Why is Africa in such a mess?

[Toyin Falola]

Why is Africa in such a mess?

http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/1071802/-/view/printVersion/-/156btsfz/-/index.html

By Harold Acemah 

Posted Tuesday, December 14 2010 at 00:00

In October 1993, I bought a little book titled, Tiny Roland: the ugly face of Neo-colonialism in Africa by an EIR Investigative Team. EIR stands for Executive Intelligence Review, based in Washington DC, USA.

The thesis of the book, which at that time I found outrageous, but which I am now more sympathetic to, was that Africa is on its deathbed, its people relentlessly mowed down by starvation and disease. Among the perpetrators of this holocaust are the International Monetary Fund, the former colonial powers, the transnational corporations and commodity cartels such as the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

On this list, one should add African leaders and the elite. Increasingly, I believe we, the elite of Africa, are the primary enemies of ordinary Africans. We, and especially our leaders, have let Africa down, very badly. Current events in Ivory Coast confirm the tragic role African leaders have and continue to play in the destruction of Africa. I fear Uganda is next.

According to EIR, one man above all the rest, bears special personal responsibility for turning the 1960s dreams of independence into a nightmare. His name is Roland Walter "Tiny" Roland, boss of a British Transnational Corporation, LONRHO. LONRHO is acronym for the London Rhodesia Company. For decades this shrewd fellow was the most powerful Western businessman in Africa. He had access to all African Heads of State and government as well as African freedom fighters, guerrillas and even bandits.

He would do business with African leaders, while funding guerrillas fighting the very leaders he was wining and dining with. He was a practitioner of the dictum: Never put all your eggs in one basket.

The introduction to the EIR book on Tiny Roland is prophetic. It begins with a short three-word sentence: "Africa is dying". It denounces Tiny Roland and asserts that "the list of African leaders and guerrilla leaders with whom Tiny Roland has had intimate financial dealings reads so much like a Who is Who of modern African history. It includes past and present leaders of Uganda and Kenya. Like all devious types, Tiny Roland had a tragic end and is no more.

Aside from the treacherous behaviour of African leaders, Sub-Saharan Africa is simply poorly led, by mediocres, conmen, frauds and drop-outs. Since the advent of independence in the 1960s, Africa has had far too many tyrants and gangsters as leaders, far too few statesmen, let alone merely competent office holders at political and bureaucratic level. Too often African leaders reject sound policy advice and refuse to take the long or broad view of their job.

For example, how can anybody justify and rationalise the sale of Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB), Apollo Hotel, Uganda Hotels and Uganda Electricity Board, to mention but a few, under the guise of liberalisation and privatisation. All these parastatals were making profit, but more important, they were owned by the people of Uganda. UCB was fondly and rightly called "The People's Bank". UEB was sold to ESKOM, a company owned by the government of South Africa. It defies logic and one does not need a PhD in Economics to see through the absurdity of the actions of African leaders.

The few African leaders who seem to be progressive at the beginning of their tenure of office soon revert to the familiar form of autocratic one-man rule. Some are literally insane and remind me of the Roman Emperor Caligula. Take the example, Master Sgt. Samuel Doe and Sgt Jean Bedel Bokassa. The former became a General and Life President of Liberia while Bokassa crowned himself Emperor of the Central African Republic. He was following the footsteps of his hero, Napoleon Bonaparte of France.

Today, another crazy young man called Yahya Jammeh who has terrorised tiny Gambia for years, now wants to be crowned "King of Gambia" and establish a dynastic rule in that ruined and impoverished strip of land which is too small as a runway for the airbus 380 Jumbo Jet. And the international community is just watching. For the enemies of Africa it confirms their worst fears and prejudices about Africans. During the 1960s many of these types used to patronisingly argue that Africans are barbarians and not yet ready for self-government, let alone independence.

When one looks at the map of Africa from Zimbabwe to Somalia to Eritrea and Gambia and in between, it is painful for me as pan-Africanist to nod my head and in silence admit that these enemies of Africa were perhaps partly right. We Africans are our own worst enemies. Let us stop blaming colonialism, the slave trade, imperialism, etc for our own self-made tragedy.

Our education has failed to remove the village mentality in most of our leaders. All we think and talk about is "eating" or "manger" in French. Some allege they have killed an animal and must be given eternity to feast on the carcass. With such mind-sets Africa may indeed sooner, rather than later, die. Yes, Africa is dying. Our primary challenge is to save Africa from imminent death and keep the hopes of our people alive.

Mr Achema is a political scientist, consultant and a retired ambassador based in Arua
hac...@gmail.com

-- 

Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222  (fax)
http://www.toyinfalola.com/
www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa
http://groups.google.com/group/yorubaaffairs
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue

[Chambi Chachage]

Here we go again! Using a couple of countries to conclude that a continent with about 50 countries and 1 billion people is "dying" - is in its "deathbed". The solution? To "save" it and "keep" the hope of "our" people alive as if they are pathetically hopeless and in need of 'saviours' called consultants! After all they live in villages and their leaders have a "village mentality" that needs to be urbanized, I guess. Afropessimism-cum-optimism!
 

---

From: Toyin Falola <toyin....@mail.utexas.edu>
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 14, 2010 5:00:28 PM
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

[kenneth harrow]

i would appreciate an astute political scientist making an evaluation of the united states taking the sentence below: "we, the elite of africa [the u.s.], are the primary enemies of ordinary africans [americans]" and "the tragic role African [congressional] leaders have and continue to play.... etc"
in a recent conference mamdani made the astute, if obvious, statement that it isn't individuals in africa who are different from those elsewhere. it isn't bad luck, bad elites, bad leaders, but rather the conditions that frame the creation of elites, leaders, politicians.
why not face it: there are systems of exchange and production that produce not just goods and wealth but conditions that account for social structures. those conditions today generate the possibility of enormous wealth for a small group, who try their best to hold on to and accumulate as much as possible, while the larger numbers go to hell.
which country am i talking about??? the US? Nigeria? Congo? Rwanda? Senegal? south africa? china? Guatemala? Morocco? ireland? russia?
name a continent that is not relatively described by the "mess" created by the international economic order?
do you think the conditions created by neoliberal global capitalism are not fundamentally responsible for the abominable social and economic imbalances??
it is time to STOP flagellating africa for the ills that follow the dynamics of an unjust economic order. stop talking about how rich the congo would be, only if...
so here is my fundamental disagreement with many on this list who call for better leaders. it isn't the people, it is the system within which they take power that needs to be rethought.  if we do that, we might then rewrite the headline to be, "Why does the IMF put africa into such a mess," or "why do we have a global economic order that results in misery for the majority?" or "Why do the poor continue to vote for those who strip them of the means of living?"
a tea party question indeed
ken

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Ken, unlike you, I have little sympathy for the notion that the the crevices of the machine of inequality called the global economy are too narrow for competent and selfless African leaders to maneuver in. Or that, given all that we know about the despicable ways of Africa's ruling elites, we can heap all the blame of Africa's political and economic stagnation on the seen and unseen hand of global capital. That tale is stale, tired, and of little comfort under today's circumstances. I would not want to put all my explanatory eggs in that one basket, valid as the global structural restrictions on African political initiatives may be. How does the tired tale of dependency theory and its mechanics alone explain the rampant, mindless corruption of the African political class, or their serial erosion of the democratic will and rights of citizens? Yes, several decades ago, that explanation cast a spell on African(ist) scholars because these were they heydays of foreign interference and the forgiven follies of postcolonial infancy. Now, it's explanatory value has diminished. The notion that African states and peoples are entrapped in some sinister, monstrous, global capitalist hegemony from which they cannot escape and which inevitably and consistently determines their economic and political fates is a little passe. That's too much determinism than I can stomach. It fails to account for the fact that, skewed as the global capitalist structure may be and as asymmetrical as the resulting relationships and structural connections may be, African states hold a few cards that they can play selflessly and cleverly to benefit their citizens and the fact that even within the constraints of the foundational economic structure in which they operate African leaders can and should privilege their quotidian governmental obligations to their own citizens. To be sure, I always make sure to remind my students who tend to gloss over these overarching realities of the global political economy and their constraints on the people and institutions of the South that these structural impediments are real and limit the political and economic wiggle room available to countries of the South. But I don't subscribe to the idea of a global neoliberal economic system in which African leaders or citizens cannot negotiate,  maneuver, or act in their self-interest, or in which localized political action and selfless political conduct is impossible. Where is African political agency in this picture? Where is accountability for Africa's vast army of rulers? I am sorry, but your position, once again, strikes me as the familiar alibis and easy excuses for African leadership failure. We're not talking about the ability of African leaders to wrought transformative change in their domain or to overturn their countries' fundamental relationship with the North's economic and political system. Obviously that would require giving much weight to what you're describing. We are talking about the need for leaders to keep faith with the mundane, basic obligations of leadership. Don't African citizens deserve these from their leaders? Are these very basic obligations of leadership unrealistic in the context of the global forces you describe?

You wrote:

"Why do the poor continue to vote for those who strip them of the means of living?"

Good question. However, I do not believe that it can be answered from a structural, ideological perspective alone. One of the abiding imperfections of Western liberal democracy is that it is an elite business in which flawed elite choices are presented to poor, voting citizens who then have to choose the person that they perceive to be the less bad of the two or more choices. I agree that the system, by its nature is rigged, ab initio, to throw up elite choices--people who for the most part possess no pro-poor experiential or ideological pedigree. But I disagree that this is necessarily a function of an omnipotent global capitalist hegemony. It is the nature of Western liberal democracy and its emphasis on representation, one-man-one vote, etc. The problem encapsulated in your question inheres in the nature of democracy itself. Choices are determined by elite consensuses and trade-offs. The system and its ritualistic elections require that poor people take a chance on one elite candidate over another, not knowing whether the candidate of their choice would not "strip them of the means of living" and sometimes knowing that they would. They have little choice in the matter. The poor can't control the processes by which the choices emerge. One of the reasons for this is their financial handicap vis-a-vis the rich, but it is not the only reason. It is sometimes a function of inherited status, education, ethnicity, etc. Besides, in these local political dynamics, the reach of global is only a partial, limited factor. In my opinion, it is not the be-all-and-end-all that explains all. The poor are presented with a highly constrained choice in the name of democracy and they have to choose someone. Democracy, not neoliberal economic hegemony, is the operative construct here. The alternative is to reject Western liberal democracy altogether, which is not feasible.

Anyway, my two cents so far.

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Gandhi

[kenneth harrow]

moses
let me respond briefly (it is late, i'm pretty tired) just to one crucial point:
i am not saying that african states/leaders lack agency--any more than other states. yes, the global order is marked by uneven distributions of power, but it isn't so much states that now control that order. there are larger, more encompassing economic instruments that dictate, that frame the context within which states, and leaders, can act.
that framing is not limited to africa: i am not addressing this as though african states generated inequalities of wealth in ways that differ from other states, like the u.s. and all the others i deliberately listed from other continents.
the dominant global economic order, it counts for something here. within its strictures there are those states and leaders who manage better their national affairs and economies--i totally agree with you on that. but they can manage it only within the confines of an order over which they, including obama and putin and sarkhozy, have little room to maneuver.
i do want to repeat mamdani's main point that it isn't some inherent feature of the people in one place or another that determines whether their actions will be good or bad. after all, if we were to measure the relatively benign actions of the german state today, well, you see where i am going.
we need an appropriate set of concepts to account for the framing of our societies that permit vast inequalities, and even brutalities, to be accepted by a population that doesn't seem to have adequate agency to frame a system that works in their general interest. our ways of explaining this in the past have not been satisfactory: a reform is not what we need; a better neoliberal capitalist order is not what we we need; a group of nice guys or gals running the show is not the answer. what are the fundamental sets of relations that we need to address?
for some a return to some notion of precolonial values is the answer.
not for me. nor do i believe in  reformed nation-state entities. maybe the best for the moment is an attempt to forge a balance of disparate interests, just the opposite of the consensus that would seem to demand a foregoing of interest. mouffe and laclau addressed this already, reasonably well.
it seems to me that the move toward totality--in the control over citizens, in the attempts to impose order and uniformity--represent the dominant tendency of our times, and its twin features of fear and repression control those disparate elements within society. bush may have manipulated 9/11 in overt ways that impose this totality. but the nanny state in england did not need 9/11 to put cctvs on all the buses, at all the intersections of the cities, indeed of people's lives.
the connection between the powerful states and the weaker ones is grounded in policies that ultimately result in distributions of wealth and power that disadvantage some and benefit others.
can african leaders vary in their response? only relatively.
we on the list keep addressing those relative responses, and limit ourselves in our perception of what accounts for the broader picture. but if you take it off the table we will be playing with the chips of a game that's already been biased in favor of a wealthy and powerful minority at the expense of the rest.
lastly, i agree with your desire to hold african leaders and elites accountable; why not? i want to hold victor bout accountable; nkunda accountable; bush accountable. the first is in jail; the second in a comfortable holding tank; the latter on his farm. the enormous number of people who died because of their acts doesn't mean that they will all be held accountable. but in the end, much as i want justice, i also want a politics that will move us forward so that tomorrow we aren't just plugging in new names. we need a new way to rethink the structures of our societies. mamdani had some nice metaphors for that. maybe we can twist his arm to provide a few of them for us to chew over.
ken

[Chikwendu Christian Ukaegbu]

Yes, makes sense to me. The global economy is not an "iron cage" from which African
leaders and followers cannot extricate themselves. To blame the global economy
implies that the African is devoid of agency i.e. no capacity to think and act
independently and courageously for the public good. Yet he/she has capacity to think
and act in self-interest. The postcolonial state may be more culpable than the
global economy. But even that still places doubts on the efficay of African agency.
Might it be that the postcolonial state is an iron cage? The continued
externalization of the African condition after 50 years of independence is
troubling. When will the child grow up?
Cu

> Ken, unlike you, I have little sympathy for the notion that the the crevices
> of the machine of inequality called the global economy are too narrow for
> competent and selfless African leaders to maneuver in. Or that, given all
> that we know about the despicable ways of Africa's ruling elites, we can
> heap all the blame of Africa's political and economic stagnation on the seen
> and unseen hand of global capital. That tale is stale, tired, and of little
> comfort under today's circumstances. I would not want to put all my
> explanatory eggs in that one basket, valid as the global structural
> restrictions on African political initiatives may be. How does the tired

> tale of dependency theory and its mechanics *alone *explain the rampant,

> *"Why do the poor continue to vote for those who strip them of the means of
> living?"*

>> *Why is Africa in such a mess?*
>> http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/1071802/-/view/pri

>> *Mr Achema is a political scientist, consultant and a retired ambassador
>> based in Arua*
>> *hac...@gmail.com* <hac...@gmail.com>

--
Chikwendu Christian Ukaegbu
Distinguished Senior Lecturer
Department of Sociology
Northwestern University
1810-1812 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60208

Phone: 847-467-0917

[OLADMEJI ABORISADE]

Please allow me to contribute to this debate on "Why is Africa in such a mess?.( Oladimeji Aborisade).
The answer can be summed up as " African Elites/Leaders at various levels are greedy, want to have all, lack of vision for the coming generation, and very ignorant of how to create a competitive environment. Is it possible to have an African leader like Kwame Nkrumah  who commanded one of Ministers to return a $3000.00 bed to England.
 What we have today are shameless Leaders like Hale Sellase of Ethiopia,Mobutu of Congo, Sanni Abacha of Nigeria, the Iboris of Nigeria.sadly, the Law makers in Nigeria are not helping this situation either.  What Next?. There must be a Revolution of Mind.
  Ghana has started to pump oil today, December 15, 2010,hopefully, the country will learn from the decline of Cocoa and use the Oil proceeds to build a nation.
Thank you,
Oladimeji Aborisade
University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
 

---

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:21:55 -0500
From: har...@msu.edu
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

[kenneth harrow]

my argument is that it isn't africa but all the countries in the world
that are experiencing the same effects of neoliberal economic policies.
africa is not the exception, it is the same story elsewhere. your
response wants to set the issue with africa facing an outside pressure.
there is no outside, it is a system in which africa and the rest of the
world are all enmeshed. maybe n korea excepted.
ken

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Ken, I fully understand your points and I agree with them to an extent, especially your argument regarding the visible and invisible intrusions of global capital in our lives. Yes, some of these intrusions are so subtle, invidious, and normative that we the victims now actually participate actively in the process of sustaining and further entrenching them. I understand all that, and I am very persistent in reminding my students and other interlocutors about these strictures and about how they partly account for postcolonial African dysfunction. I diverge from you only in the sense that you give too much deterministic and explanatory power to this organism called the global neoliberal order. Conversely, you don't accord Africans/Africa and other marginal peoples and zones the ability to determine their fates in local contexts where the reach of the global neoliberal behemoth is necessarily limited and where in fact the resilience of local actors often complicates and deflects the workings and effects of neoliberal policies and structures. Nor do you see marginal peoples wittingly and unwittingly shaping, constituting, and reconstituting this global economic order. Even without acknowledging it, the Chinese are now active players in the global neoliberal order. In fact they now shape its contours and the direction in which some of its advantages flow. They used to be peripheral spectators and marginal players in it. They found a hole and punched through. They found room to maneuver. Ditto India to a lesser extent.

 As a theoretical tool to understand the workings of the global economic order and its ability to manufacture inequalities and asymmetries around the world while reinforcing vertical relationships and the strictures of power and economic leverage, what you describe is powerful. But as an explanation for African leadership dysfunction, it is of questionable provenance. Like Mamdani, I don't agree with perspectives that pathologizes the African postcolonial predicament. Pathology explains little to nothing. That should be commonsensical among scholars and intellectuals.  I am always looking at Africa not in isolation from the world but in relation to it, so I am mindful of the perils of African exceptionalism and of the need to look at the global triumph of capital and its structural and individuated consequences. However, I disagree in equally vehement terms with perspectives that fetishize the global neoliberal hegemony and that by doing so release groups and persons in leadership positions from accountability and personal responsibility. I know that it is not an either-or proposition, but it is my view that for most peoples of the South and the North who are poor and dispossessed, the global neoliberal order is a more distant culprit in their predicament than are their proximate leaders and political actors.

We should advance and understand the structures that interpellate our peoples into certain ways of seeing and acting, but we should also clear an analytical space for choices and decisions made at the micro or local levels by leaders and elites and the consequences of these decisions. We can debate how or to what degree these choices are externally constrained but it does not exculpate the people who take these actions that end up brutalizing their own citizens.

[kenneth harrow]

moses
while i agree largely with your careful reasoning, there is one point where i stopped. see it below.
ok, you are a farmer: you are growing a crop that was introduced to your region during the colonial period. call it, oh, cotton. why not.
the u.s. subsidizes cotton, thus enabling it to undersell mali. even in the poorest and most dispossessed region, cotton is affected since the malians cannot put up protective tariffs thanks to the stupid neoliberal rules that govern the imf.  and just in case we forgot, european subsidies exceed, in percentage, u.s. subsidies, and both the eu and usa are excempt from imf rules against erecting tariffs.
you live, let us say, in e congo where tin is mined. tin goes out, guns go in, militias, uganda elites, rwandan generals, all get rich
 you live, where? in senegal where those trawlers have harvested all the damn fish in the ocean, driving thousands to take piroques north, endangering themselves and drowning, only to get to a xenophobic europe ready to lynch them en mass, especially in italy which is ruled by a rightwing maniac.
should i go on? where is that corner, moses, where this economic order does not matter??
please. i know the leadership works hand in glove with the corporations that buy the diamonds, with the gun runners that sell the armaments. i know the chinese stepped into s sudan oil fields when the westerners moved out. please, where is this remote untouched corner?
i know, it is in the sahara. wait, what is africom surveilling? why are they expending millions to expend rule over mauretania, why did the chinese build a superhighway in mauretania. oh, oil. need i go on.
the order that is decimating africa reaches from elite to elite, and the rest of us, trawled up by those inhumane monsters, are left to cheer on bono.
we have to recognize ALL these forces if we are to establish a coherent policy for change. i would very very willingly start with the bottom up that you evoke, the subalterns that reach in peculiar ways across countries. all countries, integrated now more than ever into mechanisms of exploitation of resources and labor.
ken

On 12/15/10 11:53 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:

it is my view that for most peoples of the South and the North who are poor and dispossessed, the global neoliberal order is a more distant culprit in their predicament than are their proximate leaders and political actors.

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
ph. 517 803 8839
har...@msu.edu

[Chika Onyeani]

www.africansuntimes.com

WHY GBAGBO NEEDS TO GO

By Chika Onyeani, posted Dec. 15, 2010

 

 

 

The Ivory Coast has become another hot spot of crisis in Africa due to another African megalomaniac trying to stay in power after an opponent won an election. 

Elections were held in Ivory Coast on the 28th of November, 2010, a run-off pitting then President Laurent Gbagbo against his opponent, former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara.  The run-off was necessitated by the fact that none of the three candidates who contested the elections in June of this year, won an outright vote, Gbagbo having won the first election with 38% of the vote, Ouattara having come second with 32%, and former President Henri Konan Bedie winning 25% of the vote.  For the run-off, Bedie threw his support behind Ouattara.  International elections observers descended on Ivory Coast to monitor the elections, including the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU), and the United Nations, which not only maintains troops there but had elections observers as well...

 

But really, the only effective solution is a recognition by Laurent Gbagbo that he lost the election decisively to Alassane Ouattara, and to consider the interests of his people, that he pretends to love.  Gbagbo has been in power for 10 years.  He is in the mold of African leaders like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya, who when they lose elections manipulate the international community in acquiescing into their continued stay in power-sharing coalition government.  Gbagbo has no doubt that he lost the presidential elections of Nov. 28, 2010 in Ivory Coast, but he is hoping that through his intransigence the international community, to eschew suffering of the people of Ivory Coast, would countenance a power-sharing government between him and Alassane Ouattara.  This should not happen.  Gbagbo knows he needs to go gracefully as he doesn’t need more bloodshed on his hands!!  (READ MORE)

 

 

Chika A. Onyeani
Publisher/Editor-in-Chief
African Sun Times: www.africansuntimes.com
Host: All Africa Radio: www.allafricaradio.com
Tel.: 973-675-9919
Fax: 973-675-5704
Cell: 917-279-4038

"It is not what you call me, but what I answer to, that matters most" - Capitalist Nigger: The Road to Success, Onyeani's internationally acclaimed No. 1 bestselling book.

Have you bought Onyeani's new blockbuster novel, The Broederbond Conspiracy, www.thebroederbondconspiracy.com? or www.theblackjamesbond.com, and adapted by the San Francisco State University to "teach students how to write a spy novel"

[Chambi Chachage]

Moses that is  the problem: The global neoliberal order being a more distant culprit to the dispossessed people of the South in our predicament than our proximate leaders and political actors. When an African leader signs a dubious mining contract with a transnational company in a hotel in London, on behalf of his government/country, what we see is a greedy individual rather than a dot in the neoliberal chain. The solution is to connect the dots.
 

