Dr. Chigudu & why Zimbabwe fell but Rhodes must not

Prof. Simukai Chigudu is not a cretin though he is currently a Professor of a shite subject. This is proved by the fact that he is a Medical Doctor who worked for the NHS for three years. Sadly, his interest in 'Global Health Activism' caused him to fall prey to stupid academo-bureaucratic availability cascades and so he has ended up teaching a shite subject. To be fair, Didier Fassin, who accomplished a lot as a senior figure in Doctors without Borders, too, has written some worthless shite.  But, intellectually, Chigudu is not in that league. Still, by concentrating on 'minute particulars' he could have really helped a lot of African and Asian people concerned with Public Health. The 'emic' perspective is needed to find 'frugal' mechanisms which are incentive compatible in our ancestral countries. Had Chigudu not so thoroughly buggered up his brain with 'woke' ideology, and 'universalist' political discourse, he could be telling us something useful about how we can help our poor ancestral homelands cope with COVID. Instead he wrote a stupid book about the 2008 Cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe which spilled over into neighboring states. The explanation for that outbreak was simple. Mugabe and his thugs had looted the country. They were shit at running it which is why shit ended up in the water supply. That caused cholera. Both the cause and the cure for the problem were easy to understand. Using some bogus 'Political theory' to shift all the blame on to  Whitey and the 'legacy of Colonialism' was bad and is bad for Black people wherever they may live. Writing stupid shite about 'imbrication' helps nobody except White academics and bureaucrats running virtue signalling Ponzi schemes. The fact is if you say 'all is Whitey's fault', then you are also saying 'Only Whitey can fix the problem they created'.

Look at this article in the Washington Post claiming that we can learn something from Mugabe's Zimbabwe to help us with COVID

As the world reckons with the covid-19 pandemic, we are learning firsthand how health epidemics often reveal underlying social, political and economic tensions in a society.

No we are not. We are learning that a poor state like Kerala, which has a good Health Minister who has experience dealing with a similar epidemic, does very very well. A rich country with a shit CDC, like the US, does very badly.

Similarly, what the Zimbabwe Cholera epidemic reveals is that a stupid bunch of thugs can't ensure that the sewage system stays separate from the water supply. That's it. That's the whole story. There is no fucking imbrication of any abstract shite.

In his latest book, “The Political Life of an Epidemic,” offers a vivid and rigorous account of the causes and consequences of Zimbabwe’s 2008-2009 cholera outbreak. Chigudu, associate professor of African politics and Fellow of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, argues the cholera outbreak served as a “perfect storm,” opening a window to understanding the multiple ways disease affects the relationship of citizens with their government.

Nonsense! Everyone knew Mugabe was a shitty guy. Thus shit was bound to get into the water supply. Smart people had run away from there long ago. Chigudu left at 16 back in 2004- 4 years before the epidemic hit.

Scholars of diseases may look at the weakness and dysfunction of the Zimbabwean health system,

Fuck scholars. Illiterate people could see Mugabe and his thugs were shitty shitty people. So they ran away. The 'Zimbabwean health system' was a joke. Since the country has gotten poorer- because all the smart people ran away- things are now as bad or worse as under Mugabe. Doctors perform bare handed surgeries. If they don't get paid they will have to leave. Of course Chigudu could return and practice medicine in his home country. But he prefers to be a 'global health activist' and public intellectual in Oxford.

and predict that a cholera outbreak was inevitable. However, Chigudu offers a “one disease, many crises” framework, where he argues that the cholera outbreak is not an isolated moment, or a result of the predetermined weakness of the Zimbabwean government or health infrastructure. Rather, the outbreak highlighted the years of failed strategies by the ZANU-PF, Zimbabwe’s ruling party since 1980, to remain in power.

Strategies to remain in power succeed if you remain in power. But murderous thugs may not care if shit gets in the water supply. They mix Perrier in their Single Malt.

These strategies, along with the post-2000 political economic crisis, undermined previously strong bureaucratic institutions.

Why were they strong? Is it because the place was run by Whites? The fact is Zimbabwe had strong growth post-Independence. But Mugabe was improvident and got involved in a costly war. Then, to keep himself in power, he turned it into a kleptocracy from the ground upwards. The highly educated indigenous middle class started to flee. Chigudu himself left at 16 like so many other bright young people. This was a boon for the countries which received them. But it was a terrible drain of human resources from a country which had been doing well and could do even better.

This also cut into the government’s ability to adequately develop and provide public services, which eventually led to the breakdown of the political and social relationship between the government and its citizens.

