Simply put; this is an attempt to put things strait.
I like reading. Not so much now as I did ten years ago. At this time in my life it was almost all I did, almost all that gave me pleasure.

Reading fulfills several functions, all blessings when considered. There is one thing that reading does which when consciously experienced, can put you off of it. Propaganda is not annoying when not recognized as such, or when trivial and innocuous. Written information that aims to warp, to win favour, or change a point of view, regardless whether the information contained in the script is wholesome or pernicious, true or false, is not experienced as such when one is oblivious of these facts, or simply cannot care less. We are all, after all, forced to deal with opinions, or points of view, in our entire life. But when this becomes all that one encounters every time one opens books of a certain subject, when, as is the case with me, the reader has a heightened ability to detect intellectual fraud, coupled with an inborn high intelligence, and the information involved has been known to have a stultifying effect on an individual, or community, can this become frustrating, especially if, on a given subject, there appears to be very few if any authors who are willing to tell the tale as it is, or was.

A hobby once pursued with fervor fades into the mists. Books, once seen, become repulsive, especially after repeated disappointments, when informed evasive searches bear the same result, over and over again. This is exactly what happened to me.

I do not deny the enriching effect that books have had on me. I am the person that I am because of the very books that I loathed later on. They changed me for the better, so much so that people around me started to notice this (I am that kind). The information I got from books enriched my person, my scope. There was unfortunately a limit to the level this reading could impress me. It made me clever enough to see the very reading material for what it was; mediocre stuff. Reading, unfortunately, caused me to hate it.

I like to do research, to go in depth on a given subject and try by this way to discover the truth, or get as close to it as I can. I like to find out how something happened in the past, and would like to be given as many points of view on the same subject as there possibly are; to come across information accidentally or to look for it and find it; to compare the gained information with other sources to see which of the information is better, or closer to the truth. This is a hard process, for unlike mathematics where numbers are exact, facts about history, for example, are largely guessed at, tentatively arrived at conclusions, and, almost always, there is the subjective vice hovering around every writer or researcher. This is to be expected, and accepted, you would say. An occupational hazard for historians, but not quite, as I will explain.

Historians cannot be blamed for most of the mistakes, wrong or insufficient theories they make. They are after all trying to construct a whole from meager leftovers. They are dealing with remains of varying composition, and duration, trying to tell whether the meal was delicious to the people involved, how long they sat at the table, and how many partook in the feast, all this and more from a few clues left over from this meal, and worn by the effects of time and the environment. They cannot be expected to deliver the goods whole, and whatever they deliver is largely conjecture. This is why the best they can deliver is usually satisfactory, and today's intellectual seldom wallows in certitude, but allows for the word ‘tentative' to be placed before his every conclusion, unless there is overwhelming evidence about the facts. You cannot expect much more from the discipline. Sometimes, though, historians, whether by tacit agreement or institutional pressure, being an organ in society with the power to set normative theories, get too far from the mark. When it happens accidentally, as a product of the hazards I mentioned above, it isn't always a problem. It is when there seems to be a design, a plan to the process; when writers seem to be prejudiced in the same way, that it worries one. It also becomes, unfortunately, very hard to show this conspiracy since it becomes the established truth. Many of the world's best authorities on the subject have after all supported the idea. Who am I to come in with my own points of view, and how many will be willing to believe me. Am I not, after all, suffering from the complex that such descriptions create in those whose very world is in discussion?

My point is already clear to those of you who are familiar with this. To those of you who are not, I will proceed to give an example and hope that this will clarify the kinds of falsehoods one encounters in many books today, and how they negatively influence minds.

Today, history is viewed as a one way ticket, starting with primitive man till the level of today's faultless excellence, the being that can equal and surpass God (with the aid of an IBM), the being that can go anywhere, do anything, and, again, with the aid of an IBM, can become anything.

Encouraging research is necessary. There are so many ways to do it. It is not necessary to give false information in order to raise hope, in the hope that this hope will keep the enthusiasm for research in the concerned field. What is the point of brainwashing a scientist into a stupor? He is after all supposed to be the one you rely on for insight. The more he can see, the better for everybody. A brilliant man who is deluded is hardly the type to put your trust in, let alone take the risk of traveling in a machine conceived within and motivated by the delusion. The whole design shows a lack of creative thought. It is better for everybody to simply tell the tale as it is. This will save you the backlash that comes when people discover that you were lying to them all the time. This eventuality is not good for either party.

