Colonialism in 10 Minutes: The Scramble For Africa

 

Title Colonialism in 10 Minutes: The Scramble For Africa
Director(s) Jesse   James Miller and Pete McCormack
Date released (year) 2006
Production company Mindset Media
Length 10mins
Location Uganda
Keywords/tags Colonialism, civil war, natural resources
Link to film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAJ7XmTFs4A
Synopsis An   excerpt from the film Uganda Rising showing in a brief overview the utter   decimation of Africa that took place via colonialism and the so-called   “Scramble For Africa.”

 

For   two decades, the Acholi people of Northern Uganda have been caught in a civil   war between a rebel group whose main objective is inhumane terror and a   government whose military response has often increased misery and suffering.   Over 1.5 million people have been displaced into camps and over 25,000   children have been abducted to be used as soldiers and sex slaves.

And   yet through it all, every day across Acholi-land something remarkable   happens. Against a backdrop of dismal statistics, miniscule opportunity and   unpredictable terror, in a part of Uganda forgotten by the world, children   who have never known peace, face the day as if to live this way is normal, as   if they still believe in the future. These children are the embodiment of   resilience and hope. This film is the story of Uganda, her stolen children,   and the fight to be free.
Source: http://www.mindsetfoundation.com/feel/uganda-rising/

Reviews/discussion Uganda Rising

                                                                      Uganda Rising is a   feature-length documentary solely produced by Mindset Foundation (formerly   Mindset Media Society). Shooting for the production began in 2004 and   completed in April 2006. Uganda Rising had its world premiere at the 2006 HotDocs   International Film Festival on May 14th in Toronto, Ontario,   Canada. The film has since been invited to participate in many prestigious   film festivals such as Hollywood International Film Festival, Vancouver   International Film Festival and the Paris International Human Rights   Film Festival. The film was the recipient of many Best Documentary   awards at festivals such as the Full Frame Documentary Film   Festival and Wt Os International

Source: http://www.mindsetfoundation.com/feel/uganda-rising/

 

The Colonization of Africa

Ehiedu E. G. Iweriebor – Hunter College

Between the 1870s and 1900,   Africa faced European imperialist aggression, diplomatic pressures, military   invasions, and eventual conquest and colonization. At the same time, African   societies put up various forms of resistance against the attempt to colonize   their countries and impose foreign domination. By the early twentieth   century, however, much of Africa, except Ethiopia and Liberia, had been   colonized by European powers.

The European imperialist   push into Africa was motivated by three main factors, economic, political,   and social. It developed in the nineteenth century following the collapse of   the profitability of the slave trade, its abolition and suppression, as well   as the expansion of the European capitalist Industrial Revolution. The   imperatives of capitalist industrialization—including the demand for assured   sources of raw materials, the search for guaranteed markets and profitable   investment outlets—spurred the European scramble and the partition and   eventual conquest of Africa. Thus the primary motivation for European   intrusion was economic.

 

Source: http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-colonization-of-africa.html

Links to other resources World Bank Refuses to Stop   Funding African Land Grabs, October 8, 2012, African Globe. Source:   http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/world-bank-refuses-stop-funding-african-land-grabs

 

Thomas Pakenham (1992) The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s   Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912. See: http://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Africa-Conquest-Continent-1876-1912/dp/0380719991

Advertisements

Ancient Khoisan (San) Tribe

 

Title Ancient Khoisan (San) Tribe
Director(s) Rehad Desai
Date released (year) 2012
Production company InternalizedConflict
Length 64mins
Location South Africa
Keywords/tags Land and people
Link to film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1NamQj-E9I
Synopsis Independent Documentary “Bushman’s Secret” By   Rehad Desai.

Rehad Desai travels to the Kalahari to investigate global interest in ancient   Bushmen knowledge, he meets Jan van der Westhuizen, a fascinating Khomani San   traditional healer. Jan’s struggle to live close to nature is hampered by   centuries of colonial exploitation of the San Bushmen and of their land.   Unable to survive as they once did hunting and gathering, the Khomani now   live in a state of poverty that threatens to see the last of this community   forever.

One plant could make all the difference. Hoodia, a cactus used by Bushmen for   centuries, has caught the attention of a giant pharmaceutical company. It now   stands to decide the fate of the Khomani San.

