JAMAICAN COLONIAL HERITAGE

I CAN'T BELIEVE I WROTE THE FOLLOWING NEARLY 10 YEARS AGO. 

african fractal systems

Certain geographic groups have colonized the known world from time to time: Greece, Rome, Western Europe, America (still going), China (up and coming). And then there's Africa, the only unit that has colonized the world without force; only, it would appear, through (fractal) mathematics. 

Almost as soon as I left art school, I became  consciously aware of a pervasive African-ness to modern life. How similar the drumming rhythms of some aboriginal people to the  of rhythm of trains or motor vehicle engines. This is best epitomized in Fred Astaire's dance to the rhythm of the ship's engine in "Shall We Dance." The revolution of modern art that grew out of Picasso's and others' assimilation of African forms. The fact that modern design in everything grows out of modern art. Jazz, which has totally invaded world music and world attitudes to movement. And now, through this TED talk, it becomes clear that fractals relate to binary mathematics, which produced the computer. All coming out of Africa.

This non-violent takeover has not been effectively dealt with. The prevailing world view is that great geographic groups must have conquering armies, and must dominate through a military-industrial complex of the kind that Africa lacks. So Africa could develop in a completely different way from other world powers. Whether it will or not, and how, if it does, is anybody's guess.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_eglash_on_african_fractals?language=en

I do see your point about wooden structures being closer to nature. Also buildings which allow air to pass through are cooler.. but I think more is needed if you want to preserve structures which are perceived as oppressive. I am wracking my brain.

Showing the relationship of Jamaica's colonial structures to African ones is a consideration. It's been churning around in my mind...slowly. But maybe it contradicts some points I'm trying to make:

1) Africa, as it is provisionally defined, is not the continent of Africa. It is something bigger that we're groping towards. 

2) People transported from the African continent--and only selected parts of it--had no definable cut off date when they stopped being African. Africa might well be a state of becoming. 

3) Catering to an imaginary Africa that is in the gravest turmoil (see link) might well be choosing weakness and confusion over strength. 

4) Because the African diaspora in the West is a product of intense "adjustment" to a larger world and a larger, more assimilated African cultural whole, it is uniquely suited for a leadership role within the provisional African Unity. 

5) Black people in the Diaspora might have their own customs dictated more by place and colonial experience than by disputable cultural connectin to any particular tribal practices (like architectural design) in the African continent. 

6)  If Diaspora blacks never stopped being African, and if they vastly outnumber any alternative identity group where they live, then it's absurd not to consider where they live to be Africa in some form. 

7) If a place can reasonably be called Africa, then anyone born in or naturalized to it can reasonably be called African. And any cultural heritage by anyone--past or present-- that can be attributed to that place must also be considered African. 

8) Ergo, following this line of reasoning, Jamaican Colonial Heritage can be called African, and every aspect of Caribbean architectural heritage can be called African. 

9) While it may grease the skids to feature assortments of recognizable continental forms, it isn't essential.

10) Jamaican Colonial Heritage has as much to do with the future as the past. The African world has no experience governing a large global "empire," but the British do. If an African Union wants to be a power in the world, it will need a simultaneous unity with Britain, the British Commonwealth, and with all English speaking powers worldwide. 

11) The cultural foundation of such a union is colonial heritage, primarily colonial architecture (and especially given the extensive African labor, craftsmanship and as-yet-under-investigated spiritual contributions to it).  

https://www.facebook.com/jeffereyg.branford/videos/2575350162722127/UzpfSTEwMDAwMjY1MjE4NTUzMjpWSzoxNzM4NTE1NzM2Mjg2MzE3/?notif_t=group_invited_to_group

# 10 is especially meant for JCHS, where there is the entrenched belief that JCH is a thing of the glorious past to wax nostalgic about, but has very little connectiobn to Africa.

Trevor Burrowes	6:52 PM (1 minute ago)
to Eileen

Thanks for reading and commenting. I'll sign off after this"

"I think part of what you are denying is African conquests.  North Africa Berbers, and Arabs, DID in fact conquer part of Europe. Africa is not free of the desire of one tribe to conquer the other, just as the Europeans fought each other for centuries.  Also Africa helped Columbus by shaping Spain."

I know all this. The point one makes (and that Selassie especially made) is that no group is worse or better than any other. This is not a case for African superiority. It's more a case for removing fallacies that create an unnecessary handicap. And thanks for the empathy re black men, etc. But if we could remove stumbling blacks and so many fallacies piled down on us, we'd be better off. Garvey was trying to remove those stumbling blocks and crippling thought systems. In fact Garvey stood for any underdog. Take the famous saying: Up you mighty race, and instead say, Up you mighty women, or Up, you mighty St. Ann's Bay (which I recently posted) and it works perfectly. Also, Garvey was much more of a feminist than most realize. 

As to women and Africa, you said it. I recently said a word about female circumcision that is forced on young women, laying a curse of flames of fire on it. My loathing for the pompous male hooligans in charge is beyond speech. So is it for kings, princes, tribal leaders, the entire structure. Descendants of the bastards who sold my ancestors. Not to say I'm a shining light, but we can't get hung up on the supposed ancient virtues of an Africa that is a shithole. We're throwing out unnecessary garbage. And we are going with the colonial rationality that appears to us more reasonable. And we are claiming that this colonial rationality is now African. As you say, civilization is nothing more than taking ways of thought from wherever we can and that are preferable for our circumstances. 

The means to changing Africa for me right now is to change St. Ann's Bay. Nobody wants it except for the Chinese investors to tear down and build whatever cement crap of a supermarket or gas station they think the savages there will suck up. And they are doing quite well with that. I'm trying to say that we are or can or should be better than that. How is this wrong? Whatever better way can grow in one jurisdictions can be transported to other jurisdictions till it covers the world. 

But I'm not beginning with the whole world. I'd have to be a bigger magician than I actually am for that one. I'm not supporting all European colonial powers to help with Africa even. I'm not reaching out to the deamn French or Germans.  I'm am anglophile. I'm sticking in my little anglophile corner, from which I draw much of my heritage. Of course I'll be deccent to whomever. I'll scratch their back if they scratch mine. I think on different levels. 

Sorry. Way more than I think you have time for. :-)