When historians become blinded by the successes of this epoch, and view this as the pinnacle of all human achievements, they make mistakes that make their books unworthy of notice. And this is precisely the case with the rendering of African history by this culture's most advanced minds.

I was born not too long ago, and in human history the length of time I have existed is nothing in comparison. In western terms it is almost half a century. In my make up there has been no room for evolution in this short life, and any scientist will agree with me here. There has however been room for degeneration, for modification of information stored in my genes to improve on a quality already in me or to create the same quality if it is lacking but necessary, in my offspring. Whether this message will actually find expression in the physical systems of tomorrow's generation is questionable. The information might be recorded by my genes but not by everybody's genes. The chances that my genes spread throughout all of mankind, and become a dominant feature (for example wide nostrils) is minimal. There is firstly the chance that they may not make it into the human stream at all if, for example, I do not procreate. The conditions that caused my genes to record the message of improvement may no longer exist. The information might as a result become redundant, and rubbed out. These are just a few odds against the human biological entity acquiring a new characteristic that started out in one individual. With so many odds, it is impossible to believe that a small change like this will occur and be noticeable only after a few generations, even a thousand years. Yes indeed, it does take a long time for a creature to evolve. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Mankind has been around for a very long time. It would be hard to believe that man in his present form has only existed since the west became aware of time, that the present day's logic and mannerisms are also just as old, and yet I read time and again in history books how certain peoples around the world are described as coming out of the darkness, or still wallowing in this abyss. I have met several specimens of man who are so brainwashed on this manner of thought that they consider themselves an improvement upon mankind of, say, a thousand years ago. A thousand years ago?

A thousand years ago many things were much the same as they are today, apart from the wide use of technology. I say "wide use" because technology has been around for longer than today's culture is willing to admit. Technology has been around in different forms than we are used to, in written form mostly. The know-how that enables people to make the atomic bomb was not known to the Romans, but contemporaries of the Romans had this knowledge stashed away in writing. Large portions of what we call chemistry, physics, mathematics, psychology, etc: has been around longer than most people can believe. You see, ours is a spoon-fed culture. We have inherited knowledge from intellectual cultures and have made large fires and microwaves out of it. The know-how we have today was familiar to men in universities that existed before the Ptolemy dynasty established itself in Egypt. The basics of our civilization were around before the first Romans used numbers, and they didn't even know of the zero, which, ironically, was already known by those they ousted. The level of mathematical knowledge the predecessors of the Romans had was impossible to attain without knowledge of the nonexistent, the zero, but alas, here come the Romans and that knowledge gets lost for a while, only to be rediscovered on a silver plate some place only the devil knows.

The human being in his present forms (races), with his present potentials, has existed for longer than our history books are willing to admit. If there are differences with man of a thousand years ago, then these are superficial and have largely to do with nurture than that they are within the genetic construction of the organism. This is a fact that today's geneticists are aware of, a fact that is rejected by the best knowledge of the day. It would be wrong to claim, on the basis of data that has been gathered to date, that one form of mankind is the predecessor of the other. This is almost impossible to prove given the evidence, and, given the length of time it takes for a single species to actually show evolutionary changes, let alone evolve into a completely new form, the conservation that this planet allows. Most of the evidence that has been uncovered represents a tiny proportion of time in which no major changes have occurred to any species, save for extinction. The further back you go in time, the less evidence there is. All has turned to dust by the time you get to the time that could have a little relevance.

