What the hell are we (westerners) doing in Africa?

[SilverTrain]

lol you catch on quick

A talent to which you can aspire.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

A talent to which you can aspire.

Ooooooooooo!!

 

[JustAsking]

Other than in reaction to aggression, care to give examples of real, sustained social change occuring form the "bottom up"? And, I am not needling, just curious as I can think of reactionary change, but none from the bottom up that persists. :shrug:

I was agreeing with NJ right away until you asked that question. It took me a while to think of examples but I think I have a few.

The civil rights movement was a bottom up movement. Although not done yet, it affected significant permanent change in culture and law in the USA.

Organic food movement is another one. For better or worse, coopted by industry or not, we raised our own expectations on food quality from the bottom up. Government regulations and the food industry had to adapt to these new cultural aspirations regarding food.

Environmentalism might be in this category, too.

What can you say about gay rights, too. I think it is only a matter of time when cultural and law will change to embrace gay rights in about the same way it did for civil rights for minorities. This is driven from the bottom up, as far as I can see.

 

[dong20]

In today's 'post colonial' era, perhaps the more trenchant question would be, what are 'Africans' (and I use the term in a broad sense here) doing to Africa?

Or, put another way if only to take account of varying sensitivities and perspectives, or simply more diplomatically - allowing to be done?

A rare Africa thread. I doubt it will last long, unless perchance it desends into an Obama ('cos we all know he's really an African) bashing thread.

 

[MercyfulFate]

One of the worst things about Western involvement in Africa (and other places) is the irresponsible and ignorant things done by the Vatican.

Mind you there are many Christian charities that do a lot of good, but the Vatican saying that things like condoms are wrong in AIDS devastated areas are so colossally ignorant, it's just mind blowing.

It's still aggravating that places like Iraq took precedence over somewhere like Darfur.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Take a google at what the Chinese are doing in Africa.

Building railroads in Angola, investing billions over all, and exporting virtual colonies of workers to do business in Africa.

As soon as the west realizes there is money to be made, instead of just aid to be handed out. The west will start investing money there.

 

[dong20]

Take a google at what the Chinese are doing in Africa.

Building railroads in Angola, investing billions over all, and exporting virtual colonies of workers to do business in Africa.

As soon as the west realizes there is money to be made, instead of just aid to be handed out. The west will start investing money there.

By and large, in my experience the Chinese are tolerated in Africa, rarely are they liked - even by those who directly benefit from the largesse of heavy hitters when handing out contracts.

Of course, it's largely reciprocal, they each just smile through gritted teeth. It wouldn't be much of an over generalistion to say the Chinese exploit African and Africans, rather than 'invest' in them.

There is nothing new in this (the 'West' has done it for centuries), but don't dress it up as something it manifestly isn't.

Again, (with exceptions) a more appropriate word might be to, not in.

One needs to look a little deeper than Google.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I was agreeing with NJ right away until you asked that question. It took me a while to think of examples but I think I have a few.

The civil rights movement was a bottom up movement. Although not done yet, it affected significant permanent change in culture and law in the USA.

The civil rights movement was definitely not bottom up.

Organic food movement is another one. For better or worse, coopted by industry or not, we raised our own expectations on food quality from the bottom up. Government regulations and the food industry had to adapt to these new cultural aspirations regarding food.

Environmentalism might be in this category, too.

What can you say about gay rights, too. I think it is only a matter of time when cultural and law will change to embrace gay rights in about the same way it did for civil rights for minorities. This is driven from the bottom up, as far as I can see.

Perhaps. :shrug: You would have to look at the pioneers of these movements and their backgrounds.

The "bottom" is kind of subjective. Think of how some portray Betty Friedan as an accessible, 'everywoman/mother' in the feminist movement, however, she was far removed from underclass (poor, minority) and blue-collar feminism. Which is the sort of women who had been "working since work was invented" - groups of women that traditionally always worked in some manner and never had the luxury of a higher education or staying at home. That's the bottom and Friedan was nowhere near it.

Anyway, the only movement I can think of at the moment is the EZLN, which is ongoing, but has not resulted in social change. *ETA: and the organizers of the movement are suspect - likely upper class, highly educated, etc. No one know for sure, though.*

 

[Bbucko]

The civil rights movement was definitely not bottom up.



Perhaps. :shrug: You would have to look at the pioneers of these movements and their backgrounds.