So robbing and killing Whitey is not a good idea. Smart people run away. The regime steals everything in sight. There is starvation. There are epidemics. Soon even the workers and peasants start running away. It is estimated that a quarter of the population has emigrated.

Chigudu makes three main arguments

They are shit. Everybody knew that Mugabe and his thugs had fucked up the country. Robbing and killing Whitey is bad for Black people.

First, the cholera outbreak showed how years of social inequality and post-colonial segregation undermined public infrastructure and bureaucratic institutions, which contributed to the inadequacy of the ZANU-PF and its ability to provide public services such as clean water, clean sanitation facilities and to the citizens of Zimbabwe. This inadequacy, in turn, exacerbated the outbreak.

Chigudu is saying Whitey is responsible for Mugabe killing and robbing and chasing Whitey away. Since, without Whitey, things turn to shit, it is Whitey's fault that Mugabe fucked up so badly. But Mugabe has gone and the country is still a shit-show. Chigudu himself is not going to return to work as a Doctor. Instead he remains at Oxford complaining that Whitey is responsible for the decline of Rhodesia since the Blacks took over. But that decline was scarcely inevitable. Mugabe was a bright guy. If only he had read Hayek and been advised by Lee Kuan Yew, rather than worthless Leftist gobshites of Chigudu's stripe, Zimbabwe would now be flourishing. It is a beautiful country with very good looking, academically brilliant, people.               

 Second, cholera became a site for political contestation domestically and internationally. Here’s why: An international humanitarian response converged on a short-term “salvation agenda,” while the ZANU-PF saw the outbreak as racial biological warfare from the West to bring regime change. This helped create a domestic political battle, with the MDC opposition party critiquing the ZANU-PF response as a human rights failure.

Mugabe's thugs could beat the shite out of the MDC. So they prevailed. Of course they blamed all the country's problems on 'racial biological warfare from the West'. Since arguing the point would get your head kicked in, smart people ran away.

And third, the cholera outbreak created multiple contexts and relationships in which people believed the government considered them disposable.

But a lot of them had already run away because they weren't getting enough to eat.

The disease outbreak made it appear as if Zimbabwe’s government was effectively punishing its citizens through deadly disease and neglect. The politics of expectation also came into play, as citizens believed their government had a primary responsibility to provide public goods. And the outbreak also gave rise to the politics of adaptation, referring to the range of survival strategies citizens took to get through the outbreak.

Those who could ran away. Some who stayed were helped by remittances from abroad. For Mugabe's thugs, life was good. But for the majority things had become worse than under White Rule. Right now, things are truly terrible.

In making these arguments, Chigudu illustrates how the cholera outbreak was not an invisible enemy, but rather the result of a man-made, mutually reinforced policy failure by the ZANU-PF which also created political debates about the role of government in providing basic needs. Chigudu contends that the onset and response to cholera was deeply politicized at every phase of the outbreak, from its emergence to the actions the government took — or failed to take.

One could say something like this about Sweden's response to COVID. But, it is foolish to use this type of phraseology in connection with Mugabe's murderous regime or its equally horrible successor. Why pretend 'political debate' in Harare resembles what obtains in Stockholm?
One can imagine a Prof. Carlsen of Uppsala University writing a book about Sweden's recent experience of the pandemic. A reviewer might write-

The strength of Carlsen’s work comes through his combination of rich interview data with citizens, politicians and documentary sources, all of which he uses to tell the story of Swedish citizens and rigorously show how people experienced the political, social and economic issues in the country, through the COVID outbreak. Carlsen focuses intently on the lived experiences of citizens and how they wrestled with a government that failed them. Yet in that failure, COVID provided an opportunity for citizens to vent their frustrations with their government and demand better public service and infrastructure.

If we were to read this, we would say to ourselves, 'Carlsen may not be particularly bright. But he is an honest drudge. Reading his book will help us predict where the ruling party will lose constituency seats. We may also get an inkling of how Swedish Health policy is likely to change. ' However, Chigudu is not writing about Sweden. He is telling us about an epidemic caused by shite leadership which however did not trigger any type of political change because the shite leadership beat the shit out of anybody who complained. Thus we form a low opinion of Chigudu. We think he is either a fool or a falsifier of history.

There is one other possibility. This man may be a satirist. The following is laugh out loud funny.

For example, in Chapter 5, Chigudu uses the story of 62-year-old masseuse named “Tsitsi,” who complained that the water supply would often have traces of human waste.

