I Returned to Say Goodbye:Final Moments Of Last Male N. White Rhino



A wildlife ranger comforts Sudan, the last male Northern White Rhino on the planet moments before he passed away.
A wildlife ranger comforts Sudan, the last male Northern White Rhino on the planet moments before he passed away.
Ami Vitale—National Geographic Creative

3:52 PM EDT

The world has been captivated by the loss of a rhino named Sudan, who passed away at Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya this week from age-related complications.

Elderly for his species, the 45-year-old Sudan lived a long and generally good life that would be almost unthinkable in the wild. His death was not unexpected, yet it has resonated around the world. As the planet’s last male northern white rhinoceros, Sudan found stardom as the so-called “last man standing.” Some affectionately called him “the most eligible bachelor in the world.”

I met Sudan nine years ago, after I heard about a plan to airlift four of the world’s last northern white rhinos from a zoo in the Czech Republic to Kenya. It sounded like a storyline for a Disney film of captive animals returning to the wild dusty plains. In reality, it was a desperate, last-ditch effort to save a species. At the time, there were only eight of these rhinos left, all living in captivity.

When I saw this gentle, hulking creature in the Czech snow, surrounded by smokestacks and humanity, it seemed so unfair. He looked ancient, part of a species that has lived on this planet for millions of years, yet could not survive mankind.

Play Video


Sudan and three other rhinos left the Dvůr Králové Zoo on a cold night in December 2009. They were brought to move “free” on the Kenyan savannas at Ol Pejeta. The hope was to breed them. The air, water and food—not to mention room to roam—might stimulate them, experts thought. The offspring could then be used to repopulate Africa. Failing that, they would be cross-bred with southern white rhinos to preserve the genes.

I remember so clearly when Sudan first set foot on the African soil. The skies darkened and torrential rains came moments after we arrived. He put his head in the air to smell the rains and immediately rolled around on the ground. It was his first mud bath since he left the continent as a two-year-old, taken from Sudan, the country with which he shares his name. That Sudan was moved to the Dvůr Králové Zoo may have saved his life; the last known wild rhinos were poached on the border of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2004.

Wildlife rangers mourn the passing of Sudan, the last male Northern White Rhino on the planet.
Wildlife rangers mourn the passing of Sudan, the last male Northern White Rhino on the planet.
Ami Vitale—National Geographic Creative

This week in Kenya, I returned to say goodbye. Moments before he died, Sudan was surrounded by love, together with the people who committed their lives to protecting him and giving him the good life he enjoyed. There were the directors and people from the Dvůr Králové Zoo, staffers and his six dedicated keepers from Ol Pejeta, who spent more time with him than their own children. Veterinarians and other people from Kenya Wildlife Services were present as well. Most of them had been crying for days. I gave Sudan one last scratch on his ear. He leaned his heavy head into mine and the skies opened up just as they had when he arrived here nine years ago. He perked his head up in the pouring rain. All was silent except for one go-away-bird.

Poaching is not slowing down. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that if the killing continues, these rhinos—along with elephants and a host of lesser known plains animals—will be functionally extinct in our lifetime.

The plight of wildlife and the conflict between poachers and increasingly militarized rangers has received much-needed attention. But very little has been said about the indigenous communities on the front lines of the poaching wars, and the incredible work being done to strengthen them. We often forget that the best protectors of these landscapes are the local communities. Their efforts are ultimately the best immunization against forces that threaten both their wildlife and way of life. My hope is that Sudan’s legacy serves as a catalyst to awaken humanity to this reality.

Sudan’s death could mean the extinction of his species, though scientists are considering other options involving two remaining females, including stem cell procedures and harvesting eggs. But if there is meaning in Sudan’s passing, it’s that all hope is not lost. This can be our wake-up call. In a world of more than 7 billion people, we must see ourselves as part of the landscape. Our fate is linked to the fate of animals.

Ami Vitale is a Nikon Ambassador, filmmaker and photographer for National Geographic. Her journey has taken her to nearly 100 countries working on stories about coexistence. You can follow her on Instagram @amivitale.

Did climate change help modern humans emerge?



Did climate change help modern humans emerge?

Environment changes transformed early humans, who learned how to use lighter tools, hunt new kinds of animals and communicate with other groups

by Maggie Fox /  / Updated 

At this Olorgesailie Basin excavation site, the Smithsonian team discovered key artifacts and pigments. Fossil bones found at the site also showed that a significant change in the kinds of animals in this region occurred around the same time as the transitions in human behavior.Human Origins Program / Smithsonian

Half a million years ago, something big happened in east Africa.

It was a big enough change to transform the terrain, reshape the landscape and to alter the populations of animals living there.

And it completely transformed the early humans who lived there.

“What we are seeing is the demise of a way of life in early human ancestors that persisted for hundreds of thousands of years,” said paleoanthropologist Rick Potts, who heads the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.

Before the change, pre-humans such as Homo erectus had lived happily for millennia using crude, heavy stone axes. Afterwards, the early humans living in the area traded for sharp, strong obsidian and made delicate tools and spear heads. They learned to hunt new kinds of animals and they carried around a lot of raw materials for making black and red paint or ink.

