QuoteStop Trying To 'Save' Africa
By Uzodinma Iweala
Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page B07
Last fall, shortly after I returned from Nigeria, I was accosted by a perky blond college student whose blue eyes seemed to match the "African" beads around her wrists.
"Save Darfur!" she shouted from behind a table covered with pamphlets urging students to TAKE ACTION NOW! STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!
My aversion to college kids jumping onto fashionable social causes nearly caused me to walk on, but her next shout stopped me.
"Don't you want to help us save Africa?" she yelled.
It seems that these days, wracked by guilt at the humanitarian crisis it has created in the Middle East, the West has turned to Africa for redemption. Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.
This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.
Perhaps most interesting is the language used to describe the Africa being saved. For example, the Keep a Child Alive/" I am African" ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted "tribal markings" on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters. Below, smaller print says, "help us stop the dying."
Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like "Can Bono Save Africa?" or "Will Brangelina Save Africa?" The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."
There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems.
Why do the media frequently refer to African countries as having been "granted independence from their colonial masters," as opposed to having fought and shed blood for their freedom? Why do Angelina Jolie and Bono receive overwhelming attention for their work in Africa while Nwankwo Kanu or Dikembe Mutombo, Africans both, are hardly ever mentioned? How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?
Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
Last month the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn't want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth.
Uzodinma Iweala is the author of "Beasts of No Nation," a novel about child soldiers.
Fucking college students. Fucking mindless liberal celebrities.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditFucking college students. Fucking mindless liberal celebrities.
There's plenty of blame to go around, so don't stop there.
!i!
Quote from: RPGPunditFucking college students.
RPGPundit
Fuck yourself.
Hey, we saved the fuck out of Iraq. How hard can Africa be?
Quote from: laffingboyHey, we saved the fuck out of Iraq. How hard can Africa be?
Man, let's save the fuck out of the world! I'm inspired! :haw:
I'm seriously not surprised about that article. I mean, our track record is not great, and it's patronizing as fuck to 'save' a nation.
Would it make a difference if I wanted to save the world with fuck*
*safe fuck of course.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Uzodinma IwealaThis is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.
...
The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."
...
Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself.
These are all very good points, especially the last. Even if the goodwill is genuine (in most cases, it is), these actions are more about Western self-perception than honest thought about Africa's problems and solving them. This returns us to the same brand of intellectual dishonesty that plagued prominent writers and philosophers who became advocates of communism - although, of course, in that situation, they unknowingly became supporters of murderous regimes, while here, it is "just" subcosciously reinforcing images and attitudes they would probably find morally repugnant if confronted with openly.
Quote from: MelanThese are all very good points, especially the last. Even if the goodwill is genuine (in most cases, it is), these actions are more about Western self-perception than honest thought about Africa's problems and solving them. This returns us to the same brand of intellectual dishonesty that plagued prominent writers and philosophers who became advocates of communism - although, of course, in that situation, they unknowingly became supporters of murderous regimes, while here, it is "just" subcosciously reinforcing images and attitudes they would probably find morally repugnant if confronted with openly.
I'd also say that some of these liberal advocates are supporting murderous regimes. Not to mention that the same intervention demanded for Darfur is what was done in Iraq - and the US has heard no end of shit about that one from the same proponents of Darfur intervention.
Quote from: jeff37923Not to mention that the same intervention demanded for Darfur is what was done in Iraq - and the US has heard no end of shit about that one from the same proponents of Darfur intervention.
You're either missing or ignoring the one
huge difference between intervening in Iraq and in Darfur.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou're either missing or ignoring the one huge difference between intervening in Iraq and in Darfur.
!i!
Enlighten me. What am I missing?
(Not being snarky, I just see the media and Hollywood spin on world politics as being ass-backwards.)
There isn't any real difference, except that in Darfur many of the people being oppressed/killed are Christians. That's what caused all this attention. Its not like there aren't a half-dozen other places where there are terrible things going on in the continent of Africa; Zimbabwe for just one example.
