly perceived as a “potential factor of production” for the “increasing global demand” for alternative energy (primarily biofuels), food crops, mineral deposits and “reservoirs of environmental services”,[xix] with Afrika having become an “attractive destination” for land investments, because of its relatively low population density.[xx] In this regard, it has been pointed out that “millions of hectares” are bought or leased by nations or private companies based outside Afrika, as well as by more wealthy countries on the continent such as Libya and Egypt, with some seeing this as a major threat to the livelihoods of the local rural poor, while others see economic opportunity for local communities that could benefit from the income generated from the leasing or selling of the land.[xxi] However, “precise information” on the “magnitude” of the “challenge”, in terms of the “amount and location” of land concerned, is “very limited”.[xxii]

However, it has been pointed out that the “magnitude” of the land deals is “significant “and that they currently are negotiated throughout Afrika, with a “cluster of deals” being “identified” in the eastern part of the Afrikan continent in countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda and Madagascar, while other large recipient countries are Sudan, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has been indicated that in ten of the “identified recipient countries” the deals represent more than 5% of the current agricultural area, while in Uganda its more than 14%, in Mozambique more than 21% and in DR Congo more than 48% of the agricultural land, with the consequences of the land deals being very large for the local population and environment, with:

“Impacts such as agricultural intensification, forest degradation, displacement of local populations, increasing local food insecurity and increasing poverty. All in all, the international land investments have emerged as a new significant driver of land system change in an increasing teleconnected world”.[xxiii]

Byerlee and Deininger argue that, given that total global farmland takes up just over 4 billion hectares, land grabs could equate to around 1% of global farmland but that, in practice, land acquired may not have previously been used as farmland and may be covered by forests,, which equate to about 4 billion hectares worldwide, so transnational land acquisitions may have a “significant role” in “ongoing deforestation”.[xxiv] It has been asserted that in Afrika, large scale investments in land since 2007, have been scrutinized by “civil society organizations, researchers and other organizations” because of issues such as:

“Land insecurity, local consultation and compensation for land, displacement of local peoples, employment of local people, the process of negotiations between investors and governments and the environmental consequences of large scale agriculture”.[xxv]

Ruth Hall argues that these issues have contributed to critics' characterization of much large scale investment, since 2007, as land grabbing, irrespective of differences in the types of investment and the ultimate impact that investments have on local populations.[xxvi] However, when viewed in a socio-legal historical context under the lens of critical race analysis, one must consider the colonial misadventures emanating from  Europe, particularly from 1492, when Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus) landed on the island of San Salvador in the Bahamas. That began one of the biggest land grabs in history/herstory, which was driven by an extraordinary papal bull, “Inter Caetera”, issued by Pope Alexander VI, in 1493,  under the authority of “Almighty God”, dividing the non Christian European world, from the Artic (North) Pole to the Antartic (South) Pole, between Spain and Portugal. This papal bull directed and authorized those nations to subdue the indigenous peoples who possessed those lands and to colonize, convert and enslave them, and ultimately to appropriate their lands and resources.[xxvii] Thus began the global colonization of the Non-European global peoples in Afrika, Asia, the Americas and the Caribbean, and the appropriation of the lands of the indigenous peoples residing there. Eventually, over the centuries, other European nations joined in this global land grab, including, England, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Germany.[xxviii]

The perverse logic of this spirit of entitlement of the White Western World in appropriating and exploiting the land and resources of the colonized territories in Afrika, Asia the Americas and the Caribbean,[xxix] is revealed in Carl Schmitt's assertion that:

“Just as in international law, the land appropriating state could treat the public property (imperium) of appropriated colonial territory as leaderless, so it could treat private property  (dominium) as leaderless. It could ignore native property rights and declare itself to be the sole owner of the land; it could appropriate indigenous chieftains' rights and could do so whether or not that was a true legal succession. It could create private government property, while continuing to recognize certain native use rights; it could also initiate public ownership of the state; and it could allow native use rights to remain unchanged, and could rule over indigenous peoples through a kind of dominium eminens”.[xxx]

The scramble for Afrika began in the 15th century, with the Portuguese establishing coastal fortifications and slave ports, but by the 19th century it was cemented in the Berlin Conference, 1884-5, which regulated the footprint of colonialism and colonial trade, and partitioned the continent between the European colonial powers in the General Act of the Berlin Conference.[xxxi] Whereas the Europeans had already began to partition the continent before the Conference by virtue of bilateral agreements before and after this enclave of Colonial land predators,[xxxii] the Berlin Conference confirmed the subordinate status of the Afrikan people and subversion of their sovereignty and governance.[xxxiii]

Prior to the Berlin Conference, King Leopold II of Belgium began a massive land grab in the Central Afrikan region of the Congo, when in 1874 he initiated the “International Afrikan Association”, ostensibly as a vehicle for humanitarian projects in Central Afrika, and recruited the explorer, Henry Morton Stanley “in deepest secrecy” to “research and civilize” the Continent, using him to help him colonize the Congo region.[xxxiv] Eventually, purchasing the Association, he used it as a thin veneer to veil his ultimate desire to colonize. By the time of the Berlin Conference, he had made sufficient inroads into the region to lay claim to the all of the land, which exceeded some 1,000,000 sq. miles, 76 times the size of Belgium.[xxxv] In this regard, the Conference authorized the establishment of the “Congo Free State”, of which he and not Belgium, was the sole owner, to “civilize and improve” the lives of the indigenous peoples of the region.[xxxvi] However, he observed this mandate in its breach and, utilizing extreme brutal cruelty, he expropriated and exploited the land and resources for  his personal benefit. He made immense profit in the trade of ivory and the production of rubber on the basis of enforced servitude of the indigenous peoples. His colonial administration was characterized by horrendous genocidal brutality, murders torture, raining terror on the indigenous peoples, with the hands of men, women and children being amputated, and the breasts of women sliced off, when rubber quotas were not met.[xxxvii] It has been estimated that as many 1 to 15 million Indigenous people perished during his “benevolent” colonial administration.[xxxviii]  Similar atrocities and exploitation have been inflicted on the Afrikan people by the other European colonial powers, in their subjugation of the Afrikan people and their project of colonial and imperialist exploitation of Mother Afrika.[xxxix]