 A photo of older, more archaic handaxes used by early humans in East Africa, before 320,000 years ago. Human Origins Program / Smithsonian

New studies from Potts and colleagues published Thursday paint a clear picture of a time of total disruption in what is now southwestern Kenya. Not only do they document periods of devastating earthquakes, but climate change that transformed the area from a rich, stable plain to an area ravaged by unpredictable floods, intense thunderstorms and then long droughts.

There’s not much evidence of anything between about 500,000 years ago, and 320,000 years ago. But the transformation is sweeping.

Giant ancestors of elephants, zebra and baboon-like apes disappeared, to be replaced by more modern-looking grazers such as antelope and oryx.

The humans who lived there changed — a lot. Big, clumsy stone axes known as Acheulean tools disappear and instead the archeologists found finer, lighter and more varied tools. They’re made from materials not found locally, such as obsidian and chert, which indicates they were carried and traded over distances.

 For hundreds of thousands of years, people living there made and used large stonecutting tools called handaxes (left). According to three new studies published in Science, early humans in East Africa had–by about 320,000 years ago–begun using color pigments and manufacturing more sophisticated tools (right) than those of the Early Stone Age handaxes. Human Origins Program / Smithsonian

“The large, clunky technology is gone and in its place is a smaller technology, more mobile,” said Potts. “What we are looking at is a real change from the hand ax times. Think of the same technology produced over and over again for hundreds of thousands of years. That’s not us. I can barely keep up with the latest version of Windows,” he said.

“The history of technology has been the same ever since, going from large and clunky to small and portable.”


It’s not clear which species of early humans is responsible for the artifacts. Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis both lived on the African continent. But Homo sapiens fossils from Morocco date back to 300,000 or so years ago.


“This represents a significant revision in African hominin behavior at or near the time of origin of Homo sapiens,” the teams of scientists wrote in one of the reports published in the journal Science on Thursday.

Whatever species they were, they had to adapt to the climate changes, the natural disasters and the disappearance of the foods they were used to eating; they had to learn how to communicate with other groups of hominids, how to trade information and trade tools and, possibly, food.

“All of these are fundamental aspects of our humanity that are right there at the beginning of our species,” Potts said.

“The history of technology has been the same ever since, going from large and clunky to small and portable.”

“The history of technology has been the same ever since, going from large and clunky to small and portable.”

The ancient people used dye.

The team found rocks with streaks of pigment, blocks of iron-rich minerals used to make ochre and other colors, and pretty colored stones carried from afar.

That shows people were thinking beyond the simple needs of survival.

“Color is the root of complex, symbolic behavior in humans,” said Potts. “We use it in clothing, uniforms, flags, tattoos — whatever ways we have of signaling that I am a member of this particular group.”


What were these early Africans doing with the lumps of coloring?

“We don’t know what they were applying it to but they almost certainly applying it to something; perhaps their skin or hair,” Pott said. “That is a pretty human characteristic.”

In other words, the early humans who lived in this area were becoming more like modern humans. And it sure looks like the dramatic changes were forcing it.

“All this transition, this transformation of human behavior is occurring at a time of upheaval of the landscape,” Potts said.

 A bird’s eye view of the Olorgesailie Basin in southern Kenya, which holds an archeological record of early human life spanning more than a million years. This landscape shows a shift in the environment between 500,000 years ago, which marks the last known evidence of the handaxe toolmakers in the Olorgesailie Basin, and the more recent sediments dated 320,000 years and younger, which preserve the Middle Stone Age evidence. Human Origins Program / Smithsonian

It’s not news to anyone that human beings adapt and even evolve in the face of change. As the Ice Age glaciers receded, so did Neanderthals, to be replaced by modern Homo sapiens from the Near East and Africa.


But this change was happening 320,000 years ago. The indications are that trade was taking place 100,000 years earlier than anthropologists have believed.

What do the changes say about humans alive today in a time of climate change?


The findings in Kenya indicate people can likely survive. “I tend to be optimistic in that the adaptability of human beings tends to be pretty astonishing,” Potts said.

But he points to the profound transformation of the hominids of prehistoric Kenya.

“We certainly are running an experiment right now where humans are taking what is already a dynamic planet and messing with it,” Potts said.

“Often what people mean by survival in a modern context means whether their way of life will persist and thrive,” he added. “The moral of this story is that the status quo does not survive.”

‘National Geographic’ Reckons With Its Past: ‘Our Coverage Was Racist’


((Commentary from: Oldpoet56) During my lifetime I probably read articles within National Geographic Magazines about a dozen times. Because I only read spot articles here and there I never realized that they had been this racist. Their history on race is disgusting, and this does disappoint me greatly. I do commend them though on finally recognizing this glaring fault and for having the guts to ‘call themselves out’ on this issue. Hopefully in their future they will eliminate this fault. I know that any of their magazines that I come across in the future I will be looking to see if their racism has stopped.)  

‘National Geographic’ Reckons With Its Past: ‘For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist’

In a full-issue article on Australia that ran in National Geographic in 1916, aboriginal Australians were called “savages” who “rank lowest in intelligence of all human beings.” The magazine examines its history of racist coverage in its April issue.

