DDT is NOT the ANSWER!

The enthusiasm with which DDT use is being touted as a ‘solution to end malaria’ in Africa is sickening. Oh kind-hearted people of the world (the mantra goes), ‘Help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment.” (Oh altruism, I thought you were lost, but alas DDT has brought you back…riiiggggght.) But what is completely flabbergasting is that many Africans are NOT concertedly challenging this mantra. Most people seem to be smiling and nodding…yes yes…we need this DDT to get rid of malaria. Oh yeah? At what cost?

Let’s just deal with this by looking at what those advocating DDT are saying, and then look at what they are NOT saying…you decide which arguments convince you more.

Pro DDT arguments:

1) Where DDT is used, malaria deaths plummet. Where it is not used, they skyrocket. For example, in South Africa, the most developed nation in Africa, the incidence of malaria had been kept very low (below 10,00

0 cases annually) by the careful use of DDT. When small amounts are sprayed on interior walls, DDT forms a residue that both repels mosquitoes — discouraging them from flying into the house — and kills those that rest on the walls.

2) No other chemical comes close to

DDT as an affordable, effective way to repel mosquitoes from homes, exterminate any that land on walls, and disorient any that are not killed or repelled, largely eliminating their urge to bite in homes that are treated once or twice a year with tiny amounts of this miracle insecticide. For impoverished countries, many of which are struggling to rebuild economies wracked by decades of disease and civil war, cost and effectiveness are critical considerations.

3) DDT is a pesticide used to control insects that carry diseases such as malaria. Numerous studies indicate that DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to humans. However, EPA lists DDT as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’ Studies conclude that there are no serious effects in people under normal use. According to ATSDR, there are no studies on the health effects of children exposed to DDT. There is no evidence that DDT causes birth defects in people.

The counter-arguments to these points are what is NOT being said. So let me do that, point to point.

Anti-DDT arguments

1) DDT use does not end malaria- especially in tropical climates?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has tried this before in its War on malaria in the1960s. It failed- for countries with tropical climates. For example, in Sri Lanka (which was cited as one of the successes of the project) they used DDT spraying as a technique to control malaria and it failed due to a number of factors the most important on being that, ‘Apart from operational and administrative shortcomings, the main reason for this second increase was the development of vector resistance to DDT, to such an extent that it was necessary to change to the more expensive malathion in 1977.’[1]

This leads us to the next problem with the DDT spraying argument. Its really hard to pull it off, ‘For effective control of mosquitoes, at least 80 per cent of all households must be covered every 6-12 months by well-coordinated spray teams. Is this possible in Africa? Imagine trying that across the Congo basin! It is not realistic to assume that this will happen. It will just leave the communities vulnerable again.’[2]

In the cases where DDT has DDT has been used effectively namely, South Africa, parts of Europe and the USA, they have TEMEPRATE climates so their weather is already waging half the battle against the mosquitoes. The survival of mosquitoes that carry the malaria parasite (yes not ALL mosquitoes are malaria vectors) is dependent on three things: temperature, precipitation and humidity. By the far the factor on which most work has been done and which is very clearly affect the survival of malaria and the mosquitoes is temperature.

Temperature

The minimum temperatures for parasite development are between 14-19°C. The optimum temperature for mosquitoes is 25-27°C. Below 20°C, the life cycle of P. falciparum (the malaria parasite strain that is most dangerous and most difficult to treat) is limited. ‘ [3]

Most Sub-Saharan African temperatures range between 20°C- 27°C ALL YEAR round. So our temperature is always perfect if not optimal for malaria and mosquito reproduction We ar called malarious zones). S. Africa is at the tip and is therefore temperate, in fact a study on South Africa-malaria-temperature interaction showed that,’ (H)igher than average mean September temperatures were associated with an increase in the severity of malaria in the following year.’[4]

The reason why tropical climates get Since we have a TROPICAL climate where residues of the parasite and mosquitoes ALWAYS linger, DDT use in Africa for purposes of malaria control will have to me much more intense and concentrated than in those other areas of the world.