This larcenous colonial agenda provides a socio-legal historical context as a lens with which to view modern manifestations of land grabbing. Needless to say, this sense of Imperial entitlement was paramount in the ongoing displacement of indigenous Palestinian people and the seizure of their land, which has been ongoing from the establishment of the state of Israel. Between 1990 – 2011, in the Palestinian  West Bank, when Israel expropriated in excess of 195 kilometers, without compensation, to the peoples they dispossessed, and allocated those lands to immigrants for new settlements and particularly for the establishment  of large farms, and in the process, denying scarce water resources to the Palestinian people.[xl] It has been pointed out that, between July 2016 and June 2017, Israeli authorities authorized construction work on more than 2,000 new housing units for settlers in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem.[xli] Kenneth Roth indicates that Israel operates a two-tiered system in the West Bank that provides preferential treatment to Israeli settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians.[xlii] He advises that, while settlements expanded in 2017, Israeli authorities destroyed 381 homes and other property, “forcibly displacing” 588 people, as of November 6, 2018, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of “discriminatory practices that reject almost all building permit applications submitted by Palestinians”.[xliii] He asserts that  Israel has continued to maintain its “decade-long effective closure of Gaza”, imposing restrictions that “limits supply” of electricity and water, “restricts access” to medical care and educational and economic opportunity, and “perpetuates poverty””.[xliv]

In Afrika, many indigenous people hold land under customary law arrangements, often outside the official legal system. In this regard, a 2003 World Bank study posited estimates that only between 2 and 10 percent of total land in Afrika is “formally tenured”.[xlv] In this regard, it has been pointed out that much of the lack of private ownership is due to government ownership of land “as a function of national policy” and also because of “complicated procedures” of registration of land  and a perception by indigenous communities that “customary systems are sufficient”.[xlvi] Further, World Bank research reveals a “strong negative statistical link” between “land tenure recognition” and “prospective land acquisitions” and concludes that “lower recognition of land rights” increased a country's “attractiveness” for land acquisition, with it being implicit that companies have “actively sought out areas with low land recognition rights for investment”.[xlvii]

Of equal concern, is the assertion that, while “commonly required” by law in many “host countries”, the consultation process between investors and local populations have been criticized for “not adequately” informing communities of their “rights, negotiating powers and entitlements” within land transactions.[xlviii] Further, it has been asserted that consultations have been found extremely problematic, due to the fact that they often reach just village chiefs but neglect “common villagers and disenfranchised groups”, with communities rarely being aware of their rights and even when they were, “lacked the ability to interact with investors” or to “explore ways” to use their land “more productively”.[xlix] The World Bank research initiative revealed that when consultations were conducted, they often “did not produce written agreements” and were found to be “superficial, glossing over environmental and social issues”.[l] Of further concern, is the fact that, in Ghana and elsewhere, chiefs were found to be negotiating directly with investors “without input from other villagers”, taking on themselves to sell common ancestral lands or village lands on their own.[li] Further, the World Bank research revealed that investors often obtained approval for their projects before beginning consultations and lacked any “contractual obligation” to carry out promises made to villagers.[lii]

Equally worrying, is the indication that there is a “knowledge gap” between investors and local populations regarding the land acquisition process and the “legal enforceability” of promises made by investors and other issues. There is a consequent inability of villagers to see and study the “laws and regulations around land sales”, which “severely deteriorates communities' agency” in consultations and when consultations do occur with communities, some take place in “spans of only two to three months”, casting doubt on whether such “short time frames” can be considered as “adequate consultation” for such “wide reaching and impactful events”.[liii] It has been pointed out that an additional concern with consultations is that “women and underrepresented populations” are often left “outside during the process” and that large scale projects in Mozambique rarely included women and never presented “official reports and documents for authorization by women”.[liv] This is even the case where women are the “primary workers” on the land that is to be leased out to companies.[lv] Similarly, “pastoralists and internally displaced persons” are often excluded from negotiations, with investors taking steps to “deligitimize” their claims on land.[lvi] It has been pointed out that this led to a lack of awareness on the part of these vulnerable groups “until lease agreements have already been signed to transfer land”, with this oversight in consultations further disenfranchises “previously overlooked communities”, which worsens power inequities in local villages.[lvii]

It has been asserted that another criticism of investment in Afrikan land is the “potential for large scale displacement” of local people “without adequate compensation in either land or money”, with the displacements often resulting in resettlement in “marginal lands” and “loss of livelihoods”, particularly by pastoralists, with “gender-specific erosion of social networks”. Further, it has been indicated that although villagers were most often compensated according to national guidelines for loss of land and sometimes future harvests, compensation guidelines vary significantly between countries and depending “on the type of projects undertaken”.[lviii]

Research in Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania indicates that land grabbing is currently a big challenge for Afrikan countries because of the increased interest by foreign agricultural investors to acquire massive tracts of land in rural Afrika. Though the land dispossession of rural Afrikan communities dates back to colonial and post independence eras, land grabbing has progressively gained pace  since the global food crisis of 2007-2008.[lix]

Kachika indicates that, generally, countries “short of agricultural land supply” are looking elsewhere, particularly in Afrika, in order to meet their agricultural needs, with land grabbing being of “grave concern” because land deals are affecting “massive pieces of land”. Kachika further contends that, in most cases, the land is not “marginal” as governments and investors have presented. “Available evidence” in 2009 indicated that land deals in Ethiopia involved an estimated 602,760 hectares, in Ghana they affected 452,000 hectares and in Mali, they affected 152,580 hectares.[lx]

It has been pointed out that the 2009 Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Afrika, adopted by the Afrikan Union (AU) Summit, on 3 July, 2009 in Libya through a Declaration of Land Issues and Challenges in Africa,  provides possibilities for Afrikan governments to “reshape the direction” of foreign agricultural investments, and “neutralize” the land grabbing related risks that are threatening marginalized groups of Afrikan rural communities.[lxi] Further, it has been indicated that the Continental Framework and Guidelines are complimented by other norms, in particular, a set of 11 core principles and measures that the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food has developed to address the human rights challenge in large scale land acquisitions and leases, and among other things, set standards for best practices in developing comprehensive land policies that can ensure that agricultural investments are promoting economic growth without weakening the development of some population groups.  These standards include the need for Afrikan governments to develop comprehensive land policies in Afrika that provide anchorage for further policy development in land related sectors and sub sectors. However, in the face of these laudable standards designed to protect the Afrikan people from predatory land grabbing practices, the marginalized and disenfranchised continue to be  its victims. This is of serious concern and reflects a failure by many Afrikan leaders to protect the interest of the Afrikan people and their collaboration with foreign vested interests for their own benefit. In essence they have been selling the birthright of the Afrikan people for a mess of pottage.