------
My mission is to acquire, produce and disseminate knowledge on and about humanity as well as divinity, especially as it relates to Africa, in a constructive and liberating manner to people wherever they may be.
-------
Address: P. O. Box 4460 Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania

Cell : + 255 754771763/+ 255 718953273

Blog: http://udadisi.blogspot.com/
-------

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 2:10:10 AM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

--

[kwame zulu shabazz]

Peace All,

Kenneth, that is great sketch of economic domination by remote
control. I am African American. My African comrades and I go back and
forth on this frequently. Whereas I tend to favor structural
explanations, many of my African comrades tend to point to what is, in
their view, corrupt African leadership. As you rightly note, all
factors must be placed on the table. That said, brother Moses didn't
dismiss structure outright. He acknowledges that its a "culprit," but
a "more distant" culprit.

That brings up a related issue that I wanted to toss out. I think we
still have a poor grasp as to _how_ structural factors shape or
influence human action. Which is not exactly the same as understanding
how a given structure works or functions (your sketch, for example).
And because we don't fully understand how structure constricts and
induces action, we tend to conceptualize structure, spatially, as
"distant." Last, I wanted to note that structural arguments push
against our commonsensical ideas of self-actualizing autonomous human
beings--that are actions are fully voluntary and self-actuated. So-
called "free will" or what liberal academics call "agency." kzs

[Olabode Ibironke]

"I think we still have a poor grasp as to _how_ structural factors shape or
influence human action."

I cut my teeth in grad school on Foucault; this is his central issue, and
what I found appealing about his work: how the individual is constituted by
relations of forces, how institutions and structures constitute regimes of
discipline and normalization etc. Although theories more optimistic about
politics and human agency have challenged, and are aiming to displace, him
but I think that his mode of analysis is still quite important today.

Bode

Peace All,

--

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

At this point in time (so many years after independence) it makes some sense to argue that Africa is in the mess that it is in, by choice. Ethnicity, religion, and worn out cultural hold-ons remain burdens that buffet politics in Africa and undermine development. Africa's leaders exploit ethnicity and religion to cling to power and enrich themselves. They claim that colonialism is the cause of their countries' failures when the leaders of similarly colonized Asian countries have generally moved on and are successfully transforming their countries.
The Sudan is a case in point. Ethnicity and religion are the reasons for several avoidable wars in that country. The prediction is that the country is likely split into an Arab Muslim North and a Christian/animist South after her 2011 referendum in the South and that the South will leave the Union with most of the Union's crude petroleum deposits. Cote D' Ivoire is another example.
Why Africa is such a mess is a complex subject but there should be little question that Africa's leaders have not made the difference in he continent that they are well capable of.

oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kwame zulu shabazz [kwames...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:42 PM

To: USA Africa Dialogue Series

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

Peace All,

--

[Jaye Gaskia]

Dear All,

I quite agree with the conception of the significance of structure, and even
more so the significance of the utmost necessity to understand the role and
function of structure in contributing in a very real and decisive way to how
African leaders and elites think and act.

I think it is important to understand that African leaders and political elites
are neither fulls, dullards nor victims. They have within the context of global
organisation of the market consciously chosen [even if this choice is frameed
within certain constraints] the role and place they are playing and occupying
within the global political, economic and social systems. African leaders have
chosen to act in ways which best satisfies and fulfills there interests at
minimal personal and class cost. And although they have not managed because of
the structural constraints to develop ruling class national consensus, they do
have common class interests which they pursue and defend, and which binds them
more structurally to glbal capitalist and market interests than to their own
peoples and countries.

Besides because as one of the ways of responding to the structural constraints,
they have often promoted socalled primordial interests and enhanced primordial
cleavages in their countries, they have failed to lead the processes of
successful and sustainable nation building, hence the absence of ruling class
national consensus.

One more thing; the point about corruption. We need to situate corruption in its
proper context, and within its structural base. Corruption is an integral part
of the capitalist 'free market' political economy. It is on this basis of
corruption and state looting that great individual and private wealths have been
created throughout the history of capitalism.

And the more dependent, and therefore structurally constrained a ruling class,
the more massive and endemic corruption, or primitive capital accumulation
becomes the only and best way to accumulate wealth.

So Asian political elites who are as corrupt as their African counterparts,
invest the proceeds of their corruption in thier own national economies and
thereby consolidate a process of building foundations for capitalist growth.But
the African elite loot the state and invest in Europe and the Americas. This is
the essential difference between the two continental elites.

African political elites, malformed, have retained the essential psychology and
psychosis of a the peasant economy. The farm which is the place where
livelihhods is earned, is outside the village and it is the site to erect
temporary structures.

The village on the other hand is where the farmer lives, even though more time
is spent at the farm than in the village, and it is therefore the place where
permanent structures are erected.

For the modern African political elite, their countries, the states over which
they preside are the farms; Europe and americas on the other hand is home. Hence
they loot the state/make their living from the farm; and invest in Europe and
America, their home/village!

Regards to All,
Jaye Gaskia

 

Peace All,

--

[kenneth harrow]

kwame
here is another example of where it isn't simply leadership, or
individuals, but systems that drive the situation. consider russia: the
minute it passed from a state controlled economy to a free market there
was a rush to accumulate capital by any means, with horrible scenes of
impoverished pensioners, of gross billionaires, of unreal criminality
extending its benefits from the property on the riviera to the banks of
brooklyn. and then the undemocratic strong arm, the imprisonment of
opposition politicians, the mysterious assassination of journalists, the
human rights abuses, and on and on. sound familiar?
same people, same history, same same, but new face of russia
instantiated by unrestrained capitalism.
when i use the work socialism, it is not for nostalgia. or if it is, it
is nostalgia for a just social order, based on principles that oppose
everything the results in the above conditions. the free market is a
recipe for an oppressive society, and we need to work for something better.
ken

[kenneth harrow]

oa
what enabled the african leaders? what were the conditions that made
possible the scenario you describe?? it wasn't personality; nor was it
simply the barrel of the gun. you are seeing the visible manifestation
of a system whose workings are not so obviously visible. so go ahead
change your leaders. tried it before? why didn't it work?
what are we waiting for? god, or godot?
i wonder how many people read that article in the times about the
production of windmills in china. the chinese placed conditions on the
utilization of manufactured parts so that the spanish manufacturers had
to use chinese parts; the spanish had to show the chinese how to make
the parts, hundreds of them. the chinese then built factories to make
those parts, and now are producing enough windmills themselves to supply
half the world. the spanish manufacturer now has access to the enormous
chinese market, so they aren't complaining, but they got boxed in by the
chinese.
similarly when the s koreans allowed the manufacture of japanese cars in
s korea, with cheaper labor, it was conditioned on the transfer of
technology--something the mexicans have not done with their
maquilladoras, or with the refining of oil. like nigeria, they ship the
crude out, so the profits go to the refiners; transfer of technology is
something the nigerians didn't do with volkswagon production.
i am the first to admit i don't know a thing about economics--we have
specialists on this list in everything. but it seems naive to dream that
all that we need is a good leader to fix things when it is the things
that are "fixing" the leaders.
ken

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Structural catalysts and constraints are important, but I insist that in many local or localized struggles, these global structural realities are of little consequence. Look, guys, these African leaders are ahead of us: they are adept as using these structural realities as alibi for their incompetence and greed and for improving their personal economic and political fortunes at the expense of their citizens. In my opinion, it is therefore a little escapist to continue to chase after the distant unseen forces of the global capitalist order and to psuh fantastically for elusive and Utopian egalitarian ideals in the spirit of an anti-capitalist International while local actors in Africa and elsewhere wreak havoc on their citizens. Even more unacceptable is to pursue this revolution-on-a-world-scale ideal while looking beyond the evils of our proximate leaders who are clearly culpable for blaming every failure of theirs on the evil, menacing global capitalist hegemony even while colluding with the same hegemony to bilk and brutalize their citizens. And, Ken, please don't get us started on socialism. The track record is as depressing as that of "unrestrained capitalism." It's not really about ideology but the ABUSE of it. Socialism was abused by rapacious and incompetent rulers to entrench and manufacture misery and inequality and to engender political crisis and fissures in several African domains. Just as capitalism and its associated accumulative tendencies are being serially abused by African leaders today to spread misery and stoke crisis. So, you see, it still comes back to leadership and LOCAL institutions. We need a critical mass of leaders and elites who will resolve to do what is right and to govern or formulate policies selflessly. I agree that this would not magically cure all of our ills and that the fundamental global capitalist relations impose restrictions on what ultimately can be done. But there is ample room for maneuver and for self-interested, people-oriented action. It takes a good, selfless leadership to take advantage of these narrow interstices.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
 For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
 For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
 To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-       unsub...@googlegroups.com

[Olabode Ibironke]

Moses,

 

What if the question were posed in this fashion: is it in the DNA of these so-called LOCAL INSTITUTIONS to produce or enable the emergence of “good and selfless leadership”? I once wrote an open letter to Obasanjo, during his inauguration, about the need for restructuring the Nigerian federation. It occurred to me then as now that whatever reforms and changes a good and benevolent leader may enact during his or her term in office, if s/he leaves without effecting changes in the structures as such, we are in the real danger of reproducing a Babangida or an Abacha, whose condition of possibilities are precisely the vulnerabilities of the system that they become masters in exploiting.

 

Bode

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Bode, the structure (or restructuring) you're talking about is not the structure that Ken and Kwame are talking about. They are talking about the global capitalist system and its local tentacles a la dependency theory. My argument is not simply about local leadership; that's why I also talked about LOCAL institutions. The structure of the nation-state is an issue in many African states, Nigeria included. I have been arguing for restructuring and what is now fancifully known as true federalism since at least 1999 when I began to actively participate in the Nigerian cyber discursive space. But these are local, nations-specific issues that do not require the invocation of a supposedly universal, omnipotent determinant in the form of the global hegemony of capital. These are issues of colonial legacy, resource distribution, and political representation that need to be worked out on a country-by-country basis. Ken and I did cover the restructuring/devolution ground in the early stages of this discussion (or on the Gbagbo discussion) and both us us agree on the need for devolution and decentralization as a component of any serious project of political reclamation in Africa. I know that there are Nigerians who advance good leadership as a cure-all that would supplant and render moot the imperative of restructuring and devolution/decentralization. I am not one of them. Good leadership can aid redistribution and produce more egalitarian, pro-poor outcomes. This would be great. But for justice, equity, and even democracy to endure, decentralization is an imperative. I have written and published on this. I can post some of my previous articulations of this restructuring imperative if folks are interested. Anyway, just to let you know that you're preaching to the proverbial choir on this one.

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

"you are seeing the visible manifestation
of a system whose workings are not so obviously visible."

kh

Please identify the invisible "manifestation ... obviously visible".
The leaders of China and South Korea elect to stand up for and protect their countries' interests. The leaders of Mexico and Nigeria elect not to. Who you think, are the leaders of China and South Korea different than the leaders of Mexico and Nigeria in the definition and understanding of true service to their countries?
South Korea owes its continued independent existence for the most part, to the continuing military and other support of the United States of America (U.S.A.). Her leaders still refuse to be walked over by the governments of the U.S.A. These leaders continue to protect their country's interest in bilateral trade treaties with the U.S.A. They always negotiate the best terms of trade for their country, with the U.S.A. and get away with it. Chavez and Morales of Venezuela and Bolivia respectively are today, standing up for their countries successfully just as Mahathir Mohammed did for Malaysia. What do these leaders know or have that Africa's leaders do not? What might Africa's leaders be afraid off?
Some Africans' prompt readiness to blame invisible and unidentified//unidentifiable forces for Africa's problems in the 21st century, and so many years after independence, reminds one of some Africans' continuing belief that demons/evil spirits/angry dead ancestors, and not germs, cause human sickness and death. This helps to explain why African governments and some Africans, have not paid due and adequate attention to personal hygiene and lifestyles, and public health. Some Africans' belief that external agencies are sole or primary determinants and therefore solely or primarily culpable for Africa's underdevelopment is slowly morphing into the new superstition.
Madiba Mandela and Mahatma Ghandhi could nhave chosen to become honorary whitemen in apartheid South Africa and British India with the attendant privilages. They chose service to their oppressed people and prevailed.
I am still open to be persuaded that Africa's underdevelopment is not the choice of many of her leaders and in many cases the led.

oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [har...@msu.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:25 AM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

[Olabode Ibironke]

OK. Great! The purpose of my question was precisely an attempt to connect this discussion with the one you had on Gbagbo in order to demonstrate that the systemic issues that you enumerate below are sometimes connected to, manifestations, or equivalences of the general mechanisms that produce individuals and induce in them certain/similar characteristics regardless of locality. If in principle, you agree that the system of “COLONIAL LEGACY” in operation in Ivory Coast has made Gbagbo inevitable, would you then be willing to consider that that system, if not the vast majority of similar local structures that one may identify operate within similar dynamics, that is, within powerful structural and institutional constraints that are themselves enmeshed in what people from Immanuel Wallerstein to Timothy Brennan have described as the “inter-state system”, within the general history of coloniality or modernity?

[Femi Kolapo]

Does the quality of followership matter somewhere along the line - however we may define this followership?. For Nigeria, and for other post independence African countries, each corp of leaders that we have had has emerged from among the people, from the body of the followership. At what organic point are we correct in divorcing followership from the leadership in the matter of bad leadership?
can we justifiably ask why are African people are unsuccessful or unwilling or unable to hold their leaders accountable - never able to develop a broad united front across various divides to be the real king makers? Why are our leaders not constrained by conventions of community, if indeed everybody shares ownership of the community; why are they not restrained by shared moral or ethical values or shared interest in some form of development to refrain from stealing; to allow for free and fair elections, and to deploy their agency creatively against all sorts of debilitating structural constraints that may exist. 
We imply that leadership is or should always be morally right but it seems like an assumption that supposes good leadership to be an innate natural condition (perhaps in leaders of normal societies versus the abnomality of the injuriousness and mediocrity that our leaders have inflicted on us.) Might we not smell the problem of structural constraints here too on the part of the people (those being led): of the problem of the modern nation-state; of the structural contents and context of power and wealth sharing and whether or not these produce conviction and a sense of duty and entitlements in citizens such that they consistently and effectively organize and insist and enforce their demands for accountability and probity on their leaders. How independent of the followership are the leaders - at least in the post-colonial African context? Are we to suppose that the seeming helplessness of African peoples in the hands of their leaders continue a trend since the slave trade or even before?

------------------------

F. J. Kolapo,  

(Associate Professor of African History)
History Department *  University of Guelph * Guelph * Ontario * Canada* N1G 2W1
Phone:519/824.4120 ex.53212  Fax: 519.766.9516

----- Original Message -----
From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:41:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Bode, the idea that we can construct a linear chain of causality and determinism linking a nebulous "world system" to my village in one huge inescapable organism of capitalist exploitation and brutalization is ahistorical. It erases the lives, the actions, and the agency of a vast body of people in the Third World. It is also a tad too conspiratorial for me. That is my problem with the notion that "the inter-state-system" or "world system" explains every local political and economic struggle and dynamic in every African postcolonial state--that every crisis in the postcolony is traceable to past and ongoing intertwinements and integrations of Africa in(to) the global capitalist system. You talk about colonial legacy; what about problems of representation, culture, resource distribution? Besides, is colonial legacy one uniform universal reality? Does it not manifest differently in different countries? Do these issues not break down along different trajectories in different countries, shaped by local and localized realities? Some problems are MORE local than they are connected to the marauding monster of global capital. Others are not. That is why I have trouble tracing every political decision, choices, and personalities made and produced in Africa to the structural determinism of an all-consuming World system. There are clearly problems (institutional/bureaucratic, leadership, and structural) that are embedded in local concerns and require local and localized resolutions--structural or otherwise. Local actors (leaders and followers alike) can and should resolve them. Then there are problems of global political economy that should be understood and confronted not (only) in local and localized settings but in a global context. The global triumph of unrestrained capital (and its consequences) is the obvious one.

[Olabode Ibironke]

“the idea that we can construct a linear chain of causality and determinism linking a nebulous "world system" to my village in one huge inescapable organism of capitalist exploitation and brutalization is ahistorical.”

 

Your point is well taken and I respect the impulse to preserve some degree of autonomy for people in your village. I think this is necessary if local people are to be deemed to possess some human dignity,  after all, autonomy is a measure of humanism. However, the idea that you consider ahistorical is the very idea that Chinua Achebe ascribes to the historical situation of his childhood in Home and Exile. He talks about the depth of imperial and global penetration of his village in the chapter “My Home under Imperial Fire”. So, different people see this same historical process differently and there is validity to both arguments in my opinion. For example, how could one not agree with your statement that “Some problems are MORE local than they are connected to the marauding monster of global capital. Others are not.” The essayist Adebayo Williams once wrote that what we mean by conspiracy theory may well be that the activities of the rich industrial nations are having unintended consequences one everyone else. By this he tried to redefine conspiracy not as a strategic plan hatched out in suite 2010, Broadway, NY. But with Cheney paying fines for inducing Nigerian officials with bribes, with Shell infiltrating every arm of the Nigerian government with its employees as the Wikileaks cables show, why should we not talk about real and deliberate conspiracy. This is where I disagree with Kolapo. The leaders are from the people but once in power, chased by Cheney dollars and mingling with the great white sharks of this world, the most deadly of the sharks, they are no longer part of the people. However, one begins to wonder though whether the people have not been historically and culturally conditioned to respond with tolerance to the abuses and excesses of their leaders.

[kenneth harrow]

dear ogugua
the countries you cite as "standing up to the U.S." have more clout; and
frankly i believe it a huge mistake to use the USA as a metonymy for
world power. i do believe US hegemony is vastly reduced, that the EU and
China are major powerhouses, and their interests also trump those of
africa and other parts of the world, whenever possible. like caribbean
bananas, for instance, meeting tariffs in europe, and the europeans
paying more subsidies for ag than the u.s. and somehow getting a by.
i once was on a flight with an african consultant (sounds important,
hey?), and i was griping about the imf and world bank screwing africa.
he said, yeah, yeah, but there are some countries in africa that do much
better, within the same constraints. i believe he mentioned mali, ghana,
and tanzania (not 100% sure). and those doing worse? he mentioned
guinea, his own country; and i think in the mix obviously was guinea
bissau, and probably gambia.
so i am partially conceding your point, with no rancor.
i would request for precision's sake that we stop using "africa" as the
global term that encompasses all countries. clearly shell's impact on
nigeria is vastly different from that of other multinationals on other
countries, others which are not so dependent on one resource alone, or
who, like senegal, have peanuts and not a whole lot more.
truly, i regarded all those congratulations to ghana for its oil as
enormously short sighted: the record from angola to nigeria to iraq or
saudi arabia is not a pretty one for any kind of national progressive
economic development or progressive politics. but we can hope that ghana
will be the light, will escape the horrors of the niger delta and
demonstrate just distribution of wealth and intelligent use of
resources. if they do we will have to ask what kind of magic made that
possible. right now i am skeptical that it will depend on the
individuals in power.
on that note, her is a brief account from yesterday's times that
reinforces my notion of the relationship between international economic
currents and local impacts: in
mugabe's wife is sueing The Standard, a weekly independent newspaper.
why? "For reporting on the State Dept cable obtained by wikileaks. the
cable quoted a mining executive implicating her and the head of the
Reserve Bank, gideon gono, in illegally profiting from the sale of
diamonds mined in eastern zimbabwe. through her lawyer, she called the
report false and demanded damages of $15 million, The Herald, a
newspaper controlled by ms. mugabe, reported yesterday."
!!
(remember how zimbabwe got those mines? for shoring up kabila in the war
of 1998, the war that cost the drc 5.4 million lives)
ken

[kwame zulu shabazz]

Brother Bode, Foucault is fine but impenetrable for most folks, including me. Personally, I don't think we need Foucault to understand this dynamic. For example every African--or at least Africans who have not fully abandoned indigenous systems--knows that "agency" cannot be reduced to individual free will, that the Gods and the Ancestors can "structure" human action, that social obligation act as a brake on unbridled selfishness, that the social good is aimed at striking a balance between the mundane world of human existence at the non-material world of extra-human forces. kzs  

[kwame zulu shabazz]

Peace OA--African nations of been "independent" from roughly two generations. How does that work out to "many years"? Moreover, we have inherited borders and political systems that were mostly imposed. 

Re: Sudan--There is a lot more going on there than bad leadership. The Sudanese are divided by foreign religions. But they are also 

• fighting over increasingly scarce resources, particularly in Darfur (arable land). 
  
• The north-south skirmishes are being pushed along by Islamicists in Khartoum, by 
  
• nationalists in Khartoum who believe that securing oil and other natural resources by any means necessary from southern Sudan is in the national interests 
  
• Zionist who want to undermine Islamic regimes 
  
• old and new imperialists (e.g. US and China)
  
• undisciplined rebel factions. 
  

Re: Asia--Yes, Singapore, Japan, South Korea would appear to be far ahead of many African nations. Most of these nations have not abandoned their Gods and Ancestors, although Mau certainly tried to banish them China. Also these nations was not forced to deal with imposed languages and borders. This is especially daunting in Africa given the stunning level of cultural diversity. 

Chinese elites still speak Mandarin and Cantonese. African elites often prefer English or French or Portuguese. Not only that but China's path towards "development" is wrecking havoc on the environment. And the level of poverty in some parts of India would embarrass many Africans. 

My sense of things is that we Africans have been colonized psychologically in ways that Asian nations were not. This is what Biko was attempting to address. 

Last and most importantly, I think the slave trades--transatlantic, saharan, red sea, indian ocean--have undermined African development profoundly. kzs

[kwame zulu shabazz]

Peace Ken--Agreed. And bringing your point "home" unbridled capitalism has made Russia a inhospitable place for Africans. Comradeship (however imperfect) has been replaced with frightening levels of racial hate. kzs

[kwame zulu shabazz]

Peace Ochonu--Basically you have built a bad model and then complained about the fact that model cant possible work. The "chain" is not linear. In fact chain strikes me as a bad metaphor. And causality is not the same as constraint. Positing that structures can constrain or influence human action--that for example, unemployment leads to an increase in certain sorts of crime--is not the same as saying that humans don't have agency. I would agree that some versions of "World System" are too deterministic but I don't think we can deny the fact that we live in a World System. The US govt. spends trillions of dollars per annum bending the "system" to the aims and objectives of white American elites--we call it the military industrial complex--it is as much propagandistic as it is militaristic. That is no conspiracy. It is well documented. 

Are (most) African leaders/elites selfish? Absolutely. However, that is a character trait of most leaders/elites. But if we crunch the numbers Africa's wealth is not in the hands of African elites. Rather, it is flowing West and East. If you lopped off every African leader tomorrow you will still have to deal with the "flow." That would basically be World War 3 because the hyper-developed western world will kill Africans for their resources if necessary (cf. Patrice Lumumba). Last, people can and do resist the "system" but you first have to acknowledge its presence and its influence. kzs

[chik...@gmail.com]

Dear Ken,

The last of your message is a bit confusing to those who might be
unfamiliar with the story you refer to. Just how did Zimbabwe 'get
those mines?' And what had the war in the DRC got to do with
Zimbabwean diamonds?