Another point to note on why South Africa go rid of malaria so easily is because, its NOT a malarious Zone. Malaria comes in seasons in South Africa. In African countries where the burden of malaria is greatest, the disease is endemic. Uganda (and other African countries with a high malaria burden), where it rains throughout the year, could not be more different from South Africa in terms of malaria, and it is a mistake to apply the same formula here. The use of DDT for indoor residual spraying will not produce the same results and will almost certainly have dire consequences. [5]

2) Will using DDT really be cheaper for Africa?

There is no evidence that this is the case, ‘Malaria control decision makers who use or want to use DDT to combat malaria say they want to use it because it is both effective and inexpensive, when compared to alternatives… However, none of the malaria control or insecticide control specialists in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya or South Africa could cite a formal cost-effectiveness study to assess whether using DDT was, in truth, the most effective and inexpensive method to be used. …” [6]

Even if DDT were more cost effective and even if it were going to produce the so-called MAGICAL effects and exterminate mosquito populations the truth is that , ‘Each time scientists find a way to fight the parasite (malaria), the parasite finds a way to fight back. It has become resistant to most treatments, for example. And some mosquitoes have already adapted to tolerate DDT.’ [7] Also, DDT won’t work in some places where mosquitoes already are resistant to a range of insecticides. [8]

So what we’re doing is putting Africans at risk, well aware of the fact that this parasite will probably become resistant to this supposedly fool proof chemical…so in 10 or so years not only will Africa be reeling from the effects of DDT (see below) we will also be living with killer- strong parasites and mosquitoes resistant to DDT.

We therefore would have spend money on doing the DDT operations in our country, then be hit again as Africans continue to die against a parasite that is even stronger. But by then the North (since the Northern institutions are the ones that are always ‘inspired’ to THINK on Africa’s behalf and find solutions for us) would have come up with another brilliant idea to end malaria forever-for real this time. Brilliant plan!

3) What are the effects of DDT?

Right now we are being told, in very rational and scientific language, that DDT is not a problem and that, ‘Regarding the possible dangers of DDT to humans, studies of (DDT) spray-men in India and Brazil and workers in DDT factories in the U.S.A. showed elevated levels of DDT in serum or body fat, but medical follow-up showed that this did not appear to have done them any harm.’ [9]

Statements such are these are dangerous and misleading because there IS evidence that DDT is harmful. For those interested in looking at the environmental effects look here (scroll down http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html) and here (http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/ddt.shtml ) . (Mind you, while reading the link I think we should keep in mind that humans ARE A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT. It’s hilarious how science encourages us to distinguish the effects of chemicals into ‘human’ and ‘environment’ effects. Yeaaaahhh ooo-k. If we let toxins accumulate in the environment and adversely affect the ecosystem, of COURSE we’ll be adversely affected as well….no rocket science required to understand that- I hope. Anyway in this part we will focus on the effects on humans.

Effect on humans

DDT is an organochlorine that persists in the environment long after use, accumulating in the food chain and in fatty tissues of animals and humans.

On the mental functioning in children

A study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology found that the higher the concentration of DDT to the child in pregnancy to lower the child’s verbal, memory, quantitative, and perceptual-performance skills at age 4 years. It indicated that pre natal exposure to background, low-level concentrations of DDT was associated with a decrease in preschoolers’ cognitive skills. [10] Add to this the fact that DDT is concentrated in breast milk because it is lipophilic and the secretion of stored DDT into milk is the main route for excretion of DDT in lactating women.