In this context, foreign investment in land has been criticized by many “civil society actors “ and individuals as a “new realization of neocolonialism”, signifying a “renewed economic imperialism of developed over developing nations”, with there being acquisitions of large tracts of land, “with little perceived benefit for local populations or target nations as a whole” and a renewal of the “economically exploitative practices of the colonial period”.[lxii] In this regard, Mwesigire indicates that one of the reasons that the system of apartheid has not vanished, with the swearing in of Nelson Mandela as President, is the question of land, with the colonial system being complete in places where land ownership was taken away from the colonized and decolonization remaining incomplete if the land does not return to its rightful owners, those who were “brutally and slyly dispossessed”.[lxiii] He argues that “tragically”, a “silent recolonization” on a “mass scale” is happening through further dispossession in areas where the original colonization had not been complete, with this new colonization being “dressed” in  the language of “economic development and fighting poverty”. However,  its interest is the “satisfaction of the needs” of multinational companies for markets and land to grow food for export, to satisfy the food needs of their primary market while depriving Afrikans the satisfaction of their needs.[lxiv] As declared in the “1997 Church Land Conference” in Johannesburg  land is and should be above commerce and politics and is the source of life and death, like a “mother who gives her children sustenance without which they would perish”.[lxv]

Mwesigire further points out that the effects of colonial era land grabbing are not only visible in South Afrika and that Kenya’s “tale of landowners” and squatters, of “political families” that own entire counties as “rewards for political deals” with the “departing” colonialists remain an open sore during electoral campaigns. He further indicates that in the case of Namibia, where residents of European countries still own “huge chunks” of land native Namibians have no access to is another sign that “decolonization of the land is still far from reality”.[lxvi] Similarly, he asserts that  the case of Zimbabwe’s repossession of hitherto-White farmer owned land is perhaps the most known attempt at the decolonization of the land, which has been “heavily criticized” by Western media and branded as an act of an “almost mad and senile man”, Robert Gabriel Mugabe. The neo-liberal capitalist in the “true imperial fashion” has preached that the “repossession is bad for the Afrikan”.[lxvii]

He indicates that Namibia, where residents of European countries still own huge chunks of land native Namibians have no access to is another sign that decolonization of the land is still “far from reality”.[lxviii]  Mwesigire argues that the case of Zimbabwe’s repossession of hitherto ”White farmer owned land” is perhaps the “most known attempt” at the decolonization of the land but that it has been “heavily criticised” by Western media and “branded” as an act of an “almost mad and senile man”, Robert Gabriel Mugabe.[lxix] He indicates that the neo-liberal capitalist in the true “imperial fashion” has preached that the repossession is bad for the Afrikan and that  the “thirst for land” by “extreme capitalists” is insatiable, with parts of the continent that had “almost survived” the “original land colonization” having to be recolonized, and those where the land was effectively ‘stolen’ “consolidated”.[lxx]

Black people throughout the Diaspora have also found their landholdings under assault by this land grabbing phenomenon. This has particularly been so in the United States. After the American Civil War and the emancipation of enslaved Black people, the Northern general, William Sherman, ordered the redistribution of land in the South in plots of 40 Acres to the liberated slaves, in the promise of “40 Acres and a Mule”, which has been described as the first attempt at government reparations for the “unpaid labor and horrors of slavery”.[lxxi] However, a few months later, President Andrew Johnson overturned the order, “displacing an estimated 40,000 former slaves from 400,00 Acres.[lxxii] In this regard Weingarten asserts that:

“The Reversal of '40 Acres and a Mule' constituted a betrayal, exposing the continued exploitation and deception of Black Americans by the US Government. Throughout the early 1900s, many Black families sharecropped, farming small plots of land as tenant farmers. In exchange for the use of land, sharecroppers paid a portion of the harvest to the (primarily white) landowners”.[lxxiii]

It has been pointed out that the sharecropping system was often built on “exploitative contracts”, which forced Black people into debt and that in this context, land ownership was seen as the “true path towards independence”.[lxxiv] Largely due to a lack of access to legal advice and services when Black people began to own real property, many were not making wills, with it being estimated that as many as 81% of “these early Black landowners” dying without making wills.[lxxv] In this regard, it has been indicated that, for generations, Black landowners in the Southern United States relied on informal agreements, known as 'heirs' property' instead of wills, to keep property in the family. with descendants inheriting the land as an interest, like “stock in a company”. It has been pointed out that, historically, land owned by Black people, the majority of whom were the descendants of freed slaves was held in this “unprotected” form of ownership, which has created “uncertainty for those who want to farm the land today”.[lxxvi]

This is “very much a legacy of Jim Crow,”  with many black families having good reason to be suspicious of white Southern courts under Jim Crow, with many deciding to “live with this kind of alternative form of land ownership” where they were “avoiding the courts.”[lxxvii] The descendants of enslaved Afrikans were quite distrustful of the official legal system, which flowed from the historical legacy of enslavement and exploitation, and the betrayal by the State in appropriating lands granted to freed slaves in the broken promise of “40 Acres and a Mule”. It has been indicated that, as a result of this distrust, heirs’ property constitutes more than a third of Southern black-owned land, amounting to an estimated 3.5 million acres, worth more than $28 billion.[lxxviii] In this respect, it has been asserted that “speculators and developers” can exploit the shared ownership of heirs’ property, and that “one of the most pernicious ways” that this is played out is with partition actions, where a land speculator can purchase shares of heirs’ property from relatives who did not even live on the property. Once they've bought into this kind of co-ownership, they can go to the court and ask for a sale of the entire property. Often, the people who live on the land or have the closest ties to the land have almost no way to protect their property.[lxxix] Across the South, vulnerable heirs’ property holders have similarly been taken advantage of and it has been estimated that this has resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in lost wealth and is “a major contributor to the racial wealth gap in the United States”.[lxxx] In this regard, it has been pointed out that:

“Thousands of acres of land defined as heirs property has been forcibly bought out from under Black rural families, often second, third or fourth generation landowners whose ancestors were enslaved, by real estate developers or speculators. Making matters worse, heirs property is ineligible for a host of resources, including mortgages, improvement loans or U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. As property passes through the generations without a formal deed or will, eventually it goes from being owned by six or 7 siblings to being owned by 60 or 70 grandchildren, says Karen Lawrence, an agriculture specialist with the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education, who has lost part of her family's land due to the lack of legal protections for heirs property.....Land becomes vulnerable with so many co-owners, many of whom no longer live in the community or have an emotional tie to the property. Fellow Southwest Georgia Project agriculture specialist Deckton Hilton agrees that heirs' property is one of the most threatening situations facing Black owned land, and he estimates that 9- percent of the Black farmers he works with are affected”.[lxxxi]

This ethos has also been reflected in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. As I have pointed out, in the Bahamas, the landless, dis-empowered, and disenfranchised have always come from the Black community, the masses of poor Black people and the dynamic of the official legal system’s dispensation of Crown grants and the inevitable conflict with the customary living law of Generation Property, ensured the retention of power in a narrow White oligarchy, which managed to retain power well into the twentieth century and beyond, and a small but significant, Black middle class imbued with Western cultural values and  Eurocentric perspectives. The confluence of race and class, and the official legal system was essential in this dynamic.[lxxxii]

