Newspaper Page Text
THE PANTHER PAGE 4
AFRICANS WAR
FOR FREEDOM
An Analysis
By DONALD G. JENKINS
Africa, the second largest
of the world’s continents,
had undergone drastic po
litical change over the past
three decades.
At the end of World
War II there were only four
significant sovereign states
on the continent of Africa:
Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia,
and South Africa.
The remaining countries
were either a possession of
or under some degree of
control or protection of one
of five European powers,
Belgium, France, Great
Britian, Portugal, and
Spain.
Africa, which has been
called the birth place of
man, is not a free land even
today. Many of her people
are still slaves. Most are
free only on paper.
France, Portugal, and
Spain control much of Af
rica today.
Many African countries
have been, and are now, fi
ghting for freedom for in
dependence. A few of those
countries are Angola, Gui
nea-Bissau, Mozambique,
Rhodesia, and South Afri
ca. In the previously nam
ed countries, the fight for
freedom has usually been
repressed severely.
Angola, located on the
Southwest Coast of Africa,
has a population of over five
million Africans and only
two hundred and fifty thou
sand whites. Yet the whites
rule totally.
Angola was colonized by
Portugal because of the
rich deposits of oil, dia
monds, iron, copper, and
coffee plants.
There are two major li
beration movements in An
gola. The Movement of, the
People for the Liberation
of Angola. (MPLA) and The
National Union for the
Total Independence of An
gola. (UNITA).
When the MPLA was
created in December of
1956, it was mainly a pro
paganda organization. In
1959, the Portuguese police
conducted widespread raids
and threw many MPLA lea
ders and suspected mem
bers into prison. By 1960
the organization had ceas
ed to exist.
After three unsuccess
ful revolts in 1961 by Black
Africans the Portuguese
settlers organized a white
militia which killed thou
sand Africans. The Portu
guese sent in fifty-thousand
troops to recapture north-
err Angola. During the re
capturing process entire
villages were annialated.
The leader of the MPLA
Agostinho Neto, was re
leased from prison in 1962.
He then escaped to a new
party headquarters in the,
Congo where he reorgani
zed the party.
In 1966 the MPLA par
ty ousted the white set
tlers in eastern Angola and
resettled the area. Medical
and educational facilities
were brought in t combat
raging diseases and igno
rance.
In May 1970 the Portu
guese began to spray che
mical herbicides and de
foliants on the cultivated
crops that the MPLA had
planted. The plants were
destroyed.
The United States sup
plied the chemicals that
were used against theAngo-
lians.
Today over one-third of
Angola has been liberated
by the MPLA.
On the southeast coast
of Africa is Mozambique
1600 miles long, it has some
of the best harbors in the
world. This i s another
country colonized by Por
tugal.
With a population of se
ven million Africans, and
only one hundred and fifty
thousand whites, it is again
the case of minority rule.
Mozambique produces
oil, cotton, copra,
sugar, tobacco, rubber,
rice , corn, peanuts and
cashews. Many natives
leave Mozambique how
ever, to go to South Afri
ca (Azania ) to work be
cause of the low rages in
Mozambique.
In Mozambique, 33 cents
an hour is considered a
fair wage.
In June 1962 in par ' es
Salaam, intellectuals and
students began FRELIMQ
Farmers, workers, and
peasants soon joined the
movement, however.
FRELIMO obtains troops
from all over Mozambi
que and includes women in
its fighting ranks. The par
ty is now fighting with an
army of ten to twelve thou
sand trained men and wo
men and is backed by a
people’s militai.
I n 1969, FRELIMO’s
president, Eduando Mond-
lane was assassinated. Sa-
mora Machel was chosen
acting president by the
Central Committee.
FRELIMO is now func
tioning as a government,,
providing schools and hos
pitals, and organizating-
trade and agriculture. Ov
er thirty thousand children
are taught in the schools.
The African struggles for
freeom are perhaps more
complex than the black
mans’ struggles in Ameri
ca. To be in your own na
tive country and have some
one come in from another
country, govern and con
trol your life is a horri
fying experience.
Yet the Africans have not
given up the struggle for
freedom and independence.
READER’S FORUM
DID MR. AGNEW LIE?
Although a member of the
executive branch may enjoy
varying kinds of immuni
ties, he is not exempt
from those rules which go
vern rational discourse.
One such rule that exacts
strict adherence is the law
of non-contradiction. This
law, as any attorney or phi
losopher knows, simply
says that two statements
will be said to be contra
dictories of each other if
(a) the truth of either im
plies the falsity of the
other, (b) the falsity of eith
er implies the truth of the
other, and (c) they have
the same terms in the
same order.
On October 10th in Fe
deral Court Mr. Agnew
made the following decla
ration:
I admit that I did receive
payments during the year
1967 which were not expen
ded for political purposes
and that, therefore, these
payments were income taxa
ble to me in that year and
that I did so know. I fur
ther acknowledge that state
contracts were awarded by
state agencies in 1967 and
other years to those who
made such payments, and I
was aware of such awards.