On reproductive health

A study done by the Centre for Research on Women’s and Children’s Health at the Berkeley Public Health Institute found that, ‘(T)he higher the concentrations of DDT in their mother’s blood, the longer it took the daughters to become pregnant. The daughters’ probability of becoming pregnant fell by 32% for each 10 microgrammes of DDT per litre of blood.’ [11]

Research done by scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the University of North Carolina and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, ‘DDT increases the risk of pregnant women having their babies before 37 weeks of gestation…DDT use increases pre-term birth, which is a major contributor to infant mortality.’[12]

A chemical derivative of DDT (DDE)·, mimics the effects of the oestrogen hormone, which plays an important role in controlling sexual development. A three year study in the US, 20 years ago, found that the children of pregnant mothers whose blood and breast milk contained high levels of DDT, reached sexual maturity earlier.[13]

The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that ‘DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen’. Work carried out by the US National Cancer Institute correlates breast cancer in women with increased levels of DDE in blood serum. From 14,290 women monitored in the New York University Women’s Health Study, researchers selected 58 women who had developed breast cancer and 171 matched controls without cancer. After adjusting for participants’ childbearing and breast feeding histories, and for family history of breast cancer, researchers found a four-fold increase in relative risk of breast cancer for women with elevated levels of DDE in the blood.

On the nervous system

Acute effects likely in humans due to low to moderate exposure may include nausea, diarrhea, increased liver enzyme activity, irritation (of the eyes, nose or throat), disturbed gait, malaise and excitability; at higher doses, tremors and convulsions are possible.

Other effects

In humans, blood cell cultures of men occupationally exposed to DDT showed an increase in chromosomal damage. In a separate study, significant increases in chromosomal damage were reported in workers who had direct and indirect occupational exposure to DDT. Thus it appears that DDT may have the potential to cause genotoxic effects (toxic effects to genes) in humans, but does not appear to be strongly mutagenic (cause mutations).

The way forward

There are other options to DDT that are effective and safer, ‘Deltamethrin and cyfluthrin were found to be much superior to DDT, HCH or malathion in vector control in trials in India.’[14]Can we PLEASE look into these other options before jumping on the DDT band wagon.

DDT is not the magic bullet that will eradicate malaria. We need to refocus resources and attention on something most Africans do not have: basic malaria education, and prevention with insecticide-treated bed nets while at the same time spending as much effort exploring other compounds that can be used for indoor-spraying.

If we are going to use DDT, then we MUST use it as PART of a larger malaria plan and NOT tout it as the answer to malaria. We must also KNOW that we may be putting ourselves in harms way in the process.

[1] http://timlambert.org/2005/02/malaria/

[2] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/new_who_malaria_policy_is_oper.php

[3]http://www.brown.edu/Research/EnvStudies_Theses/full9900/creid/climate_and_malaria.htm

[4] http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16028839

[5] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/ddt_in_uganda.php

[6] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/ddt_in_uganda.php

[7] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944

[8] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214087,00.html

[9] http://timlambert.org/2005/10/curtis/

[10]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/kwj299v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ddt&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3023416.stm

[12] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1434580.stm

· Note: DDT is degraded DDE and DDD when metabolised

[13] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1434580.stm

[14] http://timlambert.org/2005/10/curtis/

What we need in Afrika is appropriate action that is created, developed, and executed by AFRIKANS and those who LISTEN to the opinions of Afrikans so that we can develop relevant and effective solutions to our problems. What Afrika does NOT need is those who want to reinvent everything and do what they THINK is ‘good for Afrika’ according to their sterile academic models created in capitals in the global North- all in the name of good intention.

I mean just a look at Afrika now, which houses thousands upon thousands of Northern multinational NGOs that are working in Afrika with ‘good intentions’. Is their work really addressing the challenges Afrika faces? Do these guys even bother to work wih communities to find out what communities think of their proposed solutions? Do they even dare to admit failure when it’s clear their supposedly brilliant project ideas for the ‘Afrikan natives’ were irrelevant, poor conceived, didn’t lead to any sustained improvements and-in short- were actually a pile of SHIT? And why are they trying to create poverty reduction strategies in Afrika without implementing wealth reduction strategies in their own nations. The world has a FINITE amount of resources.