To set the record straight, the diamonds in question - in the
newspaper report you cite - are mined in an area called Marange in
the eastern region of Manicaland WITHIN Zimbabwe itself. The diamond
deposits were discovered a few years ago and there has been quarrels
about who 'owns' them with some foreign -British - companies arguing
that they own the land on which the deposits were found. As a
Zimbabwean, I am not excited about the possible abuse of this national
resource but please let's not confuse matters just to bash Mugabe or
his associates.

Murenga J. Chikowero

--
Joseph Chikowero
PhD Candidate
Department of African Languages and Literature/Ebrahim Hussein Fellow
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Home: 608 294 5803
Cell: 608 609 1224
Skype: joza.chikowero

There is more to life than increasing its speed.- Mahatma Gandhi

[kenneth harrow]

hi murenga
sorry i wasn't clear. sometimes i think everyone knows this story, but
in fact it is folks who have followed the whole sad story of the drc who
could tell you. this is not secret insider dope either, but public
record. when kabila booted out the rwandans, after they put him in power
in 96, the rwandans figured they put him in, they could put him out, so
they invaded again. i think it was 98. anyway, they marched across the
continent and practically besieged kinshasa. you might remember this was
called africa's world war since so many many surrounding states
participated. uganda and rwanda, and a bit of burundian forces, joined
by those in the drc seeking to unseat kabila; opposed by those kabila
was able to rally to his cause, most notably angola in the west, and
zimbabwe, chad and others in the east and north.
how did he pay off all those forces, having few resources himself? he
granted mining concessions to, among others, zimbabwe. this is not the
mines you are referring to , but mines in the south, i believe in
katanga. they were managed (exploited) by zimbabwean generals. and i
guess ms. mugabe had her hand in it (proxy no doubt for hubby).
those zimbabwean owners are still there, as far as i know. still getting
paid off, still exploiting the diamonds, making millions and millions.
they aren't alone: ugandans in the north, rwandans in n kivu, s kivu;
the rape of drc minerals is a general feasting, ugly in every dimension.
you don't want to know about the conditions of many of the mines; nor of
the guns trade that sustains it. nor of the conflict it continues to
feed; nor of the unbelievably high death rates, the pitifully low
incomes of congolese, the unreal rates of rape, the brutality suffered
by the women, and on and on.
i suggest you read hrw and amnesty reports if you want all the ugly
details. zimbabwe is just one ugly piece. a particularly ugly one
considering who is profiting from this.
when i alluded to these mines, it was in reference to ogugua's evocation
of the local.
i agree not all of africa, not all of the drc, is touched by these
forces that drive the minerals and guns trade. not everyone in texas
works for oil companies. but i heard 20% of the congolese economy is
generated by mines in the east; and we are talking of billions of
dollars of trade. it is only one of the more striking examples of what
globalization/neoliberalism has brought to the region.
ken

[eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu]

Is Africa in a mess?

This discussion has gone on for quite sometime and like so much of such discussions about Africa it threatens to reduce to the listing of Africa as incapacitated and bounded by nothing but constraints. But this discussion also provokes several questions.
In what sense is Africa in a mess? Which Africa? All 54 countries? Some Countries? Are African countries actually where they where 40-50 years ago?
What is actually on the ground that was not there 50 years? What is actually missing in terms of Africa's capacity for self-propulsion?

2. It is true that in one way or another there has always being a world system much as there is national, regional, state, provincial, town, village, neighborhood and family systems. People and societies operate within and without the bounds of these systems.

3.Historically development has always been about consciousness, vision, goals, organization, opportunities, constraints and choice.

4. There is no question that any power that emerges, past and present will try to organize the world to its advantage just as China and India are trying to do today. The same will apply to any serious African country that emerges as a global power. In short, it has always been the practice and business of old and emergent powers to organize the world to their benefit. There is nothing new about this. What is perhaps new is that the present world system due to the advances in transport and telecommunication technologies is much tighter.

5. But this does not make the world or global system a prison-house.

6. Leaders and peoples even in Africa are quite capable of achieving breakthroughs as effective economic and social actors and makers of the system to the extent that they are driven by a a fairly clear understanding of the global system, a consciouness of its potential and actual constraints on them, and are willing to mobilize and deploy national psychological resources to the project of self-transformation.

7. It is true that Africa has experienced the loss of its autochtonous spiritual, religious, linguistic anchors as the animating motive force of its self-direction; but his loss is not total and at that this stage the lamentation of this loss is neither here nor there.

8. The point is, what will Africa as a unit and its countries do to participate in this world system as effective self-directed societies that relentelessly pursue national and continental objectives with little regard to the the constraints of the present global system. Or how can the continent or more correctly its key and potential vanguard countries organize to become makers of the global system.

9. Finally, however much we debate "Africa" from the distant or even from within, if the terms of our perception and description are derived from the defective conceptual simplifications of the world system; and not from the ideological and political and practical complexity of "actually existing Africa" much of what we say and debate will be side-tracked by the outcome of "actual African history in the making" that is not reducible to the familiar lazy constructions of Africa in terms of "corruption", "poverty" and "incapacity".

Ehiedu Iweriebor

[kwame zulu shabazz]

Peace Ehiedu--Those are all great points. I want to pick up #9. You said:

9. Finally, however much we debate "Africa" from the distant or even from within, if the terms of our perception and description are derived from the defective conceptual simplifications of the world system; and not from the ideological and political and practical complexity of "actually existing Africa" much of what we say and debate will be side-tracked by the outcome of "actual African history in the making" that is not reducible to the familiar lazy constructions of Africa in terms of "corruption", "poverty" and "incapacity".

I agree that "corruption", "poverty" and "incapacity" are conceptually "lazy." And, as I noted in my previous post, some versions of the "World System" are simplistic--virtually all of them are Eurocentric. But that needn't be the case. Africans did not need Marx or Eric Wolf to inform them that we live in global system. Marcus Garvey figured that out in the 1920s. Chief Alfred Sam had figured it out a decade or so before Garvey. He traveled, c. 1915, from what was then Gold Coast (now Ghana) to the USA, purchased a ship, and set sail with about 40 or so black North Americans, destination Salt Pond, Central Region, Ghana.. And roughly a century before them (1829) one David Walker, a black abolitionist in Boston, addressed his polemical Appeal to the "coloured citizens of the world." And well before any of them Ivan Van Sertima informed us that Africans from the Mali empire arrived in the so-called New World before Columbus, c. 13 th century (i think). Columbus himself affirms this in his diary or at least passes on the rumor as told to him. I think these examples clearly meet your criteria of "actual African history in the making." kzs

[ogb...@yahoo.com]

Dear All.
While agree with Ken and all the other systemists/structuralists, and yes let ibe said, marxists who have contributed to the discourse on this issue, I think we are missing the point.
The point being made about the deterministic character, in the final analysis, of dtructures and systems, is precisely that 'a mere change of leaders will not redress and address the problem. We need leaders who are parts of movements, and movements who set the conscious goal of overturning the structure and transforming the system'.
In plain speak we need revolutionary leaders at the head of transformative revolutionary movements and processes!
We can look to Latin Amerixa in recent times for examples of such movements, imperfect as they may be or seem.
Essential when we discourse african leaders and the failure of governance, what is at stake is in reality the qustion of power, and the question of the class chatacter of that power!
Warm regards,
Jaye Gaskia
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

> still have a poor grasp as to_how_ structural factors shape or

[Olabode Ibironke]

I agree with Kwame and Jaye totally. I differ with Ehiedu only in a few
places:

1. "much of what we say and debate will be side-tracked by the outcome of
'actual African history in the making'" This presupposes that the reality of
which he speaks has a logic of its own separate from the "familiar lazy

constructions of Africa in terms of 'corruption', 'poverty' and

'incapacity'". I prefer to think about this in terms of how historical
reality and discourses reproduce one another in a mobile exchange. Certain
discursive constructions create and perpetuate certain realities.

2. systems are not essentially negative and restrictive, they enable,
empower and sustain. So, when we talk about global, I prefer the term
"general", systemic determinations, we are not simply talking about
constraints.

3. it is indeed true that the global system is a prison house for many. We
must see ourselves jail breaking when we seek fundamental transformations of
the system.

The overall point is that AFRICA IS NOT AN EXCEPTION. I believe that Ken
Harrow was preempting the question that usually follows "why is Africa in
such a mess?" It very often leads to a criticism of leadership, which is a
mask for questioning the inherent humanity of Africans based on a
characteristic existential situation. He is asking us via Mamdani to look
beyond Africa to see similar mechanisms re/produce the exact same situation
time and again. Once we understand those general mechanisms or apparatuses,
we can set at a purposeful and meaningful program of reconstruction.

Bode

-----Original Message-----
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:15 AM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Ehiedu Iweriebor

--

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

The evidence of history, and human development and progress is clear leaders construct nations and making them great. There is no informed person anywhere that disputes the past and continuing terrible exploitation of Africa through slavery, colonialism, and neocolonialism. This is a settled subject for the most part.
The concern now should be about what needs to be done to extricate Africa from the steel clutches of exploiter-countries and the tangled webs of underdevelopment that her leaders seem not to be worried about. It is even not clear that African leaders are not helping to spin the webs.What is oftentimes forgotten is that the countries that are believed to exploit Africa continue to produce leaders that maintain the status quo in favor of the countries at the same time that African countries seem to be unable to produce leaders that will challenge and end the said cycle of exploitation.
Right before our eyes and under our noses, China, India, and South Korea and joining the ranks of Africa's exploiter-countries. Where are Africa's leaders? Do they know that this is happen right now? History can be real but this is no reason for history to successfully continue to hold a perpetual mortgage on the present and the past. It seems to me that the case being made sometimes, is that the past's holding of the present and the future hostages is inevitable and unstoppable. History is little use if its lessons are ignored or not learned.

oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kwame zulu shabazz [kwames...@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:41 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

Peace OA--African nations of been "independent" from roughly two generations. How does that work out to "many years"? Moreover, we have inherited borders and political systems that were mostly imposed.

Re: Sudan--There is a lot more going on there than bad leadership. The Sudanese are divided by foreign religions. But they are also

* fighting over increasingly scarce resources, particularly in Darfur (arable land).
* The north-south skirmishes are being pushed along by Islamicists in Khartoum, by
* nationalists in Khartoum who believe that securing oil and other natural resources by any means necessary from southern Sudan is in the national interests
* Zionist who want to undermine Islamic regimes
* old and new imperialists (e.g. US and China)
* undisciplined rebel factions.

Re: Asia--Yes, Singapore, Japan, South Korea would appear to be far ahead of many African nations. Most of these nations have not abandoned their Gods and Ancestors, although Mau certainly tried to banish them China. Also these nations was not forced to deal with imposed languages and borders. This is especially daunting in Africa given the stunning level of cultural diversity.

Chinese elites still speak Mandarin and Cantonese. African elites often prefer English or French or Portuguese. Not only that but China's path towards "development" is wrecking havoc on the environment. And the level of poverty in some parts of India would embarrass many Africans.

My sense of things is that we Africans have been colonized psychologically in ways that Asian nations were not. This is what Biko was attempting to address.

Last and most importantly, I think the slave trades--transatlantic, saharan, red sea, indian ocean--have undermined African development profoundly. kzs

[kenneth harrow]

well, i can't help chiming in that i strongly disagree. 1.there is no
such thing as "the evidence of history," there is only the archive, and
i suggest you read up on your derrida before positing the archive as a
source for unqualified truth. 2.leaders don't construct nations; if
anything, it is the other way around, or maybe i should cite hegel who
states that leaders are the embodiment of the world spirit. for all the
antagonism toward hegel, for his vile comments on africa, it is ironic
that "leaders construct nation" should be advanced here. it was hegel
who saw in napolean the embodiment of the world spirit.
better we turn to marx who would have said it was human interest that
led to classes, classes interest, and leader/governments as the
instruments of the ruling class.
but even that is too programmatic.
ogugua: please tell me, where do you think leaders come from? aren't
they really "leaders"?

ken

--

[Pius Adesanmi]

Ken, Moses, Bode, Femi, Ehiedu: Look at this picture of Lamidi Adedibu distributing cash to followers, 'citizens', and party faithfuls just before an election in 2007: Adedibu Why should the people waiting for that cash listen to us and our high-wire disourses and not the gestural "discourse" of Adedibu? How do we reconcile the Africa of our discourses with the Africa known and lived on entirely different wavelengths by Lamidi Adedibu's audience? I am just trying to water down the rarefied trajectory of this thread... Will Africa's "mess" or problems be half solved the day the folks in this photo can relate to how we narrate them? Pius --- On Sun, 19/12/10, Olabode Ibironke <ibir...@msu.edu> wrote:

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

The evidence of history, human development, and progress is clear. Leaders build nations and make them great or not great. There is no informed person anywhere who would in good conscience, dispute the past and continuing terrible exploitation of Africa through slavery, colonialism, and neocolonialism. This is a settled subject for the most part.
The concern now should be about what needs to be done to extricate Africa from the steel clutches of exploiter-countries, and the tangled webs of underdevelopment that her leaders seem not to be worried about. It is even not clear that African leaders are not helping to spin the webs. What is oftentimes forgotten is that the countries that are believed to have and continue to exploit Africa are always able to produce leaders that maintain the status quo in favor of the countries at the same time that African countries seem to be unable to produce leaders that will challenge and end the said cycle of exploitation.
Right before our eyes and under our noses, China, India, and South Korea have joined the ranks of Africa's exploiter-countries. Where are Africa's leaders? Do they know that this is happening right now? Do they choose to benefit from the said exploitation in the advancement of their self interests at the expense of group interest?
History can be real but this is no reason to allow history to successfully continue to take a perpetual mortgage on the present and the past. It seems to me that the case being made sometimes, is that the past, holding the present and the future hostage, is inevitable and unstoppable. History is a great teacher. It is little use however if its lessons are ignored or not/never learned.

oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kwame zulu shabazz [kwames...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:41 PM

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

Peace OA--African nations of been "independent" from roughly two generations. How does that work out to "many years"? Moreover, we have inherited borders and political systems that were mostly imposed.

Re: Sudan--There is a lot more going on there than bad leadership. The Sudanese are divided by foreign religions. But they are also

* fighting over increasingly scarce resources, particularly in Darfur (arable land).
* The north-south skirmishes are being pushed along by Islamicists in Khartoum, by
* nationalists in Khartoum who believe that securing oil and other natural resources by any means necessary from southern Sudan is in the national interests
* Zionist who want to undermine Islamic regimes
* old and new imperialists (e.g. US and China)
* undisciplined rebel factions.

Re: Asia--Yes, Singapore, Japan, South Korea would appear to be far ahead of many African nations. Most of these nations have not abandoned their Gods and Ancestors, although Mau certainly tried to banish them China. Also these nations was not forced to deal with imposed languages and borders. This is especially daunting in Africa given the stunning level of cultural diversity.

Chinese elites still speak Mandarin and Cantonese. African elites often prefer English or French or Portuguese. Not only that but China's path towards "development" is wrecking havoc on the environment. And the level of poverty in some parts of India would embarrass many Africans.

My sense of things is that we Africans have been colonized psychologically in ways that Asian nations were not. This is what Biko was attempting to address.

Last and most importantly, I think the slave trades--transatlantic, saharan, red sea, indian ocean--have undermined African development profoundly. kzs

[eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu]

Thanks Shabazz.
Yes your analyis meets my criteria partly.
I should reinforce your point about these great African thinkers who already saw a world system from a pan-African view point. This is a deep and long standing aspiration of all liberated African thinkers to ensure that a powerful, self-directed Africa emerges that is part of the routine workings of any global system.

2. The challenge of to the present generation of liberated Africans globally is not merely to affirm the imperialist view or imply that the present global system is an inescapable prison house. Rather it is to use the resources of our era: intellectual, technological ideological etc to contribute to ensuring that a powerful Africa emerges that makes history and is not an object of and reactor to the doings of others. For as Frantz Fanon eloquently stated in, The Wretched of the Earth, "Each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it.."

3. A related challenge is how to formulate new conceptual frameworks with which to view our on-going experiences, not as abberations but as part of the complexity of a re-emergent people, involved not in a unilinear journey but in a dialectical, untidy and complex historical journey being enacted in multiple sites and at different levels in the African world by Africans exercising their agency and not engaged in sterile debates about whether or not Africans have agency.

4. Existing frameworks whether from Marx, Derrida, Foucoult, IMF, World Bank and even the UN are not very useful to true self-understanding. In fact they are distortive distractions to self-understanding as well as sites for grand standing of who knows best and not about seeking concrete, doable solutions to the challenges of the present.

5. The easiest thing to do is criticism, deconstruction and destruction and the reiteration of established banalites.

6.What present day Africa needs is careful thinking, bold visions, and autonomous strategies for Africa's take off and renaissance in the 21st century as a powerful, materially prosperous and self-respecting and respected member of the global community. This is a summary of the philosophy of liberated development outlined in first chapter of my book, Nigerian Technology Development Since Independence (2004).

[kenneth harrow]

dear pius
a shocking image indeed.
on the other hand...
i live in a district in which our representative uses things like roads extending from the highway to campus as "cash" for the voters. and there is plenty of that everywhere.
what have our congresspersons, senators, brought to our states? who doesn't know some of this?
what tax break has my president just given me? oh, 2% of my income from social security. hmmm; i should vote for him.

and at the same time, why should i, or any of us, listen to those foreigners who cluck their tongues at us?

who is the "us" anyway? i see the picture of the lamidi right in front of my eyes. i respond to an unknown, but large number of readers on this list, each of whom has an opinion, a "vote" in the global elections.
and the local event has now taken hold of thousands of us, literally.
influences peddled locally get moved onto international networks instaneously, and, lo and behold a wikileak shakes up the lamidi and his followers. or don't you think they see us looking at them? are we the only ones to own computers?
i don't know how things get changed, but i am pretty certain that our little narration of this story has leaked out, that it cannot be contained to your and my screen.
so, who is the "us" here?
ken

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
har...@msu.edu

[Tony Agbali]

Pius, Now you are talking. More than all the trojan discourses here, you have hit the nail on the head. The kind of outrages that Ikhide calls for, and whose death he mourns, possess no meaning for this kind of Adedibu-money-receivers. With all our diplomas, turenci, and suffer head, just some machete, or one hot lead will do one's solution. Dirges after dirges, the deed is done, and only one's families are left to lick their sorrows!   Now, that is the big big problem. Tall talk, saharareport drumming have no relevance for thugs, and talk of mess does not mean a thing. Therefore, rethinking all those narratives of fluency, decency, does not sink in a place where they prefer life in the "potopoto" madness, even enjoying the muddy bath.  Look at the way the Nigerian politick-grammar  dey go today. Even the GEJ man, see the kind bundle of contradiction he is daily becoming. Even John Kerry flipflop is now a child play to GEJ's.   Now, imagine trying the Swift-Boating nonsense in Bodija in 2007 and you would see the real life and real time streaming of the Onslaught actors of the Lamidi A's group!  It is not only talking about Africa in a mess, the whole thing is messy!   There is no use talking clean English to a madman!  For the despot class, mess can also means mercy at the hand of "Kill and Go" MOPOLs. --- On Sun, 12/19/10, Pius Adesanmi <piusad...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Femi Kolapo]

Pius:
 

Not/unfortunately, by our training, this is our default mode – to do analysis, using these concepts and terms and models. But they are necessary and every society has its thinkers and talkers. The problem I think is that, right now the thinkers and talkers, i.e., the us group [among the three categories that you identified], the people, and the executing group (leaders) are not organically linked in political or cultural communities that they are all equally committed to building together.

 

At any rate the image you attached to your post tells me a couple of things, viz: Poor people (possibly also poorly educated) are much more concerned with pressing needs; with the immediacy of their poverty, and with survival than with developmentally relevant platforms, creditable political party candidates, or with big concepts of agency and structure, though these concepts are abstractions of realities that affect the possibilities and choices of their lives and actions.

The Adedibus, on the other hand, are more concerned with acquiring political power, retaining it, and peddling it for its (and their) own sake and as an instrument to develop their individual pockets.

As for the us group, it seems to know what the problem is and the likely solution; they know what is agency and what is structure and how China and Taiwan broke through the ranks of the poor into the league of the powerful. But as you aptly asked – how come the Adedibus and the people do not listen to the us or perhaps, how come the us group has been ineffective or unable to engage either group to change their perceptions and convictions.

 

 Who is responsible for creating that needed bridge and what is the nature of the bridge that can align the three groups around the same broad true interest that will produce national development – rather than individual enrichment?

 

And this brings me back to the question I asked in my last post – whether we should not now stop focusing our analysis only on the bad leadership side of the equation and rather include a serious look at the followership and its quality. Now, effective followership by the poor masses demands that they too be led by some sort of enlightened self interested middle class group. If this latter group is physically or technically absent or where they are unable to deploy their agency effectively to redirect the people away from following the Adedibus, or persuade the Adedibus that national development would serve their personal development better, we may indeed have to wait for ever for the magical hands of “history” or the unlikely ones of external intervention to right things for us. 

A good and effective followership should be able to compel  goodness and effectiveness in its leadership. 

------------------------

F. J. Kolapo,  

(Associate Professor of African History)
History Department *  University of Guelph * Guelph * Ontario * Canada* N1G 2W1
Phone:519/824.4120 ex.53212  Fax: 519.766.9516

----- Original Message -----

[Elias Bongmba]

Dear Ken,

This is vintage Pius! always brings a good punch (for lack of a better
word or idea). Brief remarks! Many of us have followed these
conversations from the sideline. Without being reductionist, here is
what I have picked up. Some participants in the conversation see African
issues from a historical perspective and emphasize the injustices
perpetrated on Africans. One cannot deny that. Others emphasize systems
that have been harnessed to keep Africa in crisis, hence the criticism
of neo liberalism (which I must say as an aside without developing it
fully that I am often amazed at what academics who thrive in
universities that depend or are funded by money and an economy "grown"
in a neo liberal economic system. but that is a different concern which
I cannot address here).

The other perspective see resemblances to what is happening in Africa to
what goes on in the West and in the United States of America. I think
this perspective reminds us that capitalism thrives on greed and "taking
care of one's business" because no one will do it for you. It also
reminds us that political corruption is an equal opportunity employer,
hence the many corrupt politicians we have in the US that are sometimes
tried and convicted. Many of them are often caught through an FBI sting
operation-an interesting concept in jurisprudence. However, the
comparison in these conversations seem to ignore a strong caveat here.
"Taking care of business" in the American context many times involves
lengthy legislative debates about and on appropriations; a process which
draws inspiration from what Tip O'neal once said: "all politics is
local." When that dictum is writ large on the global state, it goes by
the doctrine of "our national security interest." My point is that the
comparisons of current America practices with what goes on in some
African countries does not hold.

Finally there are those who argue in these exchanges that African
leaders, or Africans should accept responsibility for our problems. I
share that position. Without defending myself, the only thing I should
add here is that such a position is a footnote to Fanon's Wretched of
the Earth, Soyinka's Dance of the Forests, the work of Achebe, Ngugi,
Thabo Mbeki, and many of the luminaries of CORDESRIA, who articulated
Africa's problems very clearly, but ironically also fought viciously
about who was a better representative or messenger of the African crisis
and who was a sell out to the West.

Africa needs leaders with a political will that would focus on Africa
and mobilize the members of the political community to do same.

