African traditional dances, Mbende Jerusalem
WHEREVER an African ruler goes, there are three things, namely, a red carpet, bodyguards and traditional dancers. I have always wondered: What is their significance? Are they not colonial carry overs and a wastage of time and public money? I am of the firm belief that our colonisers pretended that they revered our traditional dances, while they actually disliked them and wanted us to concentrate on them instead of liberating ourselves.
Traditionally, Africans do not have the red-carpet culture. The red carpet is a sign of colonial and Western superiority. One would have thought that former colonies would detest and eschew such colonial instruments because they hardly demonstrate decolonisation, freedom or mellowness. Again, how can our rulers rebuff such colonial dregs while they act exactly like our former colonisers, not to mention that the State houses they greedily and owlishly occupy and protect were built by the erstwhile settlers?
The splendour and trimmings the State houses shamelessly display and enjoy are but typical replicas of colonial comportment and mentality?
For Western leaders and monarchs to display such penchant makes sense because it is a sign of their perfidy that conceived colonialism and neocolonialism. Nonetheless, for the victims, taking pride in colonial lees, is nothing, but self-degradation if not the display of rank ignorance and greenness, not to mention burdening their poor people whose taxes they burn.
Many still ask where the problem lies. Is it because they are not leaders but rulers who lack self-confidence? Is it a monkey see monkey do malady? I shudder to note that some of those displaying and regurgitating such colonial vestiges are PhD holders who cannot discern such simple things. I shudder to painfully see a ruler of a poor and begging country driven in a bigger motorcade than that of the late Queen of England whose major sources of income were slavery and colonialism.
Considering how many corrupt and callous African washouts behave and misbehave, methinks they deserve to be received on dirty, torn and not red carpets. Why? Simple. They rule and live like nawabs on the sweat and taxes of pauperised people and countries. How and where do they get the money they squander? Is it by means of begging and borrowing? Nay, they make a killing by collecting taxes from paupers without offering any services.
Also, they make money by vending our resources without any fear since we fear to confront them for fear of being purged. Another reason why African rulers deserve dirty carpets is the fact that they intimidate and mug their nationals, while Western leaders fleece other countries to feed their people who appreciate and applaud it. Considering how inept our rulers are, methinks they don’t deserve red, but a dirty carpet. Before giving more nuggets of wisdom, let me allude to the short history of the red or crimson carpet and its infidelity and death trap.
According to Amy Henderson, history emeritus at the National Portrait Gallery, Washington, the history of the red carpet started in Greece during the times of Agamemnon, King of Mycenae in the year 458 BC. Agamemnon left his wife Clytemnestra at home and went to fight Trojan wars. On his return, Agamemnon brought a concubine with him, which infuriated Clytemnestra who hatched a plot to punish him for infidelity. She rolled out a crimson or red carpet to walk him to his death. The long story short is that the red carpet is historically a symbol of betrayal even though “it denotes stratospheric status, style and opulence” (BBC, February 22, 2016).
Do our corrupt and inept rulers love the red carpet because of their political infidelity or fake opulence? If you combine the two, you find that they are right to love the red carpet since they are politically infidel and heartlessly opulent.
In Greek mythoi, red carpets were for the gods only.
Again, when it comes to our mortal rulers who play God, and are but self-appointed demigods, they think the red carpet is their birthright.
Again, if you consider how corrupt and gunge our rulers are, they deserve a dirty carpet, and not a red one, otherwise it would befit them if they are walking to their deaths for their political infidelity.
In sum, provided that the monies thrown away on colonial red carpets were siphoned from taxes, we need to question their rationale.
Traditionally, Africans do not have the red-carpet culture. The red carpet is a sign of colonial and Western superiority. One would have thought that former colonies would detest and eschew such colonial instruments because they hardly demonstrate decolonisation, freedom or mellowness. Again, how can our rulers rebuff such colonial dregs while they act exactly like our former colonisers, not to mention that the State houses they greedily and owlishly occupy and protect were built by the erstwhile settlers?
The splendour and trimmings the State houses shamelessly display and enjoy are but typical replicas of colonial comportment and mentality?
For Western leaders and monarchs to display such penchant makes sense because it is a sign of their perfidy that conceived colonialism and neocolonialism. Nonetheless, for the victims, taking pride in colonial lees, is nothing, but self-degradation if not the display of rank ignorance and greenness, not to mention burdening their poor people whose taxes they burn.
Many still ask where the problem lies. Is it because they are not leaders but rulers who lack self-confidence? Is it a monkey see monkey do malady? I shudder to note that some of those displaying and regurgitating such colonial vestiges are PhD holders who cannot discern such simple things. I shudder to painfully see a ruler of a poor and begging country driven in a bigger motorcade than that of the late Queen of England whose major sources of income were slavery and colonialism.
