AllEyesOnDC

SON, COMRADE, AND FELLOW BLACK AFRICAN NATIONALIST SCHOLAR: I READ WITH AN ASTONISHED DISILLUSIONMENT OF YOUR YOUNG ADMONISHMENT OF AN OLD PHILOSOPHY, IDEAS, PEOPLE, AND CONTINENT (UNITED STATES OF AFRICA AND THE UNITED PEOPLE OF AFRICA). I INDEED APPRECIATE OUR HARD WORK AND TOTAL ANTICIPATORY CONCERNS FOR OUR LAND OF NATIVITY. ATTACHED, PLEASE READ SOME OF MY OLD AND TIRELESS ARTICULATIONS TO VARIOUS AFRICAN SCHOLASTIC CONFERENCES. I WISH TO APPEAR ON YOU SHOW AFTER HE COVID19. 2024309988 WITH PROFESSOR CROSS 2402392136

.IGNORANCE AND CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENCE IN AFRICA: THE NECESSITY FOR NEW AFRICAN LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
By: Dr. Amos Mohammed D.Sirleaf,Ph.D. Professor and Vice President of “Blacology” A Cultural Science Research and Development Institute, Inc. USA-Liberian Mission
Dr. Sirleaf, A Conflict Management and Resolution Expert.
An activist on racial, ethnic, and social justice on National and international affairs.
E-mail: amdsirleaf@hotmail.com.

Abstract
This presentation proposes to give four theoretical and historical analyses and dimensions of the failure and disparities of Post-Independence Black/African Leadership and African-American-Leadership from emancipation to the present with specific emphasis on the Americco-Liberian Leadership and its impact on the indigenous population during the early history of Liberia, as an adaptive leadership strategy. In essence. The Historic, Social, Political, and Cultural analytical study of Post-Independence Black/African Leadership and African-American Leadership from mancipation to the present, failed because these leadership styles were adapted from imperialist colonial hereitage of leadership. The Liberian situation is a case in point. Therefore, the significance of conventional or African Tradition and Philosophical exercise of leadership must be the 21st century African System of thought. (collective consciousness and ethos of the village elders). The essence of this presentation is to objectively develop an interdisciplinary traditional Black African Culture of leadership that will enhance a Sustainable Democratization of Black\African-African-American Political Leadership, Self-Empowerment, and Institution Building for the 21st century African System of thought and beyond..

Introduction:
This presentation, in many instances, is an adoption and in some respects an extension on The State of Post-independence Africa Affairs and African/Black Leadership in Africa and African-American Leadership. . This dimension intends to incorporate by bring a post-Cold World scholastic perspectives on one of the most profound legacies of disparities and successes of Black/African Post-Independence Leadership and Post-Emancipated African-American Leadership respectfully, from past to present. This is essential because Post-Independence Black/African Cultural consequences and Predictions of Leadership from 1958 to the present, and Post-Emancipation African-Americans Cultural Predictions of Leadership(1865) from past to present, has not demonstrated the leverage of self-sustainable development for black people. For the African people in particular, it appears that the “Pre-Cultural Predictions and cultural consequences Toward Non-violence of the African people’s struggle has transformed from Pre-colonial Cultural Conditioning to self-Actualization of Post-Cultural Predictions Towards Violence .
The concept of Pre-African Cultural Predictions and cultural consequences Towards Non-violence leadership, specifically Black-African-African -American leadership has appealed to the imagination of many theorists and research, but attempts to categorize and integrate Black leadership knowledge geographically, geopolitical, and systematically have proven disappointing in the context of neo-classical culture of violence . Why contemporary Black Leadership and organizations in the context of Post-African-African-Americans-Cultural Predictions and cultural consequences Towards Non-violence have relatively failed?