Bushman’s Secret features breathtaking footage of the Kalahari landscape, and   exposes us to a world where modernity collides with ancient ways, at a time   when each has, strangely, come to rely on the other.

Evicted from their ancestral lands, forced to abandon their native languages,   and left to fend for themselves in a state of brutal poverty on the fringes of   South African society, the Bushmen now face further exploitation, since the   hoodia cactus (a source of food and medicinal healing) is being taken from   their remaining lands by the conglomerate Unilever for use as a dubious   weight loss product (ironically, Unilever also claims to be the “world’s   largest ice cream manufacturer,” surely a contributing factor to   obesity). Despite an agreement signed with the South African government for   profits from the harvesting of hoodia, the Bushmen have yet to enjoy any financial   returns. Bushman’s Secret serves up a shameful indictment of contemporary   South African government, which would sooner kowtow to multinational   corporate demands than provide basic services for its own people. Highly   recommended.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1NamQj-E9I

Reviews/discussion Oppression of Khoikhoi

 

                                                                                                             

The hunger for land is a central   theme of southern African history from the 17th century onwards. It generated   conflict, sparked off wars and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

Expansion

 

The first Europeans in southern   Africa confined themselves at first to the western part of the region,   centring their activities on the Cape of Good Hope. Here the Dutch East India   Company was established in 1652. Gradually the Dutch colony expanded north   and east, displacing, in the first instance, the oldest known inhabitants of   this region, the Khoikhoi (referred to by the Dutch as ‘hottentots’).

Tradition denied

 

The Khoikhoi were part of a larger   group called the Khoisan, spread across southern Africa, sharing much of the   same language. The San branch were hunter gatherers; the Khoikhoi were   herdsmen. As a whole, the Khoisan needed large amounts of land in order to   hunt and graze their cattle. The Dutch refused to recognise their traditional   grazing and hunting rights.

Defeat

 

Not wide enough for both of us

“They objected that there was     not enough grass for both their cattle and ours. ‘Are we not right     therefore to prevent you from getting any more cattle? For, if you get many     cattle, you come and occupy our pasture with them, and then say the land is     not wide enough for us both! Who then, with the greatest degree of justice     should give way, the natural owners, or the foreign invader?‘” – Jan van Riebeek     describing the Khoikhoi objections to the Dutch invasion of their pastures,     quoted by Kevin Shillington in History of Africa.

The Dutch both stole and bought   cattle off the Khoikhoi. In 1659, the Khoikhoi fought the Dutch over grazing   land south of able Bay and lost. Soon the Khoikhoi way of life disintegrated.

The Dutch, who came to be known as Afrikaners (as well as Boers, which means   farmers) started to expand their activities. They cultivated land and hunted   across large distances. Subsequently, they acquired the title of Trekboers,   when they embarked on long journeys or treks to get away from British   officialdom in the Cape Colony.

Subjugation

 

The Khoikhoi   often ended up as slaves, either working in the Cape Colony, or as farm   labourers for the Dutch. The final blow came to them in 1713 when they fell   victim to a small pox epidemic brought on a Dutch ship. The descendants of   the Khoikhoi and San can be found in the deserts of Botswana and Namibia   today.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1624_story_of_africa/page23.shtml

Links to other resources http://khoisan.org

 

Nancy J. Jacobs (2003) Environment,   Power, and Injustice: A South African History, Cambridge university Press.

Africa: States of independence – the scramble for Africa

Title Africa: States of   independence – the scramble for Africa
Director(s)
Date released (year) 2010

 

Production company AlJazeeraEnglish
Length 45mins
Location Africa
Keywords/tags Africa
Link to film http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2010/08/2010831112927318164.html
Synopsis Seventeen   African nations gained their independence in 1960, but the dreams of the   independence era were short-lived.

This film tells the story of some of those countries – stories of mass   exploitation, of the ecstasy of independence and of how – with liberation – a   new, covert scramble for resources was born.

Reviews/discussion Whether in bustling cities or remote   villages, the 1880s and 1890s were years of terrifying upheaval for Africans.   Fleet upon fleet of foreign soldiers armed with new weaponry – and a sense of   entitlement – descended, seemingly overnight.

