I do believe that both the grace and splendour of life is reflected in the nature of all things, either animate or inanimate. And that this formless substance or energy called life in all its mysteries, doesn't discriminate against itself, lest it distorts its very own perfect and immaculate equilibrium. And since there are no probable scientific evidence to corroborate the notion of life discriminating against itself, we could only conclude that life is both just and fair. And that all the recipients of life or even of the living, must therefore be equally endowed with similar emotional and intellectual capacities, which compliment their respective natures, but is it really so?

A close observation at the various types of human species, would reveal that there are indeed classes and dimensions of intelligence, embedded in all these various types of humans. Intelligence which shouldn't and cannot be judged on either their superiority or inferiority to one another, but rather on a creative level. But what precisely do we mean by being creative and how important is it?

To me being creative is all about knowing how to mix the elements of life to bring a new form or substance into existence, which would either compliment or contradict the already existing elements of nature, whilst keeping its own originality and integrity intact. Simply put, creativity is all about an innate or acquired knowledge of something or anything in particular. Which when or if applied practically, does make enough sense to yield a life of prosperity or non prosperity, financial comfort/discomfort, growth or lack of it, not only for the creator who is expressing him/herself creatively, but also for those affiliated with the creator or even the creator's creation/s.

We human species come in various forms, shapes, different skin pigmentation and so forth. We're all well endowed with our own unique set of intellect. In essence, we are capable or should be capable of creating something or anything. The process of creating something or anything, first starts in the womb of the mind, after a careful inner-vision or external observation of something, could be anything. Which after being laboured upon either with ones physical or a mental might, becomes an object of ones own making. Therefore if a mind to create is something which we all have, then how come that of all the human species, the Blackman of Africa seems to be the least creative of them all? And if the Blackman's environment is responsible for the way the Blackman feels and thinks, then exactly what kind of environment is it?

Is it a progressive environment were ideas become reality or is it a regressive environment were ideas never enter the creative mind to be borne, or is the Blackman indeed cursed by nature? Indeed if we are to assume that God did create all men in His image, then that would mean that all men should be able to create just like their Maker. So how come that the Blackman of Africa isn't creating anything, but is rather depending on other people's creativity to get by?

Having a mind to create is similar to having a docile mind. Because after all, knowledge is the study and science of understanding. Trying to understand something or anything is knowing, why, where, when and how to do something or anything at the right time, since time is what dictates agenda. And knowing how, where, when and how to do something or anything, either on a collective level or alone, is the true essence of freedom. When the Blackman of Africa is sick and is in need of medicine, instead of finding a cure from within his own environment, he rather imports medicine from somewhere foreign. When the Blackman needs a car to take him from a-z, instead of learning how to manufacture a car, he rather buys it from somebody else. It's this perennial need for other people's creation, which has turned the Blackman of Africa into a needy person. And neediness as you and I know, is also the first cousin of poverty.

Whilst I may not necessary believe in Darwin's natural selection theory, which implies that nature might have a probable preference for the survival of the fittest and therefore could be conspiring secretly against the weak, I cannot also dismiss the fact that, whereas the strong and most intelligent human species keep increasing in both strength and creative intelligence, the weak and less creative human species on the other hand, keep decreasing in both strength and creative intelligence. Thus running the risk of being extinct or by being dominated by the very strong.

Because for instance, how was it possible for a handful of Europeans to come to Ghana and colonize us, without us either going to Europe or America to colonize them or even take them into slavery, like they did to us? Even the Blackman allowing his home and birthright to be taken over by White folks, while he stood by idly looking on, bears testimony to the fact that the strong and creative in nature, would always dominate the weak and less creative in nature.

Now slavery you say, was a long time ago, because we're not selling off our very own any more. And I would say that you're probably right. But mind you, just because they have stopped coming over here to load us up, doesn't mean that we have stopped going over to them and pledging ourselves into servitude, you know? I could even assure you that if slavery was still officially intact, the Blackman would have still continued to sell off his human assets for the Whiteman's bits, pieces and bullshit.

And the question is, why does it have to be like this, considering the Blackman's intellect, ability to create, opportunity and immense wealth?