Regarding the state of the accumulated literature on leadership in general, and empirical knowledge on leadership in particular Thibaut & Kelly, 1959) p.9. commented as saying:
Not much smaller than the huge bibliography on leadership is the diversity of views of the concept. Many studies essentially ask: What do people mean when they speak of leadership? Other studies begin with a conceptual or empirical definition of leadership and then proceed to determine the correlates or consequences of it as defined. Even a cursory review of these studies shows that leadership means different things to different people.

It seems, though, that leadership studies, guided by different notions and theories, have not concerned themselves with common phenomena. Browne & Cohen, 1958) corroborate this viewpoint when they write:
Through all of the history of man’s attempts to record human experiences, leadership has been recognized to an increasingly greater extent as one of the significant aspects of human activity. As a result, there is now a great mass of leadership literature which, if assembled in one place, would fill many libraries. The great part of the mass, however, would have little origination: it would evidence little in the way of common assumptions and hypotheses, and it would vary widely in theoretical and research approaches. To a great extent, therefore, the leadership literature is a mass of content without any coagulating substances to bring it together or to produce coordination and point out inter-relationships.

In spite of such ostensible chaos, conventional views of leadership identify a leader as one who exerts most influence over others’ efforts towards achieving group goals. Also, the concept of leadership allows one to see that (some) member(s) of a group possess certain characteristics which are different from those of the followers. The way by which a leader exerts influence over others in a group is called leadership role (including dynamics and styles), and it is dependent upon many circumstances and peculiarities of the leader and the situation.

Obviously, one cannot actually predict nor understand Post-Cultural Predictions Towards Non-violence of Black leadership as it relates to Contemporary Black-African Leadership. The four Theoretical and Historical Dimension and Analyses: (1) theoretical and research frame of reference which takes under consideration some of the previous works on leadership in general and black leadership, specifically African leadership in particular; (2) The Failure of Post-Independence African Leadership; (the power struggle within the formation of the OAU); (3) African-Americans and the cultural consequences of Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism; (4) Americo-Liberians Leadership and its impact on the Indigenous people; from past to present.
The General Nature of Black Leadership Role
There are three basic sub-concepts as which provide a framework for describing the dynamics of the Black leadership role, which of course, is a part of the explainatory frame work for the four theoretical and historical analyses of Black Leadership. (A) Influence is one sub-concept, and it can include virtually any psychological or behavioral effect or impact by one party on another in the process of interpersonal interaction. This impact may take the following forms: (a) emulation, (b) suggestion, (c) persuasion, and (d) coercion.

Emulation denotes one’s modeling of another’s behavior, while suggestion refers to any attempt to influence another’s behavior by advocating a particular course of action. Persuasion involves the use of some inducement in an attempt to evoke a desired response, while coercion involves the use of forcible constraints to achieve a desired response. (B) The second sub-concept is power, defined as the ability to influence behavior. “Power denotes the ability of a person or a group of persons to solicit prescribed behavior from others by means of superior formal or informal position. Therefore, power can be understood as the capacity to affect behavior in a predetermined manner.
Based upon the aforementioned analysis in reference to black leadership as it relates to Americo-Liberian leadership policy, administration, and its concept of political modernization and development, it is important to address Black leadership in the context of Americo-Liberian Leadership and its indigenous relations as an adaptive strategy. This analysis of Americo-Liberians\indigenous relation profiles will help other researchers or Liberian specialists, not to engage in putting absolute blame on the victims without digging into history to find out some of the major leading factors that precipitated causes and effects of black leadership and organizational failure, specifically Americo-Liberian leadership as an adaptive strategy.