Clearly this elderly 'masseuse' had formed a low opinion of the young Doctor he was talking to. Thus he says 'Dude, there are pieces of shit floating in the water that comes through the tap. Now we have a Cholera epidemic. You're a Doctor. You're supposed to be smart. Connect the fucking dots'.
But Chigudu could not connect the dots. He thought some abstract shite was 'imbricated'. He carefully notes the age of the masseuse. But he can't hear what the guy is saying.

Or how a Harare-based journalist noted how resources that should have gone to public service delivery instead went to political campaigning.

Some of it did, sure. The rest was looted.

Chigudu offers a vivid and often grim picture of how cholera ravished (sic) the livelihoods of Zimbabweans, laying bare the impact of years of political and economic vulnerabilities of their society.

Chigudu is either a liar or a fool. The truth was obvious. Whitey had built up quite a good State. Initially, after Independence, the country was doing well. Two thirds of all White farmers had bought their farms after independence precisely because they could see Mugabe was a genuinely smart man. They thought Zimbabwe would develop along the lines of Kenya. Then Mugabe saw that he could make himself politically bullet proof by ruining the country. His having read a lot of Marxist shite helped give a sort of ideological sheen to his thuggery. But it was thuggery and nothing else which kept him in power.

Chigudu’s account of cholera in Zimbabwe is timely and relevant to the politics of global health today.

No. It is useless. Global health aint a thing. There is only local public health. Either the people in a State have smart and experienced Health Ministers who act quickly or else the disease sweeps through the population till 'herd immunity' is attained. America had a shite CDC. It is doing worse than Kerala which is much poorer. But Kerala had a smart Health Minister, a Communist btw, who had tackled a similar outbreak just two years previously. So the administration could hit the ground running and contain the situation very quickly. Tamil Nadu followed suit. Some other Indian states- including U.P to everyone's surprise- did quite well. But responses had to be idiographic and based on current constraints. Whether Whitey had been running things decades ago was completely irrelevant. Blaming Whitey for everything is bad for Coloured people- even if they are Communists. Tackling problems in a pragmatic manner is what might get them re-elected.

Amid a global pandemic, Chigudu’s rich account offers a framework in which to contextualize how health crises disproportionately affect the most vulnerable segments of society.

No it doesn't. It is utterly worthless. Kerala was able to predict that its most vulnerable people were migrants and so made arrangements for them before their livelihoods were affected.  No South Indian working in public health could learn anything from Chigudu's worthless shite.

More importantly, health outbreaks also offer an opportunity for governments to reconfigure policy and programs in a more equitable way.

No they don't. They have to cut budgets to cope with the calamity. Then they have to pursue supply side reforms to increase the tax base so as to resume 'transfers'.

Chigudu focused on the subjective experiences of citizenship to gain an understanding of how Zimbabweans felt either included or excluded from society, and in that, how they transformed those sentiments to stake their claim and explore how the government could best serve them.

In a Swedish context, this might seem a worthwhile thing to do. In the context of Mugabe's Zimbabwe it is either stupidity or satire.

“The Political Life of an Epidemic” excels in its ability to engage in a reflexive exercise of how citizens adapt and survive to the conditions of disease outbreaks.

But 'engaging in reflexive exercises' is a complete and utter waste of time. Poor countries should not bother with it. Nor should poor people in rich countries demand the thing. Why? At the end of the day, Governments discover that what happens to the 'bottom tenth' does not matter.

For 2020, it’s a great way to understand how diseases help clarify just how important lived experiences are to shaping citizens’ political expectations.

The 'lived experience' of the poor is that they should expect to get spattered with shit when the shit hits the fan. We don't need no Professors to write books showing this to be the case.

Chigudu has an opinion piece in the Guardian. Is he going to talk about how BAME people should stay away from stupid demonstrations because they are at greater risk from this virus? After all, he is a Medical Doctor. He himself is Black. He must care about the rest of us- right?

Wrong. The guy is exercised about a statue of Cecil Rhodes in his University. 

The toppling of Edward Colston certainly made for a dramatic scene.

It made for a disgusting spectacle.

The frantic energy of large crowds cheering while the statue plunged into the river in Bristol signalled the release of pent-up tension accumulated during a pandemic and widespread anti-racism protests.

Which put BAME people disproportionately at risk.

Within 48 hours, Oxford was seized by the same zeal. More than 1,000 people gathered on the city’s high street to call for the removal of the statue commemorating the notorious Victorian imperialist Cecil John Rhodes. It was a coordinated, peaceful and impassioned protest about the statue and about structural racism in Britain.