The "bottom" is kind of subjective. Think of how some portray Betty Friedan as an accessible, 'everywoman/mother' in the feminist movement, however, she was far removed from underclass (poor, minority) and blue-collar feminism. Which is the sort of women who had been "working since work was invented" - groups of women that traditionally always worked in some manner and never had the luxury of a higher education or staying at home. That's the bottom and Friedan was nowhere near it.

Feminism was never a bottom-up movement; at its core and from its roots it's been a highly bourgeois concept. Only women with the potential of property to lose were concerned about property rights, and the Suffragettes were middle/upper-middle class types. Their targets and assaults were all at the patriarchal social structures that survived into the 20th century through the middle classes, not the working classes or the poor who, as you've said, needed to work anyway. Feminism was trickle-down for them, and for the most part was never a strong aspect of female working class self-realization or identification.

The gay rights movement has largely attempted to re-write their history (and all of society's in the process) through an over-reliance on the myths of Stonewall and not enough focus on the courageous and hard work that the Homophiles and Mattachine types had put in for decades before the first rock was thrown in Sheridan Square. A reading of City of Night (published 1963) will enlighten anyone who thinks that gay/queer culture blossomed overnight in the early 70s. The culture I discovered as a young teen in Boston had its roots in deep into the 19th century and my favorite bar from 78-95 had been in continuous operation since the 1930s.

As much as I support the concept of Gay Marriage, it's always struck me as the most mainstream, bourgeois and assimilationist goal possible for a group that, at one time, was out to change the world. I find the very concept of gays fighting for a franchise that was established to assure property rights over women and the children borne of them to be profoundly utterly conservative, if not retardaire. But who am I but an old radical Anarchist?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Feminism was never a bottom-up movement; at its core and from its roots it's been a highly bourgeois concept. Only women with the potential of property to lose were concerned about property rights, and the Suffragettes were middle/upper-middle class types. Their targets and assaults were all at the patriarchal social structures that survived into the 20th century through the middle classes, not the working classes or the poor who, as you've said, needed to work anyway. Feminism was trickle-down for them, and for the most part was never a strong aspect of female working class self-realization or identification.

Which, without going into the backstory of suffragists or earlier to Astell or Chudleigh, was my point. Although, some have attempted to cast it as a bottom up movement due to Friedan's superficial (married/mother/interrupted education/blahness..) accessibility. Fortunately, a few women who were feminists and truly part of the under and working classes, took issue with her as their leader (Anzaldua, Audre Lorde, Angels Davis, Rita Mae Brown, Hooks).

re-write their history[/URL] (and all of society's in the process) through an over-reliance on the myths of Stonewall and not enough focus on the courageous and hard work that the Homophiles and Mattachine types had put in for decades before the first rock was thrown in Sheridan Square. A reading of City of Night (published 1963) will enlighten anyone who thinks that gay/queer culture blossomed overnight in the early 70s. The culture I discovered as a young teen in Boston had its roots in deep into the 19th century and my favorite bar from 78-95 had been in continuous operation since the 1930s.

As much as I support the concept of Gay Marriage, it's always struck me as the most mainstream, bourgeois and assimilationist goal possible for a group that, at one time, was out to change the world. I find the very concept of gays fighting for a franchise that was established to assure property rights over women and the children borne of them to be profoundly utterly conservative, if not retardaire. But who am I but an old radical Anarchist?

Interesting. Thanks for the links (I read them all)!
I have heard of Homophiles, but I think one in particular is popular around NYC. I can't recall his name, but he's often associated with the post-Stonewall GRM.

Speaking Anarchist to Anarchist, it isn't the, dogma of normal or assimilationism that I find distasteful. Although, I see your point. It is more the desire to assimilate at the expense of the history, richness, and diversity of LGBT culture that I find disturbing.

Which, bringing the conversation back to the topic of the thread, loss of culture is one of the drawbacks of top-down social change and one of the reasons I feel there are so few, if any, instances of sustained, native bottom-up social change. Once the social dynamic is altered, the will or action of the underclass to initiate change is no longer available, there is always another someone to come along and initiate for them - Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks explains it 10000000000000x better than I ever could, so I'll just stop. :09:

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

As much as I support the concept of Gay Marriage, it's always struck me as the most mainstream, bourgeois and assimilationist goal possible for a group that, at one time, was out to change the world.

Interesting point - though I'd guess it's more a proxy for equal treatment than it is a real desire to enter into marriage...

