Angola in the Comics #20: From Slavery to Freedom

As I'm on the verge of a new trip to Angola, I think it's time to revisit Angola in the Comics!

From Slavery to Freedom is a comic book that was apparently published by the MPLA prior to Angola's independence. The copy that I've read is available online at the Marxists Internet Archive; it was first published in English in 1976 by a San Francisco communist publisher called the Peoples Press. The English edition credits their translator and letterer (said letterer is the underground comics artist Spain Rodriguez!) but there are no credits offered for the original creators... for that matter, no indication of what the comic's original Portuguese title was or when the MPLA first published it.

From Slavery to Freedom is a political comic - a work of propaganda. It seems it was designed primarily to help the MPLA explain what their cause was doing through a visual narrative to assist the illiterate or semi-literate. The plot concerns a young man named Paulo who is victimized by PIDE (the Portuguese secret police), joins the MPLA and becomes one of their fighters. The story took time to demonstrate that women were part of their movement and that there were white men fighting alongside them against PIDE. It didn't actually put that much time into extolling the virtues of Marxism - the MPLA were presented simply as a pro-Angola force battling the Portuguese, that seemed to be a more important message than any idealogy.

However, the Peoples Press were themselves a lot more explicit in their messaging. They wrote an introduction and epilogue for their version in which they celebrated Angola's independence, extolled the virtues of the MPLA and denounced the MPLA's enemies (FNLA and UNITA) as puppets of the CIA. The Peoples Press had a smug tone that is really off-putting to a non-communist such as myself. Frankly, they could have learned some lessons in propaganda!

I should also mention Spain's lettering. Spain had a problem you see in many translated works - trying to retain the original text within speech balloons that can't quite accommodate it. Portuguese can be a very succinct language compared to English and can convey in a few words what takes several words to get across in English. Consequently, you can see Spain struggling in panels (such as above) where he realized he'd run out of space and had to reduce his font to fit the entire dialogue.

This comic got a bit of write-up in North America thanks to a feature that the Comics Journal ran early on in its history called "Alternating Currents" in which Bill Mantlo examined unusual propaganda comics that weren't normally reviewed by the comics fan press (this was back in the days when someone as mainstream as Bill Mantlo could contribute to TCJ). In TCJ #45 (1979), Mantlo spent 2 pages reviewing From Slavery to Freedom. He primarily recapped the comic's plot but he ultimately spoke approvingly of the comic: "Such propaganda is the only way to counter the CIA-fostered lies spread by capitalist media in this country."

Mantlo hit a nerve; in TCJ #48, reader Gerard F. Einhaus wrote in and complained of Mantlo's "political naivete" and denounced the country's liberation as "being preserved at the point of a gun barrel, made in the Soviet Union and usually held by a Cuban soldier. Maybe you call it liberation, Bill. Looks like tyranny to me." As late as TCJ #95 (1985), Mantlo was still being denounced as Dwight R. Decker wrote in an article:

"The Journal's reviewer of Nazi comics wrote as if he were fighting desperately to keep from vomiting all over his typewriter, but when his attention turned to the Marxist revolutionary comic from Angola, his tone changed to the point that he sounded as if he were writing a hymn for an angelic choir."

Decker's complaint was that Mantlo was too emotionally involved in judging propaganda (I guess we're supposed to be dispassionate in talking about Nazi propaganda?). Decker though, got to be as emotional as he liked; do as I say, not as I do.

Anyway, since the Marxists Internet Archive have put the entire comic online it's available for anyone to see; it's very much a historical artifact as the conflict with Portugal was already in the past at the time the 1976 English translation was made and now even the civil war is 22 years in the past.

More Angola in the Comics next week!

On Being in Bed with an Elephant

"Democracy doesn't work."

Almost a decade ago I heard those words from one of my co-workers as we were having coffee. It was unusual for us to be speaking about politics - I can't recall what I said to prompt her reaction. "What the people really want," she asserted, "is a strong leader."

She had almost 4 decades of experience more than me and had been born in Hong Kong so I wasn't sure how much of her viewpoint was generational and how much of it was cultural, but I was stunned to hear someone speak so dismissively about democracy. I was, I suppose, inclined to think of Martin Luther King Jr.'s adage that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" and assumed that meant we (humans) were becoming more just and more democratic as time went on.

The US election in 2016 really unnerved me. It challenged what I thought about democracy and justice and what that nation's beliefs supposedly were. For some reason, I came down hard on the television series The West Wing. I recall shortly after the election that I got into a rant while speaking to one of my friends. My argument was, "why would anyone ever watch The West Wing again?"

The West Wing was an extremely optimistic program when it came to politics. Generally, politicians who were exposed as charlatans and hypocrites would slink off, never to be seen again. Politicians who opposed the White House's policies would do so in good faith, standing on a principle which conflicted with their goals. The opposing party could be brought around by a persuasive argument rooted in their common beliefs and goals.

So my argument was: none of that is true about the USA. The contempt one half of that country has for the other -- the irrational self-destructive hatred -- renders all of The West Wing's high ideals meaningless. I not only questioned their present commitment to democracy, I began questioning whether they were ever truly interested in democracy.

After that I picked a fight with another friend, this one a former poli-sci student. There I argued that the entire discipline of poli-sci was meaningless if any uneducated boor could attain the highest office on earth by merely appealing to populism. My friend fired back that, in fact, he found the election of Trump had made his poli-sci easier to teach in the classroom. When courts refused to back Trump's orders it provided useful examples of how the US government branches functioned.

I had allowed myself to become very anti-US in my outlook. I posted on Facebook on the day of Trump's election that I wanted my nation to find a new "best friend". I was not making a joke. And the darkest place I went to in that time was deciding the 'good' side of Trump's election was that it would hasten the collapse of the USA.

In retrospect, what I wanted was to see that country humbled - chastened - humiliated, perhaps. I wanted to see them lose prestige and somehow that was the worst-case scenario in my head. I did not foresee the 'Muslim ban', the children in cages, the catastrophic death toll from COVID-19 or the attempted coup. So although those events were the ugliest of all 'ugly American' attitudes I have ever experienced, more and more I came feel for all of those were suffering. That has helped me to expunge some of my anti-US sentiments.

Earlier this week I put on my DVDs of The West Wing for the first time in... what, 5 years? It wasn't consciously because I felt differently about that country or wanted to somehow commemorate the inauguration of their new president. I was simply scanning my DVD shelves, saw the boxed sets and thought, "why not? Maybe it will hold up after all."

It does hold up.

"So then, no more boasting about human leaders!" (1 Corinthians 3:21)

"It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham, 1981

Following up on my earlier disappointment at the state of partisan behaviour in the church, I'm going to blog about one particular Christian leader who has been displaying an archly partisan perspective: Franklin Graham. Although I am not of his nation nor his denomination it is not easy for me to criticize him - his father, Billy Graham, is a person I have great respect for; Franklin's organization Samaritan's Purse has done good work; I have myself assisted Samaritan's Purse and seen first-hand some of the results of their work; further, he has been a friend, missional aid and/or source of inspiration to family members and fellow parishioners.

However, I hadn't spent much time actually reading Franklin Graham's messages. When I began to see some of his Facebook posts and the reactions to them I made a point to dig back into his Facebook posts to see more of what he had been posting. Over the course of 2017 I've noticed he uses Facebook to promote Samaritan's Purse's work, to react to various terrorist acts or natural disasters, post anti-LGBTQ & anti-abortion messages and occasionally to spread the word about other people's Christian testimonies. However, most of his posts are political in nature and he comes down very firmly as a conservative - again, firmly. He's certainly able to criticize the Republican party (such as admonishing them over their failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act) but he never criticizes Donald Trump. On the other side of the aisle he frequently targets liberals: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, even Canada's Justin Trudeau.

Some of the Christian leaders who meet with Trump have recently resigned because of his rhetoric; one of those who remained justified their position stating: “Why would I abandon someone now? I wouldn’t do that to someone in my congregation." But in Franklin Graham's posts about Trump time and again there is no sense that he sees himself as being in a position to help soften Trump's rhetoric or bring healing to a man who is quite clearly in need of it; Franklin's Trump posts are 100% supportive of the President regardless of what he has been saying or doing.

Repeatedly he has rejected the idea of Russian efforts behind Trump's election: "This whole debate about Russia influencing our elections is a giant smokescreen. The progressive socialists had plans for our country and Donald J. Trump disrupted those plans. ... They also want to keep the American people distracted. They would rather see the country spiral downward than for problems to be fixed."

On the matter of Trump's tax returns Franklin has been staunchly on Trump's side: "The President hasn't asked for my advice, but I would say-No way! Even if these were published, the average American ... wouldn't be able to understand them. ... It would just be another distraction, and a media frenzy, which is exactly what his enemies want."

After students at the University of Notre Dame walked out of Mike Pence's commencement address, Franklin angrily suggested the students should have had their diplomas torn up. "They knew well in advance who was going to be speaking at their commencement; and if they didn't like it, they shouldn't have come."

Franklin applauded Trump for blocking transgendered people from serving in the US Military: "As Americans, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, we should celebrate when our leaders do the right thing for our country. President Obama's policy on this was a mistake."

While Franklin did express compassion for the woman killed in Charlottesville on August 12, he furiously rejected the idea that Trump bore any responsibility for this: "Really, this boils down to evil in people's hearts. Satan is behind it all."

After Donald Trump told the United Nations: "Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime." Franklin reacted: "President Donald J. Trump's address today to the United Nations General Assembly may have been one of the best speeches ever given to that body. It made you proud to be an American."

Here's three which were particularly frustrating to read:

The double question marks which open his statement seem to indicate sarcasm (perhaps incredulity?) which is not a promising way to open his response - here is a Democrat bringing God into politics yet Franklin seems to treat her as an interloper. Then he performs a weird act of cognitive dissonance: "God gave us the earth to use, and we are called to be good stewards of it and use it wisely. I hope Nancy Pelosi will be concerned about what really dishonors God-and that is sin." These two statements are not in agreement with each other, or at least not in the sense he intended; the entire debate about climate change is whether we are being good stewards of the Earth. If we are not, then we have sinned. "I have the right to do anything," you say — but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything" — but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others." (1 Corinthians 10:23-24)

Next up, Franklin Graham on the "Muslim ban":

Franklin opens well by pointing to the cooperative work Samaritan's Purse does throughout the world and points to the model of the Good Samaritan as Jesus taught it. Then, he leaps away from Jesus and assumes a position which Christ evidently cannot support: "Just because we give medical care to ISIS fighters doesn't mean I would want to allow any one of them to immigrate to the United States. That would be crazy." How is it compatible for the Good Samaritan lesson to end with a call to close our doors to people in need? In this statement he turns from Christ's words to repeat the usual Conservative talking points (these talking points tend to ignore that there is already a multi-year vetting process in place). Here are some words of Christ's which I can apply: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." (Matthew 16:23)

Finally, his remark on Neil Gorsuch:

Surely the prayer should be "God's will be done?" (Matthew 26:42) Speaking of Liberals ("socialists and progressives" as he typically dubs them) in such an adversarial manner - to pray against them by name - does nothing to heal his nation's divisions.

In reacting against Jemele Hill's tweets about Trump, Franklin Graham bemoaned "This liberal progressive socialist is trying to feed the divisive fire of racial hatred and undermine President Trump as he works to bring positive change for America." Indeed, he frequently calls out Liberals for being "intolerant" and "divisive." I can imagine that's a difficult matter for those in Samaritan's Purse who identify as Liberals. Myself, as a centrist, am sympathetic to some of Franklin's political concerns - but I am uncomfortable seeing a religious leader speaking in such a brazenly partisan matter. Much of what is said at the pulpit in churches can be considered political, but if my pastor began openly advocating for one political party at the expense of the others I would begin looking for another church - even if my pastor were speaking on behalf of a political party I identified with. My congregation contains Conservatives, Greens, Liberals, New Democrats and more - I like that. I like that our unity in Christ is stronger than any political beliefs.

There definitely are people promoting division and intolerance in the USA; unfortunately, one of them is also one of his nation's most influential Christian leaders.

"So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." (Matthew 22:21)

About partisanship in the church

I'm not a terribly political person. I identify myself as a moderate or centrist - that is, I do not identify myself as a supporter of any particular political party. Since I came of age as a voter I have voted for four different parties in federal elections (which is easily done here in Canada). To those telephone pollsters I am one of those 'undecideds' who make up their figures.

I'm actually more opinionated about politics in the USA than I am in Canada; I try not to be, being very conscious that I am not a citizen of that country and I should be guarded when I speak about their political situation. Still, here I am today, about to write about US politics. I'm doing so not for the sake of the USA but because of encounters I have had with fellow Canadians on these issues.

Being a fairly unpolitical person I don't often share political messages on my Facebook page but a friend shared an amusing link entitled A Christian Defense of Donald Trump and I thought it funny enough to share with my own friends. This brought condemnation from one of my personal friends who took exception to my making fun of Trump and, rather than rebuke me in person or via email or personal message, spoke his mind there on my timeline. Said friend was a fellow Christian and told me I should be praying for Trump instead.

My friend was correct that mockery was not the most Christian way of responding to that situation. But it was a difficult message to receive because of the source - because this friend of mine was himself one whose Facebook timeline was full of political messages reposted from elsewhere, collectively espousing a pro-right wing/anti-left wing message, along with many climate change denial posts. The sense I had was not so much that my behaviour was being called out on Christian grounds but on partisan grounds. Upon reflection I was further troubled that in the week we had this confrontation I had celebrated my birthday but received no birthday greeting from him; I was serving in the mission field in Angola yet had received no encouragement from him; is this what Christian fellowship looks like?

There is no particular case for Christians being majority right-wing. Truly, we ought to be divided 50/50 - half of us on the right, half of us on the left. Yet we unmistakably tend towards the right. Why? According to James 1:27: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." The message of looking after "orphans and widows in their distress" is an attitude which those on the left are in favour of, whereas the right-wing tends to advocate for self-sufficiency. There are also the words of Jesus himself in Matthew 25:34-36: "‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’"

Still, Christians tend towards the right; the right, of course, includes those parties which are against abortion, against gay marriage and other such issues which - for so many Christians - are a political deal-breaker. I understand why so many of my fellow Christians vote on the right-wing; heck, as a centrist I'm empathetic to their reasons (the four parties I've voted for have included the Conservative Party).

But Donald Trump is not a particularly right-wing candidate (except in that xenophobia and white nationalism seems to be a hallmark of the right-wing). He does not hold to any particular Christian ideals about charity or forgiveness towards others and has only paid a bit of lip service to the anti-abortion lobby. And yet so many Christians in the USA voted for him and many Christians here in Canada seem to feel they ought to support him as well because he represents right-wing interests. This is the partisanship which upsets me.

When Barack Obama was US President I saw many of my Christian Canadian friends criticizing him. I also heard a rant from one who accused him of being a secret Muslim (yes, such people exist even here). This too, seems to have been mere partisanship; I repeatedly saw in Obama a Christian man who was attempting to live up to Godly ideals in the midst of a compromising, pragmatic position. He was still vilified by Christians, simply because he came from the left-wing.

This, then, is why I originally shared the link to "A Christian Defense of Donald Trump." For a joke where the punchline is literally nothing it reveals a truth about we Christians and our willingness to adhere to dogma rather than the Holy Spirit. So many Christians clicked on that link anticipating an essay which would draw from scripture in order to explain why so many of their fellow believers supported that man. The joke is that there is no defense, but many - such as my friend - do not find that funny and are all-too eager to leap to his defense. I would be astonished - but also very pleased - if I saw this friend come to the defense of Rachel Notley or Justin Trudeau on the same basis he did Donald Trump, instead of making a false idol out of 'Team Right Wing.'

My friend once told me one of his favourite things about Jesus is that he was boldly confrontational, that he did not bow to the conventions of his time and would sharply criticize those in positions of power. And yet, when it comes to a right-wing politician, my friend suddenly became very upset at the idea of criticizing our world leaders. He's right, we are called to pray for them. But more than that, I agree with those leaders in the church that the rise of Trump amongst right-wing Christians speaks to the need for revival - and this revival is needed not only in the USA but here in Canada as well.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" - Matthew 5:43-47

Tire Fire 2016

On the bright side, a crashing US dollar would help spending at the University.

I wasn't prepared to deal with a Republican victory. The polling reports suggested a defeat and I was well reconciled to it. And while it's not my country, there are a heck of a lot of people there who I care about. How can I keep from feeling empathy to them. Seemingly half of their neighbours are comfortable turning the reigns of power over to a man who has no public service record, many failed businesses, revels in misogyny, insults veterans, insults disabled people, is racist, questions the validity of fellow citizens based on their religion, sexually assaults others and has pending court cases both in business practices and child rape?

If such a person can be elected to the highest office of the USA, what precedent does that set? Why should any future candidate release their tax data if it isn't required to win? Why should any future candidate refrain from making verbal threats or aggressively sexual comments? If the best qualification for governorship is no experience in governing, then why do our schools bother teaching political science?

Marginalized people were upset; they wanted they believed would represent their interests, to push back against what they saw as questionable effects on this society. The opposing side reacted by proposing a candidate who was everything the marginalized did not want to see in power. And many gave in to apathy and refused to hold their nation's highest office accountable to them.

But don't worry; someone out there is ready to point fingers and tell you who's to blame for all of this. It's probably you. It's probably everyone. There, doesn't that feel better?