It was a display of stupidity.

When it was my turn to address the crowd, I introduced myself as

a Medical Doctor who would want people to maintain social distancing?

one of about seven black professors (official statistics are not available) at the University of Oxford, to simultaneous cheer and shock.

But this guy gave up practising medicine in order to be a Professor of a shite subject.

I proceeded to say that I am an angry black man,

from Mugabe's Zimbabwe who escaped to a nice English boarding school at the age of 16 back in 2004- about three years after the Black middle-class started fleeing that country

fully aware of the ugly stereotype that accompanies this image – hot-blooded, impervious to reason and unworthy of serious engagement – particularly when talking about matters of racial injustice.

I don't understand this. The 'angry black men' of the Sixties and Seventies- people like Darcus Howe & Farukh Dhondy (who ludicrously took over the running of the British Black Panthers despite being a pale Parsee)- had become fixtures on our TV screens- or behind those screens as senior producers- by the Nineties. Even by the end of the Seventies, a Black man had won the Econ Nobel. Over the next 30 years African American economists and jurists had a huge impact on the top end of the Academy. Finally, there was Obama who, for 8 years, led the Free World in an exemplary manner.

But how could I not be angry?

You could go back to Zimbabwe and work as a Doctor saving lives.

Like many other black people in the UK and around the world, I witnessed the brutal torture and murder of George Floyd with outrage and revulsion.

But you also visited Zimbabwe and saw how the public health system there is collapsing.

Outrage and revulsion at the long legacy of structural and institutional racism that has killed, exploited, subjugated and silenced so many black people in the United States, in Britain and in former white-settler colonies.

The problem here is that the US imported Black slaves. 'Settler-colonies' turned free Black or Brown people into serfs or else killed them or shut them up in arid Reservations. But all the African and Asian people now in Britain came here voluntarily after their countries became independent. They paid good money to do so. A few nutters may want to displace White people but the rest of us will run away if that happens. We know all too well what happens to a country when stupid nutters with a racial chip on their shoulder take over.

The removal of the Rhodes statue would be a powerful gesture of public accountability

No. It would be a craven gesture of a virtue signaling type.

It is this same outrage at institutional racism that ignited the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) campaign in South Africa in early 2015.

South Africa is going to turn to shit if it goes down Mugabe's road.

That protest rapidly became transnational, announcing itself in Oxford by asking uncomfortable questions about my university’s past.

It is uncomfortable to me- as a stupid darkie- to see smart kids of my complexion talking worthless shite even though they have got into Oxford and can make something of themselves.

A former imperial training ground, Oxford is strewn with tributes to the great men of the British empire, who have portraits, busts, engravings, statues and even buildings dedicated to their memory.

If you don't like it, why not leave? You are a Doctor. You can get a good job anywhere.

In contrast, the histories of conquest, famine and dispossession that these men left in their wake are routinely forgotten.

So what? It is good to forget stuff which is useless to us. It is bad to work yourself up over stuff which happened long ago.

RMF drew attention to

the fact that students have it so easy their big complaint is having to look at some statue. No wonder voters won't support a return to free, or even subsidised, undergraduate education.

this iconography as part of a varied agenda that included two additional aims: reforming the Eurocentric curriculums that dominate the university’s teaching

Better still, get rid of shite Departments teaching worthless nonsense. There is nothing 'Eurocentric' about STEM subjects. Chinese Maths is the same as Swedish Maths.

and addressing the underrepresentation and inadequate welfare provision for black and minority-ethnic staff and students at Oxford.

Get rid of useless subjects and then make STEM subject education free. If fewer people are obliged to get degrees, intakes go down which means quality, and salaries, can go up.

However, it did not take long before all focused on the removal of the Rhodes statue at Oriel College.

Because this was the stupidest thing these nutters could focus on. If you say 'such and such group is under-represented here', we are happy to listen because we know that biases can keep out high quality candidates. This is allocatively and dynamically inefficient. But if you start complaining about statues then we think you are a moron.

I was a PhD student in Oxford at that time as well as a founding member of our chapter of RMF. As a Zimbabwean, it was difficult for me to

go back to Zimbabwe and practice Medicine there because what that country really needs is not Doctors but guys who say 'boo to Rhodes's statue. Statues are very important. If we topple them then by magic everything becomes very nice.'

view Rhodes simply as a man with odious views compared with our contemporary standards, as if it were his words alone and not his actions that were under scrutiny.