But talking about bottoms up/civil movements in the US - which at this point are generally focused on particular interest groups - is a different animal than widespread revolution in developing nations.

Check out The Bottom Billion where it's calculated that in any given year there's only a 1.6% chance that distressed nations will emerge from its conditions for a sustained period. In other words, it's exceptionally rare and the notion that these countries - simply left alone - will magically emerge from their plight is downright naive.

Back to the OP - sure, there is plenty of criticism to go around with respect to humanitarian aid in and of itself. But this isn't an effective argument against interventionism. The conditions simply don't exist for these nations to right themselves internally...

 

[SilverTrain]

But....

They just need to work hard, cease whining, and stop lazily expecting the state to take care of them if they want to succeed.

I think that's the wisdom from a certain vantage point, yes?

 

[dong20]

But....
... stop lazily expecting the state to take care of them if they want to succeed.

This is not a prevaling expectation among Africans in my experience, lazily held or not.

I know a few who do worry the state might take care of them ... in other ways.

 

[ManchesterTom]

I am a "White African" - My fore fathers settled in South Africa around 200 years ago. All I can say is although I am fully "Westernised", I choose to continue to live on this wonderful continent. Africa is a crazy place when looked at though Western Ideals, but once you have lived here and the pulse of Africa grabs you, you will never leave.

Someone mentioned the Chinese in an earlier posting. I have seen how many Chinese generally respond to Black African people, and it can be scary to witness. From the way I have heard some Chinese people barking orders at the black Africans who work for them, it would seem that black people could be in for a very hard time if and when the Chinese colonise Africa.

South Africa is a miracle rising from the ashes of apartheid, and other than the high crime and high violence, we live in a fantastic and wonderfully free society.

In my opinion a lot of Africans are held captive by their own personal belief systems regarding their self worth and self potential.

 

[dong20]

In my opinion a lot of Africans are held captive by their own personal belief systems regarding their self worth and self potential.

Indeed, but few will admit this, even to themselves.

It's almost a perverse form of fatalism, or so it sometimes seems - hope is too dangerous and hardship too much of an expectation (often for good reason) - so aim low and avoid the pain of disappointment. But always talk up one's big plans with anyone who asks ...

The racism and sense of cultural superiority - the latter not unlike than demonstrated by many 'Westerners' - perpetrated by the Chinese against Black Africans can be shocking, and resentment and mistrust are very often deeply ingrained on both sides.

Perhaps less well known and talked about (at least in my experience) is the animosity and mistrust shown by 'coloureds' toward Blacks (and V.V.), although this is (sometimes) more a form of snobbery than out and out naked racism, I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

That said, in all fairness SA is in many respects somewhat atypical for the continent and it's all but impossible to generalise about Africa - other than to perhaps echo one sentiment you offered; it's nigh on impossible to leave behind.

I know many who have often found that the grass isn't always greener, and mere financial wellbeing is not always adequate compensation. You can take an African out of Africa ...

Many folk I know just don't get it or understand the attraction, but IMO you can't begin to 'get' Africa without spending time there, and I don't mean two weeks on some touristic safari or a beach somewhere. That's not Africa, in (for example) much the same way Yellowstone or Miami Beach isn't the US ...

It's mind numbingly complicated yet brutally simple, infuriating yet rewarding, crushingly bureaucratic yet opportunistically lasse faire, beautiful and hideously ugly. It's just ... Africa!

I don't believe 'westerners' or other outsiders can ever really understand the 'African mind'. I spend as much time that side as I'm able, and it's never close to enough and until I finally get around to living there, I can really only scratch the surface.

I'm biased, and unashamed to admit it.

 

[SilverTrain]

This is not a prevaling expectation among Africans in my experience, lazily held or not.

I know a few who do worry the state might take care of them ... in other ways.

I was sarcastically encapsulating a common argument I hear put forth by some of my fellow American citizens.

 

[dong20]

I was sarcastically encapsulating a common argument I hear put forth by some of my fellow American citizens.

I know (or at least read it that way). Just as my comment was general rather than aimed at you specifically. A side effect of the medium I guess.:smile:

 

[ManchesterTom]

This is probably the wrong subject to post this article - however in saying that, there isn't ever a wrong time or a wrong place to talk about AIDs and how it is having massive effects on mankind.

