What Ghanaians Can Learn From Pope Francis 3

Sun, 16 Aug 2015 Source: Kwarteng, Francis


Pope Francis asserts: “The succession of economic crisis should lead to a timely rethinking of our models of economic development and to a change in lifestyles.” This has been a rallying cry from around the world in that it is already an ongoing discourse in the international community. Academic economists, moral philosophers, mathematicians and statisticians, sociologists, political scientists, policy and business analysts, political economists, financial engineers, scientists, activists, universities, think tanks, research institutions and the general public are involved in this moral and political crusade. In connection with his call for overhauling global capitalism, Pope Francis has been quick to attack organized crime, human and drug trafficking, money laundering, the weapons trade, environmental degradation, etc. (Pullella). Regrettably, global capitalism is neck-deep in these egregious activities. Here too, there is a vast body of academic literature on the pope’s stance.

Three subsections of Chapter Four of Pope Francis’s encyclical document Evengalii Gaudium, released to the Catholic faithful and the world at large two years ago, that is in2013, titled “Some Challenges of Today’s World,” “The Inclusion of the Poor in Society” and “The Common Good and Peace in Society,” provide practical and commendable strategies for and insights into some of the crises we have been belaboring, and their corresponding resolutions. In this connection the fundamental arguments Nkrumah advanced in two of his important books, “Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decolonization” and “Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism,” generally echo Pope Francis’s strategies and tactics as in dealing with the shortcomings or excesses of the global economic order. We are of the view that Nkrumah’s “neocolonialism” alludes to what Pope Francis may have referred to “a new colonialism” in his Bolivian speech.

Pope Francis also writes:

“The new colonialism takes on new faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: Corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor. The bishops of Latin America denounce this with utter clarity in the Aparecida Document, stating that ‘financial institutions and transnational companies are becoming stronger to the point that local economies are subordinated, especially weakening the local states, which seem ever more powerless to carry out development projects in the service of their populations.’”

This is not to say Pope Francis is philosophically and morally averse to profit, private property, modernization, and the like. Far from it. It is more complicated than that. He is advocating a more humanistic or progressive system of accountability and transparency in place of the present global economic order. This is one of the heated questions being debated in the international arena. The research contributions of Molefi Asante, Jeffrey Sachs, Ama Mazama, Joseph Stiglitz, Michael Porter/Mark Kramer, Mohammad Yunus, Lorenzo Fioramonti, Kofi Dompere, Mahbub ul Hag, Cheikh Anta Diop, David Schweickart, Elinor Ostrom, W.E.B. Du Bois, Richard Wolff, Thomas Piketty, Jaroslav Vanek, George Padmore, Dambisa Moyo, David Korten, Abdias do Nascimento, Amartya Sen, Wole Soyinka, to name but a few, are relevant to this international discourse.

For instance, the Human Development Index (HDI) metric (2014) generally places those countries the Nordic Model belt, a successful mixed economy model (Keynesian economics), ahead of many countries in the Washington Consensus belt, taking cognizance of the fact that the Nordic Model is loosely based on the principles of democratic socialism or social democracy, hence Nordic Social Democracy in some academic literature. One possible reason for this (HDI differential) is that the Washington Consensus breeds and entrenches structural inequality, which tends to weight it down. Thus far the Nordic Model and the Beijing Consensus, the latter of which some in the West refer to call “autocratic capitalism,” have done so well. One reason may be that both are more sharply modulated than the Washington Consensus. The latter itself is modulated as well but of a lesser degree. Paul Kagame for one prefers the so-called “autocratic capitalism” to the Washington Consensus because of its proven success.

And look where he [Kagame] has taken his country after the Rwandan Genocide! Ironically, some prominent American politicians and economists see the Washington Consensus as corporate fascism rather than as a model of free-market capitalism. What does this all say?

