You are here:   Anti-colonialism > Barack Obama: the Last Anti-Colonialist
 

Eventually, Obama discovered the truth about his father from his half-sister Auma. Still, Obama didn't give up on his father. He went to his grave and wept. He pressed his hand into the earth and tried to commune with his father "through Africa's red soil". But Obama couldn't get back his dead father, so instead he decided to take his dream. He concluded that, although flawed as a man, the senior Obama had great ideals. Obama would realise those ideals, and perhaps in this way he could complete the family circle and be worthy of his father's love. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's ideology became the son's birthright.

But what was Barack Obama Sr's ideology? First and foremost, he was an anti-colonialist. He came of age in Kenya during that country's struggle for independence from the British. The Obama family suffered the scars of colonialism. In the 1950s, when the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, cracked down on the Mau Mau guerrillas in Kenya, Obama Sr was arrested for his political activities, and Barack's grandfather Onyango Obama was placed in a detention camp and allegedly tortured. Anti-colonialism arose out of anger and humiliation, and in the case of Obama Sr those sentiments were the product of direct experience.

I know quite a bit about anti-colonialism because I grew up in India in the period immediately following British rule. Anti-colonialism was very much in the air during the 1960s and 1970s, when I was a boy roaming the streets of Mumbai. My father was an anti-colonialist, as was his father and most of my uncles, and pretty much everyone else I knew. Anti-colonialism was the dominant political ideology in the Third World in the second half of the 20th century. Barack Obama Sr's anti-colonialism is very familiar to me, although many Americans view it with incomprehension. 

The premises of anti-colonialism, although familiar, are worth spelling out. The general idea is that the world is divided into two camps: the colonisers who are the white West, and the colonised, who are the peoples of the Third World. Anti-colonialists usually assume that the rich countries got rich by invading, occupying and looting the poor countries. Further, they claim that today it is no longer Europe but America that is the rogue elephant stampeding its way across the world. America now invades and occupies other countries in much the same way that the French and the British once did. Anti-colonialists hold that even when colonialism formally ends, there remain powerful concentrations of economic power in the rich countries. These economic elites are faulted with "neocolonialism", which is colonialism in a new form, economic exploitation. In the anti-colonialist view, these wicked elites — the banks, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies and so on — continue to oppress not only their own people but also people across the globe. 

Barack Obama Sr was an economist, and he described his economic views as "African socialist". In 1965, he wrote an article in the East Africa Journal in which he placed his socialist views firmly within the larger framework of anti-colonialism. He began with the anti-colonial objective, which is of course national liberation. But for him, political liberation is not enough. Kenya, after all, became politically independent in 1963. What Obama Sr is concerned about is economic independence. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
August 28th, 2012
7:08 PM
Love this story. I am going to go and see the movie 2016 today. And everyone needs to do the same, it will open your eyes to what Obama has in his plans for our country. I hear it did not go far enough to explain Obama though. He is determined to destroy our country and to bankrupt it too.

Felicia
May 11th, 2012
3:05 PM
I just found this article, while looking into my presidents history. I have to say this is absolutely true and is the best analogy I have heard yet! Thank you for writing this, it explains a lot about the president. I am ashamed as an American for the return of the bust and our presidents lack of loyalty to our allies. By the time he is done with his term in office you will no longer recognize my country. It is hard to recognize it now. So sad to watch my country crumble under this administration.

ngdale
February 12th, 2012
3:02 PM
D'Souza's article is a wonderfully useful example of how it is possible to carefully pick one's way through the complexity of a Presdient's actions to sustain a preconception. Thus while much is made of Obama's not having (yet) taken forecful action against Iran, the article manages not to mention Bin Laden or Libya. In both cases Obama's moves do not fit D'Souza's Obama-as-anticolonial theme and so they are conveniently ignored. As for colonialism being dead, go tell that to indigenous people in Canada, Australia, the USA and Brazil.

Not Convinced
December 10th, 2010
8:12 AM
I suspect that Obama did not write either of his two books. To understand him we need to check his early mentors and his father was not one of them. He is certainly very left, very inexperienced and extremely ignorant on religious doctrine and comparative religion. He means well, poor man, but he is so ignorant and immature that he is going to be useful long after he has left the White House, and not before.

yo
November 26th, 2010
1:11 AM
curiously, the last "anti-colonialist" has nothing to say about his feudalist ally Morocco, and West Sahara, or Turkey in Kurdistan and Cyprus et al... he is very selective

julio
November 25th, 2010
11:11 PM
obama is the typical snobish kid from harvard, he has been educated with edward said and noam chomsky books. plus, he got that messianic complex, he thinks he can really bring "peace" all around the world, a second jimmy carter clearly, a dangerous charlatan

Pete
November 20th, 2010
6:11 PM
The first paragraph on this page is enough to show that you are not serious. The huge budget deficits, and therefore America's dependence on China, started when George W Bush decided to start two wars while cutting taxes. So maybe Bush was the real socialist...

John
November 5th, 2010
3:11 AM
This fact that you have even featured this rant, and advertised it on the cover of your magazine is an indication of how culturally, intellectually, and morally bankrupt you have become.

Anonymous
November 4th, 2010
1:11 PM
Fascinating analysis, which helps explain Obama's bizarre acquiescence to the demands of Russia over the missile shield; the demands of the Arabs in the Israeli-Arab conflict; the demands of Argentina in their attempts to legitimise the desire for the Falklands; the Islamofascist Mullahs of Iran and Muslims everywhere in their dislike of the West. My only criticism is that D'Souza seems to imply when saying that Obama's anti-colonialist socialism is antiquated and ossified, that it ever was a rational or sensible political/economic model. Socialism never has been and never will be. For all our sakes, I hope he's defeated in 2012.

Steffan John
November 3rd, 2010
9:11 PM
This is terrible analysis, on numerous points. Obama opposed the Iraq war, but he was always committed to Afghan war because he saw it as fundamentally necessary to American interests, and the necessary response to 9/11. Just listen to his Nobel acceptance speech, and see the distraught faces of the audience who clearly regretted their decision as they realised that he was defending not just the war, but War itself. Yes he reduced US nuclear arms - as did Bush and every other President. 6500 nukes are entirely pointless, and even halving that number will do nothing to 'weaken' the US, as any credible strategist will tell you. Obama's been pretty open about his influence - his main one being the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of anti-communist, Christian Realism. Obama's a '48 Democrat - holding the same realism as Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan. The former essentially founded American International Relations, convinced America to fight communism rather than appease it, and went on to being an early critic of the Vietnam War; the latter founded the aggressive doctine of containment, and at the age of 102, opposed the second Iraq War. He is not a '68 Democrat, nor an anti-colonialist (he's shown little or no interest in Kenya since his election for example - certainly less than Bush did). Niebuhr was quite a radical thinker during the '30s, but ameliorated himself to the establishemnt. Obama - being funded by Wall Street, with a Mitt-Romney-inspired health care system which doesn't challenge corporate power - is actually very mainstream. This article is high on innuendo, but low on any evidence - the only 'evidence' of which is his continuation of Bush's policy on nukes, and implementing Romney's health-care plan. Just because Obama's 'a bit foreign', people seem to accept any story, rather than read his actual intellectual influences, which he's been pretty explicit about.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.