C.P. Scott (L) and H.E. Gregory (R)/National Geographic

If National Geographic‘s April issue was going to be entirely devoted to the subject of race, the magazine decided it had better take a good hard look at its own history.

Editor in Chief Susan Goldberg asked John Edwin Mason, a professor of African history and the history of photography at the University of Virginia, to dive into the magazine’s nearly 130-year archive and report back.

What Mason found was a long tradition of racism in the magazine’s coverage: in its text, its choice of subjects, and in its famed photography.

Enlarge this image

The April issue of National Geographic is all about race.

National Geographic

“[U]ntil the 1970s National Geographic all but ignored people of color who lived in the United States, rarely acknowledging them beyond laborers or domestic workers,” writes Goldberg in the issue’s editor letter, where she discusses Mason’s findings. “Meanwhile it pictured ‘natives’ elsewhere as exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunters, noble savages—every type of cliché.”

Unlike magazines such as Life, National Geographic did little to push its readers beyond the stereotypes ingrained in white American culture,” Goldberg says, noting that she is the first woman and first Jewish person to helm the magazine – “two groups that also once faced discrimination here.”

To assess the magazine’s coverage historically, Mason delved into old issues and read a couple of key critical studies. He also pored over photographers’ contact sheets, giving him a view of not just the photos that made it into print, but also the decisions that photographers and editors made.

He saw a number of problematic themes emerge.

“The photography, like the articles, didn’t simply emphasize difference, but made difference … very exotic, very strange, and put difference into a hierarchy,” Mason tells NPR. “And that hierarchy was very clear: that the West, and especially the English-speaking world, was at the top of the hierarchy. And black and brown people were somewhere underneath.”

For much of its history, the pages of National Geographic depicted the Western world as dynamic, forward-moving and very rational. Meanwhile, Mason says, “the black and brown world was primitive and backwards and generally unchanging.”

One trope that he noticed time and again were photographs showing native people apparently fascinated by Westerners’ technology.

“It’s not simply that cameras and jeeps and airplanes are present,” he says. “It’s the people of color looking at this technology in amusement or bewilderment.” The implication was that Western readers would find humor in such fascination with their everyday goods.

Then there’s how the magazine chose its subject matter. Mason explains that National Geographic had an explicit editorial policy of “nothing unpleasant,” so readers rarely saw war, famine or civic conflict.

He points to an article on South Africa from the early 1960s that barely mentions the Sharpeville Massacre, in which 69 black South Africans were killed by police.

South African gold miners were “entranced by thundering drums” during “vigorous tribal dances,” a 1962 issue reported.

Kip Ross/National Geographic Creative

“There are no voices of black South Africans,” Mason told Goldberg. “That absence is as important as what is in there. The only black people are doing exotic dances … servants or workers. It’s bizarre, actually, to consider what the editors, writers, and photographers had to consciously not see.”

Then there’s the way women of color were often depicted in the magazine: topless.

“Teenage boys could always rely, in the ’50s and ’60s, on National Geographic to show them bare-breasted women as long as the women had brown or black skin,” Mason says. “I think the editors understood this was frankly a selling point to its male readers. Some of the bare-breasted young women are shot in a way that almost resembles glamour shots.”

Mason says the magazine has been dealing with its history implicitly for the last two or three decades, but what made this project different is that Goldberg wanted to make reckoning explicit — “That National Geographic should not do an issue on race without understanding its own complicity in shaping understandings of race and racial hierarchy.”

Although slave labor was used to build homes featured in a 1956 article, the writer contended that they “stand for a chapter of this country’s history every American is proud to remember.”

Robert F. Sisson and Donald McBain/National Geographic

For those of us who have spent long afternoons thumbing old issues of the magazine and dreaming of far-off lands, Mason wants to make clear that looking at foreign people and places isn’t a bad thing.

“We’re all curious and we all want to see. I’m not criticizing the idea of being curious about the world. It’s just the other messages that are sent—that it’s not just difference, but inferiority and superiority.”

So where does the storied publication go from here?

One good step would be to invite the diverse contributors to the April issue to become part of the magazine’s regular pool of writers and photographers, Mason suggests.

“Still it’s too often a Westerner who is telling us about Africa or Asia or Latin America,” he says. “There are astonishing photographers from all over the world who have unique visions – not just of their own country, but who could bring a unique vision to photographing Cincinnati, Ohio, if it came to that.”

He notes that the magazine’s images have so often captivated, even when they were stereotypical or skewed. Mason says a number of African photographers have told him that it was magazines like National Geographic and Life that turned them onto photography in the first place.

“They knew that there were problems with the way that they and their people were being represented,” he says. “And yet the photography was often spectacularly good, it was really inviting, and it carried this power. And as young people, these men and women said, I want to do that. I want to make pictures like that.”

Read All About It: Breaking News From NPR

When major news happens, stay on top of the latest developments, delivered to your inbox.

