Julius Nyerere, born on this day in 1922, was a socialist and anti-colonial Tanzanian politician who promoted a Pan-Africanist ideology known as Ujamaa, which means “extended family” or “brotherhood” in Swahili.

Julius Kambarage Nyerere was born on April 13, 1922 in Butiama, on the eastern shore of lake Victoria in north west Tanganyika. His father was the chief of the small Zanaki tribe. He was 12 before he started school (he had to walk 26 miles to Musoma to do so). Later, he transferred for his secondary education to the Tabora Government Secondary School. His intelligence was quickly recognized by the Roman Catholic fathers who taught him. He went on, with their help, to train as a teacher at Makerere University in Kampala (Uganda). On gaining his Certificate, he taught for three years and then went on a government scholarship to study history and political economy for his Master of Arts at the University of Edinburgh (he was the first Tanzanian to study at a British university and only the second to gain a university degree outside Africa. In Edinburgh, partly through his encounter with Fabian thinking, Nyerere began to develop his particular vision of connecting socialism with African communal living.

On his return to Tanganyika, Nyerere was forced by the colonial authorities to make a choice between his political activities and his teaching. He was reported as saying that he was a schoolmaster by choice and a politician by accident. Working to bring a number of different nationalist factions into one grouping he achieved this in 1954 with the formation of TANU (the Tanganyika African National Union). He became President of the Union (a post he held until 1977), entered the Legislative Council in 1958 and became chief minister in 1960. A year later Tanganyika was granted internal self-government and Nyerere became premier. Full independence came in December 1961.

In 1962, Nyerere was elected the first president of Tanganyika, a predecessor to modern Tanzania and a newly independent republic. His administration emphasized decolonizing society and the state, also unsuccessfully pursuing a Pan-Africanist East African Federation with Uganda and Kenya.

In 1967, Nyerere issued the “Arusha Declaration”, forbidding government leaders from owning shares or holding directorates in private companies, receiving more than one salary, or owning any houses that they rented to others. In compliance with this declaration, Nyerere sold his second home and his wife donated her poultry farm to a local co-operative.

Nyerere’s integrity, ability as a political orator and organizer, and readiness to work with different groupings was a significant factor in independence being achieved without bloodshed. In this he was helped by the co-operative attitude of the last British governor — Sir Richard Turnbull. In 1964, following a coup in Zanzibar (and an attempted coup in Tanganyika itself) Nyerere negotiated with the new leaders in Zanzibar and agreed to absorb them into the union government. The result was the creation of the Republic of Tanzania.

Nyerere’s government also aided in liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa, training and aiding anti-apartheid South African groups and helping to depose Ugandan ruler Idi Amin. In 1985, Nyerere stepped down as President and was succeeded by Ali Hassan Mwinyi in a notably peaceful and stable transition of power.

“Unity will not make us rich, but it can make it difficult for Africa and the African peoples to be disregarded and humiliated.”

Julius Nyerere

Hexbear links

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
  • 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

  • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    As a recently christened stemlord I believe we should shut down philosophy departments. Not only because as a stemlord now I don’t believe in the value of philosophy. But most importantly because having read that the “academic philosophical community” considers the Problem of Evil solved based on the weakest and worst argument I have ever fucking heard, they might just be fucking bad at their jobs.

    I fully believe, and I’m only joking a little bit here, that if you based on Platingas argument believe that we’ve debunked the problem of evil you should automatically lose your tenure. Even if you teach music composition or something.

    • Carl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

      God doesn’t exist. PHD and tenure please.

      • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The answers to the problem of evil are

        1:God isn’t real/omnipotent/good.
        2: God had to make evil for reasons, usually free will.
        3: As humans we’re stupid and don’t understand the whole picture.

        You’ve got one of the solutions, but not a novel one and you probably dont even know the board personally so you can only be an adjunct.

    • Bolshechick [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The thing about philosophy is that some of it is incredibly interesting and useful, and some of it is the most pointless useless bullshit there is. Talking about “the problem of evil” outside of a history of philosophy context is silly.

      Also, anyone who thinks that philosophy is supposed to “solve problems” (or that it is even capable of this) can probably be dismissed. Philosophy is critique. That is important, but not problem solving. The answer to any problem can only be worked out in practice

    • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      If your argument against “If God is good why leukemia in children” starts with “Okay so God created an infinite number of worlds and this kid had bad vibes in all of them. Also Satan did it”" you should just go to jail. Like that’s not just bad philosophy, you’re just an asshole.
      I have genuinely lost so much respect for philosophy as a discipline from reading this.

      • PeeNutButtHer [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        18 hours ago

        “But even an omnipotent god can’t…” agony IF HE WAS TRULY OMNIPOTENT THEN HE CAN DO ANYTHING, like if he can’t change the fundamental rules of the universe then he’s not omnipotent! Like a really all powerful being could rewrite the rules of existence and change this

        • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          No see God has to create an infinite amount of worlds and collapse them because he can’t create a world where people are likely to choose good.

          Also Satan did the leukemia.

          Don’t ask why God made Satan, okay. That’s rude.

          My answer to the problem of evil may require a font of all natural evil not accountable to God. But the Problem of Evil is solved.

          • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            And once again, an infinite number of worlds means an infinite number if totally cool and good ones. That’s infinity for ya. So if he can’t make a good one than he can’t make infinite worlds. Isn’t reasoning and shit part of philosophy?

          • PeeNutButtHer [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Christians really put themselves into a bind by tacking on god being omnipotent. The bible was not originally written with him being all powerful in mind

            The whole thing just becomes nonsense if he’s all powerful

            • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              18 hours ago

              I’m sure there’s a theological justification for the bible saying God can’t do a certain thing or that he doesn’t know a certain thing, or that he changed his mind. All of which to me seems inconsistent with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being. As a person who isn’t a believer it ultimately doesn’t matter to me. What did matter to me was seeing the claim that the problem of evil didn’t just have possible counter arguments, but that it was considered solved. And that it was solved by utter nonsense.

      • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        If it’s an infinite amount of worlds then there is an infinite amount of worlds where the kid would also have good vibes by definition of the word infinite. It’s bad word knowing too

        • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          No. He’s got transworld depravity (The “technical” term). In all possible worlds this kid has bad vibes. Just as there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 and none are 3, this toddler could manifest in an infinite amount of ways and all of them deserve leukemia, or Satan did it. And if Satan did it God couldn’t stop it in any possible worlds because of free will.

    • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I think it should be totally okay to dismiss philosophers you think are dumbasses. Why would I want a deeper understanding of a bad idea? The Question of Evil is stupid anyway. Evil is subjective and tied very very closely to cultural norms, what’s Evil to us isn’t evil to say an ancient Roman. So the premise is already fucking stupid. Aldo whatever this perceived evil, figuring out why it exists metaphyisically doesn’t do shit to reduce it. This is just advanced what if my purple was your green stoner naval gazery. The answer is it wouldn’t matter. If you wanna know from whence cometh evil look at the people doing said evil and see what they’re getting out of it, that’s not philosophy it’s investigation.