Thank you
Elias K. Bongmba

kenneth harrow said the following on 12/19/2010 10:07 PM:

>> </mc/compose?to=USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
>> USAAfricaDialogue-
>> unsub...@googlegroups.com

>> </mc/compose?to=unsub...@googlegroups.com>

>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola,
>> University of Texas at Austin.
>> For current archives, visit
>> http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
>> For previous archives, visit
>> http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
>> To post to this group, send an email to
>> USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

>> </mc/compose?to=USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
>> USAAfricaDialogue-
>> unsub...@googlegroups.com

>> </mc/compose?to=unsub...@googlegroups.com>

>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of
>> Texas at Austin.
>> For current archives, visit
>> http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
>> For previous archives, visit
>> http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
>> To post to this group, send an email to
>> USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
>> unsub...@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> kenneth w. harrow
> distinguished professor of english
> michigan state university
> department of english
> east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> ph. 517 803 8839
> har...@msu.edu

[Olabode Ibironke]

Ehiedu and Pius,

No world power ever emerges by drawing exclusively on its own resources be
they intellectual or otherwise. They appropriate everything useful and do
not attempt to reinvent the wheel all the time in the name of authentic self
and autonomy. In fact, most of the knowledges we ascribe to western
civilization today, as you know, have their roots in Arabic, Chinese and
African civilizations, etc! We are witness to the wholesome stealing of
knowledge the Chinese have done in the last twenty years. We quote Fanon as
if he was drawing on African oral traditions, he was, to remind ourselves
drawing on and engaging established traditions of French thought just as
people like Sartre and Foucault at the time. I know the dangers of
Eurocentrism and we must eschew it. But I also think we must be cautious in
our obsessive search for exclusive Afrocentric foundations.

As for Adedibu's picture. Whao. I could not help being amused on the one
hand and thinking, oh Pius has played the Joker again! The game is over! I
suspect that the people in that picture are community/ward leaders who
despite not being professors fully understand the history of politics in
Ibadan and Nigeria in such arcane details that we cannot rival. Like
bandits, they belong in real prison. This further helps our argument. There
is no mystery to this debate. It is as simple as saying what my
kindergartener know: If the system allows it, leaders anywhere and
everywhere can do and become anything! That image is thus not an evidence of
an African exception, though it is an image in a private living room that
seems remotely unconnected to us and anything else. We can recognize
currency! We will be mistaken to think it is coming from government sources
alone. It might for all you know, be coming from SHELL or CHENEY!!!

Peace,

Bode

-----Original Message-----
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu

Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:04 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

--

[Olabode Ibironke]

Ehiedu and Pius,

No world power ever emerges by drawing exclusively on its own resources be
they intellectual or otherwise. They appropriate everything useful and do
not attempt to reinvent the wheel all the time in the name of authentic self
and autonomy. In fact, most of the knowledges we ascribe to western
civilization today, as you know, have their roots in Arabic, Chinese and

African civilizations, etc! We are witness to the wholesale stealing of

knowledge the Chinese have done in the last twenty years. We quote Fanon as
if he was drawing on African oral traditions, he was, to remind ourselves
drawing on and engaging established traditions of French thought just as
people like Sartre and Foucault at the time. I know the dangers of
Eurocentrism and we must eschew it. But I also think we must be cautious in
our obsessive search for exclusive Afrocentric foundations.

As for Adedibu's picture. Whao. I could not help being amused on the one
hand and thinking, oh Pius has played the Joker again! The game is over! I
suspect that the people in that picture are community/ward leaders who
despite not being professors fully understand the history of politics in
Ibadan and Nigeria in such arcane details that we cannot rival. Like
bandits, they belong in real prison. This further helps our argument. There
is no mystery to this debate. It is as simple as saying what my

kindergartener knows: If the system allows it, leaders anywhere and

everywhere can do and become anything! That image is thus not an evidence of
an African exception, though it is an image in a private living room that
seems remotely unconnected to us and anything else. We can recognize
currency! We will be mistaken to think it is coming from government sources

alone. It might, for all you know, be coming from SHELL or CHENEY!!!

Peace,

Bode

-----Original Message-----
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:04 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

--

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Pius, I think you're right that active participants and foot soldiers in Adedibu's circuit of political patronage would not recognize themselves or their priorities in our discourses. But that is precisely the problem. Instead of "celebrating" it as a counterpoint to the discursive effort to understand the predicament, it  would be useful to explore how the worldview that sustains this narrow political imagination can be effectively challenged. Effective leadership is one tool for doing this, in my opinion. It will point the recipients of Adedibu's largess to the proverbial big picture, to political possibilities that enhance the common good and not a few pockets.

Someone, I think Femi, argued that bold, iconoclastic leadership must be wedded to movements. In other words, they should be institutionalized. I agree. This is one way to ensure that the gains of good leadership endure, are not merely the fleeting outcomes of one individual's selflessness, and are harnessed into a long term program of economic and political liberation from the global neoliberal hegemony that has become, in the narrative of some, the big elephant in this discursive room.

Finally, let me propose something controversial and essentialist, and which contradicts most of my own ontological postulations: for the most part, African peoples are oriented towards subservience to authority. To put it crudely, our people tend, perhaps more than other peoples, to take their actionable and discursive cues from the tones set by their leadership. This is a burden and an opportunity. A burden because it engenders docility in the face of authoritarian excess. An opportunity because leadership virtues can trickle down from the leadership to the citizenry/followership faster than they do in other climes, ensuring that the imitative gestures of citizens normalize and internalize programs and reforms that are selfless, egalitarian, and revolutionary. In other words, the dividend of good leadership as a transformative agent and an institutional catalyst are magnified in Africa because of this preexisting politico-cultural dynamic. So, when some of us appear to be lionizing good leadership, we're not merely advancing the fleeting competences of individual leaders and bureaucrats but also the ways in which these competences can permeate society and engineer enduring transformations that are both physical and ideological.

[eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu]

Bode,
The point is not about re-inventing any wheel or being merely Afrocentric. It is just that any great power that emerges formulates its own vision and designs strategies to incorporate and domesticate all external and internal legacies as its own for its development.
Africa has to deliberately create its own autonomous sites for the reception and forging of all instruments for its self-propulsion. Thats the point.
As for the point about Fanon, of course all intellectuals have a heritage. its another matter if the heritage becomes an albatross, from which such intellectuals cannot graduate and need to constantly invoke. Maturation, growth and independence are more important than mastery and invocation of the his master's voice.

[Olabode Ibironke]

Ehiedu,

OK. Agreed. It seems we are coming to some mutual understanding but which
comes first, maturation or mastery? Are we to presume that this is your
order of practical guide: "Maturation, growth and independence are more
important than mastery and invocation"? It would seem to me of great
imperative that we positively appraise mastery and not stigmatize it as is
being done in black culture at the moment. I agree that the ultimate goal is
full ontological sovereignty, but what does that mean if not to truly master
the forces of one's destiny?

Bode

-----Original Message-----
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
eiwe...@hunter.cuny.edu

[Chikwendu Ukaegbu]

This interesting and lively debate has continued for weeks now,
I suppose. The debate has been between those who situate the African
condition in the structure created by the continent's history, and those
who argue that African agency, leadership agency especially, is to blame
for lackluster performance in 50 years of independence. This debate is a
good thing if we can learn something from it, and just for intellectual
excitement alone.
Can any one, please, point to a case in history where a nation's
development occurred as a gift from one benevolent country to a less
prosperous and needy other? I mean development, I don't mean foreign
aid. One could cite that the Tiger economies received billions of
dollars of aid money from the West and access to Western markets to sell
their goods. But someone or group decided how, and implemented the
strategies, to use those forms of aid to eventuate in what is now called
miracle economies. If that is not domestic agency, what is it?
Chronicling his role, and that of his Singapore Action Party, in the
process of extricating Singapore from underdevelopment Lee Kuan Yew
stated that he was aware that the West possessed the modern technology
of production which would benefit his country. That he was, therefore,
determined to build a world class physical infrastructure and produce a
well educated manpower to entice Western firms to produce in Singapore
and sell their products in Western markets. Everyone knows that he, his
party, and country achieved this goal. If this is not agency, what is
it? What if Yew, his party and other Tiger economies, decided to send
those aid monies to personal accounts in Western banks, buy palatial
houses in advanced countries, send their kids abroad for education, get
health care in foreign countries, and fly over potholes and dilapidated
schools in helicopters and airplanes? That's also agency. The difference
is that one agency accelerated development, the other perpetuates
underdevelopment. Yew's vision shows that humans can scale developmental
obstacles if they have a modicum of resources with which to do so.
Africa has a lot of resources with which to do what Yew did.
The posting below is right on the mark. Academic arguments that
continue to paint the African as slave to structure do a disservice to
the continent because the commanding heights of the global economy will
not and cannot philanthropically plant national development in African
countries. Lee Kuan Yew and his team forced the global economy towards
the needs of Singapore by doing those things of interest and utility to
both global capital and Singaporeans. Is the global economy blindly
bending to China's development needs or is Chinese agency through the
instrumentality of its leaders bending the global economy to China's
needs? Developmental structuralism is sexy and easy to understand. But
structuration theory (a la Giddens) is more sophisticated, realistic and
progressive i.e. the duality of structure and agency-- human beings
create structures which turn around to influence them. What
developmental structures have African leaders created? Ali Mazrui said
it best. Africa produced extraordinary revolutionary leadership but has
been unable to produce successful developmental leadership-- again
agency. A structural argument is too simplistic and permits African
leaders to hide in it and plead non culpability because the iron cage of
the global economy makes them helpless. Africa will never come out of
developmental doldrums if this line argument is the primary
developmental paradigm. I want to be counted out that. African agency
must take full responsibility for its developmental successes or
failures. That has been the history of development through the ages.
Cu (Professor, Sociology of Development)

[kenneth harrow]

chikwendu
i have two problems with your argument
first, you, and others, have constructed a straw man, or refuse to hear
or accept the argument i advanced.
i stated, as clearly as i could, that africa does not stand in a
different position vis-a-vis neoliberal capitalism or globalization than
any other country; that the effects of today's capitalism is to generate
enormous disparities in wealth, to generate a reliance on minimal state
social services in the faith that corporate development will take care
of social needs, and that the increasing size of the empoverished
populations, in countries i listed from every continent, follow that
pattern. i also acknowledge that there are disparities in power, which
contribute to the weaker or poorer states and populations suffering
more. but there is no more agency as such for any state, no matter how
wealthy, to escape these forces. i don't know how many examples i need
to give: i offered russia at one point. how about ireland and spain,
portugal, the miracle states of the eu. now the catastrophe states, with
enormous problems of unemployment and poverty, debt, anger in the
streets, you name it.

secondly, pace pius's picture, it isn't a question of "academic
arguments," but simply intellectual arguments. how much
anti-intellectualism do we have to bear in these arguments. first it is
foucault, misspelled to boot, then the academy or western thinkers. it
is incredible that we can't have an intelligent discussion on questions
of economic growth or political structures without seeking to establish
some formula for authenticity as a basis for thought.
let me see...i don't like the fact that freud came from austria, as did
hitler, so the unconscious must be a nazi invention
or should we ask where newton came from before we board a plane?
is the academy in which gravity's law in taught somehow less capable of
understanding the forces involved than the engineer who builds the plane
or the captain who flies it?? did the engineer validate f=ma? discover
f=ma?
if this path of reasoning bothers you, i suggest you ignore it since it
is emerging from my computer in east lansing, no doubt a very remote
location from the hard realities of life.
so my question is, what is the use of thought? where is thought's home
validated?
"the academy" is, in fact, yet another straw man in this argument,
deflecting us from the issues at hand which are oversimplified into
notions of agency that are never really given meaningful definition.

ken

On 12/20/10 3:05 PM, Chikwendu Ukaegbu wrote:
> Academic arguments that continue to paint the African as slave to
> structure do a disservice to the continent because the commanding
> heights of the global economy will not and cannot philanthropically
> plant national development in African countries.

--

[Pius Adesanmi]

"i stated, as clearly as i could, that africa does not stand in a different position vis-a-vis neoliberal capitalism or globalization than any other country" - Ken Ken, Ken, Ken: You mean "any other continent?" If our enemies rush for your jugular because of this dangerous slip up, remember to tell them that I denied ever knowing you three times before the cock crowed. Pius --- On Tue, 21/12/10, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:

[kenneth harrow]

pius
outside of maybe north korea, what country's economy and social structure does not obey the logic introduced by neoliberal capitalism. to a lesser degree in one location, to a greater in another?
for instance, neoliberalism dictates free trade and enforces it by imf rules. so it is built around a worldwide system of financial exchanges that dictate conditions for lending and borrowing. those that provide the funding are not subject to tariff rules; that that borrow are subject to tariff rules. both operate within the same system, although the impact is felt differently. the borrowers run enormous risks, as we have seen with the rules for borrowing stifling the ability of local african farmers to compete. when malawi chose to forgo the loans in order to support their own crops, things improved.
maybe the loans worked better for ghana than for mali. again, there is room within the system, as everyone has been loudly and correctly arguing, to maneuver, so that some states do better than others. but all are maneuvering within the same systemic constraints.
consider iceland's vertiginous fall, along with ireland's, before you tell me that europe stands outside the system. all are vulnerable to its effects, but not all are positioned in the same way within the system. thus germany emerges relatively unscathed; but english university students are completely screwed.

finally, it dispirits me to see moses cite approvingly the ascension of new states like india or china within this system, as proof that it accommodates positive change. there is not a shred of concern over the vast numbers of people whose impoverished conditions are exploited by the constraints of neoliberal capitalism, as though there were no price to be paid in capitalism's workings, as though there were no labor to be exploited, as though there were no police actions in china to repress workers' rights, as though the advances for the very rich offset any abuses of the working class
how far we have come from a notion of progressive politics in africa when the idea of fighting for freedom did not mean freedom to become as rich as possible, never mind who suffers as a consequence.
moses and others are right to say we are here, we can't go back to older days with socialist ideals.  but there i a huge difference between those like david brooks whose admiration for the rich and their ways is unstinted, and those like bob herbert who aligns himself with the poor and continues to fight for their rights.
now in dakar as in new york it isn't a question of simply the rich and the poor, it is the superrich, the obscenely rich, the don't-ever-dare-to-try-to-tax-me rich, the this-country=belongs-to-me-i-own-it-and-everything-in-it, and the poor whose life is marked by struggle, unemployment, and the sight of a fortress's wall, always from the outside.
whose voice am i hearing? is it gbagbo, or limbaugh?
ken

[Jaye Gaskia]

I wish only to add here that dicoursive engagements emanate whether those
engaged in it are conscious of it or or not, from historical reality, and the
many trends and tendencies engaged in the process of making history.

I like the metophor of jailbreaking the system. But jailbreaking can lead to
several outcomes, for example the slave replacing the slave maser but retaining
the system of slavery - Paulo Frie's statement about the slave seeing the master
as the image of liberation.

On the otherhand, jailbreaking can and in our context ought to lead to a
fundamental overhaul of the system which required some of us to be kept in jail
in order for others to be kept out of jail in the first instance.

So the imperative of transformative movements, which are popular and mass based,
led by organic, that is arising from the dynamics of the movements activities,
charismatic and transformative leaders.

Can Africa be transformed? I think the answer is obvious, yes it can. Will
Africa be transformed? Again the answer is obvious and can be realised only in
the course of historical process; Yes it will. In anycase, Africa is already
being transformed, what we are concerned about here, i belive is the direction
of that transformation. Will it be socially inclusive, democratic and
democratised? Will the transformation amount to human development growth? Will
governance be promoting of the good of the majority? Will the basic needs of
most if not all be met?

Warm Regards,
Jaye Gaskia

[Pius Adesanmi]

Ken: I see your point and agree with you to a great extent but I still see two potential problems that you are overlooking or not addressing: 1) Your victimography (apologies for that coinage) of neoliberalism is becoming more ambitious with every post. It is covering and leveling up every part of the globe too tidily for my liking. I am beginning to see a victimography in which the Agatu farmer in Moses's neck of the woods in Benue state is being levelled up with the New York factory worker as an equal victim of neoliberalism. Is it possible for some victims to be more equal than others? 2) Is neo-liberalism blind to race? Does race have a place in the victimography of neoliberalism?

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

"finally, it dispirits me to see moses cite approvingly the ascension of new states like india or china within this system, as proof that it accommodates positive change. there is not a shred of concern over the vast numbers of people whose impoverished conditions are exploited by the constraints of neoliberal capitalism, as though there were no price to be paid in capitalism's workings, as though there were no labor to be exploited, as though there were no police actions in china to repress workers' rights, as though the advances for the very rich offset any abuses of the working class
how far we have come from a notion of progressive politics in africa when the idea of fighting for freedom did not mean freedom to become as rich as possible, never mind who suffers as a consequence.
moses and others are right to say we are here, we can't go back to older days with socialist ideals.  but there i a huge difference between those like david brooks whose admiration for the rich and their ways is unstinted, and those like bob herbert who aligns himself with the poor and continues to fight for their rights.
now in dakar as in new york it isn't a question of simply the rich and the poor, it is the superrich, the obscenely rich, the don't-ever-dare-to-try-to-tax-

me rich, the this-country=belongs-to-me-i-own-it-and-everything-in-it, and the poor whose life is marked by struggle, unemployment, and the sight of a fortress's wall, always from the outside.
whose voice am i hearing? is it gbagbo, or limbaugh?"

-----Ken


Ken, the problem with your contention is that it has huge blind spots. You are always universalizing the problem, denying that Africa is a peculiar victim of the neoliberal order you discuss. I understand the Troskyist provenance of your contentions. You're advocating the need for a global solidarity of working, poor peoples who are united by their collective victimhood in the hands of a predatory capitalist order. Ken, the blind spot in your contention is that it is not only on the basis of class or economic victimhood that people organize or mobilize. Even class solidarity and victimhood have disparities and degrees that follow from race, culture, geographic location, resource gap, religion, etc. You want to discuss your all conquering neoliberal hegemony and its deterministic qualities outside of these parallel realities. I don't think that is helpful. Is your narrative not being clearly structured by an unconscious Euro-American liberal intellectual universalism? Are you going to look me in the face and say with a bold face that the poor peoples of Africa experience the global neoliberal order in the same way as those of Portugal, Ireland, Spain or the United States? Does poverty mean the same thing in these countries as it does in Africa or India or other non-Western spaces? Will you equate the opportunities afforded these European peoples by the neoliberal order with those afforded the peoples of Africa? Or argue that they are victims of the order to the same degree? Or that they've been impoverished to the same degree? Or that their personal economies have been empowered or disempowered to the same degree? Your advocacy of an ameliorative twenty first century Socialist International and your insistence on an undifferentiated, organic, coherent influence of global capital and your Manichean division of the world into the simplistic categories of rich and poor (without regard to degree, racial privilege, culture, religion, location etc) is, to put it rather bluntly, quite dated. This debate was conducted among black intellectuals, especially among black Marxists, as early as the Harlem renaissance and more vigorously in the 1950s and '60s. Many black Marxists eventually abandoned the universalism of doctrinaire Marxism and its inattention to the peculiar fates of colored, Third World peoples under capitalism. They insisted on acknowledging the role that color, history, location, etc plays to mitigate or exacerbate the fates of people under the global capitalist order. So, with all due respect, it seems to me that you may not be aware that this debate was conducted and fairly settled decades ago. To acknowledge that the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America started their journey from a position of peculiar disadvantage vis-a-vis the working, poor white peoples of Euro-America is to be faithful to historical realities. It is not the search for authentic parameters or an obsession with particularism. China and India (and to some extent Brazil) have caught on in spite of their peculiar handicap, not because of it.

Another blind spot in your analysis is the notion that seems to drive much of your contribution: that only capitalist expansion comes with prices, costs, and disparities. Come on Ken, after all that we know about the ugly underbelly of most socialist regimes and the exclusionary practices beneath the beautiful egalitarian rhetoric, can you still make the claim that socialism and other self-described egalitarian systems (especially in the Third World) were not as big a machine for creating inequalities, disparities in opportunities, and poverty as capitalism has been? Mine is not a mindless endorcement of trickle down. But can you compare the standard of living of Chinese and Indian peoples in the period before their neoliberal revival to that of today? No system is a perfect creator and (re)distributor of wealth, and the notion of total economic equality is a mirage. Economics and politics are tradeoffs for the creation of the greatest possible aggregate value for society. In every system there will be victims, losers, and collateral damage. This true of China, India, and Brazil, just as there has been victims and damages for centuries in the Euro-American bastions of capitalism. That is precisely why the emphasis should be on taming capitalism, restraining it, curbing its excesses, and giving it a human face. It can be done. It has been done to varying degrees in the Scandinavian countries, which have a good balance of capitalism and robust social welfare states that perennially repair or at least soothe the injuries and damages caused by capitalist wealth creation.

Lastly, the more I read your contribution, the more I come away thinking that you're projecting your American, white liberal economic anxieties that are informed by the class dynamics and wealth disparities of America unto Africa. It is problematic to do that. When I hear Americans talk about poverty sometimes and about infrastructural decay, my experiential references are alerted and I cannot but laugh at the elitist luxuries that underpin these narratives of "poverty," "inequality," and capitalist exploitation. Ditto when I listen to Americans discuss the global catastrophe that is climate change and how Africans need to be protected from it. They don't even stop to think that in much of Africa, climate change is a discourse of luxury and that pollution is not a choice but a byproduct of staying alive. Even the narrative of unemployment in America will bow to the unemployment realities of many African countries. It's no contest. So, I will counsel caution in the ways that we construct equivalences between the experiences of diverse peoples under the global capitalist order and the way that we constantly seek to universalize both the problem and the solution to it. The economic priorities of the African poor, workers, and the unemployed do not always mirror those of their counterparts in the West. Their demands are often more basic, more mundane, more modest. They would welcome a better, just economic order in place of the predatory neoliberal order of today. But they'll also appreciate it if their leaders were able to adroitly negotiate and navigate this system to provide jobs, livable incomes, and BASIC infrastructure for them.

And it's not about who is compassionate and who is not. We all care about the poor. But do we exclusively invest energy in insulating the poor from the excesses of neoliberalism and neglect using the rules of the neoliberal game and our resources to improve their lot? Would building a wedge between the poor and their neoliberal surrounding magically transform their economic fates? To the extent that we're saddled with an ever expanding neoliberal system, isn't it a mark of compassion to try and maneuver within it to solve some basic problems that poor people face and to turn constraints into strengths? The poor in India, Brazil, Singapore, China, and Russia, are slowly but steadily writing their own scripts in the story of their countries' economic ascent. We all hope for a fundamental global redress and a just global order. But until the Utopian alternative to global capitalism materializes, it is reasonable to urge African leaders and elites to take a cue from the examples we have provided and take advantage of the limited openings in the international systems to lift some of their people out of extreme poverty. It is being done, however imperfectly and at whatever cost, in India, China, Brazil, and Russia as we speak.