But the Sudan originally came into the public eye not from celebrities but from the Christian Right who made a big deal about the mostly Muslim majority in the Sudan attacking the Christian minority (along with a few african tribal pagans but who really gives a fuck about them, right?).
So no, it would be utterly hypocritical of anyone who opposed "regime change" in Iraq to support "regime change" in the Sudan (and that's what it would require, how else do you think we'd GET to Darfur, when the Sudan's government has already said it doesn't want western interference?). Not to mention that in this case they would be letting themselves be manipulated by the likes of the Christian Coalition, who's dream it is to charge into the Sudan, overthrow the muslim government there, install a Christian-run theo-democracy and forcibly convert as many africans as possible.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThere isn't any real difference, except that in Darfur many of the people being oppressed/killed are Christians. That's what caused all this attention. Its not like there aren't a half-dozen other places where there are terrible things going on in the continent of Africa; Zimbabwe for just one example.
But the Sudan originally came into the public eye not from celebrities but from the Christian Right who made a big deal about the mostly Muslim majority in the Sudan attacking the Christian minority (along with a few african tribal pagans but who really gives a fuck about them, right?).
So no, it would be utterly hypocritical of anyone who opposed "regime change" in Iraq to support "regime change" in the Sudan (and that's what it would require, how else do you think we'd GET to Darfur, when the Sudan's government has already said it doesn't want western interference?). Not to mention that in this case they would be letting themselves be manipulated by the likes of the Christian Coalition, who's dream it is to charge into the Sudan, overthrow the muslim government there, install a Christian-run theo-democracy and forcibly convert as many africans as possible.
RPGPundit
Isn't it also ironic that the people being killed in Sudan are predominantly Christians, while those in Iraq are predominantly Muslims – and yet this Christian Right Wing government went into Iraq. That can't be right.
So it must be the oil. Iraq puts out about 2M barrels a day; Sudan is getting close to 1/2M Barrels per day. So GWB's oil concerns are more important than his religious concerns. Some Christian he is...
I predict when Sudan reaches 1M Barrels a day, the US will invade!
Quote from: James J SkachSo it must be the oil. Iraq puts out about 2M barrels a day; Sudan is getting close to 1/2M Barrels per day. So GWB's oil concerns are more important than his religious concerns. Some Christian he is...
That's right -- oil it is.
QuoteI predict when Sudan reaches 1M Barrels a day, the US will invade!
Oh? But who has dibs on Sudan's oil? It ain't the US -- China's first in line. And what kind of shit-storm do you suppose that would cause we started muscling in on their territory for "humanitarian" reasons?
Anyone rmember the great coalition of nations that banded together to liberate Kuwait from Iraq back in 1990? Everyone had a stake in Kuwait. Then, 12, 13 years later, the US had trouble getting France, Germany, and Russia on board. And why was that? Because they weren't going to get enough of a cut of oil proceeds to make up for their existing investments in the country.
God, I hate it when I get all cynical like this, but as I stated up-thread, there's plenty of blame to go around, so don't stop at strident college students and celebrity activists.
!i!
Two words to save Africa:
Monopoly of Force
Legal Certainty
I fear none of the bleeding heart "fashion carers" is actually up to the task of providing these two things. Or could even stomach what would have to be done.
Quote from: SettembriniTwo words to save Africa:
Monopoly of Force
Legal Certainty
Damn Sett, stop reinforcing the stereotype of the Dreadfullylonggermanwordusers!
If Harold didn´t screw up at Hastings, they would understand.
Yeah, just what we need, even more people with a Saxon dialect ;)
Saxons are not what you think they are.
The saxons you know are more bavarian than saxon, to make a long gstory short...
Don't ruin my jokes with mere facts.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaGod, I hate it when I get all cynical like this, but as I stated up-thread, there's plenty of blame to go around, so don't stop at strident college students and celebrity activists.
!i!
In 2003, after going into the region on a fact-finding mission, Colin Powell recommended to the Bush Administration that US intervention should occur in Darfur. This move was blocked, actually "forbidden" was the word used, by Kofi Annan of the United Nations. So the US didn't go in then.