This was the South African news headline today 11/11/2009 posting cut from Welcome to I-Net Bridge - I didn't write the story posted below, and not all of the opinions and statements are in alignment with my sentiment. What is promising though, is that our democratically elected government seems to finally be noticing that there is a problem, and that "Beetroot / Cabbage / Showering" is not a proven cure for AIDs.

This is scary stuff - Every one of OUR people here in South Africa (and infact the entire world) need to start communicating and openly speaking about AIDs and how it could be the end of the native African people, maybe not this year, but if "cultural" behaviour patterns aren't modified there could be a White or Chinese majority in Africa at some time in the next 2 or 3 generations.

AIDs awareness is being promoted on a grande scale, however, there doesn't seem to be enough "buy in" by the individuals who are very strongly rooted in their "cultural" rites / rights / norms.


-----------------
By I-Net, Welcome to I-Net Bridge,
Updated: 2009/11/11Minister unveils 'shocking' Aids figures
Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has unveiled what he described as shocking figures showing a huge Aids-related leap in South Africa's death rate.




Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi on Tuesday unveiled what he himself described as shocking figures showing a huge Aids-related leap in South Africa's death rate.

"In 11 years [from 1997 to 2008], the rate of death has doubled in South Africa. That is obviously something that cannot but worry a person," he told a media briefing at Parliament.

Motsoaledi pinned the blame for the current scale of the pandemic squarely on the denialist health policies pursued by former president Thabo Mbeki's government.

The health minister called for urgent implementation of a campaign to create a "massive change in behaviour and attitude" towards Aids among citizens.

He said in 2007, the total number of deaths, from all causes, registered in South Africa was 573 408; in 2008, this figure had leapt to 756 062.

"If this trend goes on, I don't have 2009 figures, [but] we might easily have reached 900 000 [deaths] by now, I'm worried because...in 1997 the death rate was about 300 000.

"If in 2008 it's 756 062 it means the rate of deaths increased by more than 100% within...11 years," he said.

Researchers attribute the sharp rise in the total number of registered deaths to the Aids pandemic.

They believe such a change in the death rate to be a better indicator of the spread of the

pandemic than absolute HIV figures, because the majority of deaths due to HIV are misclassified.

Motsoaledi said the worst-effected provinces were KwaZulu-Natal (where the HIV prevalence rate in 2008, measured among ante-natal women, was 38.7%), followed by Mpumalanga (35.5%) and Free State (32.9%).

The least-affected provinces were the Northern and Western Cape (16.2% and 16.1% respectively).

Asked to what extent "denials" by the previous administration and an "abdication of the fight against Aids" had led to the scale of the pandemic, Motsoaledi said the fact that it had

was obvious.

"On [the figures], it's shocking. As to whether it has been affected by what we did in the past 10 years, to me that's obvious...I don't think we'd have been here if we'd approached the

problem in a different way.

"It's a really obvious question. Yes, our attitude toward HIV/Aids put us here where we are," he said.

Motsoaledi cited the current relatively low incidence of Aids in the Western Cape as an example of how providing antiretrovirals to HIV positive people could reduce incidence of the disease.

"I have shown you figures of how the Western Cape reversed [the trend]. Infant mortality in the province dropped...within three years [between 2003 and 2006] because of extensive dual

[antiretroviral] therapy.

"So you can reverse it...if you develop good strategies."

The majority of the Aids deaths were among young people, particularly young women.

According to figures published in The Lancet medical journal, South Africa was carrying a huge part of the global Aids burden.

"We are 0.7% of the world population, but we are carrying 17% of its HIV/Aids burden... When you take the global average of HIV/Aids, the country is 23 times the global average," he said.

Other figures presented by Motsoaledi include a massive increase in the number of people dying from tuberculosis, the main cause of death of HIV-infected people.

A total of 22 071 people died of TB in 1997; in 2005, 73 903 people died of this disease, a 334.8% increase, and seven times the global average.

Further, a total of 57% of children who died during 2007, died as a result of HIV.

Life expectancy in South Africa was an estimated 13 years below what it would be without HIV, in 2006, 56 years for women, and 51 years for men.

Motsoaledi said strategic leadership was needed in the campaign to check the pandemic.

 

[MuscledHorse]

I defer to Parker & Stone's two excellent Starvin Marvin "South Park" episodes. I particularly like the second one where they show up this absurd notion among missionaries that converting everyone to Christianty will solve the actual problems like shortages of food.