Historic Analysis of Black (African-American)Leadership 1841-1865 Slavery
The concept of leadership has appealed to the imagination of many theorists and researchers, but attempts to categorize and integrate contemporary Black/African-African-American leadership knowledge systematically have proven disappointing. It seems that leadership studies, specifically black leadership studies guided by different notions and theories, have not concerned themselves with common phenomena (indigeneous perspectives)
. Browne and Cohn corroborate this viewpoint when they write:
Through all of the history man’s attempts to record human experiences, leadership has been recognized to an increasingly greater extent as one of the significant aspects of human activity. As a result, there is now a great mass of “leadership literature” which, if assembled in one place, would fill many libraries. The great part of the mass, however, would have little assumptions and hypothesis, and it would vary widely in theoretical and research approaches. To a great extent, therefore, the leadership literature is a mass of content without any coagulating substances to bring it together or to produce coordination and point out inter-relationships. (C.G.Browne and T.S. Cohn,(1958).
In spite of such ostensible chaos, conventional views of leadership identify a leader as one who exerts most influence over others’ efforts towards achieving group goals. Also, the concept of leadership allows one to see that a (some) member(s) of a group posses(es) certain characteristics which are different from those of the followers. They way by which a leader exerts influence over others in a group is called leadership role (including dynamics and style), and it is dependent upon many circumstances and peculiarities of the leader and the situation. Obviously, one cannot understand black leadership unless it is presented in the context of a theoretical and research frame of reference which takes under consideration some of the previous works on leadership in general and black leadership in particular.
Until 1865, Blacks, as slaves, had no political or civil rights; they could not sue or testify against whites; they could neither own property nor make wills, nor could they enter into contracts. State laws called “Black Codes” were passed to protect slaves as property, to maintain racial discipline, and to provide security for whites. These laws regulated slave assemblies, controlled slave movements, forbade teaching slaves to read and write (except in Maryland and Kentucky), and established special slave patrols and slave courts. One can only characterize the race relations policy of this period as subjugation, and the most crucial issue facing Blacks at the time was the abolition of slavery without provoking severe white retaliation. In the North, however, abolitionists were quite active, and attempted to use moral persuasion, via the freedoms of speech and press to get the slave holder to repent and initiate voluntary emancipation of the slaves. Obviously, any other strategy even in the North, would have been abortive.
Freed slaves in the North perceived freedom as an integral aspect of freedom for all blacks everywhere in the world. Historically, many blacks who were repatriated to Liberia through the American Colonization Society were predominantly from the South. Therefore, the experiences of Southern slaves and slave holders has had a profound effect on the mentality of those Southern black freed slaves who were repatriated to Liberia. Their historic concepts of leadership were adaptively synonymous with their masters.
This point of view is consistent with Hartman’s concept of adaptation which holds that people seek to fit with their environment and that the degree of adaptiveness can only be determined with reference to environmental situations. In this regard, some of the issues involved the nature of Americo-Liberian relations with the indigenous population in reference to their policy, administration, and the concept of political modernization and development of Liberia. Given the nature of the environment which blacks must negotiate, with all of its exclusions, rejections, poverty, and prejudice, it could hardly be expected that Americo-Liberians’ method of negotiating their environment would be similar to that of white slave masters. This is not to infer that all black leaders are merely reactors; it indicates that many black leaders are both actors and reactors depending on the nature of the situation. Chestang identifies three essential elements which aid in