Thus a combination of Porter’s and Kramer’s “shared value”; Korten’s sustainable development and alternative economics (same as Wolff and Vanek); Piketty’s work on wealth inequality and its alleviation (some questions have been raised about the quality of some of sections of his data in his most recent publication; he has since defended the quality of his data and even made them available to the world); Vanek’s economics of participation/cooperative economics and free-market socialism; Schweickart’s economic democracy/market socialism; Sen’s research in the areas of social justice and economic theories of famines and welfare economics; Haq’s human development paradigms; Sachs’ sustainable development and Millennium Project (with the UN); the Beijing Consensus and the Nordic Model; Ostrom’s “the commons”; Asante’s Afrocentricity theory; Mandela’s and Tutu’s Ubuntu (Nkrumah’s African Personality); Nkrumah’s and Dompere’s African-centered development economics and development sociology; Gandhian economics; Yunus microfinance and microcredit; and Middle Eastern rentier, free-market, hydrocarbon, and socialist economics constitutes a formidable alternative bloc to the so-called Washington Consensus.

The aforementioned alternative economic models are probably as just as important as Pope Francis’s Bolivian speech. Certainly important overlaps exist. Then also those involved in the current international debate on looking for radical ways to reform the global economic order are also looking for an alternative to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistic. The GDP statistics exposes some of the major inherent weakness of capitalism (Fioramonti; Haq; see also “Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission”). Significantly, architects of the GDP metric gave some warnings about its shortcomings but those warnings appear to have been largely ignored. For instance, Simon Kuznets, the chief architect of the GDP metric “warned against equating its growth with well-being” (Constanza et al.). It turns out that some of Pope Francis’s major reservations about the failures of capitalism are captured in the critique and reevaluation of the scientific, philosophical, and mathematical shortcomings of the GDP statistic (Constanza et al.; see also Nkrumah’s the socioeconomic subtext of 7-Year Development Plan). This is not to say socialist societies do not or have never used it [GDP].

Thus far, we will speculate that Pope Francis’s severe criticisms of the global economic order subtly take into account the moral and philosophical conflict between the Washington Consensus and the other economic models. His explicit call for an alternative economic model, which he calls elsewhere “a popular economy” lies somewhere within the aforesaid alternative economic paradigms. We know this for a fact because his Bolivian speech is devoid of needless abstractions and uncreative embellishments, as seen in the unadorned statement “We do not love concepts; we love people…” He also said: “Neither the Pope nor the Church has a monopoly on the interpretation of social reality or the proposal of solutions to contemporary issues. I dare say that no recipe exists. History is made by each generation as it follows in the footsteps of those preceding it…” It is in these contexts that Pope Francis radical view of the world should be appraised.


Even so, while we commend him for apologizing to Latin Americans and others for the Catholic Church’s “grave sins” (Casas), his formal apologies fell short of admitting the Church’s support for Catholic African leaders such as Emperor Bokassa, Mobuto Sese Seko, Felix Houphouet-Boigny among others, while, on the other hand, failing to denounce Western complicity in the death, imprisonment, or overthrow of Nelson Mandela, Amilcar Cabral, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba and other progressive leaders of Africa. Such complicities should be condemned in no uncertain terms.

The Catholic Church and Pope Francis also need to come clean about the Church’s clandestine collaborations with Western powers to give sanctuaries to Nazi war criminals in places like South America, as Western powers and the Catholic in turn fought communism in collaboration with Hitler’s Nazi Germany (Aarons & Loftus). We are not defending “communism” or capitalism here. Rather we are concerned about the Catholic Church harboring possible Nazi war criminals with Western complicity.

To cap off our discussion we shall humbly ask Pope Francis to take advantage of a potential visit to Africa to call on the West to apologize for the crimes it has committed and continues to commit against Africa. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair came close to doing exactly that but that was enough. We are more interested in Nkrumah, Lumumba, Mandela, Cabral and others. All this is not to say Africans should not learn to put their houses in order. Rather it is to say Africans need to do more for themselves in improving their plights, including fighting corruption across the continent, strengthening the African Union (AU) and bringing back Nkrumah’s African High Command, making sure the likes of the Charles Taylors and the Idi Amins do not resurface, taking good care of the environment, and promoting a sense of community, patriotism, hard work, and tolerance in the people.

It is high time we acknowledged and did something about the evil we sometimes to ourselves as a people.