These are his words;
should we believe him? Or,
should we believe his state
ment of October 15th:
I am fully aware that the
plea of nolo contenders was
the equivalent to a plea of
guilty for that negotiated
proceeding in Baltimore, it
does not represent a con
fession of any quilt what
ever for any other purpose.
I made the plea because it
was the only way to re
solve the situation.
A meticulous reading of
the two statements makes
it quite apparent that Mr.
Agnew has lied. Mr. Agnew
would have us believe that
he told Judge Hoffman the
truth when he made a “tru
thful confession’’ and that
he told us the truth when
he denies the “ truthful --
ness” of the confession. The
law of non-contradiction,
will not permit him to have
it both ways. It may well be
the case that he told Judge
Hoffman a lie and is telling
the country the truth, or it
may be the case that he
told Judge Hoffman the
truth and the country a lie.
There isn’t any other logi
cal alternative. This means
that Mr. Agnew is a felon or
a, liar 0 r both. If he didn’t
do what he “admitted” that
he did, he is a liar. If he
did what he admitted that he
did then he is a felon but
at that point in time not a
liar. Yet, if he did what he
admitted to doing but later
denies he did it he becomes
both a felon and a liar. On
any possible account some
serious questions are rais
ed relative to character
and credibility.
Finally, the Agnew case
clearly demonstrates the
“double standard” that
Amerika (sic) employs. Mr.
Agnew was charged by go
vernment prosecutors with
bribery, extortion and con
spiracy. Each of these is a
serious matter and warran
ted judicial attention. In
stead, with Mr. Nixon s
blessings, the Honorable
Spiro Agnew was permitted
to plea bargain. It was final
ly agreed that he would plead
guilty to only one charge
and that would be the one
that carried the most pal
liative character. Mr..
Richardson, the Attorney
General of the United States
and Mr. Richard Nixon the
President of the United
States were agreed that
Dr. Jesse Dade, professor
of philosophy at Clark.
the Honorable Spiro Agnew
and his family had endur
ed enough pain and should
not be subjected to the or
deal of a lengthy and pos
sibly embarrassing trial.
Rank does seem to have its
privileges. When Mr. Ni
xon, on one occasion was
asked about amnesty for
the young men who fled the
country during the Vietnam
War he replied that “they
must pay the price for their
actions.” Why is this modus
operandi applicable to some
but not to all? Surely, this
kind of issue should be above
“partisan politics.”
The judge also was most
lenient with Mr. Agnew.
He fined him ten thousand
dollars and after telling
him that it was customary
to give a defendant a pri
son sentence, suspended
the sentence, and put him
on probation for three
years. Who will be this fe
lons probation officer? He
will be, the judge decreed,
"under his Own supervis
ion.”
FOP Supports Arabs
By RONALD HARRIS
The Friends of Pales
tine, (FOP) an ad hoc
committee formed to lend
support to the Arab and
Palestenian i struggles in
the Middle East War, held
a rally and demonstration
Tuesday, Oct 18, 1973.
The rally took place at
Sales Hall, on Morehouse
College’s campus at 2:00
a.m.
After the rally a demon
stration was held in front
of the Atlanta Constitution
Journal Building on Marie
tta St.. The demonstration
protested the “pro-Zionists
stance” of the Atlanta Con
stitution and Journal, accor-
dong to a Brother Kwesi,
a spokesman for the FOP.
At the rally, Alex Wil
lingham, professor of poli
tical science at Atlanta
University, spoke on the
myth of the close relation
ship between Jews and Black
folks in America.
Donald Stone, represen
tative of the Black Work
ers Congress, spoke on the
myth of the stateof Is -
rael’s right to self de
termination.
The F. O.P. composed
mostly of political activist
and students from the At
lanta University Center,
feels an obligation as free
dom-loving Black people to
counter the distortions,
lies, and myths propogat-
ed by the “pro-Zionist me
dia.” Kwesi said.
“Zionism, since its ori
gins has been linked with
European colonialism and
was itself conceivedas a
colonial enterprise” said
Brother Kwesi. “We are
opposed to Zionism. We
are not anti-semetic.” he
said.
As Black people, the FOP
is especially opposed to
Israel’s activities in Af
rican, Kwesi said.
“Not only is aggression
against Egypt a direct at
tack on the African contin
ent, but Israel is closely
aligned with the racist and
facist settler colonial re
gime in South Africa,” said
Brother Kwesi •
Members of the F. O. P.
also denounced the Unit
ed States supply of mili
tary hardware and war
materials to the Israeli
gime, and its attempts
to utilize Israeli expan
sionism as an avenue to
control oil resources in
the Arab world, at the
October 18, rally.