All this is innocuous, unnecessary and besides the point, you might think. You will come up with arguments pointing to the level of creativity that enabled mankind to use the knowledge he has gained through time for today's applications as present only in our time and culture, and unavailable then, hence the need to call this culture and it's peoples, an advancement upon the old. You can have knowledge, but if you cannot use it in a creative way, express the knowledge in tangible, practical ways, then you are less advanced than those who find quick and easy application for the knowledge. But you are wrong. It takes a lot more creativity to be certain on a theoretical level, to make advancements on this level without the help or need for the practical or tangible of the same process, than it does to base your advancement on trial and error. To know that something is possible without having it tested out takes much more brain power than to experiment first before being sure. The one is the infantile state of the other. To know that a tank of fossil fuel will explode if lighted, without a precedent, to know this fact entirely by first knowing the chemical composition of the elements and calculating their reaction by heating requires more thought power than to find this out by striking a match first and witnessing the explosion. This doesn't mean that people of old who built universities and housed this knowledge within the walls of the institutions were more creative, or advanced than present day people. The truth of the levels of creativity may lie entirely with the cultural framework within which the creative mind works. This either allows for full blossoming of potentials, or thwarts them.

This paper doesn't aim to argue or prove this point. To go this way would be to step into the dumb shoes of today's thinkers who, by short sight, trap themselves into corners from which the only way out is more distortion of the truth, and the vicious circle goes on, of which no external party in his right mind dare partake. The shorter end of the stick will be his fate.

What is my point then, you will still ask? Mentalities gone wrong, minds concerned with futile missions, minds disregarding the more important things in life. It is not unknown that the world's best intelligence organizations have had priorities which, in hindsight, were parochial. Yes they did thwart that movement. Yes they did ensure the status quo by removing this or that person. But was he the ultimate danger? Couldn't the problem have been solved in other, more creative ways? Most important of all is the oblivious nature of the whole operation to the dangers that really needed attention. How dumb can you get? What will future generations measure this culture's success by when it will only be possible to breathe in rooms with artificial atmospheres. The atmosphere will have been so greatly damaged for the sake of the continuation of an automobile firm, an oil company, sometimes even destroying those who came up with better, cleaner options. What will our children think when they look back to our time and see war and strife unknown before in human memory, when they see our population explosion, and worse still, the moronic measures taken to avert the dangers of overpopulation, which themselves aggravate the situation. As the naked ape walks into an advanced space age, surrounded by shiny toys, he will still be the dumb ape with a stultified mission, the shame who refuses to look behind or around him and see himself for what he really is, having done nothing better than murder, play with toys, live in fear and ruin his own environment; a man out to get what he can for immediate, short range gains, what Ayn Rand describes as "range of the moment needs".

A large proportion of the world's population lives in poverty and misery and needs a new beginning. There has to be a break with the present; the thoughts that are not helping these people, or the globe for that matter, out of their plight, a departure from the path that is leading to more misery than people have ever experienced before, and this break cannot be initialized if the past is viewed as a passed stage. Viewed as such, the present becomes the norm, the best level achieved since time began, and a level that can only be improved upon. There can be nothing further from the truth than this. An African political entity, for example, can hardly be considered the best achievable state of being for the people involved, a model that can only be improved upon. So many have tried, and failed, simply because the design just doesn't work, and yet many still cling to the hope that the worsening economic and political situation in many a land can only be improved upon from the current design. There are large corporations advising, punishing or removing individuals, even whole governments in this part of the world if they fail to accept, implement or lead their lives according to the rules these money lending corporations hand out.

It must not be forgotten that the current design gets its legitimacy from the current descriptions of it by our culture's leading research and educational institutions. I have traveled the world, and can be considered pretty much a cosmopolitan. I have seen people who are so brainwashed on this culture's philosophy that it is impossible to believe when fully comprehended, let alone expect any good to come from the state of mind of such as a group, or a nation, and for me, impossible to accept.

There is currently a view, to which I totally subscribe, now becoming more prevalent in the poorer parts of the world, that a renaissance, not a revolution, is what these decrepit parts of the world need now. People cannot change a wrong social system unless they can think unencumbered by designs that tend to lead them astray, brainwash and delude them back into the wrong path. People need to recognize this reality, and the only way they can see this truth is if they can think correctly. Only then can they heal themselves and set the stage for change. In other words, people need to change the way they think, live and eat by looking at these carefully and removing the wrong elements from them. The best way to start is to look at the survivor called man, not only from his present position and situation, but through time, and see where a rugged survivor like the African suddenly lost it. How can a man who had the potential to move mountains, and did move mountains, lead such a wasted, hopeless existence today, an age he should have mastered with ease? There has been no negative evolutionary change in his design thus far. The time or means for this to happen simply hasn't been there. Could it be true what some say that the African has simply lost all his prophetic, gifted blood to the interests of others? That this is the explanation to his state today.