[kenneth harrow]

hi pius
on point 1
victims are not all equal at all. the losses incurred by outsourcing to u.s.workers does not leave them in anything like the conditions of african farmers or fishermen whose livelihoods have been unsettled by global neoliberalism. i think the only fair way to measure the effects of a megalith like Walmart, the largest corporation in the world, the bringer of cheap goods to the american public, is not by asking simply whether walmart offers adequate salaries or benefits to its workers, but what the impact it has on the workers abroad who fabricate goods at their command. some years ago i saw a report on clothing manufacturing in bangalesh where a factory owner, perfectly happy to put in fire extinguishing systems in his factory, explained that the cost would make him uncompetitive with his competitors, and as walmart insisted on the cheapest price possible he could not comply with safety measures.
i offer this as an example of how we cannot understand the global economic system on the basis of nation states any more.
to be sure there is local production controlled by national policies, but they are increasingly superseded by larger than national forces. it is most obvious in things like car manufacturing or the film industry, and gets messier when food is involved. but everyone knows the story about rice production or chicken production globally and its impact on african food production.
i would appeal to the older members of this list to remember conditions of production and distribution when they were younger and compare them with now. it would be interesting to ask all the above questions and find answers from a period of late colonialism, early independence and neocolonialism, then the passage through the 80s till now.
have the disparities in wealthy grown or shrunk? is life harder for the average, the poor senegalese or nigerian now compared with then?

2.on race i don't quite know how to respond. i would love your thoughts on it. i feel competent to speak of how racism still marks things in the u.s., or france, but am less certain how to understand it as a factor in global terms.
except for one thing: i am convinced that the genocide in rwanda would not have happened in a white country (e.g.bosnia), and that the deaths in the drc are a matter of supreme disinterest to the west.
ken

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

By the way, even the Walmart example has only a limited discursive utility. We know that the political and policy tentacles of the neoliberal order are the Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF and World bank). Other instruments of neoliberal influence are multinationals (MNCs). Apart from serving to illustrate the familiar point that MNCs are vehicles for co-opting more peoples and countries into the global capitalist system, what really does the Walmart narrative do to help us understand how African and other marginal peoples fair under the current regime of capital? In America, Walmart is an indisputable villain, a despised instrument of capitalist exploitation and labor abuse. But is Walmart's reputation that clear-cut in the developing world? In non-Western spaces where Walmart operates, do their workers FEEL abused or do they feel empowered, lucky, and grateful to Walmart for saving from from a lifetime of unemployment or underemployment and for giving them economic stability? Are Indians bemoaning the outsourcing boom in their country over the fact that outsourcers may not be paying them Western salaries or giving them Western-style benefits? Are the Chinese complaining about the growing Western investments in their country that employ millions of Chinese people who would otherwise be jobless? This is yet another example of how we sometimes transfer our Euro-American middle class economic discourses to African and other non-Western settings where the realities are a lot messier and the economic priorities a lot less elitist and much more basic. Yes, Walmart may put some local businesses out of operation when it expands to new territories in Asia and Africa but isn't that more than offset by the jobs it creates, the above average (not Western standard) wages it pays, and the cheap, life-improving goods that it is able to deliver to folks?

The other day, a member of this forum forwarded a story about KFC's opening in Lagos, Nigeria. On the surface it can be read as a classic example of global capitalist expansion--another Chicken sweat shop in the Third World, the extension of the exploitative hand of global capital. But don't we have to go beyond this default mode and look at mitigating variables such as the jobs it might create, the support it might give to local chicken farmers and producers of other locally made ingredients? For the staff who would be recruited, any talk of "slave wage" and exploitative labor practice is elitist talk because the job is infinitely preferable to their previous condition and has the potential to lift them out of poverty and lay a sounder foundation for the next generation in their families. For the Nigerian consumers of KFC products, KFC represents another Middle Class indulgence and a quality family experience (never mind what it will do to their arteries).

[kenneth harrow]

dear moses, i will try to respond to your email. not sure my speculations are worthy of such deep reflections, but will do my best to respond.
--i don't think of myself as trotskyist; just believe in the implicit calls for a just society that left politics embraces. if anything i prefer the mouffe and laclau approach
--in my previous email i tried to distinguish between the effects of neoliberalism on europe and africa, right? between say irish and malian people, so i won't repeat the examples, just affirm my agreement that the effects are felt differently. why bother? because too many interventions here seem to see a universal european hegemon versus a uniformly victimized africa, and i have tried repeatedly to make distinctions within africa and within other reaches of the world, not see this flatly.
--it is true that i am focusing on class, or wealth, and economics in this thread. but since i am already arguing that portugal doesn't equal the gambia, it seems we agree that poverty in different places is radically different. you want me to say the effects of globalization are experienced differentially--that's what i have been trying to say all along. anyway....
--i have an "unconscious euro-american liberal intellectual universalism"? hard to respond to this.... let's keep to the issues, and leave my personal, trotskyite, 60ish etc etc out of it. it doesn't help, and since i can't even tell you who i am, why would you want to speculate.
it isn't some kind of soft liberalism to rail against the effects of globalization--and if it is, then i share this same ill with sissako who made it the subject of his film Bamako. it is also the view of spivak who cuts to the chase on this topic.

--your next paragraph is really the heart of the matter, and i hope others will express their opinions. please drop all the other stuff in your first paragraph--there is no real debate there. the question here is crucial: where do we come in today on the issue of contemporary capitalism. you distract us if you raise the issue of the u.s.s.r., or cuba, or wherever socialism's banner was raised. i don't want to get into a false argument about totalitarianism versus democracy, or so-called socialism in authoritarian garb versus so-called free world capitalist economies or states. i want to ask a simple question: are we hanging our hearts on the current neoliberal capitalist order, on leaders who can best manipulate their way within the strictures of this order, on states like india or china that have resolutely turned to exploiting that order, as the ideal for africa?
that is the only question that matters.
my opinion is really quite simple, and as a critic of literature and cinema, i do like images to convey my thought.
i lived in an apartment complex in mermoz, in dakar, which was adjacent the the corniche and the back end of suffolk university, an extension of the same university in boston, a business school. between the road and the very high wall of suffolk lay about 20-30 feet of ground, with some brush cover between the wall and the street. toward the summer of 2006 we had flooding, and the street was largely covered with water and sewage. it was repellent.
now, there were poor families that lived in that space. their children would wander into the street to play. it was a sad sight.  and if you carried on to the intersection, there on the corniche, were mansions of the very very wealthy, with all their accoutrements of guardiens, pools, power generators, you name it. i can't let go of the contrast, a world that is now infinitely more divided than ever before between these two positions of wealth and poverty.
when wade was elected in 2000, it was with the rhetoric of neoliberal development. and he gave that to senegal. the lands of that beautiful corniche, what senghor had called the permanent possession of the people of senegal, were gradually expropriated, sold to kuweit and others building hotels and mansions, cutting it off to the public.
now i have seen that same pattern of "development" on the mediterranean coast of spain, of northern michigan, of everywhere there is a beautiful coast for the wealthy to take.
i challenge you, friend moses, to defend this newly unfolding world of wealthy expropriators. you claim not to believe in trickle down. well, it is hard to read about the plight of indian farmers without hearing any defense of current growth rationalize their plight.
you are right, china and india are also generating wealth, and maybe the inequalities will some day be mitigated. right now they are being exacerbated, not only in india, senegal, nigeria, but in new york, detroit, los angeles.
you want me to focus on the emerging power of the newly enriched states: china, india, brazil. i am perfectly happy that the west doesn't enjoy any monopoly on power and wealth. but russia has rightly been called a mafia state; and china is a repressive, authoritarian, dictatorial state that hasn't seen a human right it doesn't want to bury.
what is your notion of a progressive ideology?
there are real choices: in senegal it was between wade and diouf, and the policies of each had real effects on the lives of the masses of senegalese. those who so enthusiastically supported the neoliberal wade have lived to rue the day they supported him, especially those who consider themselves progressive.
is he "lifting the poor out of poverty"? not likely
ken

[Ikhide]

Folks,

 

When it comes to matters of Africa, I am a broken record, so I may be forgiven for being silent on this matter. Let me just say that I have been mightily entertained by the debate.  Nothing new here, been there, done that. I repeat, there is abolutely nothing new here, being there, done that. Anyone who believes that he or she has just vomited new insights on the African problem is drinking apeteshie. Anyone who believes that our misrulers are ignorant of "structures and processes" is drinking ogogoro. My people, we have mastered all these things, we have crammed the books, and we know all there is to know about why and how great societies function well. We know what is missing. Our people are full of it, that is the simple truth. Let us go buy tee shirts that say: STOP THE BULLSH*T, JUST DO THE WORK!

 

I don't understand all this turenchi, we have been given grass to cut, instead of cutting the grass, we have stolen the cutlass, sold it, sent the proceeds to Switzerland, We stand on the ruined lawn talking nonsense, citing dead white men, Foucault, Marcus, Toyota, blah, blah, blah! Liberals are falling over themselves trying to convince us that our situation is not much worse than what occurs in the West, there are poor people in America, you know, and white folks are corrupt also, you know? Cold comfort can give a man a cold. The vast majority of Nigerians are not to blame in this mess; it is the cognitive elite of intellectuals and the political elite that should be held responsible for this mess. They will not accept responsibility; they are too busy drinking dunking baguettes in French wines to give a sh*t. Those that were raised at great expense to drag Africa from the hell that a racist God put her are too busy taking care of themselves. Shame on all of us for doing this to those who paid our way through school so they would be freed from what passes for life in their Africa.

 

Take Nigeria for example. Nigeria is not America and comparisons are beyond silly, they are almost criminal. We see what DEMOCRACY has wrought in Nigeria. Along with capitalism and the new Christianity, it is the worst thing that has happened to Nigeria in a long time. It is PhDs, not idiots that are running the country, they are the ones babbling inanities from Western books while they steal us blind. Democracy works when there us an alignment between the governed and the governor. In Nigeria, the elites are TOTALLY disconnected from the rest of the people, those Fanon would call the wretched of the earth. My friends ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead of doing the work that they lied they would do, they seek to bamboozle us with big words. They don't understand why we have no respect for them, because they do not understand the word credibility.

 

It is very simple. Let us stop the bullsh*t and simply do the work. We have all the structures and processes, but we lack men and women of character and will to do the work. Our politicians aided by their sweet mouth intellectual elite are stealing us blind and we know it. Our university lecturers screw their students literally and figuratively and get up to mouth the latest continuous improvement bullsh*t. Our university administrators  have stolen all the money that they can get away with. Why do they care? Their children and those of our asshole lecturers go to school abroad, living the children of the poor and the dispossessed at the mercy of broken down classrooms, Our universities are hovels not fit for homeless dogs in the West. When you say accept responsibility, they all line behind white liberals who start mouthing avuncular stuff about how em all these problems are not unique to Africa. Who cares? Who is talking about America?

 

You should see my village and get a sense of how evil my friends are. My father lives in a place that time and thieves have forgotten. This is a man who was once prepared to die for his country. Today, he tells me he was happier during colonialism, that Abacha was infinitely better than the bastards that now rule the country in the name of democracy. His words are a mean rebuke and he knows it. The water tap in our village last spewed water in the early sixties. Some people should be shot. And here we are not taking responsibility, spouting all sorts of silly theories that we don't need. Mimicry is our name, mimicry. We want to be like the white man. Everything he wears, we must wear, everywhere he goes, we must go. We just don't want to do the work. Because it is the white man's fault. Ha! Sometimes I just want to holler! Let the debate continue. And I don't know how to spell Foucault! To hell with the motherf*cker!

 

- Ikhide

---

From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 6:16:47 PM

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

By the way, even the Walmart example has only a limited discursive utility. We know that the political and policy tentacles of the neoliberal order are the Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF and World bank). Other instruments of neoliberal influence are multinationals (MNCs). Apart from serving to illustrate the familiar point that MNCs are vehicles for co-opting more peoples and countries into the global capitalist system, what really does the Walmart narrative do to help us understand how African and other marginal peoples fair under the current regime of capital? In America, Walmart is an indisputable villain, a despised instrument of capitalist exploitation and labor abuse. But is Walmart's reputation that clear-cut in the developing world? In non-Western spaces where Walmart operates, do their workers FEEL abused or do they feel empowered, lucky, and grateful to Walmart for saving from from a lifetime of unemployment or underemployment and for giving them economic stability? Are Indians bemoaning the outsourcing boom in their country over the fact that outsourcers may not be paying them Western salaries or giving them Western-style benefits? Are the Chinese complaining about the growing Western investments in their country that employ millions of Chinese people who would otherwise be jobless? This is yet another example of how we sometimes transfer our Euro-American middle class economic discourses to African and other non-Western settings where the realities are a lot messier and the economic priorities a lot less elitist and much more basic. Yes, Walmart may put some local businesses out of operation when it expands to new territories in Asia and Africa but isn't that more than offset by the jobs it creates, the above average (not Western standard) wages it pays, and the cheap, life-improving goods that it is able to deliver to folks?

The other day, a member of this forum forwarded a story about KFC's opening in Lagos, Nigeria. On the surface it can be read as a classic example of global capitalist expansion--another Chicken sweat shop in the Third World, the extension of the exploitative hand of global capital. But don't we have to go beyond this default mode and look at mitigating variables such as the jobs it might create, the support it might give to local chicken farmers and producers of other locally made ingredients? For the staff who would be recruited, any talk of "slave wage" and exploitative labor practice is elitist talk because the job is infinitely preferable to their previous condition and has the potential to lift them out of poverty and lay a sounder foundation for the next generation in their families. For the Nigerian consumers of KFC products, KFC represents another Middle Class indulgence and a quality family experience (never mind what it will do to their arteries).

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:

hi pius
on point 1
victims are not all equal at all. the losses incurred by outsourcing to u.s.workers does not leave them in anything like the conditions of african farmers or fishermen whose livelihoods have been unsettled by global neoliberalism. i think the only fair way to measure the effects of a megalith like Walmart, the largest corporation in the world, the bringer of cheap goods to the american public, is not by asking simply whether walmart offers adequate salaries or benefits to its workers, but what the impact it has on the workers abroad who fabricate goods at their command. some years ago i saw a report on clothing manufacturing in bangalesh where a factory owner, perfectly happy to put in fire extinguishing systems in his factory, explained that the cost would make him uncompetitive with his competitors, and as walmart insisted on the cheapest price possible he could not comply with safety measures.
i offer this as an example of how we cannot understand the global economic system on the basis of nation states any more.
to be sure there is local production controlled by national policies, but they are increasingly superseded by larger than national forces. it is most obvious in things like car manufacturing or the film industry, and gets messier when food is involved. but everyone knows the story about rice production or chicken production globally and its impact on african food production.
i would appeal to the older members of this list to remember conditions of production and distribution when they were younger and compare them with now. it would be interesting to ask all the above questions and find answers from a period of late colonialism, early independence and neocolonialism, then the passage through the 80s till now.
have the disparities in wealthy grown or shrunk? is life harder for the average, the poor senegalese or nigerian now compared with then?

2.on race i don't quite know how to respond. i would love your thoughts on it. i feel competent to speak of how racism still marks things in the u.s., or france, but am less certain how to understand it as a factor in global terms.
except for one thing: i am convinced that the genocide in rwanda would not have happened in a white country (e.g.bosnia), and that the deaths in the drc are a matter of supreme disinterest to the west.
ken

On 12/21/10 11:12 AM, Pius Adesanmi wrote:

Ken: I see your point and agree with you to a great extent but I still see two potential problems that you are overlooking or not addressing: 1) Your victimography (apologies for that coinage) of neoliberalism is becoming more ambitious with every post. It is covering and leveling up every part of the globe too tidily for my liking. I am beginning to see a victimography in which the Agatu farmer in Moses's neck of the woods in Benue state is being levelled up with the New York factory worker as an equal victim of neoliberalism. Is it possible for some victims to be more equal than others? 2) Is neo-liberalism blind to race? Does race have a place in the victimography of neoliberalism?

[kenneth harrow]

are "the chinese" an undifferentiated mass? i suppose those chinese jumping to their deaths in despair over the conditions of their lives in certain factories express one set of reactions--and i don't think they are reading western liberal complaints before deciding to do so. there are others doing much better, so much better, maybe too much better.
agreed, we have to make studied judgments, not broad ones, but do we have to return our critique, always, to "euro-american middle class values" to diss it???
why not actually ask the hard questions about this economic situation, in each case, each instance, instead of repeating the tiresome celebrations of globalization of the ilk of thomas friedman. oh, forgot, he is another western liberal middle class etc
k

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

i challenge you, friend moses, to defend this newly unfolding world of wealthy expropriators. you claim not to believe in trickle down. well, it is hard to read about the plight of indian farmers without hearing any defense of current growth rationalize their plight.
you are right, china and india are also generating wealth, and maybe the inequalities will some day be mitigated. right now they are being exacerbated, not only in india, senegal, nigeria, but in new york, detroit, los angeles.
you want me to focus on the emerging power of the newly enriched states: china, india, brazil. i am perfectly happy that the west doesn't enjoy any monopoly on power and wealth. but russia has rightly been called a mafia state; and china is a repressive, authoritarian, dictatorial state that hasn't seen a human right it doesn't want to bury.
what is your notion of a progressive ideology?
there are real choices: in senegal it was between wade and diouf, and the policies of each had real effects on the lives of the masses of senegalese. those who so enthusiastically supported the neoliberal wade have lived to rue the day they supported him, especially those who consider themselves progressive.
is he "lifting the poor out of poverty"? not likely

---Ken,

You have shifted the discussion from the economic realm. You are now conflating economic ideology with political system. Fine. Socialist regimes were authoritarian systems under the garb of socialism. Fine. But isn't pure socialism (derived from pristine Marxian prescriptions) a recipe for authoritarianism and dictatorship? Is it inherently ( at least at the revolutionary stage) about the violations of rights and authoritarian acts that are supposedly in the interest of the poor? Is it by accident that it is called a dictatorship of the Proletariat? Please let's separate economics from the politics of rights and freedoms. That politics can be a slippery slope, a dead end debate. Yes, China and Russia may not be democratic in the Western sense, but India and Brazil, two other countries that have successfully exploited the global neoliberal infrastructure, are. Besides, there is no industrialized country, capitalist or socialist, that do/did not have varying degrees of authoritarianism, political repression, and/or imperial domination and racism in its history. So, I don't know where the correlation between human rights/democracy and ability to create and distribute wealth lie. Some countries can create and distribute wealth effectively while enforcing political strictures; others that are supposedly democratic are not able to. I just don't see your point here.

Go to Lagos in Nigeria. What you describe for Senegal is taking place under Governor Fashola (he's working with the Chinese, the Germans--an assortment of foreign capitalists) to gentrify and develop many parts of the state. Yet Governor Fashola is reputed to be one of the best governors and "performing" politicians in Nigeria!  Go figure! The lesson is simple: instead of simply decrying the visibly expanding disparities in incomes and status in our world, why don't we look at how locals are actually relating to these capitalist investments that are supposedly responsible for the growing disparities. In the early days of the Chinese and Indian embrace of "foreign investment" Western liberal outrage reached a crescendo and took on a tone similar to what you're saying here: critique of gentrification, displacement of the poor, destruction of familiar ways of life of the poor, land grabs, and the pitfalls of conspicuous consumption and consumerism (all of them genuine but overblown concerns anchored on the sensitivities of Euro-American liberal economic anxieties) etc filled the air. I even read some of this stuff in grad school. A decade or two later, MILLIONS of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty, Chinese unemployment has been fought to a standstill, standard and and quality of life have improved for millions of Chinese who would otherwise not have had a shot at a decent life, and the Chinese have emerged as the primary financiers of world debt. All of this while the gap between the rich and poor and the displacement of poor Chinese people in some sectors have been occurring. Ditto India. In both countries, what you describe about yawning disparities between the rich and the poor are real but so is the fact that these countries how engineered the emergence of a massive Middle class and have lifted millions of their citizens out of poverty. Considering where they began, this is pretty remarkable. The problems you focus on are real, but history tells us that it is a fact of capitalist ascent. It happened in Britain, US, France, and other Industrialized bastions of capitalism. These disparities may narrow or expand. But as more and more people over many generations take advantage of existing infrastructures funded by created wealth to get themselves educated or trained, more and more people are actually lifted out of poverty EVEN WHEN THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR expands. In the Third World, if people can live decently and have infrastructure with which to improve themselves, they won't care as much as the Westerner about income disparity. I haven't seen this disparity become a problem in India, Brazil or China. The answer may lie in the fact that many poor people are, for the first time, tasting a decent life and are happy. Early capitalism especially has a way of sharpening the class divides because whole new classes (the Middle class; professiona class, etc) are being created. What was the poverty rate in America in the late 19th century and what is it today? To deny economic progress because we want to do the noble act of drawing attention to inequality is a tad disingenuous. Yes, wealth disparities are increasing, and the displacement of poor people continues apace with capitalist expansion and the spread of neoliberalism. But in countries and zones like China, Singapore, India, Brazil, and China where the leadership found a way to game the capitalist system to their advantage, millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. I know that in terms of visuals and melodrama, this is a less sexy and emotionally evocative story than the story of gentrification, displacement, and increasing disparities. But if you're poor, being lifted out of poverty is a big deal even if it happens through the instrumentality of a fundamentally unjust neoliberal global system that is displacing your kind elsewhere while further enriching the rich. Again, these propositions are inherently messy tradeoffs and cannot be sliced and diced neatly. Multiple transformations are going on in different places as a result of the global triumph of capital. To single out one tiny urban spot in Senegal as an illustration of the effect of global capital is to be selective in one's perception of what capital is doing around the world and the possibilities that capital can be both a force for good and bad--for lifting people out of poverty and for displacing the poor. In countries like Brazil, India, China, Russia, and other places, the have found a way to turn adversity and constraint into a blessing. As a result, neoliberalism has done more good for them than it has bad.

You asked what is my notion of a progressive ideology. Mine is a progressive ideology that works towards a more just global capitalist system but which pragmatically believes that the poor can be protected from the excesses of capitalism (or compensated for damages) while being enabled to take advantage of its openings; an economic system that redistributes not just created wealth but also opportunities so as to mitigate the abuses of capital and greed and give everyone a FAIR chance at success; a political system that makes laws and policies to protect the weak, poor, and vulnerable while empowering them to help themselves. This is an oversimplification and is crudely stated for brevity, but as you can see, I am not ideologically rigid, although I am progressive in my politics and socially liberal (within limits). I welcome and will promote whatever is a proven formula for lifting people out of poverty, improving lives, and delivering effective leadership. It is, for me, not about ideology but its abuse or effective deployment to ameliorate the condition of mankind.

[Femi Kolapo]

This is to draw your attention to the following AFrican Journal of Teacher Education's maiden edition. This issue features 21 articles. The table of content is at: 

http://www.ajote.spreadcorp.org/TOC1-1.html

African Journal of Teacher Education

Vol. 1 No 1.  Oct. 2010

Table of Contents

An Exploration of Teachers’ Integration of Visual Literacy in the Egyptian Secondary 

English Language Classrooms 

          Asmaa Abdel-Moneim Mostafa

Factors Influencing Early Childhood Development Teachers’ Motivation in Thika District, Kenya 

          Mary N. Ndani   &   Elishiba N. Kimani

Phonology in Teacher Education in Nigeria: The Igbo Language Example.