Considering how many corrupt and callous African washouts behave and misbehave, methinks they deserve to be received on dirty, torn and not red carpets. Why? Simple. They rule and live like nawabs on the sweat and taxes of pauperised people and countries. How and where do they get the money they squander? Is it by means of begging and borrowing? Nay, they make a killing by collecting taxes from paupers without offering any services.
Also, they make money by vending our resources without any fear since we fear to confront them for fear of being purged. Another reason why African rulers deserve dirty carpets is the fact that they intimidate and mug their nationals, while Western leaders fleece other countries to feed their people who appreciate and applaud it. Considering how inept our rulers are, methinks they don’t deserve red, but a dirty carpet. Before giving more nuggets of wisdom, let me allude to the short history of the red or crimson carpet and its infidelity and death trap.
According to Amy Henderson, history emeritus at the National Portrait Gallery, Washington, the history of the red carpet started in Greece during the times of Agamemnon, King of Mycenae in the year 458 BC. Agamemnon left his wife Clytemnestra at home and went to fight Trojan wars. On his return, Agamemnon brought a concubine with him, which infuriated Clytemnestra who hatched a plot to punish him for infidelity. She rolled out a crimson or red carpet to walk him to his death. The long story short is that the red carpet is historically a symbol of betrayal even though “it denotes stratospheric status, style and opulence” (BBC, February 22, 2016).
Do our corrupt and inept rulers love the red carpet because of their political infidelity or fake opulence? If you combine the two, you find that they are right to love the red carpet since they are politically infidel and heartlessly opulent.
In Greek mythoi, red carpets were for the gods only.
Again, when it comes to our mortal rulers who play God, and are but self-appointed demigods, they think the red carpet is their birthright.
Again, if you consider how corrupt and gunge our rulers are, they deserve a dirty carpet, and not a red one, otherwise it would befit them if they are walking to their deaths for their political infidelity.
In sum, provided that the monies thrown away on colonial red carpets were siphoned from taxes, we need to question their rationale.
It maddens to find that those who love to walk on red carpets, most of them, if not all, are the children of paupers who slept on goatskins before conspiring against their people. Again, based on their failure, do our rulers deserve to plod on red carpets or on dirty ones? Again, if our countries were free, maybe, we would have chosen leaders and discarded rulers.
Source: Independent Zimbabwe today.
2 comments:
Currently the Tanzanian politics has changed from hostility to cooperative politics. The roots of changes we are witnessing started from the previous phase where the late President John Magufuli rejected the politics of sowing hatred which took place during the 4th phase of retired president, Jakaya Kikwete. Although Magufuli has applied ‘brutal force approach’ in dealing with provocative politics, the result of approach has brought a way of diplomacy where leaders of political parties sit together and collaborate in building our nation.
As I explained Dr. Magufuli approaches to face the politics of insults, ridicule and threats against the national leaders of the ruling party carried different interpretations. For example, Prince Baganda (2020) in his unpublished book titled ‘With Magufuli in Power, it is Business Unusual" noted that Magufuli's decision was due to lack of self-confidence in politics arena. Opposition politicians took the decision as an evil intention to suppress democracy. Some activists interpreted that as a violation of democracy and human rights, while political experts and scholars saw it as a new reform to break hostile politics and a new way to do politics with a national agenda.
Magufuli believed that activists’ politics has its time, especially during the general election campaigns. After general election, politicians should cooperate with the elected leadership in building the country and not continue the hostility of the wounds of failure in the ballot box.
A few years later we witness political activities being conducted in a civilized manner. Those politicians, who had outdated thinking that they influence their supporters to carry them like a coffin with a dead body, ended up being greeted by their own family members. Few people who came out to meet them, it was an alert to them that Tanzanian politics has changed. The politics of the sixth phase is a continuation of the previous phase. It allows hearings between senior leaders of political parties. It allows collaboration among political leaders.
Hamza Ramadhan
From Tazama Newspaper
0718212076
Wow! You are from Tazama my former Newspaper to which I stopped from writing after ripping me off like I did with Nipashe, Raia Mwema, Tanzania Daima and others that ripped me off! Nice to hear from you though we don't know each other. I thank you too for commenting on this blog. We welcome comments. I concur with you that the politics in Tanzania has changed. This is natural. Whenever a new government comes to power, it is obvious that it must change so as to stamp its own rule. Nonetheless, I wonder when you imply that during the fifth phase there was no 'civilised politics' to end up contradicting yourself saying that "the politics of the sixth phase is a continuation of the previous phase." Which is which here bro.
Magufuli's challenges inherited needed an extraordinary approach and person to supervise everything like Magu did. It is sad that not many people understood his mission. Ho. Pius Msekwa and I published a book on what we envisaged and viewed as the Magufulification of Tanzania and possibly Africa. I am sure. One day, many will consult this Magnum opus.
Post a Comment