E-mail address

Mauritius President to resign over expense claims



Mauritius President to resign over expense claims, prime minister says

Mauritius President Ameenah Gurib-Fakim delivers a speech in Paris in 2015.

Lagos, Nigeria (CNN)The President of Mauritius will resign next week, the island country’s prime minister has said.

Ameenah Gurib-Fakim will step down over allegations she misused a credit card given to her by a charity.
Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth said Gurib-Fakim, who was facing impeachment proceedings over the alleged expense irregularities, had agreed to step down after the country’s 50-year independence celebrations on March 12.
“The President of the Republic told me that she would resign from office and we agreed on the date of her departure,” Jugnauth told reporters in Port Louis, the country’s capital.
“The interests of the country come first,” he said.
Attempts to obtain comment from Gurib-Fakim and her office were not immediately successful.
The president was left fighting for her political career after local media published a report that she had paid for personal expenses on a credit card given to her by London-based charity Planet Earth Institute (PEI) in 2016.
The report alleged that Gurib-Fakim had spent thousands of dollars on the card on clothing and luxury items.
She has denied any wrongdoing and said she had refunded all the money.
“I do not owe anything to anybody. Why is this issue coming up now almost a year later on the eve of our independence day celebrations,” she said on March 7, Reuters news agency reported.
The Planet Earth Institute is accredited to the United Nations Environmental Program and its mission is the “scientific independence of Africa.” When contacted, a spokeswoman for PEI declined to comment.
Gurib-Fakim was appointed to the PEI board in 2015, but resigned two years later in 2017.
She is internationally renowned and is feted on the world stage, and is the recipient of the L’Oréal-UNESCO award for women in science.
Despite her huge international profile, commentators say Gurib-Fakim’s popularity closer to home was waning.
Mauritians increasingly saw her as a “president in transit,” because of her frequent trips abroad, said Rabin Bhujun, managing editor of ION News, a digital news platform in the country.
“How does it benefit the country for her to be on the Forbes list? This is an important factor which encouraged the government to get rid of her.
They felt she wasn’t a heavyweight in politics and had no problem sacking her,” Bhujun said.

John Willis Menard, First African-American Elected to Congress



The International Vision of John Willis Menard, First African-American Elected to Congress

Although he was denied his seat in the House, Menard continued his political activism with the goal of uniting people across the Western Hemisphere

image: https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/qa1ahPSaDH94x48QAWOyz9cTm4g=/800×600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/bc/92/bc923044-3abf-403c-99f3-c0ba0c794e01/john-willis-menard-wr2.jpg

John Willis Menard

The Library of Congress recently digitized this portrait of John Willis Menard, the only known photograph of the African-American trailblazer. (Composite of Library of Congress images)

In July 1863, months after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, a young African-American man from Illinois boarded a small ship in New York City and headed for Belize City, in what was then British Honduras. John Willis Menard, a college-educated political activist born to free parents of French Creole descent, made his Central American journey as a representative of Lincoln’s. His goal: to determine whether British Honduras was a suitable location for previously enslaved Americans to relocate.

Menard’s trip to Central America was undoubtedly an unusual period in his early political career—one that never came to fruition—but it set the stage for decades of internationalism. Wherever he moved and whatever position he held, Menard repeatedly considered African-American liberation in the context of the New World’s dependence on the work of enslaved laborers.

That work, and Menard’s brief foray into the world of legislation, is part of what makes his appearance in a newly digitized photo album so remarkable. The album, acquired by the Library of Congress and Smithsonian’s National Museum of African-American History and Culture last year, features rare portraits of dozens of other abolitionists of the 1860s, including Harriet Tubman and only known photo of Menard (shown above). While those photos offer unique insight into the community of abolitionists fighting for a better future for African-Americans, what they don’t show is the controversy that sometimes surrounded that debate.

Before the American Civil War came to its bloody end, both Lincoln and the growing community of free black Americans were looking ahead to a United States without slavery. There were around 4 million enslaved people in the United States in 1860, comprising 13 percent of the American population. What would happen when all of them were freed?

“A number of African-American leaders saw colonization to Central America, to Mexico, or to Africa as the only viable solution prior to the Civil War,” says historian Paul Ortiz, author of Emancipation Betrayed: The Hidden History of Black Organizing and White Violence in Florida from Reconstruction to the Bloody Election of 1920.

For more than a year, President Lincoln had publicly expressed his support for the colonization efforts of emancipated African-Americans. He’d had discussions about colonization with representatives from the government of Liberia, as well as members of the Cabinet. He even espoused his views on colonization to leading members of the African-American community.

“You and we are different races,” Lincoln told a black delegation invited to the White House in August 1862. “Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”

“Lincoln was relatively devoid of personal prejudice, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t incorporate prejudice into his thinking,” writes Oxford University historian Sebastian Page. After the fall congressional elections of 1863, historians argue that Lincoln “came to appreciate the impracticality, even immorality of expatriating African-Americans who could fight for the Union.”

While some members of the free African-American community initially supported Lincoln’s colonization plan—11,000 moved to Africa between 1816 and 1860—many more were vocal in their opposition. Among the most vehement critics was Frederick Douglass. As historian Eric Foner writes in The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery, “Douglass pointed out that blacks had not caused the war; slavery had. The real task of a statesmen was not to patronize blacks by deciding what was ‘best’ for them, but to allow them to be free.”