This confirms Cabral's assertion that the ideal for foreign domination, whether imperialist or not, would be to choose either to liquidate all the population of the dominated country, thereby eliminating opportunities for cultural resistance or to succeed in imposing itself without change to the culture of the colonized people, by harmonizing economic and political domination of those people with their cultural personality.[lxxxiii] He indicates that the first hypothesis implies genocide on the indigenous population and creates a void, which empties foreign domination of its content.[lxxxiv] Cabral points out that this first hypothesis for colonial domination has not been confirmed by history, having no practical viability.[lxxxv] This was the case in the Bahamas, where depopulation and genocide of the indigenous Tainos by the Spanish ensured that the Bahamas remained sparsely or largely unpopulated for several centuries.[lxxxvi] However, Cabral posits that, in order to escape this choice, which may be called the dilemma of cultural resistance, imperialist colonial domination has tried to create theories, which are, in effect, only gross formulations of racism.[lxxxvii] In this regard, Bishop asserts that colonial education systems were used in this way to create a number of illusions and deep seated fallacies, which were designed to teach the colonized to accept attitudes of authoritarian rule and of hierarchical structure.[lxxxviii]

In this regard, it has been asserted that it is important  consider the contention that, in discussing colonialism, the issue of formal political control is by no means the only one to consider and that informal coalitions, as well as multinational firms can and do exercise authority over foreign national areas, being engaged in colonial relations of some type or the other.[lxxxix] As I have indicated elsewhere, given the essentiality of this assertion and in a framework of historical specificity, we are forced to conclude that, despite significant advancement of the Black descendants of Afrikan slaves in the Bahamas since the era of slavery in the nineteenth century and the attainment of universal adult suffrage and majority rule in 1967, their enmeshment in this Neo-Colonial phenomenon has impeded the quest for genuine self identity. Rather, it has erected a false facade of identity, totally divorced from the historical realities of ordinary, everyday Bahamians. This multinational corporate neocolonialism in the Bahamas is driven by an economic model of offshore banks, casinos, hotels and other financial and touristic enterprises, has created a twenty first century plantation system, in which the labour of many ordinary, everyday, Black Bahamians drives the plantation economy owned by White expatriate corporate interests.[xc]

In this respect, the late Minister of Finance of the Bahamas, Carlton Francis, pointed out that the Bahamas was on a path in which the Bahamian people would eventually be tenants and servants in their own country with the land and means of economic production in the hands of foreigners. He pointed out that this was one in which Bahamians would be dis-empowered. Carlton Francis pointed towards another path that would entail returning to the fishing village historical foundations of the country, with a vision of empowerment of the Bahamian people in which they would be in control of the country's land and resources. This was a difficult path, entailing sacrifices on the part of the Bahamian people, in contradistinction to the relatively easy path of dis-empowerment that the Bahamas was on. I have indicated that his noble vision of a return to the fishing village was scorned by a derisive Parliament which chose to continue the path which we now find ourselves enmeshed with and in which ordinary everyday Bahamian people are, in the main, landless and dis-empowered.[xci]

As pointed out by Theogene Rudasingwa, Afrika’s ruling elite must admit that they are “mostly to blame for Afrika’s problems” and they must stop the “opportunistic habit” of depending on the West’s help (and the East during the Cold War) and unless there is a “change of mindset”, Afrikan elites will continue to act like a “herd”:

“Yesterday behind the West or East, today the West or China and tomorrow, God knows who. Africa must follow its conscience and its peoples’ interests......(they) “must recognize that the interests of African people are sovereign and therefore, a first priority. Of these interests, nothing is more important than the right to life, security, health, education and livelihoods.................In a stampede to become like the West and of late like China, Africa’s ruling elite have lost their African-ness, and yet they get frustrated when they cannot exactly emulate the West’s and China’s ingenuity. African leaders must change their own mindsets; put women and children at the centre of all national and continental endeavours, create an enabling environment for growth of institutions, freedom and the rule of law, champion Made-in-Africa value-added products and services for consumption and exchange, prevent and cure violent conflicts and above all, embrace Ubuntu as a central organizing philosophy in African societies. African societies must liberate themselves from chaos, suffering and dependency. African leaders must redeem themselves from scorn, shame and condemnation before it is too late. Africa, be and heal yourself!”.[xcii]

Similarly, George Ayittey argues that the blame for Afrika's “shattered future” lays  with Afrikan leaders, with have a trail of corruption and mismanagement characterizing post-colonial leaders, with dictators being aided and abetted by Afrikan elites and foreign powers from the developed world.[xciii] However, it is important to place this betrayal of Afrikan leadership in the circle of betrayal that emanates from the developed nations of the West, the former colonial masters the corrupters of corrupted Afrikan leaders. In this regard, it has been contended that, though “couched in benevolent terms”, Western policies towards Afrika have spurred the continents “devastating decline”, with a constant flow out of Afrika of its wealth in a “systematic” process of exploitation. In this obscene cycle of underdevelopment and dis-empowerment of ordinary everyday indigenous Afrikan people, first world people work in “happy harmony” with “Afrikan Despots” to wreak havoc on their nations and peoples. This corrupt circle of complicity constitutes the essence of the Betrayal of Afrika and the Afrikan people.[xciv] In this context, one must consider the conclusion by Macheka that the post-colonial independence was not a fulfillment of expectations but a “nightmare”, an “illusion” that generated a “false sense of arrival” and:

“The colonial encounter left the legacy of capitalism and its related system of exploitation. After independence, some Africans thought that they were welcoming victory in its fullness but their fellow blacks use their power improperly, replicating the colonial forms of repression. Africa has slipped off the noose of colonialism but then their governments are not different from colonial governments because at independence, it was realized that black oppressors replaced colonialists and there was mere substitution”.[xcv]

In the Caribbean, leaders have equally been complicit in subverting the welfare of the masses of Caribbean people to vested foreign interests. In this regard, as Norman Girvan has pointed out in respect of Jamaica, but also relevant in respect of the wider Caribbean:

“For 35 years of the 50-year independence experience…Jamaican economic policy has been under the direct supervision of Washington-based international financial institutions; or carried out within a framework that they approve of and is aimed at maintaining the confidence of donors and investors. One consequence of this is that successive Jamaican governments have surrendered many, if not most, of the policy tools for the shaping of economic development which the state had acquired in the late colonial and early postcolonial period”.[xcvi]

As we are advised by Ngugi, Afrikan leaders run their economies according to the “American standard” and the governments have been “taught the system of self interest” and told to forget the “ancient songs” that “glorify the notion of collective good”.[xcvii] In this regard, Macheka points out that it has been asserted that Afrikan leaders in positions of authority are “cushioned in extravagance”, while the majority of the indigenous Afrikan peoples are suffering in post-colonial Afrika, where cultural dislocation is coupled with political betrayal by the indigenous crop of Afrikan leaders.[xcviii] She asserts that leaders betray people in that independence in many African countries remained in the hands of the “founding fathers” and there was “negation of power” sharing, thereby “undermining democratic principles”.[xcix] Macheka contends that nationalist leaders at independence engaged in “politics of violence, exclusion and inclusion”, with independence bringing nothing but suffering, with the “high hope attendant to the dawn of independence” being “frustrated” by the corruption of the political leaders.[c]