Why did you not scrutinise Mugabe's actions? Was it because you did not want to get your head kicked in?

Rhodes’ imperialism gave rise to a pattern of settler colonialism in Southern Africa predicated on racial domination in political, economic and social spheres. In Rhodesia, 8 million disenfranchised black people eked out a living at subsistence level or below it, while 250,000 white people, barely 3% of the population, owned more than half of the country’s available land, and virtually all of its business and industry, before independence from colonial rule in 1980.

Yet the majority of Blacks were better off then. It must be said that most people thought the country would do very well after Independence. Perhaps things will turn around in the next few years.

Education, healthcare and housing were all segregated, with white people enjoying levels equivalent to those in western Europe or the United States.

Which is why they stayed. Once living standards fell, they returned to Europe.

Rhodes’ statue, then, is no mere physical artefact. It is imbued with a noxious history.

So is England. Why not leave it for sunny Zimbabwe? If things are still crappy there, why not settle in another beautiful African country where Doctors are well paid?

Its presence at Oriel College reframes Rhodes’ conquest as munificence to the university

No. Big donors get plaques or statues because they handed over big sums of cash. This did not 'reframe' anything. The fact is Rhodes was considered a hero because Britain was a racist country at that time and considered ruling over more and more African and Asian people a good and honorable thing. Not to mention the fact that it was profitable- at that time.

and fails to recognise the exploitation of African labour from which his estate was built.

But, according to Marx, all surplus value cornered by Capitalists arises from the exploitation of some sort of labour. If Rhodes is a villain, so is Nuffield.

It belongs in a museum, where it can be properly historicised.

Or it can stay where it is and people can Google its proper 'historicization'.

More importantly, in 2015 and now, the calls for the removal of such statues open up discussions about how we talk about the dynamics of race and racism, inclusion and exclusion, and being and belonging in Britain.

Sadly, this isn't the case- at least with respect to this guy. The question we ask him is why not return to Africa and make a good living as a Doctor? You could also get involved with Public Health Policy. That's useful and honorable work. Why write worthless books and give lectures in an utterly shite University Department? We appreciate that cretins have special educational needs and that they should have a safe place within the University coz they might be real good at sports or sex or both sex and sports and, anyway, have you ever met an Engineering Undergrad? They are as boring as shit. Seriously. Worse than Economists.

Initial responses to RMF were hostile, infantilising and casually racist.

So, people kept saying to this Doctor, 'stop being a baby. Go back to Africa. Make money as a Doctor saving lives. Don't waste your time talking shite. Leave that to stupid people like Priyamvada Gopal. Also, why are you not trans-gender and campaigning to be allowed to marry your neighbor's cat? Boy, you just not woke enough.'

The Conservative politician and Oriel College alumnus Daniel Hannan disparaged RMF as “cretinous”, dismissed its demands as “facile”, and said that students in the movement were “too dim” to be at university.

Hannan is as stupid as shit. But we have to agree with him. A Doctor who gives up Medicine for being a professional gobshite is indeed a moral imbecile.

Disappointingly, the otherwise astute and justly celebrated Cambridge professor, Mary Beard, argued that RMF is “a dangerous attempt to erase the past” and suggested that minority students should be empowered to look at the statue “with a cheery and self-confident sense of un-batterability”.

This was not disappointing at all to her fans- and she has many.

Will Hutton, the principal of Hertford College at Oxford, reminded RMF students that were it not for the legacies of the British empire, South Africa would descend into “unaccountable despotism” as embodied by then president, Jacob Zuma.

Sadly, Hutton has a point.

Revealingly, apart from a tokenistic nod to Nelson Mandela, Hutton made no acknowledgment of Africans shaping their own political destiny,

what's that? He failed to praise Mugabe? Did he not at least express gratitude to 'the last king of Scotland' Idi Amin? Shame on him!

and seemingly held no conception of Africans as historical agents.

Sadly, this isn't true. Hutton retains vivid memories of Amin and Bokassa. People my age often do.

As for the upper echelons of Oxford University’s leadership, the chancellor Lord Patten said that students unable to embrace Rhodes “should think about being educated elsewhere”.

The people this guy quotes, with the exception of Hannan, are considered quite sensible and middle of the road. By contrast, the argument he himself makes is utterly ridiculous. Sure, if he'd been born in Brixton and got his degree through the Open University while in prison, then we'd listen to him. But he came to England to attend a boarding school and then qualified as a Doctor. He really should think of returning home and helping save lives there.

