"without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy." This is how Nelson Mandela justified the decision to form Umkhonto, as he explained it in his Rivonia address. Was forming Umkhonto an act of terrorism or was it truly an act of self-defence against the socio-political principles of "white supremacy"? We'll look at the distinction between violence and terrorism in future presentations. For now, we address the issue of white supremacy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) In its Preamble, the UDHR states that the rights within the Declaration are for the benefit of "all members of the human family". This means that there is only one sacred identity - that of you as a human being, no other identity matters when it comes to your rights. This identity cannot be destroyed or denied by virtue of colour, religion, or anything else -- if you are biologically a human being, you belong to the human family and you should be able to enjoy all the rights in the UDHR. The UDHR warns against the danger of denying such rights and explains that people will be "compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression". On this basis, forming Umkhonto should be considered exercising one's human rights rather than an act of terrorism. But does this justify violence in the defence against white supremacy? At its most simple, the principle of white supremacy provides that only white men are capable of higher intellectual functions (white women are often excluded). Accordingly, all non-whites should leave it to whites to run their lives and countries: politically, economically and socially. In support of this principle, a number of European academics and statesmen advanced various 'scientific' theories, one of which (Eugenics) was based on Darwin's own theories on evolution, even though Darwin himself was an active abolitionist! It is therefore not surprising that a minority group of white South Africans truly believed that they were superior to everyone else and that they had a birth-right to rule and do as they pleased with non-whites, their lands, their lives, and all what that entailed. It is also not surprising that the response was the formation of Umkhonto. We can trace the dawn of apartheid in Africa all the way back to the 1500s, or soon after the discovery of America. Then, the Roman Catholic Church distinguished between the rights of Christians and non-Christians. For instance, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal bull which provided that, upon the discovery of a new land, if the land was ruled by a Christian prince then it continues to be his, otherwise, the land would come under the sovereignty of either Portugal or Spain. The issue here is not one of land or property, but rather the treatment of the human beings who lived on these lands. ... and this is what the first series of video will be looking at, in an informal and light manner. Organization of From Kongo to Brazil: the Portugal Connection This video concentrates on the role played by Portugal in propagating slavery and the birth of apartheid and white supremacy in Africa: Part 1 - Portugal discovers Brazil Part 2 - Portugal discovers India and creates trouble Part 3 - Portugal returns to Brazil and creates trouble Part 4 - Portugal discovers the Kingdom of the Kongo Part 5 - The Christian Kongo and the Slave Trade Part 6 - The birth of apartheid in the Kongo Music: Red Planet by Terry Devine-King purchased from AudioNetwork.com (UK) All other credits will be listed, with the story behind each source used in all six videos, on a final video 7 once all 6 videos are published.

• published: 26 Aug 2013
• views: 23