In a similar vein, Bingu wa Mutharika, former Secretary-General of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), has declared that that it is “socially unacceptable or morally degrading” for a leader to reap huge profits from “swindling his people” or “hijacking the economic development machinery” for his personal benefits. He contends that the needs of the people become “secondary”, because resources are spent on military hardware for “oppressing the very masses” for whom the governments came into power and, accordingly, negation of human rights became “absolute”.[ci] As Macheka laments:

“The aspirations of the poor remain unsatisfied. The colonial encounter leaves the legacy of capitalism and its related system of exploitation, thus the black man abuses power, replicating the colonial forms of repression. The African society’s expectations of shared power have been betrayed. The independent African leaders portray a handful of people who profit from the suffering of the majority, the sorrow of many being the joy of a few. The new men in power are not governing the country well. The general feeling in post-colonial country is that the mainspring of political action is personal gain. The leaders had abused their political position to enrich themselves by using the nation’s resources. The greed of the few leaves the majority in want. The African world is giving itself the wrong impression that the people are effectively sharing in the national issues yet the real power is in the hands of the few people. African leaders have tended to seek fame and riches at the expense of the collective social concerns”.[cii]

Thomas Sankara, in relation to Burkina Faso, but equally relevant in the wider context of Afrika and the Diaspora, declared that:

“The enemies of the people are both inside and outside the country......The enemies of the people inside the country are all those who have taken advantage of their social position, of their bureaucratic position, to enrich themselves illicitly. In this way, through maneuvers, through graft and through forged documents, they find themselves corporate shareholders, they find themselves financing some company …...They are enemies of the people. They must be exposed. They must be combated......Who are the enemies of the people? The enemies of the people are also that section of the bourgeoisie that enriches itself through fraud and bribery, through the corruption of state officials so they can bring into Upper Volta all kinds of products, whose prices have been multiplied ten fold. These are the enemies of the people....The enemies of the people are also outside our borders. They base themselves on unpatriotic people, on those who have rejected their homeland. The enemies of the people, that is Neo-Colonialism, that is imperialism”.[ciii]

The lyrical genius of the Mighty Sparrow captures the essence of such corrupt leaders in the Caribbean in the song “Good Citizen”:

“When does someone really become a good citizen?

I'd like to know for sure.
Why when the ordinary man disagrees with the establishment
They call it treason?
Why should they persecute a brother for seeking black power?
Don't they know a blind man could see that this is blatant hypocrisy
The real traitors and them are all high in society
Yet the government protecting all ah dem and penalizing you and me

And in a million different ways they violate the law
It's the same good, no good bastards who oppress the poor
They selling black market, making excess profit, paying a starvation salary
These good citizens are the architects of economic slavery

They say you have the right to criticize but then you are victimized
And without any reason, many a time you find yourself
Politically paralysed by that same good citizen
Yet these fakes and phonies enjoy a long life of luxury
While they spread corruption throughout the country
When they should be arrested
They're protected and respected in the society...........

…...In lust, in greed, in fraud, in strife they specialize
Double deals, double deals they idolize
If you brave enough to open your mouth and criticize
One time you are ostracized and or victimized
Still they go unpunished and unaccused of any crime
While on the backs of the ordinary man these vultures climb
They use their riches and their power, make a mockery of the law
And have the law protect them same time

And in a million different ways they violate the law
It's the same good, no good bastards who oppress the poor
They controlling bootlegging, dope peddling, prostitution and piracy
These good citizens are the architects of economic slavery”.[civ]
 

Those “no good citizens” who sell the birthright of the Afrikan people for a mess of pottage, in Afrika and, indeed, the Afrikan Diaspora, entrapped in a cocoon of neo-colonialism, are complicit in the ongoing under-development and dis-empowerment of the Afrikan people at Home and Abroad, and cruelly betray the ancestral realm, this generation and generations to come in perpetuity, of Mother Afrika. In the eloquent words of  Amilcar Cabral, on the somber occasion of the state funeral of the great PanAfrikan visionary leader, Osageyfo Kwame Nkrumah in Conkary, Guinea, on 13 May, 1972. In a speech entitled the “Cancer of Betrayal”, dealing with the traitors who betrayed Nkrumah, but strikingly relevant in respect of those treacherous leaders who sell the birthright of the people in Afrika and the Afrikan Diaspora, Cabral declared that

“"Nobody can tell us that Nkrumah died of a cancer of the throat or some other illness. No, Nkrumah was killed by the cancer of betrayal which we must uproot from Africa if we really want to bring about the final liquidation of imperialist domination from this continent ….As an African adage says, 'those who dare to spit at the sky only dirty their own faces' …..We, the liberation movements, will not forgive those who betrayed Nkrumah. The people of Ghana will not forgive. Africa will not forgive. Progressive mankind will not forgive. Let those who still have to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of Africa make haste to do so. It is not yet too late".[cv]

Free the Land!

A Luta Continua!

​

​

[i]     Malcolm X  (1990): “Message to the Grassroots” In Malcolm X and George Breitman (ed.) Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Grove Weidenfeld, New York

[ii]    Rabindranath Tagore and Subhankar Bhattacharya (ed.) (2010): Gitanjali: Song Offerings.  Parul Prakashani, Kolkata

[iii]  Rebecca Adamson (1978-2007): The Rebecca Adamson Papers, 1978-2007 (Ongoing). Archival Material.

[iv]  In this paper the term “Africa” is spelt “Afrika” in accordance with significant Pan Afrikan practice

[v]    The Editor (2008): “Editorial: The World Food Crisis” In the New York Times, April 10. Available online <https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/opinion/10thu1.html >;  International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development ( ICTSD) (2009): “Food Security: How do Food Prices Affect Producers and Consumers in Developing Countries” In The ICTSD website, Information Note No. 10, September. Available online <http://www.ictsd.org/themes/agriculture/research/how-do-food-prices-affect-producers-affect-producers-and-consumers-in >; UN Food and Agricultural Organization (2009): The State of Food Insecurity in the World. UN Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome; Mizanur Rahman (2011): “Food Price Inflation: Global and National Problem” In the Daily Star, August 11. Available online < https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-198044 >

[vi]  The Economist (2009): “Outsourcing's Third wave” In the Economist, May 21. Available online <https://www.economist.com/international/2009/05/21/outsourcings-third-wave  >; Klaus Deinenger and Derek Byerlee et. al.  (2011): Rising Global Interest in Farmland. World Bank, Washington D.C. Available online <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Rising-Global-Interest-in-Farmland.pdf  >; Cecile Friis and Anette Reenberg (2010): Land Grab in Africa: Emerging Land System Drivers in a Teleconnected World. Global Land project, University of Copenhagen, , Copenhagen. Available online <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282847606_Land_grab_in_Africa_Emerging_land_system_drivers_in_a_teleconnected_world  >; GRAIN (2012): “GRAIN Releases Data Set With Over 400 Global Land Grabs” In the GRAIN Website. Available online < https://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-grain-releases-data-set-with-over-400-global-land-grabs  >; Kerstin Nolte, Wytski Chamberlain and Markus Giger (2016): International Land deals for Agriculture: Fresh Insights From the Land Matrix – Analytical Report II. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, , German Institute of Global and Area Studies, University of Pretoria and Bern Open Publishing, Pretoria. Available online < file:///D:/Downloads/Land-Matrix_International-Land-Deals-for-Agriculture_ 2016.pdf  >

[vii] Saturino M. Borras, Ruth Hall and Ian Scoones et. al. (2011) supra.