         Linda Chinelo Nkamigbo

Promoting Teacher Ethics in Colleges of Teacher Education in Tanzania: Practices and Challenges

          William A.L. Anangisye

Perceived Roles of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the Implementation of Continuous Assessment in Secondary Schools in Nigeria 

          Olugbenga G., Akindoju, Sunday O.  Banjoko &  Akinola S. Jimoh 

Implementation of Special Education Curriculum in the 21st Century in Nigeria: A Missing Link in the Rebranding Process 

          F.N.C Onyiliofor 

Differentiating Instruction to meet the Needs of Diverse Technical/Technology Education Students at the Secondary School Level 

          Maduakolam Ireh   and   Ogo. T. Ibeneme

Teachers’ Awareness of the Existence and the Use of Technology to Promote Children’s Literacy Instruction 

          Ngozi D. Obidike, Ngozi E. Anyikwa & Joy O. Enemou

Academic and Social Challenges Facing Students with Developmental and Learning Disabilities in Higher Institutions: Implications to African Colleges and universities

          W. E. Obiozor, V.C. Onu  and Ifeanyi Ugwoegbu

ICT in Participatory Development of Teaching/Learning English as a Global Language in Nigeria: A Discourse 

          Queen Ugochinyere Njamanze

Competency Improvement needs of Women in Agriculture in Processing Cocoyam into Flour and Chips for Food Security in South Eastern Nigeria.

          J. A. Ukonze, D. & S. O. Olaitan

Improving achievements of pupils with learning and behavior problems with co-operative teaching strategy in Aboh, Delta State, Nigeria 

          Ngozi Obiyo

Effective Test Administration in Schools: Principles and Good Practices for Test Administrators

          Aloysius Rukundo and Justine Magambo

Teaching Health Education in Nigeria: The Case of Anambra State Public Schools System

          Godson Chukwuma Ezejiofor

Responsibilities of Homemakers in Processing, Storage and Preservation of Pepper (CAPSICUM SPECIE) in Southern Nigeria 

          I. N. Dimelu

Parental Relationship as a correlate of psychological wellbeing of South Eastern Adolescents

          Joy I. Anyanwu

Integration and Innovation in Early Childhood Education in Nigeria: Implications for Quality Teacher Production 

          V.C. Onu, W.E. Obiozor,  O. E.  Agbo, and Chiamaka Ezeanwu

The Relevance of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education (STME) in Developing Skills for Self Reliance: The Nigerian Experience 

          Suleiman Sa’adu Matazu

Challenges of Education for Democracy in The Gambia 

          Frederick Ugwu Ozor

Towards Inculcating Technology Know-how in Science Students:  An Illumination of Evaluation of JETS Club Activities 

     Tunde Owolabi and  D.S Braimoh

A Novel Approach to Fostering Lecturer Collaboration in a Developing Country

     Vivian Ogochukwu Nwaocha

=================================-

managing editor for SPREAD Journals of Education

F. Kolapo

[Femi Kolapo]

This draws your attention to the vol. 2 of the journal, Review of Higher Education in Africa.

The Table of Contents can be accessed at http://www.spreadcorp.org/reviewHigherEdAfric/vol2.2TOC.html

--

---

Review of Higher Education in Africa

Vol. 2 No 1.  Oct. 2010

Table of Contents  

Editorial 

          James S. Etim 

Towards Improving Research Capabilities of Tertiary Educational Institutions in the Third World Countries for Sustainable Development: A Review Summary of Research

         Grace Koko Etuk, Eno Etudor-Eyo  &  Ime E. Emah

Developing Human Resources in Tertiary Business Education for Youth Empowerment and National Development

         E. B. Usoro 

Perceptions of Pre-Service teachers Towards Teaching: A Case study of the Eritrean Institute of Technology 

         Ravinder Rena & Ali Suleman

Lecturers’ Views on and Attitudes to Pedagogical Skills Training: Obafemi Awolowo University as a Case Study.

         Y. A. Ajibade,   E. O. Oloyede,   M. A. Adeleke,  &  E.O. Awopetu

Achievement Motivation Among University Managers and Institutional Effectiveness in Selected Nigerian Universities.

         Steve U. Bassey & Roseleen J. Akpan

                       

[kenneth harrow]

dear moses
there is no separation between politics and economics: each translates into the other since the function of political rule is to enable economic structures to operate. the question is, in whose interest will they operate.
FINALLY we have a solid basis for our disagreement, and no need to really argue it further:
for you, socialism is a failed ideal, permitted authoritarianism and dictatorship. capitalism will lead to the improvement of people's lives.
for me, socialist ideals are inseparable from progressive political and economic policies, ones that will not perpetuate the wealthy classes enjoying their prosperity at the expense of the poor.
i don't want to turn this argument to socialism, but to the most basic values of justice, equity, of agency for citizens and citizen rights, and by this i certainly mean the right to live a decent life, with food and shelter and medicine. all the things neoliberalism says it is not the responsibility of the state to provide, that we all do better when it is dog eat dog.
the example i have of shocking inequality and injustice in senegal is not isolated: when i asked ordinary people how life was now compared to 20 years ago, they said it was harder to make a living. if you ask people in cameroon, on the street the answer is that things were better before biya.
i will grant that a repressive state might improve living conditions, though typically it will be for the upper classes.
but even there, there must be limits: how many of us would accept servitude in exchange for better food?
brett shadle just wrote this on h-africa: it expresses my sentiments better than i could:

I was unaware that anyone still seriously believes that what Africa really
needs to escape poverty is the liberalization of African economies, that
"holding others [i.e., the West] responsible for Africa's failings" is
simply an excuse dreamed up by bad African leaders, and that there is a
one-size-fits-all model for "fixing" Africa. I also was hoping that most
of us know the history of neoliberal "reforms" implemented over the past
few decades.

ken

[ogb...@yahoo.com]

Hi All,
I am interested in the relationship between the universal and the specific, the general and the particular. I think the point is missed when these moments are counter poised as absolute opposites rather than as dialectical opposites. In which case it is possible to at once see both the struggle, as well as the unity of opposites.
Africa is peculiar, but so is Asia, Latin America, North America, the middle east, Australia, East and Western Europe!
They are peculiar because of the pattern of their experiences of the capitalism in its colonial and post colonial, as well as its liberal and neo liberal manifestations and constructions
So the specific nature of capitalist slavery and racism creates a different experience of capitalist dependency in Africa to the specific experience of sttler colonialism and the genocide of indigenous american populations in The Americas; nevertheless the connecting linkage is exploitation, suppression, and repression carried on by agents of globalising capital and superibtended by capitalist states and pro to states.
So India, China, Brazil are industrialisting, generating wealth and creating growth including providing employments, while at the same time producing nass misery, poverty and dehumanisation on grand scales!
India is generating wealth, but in absolute terms 8 of its poorest states now have more poor people than the whole of sub saharan Africa put together!
China is industrialisting and producing so much mass misery that in order to mitigate its impact and prevent an implosion at home, its specific mode of capitalist growth requires not only the export of capital and the aggressive search for markets and raw materials, but also the aggressive export of its surplus labour!
Of course the first and second waves of capitalist industrialisation also produced as by product generalised impoverishment and mass misery in europe and the americas; but it did this over decades and centuries!
This is why the rapid industrialisation over the life span of one or two generations in the present period seems to appear more deeply inhuman than the earlier ones.
So although Africa is characterised by its unique experience, it has not escaped the contradictory impacts of globalising capital.
The question I suppose therefore is how do we produce a different experience of industrialisation, national and human development, generate wealth and reduce or remove poverty?
Is capitalist globalisation the only path? Is being reduced to manoeuvre within its limiting constraints the only way out?
Regards,
Jaye Gaskia

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:21:14 -0500

To: <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

[Olabode Ibironke]

Oga Ikhide,

 

There is a good reason for the time honored concept of DIVISION OF LABOR. Some people must step outside of the field of action, or in and out of it, in order to maintain a clear perspective on the shifting nature of the challenges. No one ever accused Generals of sitting in the cold comfort of their command centers analyzing a war—if they are victorious. Yet, we credit every war that’s won to the brilliance and grand strategies of the Generals. Now, I do not think we are Generals in a war, maybe the very best of us are—this was why Fanon, Rodney, Cabral were all taken out. They were indeed Generals. The persistence of the problems therefore may well be that we have not found our Archimedean moment—there are NEW INSIGHTS always to be discovered and enunciated— for this failure of re/discovery only would I hold us accountable. As you well know that moment of re/discovery may not come with a bang. So, long live the debate, long live the calculus, and even the rarefied discourse, without which our fight is doomed to become A WAR OF IGNORANT ARMIES CLASHING AT NIGHT!!! We need knowledge to be free and more knowledge to live in liberty.

Peace,

Bode

You mean "any other continent?" If our enemies rush for your jugular because of this dangerous slip up, remember to tell them that I denied ever knowing you three times before the cock crowedError! Filename not specified..

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

"for you, socialism is a failed ideal, permitted authoritarianism and dictatorship. capitalism will lead to the improvement of people's lives."

---Ken,


This is obviously an oversimplification of my position. I made it clear that I believe that there is a lot of problems with the current neoliberal order and that it indeed generates inequalities, places constraints, and leads to abuses. We agree on these. But I also argued that socialism is no alternative to the current regime of capital; that we tried it and it immiserated people across the world and Africa and led to little improvement in peoples' lives while conferring privileges, like capitalism does, on the favored class. At any rate, my contention is that the neoliberal order is only expanding, not shrinking and it is not going anywhere soon. Instead it is acquiring new players from the Third World, making it even more global than it already is. You agreed that going back to socialism was not feasible or practical. Given your agreement that we're here and can't go back to your favored socialism, what do we do except to, as I argued, tame, restrain, and humanize capitalism to the extent possible---what the Scandinavians are doing. Like you, I believe that the state should be an instrument of redistribution, compensation, and protection of the poor and weak. This does not preclude the embrace of capital and its wealth-creating potential. The Scandinavian Welfarist regimes have successfully done this. Given all this nuance, it is rather surpirsing to see you reduce the disagreement to the simple statement that I hate socialism and prefer capitalism. I made it clear that I am not inflexible when it comes to ideology and that for me, it is really not about ideology but the abuse and/or effective deployment of a system to create wealth and lift people out of poverty. I, of course, don't think that socialism, given its disastrous track record, is a preferable alternative to the current order. Show me another alternative to the current order outside socialism and the Scandinavian (and to some extent the Chinese where the state remains a strong referee, arbiter, and buffer against the excesses of capitalism) model that I have touted that can help lift people out of extreme poverty and create and distribute wealth and I'll immediately sign up for it. For me, it is what helps to solve the problem of poverty (which I know first hand) and improves the lives of people that matters. It is not about ideology per se. Capitalism is flawed in many ways, but its excesses and flaws and their impacts on the poor can be mitigated while still harnessing its wealth-creating potential. There is no contradiction here, just nuance that is grounded in a quest for progress and the need to defeat or reduce extreme poverty. So, yes, neoliberalism has created many problems around the world, but what is your alternative? A return to socialism? A tamed capitalism which I favor? Another unnamed system of political economy? In one breath you invoke socialism and in another you admit that it is not a viable option for the future. And, instead of disputing my assertion that socialism failed, you now say you're not invested in socialism but fairness, justice, equity, equal opportunity, rights, democracy, etc--the staple progressive menu of aspirations that we all subscribe to. Let me say this as a historian; I have never come across a civilization that flourished, created wealth, and improved lives without costing the citizens something--usually some freedoms and rights and without at least initially producing vulgar extremes of consumption, accumulation, and displacement. Show me a single example in history. This is especially true in the early stages of growth and expansion. Your insistence on the combination of prosperity and democracy and justice is very lofty but it is textbookish and not realistic. Why should it be different with the BRIC countries when in the West, capitalist development produced similar contradictions, which then abated or leveled off over time or ebbed and rose as political and economic movements came and went?

Finally, let me say this: if gentrification and widening disparities were Africa's only problem, this conversation would not be as intense as it is. If Africa's people had basic social infrastructures, access to opportunities for self-fulfillment, jobs, and access to markets, we would not be having a conversation about rising disparities.  I believe that the main problem of Africa is the sheer number of its peoples trapped in extreme poverty. My first priority is to overcome what Sachs calls the poverty trap. Before then, I find the search for economic equality and egalitarian equity a little escapist and a little removed from the immediate priorities of the African poor. First things first. Progressives in the West railed against poverty before they started railing justifiably against fat cats and widening wealth gaps. Responsible, ethical, and visionary leaderships and movements can invert the neoliberal order by modifying it to engineer economic growth, create jobs, build social infrastructure, and improve lives. It is not impossible. They don't have to implement IMF and World Bank programs to the letter if they don't want to. The Chinese, Russians, and Indians didn't. They asserted their sovereignty and defied some neoliberal prescriptions where necessary. The result is what we're seeing today.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

"So India, China, Brazil are industrialisting, generating wealth and creating growth including providing employments, while at the same time producing nass misery, poverty and dehumanisation on grand scales!
India is generating wealth, but in absolute terms 8 of its poorest states now have more poor people than the whole of sub saharan Africa put together!"

This is not true. At best it is a highly selective reading of the stories of Brazilian, Indian, and Chinese economic ascent. The statistics are there and they don't lie. India, China, and Brazil have lifted many more of their citizens from poverty and extreme poverty than they have immiserated in the last two decades. In other words, look at the net effect of the emergence of these three countries as capitalist behemoths on:

1. Standard of living

2. Quality of life

3. Reduction of poverty


The verdict is pretty clear; yes, while all these positive transformations have been taking place, some citizens may have slipped into or may have remained in poverty, but millions MORE have been lifted out of poverty in these countries. The multiplier effect of this is potentially revolutionary. This is a positive development in which effective and visionary leadership played a significant role. We can hold neoliberalism accountable and call attention to the excesses and damages of unrestrained global capital while acknowledging the fact that some states and their leaders are able to make aggregate economic leaps by deftly and patriotically taking advantage of the limited opportunities in the international system, and by carefully and selflessly leveraging their countries' resources.

Some of us want to discuss these issues in absolutes, but for goodness sake is that helpful? Aren't we mostly talking about imperfect tradeoffs?

[kenneth harrow]

moses
maybe it is the case that the aspects of scandinavia which you admire
are the "socialist" aspects of their society. maybe your statement about
embracing capitalism, despite its flaws, because it will lead to the
creation of wealth for all, or almost all, ignores the possibility that
the very poverty in africa about which we are concerned has been
created, not mitigated, by the capitalist system that has held it in
thrall, during colonial days, neocolonial days, globalization days.
i am not an historian, so you can correct me here. i thought it
generally the case that the economic situation throughout much of africa
has deteriorated since independence. that when socialist models in
tanzania or guinea were tried, or at least when neocolonialism was
resisted, the economic clout of the western states was enough to subvert
those efforts.
you keep referring to the failures of socialism as though there really
had been a state in which the proletariat had become the ruling class.
no one believes that.
no one on the left would defend the authoritarianism that told hold of
states that flourished the banner of socialism or communism. you are
attacking a straw dog, while touting those aspects of societies you
admire that actually approach more successfully ideals of an egalitarian
distribution of wealth, which flies in the face of capitalism,
especially capitalism today.
you speak of progress as if it were evident. sorry, i would disagree.
just within my lifetime i have seen the great disparities of wealth
appear in the u.s.; have seen homeless appear in reagan and thatcher's
day, where before they were rare; have seen the continuing demise of the
inner cities. while the rich got richer.
maybe the 10% that hoard the wealth in many african states might be
criticized equally for following this model of accentuating disparities
in wealth and ignoring social services. that model is the neoliberal
model of the imf.
it is up to us to resist it. we don't have to call for a socialist
revolution to do so; but when we advocate for a movement back to greater
programs for the disinherited, for less freedom for companies to
generate profits for themselves, we are taxed as advocating socialism.
so be it.

ken

On 12/22/10 4:04 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
> Capitalism is flawed in many ways, but its excesses and flaws and
> their impacts on the poor can be mitigated while still harnessing its
> wealth-creating potential. There is no contradiction here, just nuance
> that is grounded in a quest for progress and the need to defeat or
> reduce extreme poverty.

--

[Rex Marinus]

"Finally, let me say this: if gentrification and widening disparities were Africa's only problem, this conversation would not be as intense as it is. If Africa's people had basic social infrastructures, access to opportunities for self-fulfillment, jobs, and access to markets, we would not be having a conversation about rising disparities.  I believe that the main problem of Africa is the sheer number of its peoples trapped in extreme poverty. My first priority is to overcome what Sachs calls the poverty trap. Before then, I find the search for economic equality and egalitarian equity a little escapist and a little removed from the immediate priorities of the African poor."

-Moses Ochonu
 
Moses, I'd like you to complicate a bit more, the meaning of poverty. For instance, my grandmother considered herself to have lived well; enjoyed a sense of well-being, and never flew on a plane. Indeed, she refused to enter her son's car because she found it too incompatible with her way of life. It was not her desire. While I'm careful not to romanticize her existence, I think it is neccessary to begin to explore the myth of African poverty; in fact the entire theory of poverty. Does what you call the "pverty trap" quoting Sach, a true Friedmanian economist, mean what exactly? Is poverty a form of loss or merely a situation of abjection? Is want the same as need? Do we for instance need a massive eight-lane highway through your village in order to situate it in the currency of economic development? What exactly is the meaning of "market" and what is the connection between the sovereign market, exchange control, and economic development? Is it possible to presume that  a redefinition of one's material as well as spiritual environment constitutes poverty? But finally to your statement excerpted above, I think you must understand that the "capitalist trap," by which I mean the extreme levels of inequity that characterizes the current situation of the world, be it in Africa or Europe or America, is the exact meaning of poverty.
 
The abduction and appropriation, by a very small percentage of the human population, under various guise, of the limited natural resources of the world, for their own benefit generates conflicts and limits access and creates the poverty trap - the unfillable gap of desire arising from extreme loss of agency. It is neither impractical nor escapist to reach towards "egalitarian equity."  That presumption is quite clearly the fiction of the neo-liberal theorist and mindset long habituated to the notion of triaging the weak and unrepresentable while ignoring the fact of progressive selection. That is the progressive natural selection of the species until there is no longer a species from which to select. In sum, I think the idea of a unique species called the "African poor" is a poor reading of history, particularly, contemporary economic history. It also continues to perpetuate the fiction of an invariant Africa. The effects of the economic policies foisted on African governments, from Reagan and the neo-liberal economists straight out of the Chicago school is having a late-term effect on Europe today. What we Nigerian students saw in the 1980s, and went into the streets, the students are seeing today in Europe and staging their own protests. It is simply that once again, the world has arrived at a most crucial economic crossroads, the pressures of which like the 1920s come from concerns about access to energy resources and global markets. This is leading us almost inexorably to a new worldwide great depression, with the failures of the great international banking and monetary system on which the postwar international system was constructed, and possibly another global war. As for socialism - it was the "new deal" - a socialist document, that saved America when it came to the notches. I salute you.
Obi Nwakanma
 
 

 _____________________ "If I don't learn to shut my mouth I'll soon go to hell, I, Okigbo, town-crier, together with my iron bell." --Christopher Okigbo


 

---

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:04:21 -0600

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

From: meoc...@gmail.com
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

ken

ph.  517 803 8839  517 803 8839

har...@msu.edu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.   For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue   For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html   To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-       unsub...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph.  517 803 8839  517 803 8839 
har...@msu.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph.  517 803 8839  517 803 8839 
har...@msu.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph.  517 803 8839  517 803 8839 
har...@msu.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

One more thing, Ken. You wrote:

"i will grant that a repressive state might improve living conditions, though typically it will be for the upper classes.
but even there, there must be limits: how many of us would accept servitude in exchange for better food?"

China is by your own definition a repressive state. Yet it has improved life for millions of Chinese people who are NOT in the upper classes. Some of these folks are now evangelists of Chinese capital and investments in Africa. The statistics are there. Your second point illustrates, for me, the extent to which your narrative is inflected by your Western Middle class sensibilities (apologies, since I know you don't like me referring to this) and is not sensitive to the priorities of African and non-Western peoples who may not be exactly taken by the luxurious discourses of rights and freedoms while their stomachs are empty. Let's start with China to refute your point. Polls and studies have shown a healthy majority of Chinese people across class and cultural spectrums saying that they don't mind living without some of their democratic rights as long as the state continues to grow the economy, to create jobs, improve lives, reduce poverty, and raise the standard of living. They are willing to wait for these ideals, to put them off for now. The same studies of course also show that the Chinese , like other peoples, care about rights and freedoms but they are pragmatists like most people in the non-Western world who are willing to exchange some rights for a better economic life if it came to that. As you know, the Chinese political system is opening up slowly, let's not discuss these issues as if they were frozen realities.

But let's leave China. I am Nigerian and I know my country, which I visit at least once every year. As of this moment, I can say categorically that if you conducted a poll of Nigerians asking them if they'd be willing to submit themselves to a dictatorial regime and lose some of their rights and freedoms if that would give them regular electricity, good roads, employment, drinkable water, good schools and healthcare, they would overwhelmingly vote for a dictatorship, military or civilian. I can't generalize this to the rest of Africa, but my point is simple: the needs of people in much of the Third World are a lot more than the priorities of their Western counterparts, and the insistence on a perfect, absolutely egalitarian, yet democratic and open system does not speak to the reality of most people in Africa. They'd be quite happy with having what the overwhelming majority of people (including the poor) in the West have: fairly decent life, decent schools, basic healthcare, basic social infrastructures, employment--any employment--etc. And they value these things more than they do abstract goods like rights and freedoms. This is why we need to tailor our rhetoric to the peculiarities of Africa. Africans will, of course, care more about these ideals when they have the basic things and are no longer in extreme poverty.

[xok...@yahoo.com]

"While I'm careful not to romanticize her existence, I think it is neccessary to begin to explore the myth of African poverty; in fact the entire theory of poverty. Does what you call the "pverty trap" quoting Sach, a true Friedmanian economist, mean what exactly? Is poverty a form of loss or merely a situation of abjection? Is want the same as need? Do we for instance need a massive eight-lane highway through your village in order to situate it in the currency of economic development?"

- Obi Nwakanma

Anyone who cannot see poverty in Africa today needs his or her head checked. My grandmother would have died of abject misery, hunger, deprivation and despair today were she alive. The situation in my village is NOTHING like what she enjoyed when she was alive. Like my mother today, she would have trouble buying meat, fish and staples without help from her children. My dad told me this week that he has been unable to claim the money I sent them because armed robbers have shut down nearby banks. He is hoping that by tomorrow they would have concluded their operations. They are too old to go to the farms, it is not safe anyway, you never know who and what is waiting... Erosion has erected a huge deep gulley clean across the one road that cuts through our village. Our friends only visit the villages to erect canopies and under heavily armed guards, dance, drink and show off stolen wealth all night. When they have time, they come to the Internet to mumble bullshit about bullshit. I repeat, we are talking too much. It is time for all of us to put our words into action. Show compassion for our parents, our grandparents, our siblings. This is just not right. How can we in all conscience sit here and encourage a conversation about "the myth of African poverty"??? What does that mean? Let us not romanticize the hell that our mothers went through. My mother would disagree vehemently with your characterization of her life. Be well. I hope to their God that this democracy ends in the most horrid way possible. It is a deadly joke that we cannot sustain.