Yet, we know in our hearts that the Church is gradually getting there. Pope Francis is that new chapter in the Church’s renewed history communal ecumenism. We may implore Cardinal Turkson and those close to Pope Francis to whisper into his ears. Finally, calls for investigations into the mysterious death of United Nations’ General Secretary Dag Hammarskjold, possibly by the combined forces of the United States, Belgium, South Africa, and Britain, during the era of Congo Crisis (1960s) because the West feared the world’s largest deposits of uranium falling into the hands of the Soviets, is an excellent moral crusade Pope Francis and the Catholic Church should champion. Evidently both Lumumba and Hammarskjold died in 1961. The aforementioned request is still an unfulfilled task which Pope Francis may duly undertake in addition to what Mathew Fox, an ex-Catholic priest, a leading proponent of Creation Spirituality, and now a United States’ Episcopal theologian and priest, suggests in his book “Letters to Pope Francis.”

When all is said and done, the central role the Church played in mercantilism (Note: Other writers fundamentally see mercantilism as another form or expression of capitalism, namely state capitalism), slavery, and colonization of distant lands, namely Africa, Asia, and the Americas, contributed to the atrocities associated with the sad history of the past five-hundred years. And counting! Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” a critique of mercantilism, does not succeed in doing away with mercantilism. Some important traits of mercantilism still survive in capitalism today! Neither did capitalism arrive with the births of Adam Smith and “The Wealth of Nations.” In fact, the roots of capitalism go beyond the birth of Smith, with the latter outlining how capitalism worked in his time and the role of government in an economy, all these beyond sustained critique of mercantilism (Note: Read more about the Scottish economist John Law, “merchant capitalism” in 9th century medieval Islam as well as in 12th century medieval Europe (Banaji; Ghazanfar; Labib)).

Finally, Pope Francis needs to recant his globally publicized claim that the Armenian Genocide was “the first genocide in the 20th century” of the “Great Evil” (Olusoga). “That grim distinction belongs to the genocide that imperial Germany unleashed a decade earlier against the Herero and Nama, two ethnic groups who lived in the former colony of South West Africa, modern Namibia” (Olusoga). The other important idea is for Pope Francis and the Catholic Church to come clean about the part the latter itself played, and continues to play, in underwriting some of the inherent evil qualities of capitalism.

It is interesting to note that other writers have already made a case for a middle pathway between “unfettered capitalism and dirigisme socialism” (The Economist) (by “dirigisme socialism” we mean the economies of the Asian Tigers, China, etc. Readers may replace the phrase with “state capitalism”; see also Longley).

Likewise, we have consistently argued for an adoption of progressive centeredness as far as political economy goes. “He does not sail badly who steers a middle course,” said Erasmus. In the end, though, Pope Francis and the leadership of the Catholic Church must always make sure that the internal contradictions of the Church do not hijack its international agenda of contributing to radical transformation of the global economic order, in a way that brings nature’s wealth within the reach of the vast majority of humanity. Significantly, we cannot deny the fact that parts of Smith’s arguments in “The Wealth of Nations” accord with Pope Francis’s moral and political philosophy, social justice (economic justice), fairness, and respect for all, hence our discussion of Smith in Part 2 of the series. The irony is that among several charges leveled against it, the Catholic Church stands accused of neither being open with its past nor forthcoming with its shady dealings with Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Swiss banks, as well as of refusing to open its Holocaust files to the public and paying reparations to victims of Nazi Germany (Posner).

What is more, the so-called Vatican-Argentine ratline which brought many Nazi war criminals to Argentina (and other Latin America countries) has been well documented (Goni; Phayer; Loftus & Aarons). Given these facts, it may seem almost questionable why we should listen to Pope Francis in the first place. His Bolivian speech, his encyclicals on environment protection and on the critique of capitalism, his Latin American background, and the radical reforms he has already initiated in the Church speak to the importance we attach to his leadership, particularly from the standpoint of his Bolivian speech.