Behind the spectacle of toppling a statue, RMF gained significant traction in the university’s student and faculty body, owing to the hard, behind-the-scenes work of a great many student activists.

Whose antics created an 'anti-woke' backlash. Corbyn, silly sausage that he is, was perceived to be pandering to these nutters. That is why the 'Red Wall' collapsed and BoJo rose up as the Messiah of One Nation Toryism.

It is a bitter irony then that, for all the exaltation of peaceful protest and deliberative democracy, Oriel College refused to remove the statue as it risked losing £100m in donor gifts from wealthy alumni.

How is this a bitter irony? Colleges want money from rich dudes. It's how they came to exist in the first place. What other 'bitter ironies' has this cretin discovered? McDonald's charges money for its Happy Meal. How bitterly ironic! They should give them away in return for hugs and kisses. The London Underground is a public transportation system. How bitterly ironic! It ought to be the center of resistance to Nazi Neo-liberalism.

Four years later, we have an opportunity to engage in a more mature and honest conversation about race in Britain.

Who with? Everybody already thinks you are a puerile cretin. As a Doctor you should have been telling the protesters about the importance of social distancing. Instead you were ranting and raving about a statue of the guy who founded the country you ran away from after it became Zimbabwe.

The removal of the Rhodes statue would be a powerful gesture of public accountability

no. It would be a cowardly and stupid act.

and it would allow a good-faith discussion about institutional racism in my university as a small part of much broader demands for racial justice and equality in British society.

Rubbish! Good faith discussions begin by putting aside 'wedge issues' of a purely gesture-political type. Saying 'you must first do some stupid shit before we can address the real problem' proves only that you are as stupid as shit and don't give a toss about the underlying issue.

Numerous writers – the likes of Reni Eddo-Lodge, Afua Hirsch, Akala, Emma Dabiri, David Olusoga and Kehinde Andrews

With the exception of the rapper, Akala, these are people with direct African heritage. West Indians in Britain have a right to complain about racism and the slave trade. But Africans were well educated and chose to emigrate here after their countries became independent. They don't understand the true Black experience of Britain and its historic racism. Neither do Indians- but we are as stupid as shit and talking about things we have no experience of is pretty much second nature.

– have already done much hard work in articulating and contextualising the black experience in Britain.

But West Indians found the recent African immigrants- who were very well educated and many of whom were wealthy- to be wholly uncongenial. After all, these may well be descendants of the guys who enslaved their own ancestors and then sold them to the White Man.

Anti-racist activists are channelling years of anger and pain into coordinated protests about Britain’s past and present.

But Indian and African origin have little right to take over and make their own the genuine grievances of descendants of slaves trafficked by the British. Why? Indians and Africans took over the States that the British had created. If their own leaders screwed things up, forcing them to emigrate, then they have no right to hold a grudge against White Britain.

West Indians have genuine grievances. But they are now doing well by their own efforts. They have risen up by their own talent, hard work, and family and spiritual values. They must not let Indian or African gobshites shoulder them aside so as to create an obligatory passage point status for themselves on the road to redressing a historic wrong which only the West Indians suffered.

When the righteous fury and indignation over the present moment begins to simmer down, the messy work of challenging racism in all its structural, institutional and interpersonal guises must continue.

But gobshites like this author must be disintermediated. He's an actual Medical Doctor for fuck's sake! He should be out there saving lives not sitting in Oxford talking shite.

But, this time, it will have a greater critical mass.

No it won't. The outcome of the Floyd riots is known in advance. Either Biden loses votes because his 1994 Crime Bill hurt African Americans or he gains votes because his 1994 Crime Bill hurt African Americans. As for the 'woke' activists, everybody will agree with Obama that they are utter tossers. As the film Undercover Brother II shows, 'wokeness' is the evil drug which 'the Man' is using to revive White, homophobic, misogynistic, Supremacy. Gobshites like Prof. Chigudu have helped BoJo and hurt Corbyn in this country. In America, they have ensured that the country has a choice between a guy who actively hurt African Americans by legislating discriminatory policing and incarceration and another guy who thinks White Power nutters are fine upstanding citizens.

What a wonderful outcome! It reminds us that Mugabe could only fuck up his country because there were plenty of 'woke' intellectuals in his country. Kenya had the sense to exile Ngugi. Anyway, people had stopped reading Kikuyu. But then his books were translated into Shona. Zimbabwe's doom was sealed.