Where did things really fall apart? To see this time when things fell apart clearly people need to change the way they look at the time. They need to get realistic on certain points. They need to drop the rulers they use for measurement now, which are obviously failing them, and make new ones which will be more accurate in measurement.

Sounds too much when put like this, but explanations to clarify the situation are due.

I shall proceed to give an example of the kind of brainwashing that our system meets to its subjects.

A man who graduates from a university has in the most cases studied evolution. Our evolution theory still holds (Yes! Still today, and don't let anyone fool you on this) that the smaller the head the less intelligent the person, or group, or race, or even worse, the less advanced the human species. Our evolution theory still believes in cranial size, shape, etc, even if evidence has emerged that the most successful groups of today do not have the larger brains required for such success. The argument of brain complexity has been suspiciously inserted into the argument, but is yet another move that proves my earlier argument of the vicious circle that will go to any lengths to prove, not correct, a case. The product of any institute of higher learning; the student, the graduate, walks out of its doors with or without a diploma in his hands, and a wrong attitude in his mind, also called brainwashing, and a lot of walls to walk into. I know you think I am going the wrong way, the old, stale racist way, but stop a moment and think about it. This isn't about black and white. This kind of brainwashing affects all; black, white, and yellow. I am trying to outline a process, trying to make you understand how what a person learns can come to negatively influence his outlook on life. I couldn't find a better, and simpler example to give than this, mostly because of its popularity, thanks to the National Geographic Channel and the Discovery Channel. So stay with me on this one.

How many people do you know, have what you may consider funny faces, heads, feet, bodies, have nonetheless made your day in one way or another, told you something you didn't know, or made you laugh? How many times have you realized that there is much more to life than shapes and sizes. You agree with me so far? Then think about this too; how many times have you switched on the television, and there on the National Geographic is a man displaying bones and explaining connections to modern man. Now here is the wrong. Many a graduate walks out of the learning zone and sees, or talks to another being wondering if any good thoughts could be possible from the bony head the mouth is attached to? How many times have we judged another person because of their features? Those of us who have de-brainwashed ourselves know of the fun in life that such an attitude robes us of, the pain we endure, the mistakes, the embarrassment, the failures, the isolation, and yet it still goes on. These idiots still do not see that they are presenting the material in the wrong way. The discipline is a blessing, but the presentation is a little out of line, to be euphemistic. Life is not about primitive and civilized, evolution certainly isn't about this, and though many will argue that the more advanced, the better able to survive a creature will be, evidence about true survival points to randomness. Is it true that the striving of the organism is for more complexity, survival of the fittest, or is it simply a matter of the better coping strategy. I think that the better adapted the species the better the chances of survival, but even this has its weak points. The "dual organism" (man, female, as one) that we are, is indeed a very good contraption which might prove the argument of complexity if accepted without question. It has proven itself through the years. It works. Instead of one whole rearing the offspring, the internal or external gestation period included, then giving birth, or laying the eggs, and at the same time providing nourishment and protection for itself even at it's weakest and most vulnerable moments, the functions are divided into two halves of the same whole. One has a weaker skeleton and joints to allow for the flexibility required of childbirth; a softer, sensitive nature that doesn't reject too easily, qualities in favour of the survival of the selfish little ones of the species; while the other is rigid and strong, the requirements of the rugged provider.

It sounds like the stuff of Darwin's book, but is it right to call this creature the most successful? Most successful when compared to what? The statement seems to say that there are other forms of life out there, or other forms that have gone by, that are extinct because they were less advanced. Though this is true of some comparisons, it cannot be true of evolution. The question one needs to ask here is: what have the odds been? What species has become extinct that we do not know of, that, when using these same standards of measurement, would turn out to be more advanced? What are the odds now, or a few years from now that this organism will survive? Which fool will be there to describe the new organism that maybe lives today, and is unlike our type (less advanced), and will be the sole survivor of, say, a cataclysm that wipes out our kind, as the most successful organism thus far by complexity? Too much rubbish, you will agree.