- Ikhide

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

---

From: Rex Marinus <rexma...@hotmail.com>

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:41:06 +0000

To: <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Ken, you're really confusing me now. Are we talking of actual socialism or what right wing Americans (the Tea party crowd) call socialism--which can range from the "softer" free market prescriptions of America's Democrats to what the French and British have, to the Scandinavian Welfare Capitalist system? I thought that as academics and intellectuals we should move beyond such pedestrian, uninformed, and inaccurate definitions. Alas, you seem to believe that the Scandinavian system is socialist. I am shocked. I thought it was capitalist, only with a social Welfare component. Does the welfare component move from it from the capitalist to the socialist column? I thought you were advocating for socialism, doctrinaire, revolutionary socialism, because you were the first to introduce that word here and has been going back to it since as a referent for what you'd like to see. But now I am not so sure because you seem to be conflating a whole lot here and going back and forth between socialism and the familiar politics of redress and redistribution under capitalism, which I have little quarrel with. Please clarify your position.

The other thing is: I mentioned self-described, actually existing (existed) socialist regimes and argued that they were terrible models for creating or distributing wealth. You didn't dispute this but said they were dictatorships dressed as socialist regimes. I didn't dispute that. But I argued that even doctrinaire socialism (which you and I agree has yet to be be implemented anywhere) calls for a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat, meaning that the rights and freedoms and interests of some would have to be taken away by the revolution--something that you claim that "fake" socialist regimes do and which you argue should discredit them from being called socialist. Marxian socialism would also entail the violation of rights and economic and the implementation of a de facto political dictatorship--the very ingredients that are the hallmarks of the "socialist" regimes of the past. You claim to be concerned about rights, freedoms, and the humanity of peoples in new capitalist regimes (China, India, Brazil, etc), that the presence of such violations discredit their stories of success, and that because "self-described" socialist regimes were also guilty of this, they shouldn't be advanced to discredit socialism. Fine. But how can you launch a socialist revolution, in the doctrinaire Marxist sense, without engaging in ALL of those acts that you detest and which you say are unacceptable prices of capitalist wealth creation? If you agree that dictatorship, repression, and denial of freedoms are inherent in socialism--pure doctrinaire socialism, then where is the outrage against these vices in your advocacy of a return to socialism? Again, this is where your definition of socialism may help. What exactly do you mean by socialism? You seem to want to narrate any politics of the Left and Progressivism as socialism. What kind of definitional latitude allows for that semiotic leap? And this may be the source of our disagreement. I believe that there are different kinds of capitalisms, some more humane and more restrained than others, some more attuned to neoliberalism than others. China cannot be said to be a capitalism animated by neoliberal impulses, can it? I mean, Chinese capitalism is even state-driven. I pointed you to Scandinavia only for you to agree quite shockingly (a la Tea Party hacks) that those are socialist regimes?  Again, what's your definition of socialism?

Your position on Tanzania and Guinea has clearly illustrated what I suspect is the circular, conspiratorial nature of your contention. So, socialism failed in Tanzania and Guinea because it was undermined by the West. Is there any room at all in this blame game for the follies of villagization and other misguided and imported socialist experiments? Or for corruption and cronyism? Or for prebendal indulgences? What about the capitalist leaning countries? They too, were undermined by the West. So why should socialist leaning postcolonial leaderships be left off the hook if both capitalist leaning and socialist-leaning states were undermined by the evil hand of neocolonial control?  It's so predictable and simplistic, this type of analysis; it's always the exclusive fault of the white man; it's never the fault of poor planning, terrible decisions and choices, white elephant projects, naivety, corruption, and the poor vision of  postcolonial leaderships. I knew that it would all come back to the evil white man of white liberal discourse. God forbid that postcolonial African leaders--poor, helpless things!---and their corruption and incompetence should share the blame with the instruments of neocolonialism and neoliberal globalization.

One points out how responsible capitalist initiatives and investments coupled with good, visionary leadership and institutions can  reduce poverty and improve lives in Africa and how "actually existing" socialist regimes proved to be poor creators of wealth and poor reducers of poverty and the response is again the lazy, predictable refrain that colonial and neocolonial capitalism caused the poverty in the first place. For goodness sake where is the analytical creativity? Where is the new thinking? Where is nuance? Is there one monolithic capitalism, one capitalist model? The Indians and Chinese and Brazilians rejected some of the more anti-people prescriptions of neoliberalism. But they embraced private enterprise, strategic infrastructural investments, and industrialization. They chose their own capitalist path and cleverly avoided the neoliberal trap and they are better off today. It doesn't make them any less capitalist. They didn't accept ALL of the IMF and World bank's doctrines. Capitalism is not only an unquestioning, total adherence to neoliberal principles. It comes in many shades and can be used to improve lives by selfless, committed regimes. Harping on the evil of neoliberalism is a straw man argumentation, since the models that I have advanced actually bucked neoliberal orthodoxy in several respects.

Again, I am not rigid in ideological matters. I do believe like you that capitalism, while a good wealth creator, is a poor (re)distributor of created wealth. Hence my preference for the Scandinavian CAPITALIST model where free enterprise, innovation, and competition are encouraged and supported but excesses are checked, state regulation is strong, and the state acts proactively to redistribute wealth and prevent the type of extreme disparities in wealth that you are discussing. The two priorities of wealth creation on the one hand and redistributive and ameliorative concerns can coexist and should coexist.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
 For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
 For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
 To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-       unsub...@googlegroups.com

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

"It is neither impractical nor escapist to reach towards "egalitarian equity."

Obi, fine let's strive for that. But when that "egalitarian equity" comes, is everything going to be honky dory, everything? Or will we (the collective "we") have lost much in terms of standard and quality of life? Will this egalitarian equity arrive without costs, prices, and contradictions, unlike capitalism? History tells that us no. Again, check out the examples of self-proclaimed socialist regimes, fake socialism or not. Finally, while we search for this "egalitarian equity" in defiance of the lies of neoliberal propagandists, do we ignore the misery and economic catastrophe that have engulfed Africa and refuse as a nationalist duty find a way within the capitalist existing and expanding global capitalist system to reduce poverty and improve our peoples' lives? Or is this impossible until "egalitarian equity" arrives bearing economic paradise on its wings? Pray how do we explain China, India, Brazil, Singapore, and Russia? Oh, I forgot,  misery in Africa was created by neocolonialism and neoliberal globalization in the first place, so why bother address it, and why use capitalist principles (of whatever kind) address what neoliberal capitalism created in the first place? And, yes, why should we even care about yeye Western constructs such as "poverty" when we know that it's all relative and that Africans are not actually poor? I apologize for my tone, but that was the only way I could really dramatize my disagreement with some (not all) of your points.

[Jaye Gaskia]

And Moses, on the second point with respect to Nigeria; i am Nigerian and i loive full time in Nigeria! However, why should your way of posing this question be the only way? Is there a corelation between a dictatorial regime and development that leads to general improvements in the conditions of living of the people?

 

Are those kind of developments referenced in your submission only possible under a dictatorial regime? Or for that matter only under a repressive market economy model?

 

I am not certain if most Nigerians will exchange their freedoms and rights for a dictatorship. We have been there before, remember? Several Times? Our empirical experience is that those types of regimes do not necessarily ensure development, and that loss of rights is not necessarily a price to pay for development.

 

Regards,

Jaye Gaskia

---

From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 1:50:54 AM

[Jaye Gaskia]

One point on repressive states and improvement in lives of people!

 

Yes China may have improved the lives of millions of people; but in reality however, improvement in conditions of living and poverty and wealth are always relative terms.

 

The condition of living for millions in China, both upper/middle/ruling and lower/ruled classes; may have indeed improved, and there is no doubt that they did, as they did too during the first industrial revolution; nevertheless, this improvement in its scale and scope is relative and different for the different classes. And this differential and exploitative benefit from the general improvements in conditions is mediated by a class' access to and or control of political power and ultimately economic power.

 

So altough it does matter that there has been this general improvement in conditions; it is equally important and decisive that there is still mass missery and poverty, and that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened tremendously!

 

This is the point being made. There is no socio-economic formation; no mode of production that has not and that does not historically produced improvements in conditions of living; what is at stake is wether poverty and mass missery along with repression will continue to be perpetrated and perpetuated in qualitatively new forms, and whther a few will still control all the power and most of the wealth of society.

 

Regards,

Jaye Gaskia

---

From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 1:50:54 AM

[Jaye Gaskia]

Perhaps it is also important that we put in historical perspective the origins
of the specific expression of capitalism in the scandinavia states, as well as
the origins of the welfare state in capitalism in general.

 
It took a world wide chronic crisis of capitalism, producing two world wars and
provoking revolutions in Russia and parts of eastern europe [before the 2nd
world war & the iron curtain], and the threat of socialist revolutions in
mainstream europe itself, for keynesianism, which hitherto had been on the
fringe of capitalist political and economic discourse to become accepted as
mainstream and become the basis of social engineering of the post world war 2
years, to mitigate the crisis of capitalism, and reduce the risk of revolution.
 
And it succeeded, thanks largely to the opening up of the colonial possessions
for rapacious capitalist expansion and which helped to finance the welfare state
in europe.
 
It is the structures laid down in that period to underpin restored capitalist
growth, improve conditions of living and stave off revolution that is still
holding Africa and much of the former colonial possessions captive till this
day.

 
It is the internal resistance and manouvrings of new nationalist elites from the
former colonies within the sysytem that is generating the momentum for tinkering
with and restructuring, however minimally, the current global architecture of
capitalism; hence the gradual replacement and eventaul surplanting of the G7,
then G 8 by the G 20.
 
Afterall the world's population has increased tremendously, and there are many
more 'countries' and states now than there were post war; so their is a little
bit more room at the apex of the capitalist pyramid to jostle. Like every
ecosystem, the capitalist system has its carrying capacity for successful,
dominant, and dominating countries and peoples.
 
Regards,
Jaye Gaskia

----- Original Message ----
From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 11:17:35 PM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

ken

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

"Are those kind of developments referenced in your submission only possible under a dictatorial regime? Or for that matter only under a repressive market economy model?"

---Jaye


Come on broda, I was responding to Ken's speculative assertion that people would not trade some of their freedoms and rights for a better life, for jobs, improved standard of living, access to social goods and social infrastructure, etc. In the West this may be true, but NOT in Nigeria, where democracy has meant only misery, as much misery as dictatorship brought. In Nigeria, folks certainly would be willing to give up whatever freedom they still have (which is not much even under this so-called democracy) in exchange for decent living. Why do you think Nigerians keep migrating to Libya, China, Vietnam, and other dictatorial spaces? It's economics, pure and simple. Do you dispute that? Again, this is all hypothetical. And it is neither an endorsement of dictatorship nor a condemnation of democracy, especially Western liberal democracy. Both have flaws and merits as anchors for economic development. Both can be abused to cause misery and both can be used positively to engineer economic success. Which tells me that in many parts of the Third World where poverty lives and breathes, majority of poor people are concerned about effective, visionary, people-oriented leadership more than they are about whether the leadership is democratic or dictatorial (categories that are becoming less and less precise). I was merely trying to point out to Ken, contrary to his argument, that for the most part, most people in the Third World care more about escaping poverty and having a decent life than they do about what system they are ruled with and how many rights they have. Polls come with their own problems, but for what they're worth Chinese people in poll after poll have said they are happy to give up some of their rights for the "good times" to continue and are willing to wait for these rights to be gradually ceded by the government. Nigerians would gladly exchange the current repressive, rapacious, and corrupt democracy if you presented them with a dictatorship like the one in China that has been doing well by its peoples economically. Of course, this is all hypothetical--following from Ken's own hypothetical--and it is unlikely that Nigerians will actually be presented with such a choice, since as said, Nigeria's past dictatorships, unlike the Chinese model, have been anything but developmental.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Ikhide, I wasn't "feeling" your earlier post, but your latest one is dope. It is depressing that we have gone from discussing how best to explain and combat rampant poverty in Africa to deconstructing poverty itself by engaging in the familiar nauseating liberal cultural relativism that alternately romanticizes our worst conditions as the primal conditions of happy African minimalist existence and cavalierly and predictably dismisses them as creations of colonialism, neocolonialism, and globalization.

Where will this unhelpful externalization and relativization of every African malaise stop? I am tempted to think that only those who have never actually lived in poverty romanticize and relativize it. Poverty is no fun in any way--I don't care how you slice it. Our folks in the village and in city slums are groaning in lack and we say: well they're still happy and content and do now miss what they do not know or need. How condescending! When I am in Naija, that's all I hear about, the misery and suffering, even from old folks.

[kenneth harrow]

moses and jaye
i have been apprehensive about hogging too much the air space in my
dialogue with moses, and jaye is making points along the lines of my
thinking, so i will let his comments stand for mine, with my thanks. i
am referring especially to the last three postings which cover china and
nigeria.
moses, if there is really anything particular you want me to respond to
without burdening the list with my thoughts, please send them to
har...@msu.edu.
otherwise i will jump in just when the bug bites me too hard
ken

On 12/23/10 8:05 AM, Jaye Gaskia wrote:
> Perhaps it is also important that we put in historical perspective the origins
> of the specific expression of capitalism in the scandinavia states, as well as
> the origins of the welfare state in capitalism in general.
>
>
> It took a world wide chronic crisis of capitalism, producing two world wars and
> provoking revolutions in Russia and parts of eastern europe [before the 2nd

> world war& the iron curtain], and the threat of socialist revolutions in

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

"So altough it does matter that there has been this general improvement in conditions; it is equally important and decisive that there is still mass missery and poverty, and that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened tremendously!"

Jaye,

For goodness sake, the Chinese have only been in the business of industrial capitalism for a few decades and you expect "mass misery and poverty" to be a thing of the past? This is a country of over a billion people and a country that until roughly two decades ago was a rustic habitat of peasantry. I know that Chinese economic ascent has been called a miracle but even that miracle has a limit and is still evolving and growing. Give it time please. The country is just emerging from a prolong period of closure and peasantry. transitions are always messy. Check history. At last you concede the great strides and "general improvements in conditions" going on in China. We in Africa could use some "general improvement in conditions." In fact we need it badly and we don't really care how it is delivered--through capitalism or some other economic model, through liberal democracy or some other political model. Let's hope and work towards the just order of "egalitarian equity" but let's not sleep in the meantime and abandon our people in poverty and destitution while other Third World nations' leaders make decisions and sacrifices that translate into massive dividends for their citizens.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

To Jaye and other listmembers who are interested, here is a link to a piece I did for Pambazuka News outlining my apprehensions about the menace of liberal democracy in Nigeria and how it is doing more harm than good (http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/63116). Since it was published, a few other folks have chimed in to say that the same is true for their own African countries. My critique is of course not an indictment of democracy (there are different kinds of democracy and some of them are not patented by the West), but of the copy-cart, winner-takes-all multiparty democracy we find in many African countries today. Nor is it an endorsement of a return to dictatorship. It is rather a call for a different kind of democracy, one that does less harm and more good to/for our people. My recommendation at the end is underwhelming, I admit, but it's because I didn't have time to flesh it out. But the bigger takeaway here is that, as far as Nigeria (and maybe other African ) is concerned, liberal democracy is NOT INHERENTLY superior to authoritarian rule. Both can and have been abused and both can and have been used in some settings to do good for Africa's poor and vulnerable.  I speak to Nigerians all the time who long for the return of the military era and abhor this "democracy." And, of course, there were times in our history when people flocked the streets to celebrate military coups. What it tells me is that in the minds of our people, the democracy/dictatorship dichotomy is not that big a deal; what counts is good governance and attention to their problems. Of course, if you put a generic question to them about democracy and dictatorship (without the hypothetical variables like the one I had in my previous framing in response to Ken), a majority may choose democracy; but is that because they believe in liberal democratic practice as an inherently superior political order or because it is, for the moment, a less bad option and because they are still reeling from the hangover of our recent military rule experience? The fetishization of liberal democracy has become part of the problem in Africa. And it is destroying several of our countries.

[Ikhide]

Ebe,

 

Listen to me very carefully. A good Nigerian friend of mine posted this quote by Frantz Fanon on Facebook: "However painful it may be for me to accept this conclusion, I am obliged to state it: for the black man there is only one destiny. And it is white." There were about 25 respondents, 95 percent of whom obviously did not know (a) who Fanon was, and (b) that he has been dead for some time now ;-) Many called him a white racist. Evidence? This is a quote, in response to the status posting, verbatim, by a Nigerian, educated in one of Nigeria's "fine institutions of learning.":  "Why does this white men came to our land and exploy our resourses?" Verbatim, sir, I kid you not. (BTW, "President" Goodluck Jonathan's English was that bad on Facebook until some of us started wailing, then things improved somewhat. You may now find those grammatical errors in a book that was recently "launched" with Soyinka, and some of our fine writers in attendance!). Someone in the Facebook group, distraught kept begging enraged Nigerian youths to please google Fanon before commenting further.  There you have it, that is what my generation, of misrulers and wine-swilling wanna be white intellectuals has done to children. The greatest crime on earth is to steal from the mouth of a child. My friends have been doing that without shame and compassion. In the seventies, if you had not read Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, you would probably not be allowed into a party ;-)

 

My focus is on why Nigeria is in such a mess, let everybody go worry about his or her own country jo. We know why it is in a mess. We also know that it is easier to do nothing about it than to well, do something about it. So back to Fanon. It is our destiny. We are waiting for the white man to come bail us out again, just as he bailed us out with cell phones, Facebook, etc, etc. Today, every house in Nigeria is a dysfunctional municipality unto itself, with walls surrounding each broken home. This is my prediction. Walmart is coming to Nigeria. Very soon. They will start selling self-governance kits on aisle 419. "Gofment in a box!" is what they will call it. You buy it, you pour water in it, and everything that you need to live free and happy away from the bastards in government will magically appear. - good education, roads, security, light, water, etcheteram etcheteram. For a modest fee of course. For a modest fee. Of course. My family in the village would pay gladly for the privilege of being white and comfortable. Because they see us, being white and comfortable ;-)

 

Like I keep saying, I am happy to waste my time with all of you, bullsh*tting. It is easier than working. Besides, we have said all of this before. All I need to do is go to the archives, cut and paste what we said last year, put my name on it and voila, I am an inttelectual. Nonsense. I said it. Sue me.

 

- Ikhide   

 

---

From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 12:40:16 PM

[Olabode Ibironke]

Ikhide,

 

You lament that folks do not know that Fanon wrote the statement “for the black man there is only one destiny. And it is white" and at the end of that paragraph you claim that Wretched of the Earth was a must read in the seventies. You could be read as suggesting therefore that those who did not know Fanon made that statement must not have read Wretched of the Earth.  But that quote is coming from page 10 of Black Skin White Mask, a book that remains Fanon’s most problematic. It is for good reasons that folks don’t know or care about the book that much. It is the most Eurocentric of Fanon’s works, too Freudian, and too reductionist in its racial optics. So, if those Nigerian youth were enraged, they should know they have never being alone. I am sure you agree with this also in that book:

 

“Out of the blackest part of my soul, across the zebra stripping of my mind, surges this desire to be suddenly white. I wish to be acknowledged not as a black but as a white. Now- this is a form of recognition that Hegel did not envisage - who but a white woman can do this for me?
By loving me she proves that I am worthy of white love. I am loved like a white man. I am a white man. Her love takes me onto the noble road that leads to total realization ....... I marry white culture, white beauty, white whiteness. When my restless hands caress those white breast, they grasp white civilization and dignity and make them mine".

[xok...@yahoo.com]

Hi Olabode,

No need for the correction, but I thank you anyway. For the record, I knew where that quote came from. And if I didn't I would have googled it before opening my mouth; I wasn't born yesterday! I was simply referring to Fanon's popularity in my youth, and not by any stretch of my limited facility with the English language suggesting that the quote came from The Wretched of the Earth.

You give the folks I was referring to too much credit and I shall live it at that. I stand by everything I have said. Even the most Afrocentric of our people desires to be white. It is the tragedy of our race. Fanon is right; let's not beat about the bush. We have reduced our heritage to museum pieces to be chased around the world with petitions and bluster. Our youths are on the windows of Facebook staring at Europe and America, praying to escape their condition in Africa. You and I are here overseas in khaki pants and buttoned down shirts sipping lattes at Starbucks and staring at Africa. What are we going to do about it?

Fanon was a visionary. People were mad at him because he dared tell the truth about our hypocrisies. The solutions to our challenges are counterintuitive. Why am I even talking self? Abeg leave me alone jare. Go and sign a petition to return a mask that no longer belongs to us!

- Ikhide

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

---

From: "Olabode Ibironke" <ibir...@msu.edu>

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:39:57 -0500

To: <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

[awori]

Ndugu (brother in Kiswahili), Anuno: I would rather a China, that
tells you what they wnat from you (your raw materials)--in exchange
for REAL investment in your infrastrucutre---which is arguably
Africa's biggest economic challenge---than pretence, do good attitude
of the West---guilefully used to comouflage their parasitic,
imperialistic intentions---in the guise of "bringing" democracy and
"good governance" to Africa.

It gets even more sinister, when the yardstick applied to Africa----
which gets Aid crumbs from the West--compared to purveyors of war and
human rights abuses such as Israel and the Gulf States.

Give me China--ANY TIME!

Asante!


On Dec 20, 6:48 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua" <Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> The evidence of history, human development, and progress is clear. Leaders build nations and make them great or not great. There is no informed person anywhere who would in good conscience, dispute the past and continuing terrible exploitation of Africa through slavery, colonialism, and neocolonialism. This is a settled subject for the most part.
> The concern now should be about what needs to be done to extricate Africa from the steel clutches of exploiter-countries, and the tangled webs of underdevelopment that her leaders seem not to be worried about. It is even not clear that African leaders are not helping to spin the webs. What is oftentimes forgotten is that the countries that are believed to have and continue to exploit Africa are always able to produce leaders that maintain the status quo in favor of the countries at the same time that African countries seem to be unable to produce leaders that will challenge and end the said cycle of exploitation.
> Right before our eyes and under our noses, China, India, and South Korea have joined the ranks of Africa's exploiter-countries. Where are Africa's leaders? Do they know that this is happening right now?  Do they choose to benefit from the said exploitation in the advancement of their self interests at the expense of group interest?
> History can be real but this is no reason to allow history to successfully continue to take a perpetual mortgage on the present and the past. It seems to me that the case being made sometimes, is that the past, holding the present and the future hostage, is inevitable and unstoppable. History is a great teacher. It is little use however if its lessons are ignored or not/never learned.
>
> oa
> ________________________________________
> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kwame zulu shabazz [kwameshab...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 7:41 PM
> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?
>
> Peace OA--African nations of been "independent" from roughly two generations. How does that work out to "many years"? Moreover, we have inherited borders and political systems that were mostly imposed.
>
> Re: Sudan--There is a lot more going on there than bad leadership. The Sudanese are divided by foreign religions. But they are also
>
>  *   fighting over increasingly scarce resources, particularly in Darfur (arable land).
>  *   The north-south skirmishes are being pushed along by Islamicists in Khartoum, by
>  *   nationalists in Khartoum who believe that securing oil and other natural resources by any means necessary from southern Sudan is in the national interests
>  *   Zionist who want to undermine Islamic regimes
>  *   old and new imperialists (e.g. US and China)
>  *   undisciplined rebel factions.
>
> Re: Asia--Yes, Singapore, Japan, South Korea would appear to be far ahead of many African nations. Most of these nations have not abandoned their Gods and Ancestors, although Mau certainly tried to banish them China. Also these nations was not forced to deal with imposed languages and borders. This is especially daunting in Africa given the stunning level of cultural diversity.
>
> Chinese elites still speak Mandarin and Cantonese. African elites often prefer English or French or Portuguese. Not only that but China's path towards "development" is wrecking havoc on the environment. And the level of poverty in some parts of India would embarrass many Africans.
>
> My sense of things is that we Africans have been colonized psychologically in ways that Asian nations were not. This is what Biko was attempting to address.
>
> Last and most importantly, I think the slave trades--transatlantic, saharan, red sea, indian ocean--have undermined African development profoundly. kzs

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue

> For previous archives, visithttp://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html

[Jaye Gaskia]

My only response here will be that it will be an incorrect reading of my position thus far to conclude that the issue for me has been a counterpoise of liberal democracy to authoritarian rule!