But Menard could be just as voluble in his defense of the colonization plan. “This is a white nation, white men are the engineers over its varied machinery and destiny,” Menard wrote to Douglass in 1863. “Every dollar spent, every drop of blood shed and every life lost, was a willing sacrifice for the furtherance and perpetuity of a white nationality. Sir, the inherent principle of the white majority of this nation is to refuse forever republican equality to the black minority. A government, then, founded upon heterogeneous masses in North America would prove destructive to the best interest of the white and black races within its limits.”

image: https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/1d/fa/1dfa2281-8908-4d24-a126-8230fbe62866/african_american_leaders.jpg

African American leaders.jpg

African-American leaders disagreed on the issue of colonization, with some like Menard in favor of it while others, including Frederick Douglass, denounced it. (Library of Congress)

And so Menard traveled to Central America. American companies with business interests in the region made it one possible option for colonization. While there, Menard noted the potential of the landscape for a colony of newly freed African-Americans, but also worried over the absence of housing and proper facilities. Although Menard announced his support for a colony in British Honduras and wrote a favorable report to Lincoln upon returning in the fall of 1863, he worried about lack of support for such a project. As historians Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page write in Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement, “Menard, long among the most vocal supporters of Liberian migration [to Africa], conceded that he was torn between resettlement abroad and working to improve the lot of blacks at home.”

Ultimately, the Union victory in the Civil War in 1865 and the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 made the latter option more possible than it ever had been before. In 1865 Menard moved to New Orleans, where he worked among the city’s elite African-Americans to fight for political representation and equal access to education. When James Mann, a white congressman from New Orleans, died five weeks into his term in 1868, Menard successfully ran for the seat and became the first African-American elected to Congress.

Despite Menard winning the clear majority of votes in the election, his opponent, Caleb Hunt, challenged the outcome. In defending the fairness of his victory to the House of Representatives, Menard also became the first African-American to address Congress in 1869. “I have been sent here by the votes of nearly nine thousand electors, [and] I would feel myself recreant to the duty imposed upon me if I did not defend their rights on this floor,” Menard stated. But the Republican-majority House of Representatives refused to seat either Menard or Hunt, citing their inability to verify the votes in the election.

Menard refused to give up on his vision of a democratic future for African-Americans—or forget his early lessons in the importance of building international relationships. In 1871 he moved to Florida with his family, this time taking up his pen to describe the work by immigrants and African-Americans to produce representative democracies at a local level. Menard edited a series of newspapers, and moved from Jacksonville to Key West, where he could participate in an almost utopic community, says Ortiz.

“Menard had a black, internationalist vision of freedom. That’s why he ends up describing Key West with such excitement,” Ortiz says. At the period, the island community was filled with a mixture of working class white people, as well as immigrants from Cuba, the Bahamas and elsewhere in the Caribbean. “Part of his genius was that he understood the freedom of African-Americans in the United States was connected to those freedom struggles in Cuba and Central America.”

Menard wasn’t the only one interested in building a coalition across racial and linguistic lines. During the same period, multiple states passed Alien Declarant Voting laws, allowing new immigrants to register to vote as long as they promised to become naturalized citizens. Menard wrote of political events conducted in both English and Spanish, Ortiz says, adding that Menard was representative of other black leaders who saw politics in a new way—as a system of power that impacted people regardless of national borders.

But for all his work in Florida, and later in Washington, D.C., Menard eventually came up against the system of oppression that Reconstruction-era policies failed to undo. Violent white supremacist groups like the Knights of White Camellia and the White League formed to terrorize African-Americans and prevent them from voting. Deadly attacks occurred across the South, from the Colfax Massacre in New Orleans to the Ocoee Massacre in Florida.

“The tragedy is, we know the end of the story,” Ortiz says of Menard’s attempt to create lasting change for his community and others. “Those movements were defeated. White supremacist politics were premised on everything being a zero-sum game. Economic resources, jobs, the right to even claim that you were an equal person. Reconstruction was beginning to work, and what came after it didn’t work. It’s our tragedy to live with.”


African American History Congressmen Photography Political Leaders

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/international-vision-john-willis-menard-first-african-american-elected-congress-180968330/#2DrKuj2eZMVKwKxM.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

South Africa votes to confiscate white-owned land without compensation



‘The time for reconciliation is over’: South Africa votes to confiscate white-owned land without compensation

“THE time for reconciliation is over.” South Africa’s parliament has backed a motion to confiscate land owned by white people.

news.com.auFEBRUARY 28, 201812:11PM




Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%


Lives of South Africans Will Reach ‘Higher Level,’ Ramaphosa Tells Parliament

SOUTH Africa’s parliament has voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation.

The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party.

It was amended but supported by the ruling African National Congress and new president Cyril Ramaphosa, who made land expropriation a key pillar of his policy platform after taking over from ousted PM Jacob Zuma earlier this month.