It is not the west with a Mercedes that is going to make it in this race that is not so much a race, the sole survivors by virtue of positioning on the evolutionary ladder. Survival, rather, will be decided by a fluke occurrence, as it always has been. The function of adaptation will cease when the nature that has been adapted to alters, and one's system is left wanting. The truth of survival cannot be known, and struggle as you may, the one designated as much more primitive than you, congratulations, may still outlive your kind, unless you murder them to guarantee yourself the title of most successful, which is ridiculous.

I will proceed to give another example which is closer to the material that you will find in my book.

My father once gave me a book about the origins of my people. Before there was writing in the region, oral history was the only way that the past was kept for future generations. Already an enthusiast, I delved into the book reading the two hundred page account within one night. The book takes from various oral history sources, compiling them together to make a coherent whole. The book is coherent for up to five hundred years of the group's history. It deals in detail with events that occurred before the advent of the west in Africa, or of writing, and is very accurate with events that can be crosschecked with written history from the era of western influence. There seem to be no contradictions except, and this is the part that can cause brainwashing, with connection.

There is a four hundred-year-old description of my people that I happened to have read before I read the history of my people as told by them from the book my father gave me. In fact, at the time, I didn't even know the description by the Portuguese concerned my own blood. When the Portuguese describe a group of tribesmen attacking their settlement on the coast of Angola, they describe the tribesmen who attack and burn their settlement down in no uncertain terms. These were savages merely acting out their savage instincts, as far as the Portuguese were concerned. There was no design to their attack, no coherent plan, just brute, pre-logical, inhuman piracy. Fortunately for me (and those interested) this same event is described in full by the concerned group's oral history. This event is recorded in the book my father gave me. In this version, there is no doubt that there was a need to fend off an enemy, a destabilizing factor, a threat to the people's well-being. They launched a surprise attack, which was itself well planned and executed. There was savagery involved. Very few, if any of the Portuguese or their sympathizers were spared. The degree of aggression described by both sides is clarified by the latter as caused by mismatched opponents. This is further aggravated by the anger aroused in the local population by the atrocities committed against them directly or indirectly by the Portuguese. The Portuguese are held responsible for having turned the period into the "Years of Many Wars", a peculiar title to give to an era if you are a warring, savage tribe.

This version of events is more believable than the Portuguese version who, after all, had ulterior motives. They hadn't traveled thousands of kilometers from their shores to shake hands with whoever they came across. Their knowledge of Africans and their organization was meager. What were Africans capable of? They had no way of knowing. Their version of events is an angry description, comparable if you like to that which can be made by an angry man who didn't know, nor expect, what hit him. For the African group involved, there was no need to conceal. Their version might be exaggerated, attributing godly qualities to certain warriors, acts, and deeds, but it is more accurate and has more character than the Portuguese rendering. It humanizes the African, gives him feelings and emotions, intellect and cunning, and most of all shows yet again that there is no variant of mankind that doesn't have his own interests at heart, and would like to control his own destiny. The true version is, however, not the version taught in today's schools. Our children are given the angry man's version of events. This becomes the truth they live and die by. It is no surprise that Africans develop complexes about their past, about themselves(and I wouldn't try to deny this fact if I were you). What would you expect if they are told such dehumanizing stories of their own ancestors? With the way every branch of our education is organized and taught, who wouldn't blame successful Africans for trying to distance themselves from their past. "We are a new people", they seem to be saying. We are not the same as the ugly African masses. But where in the world is this really so. Where in the world will you find a group of Africans who are living affluent lives as a community, society or nation thanks to their better selves. Their ancestors did better than they ever will be able to if the present state of affairs continues unchanged.

We can speculate here. We can take the Portuguese variant of events for the truth, but we will get nowhere. When the African is but half a human being, this being genetic or cultural, he would in this case have no use for whatever the Portuguese have or are offering. He would be oblivious of their influence. He wouldn't be able to connect his misery to their presence (he is a pre-logical being, remember), and, if he were indeed a savage and all the connotations of this, he would be savaging trees and having a ball from this rather than traversing hundreds of kilometers from his home and being capable of defeating a more technologically advanced army. All the options you may think of will lead to dead ends, and besides, why speculate further when the tribe's version of events exists? Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that this is an attempt to clean up the image of the African by denying the existence of a dark truth: savagery. It is true that bad people do band up and reek havoc here and there, filling their pockets (if they have any) with the spoils of their savagery. Savage groups have always existed in this region. Let us not forget that groups of men who were out to rob others have existed in any society known to man for as long as human memory itself. Wherever they are encountered, except in very rare cases, they are the exception, not the rule, unless you are dealing with aliens whose nature is unknown to me.