describing the black environmental situation: (a) social injustice; (b) social inconsistency; and (c) personal importance. This, of course, is a conceptual way of referring to poverty and racism. These three conditions, when combined with adaptive styles, comprise the black experience, and out of this experience, black leadership evolves. Against this background, one can say that the current Liberian civil conflict is partly a by-product of the Americo-Liberians’ policy, administration, and the concept of political modernization and development since 1820-1839. In other words, the way in which the foundation of the Liberian state formation was laid sowed, in large degree, the seeds of the current Liberian civil conflict.
According to the historic analysis of Black leadership, the Americo-Liberians Anglo-American adaptive leadership strategy, has had a profound effect on the development of the Liberian colony, and during the period of so-called self-determination. During this period, absolute authorities and powers were conferred upon the American Colonization Society (ACS) through its imperialist agents. It is significant to point out that the imperialist agents of the ACS were white Americans. These agents functioned as executive officers over the colony which was predominately controlled by white Americans and a few mulattoes and dark-skinned black-American freed slaves. From 1822, when the first settlers arrived from North America at the Liberian coast, until 1950s, the basic social cleavage in the Liberian colony was defined by ethnicity. In the opinion of the researcher and other Liberian historians, the repatriates introduced a system of governance that perpetuated political repression, socio-economic inequalities, and separatism. For instance, the political structure under which the fabric of the emerging political foundation was laid, was based on a specific separatist cast distinction.
To put this social stratification another way, there existed in the Liberian colony and among the Americo-Liberian social hierarchy: (a) the upper-upper class, (b) the upper-middle class, (c) the middle-middle class, (e) the middle lower class, and (f) the lower-lower class. The upper-upper class was comprised of the super manager, via-a-vis, the imperialist agents of the American Colonization Society (ACS). These people were predominantly conservative white liberal Democrats and Republicans. It is safe to say that the ACS was the primary governing agent of the Republic of Liberia. The imperialist agents exercised an hegemonic control and authority over the political and economic arenas of the Republic of Liberia. As representatives of the Republic’s governing institution, the repatriated Blacks, through the ACS, exercised an over-seer’s authority over all aspects of the political, social, economic, and security arenas in the Liberian colony. These people occupied positions of assistants to the Anglo-Saxon American Colonization Society imperialist agents. These people were distinguished by their relative Eurocentric educational backgrounds and their socially acceptable pigmentation.
The middle-middle class embodied the dark-skinned black settlers. These people were placed under the American social system, “separate but equal” doctrine. These dark-skinned black settlers were not exposed to many highly sensitive and concentrated areas within the political process because of their inferior pigmentation. However, they served as a pseudo middle-middle class because, they too, were considered American settlers. The middle-lower class, the group known as Congoes were recaptured Africans from the slave trade. Many of the Congoes occupied positions as maids and house-keepers for the middle-middle class dark skinned African American settlers. The lower-lower class embodied the indigenous populations who were the original occupants of the land. The indigenous population were practically free laborers and oppressed indentured servants on the private farms of the upper-middle and the middle-middle classes. This situation also created the American concept of “house naggers” (light skinned), and “field naggers” (dark skinned) which was systematically put into practice in Liberia from 1822 to 1955. Indeed, the social stratification and its adaptive leadership styles, among other things, are the pre-conditions and precipitatation of hostilities among the settlers and the indigenous populations throughout the early Liberian history. This, of course, is a by product of the 1980 to 1989 from 1989-1997 civil conflict to the present situation in Liberia.