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,” Mr Malema was quoted by News24 as telling parliament. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

According to Bloomberg, a 2017 government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland in South Africa.

ANC deputy chief whip Dorries Eunice Dlakude said the party “recognises that the current policy instruments, including the willing-buyer willing-seller policy and other provisions of Section 25 of the Constitution may be hindering effective land reform”.

ANC rural affairs minister Gugile Nkwinti added, “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.”

Thandeka Mbabama from the Democatic Alliance party, which opposed the motion, said there was a need to right the wrongs of the past but expropriation “cannot be part of the solution”. “By arguing for expropriation without compensation, the ANC has been gifted the perfect scapegoat to explain away its own failure,” she said in a statement.

“Making this argument lets the ANC off the hook on the real impediments — corruption, bad policy and chronic underfunding. Expropriation without compensation would severely undermine the national economy, only hurting poor black people even further.”

Pieter Groenewald, leader of the Freedom Front Plus party representing the white Afrikaner minority, asked what would happen to the land once it was expropriated. “If you continue on this course, I can assure you there is going to be unforeseen consequences that is not in the interest of South Africa,” he said.

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa. Picture: Rodger Bosch/AFP

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa. Picture: Rodger Bosch/AFPSource:AFP

Protesters rally against deadly farm attacks. Picture: Gulshan Khan/AFP

Protesters rally against deadly farm attacks. Picture: Gulshan Khan/AFPSource:AFP

Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota said there was a “danger that those who think equality in our lifetime equates that we must dominate whites”, News24 reported.

Mr Malema has been leading calls for land confiscation, forcing the ANC to follow suit out of fear of losing the support of poorer black voters. In 2016, he told supporters he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now”.

Civil rights groups have accused the EFF and ANC of inciting an ongoing spate of attacks on white farmers characterised by extreme brutality, rape and torture — last year, more than 70 people were killed in more than 340 such attacks.

Ernst Roets, deputy chief executive of civil rights group Afriforum, said the parliamentary motion was a violation of the 1994 agreement in which the ANC promised minority interests would be protected post-apartheid.

“This motion is based on a distorted image of the past,” Mr Roets said in a statement. “The term ‘expropriation without compensation’ is a form of semantic fraud. It is nothing more than racist theft.”

He earlier hit out at “simply deceitful” claims that “white people who own land necessarily obtained it by means of oppression, violence or forced removals”.

“The EFF’s view on redistribution is merely a racist process to chase white people off their land and establish it within the state,” he said. “This is not only deceiving, but also a duplication of the economic policies that the world’s worst economies put in place.”

Afriforum said it would take its fight to the United Nations if necessary. The matter has been referred to the parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee, which must report back by August 30.

Earlier this month, Louis Meintjes, president of the farmers’ group the Transvaal Agricultural Union, warned the country risked going down the same route as Zimbabwe, which plunged into famine after a government-sanctioned purge of white farmers in the 2000s.

“Where in the world has expropriation without compensation coupled to the waste of agricultural land, resulted in foreign confidence, economic growth and increased food production?” Mr Meintjes said.

“If Mr Ramaphosa is set on creating an untenable situation, he should actively create circumstances which will promote famine. His promise to expropriate land without compensation, sows the seed for revolution. Expropriation without compensation is theft”.

[email protected]

Islamic Civil War Is Going On Right Now: Which Side Is Your Government Fighting On

Islamic Civil War Is Going On Right Now: Which Side Is Your Government Fighting On


Look at all the different wars going on right now within countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa, within the Islamic World. ISIS helped bring this obvious situation to light when they set up their own country within the long understood boundaries of the Islamic Shiite countries of Syria and Iraq. As most folks in the wired world know there are two main divisions within Islam, Sunni and Shiite. ISIS is a Sunni group and they seem intent on following the letter of their Islamic laws as they understand them. Groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Boko Haram as well as Nations like Saudi Arabia are also Sunni. If I remember the stats I read while back in school 8-10 yrs ago they said about 80% of the people who believe in Islam, are Sunni, 20% Shiite. Countries like Syria and Iran as well as Terrorist groups like Hezbollah are Shiite. All of the Islamic governments military have mixtures of both in their ranks. It is very plain in Islam that Religion is far more important to many soldiers and ordinary people than their allegiance to a National Flag. If you are a soldier in a combat situation and you totally believe that at least one in five of your comrades will either shoot you in the back, stab you in your sleep, or run away when those seeking to kill you approach, it makes it a very difficult thing to keep a stiff upper lip.



In the country of Yemen on the southern tip of Saudi Arabia there is a proxy war going on right now. A few months ago a Shiite militia in Yemen took over control of the Sunni nation’s government. This Shiite  militia is of course backed by the Shiite powerhouse Iran. Yemen and it’s people are the fodder in this game of thrones. Who will be the winner? Just how far will this fighting continue? This is pretty much a show case of hatred verses hatred. They both want Islam to rule the Earth for Allah by his will for his will. One of their problems is that they can not stand, or in many cases, even tolerate each others existence.