The book my father gave me made me aware of whom I was. It made me see myself in my ancestors, a connection that western brainwashing removes from many. It made me realize a very important fact; that my ancestors were not very different in mental attitude from me. In fact, they were just the same as me. This may sound strange, for, for many, this is a given. But not for me, or my kind. Many of my kind are indoctrinated with the idea that their jokes, their music, their logic, even their looks, are something that is a product of western culture. Some of it is, but the frame remains an inheritance. If I excel in whatever I do today, if I have a talent my ancestors didn't show, then I inherited it from them. Without their evolving this quality, it would not have blossomed in me. I am a product of my ancestors just like they are a product of theirs, whom we own in common, and so on.

When growing up I thought a lot, and read a lot of western books. Yes I have read Shakespeare, Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, Levi Bruhl, and many more, and have quotes from even much more than is good for me. While it is true that they are all westerners, and may have influenced my thinking, it wouldn't be true to say I therefore think like a westerner. This would be to say that there is a logic that is peculiar to Africans, and one that is peculiar to westerners. Logic as I am using it now is not a western monopoly. The west cannot make a claim on this abstract. Logic at its best can be attained by any member of any race. Reasoning at its best is given to us by the world's best minds, and there is no mentality to that, just excellence. No side can claim a monopoly on this. It is either you are good at it, or you are not.

From this it became apparent to me that, when confronted with adversity, my ancestors found a solution to the problem using the universal laws of logic. When in dire straits, they resolved a problem in much the same way that I would. Come to think of it, if I was in their shoes, I would have fared much the same way as they did. The solutions to my problems would have been the same as they were presented with. With this knowledge in mind, I put aside all books that narrow the scope of the African's mind by attaching style and attitude to their every thought and resolution. This is how I decided to write a book that depicted them confronted with problems and solving these in much the same way you or I would solve the problems given the means and limitations available to our ancestors at the time.

When I started writing this book with this idea in mind, I was not quite sure if it would work or not. The writing was part experiment, part conviction. The result, however, surprised me, and ultimately proved me right.

The story is based on real events. But there are several gaps that I fill in with contemporary ways of doing things. Oral history, and in this case even written history, records only those events deemed important enough to record. There are several gaps in between. The lifestyle of the people is one for example. What was this like? Clues about the lifestyles are given unintentionally by slave traders and the oral history of the people involved. How would this be influenced by the major events? How would this influence the major events? Was the lifestyle of the people instrumental in the outcome of history as we know and live it now?

I started first by finding out what the hobbies of the people living at this time were. I had to give them a need for an outlet, and all the things that people do today, without forgetting the context of the story, or I would be back where I started. I could not afford to make lively, energetic, humorous, creative Africans have no pastime, just a dance around the fire now and then would not reflect or be a forming factor of their entire makeup. Instead of football I checked up a game they had in those days. Instead of hunting for the sake of food I included hunting for the sake of it. The events that surround these pass times today I made the same. The pain, the sweat, the tears, the fears, etc, are the same as those that people have today. These I filled with my own points of view, my experience of how others or myself solve problems. I went along, adding an event where one was missing, finding a logical follow up to an event according to contemporary mentalities. I added a bit of soap to the royal family's residence for example, a contemporary situation here, a well-known evocation there, A hidden love affair here and jealousy there, an urgent situation which finds a solution not from meditation, but from a situation in the family. The filling in and the frame fit together like a hand into a glove, and why not, the present is not as distant from the past as we would think it is. It is just a matter of logic, and this stays the same as long as minds are the same construct and aim.

The result, I think, is an old story that sounds familiar.

This book is dedicated to all of mankind, and in particular to those whose past and present are wrought with indescribable tragedies and misery caused in large part by other mankind. There can be as many foes for sentient beings as nature ordains. It is left upon us to remove as many of those we can remove if it is within our scope.

M. M. Vunda.