Last week’s column on why our education systems fail elicited this reaction from a friend: "We should give up on the whole colonialism bandwagon and deal with the real issue.”

I noticed the pronoun ‘we’ and recognised it as polite language that was due to a background in diplomacy rather than an inclusive statement as it was made to appear. And so, I shifted to reflect on the content.

For starters, why colonialism can’t be a ‘real issue’ had me bewildered. It evoked a conversation I had had with an elder, who has since passed, in which he recalled his days when he was a chief in one of the chefferies under colonial rule.

As they were agitating for independence, the elder recounted, at least half of his colleagues didn’t think there was a problem with colonialism – it was not an ‘issue.’

As a matter of fact, he told me, some of them would reveal to colonialists the tactics that Umwami Mutara Rudahigwa had told them to employ to undermine colonial rule in order to force independence.

Other elders I spoke to, who served in similar capacity, confirmed the existence then of this ideological schism.

They underscored this as the main point of disagreement between the two major native political parties that emerged first in colonial Rwanda.

It was a widespread phenomenon. In neighbouring Kenya the same ideological schism existed between the Mau Mau and the Home Guard, with the former agitating for independence, by any means necessary, and the latter working tirelessly to reinforce colonial rule.

We know that many Mau Mau were castrated because the Home Guard, living amongst them, would turn around and tell the colonial officials what resistance tactics had been agreed upon, and who was in attendance, in their brotherhood meetings.

The home guard were not doing this because they hated the Mau Mau. They did so because of an ideological undercurrent that informed their diametrically opposed perspectives on whether colonialism was an issue or not.

They looked at the same thing differently. Just last week Rasna Warah, the columnist for the Daily Nation, wrote a piece on a matter she characterised as "modern slavery.”

In "What is the AU doing to liberate the former French colonies,” she points to an agreement that still exists today between the French government and its former colonies in Africa.

This ‘pact’ requires 14 African countries to deposit half of their foreign reserves to France’s Central Bank. As a result, France holds ‘in trust’ for each of these countries an amount of money that is "larger than the GDPs of all except two.”

Warah also shares some good news, however. Any of the 14 countries can withdraw not more than 15% of its money per year. You read that right: They are required –by agreement –to keep their money in France; however, they cannot access it.

If they want it, then they must accept to incur a penalty. "If they need more,” Warah reveals, "they have to ‘borrow’ it at commercial rates.” So you have your money at KCB and you are told you can only access 15% of it, and if you want more than that then KCB will only allow it to you as if it were giving you a loan – you must pay interest on your money.

Here is Warah with more:

"The pact further ensures that France or French companies receive priority when it comes to buying or investing in the natural resources of these countries. France also has the exclusive right to supply these countries with military equipment and to militarily intervene in them — this explains why French troops are always the first on the ground when a Francophone African country experiences conflict.”

In short, it is a "debt” that was incurred "during the colonial period.” Which begs the questions: Who determines what people should remember and what they should forget? Who should ‘move on’ and why? If we are to forget, shouldn’t we all forget the colonial debts and contracts, too?

Such questions are always ideological in nature. They suggest that some things are worth remembering while others are not, that those events that are not worth remembering bear no consequences, and that they must be "forgotten” in order to "move on.”

This selective memory is never neutral. They place value on memory and extend, or withdraw it based on this subjective judgement of what is worthwhile, and helps to determine which actions are worth accounting for.

Consider the attitude of the French government vis-à-vis the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994. For twenty-some years successive administrations in France have tried to arm-twist the Rwandan government into ‘forgetting and moving on’ from their role in the events surrounding the genocide, and have used such blackmail as a condition for normalising relations, which they have tried to implement through carrots and sticks –threats of economic, diplomatic, and military sabotage.

These are the kinds of traps that our societies face.

The tactics may have become more sophisticated; however, the game has remained the same since the days of direct subjugation. Is colonialism still an issue? You be the judge.