In the space of just 20 years, 90 per cent of Africa was brought under   European occupation. Europe had captured a continent.

Europe was in the throes of the Industrial   Revolution. The advent of the machine was transforming the cities there into   the workshop of the world – a workshop in need of raw materials. It was the   dawn of industrial-scale production, modern capitalist economies and mass   international trade. And in this new industrial era the value of Africa   rocketed – not only for its materials and as a strategic trade route, but   also as a market for the goods Europe now produced in bulk.

But the scramble for Africa was not just about economics. Colonialism had   become the fast-track to political supremacy in Europe. Rival European powers   convened in the German capital and in February 1885 signed the Act of Berlin   – an agreement to abolish slavery and allow free trade. The act also drew new   borders on the map of Africa, awarding territory to each European power –   thus legalising the scramble for Africa.

But with the Second World War – which saw the peak of Europe’s dependency on   African troops – a powerful genie was released from a bottle – African   nationalism. The tipping point came on February 3, 1960, when Harold   Macmillan, the British prime minister, gave his ‘wind of change’ speech.   Within 10 months, Britain had surrendered two key African territories and   France 14. The rate of decolonisation when it arrived was breathtaking.

Seventeen African nations gained their independence in 1960, but the dreams   of the independence era were short-lived. Africa … states of   independence tells the story of some of those countries – stories of mass   exploitation, of the ecstasy of independence and of how – with liberation – a   new, covert scramble for resources was born.

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2010/08/2010831112927318164.html

BRICS bloc’s rising ‘sub-imperialism’

Is this the latest threat   to Africa?

Patrick Bond

2012-11-29, Issue 608

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/85609

Like   Berlin in 1884-85, the BRICS Durban summit is expected to carve up Africa   more efficiently, unburdened – now as then – by what will be derided as   ‘Western’ concerns about democracy and human rights.

The heads of state of the   Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS) network of governments are   coming to Durban, South Africa, in four months, meeting on March 26-27 at the   International Convention Centre (ICC), Africa’s largest venue. Given their   recent performance, it is reasonable to expect another “1%” summit, wreaking   socioeconomic and ecological havoc. And that means it is time for the first   BRICS countersummit, to critique top-down “sub-imperialist” bloc formation,   and to offer bottom-up alternatives.

After all, we have had some bad experiences at the Durban ICC.

In 2001, in spite of demands by 10,000 protesters, the United Nations World   Conference Against Racism refused to grapple with reparations for slavery and   colonialism or with apartheid-Israel’s racism against Palestinians (hence Tel   Aviv’s current ethnic cleansing of Gaza goes unpunished).

The African Union got off to a bad start here, with its 2002 launch, due to   reliance on the neoliberal New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad)   promoted by Pretoria.

The 2003 World Economic Forum’s African regional meeting hastened   governments’ supplication to multinational corporate interests in spite of   protests.

In 2011, Durban’s UN COP17 climate summit – better known as the ‘Conference   of Polluters’ – featured Washington’s sabotage, with no new emissions cuts   and an attempted revival of the non-solution called ‘carbon trading’, also   called ‘the privatisation of the air’.

(…)
LOOTING AFRICA

Like Berlin in 1884-85, the BRICS Durban summit is expected to carve up   Africa more efficiently, unburdened – now as then – by what will be derided   as “Western” concerns about democracy and human rights. Reading between the   lines, its resolutions will:

– support favoured corporations’ extraction and land-grab strategies;

– worsen Africa’s retail-driven deindustrialisation (South Africa’s Shoprite and   Makro – soon to be run by Walmart – are already notorious in many capital   cities for importing even simple products that could be supplied locally);

– revive failed projects such as Nepad; and

– confirm the financing of both land grabbing and the extension of   neocolonial infrastructure through a new ‘BRICS Development Bank’, likely to   be based just north of Johannesburg where the Development Bank of Southern   Africa already does so much damage following Washington’s script.

The question is whether in exchange for the Durban summit amplifying such   destructive tendencies, which appears certain, can those few of Africa’s   elites who may be invited leverage any greater influence in world economic   management via the BRICS? With South Africa’s finance minister Pravin   Gordhan’s regular critiques of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund   (IMF), there is certainly potential for BRICS to “talk left” about the   global-governance democracy deficit.