[viii]         Maria Cristina Rullia, Antonio Savioria and Paolo D'Odorico (2013): Global Land and Water Grabbing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, No.3. Available online < http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/02/1213163110 >

[ix]  Lea Brilmayer and William J. Moon (2014): “Regulating Land Grabs: Third Party States, Social Activism and International Law” In Nadia C. S. Lambek, Priscilla Claeys and Adrienna Wong et. al. (eds.)  Rethinking Food Systems: Structural Challenges, New Strategies and the Law. Springer, Dordrecht

[x]    Joseph Holden and Margarethe Pagel (2013): “Transnational Land Acquisitions: Economic and Private Sector Professional Evidence and Applied Knowledge Services” In the Overseas Development Institute website.  Available online <https://partnerplatform.org/?azrv33t9)>

[xi]  Ibid.

[xii] Kevin Cahill and Rob McMahon (2010): Who Owns the World: The Surprising Truth About Every Piece of Land on the Planet. Grand Central Publishers, New York; Kevin Cahill (2011): “Who Owns the World” In the New Statesman, 17 March. Available online <https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia>

[xiii]         Ibid.

[xiv]         Lars Gunnar Marklund and Caterina Batello (2008): FAO Datasets on Land Use, Change, Agriculture and Forestry and Their Applicability for National Greenhouse Gas Reporting. A Bachground Paper for the IPCC Expert Meeting on Guidance of Greenhouse Gas Inventories of Land Uses Such as Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, Finland, 13-15 May. Available online <http://www.fao.org/climatechange/15534-03bd24352e5f95a54c039491c08ca2325.pdf   >; E. C. Ellis, Goldewijk and K. Siebert et. al.  (2010): “Anthropogenic Transformation of the Biomes, 1700-2000” In Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol. 19 (5); Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2019): “Land Use” In the Our World in Data website. Available online <https://ourworldindata.org/land-use#note-2  >

[xv] Mahmood Hasan Khan (1986): “Landlessness and Rural Poverty in Undeveloped Countries” In the Pakistan Development Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, Autumn

[xvi]         Cecilie Frils and Anette Reenberg (2010): Land Grab in Africa: Emerging Land System Drivers in a Teleconnected World. GLP Report No. 1. GLP International Project Office, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist and E. Lepers (2003): “Dynamics of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Tropical Regions” In Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 28

[xvii]        Cecilie Frils and Anette Reenberg (2010) supra.

[xviii]      Ibid.

[xix]         Ibid.

[xx] C. Mbow (2010): “Africa's Risky Gamble” In Global Change, Vol. 75

[xxi]         L. Catula, S. Vermeulen and R. Leonard et. al. (2009): Land Grab or Development Opportunity: Agricultural Investments and International Land Deals in Africa. IILD, FAO and IFAD. London / Rome; M. B. Gorgen, B. Rudloff and  J. Simmons et. al. (2009): Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Land in Developing Countries. Gesellschaft Fur Technnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Federal Ministry For Economic Cooperation and Development, Division 45, Tyskland; C. Smaller and H. Mann (2009): A Thirst For Distant Land: Foreign Investment in Agricultural Land and Water. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD); J. von Braun and R. Meinzen-Dick (2009): 'Land Grabbing' by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities. IFPRI Policy Brief 13. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.; Cecilie Frils and Anette Reenberg (2010) supra.; GRAIN (2010): Farmland Grab Blog. Available online <https://www.farmlandgrab.org/ >;

[xxii]          Cecilie Frils and Anette Reenberg (2010) supra

[xxiii]      Ibid.

[xxiv]      Joseph Holden and Margarethe Pagel (2013) supra.

[xxv]        Ruth Hall (2011): “Land Grabbing in Southern Africa: The Many Faces of the Investor Rush. In Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 38 (128). Available online < https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03056244.2011.582753  >

[xxvi]      Ibid.

[xxvii]     Native Voices (n/d): “AD 1493: The Pope Asserts Rights to Colonize, Convert and Enslave” In the Native Voices Website. Available online < https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/171.html >; Samuel Edward Dawson (1889): The Lines of Demarcation of Pope Alexander VI and the Treaty of Tordesillas, 1493 and 1494. James Hope & Co., Ottawa; Bailey W. Diffie and George D. Winius (1977): Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415-1580. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis; Eric Eustace Williams (2003): From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean 1492 – 1969. Deutsch, London; Klaus Koschorke, Freider Ludwig and Mariano Delgado (2008): A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1450-1990. William E. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan / Oxford UK; Stephen T. Newcombe (2008): Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO; Deanna Spingola (2011): The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation. Trafford Publishing, USA; Pius Onyemechi Adiele (2017): The Popes, the Catholic Church and the Trans-Atlantic  Enslavement of Black Africans, 1418-1839. Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim / Zurich / New York

[xxviii]    Walter Rodney (1972): How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle L'Ouverture Publication, UK;

                     Adam Hochschild (1998): King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Houghton   

                     Mifflin Co., Boston / New York; Sara Freidrichsmeyer, Sara Lennox and Susanne Zantop (eds.)  (1998): The Imperialist

                     Imagination: German Colonialism and its Legacy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor; Eric Eustace Williams

                    (2003) supra.; Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Mia Fuller (eds.) (2005): Italian Colonialism.  Palgrave Macmillan, New York;

                    Jeremy Prestholdt (2008): Domesticating the World: African Consumerism and the Geologies of Globalization.

                    University of California Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London; James A. R. Nafziger and Ann M. Nicgorski (eds.) 

                    (2009): Cultural heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization and Commerce. Martinu Nijhoff Publishers, The  

                   Netherlands; Wim Klooster (ed.)  (2009): Migration, Trade and Slavery in and Expanding World: Essays in Honor of 

                   Pieter Emmer. Brill, Leiden / Boston; Anthony J. Hall (2010): Earth Into Property: Colonization, Decolonization and

                   Capitalism, the Bowl With One Spoon, Vol. 2. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal / London / Ithaca; Volker  

                   Langbehn and Mohammad Salama (eds.) (2011): German Colonialism: Race, the Holocaust and Post-War Germany.

                   Columbia University Press, New York; Dierk Walter (2017): Colonial Violence: European Empires and the Use of Force.