While it has been said by many political observers of Africa’s conflict that African initiatives in resolving its conflict have no chance of success in promoting greater peace without significant and sustained international, and particularly U.S., involvement. It becomes imperative to point out that during 1994, President Bill

Clinton’s African Conflict Resolution Act (P.L. 103-381) which authorizes direct U.S. foreign assistance to the OAU-OAS and regional organizations such as ECOWAS/ ECOMOG to promote conflict management; has been a progressive sign of the U.S. cooperation towards Africa in the recent administration. However, economic integration inAfrica, specificall the West African context is meant to be a tool for the development of the national economies of the partner states. A strong economic base that can support and sustain growth in the West African region must be required as a part of the regional economic integration. African-American Initiatives in this situation will as a Imperative Post-Cold War Analysis of African Government’s perception of regional integration as a priority. This, ofcourse, can be discerned from the institutional arrangements created at the national and regional levels to promote regional economic, social, and political cooperation and sustainable infrastructural decentralization of integration and an enabling environment for democratization of development, power, wealth, and of, for, and by the people.

The ECOWAS Community has justifiably been concerned with the peace and with the regional integration process and has taken some significant measures to improve its performance in Liberia as it is been done in Sierra Leone. The author’s recommendations below are aimed at improving African\African-American’s Africa’s capacities for regional security and conflict resolution:
(1) The United States through African-American\Black Political Scientists and political structural analysts and Cultural Scientist should support the OAU/ECOMOG mechanism for conflict resolution and management, by providing African-Centered concepts of mediation, negotiation, conflict resolution, and problem-solving training, police training, military training , and equipment for African peacekeeping forces and logistics. When all else fails, than US\NATO’s involvement in Africa’s ethnic conflict will be demanded through consensus as in Kosovo\Albania and else where..
(2) The U.S.\African-American\Black diplomatic efforts should be coordinated to provide US diplomatic support to the OAU/ECOWAS\ECOMOG and other regional conflict resolution initiatives.
(3) The United States and its allies and the United Nations Specialized Agencies such as UNICEF and FAO should help create an indigenous capacity for humanitarian relief operations by Africans through Africare, TranAfrica, the Constituency for Africa, and other blak organizations (1 above). This can be done through the United States continued training and by providing pre-positioned supplies and material support, and target infrastructure programs such as warehouses, transportation infrastructure so as to increase response time to emergencies as defined by Africans based on African’s definations and standard of the UN in the context of emergency.
African countries should bear primary responsibility for organizing emergency relief operations internally and on a regional basis.

(4) The United States through Black-African-Americans Political power pressure on Congress, should provide or support training for African officials along with US African-African-American trained personals on mediation, problem-solving, early warning, and preventive diplomacy, and programs.
(5) Continued training and support for political liberalization, an African Concept of modernization and democracy, the principles human rights, and participatory development in gender and power sharing may be an appropriate policy option in the initial and post- phases of African political Leadership transitions. This can be done through the concerted efforts of African-African-American political mobilization and support for Africa’s sustainable democracy for all.
Military and police training in Africa, specifically Liberia, may be trained through the US, with degree of African-African-American involvement in the overall process, to include respect for human rights and evenhanded policing. This is imperative due to African-Americans experience in Police Brutality and African, especially South african Black experience on Police Power and police mascare of black South Africans. Police and military officers in Africa must be considered peace officers. However, the US should not extend training to military and non-democratic regimes. This ca not and will not be done will African-Ameriacans full power initiatives in the overall process.

(6) The United States should directly fund African NGOs working on conflict resolution or research and analysis that can provide early warning for ameliorative strategies. Herman Cohen argues, for example, that the United States has “a tendency to want to give aid only to the government sector. Let’s bypass it. Let’s beef up the private sector, but not any old NGO… but those who are ready to go in there and jump in and work on conflict and devote themselves to conflict management.” I believe that African-American‘s position in Africa is directed toward “A 21st, Century Sense of Though and Experience to Right the Historic Wrongs, Mistakes, and Reluctance in not sufficiently articulating Afriaca’s issues in World Affairs during the Cold War periods.
(7) External Emergency Release Assistance for repatriation and resettlement of African refugees in Africa, especially the Liberian refugees. Transportation should be provided for resettlement of Liberian in exile.
(8) External Emergency Relief should include modest assistance to resettle especially those Liberians from the farming communities. This can be established under an organization such as Liberia External Emergency Relief Development Association (LEEDA). Africare, TranAfrica, Constituency for Africa, the Urban League, the Council of Negro Women, the NAACP, through the Congressional Black Cacus, could play an important role in this regard.
(9) Settlement of the former combatants after the demobilization should be given very high priority as stated in the preceding section of this chapter. It is essential that adequate resources be provided as an incentive to resettle former combatants in an effort to purchase the weapons that have escaped collection by ECOWAS/ECOMOG.

10. Post-civil conflict resettlement of Liberia should learn from the lessons of the Uganda, Zimbabwean , Mozambican, Eriterian, and Ethiopia post-conflict experience., and from the experience of the African Development Bank (ADP), The United Nations Development Program,(UNDP), and other multinational development organizations like the World Bank and bilateral donors such a U.S., Japan, Germany, Italy, and the E.U. in the context of the Lome Convention.