Ghanaian and African leaders can take a leaf out of Pope Francis’s book which offers a radical criticism of the global economic order (free-market fundamentalism, unfettered capitalism), social injustice, structural inequality, humanophobia, racism and ethnocentrism, pedophilia, drive for excessive materialism, kleptomania, and the so-called “mentality of profit.” His practical suggestions are realizable insofar as we acknowledge a connection between his “new colonialism” and Nkrumah’s “neocolonialism.” Nkrumah’s “neocolonialism” came with a heavy package of responsibilities. Famous, influential, and well-accomplished intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Jean-Paul Sartre took Nkrumah’s idea, expanded upon it and pushed its theoretical elasticity beyond the world’s imagination until it became of the world’s most popular languages of economic analysis and theory.

Nkrumah and his personalized progressive politics lived above those parochial and defective social constructs Pope Francis’s discusses in his Bolivian speech and by extension his 2013 encyclical. As things stand today, it is African technocrats and political and financial elites and foreign multinational corporations who are stealing the bulk of Africa’s vast natural wealth. This is just one of the evils of capitalism, an evil against which Pope Francis directed his righteous indignation. This is why sustainable and people-centered development is such an essential concept. It places emphasis on green technology, shared value, corporate social responsibility, responsible “mixed economy,” and environmental consciousness. Nearly all economies in the modern world are a mixture of at least two economic systems. This fact is lost on proponents of free-market fundamentalism. We have consistently defended “mixed economy” in many of our essays because, as we may all well know, it brings the best of economic theories or ideas in one place.

Finally, there is no need belaboring the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church’s role in the invention of torture technique popularly known as “waterboarding (“water cure”)” (Lea), the Catholic Church’s endorsement of castrato (plural castrati), and so. These should not come as a surprise to readers if it is known that Pope Innocent 1V, in 1252, issued the following papal bull sanctioning the adoption of torture as part of the Inquisition (Peters): “If torture is appropriate for those who break the laws of men, then it is more than fitting for those who break the laws of God.” Reportedly the Spanish introduced waterboarding in the Philippines where the Americans picked it up. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt even appeared to have endorsed it. In a letter to a German friend in 1902, he wrote (Safire): “‘not a few’ officers and enlisted men ‘began to use the old Filipino method of mild torture, the water cure. Nobody was seriously damaged, whereas the Filipinos had inflicted incredible tortures upon our own people.’”

The technical of waterboarding, variously called “water cure,” “water treatment,” and “water torture,” is also believed to be an ancient Asian practice. The foregoing notwithstanding, there are calls for the Catholic Church to open up its Holocaust files to the public just so more can be known about the mysterious inner workings of the Vatican Bank (Posner). The Catholic Church’s clandestine financial dealings with Italian mobsters and Nazi Germany; its involvement with Swiss banks and with the clandestine transfer of Nazi gold into Swiss banks, as well as of aiding Nazi war criminals avoid punishment by bringing their expertise to the West (America, Britain) during the fight against communism during the Cold War (Aarons & Loftus); and the Vatican Bank’s alleged investment in companies operated by Italian proxies that stole money from Holocaust victims (Posner), the Catholic Church and money laundering (Read: Don Nunzio Scarano or “Monsignor 500”).

These examples underscore the Church’s central role in contributing to the evil character of capitalism. The Church must therefore come clean about these charges in order to give its global agenda of radically transforming the global economic order, namely capitalism, some measure of credibility. And last but not least, while we are calling the Catholic Church to order, it should not come as a surprise to any of our readers, particularly the religious skeptics in our midst, when we call on the Church to continue to promote science in spite of its turbulent history with it (Read: Galileo et al.) and its opposition to stem cell research, etc. In fact the Church has given us some of the most brilliant scientific minds in human history (Georges Lemaitre (“Big Bang Theory”); Gregor Mendel (“founder of modern genetics”); Nicolaus Copernicus (“formulator of heliocentrism”); Blaise Pascal (“formulator of Pascal’s Triangle”; made other important contributions to mathematics, probability theory, and the physical sciences; inventor of hydraulic press); Louis Pasteur (“germ theory” and one of the founders of microbiology”); Rene Descartes (“Analytic Geometry”); Alexander Fleming (“co-discover of penicillin”)…

Enrico Fermi, an agnostic, came from a Catholic background (one of 20th-century’s most influential physicists); John von Newman, a Jew with some Catholic background (a polymath and “the father of the modern computer”); Alexis Carrel (“co-inventor of machine perfusion”); Erwin Schrodinger, an atheist, also had some Catholic background (“Quantum Theory”); John Eccles (“neuroscience”)…The list is endless. The Church’s major contributions to mathematics and the natural sciences through the Pontifical Academy of Science, the Catholic University of America in particular and the science departments of Catholic universities across the world is well known (Kaczor). Ghana and African institutions lag behind these Catholic research institutions in terms of scientific and mathematical productions.