                   Oxford University Press, Oxford / New York; Robert Harms (2020): Land of Tears: The Exploration and Exploitation of

                   Equatorial Africa. Basic Books, New York; Giuseppi Finaldi (2017): A History of Italian Colonialism 1860-1907:    

                   Europe's Last Empire. Routledge, London / New York

[xxix]      Mieke van der Linden (2017): The Acquisition of Africa (1870-1914: The Nature of International Law. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden / Boston.

[xxx]        Carl Schmitt (2006): Carl Schmitt's the Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum. Trans. G. L. Ulmen. New York

[xxxi]      Sybil E. Crowe (1942): The Berlin West Africa Conference, 1995-1885. Longmans / Green, New York; Muriel A. Chamberlain (1974): The Scramble for Africa. Longman, London; Stig Forster, Wolfgang Justin Mommsen and Ronald Edward Robinson (eds.) (1988): Bismark, Europe and Africa: The Berlin Conference, 1884-1885 and the Onset of Partition. UP, Oxford;  Adam Hochschild (1998); M. Craven (2015): “Between Law and History: The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the Logic of Free Trade. In the London Review of International Law, Vol. 3

[xxxii]     S. Katzenellenbogen (1996): “It Didn't Happen in Berlin: Politics, Economics and Ignorance in the Setting of Africa's Colonial Boundaries” In P. Nugent and A. I. Asiwaju (eds.) African Boundaries: Barriers, Conduits and Opportunities. Pinter, London; M. Craven (2015): “Between Law and History: The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the Logic of Free Trade” In the London Review of International Law, Vol. 3

[xxxiii]    Ajala Adekune (1983): “The Nature of African Countries” In African Spectrum, Vol. 18 (2)

[xxxiv]    John Bierman (1993): Dark Safari: The Life  Behind the Legend of Henry Morton Stanley. University of Texas Press, Austin;  Adam Hochschild (1998) supra.;  Robert Brekenridge Edgerton (2002): The Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. St. Martins Press, New York; James L. Newman (2004): Imperial Footprints: Henry Morton Stanley's African Journeys. Potomac Books, Washington D.C.; Tim Jeal (2011):  Stanley: The Impossible Life and Tragedy of a Great Victorian Adventure. Faber, London; Robert Harms (2020) supra.

[xxxv]     Thomas Pakenham (1992): The Scramble For Africa: The White Man's Conquest of the Dark C0ntinent, 1876-1912. Abacus, London

[xxxvi]    Adam Hochschild (1998) supra.; Robert Brekenridge Edgerton (2002) supra.; Martin Ewans (2017): European Atrocity, African Catastrophe:  Leopold II, the Congo Free State and its Aftermath. Routledge, Abingdon

[xxxvii]   E. D. Morel  (1904): The Treatment of Women and Children in the Congo State, 1895-1904: A Appeal to the Women of the British Empire and of the United States of America. J. Richardson & Sons, Liverpool;  (1907):  The Tragedy of the Congo: An Appeal to Parliament. John Richardson & Sons, Liverpool; (1908): The State of Affairs on the Congo Today. J. Richardson & Sons, Liverpool; (2010): Red Rubber: The Story of the Rubber Slave Trade Flourishing in the Congo in the Year of Grace, 1907. Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, MT; (2019): Black Man's Burden. Nabu Press;  (2015): Future of the Congo: An Analysis and Criticism of the Belgian Government's Proposals. Forgotten Books; Allan John Percivale Taylor, James Morris Roberts and Roger Antsey (1968): The White Man's Burden?: The Congo Atrocities, the Germans in Africa and the British in Egypt. Purnell for BPC Pub., London; Adam Hochschild (1998) supra.; Robert Brekenridge Edgerton (2002) supra.; Martin Ewans (2017) supra.; Joseph Conrad (2018): Heart of Africa. Owen Knowles and Allan H. Simmons (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York

[xxxviii] Fredric Wertham (1973): A Sign For Cain: An Exploration of Human Violence. Warner, New York; Peter Forbath  

               (1991): The River Congo: The Discovery, Exploration and Exploitation of the World's Most Dramatic Rivers.

                Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston

[xxxix]    Davis M. Abshire and Michael Anthony Samuels (1969): Pall Mall Press, London; International Defence and Aid Fund (1973): Atrocities in the Tete District, Mozambique, 1971-1972; IDAF, London; Caroline Elkins (2005): Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Pimlico, London; Steven A. Grasse (2007): The Evil Empire: Quirk Books, Philadelphia; Bertrand Taithe (2009): The Killer Trail: A Colonial Scandal in the Heart of Africa. Oxford University Press, Oxford; David Olusoga and Casper W. Erichson (2011): The Kaiser's Holocaust: Germany's Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism. Faber & Faber, London;Alexander Mikaberidze (ed.) (2013): Atrocities, Massacres and War Crimes: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. ABR-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA; Marc Parry (2016): “Uncovering the Brutal Truth About the British Empire” In the Guardian, 18 August; Available online <https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau   >; Ian Campbell (2017): The Addis Ababa Maassacre: Italy's National Shame. Oxford University Press, Oxford; Phillip Dwyer and Amanda Nettlebeck (2018): Violence, Colonialism and the Empire in the Modern World. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham; Paul Gregoire (2018): “Crimes Against Humanity: The British Empire” In the Global Research Website, December 20. Available online < https://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-the-british-empire/5597781  >;

[xl]    Saturnio M. Borras Jr., Ruth Hall and Ian Scoones et. al. (2011) supra.

[xli]     Kenneth Roth (2018): “Israel and Palestine: Events of 2017” In the Human Rights Watch World Report. Available online < https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/israel/palestine  >

[xlii]         Ibid.

[xliii]        Ibid.

[xliv]        Ibid.

[xlv]         Lorenzo Cotula, Sonja Vermeulen and Rebecca Leonard et. al. (2009): Land Grab or Development Opportunity?: Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals in Africa. FAO /IIED, London / Rome. Available online <http://www.fao.org/3/a-ak241e.pdf  >

[xlvi]        Ibid.

[xlvii]      Klaus Deinenger and Derek Byerlee et. al.  (2011) supra.

[xlviii]     F. Pearce (2012): The Land Grabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth. Beacon Press, Boston

[xlix]        Ibid.

[l]     Ibid.

[li]    Ibid.

[lii]  Ibid.

[liii] Lorenzo Cotula (2011): The Outlook on Farmland Acquisitions. International Land Coalition / IIED. Available online <http://www.landcoalition.org/publications/outlook-farmland-acquisitions >

[liv] I. Nhantumbo and A Salomao (2010): Biofuels, Land Access and Rural Livelihoods in Mozambique.  IIED, London. Available online < https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12563IIED.pdf  >

[lv]  Julia Behrman, Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Agnes Quisumbing (2011): The Gender Implications of Large Scale Land Deals. International Food Policy Research Institute. Available online <http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/124877/filename/124878.pdf  >

[lvi] Klaus Deinenger and Derek Byerlee et. al.  (2011) supra.