But watch the ‘walk right’ carefully. In the vote for World Bank president   earlier this year, for example, Pretoria’s choice was hard-core Washington   ideologue Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Nigerian finance minister who with IMF   managing director Christine Lagarde catalysed the Occupy movement’s near   revolution in January, with a removal of petrol subsidies. Brasilia chose the   moderate economist Jose Antonio Ocampo and Moscow backed Washington’s choice:   Jim Yong Kim.

This was a repeat of the prior year’s fiasco in the race for IMF managing   director, won by Lagarde in spite of ongoing corruption investigations   against her by French courts, because the Third World was divided and   conquered. BRICS appeared in both cases as incompetent, unable to even agree   on a sole candidate, much less win their case in Washington.

Yet in July, BRICS treasuries sent US$100 billion in new capital to the IMF,   which was seeking new systems of bail-out for banks exposed in Europe. South   Africa’s contribution was only $2 billion, a huge sum for Gordhan to muster   against local trade union opposition. Explaining the South African   contribution – initially he said it would be only one tenth as large –   Gordhan told Moneyweb last year that it was on condition that the IMF became   more “nasty” [sic] to desperate European borrowers, as if the Greek, Spanish,   Portuguese and Irish poor and working people were not suffering enough.

And the result of this BRICS intervention is that China gains IMF voting   power, but Africa actually loses a substantial fraction of its share. Even   Gordhan admitted at last month’s Tokyo meeting of the IMF and world Bank that   it is likely “the vast majority of emerging and developing countries will   lose quota shares – an outcome that will perpetuate the democratic deficit.”   And given “the crisis of legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of the   IMF”, it “is simply untenable” that Africa only has two seats for its 45   member countries.

Likewise, South Africa’s role in Africa has been “nasty”, as confirmed when   Nepad was deemed “philosophically spot on” by lead US State Department Africa   official Walter Kansteiner in 2003, and foisted privatisation of even basic   services on the continent. In a telling incident this year, the Johannesburg   parastatal firm Rand Water was forced to leave Ghana after failing – with a   Dutch for-profit partner (Aqua Vitens) – to improve Accra’s water supply, as   also happened in Maputo, Mozambique, (Saur from Paris) and Dar es Salaam   (Biwater from London) in Tanzania.

As a matter of principle, BRICS appears hell bent on promoting the further   commodification of life, at a time when the greatest victory won by ordinary   Africans in the last decade is under attack: the winning of the Treatment   Action Campaign’s demand for affordable access to AIDS medicines, via India’s   cheap generic versions of drugs. A decade ago, they cost $10,000 per person   per year and only a tiny fraction of desperate people received the medicines.   Now, more than 1.5 million South Africans – and millions more in the rest of   Africa – get treatment, thus raising the South Africa’s average life   expectancy from 52 in 2004 to 60 today, according to reliable statistics   released this month.

However, in recent months, Obama has put an intense squeeze on India to cut   back on generic medicine R&D and production, as well as making deep cuts   in his own government’s aid commitment to fund African healthcare. In Durban,   the city that is home to the most HIV+ people in the world, Obama’s move   resulted in this year’s closure of AIDS public treatment centres at three   crucial sites. One was the city’s McCord Hospital, which ironically was a   long-standing ally of the NGO Partners in Health, whose cofounder was Obama’s   pick for World Bank president, Jim Kim.

Source: http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/85609  

Links to other resources Thomas Pakenham (1992) The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s   Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912. See: http://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Africa-Conquest-Continent-1876-1912/dp/0380719991  

 

World Bank Refuses to Stop   Funding African Land Grabs, October 8, 2012, African Globe.  Source: http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/world-bank-refuses-stop-funding-african-land-grabs

Activists Challenge African ‘Land Grab’

 

Title Activists Challenge African ‘Land Grab’
Director(s)  
Date released (year) 2012

 

Production company TheRealNews
Length 5 mins
Location  
Keywords/tags Land grabs, activism, social   movements, neoliberalism, neocolonialism
Link to film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-2bflkLT38
Synopsis The World   Bank and Wall Street firms targeted for African land deals displacing   hundreds of thousands.
Reviews/discussion From John   Vidal and Claire Provost,   www.guardian.co.uk,   Monday   23 April 2012:

Campaigners claim World Bank helps facilitate land grabs in Africa

Food shortages and   rural deprivation exacerbated by World Bank policy, says NGO ahead of land   and poverty conference

Forest clearing takes   place on a plot of land in Uganda that has fallen into the hands of a palm   tree plantation owner. Photograph: Jason Taylor/FOEI/ATI

The World   Bank is helping corporations and international investors snap up   cheap land in Africa   and developing countries worldwide at the expense of local communities,   environment and farm groups said in a statement released on Monday to   coincide with the bank’s annual land and poverty conference in Washington DC.