Back to the ISIS situation, the American Government and some of our allies are bombing ISIS locations throughout large swaths of the Shiite countries of Syria and Iraq. All Countries Governments want to govern stable countries from their insides so that they can withstand their enemies from outside their gates. When the Royal Saudi family see time and again the American Government policies turn more in the favor of Shiite Governments the more reason they must have to not trust in us (our Government). Now back to my original question, which side of this Islamic Civil War is your Government fighting on? If your country’s leadership is spending money or blood to help either side, the leadership of these Religion first Governments and groups are being given more fuel for their hatred of us and our Governments. Everything and everyone is looked at in the scope of their Islamic views.


Hate against hate, whichever one wins, they have the same plan, conquer the world for Allah. Folks, that means simply, submit to the will of Allah, or die. There is no intelligence in it for anyone to deny that the world is not right now in the beginning stages of a World at war. World War 3 has started friends, the world that we all grew up in is on its last breaths. All this hatred, so sickening, and so sad, and so very real.

Why It Is Okay To Own Slaves; (Not Really)

Why It Is Okay To Own Slaves; (Not Really)


Professional writers say that on a blog post people need to use a title that gets people’s attention so that they will stop browsing titles and stop and read yours. Hopefully you are not a person that believes it is okay to own another person. But, there in lies a point that in some people’s minds makes it okay to buy, sale, and trade in human flesh. I have learned in my years of travels that some people don’t really believe that other people are really actually human beings. Sounds rather ignorant doesn’t it? But I have learned in my time that God has given me that some people do believe that any other “Beings” that are not of their own skin color, or religion, or even nationality, do not have Souls, that others are not really human beings with a Soul like unto their own race, religion, ….


Here in America most people would probably say that actual slaves do not exist in our country because it is illegal. Some people are naive, some people choose not to see, many choose to bury their own heads inside their own sandbox so that they do not have to bear witness to the evil of the real world around them. I am very glad that in our country legal slavery has been abolished way before my lifetime but that plague still simmer here among us. Like in most cases in our world if you wish to see truth, follow the money, follow the ego’s, follow the hate, but mostly, follow the money.


When I was much younger I used to wonder how it was possible for human beings to do the horrible things they do to each other. How could a race of people justify to their God their own actions of bull whipping, raping, torturing, enslaving, and killing of other people. How could the English justify their actions toward the Irish people or the Indian, African, or even the Jewish? How could the European people come to another country like the Colonies and justify removing the Native populations? How did Americans justify removing the Mexican populations of the west and southwest? How did parts of a nation believe in the African slave trade to be exceptionable? Evil, Demonic hearts, hater filled, egotistical, greed filled souls? Yes, is my belief to those questions.


Slavery has existed since man crawled out of their caves with the intent to take by any means necessary that which others possessed. To the most powerful goes the gains which others labored for, including their bodies. Why should the land owner, the governor, or the King pay for what they can get for free? When Europeans came to the Americas the wealthy purchased the law and the land just as they had in Europe. Still, someone had to do the work for them and why pay for that which you can take for free? First they tried to enslave the Native Indians but they knew the lay of the lands and they simply ran away. Then, came the indentured poor white folks who for the price of their ticket to the New World worked as a slave for usually about seven years for the Land Lords to earn their freedom. This wasn’t working all that well either so then came the enslavement of captured Africans who were to never be freed, ever. Most all enslavement’s of humans have always been about the rich owning the poor, this disgrace of enslaving the Africans is the only time in recorded history that I have ever come across that was totally color based.


I learned the answer to my question of how people could justify to themselves their actions against others, people who were different in some way than they themselves. I learned this answer in 1978 when I started going to a church in a small southern town in which I was told by the preacher that the people there (in that congregation) did not believe that non-whites had Souls. You read that correctly, this to his credit was the fact that made him turn in his notice to them that he was quitting as their Pastor. That moment in time was when the light, the answer of how, came to light for me. How sickening that mind-set, how evil.


The U.N. recently stated that they believe that about 9 million people world-wide are living in slavery. They say that most of these slaves are in North Africa, the Middle East, and in Asia, most, but not all. Where there is not the heart, belief, and faith of every human being’s being equals, there will be slavery. Where there is the heart of pure greed, there will be slavery, thievery, and unjust imprisonment. When a poor person is willing and able to work for their food and shelter they should be able to afford more than slop and a cardboard box. One simple example I will use is the case of the employees of a large/huge company whom cannot obtain full-time positions and a livable wage and company provided insurances for their families while the owners of the company increases their wealth by billions every year. Livable wage is a subjective term, to some a livable wage is defined as “if they are still breathing” then I am “giving” “these people” enough of “my” money. “Why should one pay for what they can get for free, or at least as little as possible”? Simple math, the smaller amount I have to give to “these people” the more I get to keep for myself. Ego, greed, evil, yes they are all bred into the Devils servants. Here in America we hear about the evil of the top 1%, the worst evil lies in the top 1/1000 of this 1% club. Is there slavery in our world today? You decide for yourself, what do you “see”?


3 aid workers killed, 3 hurt, 1 feared abducted in northeast Nigeria, UN says



3 aid workers killed, 3 hurt, 1 feared abducted in northeast Nigeria, UN says

United Nations air service personnel evacuate injured aid workers from Rann, northeastern Nigeria, where they were attacked by militants.