Propositions:
PROPOSITION 1: A thoroughly study of the findings in this study would support the hypothesis that decades of dependency upon the United States has had an adverse affect on Liberia. This dependency tends to create an unhealthy complacency and worse to alienate Liberia from other African countries.
PROPOSITION 2: The finding further suggests that the people of Liberia exhibited a strong desire for peace, democracy, and an end to irresponsible actions of power seekers. Therefore, the U.S. should assist Liberian civil society and NGOs in the political development and nation building process.
PROPOSITION 3: Because of the longstanding special relationship between the United States and Liberia, the U.S. should be visibly active in assessing and evaluating the prospects for Liberia’s transition from civil conflict to civil peace, economic development, and participatory democracy.

PROPOSITION 4: As the study indicated, relations between Americo-Liberians and indigenous Liberians from 1847 to 1980, specifically from 1944 to 1980, could have been successful had it not been for the repeated interventions of both internal and external forces. These forces precipitated the April 12, 1980 military coup which brought Samuel K. Doe, to power.
PROPOSITION 5: The finding under this proposition suggests that the repressive Americo-Liberian hegemony of the past, must not lead a narrow minded and lasting conclusion that the alternative should be an exclusive indigenous leadership. The present civil conflict for the most part started when Samuel K. Doe, the first indigenous Liberian president, dispatched his Krahn ethnic groups to Nimba County to massacre other Liberian ethnic groups. Also, based on the analysis in this study in reference to the Americo-Liberian regime and the concept of indigenous Liberian leadership from 1847 to 1980, and from 1980 to 1990, improvements in health, education, economic growth, self improvement and African solidarity were feasible under the Americo- Liberian regime than under the indigenous regime of Samuel K. Doe. However, this is not to imply that indigenous Liberian leadership would be incapable of meeting the requirements expressed in this proposition such as international influence on development, education, political freedom for all Liberian.

PROPOSITION 6: ECOWAS/ECOMOG success in resolving the Liberian seven years of genocidal civil conflict will have a profound implication for both Africa and the international community. ECOMOG will be nationally and internationally recognized as a new peacekeeping force created out of emergency circumstances in Liberia, and found to be operational and functional. Therefore, the U.S. and the international community must assist ECOWAS/ECOMOG to sustain its effort as part of a major effort within the UN’s Peace keeping role.
Without a genuine concerted efforts to solve Liberia’s chronic political, socioeconomic problems, the prospect for opening old wounds is not only possible but likely. Based upon this analysis, the post-civil conflict paradigm in Liberia must address all major aspects and causes that led to the civil conflict and seek remedies for future political, social, and economic solidarity for all Liberian. The roles of African-Americans in this regard will serve as a clare manifestation that African-Americas are prepare to make a difference. And that they can no longer sit in salience without participating in World Affairs on behalf of their people and land of their ancestors.

Uhuru Sam,
My name is Matumb Um Nyobé living in colonial Philadelphia and am the Northern Region Representative of the African People’s Socialist Party, I unite with you the fact that we Africans are living under Colonialism and it was Colonialism that attacked Africans and Africa that Colonialism got its start we are the primitive Cumulation of Capital that Carl Marx spoke about it was Africans and other indigenous people’s that created the start up capital and the pedestal in which this economy shoulders stand it was our black bodies that were the start up capital that was sold on Wall Street we created the wealth of the nation England and France Belgium Germany. We will never be free under this parasitic Capitalism Imperialist system only through the theory of African Internationalism the international unification of Africans in the Americas the Caribbean Europe and the Continent we are one people one Nation. We must be free to freed clothe and house ourselves, self determined people, the same thing that effect Africans in every city where black and brown people are we face the same conditions our enemy is Colonialism and imperialism the African People’s Socialist Party has created a revolutionary organization can come together as one single body who agree in principle under the 19 points in principle called Black is Back Coalition for freedom Justice and Reparations. The Uhuru Movement the Freedom Movement APSPUHURU.ORG BLACKISBACKBACKCOALITION.ORG AAPED.ORG INPDUM.ORG APEDF.ORG BLACKPOWERBLUEPRINT.ORG theBurningSpear.com
BlackPower96.org