According to the groups, which include NGO Friends of the Earth   International (FOEI) and international peasants’ group La Via Campesina,   decades of World Bank policies have pushed African and other governments to   privatise land and focus on industrial farming. In addition, they say, the   bank is playing a “key role” in the global rush for farmland by   providing capital and guarantees to big multinational investors.

“The result has often been … people forced off land they have   traditionally farmed for generations, more rural poverty and greater risk of   food shortages”, said FOEI in a separate report launched   ahead of the World Bank conference.

The event, which promises to focus on “land governance in a rapidly   changing environment”, is billed as a forum to discuss “innovative   approaches” to land governance challenges including climate change, the   growing demand for key natural resources, and rapid urbanisation. But   campaigners say the conference mistakenly focuses on how to improve   large-scale land deals rather than on helping local communities to secure or   retain access to their land.

The FOEI report suggests land grabbing is intensifying and spreading,   especially in rural areas of Africa and Asia. “High levels of demand for   land have pushed up prices, bringing investment banks and speculators into   farming,” it says.

“The World Bank’s policies for land privatisation and concentration   have paved the way for corporations from Wall Street to Singapore to take   upwards of 80m hectares (197.6 acres) of land from rural communities across   the world in the past few years,” said the groups in a statement   accusing the bank of promoting “corporate-oriented rather than   people-centred” policies and laws.

In 2010, the World Bank spearheaded the development of new principles for   responsible agricultural investment to better ensure that land deals respect   local rights, livelihoods and resources; these guidelines have also been   criticised for legitimising, rather than challenging, the global rush for   land.

Allegations of land-grabbing have hit countries around the world and have   been accompanied by growing concern about whether large-scale land deals are   delivering promised income and employment for local people. This week, a   coalition of NGOs and research institutes is expected to release the latest   findings of the Land Matrix project, which has attempted to systematically   document recent land acquisitions.

Current estimates suggest that 80-230m hectares of land have been leased   or bought in recent years, largely to produce food, feed or fuel for the   international market.

World Bank money has been involved in many recent international land deals, says the FOEI   report. In Uganda, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the bank’s   private sector lending arm, contributed $10m for a project to clear 10,000   hectares of land for palm oil plantations on Bugala Island in Lake Victoria.

But FOEI research has shown that local people were prevented from   accessing water sources and grazing land, suggesting that – despite promises   of employment – many people have lost their means of livelihood.

Resistance to land grabs is growing: Harvard University has come under   intense pressure to ensure its investments do not contribute to land grabs in   Africa, while Iowa State University has withdrawn from a deal in Tanzania   that could have displaced an estimated 160,000 people. In South Sudan, the   government halted a land deal after local communities erupted in protest,   saying their lands had been secretly leased to an American company.

This month, farmers and land   rights activists from across Sierra Leone converged on the   country’s capital for a national assembly of communities   affected by large-scale land deals, where groups launched a new   civil-society watchdog to monitor agribusiness investments. The meeting   followed the first international farmers’ conference   to tackle land grabs, held in Selingue, southern Mali, in late 2011.

On Tuesday, food justice activists, environmental organisations, students   and Occupy Wall Street groups are set to gather in front of New York’s   Waldorf Astoria hotel to challenge the fourth annual Global AgInvesting (GAI)   conference, where institutional investors and fund managers are meeting to   discuss opportunities for agricultural investments overseas.

“Governments around the world need to stop land grabbing, not just   try to mitigate its worst impacts. Governments must abide by their human   rights obligations on land and drastically reduce demand for commodities such   as palm oil from the west,” said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, FOEI’s food   sovereignty co-ordinator.