Story highlights

  • Other civilians may have been killed or injured in the attack, the UN said
  • Boko Haram has attacked similar camps with gunmen and suicide bombers

Lagos, Nigeria (CNN)Three Nigerian aid workers were killed, three others were injured and a nurse is feared abducted after an attack by militants late Thursday in northeast Nigeria, the United Nations said.

The slain aid workers all were men working in Rann in far northeast Nigeria, according to a statement Friday by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance. Two were working for the International Organization of Migration, and one was a contracted medical doctor working for UNICEF.
A woman working as a nurse was missing after the attack and is feared to have been kidnapped, UNOCHA said.
The United Nations also was “concerned” about other civilians who may have been killed or injured in the attack, the agency said.
The attackers were not immediately identified.
Rann, a remote town outside Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State, hosts a camp of about 55,000 internally displaced people.
Boko Haram has regularly attacked such camps with gunmen and suicide bombers.
About 3,000 aid workers, most of them Nigerian nationals, work in northeast Nigeria.
“Aid workers put their lives on the line every single day to provide emergency assistance to vulnerable women, children and men,” said Edward Kallon, UN’s humanitarian coordinator in Nigeria.
“Our deepest condolences go to the families of the victims and our brave colleagues, and we call on authorities to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice and account,” he added.

Gunmen Attack French Embassy in Burkina Faso



Security personnel take cover as smoke billows from The Institute Francais in Ouagadougou on March 2, 2018, as the capital of Burkina Faso came under multiple attacks targeting the French embassy, the French cultural centre and the country's military headquarters. Witnesses said five armed men got out of a car and opened fire on passersby before heading towards the embassy, in the centre of the city. Other witnesses said there was an explosion near the headquarters of the Burkinabe armed forces and the French cultural centre, which are located about a kilometre (half a mile) from the site of the first attack. / AFP PHOTO / Ahmed OUOBA (Photo credit should read AHMED OUOBA/AFP/Getty Images)
Security personnel take cover as smoke billows from The Institute Francais in Ouagadougou on March 2, 2018, as the capital of Burkina Faso came under multiple attacks targeting the French embassy, the French cultural centre and the country’s military headquarters. Witnesses said five armed men got out of a car and opened fire on passersby before heading towards the embassy, in the centre of the city. Other witnesses said there was an explosion near the headquarters of the Burkinabe armed forces and the French cultural centre, which are located about a kilometre (half a mile) from the site of the first attack. / AFP PHOTO / Ahmed OUOBA (Photo credit should read AHMED OUOBA/AFP/Getty Images)


8:09 AM EST

Gunmen attacked the French embassy in the capital of Burkina Faso on Friday, sparking fears of a fresh high-profile Islamist militant raid in the West African nation that has been rocked by violence from jihadist groups based in neighboring Mali.

People watch as black smoke rises as the capital of Burkina Faso came under multiple attacks on March 2, 2018, targeting the French embassy, the French cultural centre and the country's military headquarters. Witnesses said five armed men got out of a car and opened fire on passersby before heading towards the embassy, in the centre of the city. Other witnesses said there was an explosion near the headquarters of the Burkinabe armed forces and the French cultural centre, which are located about a kilometre (half a mile) from the site of the first attack. AHMED OUOBA/AFP/Getty Images
People watch as black smoke rises as the capital of Burkina Faso came under multiple attacks on March 2, 2018, targeting the French embassy, the French cultural centre and the country’s military headquarters. Witnesses said five armed men got out of a car and opened fire on passersby before heading towards the embassy, in the centre of the city. Other witnesses said there was an explosion near the headquarters of the Burkinabe armed forces and the French cultural centre, which are located about a kilometre (half a mile) from the site of the first attack. AHMED OUOBA/AFP/Getty Images

The attack on the embassy and the French institute in Ouagadougou was ongoing, the French embassy said on its website, without giving further details. The army has been deployed to the sites where the gunfire broke out, government spokesman Remis Dandjinou said by phone.

There were also reports of fires at several locations in central Ouagadougou, broadcaster Burkina24 reported on its Facebook page, saying the situation was unclear. The U.S. embassy in the city said on its Twitter account it advised residents to seek shelter.



art. popular since 10,000 BC

Darlene Foster's Blog

dreamer of dreams, teller of tales

Tales From Mindful Travels

The Two Doctors walk into a bar ...


Workplace behaviour – an ironic look at what some people sometimes do in office and why


I am fresh new blogger. Just love to write my feelings sometimes 😊

Weekend Trivia

Travel. Food. Photography. Lifestyle. Makeup. Fun.

The Journey of My Left Foot (whilst remembering my son)

I have Malignant Melanoma, my son had Testicular Cancer

Prosecco Trail

Welcome to a space about sparkling wine, winemakers and lost empires along the trails of the Alps and Adriatic Sea.

My Take On Disability

I am just a girl happened to be visually challenged!

Simpliv LLC

Learn. Teach. Earn

%d bloggers like this: