Khashoggi: Bots feed Saudi support after disappearance By Chris Bell and Alistair Coleman

Suspected bot accounts are attempting to shape the social media narrative following the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Arabic hashtags expressing support for de facto Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, condemning news organisation Al Jazeera and urging users to "unfollow enemies of the nation" were among those amplified by the involvement of bot networks alongside genuine users.

Twitter has suspended a number of bot accounts.

Mr Khashoggi is missing, presumed dead, after he was seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.

Turkish officials allege the journalist, who had been critical of the Saudi regime, was killed there.

On 14 October, the Arabic hashtag translating as "we all have trust in Mohammed Bin Salman" was among the top global trends, featuring in 250,000 tweets. Additionally, "We have to stand by our leader" was used more than 60,000 times.

On Wednesday, a hashtag translating as "unfollow enemies of the nation" was also highly used, while in the past 24 hours the term "campaign to close Al Jazeera, the channel of deception" has gained traction, used close to 100,000 times on the social network.

Bot networks were used by both sides in an effort to control the conversation on social media during the crisis.

Ben Nimmo, Information Defence Fellow at the Atlantic Council, analysed one of the Arabic-language hashtags with bot involvement.

"Unfollow enemies of the nation" was used in excess of 100,000 times. The vast majority of that came through retweets, which can be a signal of bot activity.

Accounts which had been dormant for a long time were suddenly tweeting again, posting identical or near-identical material to other suspicious accounts.

Others were newly-created or exhibited other characteristics typical of bot accounts.

Attempts to control and manipulate social media conversations have become an increasingly prominent global issue.

On Wednesday, Twitter published more than 10 million tweets from suspected state-backed Russian and Iranian "troll farms".

While US national security chiefs have warned of "a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to weaken and divide the US".

The New World: How it is perceived

Colin Calloway’s approach to the concept of the new world is one which differs from traditional views. This is mainly because, instead of focusing mainly on the European context, he creates a balanced focus on the manner through which Native Americans and European settlers were able to interact and create a vibrant new culture. For the most part, traditional conceptions of the new world tend to attribute the establishment of history as well as organized society to European settlers and often disregards the Native Americans as being individuals who lacked history because none of their histories was written, but instead transmitted orally. As a result, the history of the new world has come to be recorded from the time of European settlement and the contribution of the Native Americans to the development of the new society have been totally forgotten because of the Eurocentric view of them as being savages. However, Calloway is able to bring together the histories of both European settlers and Native Americans in such a way that promotes the idea of their having interacted and each having affected the lives of the other. The American culture, according to Calloway, did not just come up as a result of European settlement, and instead, it came about because both Europeans and Native Americans made their contributions to it; bringing about a unique culture that has become dominant in the whole country. Thus, Calloway considers Native Americans to have been advanced enough both socially and culturally to have an influence on the Europeans who ended up settling amongst them; in contrast to the traditional meaning of the new world.

One of the most significant aspects of the interactions between European settlers and Native Americans, covered by Calloway, is that it led to the spread of diseases that were prevalent in Europe into Native American populations. The spread of these diseases was not done intentionally, but instead, it came about as a result of the interaction between a small number of Native Americans and settlers, mainly through trade (Calloway, 2013, p.50). These diseases were most prevalent in trade routes and this is the main reason why the first people to get infected were often the Native Americans who lived close to these routes or in whose settlements Europeans travelled through. These individuals would in turn, as a result of other Native Americans further into the interior, end up infecting the latter; thus resulting in massive deaths from diseases which traditional Native medicine could not cure. The large number of Native Americans throughout the Americas who ended up dying did not do so because of direct interactions with European settlers, because a majority of them had not set eyes on a European before (Calloway, 2013, p.50). Instead, the diseases spread because of interactions between those Native Americans who had interacted with Europeans, and those who had not. The depopulation of some areas which came about as a result can be considered to be based, not on malice on the part of European settlers, but on the ignorance between the latter and the Native Americans concerning the dangers of European diseases. In this way, Calloway seems to blame disease, rather than the violent interactions between Europeans and Native Americans in the form of wars that would come up in later years, as the case of the loss of large populations of Native Americans.

According to Calloway, the peaceful interactions that took place between the Native Americans and European settlers tended to be based on the self-interest of the latter. This is because in their settlement of a new land, of which they were unfamiliar, they needed the Native Americans more than the Native Americans needed them (Calloway, 2013, p.53). Europeans considered Native Americans to be potential trade partners, and they actively sought to establish trade links aimed at bringing the latter into the economic system that had been established by the Europeans. Furthermore, European missionaries were eager to convert Native Americans to Christianity and these often sought to ensure that this objective was accomplished by going directly to their villages and ministering to them (Calloway, 2013, p.53). The result was that there was a significant growth of contact between these populations to such an extent that they were able to achieve a high level of cultural exchange. Thus, while some Europeans went to settle among the Native Americans, and even adopted some of their customs, some of the latter also chose to discard their own lifestyles and settle among Europeans. In this way, such scenarios as Europeans having tattooed their faces like Native Americans and Native Americans drinking tea became quite common. The creation of a hybrid society which involved the adoption of elements of both European and Native American cultures took place. Through the analysis that he makes concerning the interactions between Native Americans and Europeans, Calloway ensures that he disputes the prevalent narrative about the often hostile interactions between the settlers and the natives, and instead brings out a more positive outlook of these interactions.

Jill Lapore explores the concept of literacy and the means of transmitting history in the context of the new world. She states that the history of Native Americans has been for the most part disregarded because they did not maintain written records (Lapore, 1994). This disregard began to take place during the early European settlement of the Americas and has continued to the twenty first century where written records are considered to be the means through which history can be recorded. However, the disregard of Native American history does not take into account the fact that unlike European history, which was written down, Native American history, was kept through oral tradition. These oral traditions have instead come to be regarded as myths because there are no contemporary written records to verify their authenticity. Lapore points out that in the seventeenth century, there were a significant number of literate Native Americans who lived in European settlements and who could have written the oral histories of their people (Lapore, 1994). However, not record is made of any attempt having been made to put down these histories. Lapore suggests that the main reason behind this lack of written history of the Native Americans is that in order to achieve literacy, Native Americans were required to completely discard the traditions of their own people and instead adopt the Europeans lifestyle. This meant having to adopt Christianity, speak English, and live in European settlements. The result was that many of these individuals ended up losing touch with their own people; instead living at the periphery of Native Americans and Europeans since they were no longer fully accepted by either (Lapore, 1994). These individuals could therefore not write down the oral histories of their people for fear of being rejected by the Europeans whose culture they had adopted.

Another aspect of Native American and European interaction is discussed by William Cronon who considers this interaction from the European standpoint. For most Europeans who settled in the new world, the vastness of the land and its wilderness was incomprehensible because in Europe most of the land had been utilized and the wilderness that remained was in private hands (Cronon, 2003, p.33). When they considered the Native Americans and the simple life that they led surrounded by such abundance, they came to believe that the Native Americans were lazy. Furthermore, this concept of laziness was further enhanced because it was the women, rather than the men in Native American communities who farmed while the men hunted. In Europe, it was the men’s task to farm the land; enforcing the belief that Native American men were lazy. Cronon points out that these perceptions by Europeans were wrong because Native American societies were organized differently. Native Americans often sought to use the land according to their own needs rather than using it abundantly in order to create a surplus, the way the Europeans did (Cronon, 2003, p.122). Additionally, they often sought to make sure that they utilized what they had effectively, especially in winter months when, in situations where there was impending scarcity, these people tended to choose to go hungry in order to utilize the remaining food for as long as possible. These were customs that Europeans failed to understand and would make them enforce their dominance in society in a bid to promote their own way of life, which they thought was superior.

The common perceptions concerning American history, especially its origins, should be changed. This is because despite eventual European dominance over America, American history was not made up only by the European settlers. Instead, Native Americans also made significant contributions while they too were influenced by European culture. American history can be considered as an amalgamation of these two distinct cultures, which brought about a new culture that was adapted to a new environment as a result of interactions between Native Americans and Europeans. A full understanding of American history cannot be achieved without the inclusion of the peaceful interactions that took place between Native Americans and Europeans, because the contributions of the former is one of the main factors that brought about the success of settlements, which in turn brought about American history.

References

Calloway, C.G. (2013). New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. Boston: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cronon, W. (2003). Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 2003.

Lapore, J. (1994). Dead Men Tell No Tales: John Sassamon and the Fatal Consequences of Literacy. American Quarterly, 46(4): 497 – 512.

Zimbabwe: its history and fight for independence

The land of Zimbabwe was settled by the British in 1890 and named Rhodesia after its founder, Cecil John Rhodes, who believed that the British had the right of imperial rule in Africa because they were the “first race in the world and therefore the more of the world they inhabited, the better it would be for the human race”. It is this ideology which served as the basis of the discriminatory colonial policies that were set up to serve the interests of the white minority which had settled most of the best land in the country, and excluded the African majority who had virtually no rights in their own land. These policies led to the demand for change by the Africans within the limitations of the colonial constitution and when this did not work, the African nationalists became more radical when they realised that violence and bloodshed were inevitable if there was to be any change in the country. It was the stress of this oppression that forced the people of Zimbabwe to take up arms as the only solution to their problems. The armed struggle was led by two political parties namely the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had splintered from ZAPU. These two nationalist organisations got a lot of support from external forces which contributed to the success of the liberation movement in Zimbabwe.

These external forces consisted mainly of neighbouring independent African states – known as the frontline states, other armed liberation movements in neighbouring countries, and the Communist bloc led by China and the Soviet Union. The Communist bloc through the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) gave aid to the Zimbabwean liberation movements in the form of arms and money. Some also provided training for the liberation combatants within their territories such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Algeria, and Tanzania. These countries further provided instructors who trained the recruits in the camps who had come from Zimbabwe to join the struggle for majority rule. Furthermore, organisations such as the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and certain left-wing organisations in the west and in Scandinavia gave moral and financial support.

The Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was the armed wing of ZAPU which was formed in the 1960s and had camps in Angola and in Lusaka, Zambia which were provided by the Zambian government to help in the liberation of their fellow Africans in Zimbabwe. ZIPRA’s crossing points to and from Zimbabwe were at Feira in Zambia opposite Mashonaland East. It was more influenced by the Soviet Union than by China as it adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles of mobilising the urban workers rather than the Maoist principles of mobilising the rural peasantry pursued by the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of ZANU. ZIPRA was also in a formal alliance with Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress in South Africa. In the mid-1960s, these two allied organisations mounted a celebrated mission into Southern Rhodesia, although this mission was not militarily successful. This mission, known as the Wankie fiasco, saw several hundred ZIPRA and MK freedom fighters enter Rhodesia through the uninhabited areas of Wankie and these were either killed or captured by a joint Rhodesian-South African force. Other countries, such as North Korea, had its military officials train the Zimbabwean freedom fighters how to use explosives and arms at a camp near Pyongyang.

ZANLA, on the other hand, was formed in 1965 in Tanzania and was heavily influenced by the Maoist guerrilla tactics that had been used very successfully by FRELIMO in Mozambique, that is, by infiltrating combatants into Zimbabwe, politicising the peasantry, and participating in ‘hit-and-run’ ambush operations. Even before Mozambique’s independence from Portugal, FRELIMO had supported ZANLA by allowing it to use the territory it controlled in Tete district along the Rhodesian border as a base of operations against the Rhodesian government. Because of its close ties with Mozambique’s FRELIMO, ZANLA gained a lot of support after Mozambique’s independence when its government permitted ZANLA to open training and supply camps along the Mozambican-Zimbabwean border which greatly assisted in the recruitment and training of troops.

The OAU member states’ meetings and resolutions concerning the white minority regime in Rhodesia induced Britain to push the United Nations to invoke mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia in 1968. However, these sanctions had many failings which included: the long period of time which had elapsed since Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1961 which had enabled the white regime to make adjustments and arrangements for the evasion of sanctions; the refusal of South Africa and Portugal to apply sanctions by continuing normal trade with Rhodesia and acting as go-betweens to market its goods and import on its behalf; and the general lack of political will on the part of most members of the United Nations to make sanctions work effectively. These sanctions against Rhodesia, although they did not work, helped to give a moral boost to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, because despite the internal divisions within it, the OAU supported their fellow Africans in their struggle for freedom. Through its Liberation Committee, the OAU co-ordinated the material and financial support sent to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe from independent African states and from abroad. It also sought to reconcile the differences between ZANU and ZAPU, the main revolutionary groups in Zimbabwe so as to unify their forces against the common enemy. Both ZANU and ZAPU had gotten embroiled in the struggle within the Communist bloc between China and the Soviet Union about the latter’s leadership of the bloc. Each of these nationalist movements had adopted the communist doctrines of its main sponsor, such that ZAPU had adopted those of the Soviet Union while ZANU had adopted those of China. This resulted in the difficulty that kept these movements apart as well as various battles between their military wings.

The coup against the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974 and its subsequent decolonisation policy helped the liberation movement in Zimbabwe a great deal because the white minority government lost one of its most important outlets for its exports namely, the ports of Mozambique. This coup also shocked the white regime and its main ally, South Africa, into the realisation that the African liberation movements could, through long and sustained armed struggle, force a colonial power to decolonise. This led the government of South Africa to adopt a more conciliatory approach to its relations with the newly independent black African states as well as its commitment to a political solution to the crisis in Rhodesia. South Africa was in a key position to influence Rhodesia because its roads and railways were the lifeline of the Rhodesian economy and as such was the only government in the region that was capable of putting pressure on it. The moderation of the policies of its chief ally towards its enemies led the embattled Rhodesian government to start negotiations with the African nationalists in Zimbabwe and finally to the beginning of majority rule in the country.