[lvii]         I. Nhantumbo and A Salomao (2010) supra.; Klaus Deinenger and Derek Byerlee et. al.  (2011) supra.; Lorenzo Cotula (2011) supra.;

[lviii]        Lorenzo Cotula, Sonja Vermeulen and Rebeca Leonard et. al. (2009) supra.

[lix]          Tinyade Kachika (2010):  “Land Grabbing in Africa: A Review of the Impacts and the Possible Policy Responses” In the Land Portal Website. Available online <https://www.landportal.org/library/resources/mokoro5820/land-grabbing-africa-review-impacts-and-possible-policy-responses >

[lx]  Ibid.

[lxi] Tinyade Kachika (2010): supra.

[lxii]         John Vidal (2009): “Fears For the World's Poor Countries as the Rich Grab Land to Grow Food” In the Guardian , 3 July. Available online < https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/03/land-grabbing-food-environment  >

[lxiii]        Bwesigye bwa Mwesigirie (2014): “Land Grabbing in Africa: The New Colonialism” In the This is Africa Website. Available online <https://thisisafrica.me/politics-and-society/land-grabbing-africa-new-colonialism/ >

[lxiv]        Ibid.

[lxv]         Ibid.

[lxvi]        Ibid.

[lxvii]      Ibid.

[lxviii]     Ibid.

[lxix]        Ibid.

[lxx]         Ibid.

[lxxi]        Debbie Weingarten (2019): “Black Farmers Are Reclaiming Family Land in the South” In the Equal Voice News, July 15. Available online <https://www.caseygrants.org/evn/black-farmers-are-reclaiming-family-land-in-the-south/ >

[lxxii]      Ibid.

[lxxiii]     Ibid.

[lxxiv]     Ibid.

[lxxv]      Ibid.

[lxxvi]       Debbie Weingarten (2019):supra.

[lxxvii]      Grant Holub-Moorman and Anita Rao (2019): “Land Speculators Are Legally Forcing Black Southerners Off Family Land” In the WUNC 91.5 Website. Available online <https://www.wunc.org/post/land-speculators-are-legally-forcing-black-southerners-family-land >

[lxxviii]   Ibid.

[lxxix]     Ibid.

[lxxx]        Ibid.

[lxxxi]     Debbie Weingarten (2019):supra.

[lxxxii]       Arthur Dion Hanna (2011ac): Land and Freedom: Family, Generation Property and  Distributive Justice in a Bahamian Context. Paper  presented to the International Society of Family Law  Regional Conference in the Caribbean, March 17-19, 2011, Nassau, Bahamas. Available online <https://www.academia.edu/12349776/Family_Land_and_Freedom >; (2011b): Land and Freedom: A Return to the Fishing Village and the Struggle for Justice in the Bahamas. Presented to the blackfood.org 2nd Annual Conference of Activists in the Bahamas. The Politics of Land in the Bahamas: From Colonialism to neo-colonialism. April 9-11, Available online <https://www.academia.edu/12349993/Land_and_Freedom_Searching_for_Palm_Tree_Justice_in_the_Land_of_the_Pink_Pearl >

[lxxxiii]   Amilcar Cabral (1979): Revolution in Guinea: An African People's Struggle. Stage 1, London; (2006): Return to the Source: Selected Speeches of Amilcar Cabral. African Information Service (ed.). Monthly Review Press, New York

[lxxxiv]   Ibid.

[lxxxv]    Ibid.

[lxxxvi]   Arthur Dion Hanna jr. (2011c): Land and Freedom: One Bahamas and a Tale of Two Cities. Paper presented to the Bahamas Historical Society, 7 April. Nassau Bahamas. Available online <https://www.academia.edu/12349576/Land_and_Freedom_One_Bahamas_and_a_Tale_of_Two_Cities >

[lxxxvii] Amilcar Cabral (1979) supra.; (2006) supra.

[lxxxviii] Maurice Bishop (1983): Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution. Pathfinder Press, New York

[lxxxix]   A. Block and P. Klausner (1987): “Masters of Paradise Island: Organized Crime, Neo-Colonialism and the Bahamas” In Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 12 (1);  Arthur Dion Hanna jr. (2011c) supra.

[xc] Arthur Dion Hanna jr. (2011c) supra.

[xci]   Arthur Dion Hanna jr (2011d): Land and Freedom – A Return to the Fishing Village: Sabbatical Essays From a Legal Aid Lawyer. CreateSpace and KaraDira BlackStar; (2017): It takes a Revolution to Make a Solution: Moving Beyond Westminster Parliamentary Demonocracy1 Paper Presented by Arthur Dion Hanna jr to the 2nd Annual Future of Democracy Conference, University of the Bahamas, Nassau Bahamas, Friday, 21st July. Available online <https://www.academia.edu/33994981/It_takes_a_Revolution_to_Make_a_Solution_Moving_Beyond_Westminster_Parliamentary_Demonocracy_1>

[xcii]           Theogene Rudasingwa (2014): “Africa's Betrayal by its Leaders” In the Pambazuka News, May 29. Available online < https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/africas-betrayal-its-leaders   >

[xciii]       George Ayetti (1994): Africa Betrayed. Basingstoke, Macmillan

[xciv]         Burney N. Adebola Williams (2009): The Betrayal of Africa. Morris Publishing,  Kearney NE

[xcv]        Mavis Thokozile Macheka  (2014): “ An evaluation of post-colonial African leadership: A study of Ayi Kwei Armahs The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born, and Chinua Achebes A Man of the People” In International Journal of English and Literature, Vol. 5 (1), January

[xcvi]       Norman Girvan (2012): “50 Years of In-Dependence in Jamaica: Reflections” Speech Delivered to the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies. Kingston, Jamaica, 22 August.

[xcvii]     W. T. Ngugi (1982). Petals of Blood. Heinnmann Educational Books Ltd, Oxford

[xcviii]    Mavis Thokozile Macheka  (2014) supra.

[xcix]       Ibid.

[c]      Ibid.

[ci]           Bingu wa Mutharika (1995): One Africa, One Destiny: Towards Democracy, Good Governance and Development. SAPES Books, Harare

[cii] Mavis Thokozile Macheka  (2014) supra.

[ciii] Thomas Sankara (2007): Thomas Sankara Speaks: The Burkina Faso Revolution. Pathfinder, USA

[civ] Slinger Francisco (Mighty Sparrow) (1972): “Good Citizen” On the Many Moods of Sparrow album. Straker's  Records. Vinyl  LP

[cv] Amilcar Cabral (1972): “The Cancer of Betrayal: Homage to Kwame Nkrumah”, Speech at the Funeral of Kwame Nkrumah. Published on the Internationalist 360° Website.  Available online < https://libya360.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/amilcar-cabral-imperialism-betrayal-and-the-african-liberation-struggle/  >

​

​