Interestingly, some of the world’s greatest minds from Suzanne Cory, Shinya Yamanaka, Nicole Marthe Le Douarin, Francis Collins, Abdus Salam, Beatrice Mintz, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Ernest Rutherford, Yuan T. Lee, Paul Dirac, Stephen Hawking to Ahmed Zewail, to mention but a few, have all had membership in the Pontifical Academy of Science. That membership ranges from men and women who are atheists, Christians, agnostics, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus…What this means is that science and mathematics go beyond personal beliefs, deities, and religion. Thus, Ghana and Africa have a lot to learn from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (and the Catholic University of America) and the potpourri of great individuals who work with it to make the world a better place. All religions and their adherents, in fact, have contributed to science, mathematics, philosophy, and the social sciences.

This is not to say we are promoting religion as a public policy per se. That has never been our philosophy. It is to point out what we can–as a people, a nation, and a continent–make out of the progressive character of Pope Francis’s Bolivian speech in the larger context of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (and the Catholic University of America), as far as the virtues of science and mathematics go. This includes the seemingly non-racial, non-ethnic, non-religious, and non-ideological constitution of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Therein lies our philosophy of strategic and tactical togetherness and of collective responsibility. Indeed, Pope Francis’s Bolivian speech leads to this very destination of strategic togetherness and of collective responsibility in improving the human condition. Nor is it our desire to resurrect Nkrumah’s Catholic background, far from it. Nkrumah strategically separated his personal religious beliefs from public policy, as the following statement by him correctly indicate:

“Money and organized and obligatory religion…should play a very minor part in a man’s life, for once one of them gets the upper hand, man becomes a slave and his personality is crashed” (Biney). This he did so well.


On that score, neither socialism nor capitalism has all the answers. This is why Keynesian economics is better than both systems. Africa must therefore move away from copying others blindly and particularly, from the chimera of “invisible hand economics,” as we strongly believe no one economic system is perfect in and of itself, a view we also share with the Cornel University professor of economics Jaroslav Vanek, who was once asked in an interview how he developed his economic ideas (Perkins): “First, I experienced the evils of communism when I was a refugee in Czechoslovakia from Stalinism, and later, when I came to the West, I also experienced the evils of western capitalism…The capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly.” This sentiment goes to the heart of our persistent defense of Keynesian economics.

The irony is that Keynesian economics needs to defense because it is what the world lives on. No political economy on the planet lives without it. It is everywhere. Talking about Keynesian economics, we need to remind ourselves that the Ghanaian government and the private sector need to come together and strategize for a radical revision of Ghana’s energy policies with an eye for environmentally friendly technologies (Prof. Lungu). Thus, Ghana and Africa need to come up with their own competitive green technologies and technocratic innovations if they are to successfully circumvent the grinding evils of capitalism, such as the Marikana Massacre, pollution, structural inequality, money laundering and banking fraud, corporate thievery, organized crime, environmental destruction, deforestation and poaching, and so on. Africa has to develop her own economic models suitable to her particular needs, circumstances, global challenges (globalization), and African-centered development (Prof. Lungu), spiritual and material.

These models may evolve from the best of Africa’s cultural traditions, the Nordic Model, the Beijing Consensus, the Washington Consensus, alternative economic models (Stiglitz, Dompere, Sachs, Strom, Sen, and Haq et al.), African Personality, and so forth. We use the word “best” because not every Chinese conceivably benefits from the Beijing Consensus or for that matter every American from the Washington Consensus. All in all, our proposed alternative economic models should be primarily people-centered and accommodative of strategic considerations for shared value, ecology and environmental consciousness, resource development (“value added”) and resource depletion, respect for human dignity, tolerance, universal quality education, responsible politics, corporate social responsibility, strong institutions, patriotism, disease burden management, poverty alleviation, social justice, and love. We need to reevaluate the commercial arrangements we have with our trading and development to see if they conform to our strategic self-interest.