Now, of course, since a bunch of Hollywood celebs and neo-hippies think its a good idea - the US should just jump right in?
Quote from: jeff37923In 2003, after going into the region on a fact-finding mission, Colin Powell recommended to the Bush Administration that US intervention should occur in Darfur. This move was blocked, actually "forbidden" was the word used, by Kofi Annan of the United Nations. So the US didn't go in then.
Damn that Kofi Annan & the UN with their strong hold over Washington.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: jeff37923In 2003, after going into the region on a fact-finding mission, Colin Powell recommended to the Bush Administration that US intervention should occur in Darfur. This move was blocked, actually "forbidden" was the word used, by Kofi Annan of the United Nations. So the US didn't go in then.
Tee-hee. That's so cute. Just like the UN had any sway over the US invasion of Iraq.
Sorry, the reason the US didn't intervene in Darfur in 2003 was because there was nothing to gain and lots of opposition, while Iraq had lots and lots of oil and not so much in the way of international opposition.
QuoteNow, of course, since a bunch of Hollywood celebs and neo-hippies think its a good idea - the US should just jump right in?
You didn't get this idea from me, did you? Hell, from a humanitarian point of view, it was a good idea to intervene long before Colin Powell suggested it. The whole of East Africa has been a hotbed waiting to explode for decades now.
!i!
"Waiting" to explode?
Yeah you know like "things are getting better in Iraq slowly" - the football victory helped :D
Regards,
David R
Yeah, yeah. I was in a hurry to make a bus and I worded that whole post poorly. To be honest, the "waiting to explode" bit wasn't the part I expected to get jumped on about.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou didn't get this idea from me, did you? Hell, from a humanitarian point of view, it was a good idea to intervene long before Colin Powell suggested it. !i!
No, I didn't get that impression from you, Ian. It just appears to me that the celebs making a cause out of Darfur are doing so to improve their own image and not for any altruistic or humanitarian reason (and I must say, with the exception of Angelina Jolie who does indeed donate about a quarter to a third of her millions to charity). Its the same thing with Global Warming, many supporters of that are simply trying to
look good, not engender any kind of lasting beneficial change.
As for the UN preventing the US from going into Darfur, the US found less opposition from the UN to intervene in Iraq and more opposition from the UN to intervene in Darfur. Yes, the US could have ignored the UN - however, a better question is why was there less UN opposition for Iraq intervention then there was for Darfur intervention?
Quote from: jeff37923As for the UN preventing the US from going into Darfur, the US found less opposition from the UN to intervene in Iraq and more opposition from the UN to intervene in Darfur. Yes, the US could have ignored the UN - however, a better question is why was there less UN opposition for Iraq intervention then there was for Darfur intervention?
Because, when push comes to shove, the UN follows the big dog. The big dog wanted a piece of Iraq. The big dog wasn't particularly interested in Darfur. The UN took whatever the big dog would let it have.
Ugh. How's that for some ugly imagery?
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaUgh. How's that for some ugly imagery?
!i!
Its pretty ugly.
Then again, while I think the US is doing the right thing by being in Iraq, I admit that it is ugly for Iraq that we'd rather fight a war in someone else's backyard than our own.
I think it's important to know How to Write About Africa (http://www.granta.com/extracts/2615). :hehe:
Finally. Some sound, rational advice.
!i!
Quote from: RPGPunditFucking college students. Fucking mindless liberal celebrities.
RPGPundit
Fucking Bono.
Quote from: signoftheserpentFucking Bono.
Hey, I've always thought so, too, but the jackass mananged to hold court at the G8 Summit, which is more than most politicians on the world stage can manage.
!i!
Could we turn this into a role playing supplement somehow?
An African bunch with super powers decides to kick out all the meddling celebrities and white people and tell them "Get the Hell out of our continent!"
Or would that be too much like a version of John sheridon telling off the Vorlons and Shadows?
- Ed C.