 

My discourse has been about the capitalist system and its structures, and the need to overcome this. Capitalism as a system has been manifested in both authoritarian and liberal democratic moulds.

 

And in fact, i go as far as to contend that capitalism and the capitalist system and process of production and reproduction [of itself] is inherently authoritarian in its infacncy, in the period of what Marx called primitive accumulation of capital; and what liberals and capitalists of mature capitalism refer to as massive and chronic corruption/looting of the state treasury.

 

Advanced capitalisms which somehow have had no direct history of say colonial exploitation have benefited immensely from colonial expansion and trade by others,

 

So capitalism as a mode of production will always produce mass misery, and unequal distribution of wealth.

 

Regards to all,

Jaye

---

From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 7:54:27 PM

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Jaye, you want to cast capitalism in a monolithic light. That's your prerogative. I refuse to do that, not when we have several capitalist models in several countries that buck the neoliberal trend and, far from being producers of mass misery, are, even by your own admission, causing improvements in "general conditions" and lifting millions out of poverty. There are different kinds of capitalisms, including the humane Wesfarist capitalism of the Scandinavian states and the state-driven, non-neoliberal capitalism of China. I recognize that you don't want to deal with those because they complicate your dogmatic Marxian conclusion that capitalism is a spreader of "mass misery." So what is your alternative to humane capitalism? Socialism? I have challenged you to prove to me how or that socialism is not as big if not a bigger instrument of mass misery as well as a poor system for creating wealth. You have failed to so. In fact I'd go so far as to say that socialism is an instrument of egalitarian misery. I guess to you egalitarian poverty is preferable to "improvements in general conditions" and "inequalities." That is, if we believe the mythical canard that socialism, pure socialism, is indeed a perfectly egalitarian philosophy/practice, which it is not.  I guess to you it's better to live in a society where everyone is miserable and misery has plenty of company than to live in one where wealth is being created and the state steps in proactively to redistribute wealth, implement social security measures, and provide social infrastructures and access to them. Fine. We understand ourselves. By the way, my post on democracy/authoritarianism was a slight aside following from your critique of my response to Ken. It wasn't meant as a reading of the full body of your contributions here.

Happy holidays!

[kenneth harrow]

dear all (including moses and jaye)
i am offering this example as a response to the broad question of african states and leaders' agency in dealing with their country's resources, and building the economy.
i spent a year teaching at u cheikh anta diop in dakar almost 5 years ago--a really wonderful year for which i am grateful. this is not by way of complaints, then, but simple facts and observations:
the university was overwhelmed with students. a campus with  50,000 students (now more, i am told) that had been built for half those numbers, was bursting at the seams.
we had intro english classes of 500 (now i am told they are up to 1000!). I taught one of those classes, and found it very difficult to make real contact with my students, much less assure that they were learning what i was teaching. i had a master's class of 250--many of whom i got to know, and valued. but 250 for a masters class made discussion very difficult.
all the numbers have increased.
now, this is a university i had taught at twice before in previous decades, and conditions before had not been so dire. what happened?
two things combined, which give some light, to me, on this question at hand:
--when wade became president in 2000 he opening up admissions so that virtually everyone with a bac, i.e.high school diploma, was guaranteed admission. as the various depts vetted admissions, english wound up burdened with an enormous number, some 5000 majors for a staff of fewer than 20.
why could english not increase its staff? why didn't the university build more classrooms so that competition for classes almost, or did, lead to blows at times; there were not enough auditoria for the classes needed, and at times my classes were simply canceled to accommodate someone else with priority.
anyway, wade courted the votes of his students and their families, and destroyed much of the quality of the university in the process.
but wade could have increased the budget to the university to fix the problem, right? wrong. the education budget was set at a fixed percentage by the imf. it was something like 20% of the national budget, and wade had no power to change it since senegal had accepted imf loans.
now there were student strikes and demands for redress. but the students knew, as well as everyone else, why the situation was as it was. were they simply stupid or willful in striking? no. in speaking with them, i was told that they understood that the message of destabilization of the educational year that they were sending was not really to wade, but to the imf, which would reconsider its policies if they destabilized the regime.

Now--people in senegal had the right to vote for wade, or against him. but no one had a vote for the imf.
whose interests were ultimately being served by imf and world bank policies? who determined what those policies were? what trade system was imposed and protected by the imf? it was neoliberalism, as a friend on the imf board told me--a doctrine that could not be challenged.

the authoritarianism of this system was absolute.  that is, a policy that directly drove the educational system in dakar, the water distribution system in dakar, the monies for electricity and garbage pickup, the privatization of basic needs, the costs of food imports, the limits on exports--these things were not in the hands of the elected govt. when oil prices went up, electricity stopped cold; garbage pickup stopped cold.

i am not saying the govt of senegal had no control whatsoever; nor that it was perfect, free from corruption, etc. it was better than many, not as bad as others. but its control over its resources, over aid, over policies, was limited, limited by its indebtedness to a system whose policies are made by the donor nations.
i agree that bad governments worsen the situation, but their powers to do so are limited. Mbembe makes this point repeated in On the Postcolony. is he wrong?

i am as interested and committed to the amelioration of living conditions for the average senegalese, average african, as any one else. i recognize that there are many factors that account for the terrible state many people are in. but i strongly believe that the comfort enjoyed in the west, the conditions of exchange being established by the major trading partners, including china, are not set so as to benefit the average african. the average person can vote, and maybe the vote will make some difference; but only relatively so. that means the authority to act lies to a large extent in the hands of institutions which have absolutely no accountability to those over whose lives they rule.
bad african rulers ought to be challenged; but if you don't take the above into consideration, will your vote really make a difference?
more could be said, but this is enough for now
ken

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Ken, I read your story. Nothing new there. Check out two excellent documentaries: Our Man at the Bank and Donka: X-ray of an African Hospital. They portray the devastation of neoliberalism and its 'reforms" in very graphic terms in Uganda and Mali. We had it worse than Senegal in Nigeria's experience with the Bretton Woods institutions in the late 1980s and 1990s. In Nigeria, the military dictator at the time even organized a sham national debate on whether we should accept the IMF's terms or not. In the end, despite an overwhelming public rejection of the neoliberal "reforms" the dictator went ahead to implement SAP and to acquire the loans from the IMF. Who was the culprit in that? Babangida, the dictator. What was the culprit in that? The culprit was leadership, which made a terrible choice when it clearly had other options, options suggested by renown Nigerian economists that, while essentially capitalist in nature, departed radically from the neoliberal trajectory. In your Senegal example, is it not appropriate to blame Mr. Wade for making a wrong choice even as we blame the choice he made ( the IMF's neoliberal recommendations) for the malaise you described? You talk as if these countries have no sovereignty at all and have no choice but to take the poison pill of the IMF. Your own narrative on Wade supplies a serious indictment of his decisions and choices. Yet you want to blame all of Senegal's woes on the IMF, whose conditions Wade DID NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT. This is what some of us resent.

I strongly encourage you to obtain and view an episode of HD-NET's acclaimed news documentary series 'World Report" titled "Miracle in Malawi." You'll see there that Malawi's current leader, wa Mutharika, stubbornly refused to heed the IMF's neoliberal insistence that  the government not subsidize farmers with seeds and fertilizers. Its defiance of the IMF's neoliberal orthodoxy denied it some loans, but it paid off big time. Today, as we speak, Malawi has gone from a nation in perennial need of food aid to one that exports grain! Again, this obsession with neoliberalism and the IMF simply provides an alibi for Africa's unimaginative, corrupt, insecure, and incompetent leadership. It's an outrage--the sleek, if unintended, exoneration of Africa's disappointing postcolonial leadership from the African "mess."

[kenneth harrow]

moses
i agree that malawi did something laudible; as for wade, i think it was political calculation that 50,000 students getting scholarships (with large families and voters....) all added up to a great way to garner votes.
i respect your views, but do not agree about neoliberalism, or agency. i see african leaders' agency, like that of obama and putin, etc, as limited. i agree with those arguing that african states have much less heft in this context than the west or china. given this, some states/leaders do better within the limits, some worse
 perhaps we might leave it at that for now
best
ken

[ogb...@yahoo.com]

Dear all,
While it is possibly true that I may be beholden to a dogmatic marxian schema, I think it is certainly equally obvious that there is an apparent opposite dogmatic capitalist schema to which some others are beholden,
Capitalism across all its models bring misery and mass poverty. And we should be very careful coflating more mature models that can now afford welfarism because of their dominant position in the capitalist pyramid, with less mature models which because they are just going through their expansionist phase do not have luxury of the possibilities of ameliorating the impact of capitalist misery.
I am also not inclined to accept that the only choices open to us are within the confines of the capitalist system, remain a choice between authoritarian or liberal welfarist models.
I do not believe nor do I accept either the alternatives lies only in the now defunct authoritarian experiences called actually existing socialism.
If capitalism has not always existed, if it came into being as a result of the development and advancement of human civilisation, then it follows that other more humane systems which will not be capitalist in its essence can also come into being.
What is being refered to as models of capitalism actually correspond to different phases in the growth of that system the fact that they are now coexisting within the same time frame does not remove from their expressions of different phases in the development of that system.
Regards,
Jaye

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>

Sender: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:44:52 -0500

To: <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

[Anunoby, Ogugua]

I did not mean to position China as an alternative to Africa's colonial and neo-imperialist exploiters.
My point was that today's Africa's leaders seem to be happy to "batter" Africa's precious resources (raw materials to "exploiters" called trade partners ) for measly sums and bribes just as some of their forebears exchanged their brothers and sisters for firearms and mirrors among others, to strangers from unknown lands. I would rather Africa's leaders trade places with the leaders of so called trade partner countries and do to their countries what they continue to do to African countries.
"Give me China--ANY TIME" may be okay with; that is not to say that China, in the long term, will serve Africa better than Europe and North America have done.
Those who know, know that true and enduring development is not inevitable but is the result of planned, purpose-driven and rational choice, and consonant constructive actions. China is a present day example.

oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of awori [awori....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 5:22 AM
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

Give me China--ANY TIME!

Asante!

For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue

For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html

[toyin adepoju]

I hope members in general and contributors to this debate in particular do not mind this  effort of mine at a  compilation of the debate.I was inspired by the sheer power of the arguments and their progression in contrast to  and complementarity  with  each other.

The compilation can be neater than this but this is what I have been able to do for now.

I would have liked to add a list of contents and an index.

I would like any corrections pointed out so I effect them.

I wonder if members as a group or individually object to the following;

1. Distributing this compilation on other groups

2. Placing it on the free document archive Scribd

3. Blogging it

4. Sending it to an academic journal to be considered for publication after it has been made neater by adequate paragraphing for all contributions,for example.

In all these instances,nothing will be changed in terms of addition to or deletion from content of contributions and the names of contributors in relation to their contributions.

Finally,members might want to consider the possibility of the posts on such a rich group as this being published on a yearly basis and the money going to charity.

Nothing can replace readily accessible record keeping. History is being made and knowledge constructed through these posts and debates.

Thanks

Toyin Adepoju

[kenneth harrow]

i don't mind what you do with it toyin,
but as for an academic journal, i would not think it appropriate
first of all, i don't know about the others, but these responses are compose a l'improviste, quickly, too often without even prooooofreading, alas.
further, the answers are always particularly considered. i mean, i think about the parts where the bug bites, and turn to that. as a result, many key points are left unanswered. moses's  last posting in which he said to me something like, surely you don't think sweden is socialist, was right. i don't. it is a reformist version of capitalism, liberal capitalism in fact; and my musings on the difference between what i think of as the ideals of capitalism and socialism are really quite undeveloped, to be sure. i gestured toward people i admired, like spivak and derrida, and politically especially mouffe and laclau. if it were to go to a journal, i would have to look up the key passages and make the points appropriately, not just vaguely suggest their broad outlines.
the media are different. i stopped because we were delving too much in what seemed a personal exchange, and i like the more rapid reflections, ones where many intervene, ones that perhaps demand less of the reader since i know, as my friends have told me, that length becomes an issue.
this list has had wonderful exchanges; but they are not book-like or academic. they represent a new exciting form of intellectual debate. we can't cast it back into the older paper mold.
lastly, there is incredible wit here, that somehow belongs on the screen. when ikhide wrote that terrible email about not caring about the benin mask, i could help admire the brilliance of his wit, never mind the disagreement, if disagreement there was.
it shines off the screen. what would a dull page of paper do to it?
and not just wit; i don't mean to belittle him. it was felt really strongly, passionately. read quickly, felt quickly; reread again. closed. next.
and then pius came in on ghana: who could ever duplicate the effects of the one following the others? if you organized it, you'd kill it.
so, go ahead.... but .....
ken

-- 
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
har...@msu.edu

[toyin adepoju]

Thanks Ken. Knowing you from our exchanges here,your quick, approving and analytical response confirms my understanding  of you as a person steeped in the culture of scholarship in whatever form it presents itself.

Interestingly,the very points you raise as to why you think this debate is not adequate for an academic journal are the very reasons why I think it is.I am acquainted with though not familiar with the Platonic dialogues.I have read about the essays of Montaigne and  Kierkegaard's Either/Or.I really enjoy the wonderful dialogue between Densu and Damfo in Armah's The Healers.I  am acquainted with,though not in depth,with the dialogues of the Upanishads and the Zohar. I have read about a famous dialogue between Shiva and his wife Parvati.All these are classics of philosophy that operate in terms of dialogue closer to the kind demonstrated by the exploratory dialogical form of listserve than the conventional roundedness   of the academic paper.

One could argue that learned debates such as occur on a listserve like  this demonstrate the activity of discourse  in the white hot heat of process,rather than the rounded completeness  of a conventional essay and therefore are  demonstrative of the reality of the processes involved in the development of knowledge in a manner vital and different from the conventional academic work as it has developed in the Western academy after Plato.

Why bother with references in such a context?What is more relevant in  this context  is the knowledge that the debaters have constituted as part of themselves,almost as inalienable  from them as their blood,it is in fact central to their life blood understood as both physical and mental, as evident from the knife sharp intelligence and rapidity of thought and response,the passion, with which these positions  are articulated.

These dialogues are confined to the group's archives after being brought to life, further restricting the scope of awareness of their existence and their prime value as sources of information and catalysts of knowledge.All those qualities you admire about the exchanges are evident in the compilation.The sequence of presentation takes care of that.Of course,even academic journals also exist both in print and online.The real distinction between an exchange on a listserve and a conventional print text is the structure. Sadly,since Plato,dialogical structure in written discourse is in Western civilization is confined to drama.Other civilizations did not approach the communication of knowledge this way. As evident from African,Asian,Arab and Persian cognitive histories,various verbal forms were pressed into service,from  dialogues to narratives and essays.

I  would think that such dialogues as evident on this group  should be circulated on all kinds of media.It would help circulate  to a broader audience than normally has access to it,intellectual discourse  demonstrating the depth of knowledge  debates on this group do.I dont know about others,but  for me, I have the impression that to find   discourse of this level of density of scholarly information and processing, one has either to go to an academic work,which are specialized texts read particularly by students and  scholars,or to a work by a publisher like Penguin,who publishes, very selectively,scholarly writing in relatively cheap paper back editions, particularly in their classics series.Perhaps with better exposure to the book,,journals and magazines market I will have more examples.

Imagine this debate boiled down into the form of an academic essay,with all the apparatus of scholarship. To read it,one would  need to enter into a particular mindset required for engaging with sophisticated ideas.The more one is familiar  and comfortable with such ideas ,particularly in the specific discipline they come from,the easier it is to enter this mindset.Then imagine the whole ensemble packaged in the expensive formats academic works normally come in,costing more,at time significantly more, than the average novel and often  not available in cheap second had versions.Along with the fact that the circulation scope of academic works is quite restricted, as far as I can see.

There is a need for bridges between academic knowledge and the average reader.Various publishers are working at this,including Oxford UP with  their  Very Short Introductions series,Cambridge UP and their Canto series,and the recent developments in popular science publishing. All these,however,are all operating under the assumption that the best way to communicate is through an essay organized in the conventional structure  of introduction,body and conclusion. This assumption is not necessarily accurate.The dialogical form as is evident on listserves may contribute to filling  this communicative gap most admirably.

It would be interesting to see the responses of  academic ,magazine and newspaper editors,both print and online, to requests to publish the debate.

Thanks

Toyin

[Ikhide]

" lastly, there is incredible wit here, that somehow belongs on the screen. when ikhide wrote that terrible email about not caring about the benin mask, i could help admire the brilliance of his wit, never mind the disagreement, if disagreement there was. it shines off the screen. what would a dull page of paper do to it? and not just wit; i don't mean to belittle him. it was felt really strongly, passionately. read quickly, felt quickly; reread again. closed. next."

 

- Kenn Harrow,

 

Okay, Kenn, below is what I wrote in response to your rousing call to arms. I clearly said I do not care for the campaign to return the mask. I did not say I do not care for the mask. In fact, the case could be made that I care more for the welfare of the mask than those of you wailing Mbakwe for the return of the mask. I expressed deep reservations about its fate in a land that cannot take care of its own people, talk less of a mask, a land that is unable to sustain a credible museum, a land where its zookeepers have other priorities other than keeping animals alive. I also expressed distrust of the motives of those who would use their awesome powers of persuasion for the return of a mask even as they blithely ignore the desecration of children, women and our sacred land by our friends in power. It is all about priorities and we have every right as human beings to make choices. There are many things that were stolen from us by Christian marauders from the West. The pillaging and rape continue to this day, aided by our friends.

 

I find it interesting that the same Western liberals who have fought ferocious battles against the killing of elephants on account of their ivory tusks are up in arms about an ivory mask. They should make up their minds.Should we simply follow them around as they bob and weave and change their political and personal convictions to suit the day?  If the Oba of Benin is missing his mask he has a strange way of showing it. He is a highly educated and astute man; he knows what to do. He could put the awesome power of his office to use in getting the mask back. Many of our thieves in power can pay for the mask many times over. Why not simply allow the mask to be auctioned in the presence of a shackled Ibori? The man can afford to plunk down $50 million for it. Meanwhile, in our country, children are being MURDERED for being children, they are called witches and wizards by Christians and MURDERED. And you sit here with me worrying about a damn mask. Who cares? The Niger Delta has been turned into hell by white MNCs and their black (Nigerian) friends; I am yet to see anyone in a sustained protest against this evil. Why should I get excited about the pet projects of white folks? In Rwanda 800,000 humans were slaughtered in a space of 3 weeks. Liberals wept - tears of joy when they found out that the apes of Rwanda had survived the holocaust.  

 

So, I should be forgiven for being underwhelmed by a call for my toes to flirt with crickets even as I am carrying an overweight elephant on my head. Kenn, I will not take Tylenol for someone else's headache. I have my own issues. Be well.

 

- Ikhide

 

 

"the report on this sale of the bein ivory mask is particularly dispiriting. we all know of the provenance of benin sculptures following the 1897 punitive expedition.now one of those pieces held by the galway family, descendants of one of the original military officers who stole the sculptures, has the effrontery to sell it.here is the sahara reporters account, detailing the situation and asking us to sign a petition complaining about the sale."

- Kenn Harrow

Kenn,

So some oyinbo person wants to sell his loot and we are about to crap in our pants? Who cares? Na wa O! Is THAT the only thing they stole? Why are we now wetting our pants over ONE art piece? A pox on all their houses. I am a descendant of the Benin empire. I don't know of any Nigerian that is not upset that these artifacts were looted and moved abroad. Having said that, it is my fervent prayer that those beautiful pieces stay away from Nigeria for now. I will personally stone whomever has the temerity to return the pieces. In fact enh, if I was the artwork I would kick against being returned to the "museums" of Nigeria. I would even beg for political asylum. Why would I substitute a life of lush living behind climate-controlled glass, oogled by nice people who know art, for a life of guaranteed misery on some God-forsaken "museum" in Nigeria? The art pieces will lie somewhere dirty at the mercy of filth, dust, neglect, corruption, etc. The curator would steal millions of dollars allocated for their annual upkeep and who knows, one drunken night, the "head of state" du jour might give them to his Indian mistress as a gift, after 1 minute of sex. The artifacts will come back home but not yet. I am not even sure to where self, the old Benin Kingdom is no more. Who will accept the art on the kingdom's behalf?

If you want to know what happens in museums in Nigeria, read Teju Cole's Everyday for the Thief. You will cry. Do you know what happened to the zoo at UI? If you find out let me know. Someone started a rumor the other day, that the zoo workers ate most of the animals when they were not paid...

If you read Wole Soyinka's book You Must Set Forth at Dawn, there is a passage there that descends into hilarious farce. He sets out to Europe or Brazil or somewhere to rescue the original ori olokun. He concocts some nonsense espionage bullsh*t and comes away, well almost - with a plastic copy of the ori olokun! LOL! Ask him for me, where was he going to put it? Hopefully in his house away from termites with steel jaws.

Are these busybody petitioners just now noticing that the piece has been missing? Which one concern them inside? The courts should ask them which part of the art work belongs to them. Shebi it is only 3 million pounds that they are crying about. Ibori used to steal that every day. Every day. And you, Kenn have been silent about that, well you will say oh yes white folks steal also! This group of powerful intellectuals could start a letter writing campaign to protest the fact that fully a quarter of our budget goes to supporting the legislative branch (or something similarly outrageous). I will sign that petition. Kenn how many of you have signed a petition against the wanton abuse and murder of the "witch children" of Nigeria? That I will sign.

Kenn, I have an idea. Let us start a petition against the West. Dear West, do not allow any penny to leave Nigeria (use Nigeria as a test pilot). That is, they may steal but they must spend the money on and in Nigeria. Do not permit any of our bastard leaders to go abroad for "medical attention!" Now you are talking. I will sign that one. To hell with the mask. Keep it in Europe. Have a great life, mask. Those of us stuck in Africa envy you your life!

- Ikhide

 

---

From: kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 26, 2010 9:41:14 PM