This approach calls for new and creative pathways of doing things: International cooperation (Temin & Vines). President Obama’s recent meeting with Nguyen Phu Trong, the leader (General Secretary) of Vietnam’s Communist Party, in the Oval Office represents an excellent example of the kind of positive collaboration and international cooperation true leaders should demonstrate to the world. This is not what we see with the French and her Orwellian relationship with her former African colonies. France practices socialism in Europe but predatory capitalism in Africa, a package insert of economic relations that is partially responsible for the underdevelopment of her former African colonies. These neocolonial relations must cease for equity and development to take their natural cause.

In this regard the “universal” language of Pope Francis’s Bolivian speech, though tailored to the Catholic faithful in Latin America, is the kind of language the atheist, agnostic, deist, humanist, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Buddhist, Shintoist, practitioner of African Religion, pantheist, and anyone can understand. Scientists, chefs, mathematicians, bus drivers, economists, sociologists, morticians, historians, fishermen, security guards, engineers, philosophers, teachers, professors, doctors and nurses, lawyers, traders, kings and queens, rich and poor, and students are not excluded from partaking of Pope Francis’s rich “universal” language. In other words his speech resonates with everybody, religious and non-religious. However, we should like to add that Ghanaian Catholic faithful in particular should take kindly to this powerful speech. Again, for us it is the marked political coloration of Pope Francis’s Bolivian speech–not its immediate religious subtext or other extra-textural religious symbols such as theophany, for instance Marian apparition–and how it speaks to the human condition that are of primary concern to us. Take note!


1) Banaji, Jairus. “Islam, The Mediterranean and the Rise of Capitalism.” Historical Materialism. Vol. 15, p. 47-74 (2007).

2) Biney, Ama. “The Political and Social Thought of Kwame Nkrumah.”

3) Casas, Bartolome De Las. “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.”

4) Casas, Bartolome De Las. “History of the Indies.”

5) Casas, Bartolome De Las. “Apologetic History of the Indies.”

6) Ghazanfar, Shaikh M. “Capitalist Traditions in Early Arab-Islam Civilization.” Muslim Heritage. June 2007.

7) Goni, Uki. “The Real Odessa: Smuggling the Nazis to Peron’s Argentina.”

8) Kazcor, Christopher. “The Seven Big Myths About the Catholic Church: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction About Catholicism.”

9) Lea, Henry Charles. “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”

10) Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. “Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks.”

11) Peters, Edward. “The Magician, the Witch, and the Law.”

12) Phayer, Michael. “The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1030-1965.”

13) Posner, Gerald. “God’s Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican.”

14) Safire, William. “A Gerund to Cause to Cause Shudder.” The New York Times.

15) Steinhauer, Jennifer. “Schwarzenegger Seeks Shift from Prisons to Schools.” The New York Times. Jan. 6, 2010.

16) Taibbi, Matt. “Is the SEC Covering Up Street Crimes?” Rolling Stone. Aug. 17, 2011.

17) “The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy.” A World Bank Policy Research Report (1993).

18) The Economist. “Catholicism and Capitalism: Redeeming the System.” October 20, 2014.

19) “Tracking New York’s Roots in Slavery.” The New York Times. The Editorial Board. May 8, 2015.

20) U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. (see also “U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, ‘Crime in the United States, Arrests,’” Sept. 2010).

21) Walmsley, Roy. “World Prison Population. “International Center for Prison Studies (ICPS). Tenth Edition. Nov. 21, 2013.

22) “Whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld Gets Record $104M for Exposing How HBS Helped Rich Evade Taxes.” Democracy Now. Sept. 12, 2012.

23) Wilder, Craig. S. “Ebony & Ivory: Race, Slavery and the Troubled History of America’s Universities.”

24) Williams, Edward W. “Don’t White People Kill Each other, Too?” The Root. April 10, 2012.

25) Williams, Eric. “Slavery and Capitalism.”

26) “Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and the Swiss Banks” (Mark Aarons & John Loftus)

We shall return…

Columnist: Kwarteng, Francis