David Kureeba, from the Ugandan national association of professional   environmentalists, said: “People’s rights to land [in Uganda] are being   demolished. Small-scale farming and forestry that protected unique wildlife,   heritage and food is being converted to palm oil wastelands that only profit   agribusinesses.”

Government officials, civil society, experts and the private sector will   gather at the World Bank conference, which ends on Thursday, to discuss   large-scale land aquisitions, land governance in the context of climate   change, and rapid urbanisation.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/apr/23/world-bank-land-grabs-africa

 

Future Agricultures Policy briefing, 2011: Land Grabbing in Africa (…)

 

Africa, a continent plagued by   chronic food insecurity, is now considered to be the future breadbasket of   the world, and is expected to help meet its rising food needs. In the process   of cashing in on the opportunities offered by cheap land and water,   large-scale investors are displacing land uses and land users in ways that could   aggravate the already severe challenges of rural poverty and hunger.

The rise of ‘land grabbing’ or   ‘responsibleagricultural investment’ in Africa is undoubtedly one of the   great challenges of our time for development in the continent. The deals   being made now are remaking the map of food production

and food distribution, in   Africa and globally. What happens over the next few years—acceleration or   reversal, regulation or laissez-faire, better governance or substantive   changes in agricultural policy—will determine to a great extent the future of   poverty and hunger in Africa.

 

Source: www.future-agricultures.org

 

Links to other resources World   Bank Refuses to Stop Funding African Land Grabs, October 8, 2012, African Globe.

Source: http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/world-bank-refuses-stop-funding-african-land-grabs

The Diamond Empire

Title The Diamond Empire
Director(s) Gavin MacFadyen
Date   released (year) 1994
Production   company Laurie Flynn
Length 102 mins
Location Africa
Keywords/tags Diamonds, colonialism, mining, natural   resources
Link to   film http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=260
Synopsis How an advertising slogan invented by Madison Avenue executives in 1948   has come to define our most intimate rituals and ideals around courtship and   marriage is the subject of this devastating documentary. THE DIAMOND EMPIRE,   which sent shockwaves through the world diamond industry when it first   appeared, systematically takes apart the myth that “diamonds are   forever,” exposing how one white South African family, through a process   of monopoly and fantasy, managed to exert control over the global flow of   diamonds and shape the very way we think about romance and love is an   achievement all the more stunning given that diamonds are in fact neither a   scarce nor indestructible commodity. Zeroing in on how “the diamond   empire” managed to convert something valueless into one of the most   coveted commodities in history, the film provides a riveting look at how   marketing and consumer culture not only influence global trade and economics,   but also burrow down into the very core of our identities. Most of the major   diamond producers belong to, or have cooperated with, the De Beers led   marketing cartel, formed to maintain the price of diamonds at a high level.   De Beers, under Harry Oppenheimer’s leadership, maintained its dominant   position in the industry by using its numerous worldwide companies to buy up   new sources of diamonds and to control distribution of industrial diamonds   and production of synthetic ones. In the last decades of the 20th cent.,   however, De Beers’ hold over the unpolished diamond market decreased, and in   2000 the company announced it would end to its policy of controlling diamond   prices through hoarding and shift its focus to increasing sales.

Source: http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=260

Reviews/discussion “In all my years of teaching,   this is the single most important video I have ever shown. No film has proven   as successful in showing students how a major part of their identities has   been constructed by a corporate, commercial culture. This movie changes the   way we see the world.”
– Sut Jhally | Department of Communications | UMass AmherstSource: http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=136#film-praise
Links to   other resources
Madihlaba, T.   The Fox in the Henhouse: the environmental impact of diamond mining on   communities in South Africa. In McDonald, D. (ed.) Environmental Justice in South Africa,   University of Cape Town Press, CT, pp.156-167Diamond Mining and the Environment Factsheet: http://www.diamondfacts.org/pdfs/media/media_resources/fact_sheets/Diamond_Mining_Environment_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The Greener Diamond: http://thegreenerdiamond.org/pages/about-conflict-diamonds/impact-on-the-environment.php

Zimbabwe diamond circuit: http://100r.org/2013/02/disappearing-diamonds/

Blood diamond” regulation system broken   – but where to look for blame? By Khadija Sharife and Nick Meynen, http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11968