I swear the stupidity of some people is rather flabbergasting…truly, why? Because over the past week or so irate readers have told me how I should ‘just be happy’ because ‘at least people are coming to Afrika with good intentions’…to those people I have one thing to say:

FUCK GOOD INTENTIONS.

This is especially so when those intentions are held by people (white, black or brown) who have NO understanding of the issues that afflict Afrika or EVEN BETTER do not want to LISTEN to the opinions of Afrikans on how WE want to develop our continent. Instead they come to us with their white northern imperialist racist mindsets of ‘we know what’s good for Afrikans better than Afrikans themselves’. Sadly, even some Black non-Afrikans feel this way…they feel like that everyone BUT Afrikans know what’s good for Afrika. People who think like that need to be thrown out to sea…seriously.

We, and our brothers and sisters in South America, have been saying this for decades. We have been saying that we don’t need your fucking good intentions or any ‘well meaning help’ unless it’s actually helpful and PRODUCES RESULTS. But sadly, some confused individuals feel that:1) Afrika should be GRATEFUL to those who come to ‘do something’ in Afrika…even if its not effective. Why? Because at least they have the right intentions….riiiiigggght.

2) People should thank them for having good intentions and infact the fact that they have good intentions should give them the license to do WHATEVER they THINK is alright for Afrikans (even though they’re not Afrikans themselves). Why? Because at the least they have the right intention….fuuuuckkking hell. Such stupidity is truly unforgivable and it is precisely this sort of attitude that is wreaking havoc in Afrika.

AFRIKA IS NOT A TESTING GROUND FOR ALL YOUR DAMN IDEAS.

So to all you meddling self-proclaimed do gooders with your supposedly good intentions my message to you is simple

GET OUT OF AFRIKA UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE USEFUL TO OFFER US THAN YOUR PATHETIC GOOD INTENTIONS.

And now I present you Ivan Illich in his own words:

To Hell with Good Intentions
by Ivan Illich

An address by Monsignor Ivan Illich to the Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects (CIASP) in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 20, 1968. In his usual biting and sometimes sarcastic style, Illich goes to the heart of the deep dangers of paternalism inherent in any voluntary service activity, but especially in any international service “mission.” Parts of the speech are outdated and must be viewed in the historical context of 1968 when it was delivered, but the entire speech is retained for the full impact of his point and at Ivan Illich’s request.

IN THE CONVERSATIONS WHICH I HAVE HAD TODAY, I was impressed by two things, and I want to state them before I launch into my prepared talk.

I was impressed by your insight that the motivation of U.S. volunteers overseas springs mostly from very alienated feelings and concepts. I was equally impressed, by what I interpret as a step forward among would-be volunteers like you: openness to the idea that the only thing you can legitimately volunteer for in Latin America might be voluntary powerlessness, voluntary presence as receivers, as such, as hopefully beloved or adopted ones without any way of returning the gift.

I was equally impressed by the hypocrisy of most of you: by the hypocrisy of the atmosphere prevailing here. I say this as a brother speaking to brothers and sisters. I say it against many resistances within me; but it must be said. Your very insight, your very openness to evaluations of past programs make you hypocrites because you – or at least most of you – have decided to spend this next summer in Mexico, and therefore, you are unwilling to go far enough in your reappraisal of your program. You close your eyes because you want to go ahead and could not do so if you looked at some facts.

It is quite possible that this hypocrisy is unconscious in most of you. Intellectually, you are ready to see that the motivations which could legitimate volunteer action overseas in 1963 cannot be invoked for the same action in 1968. “Mission-vacations” among poor Mexicans were “the thing” to do for well-off U.S. students earlier in this decade: sentimental concern for newly-discovered. poverty south of the border combined with total blindness to much worse poverty at home justified such benevolent excursions. Intellectual insight into the difficulties of fruitful volunteer action had not sobered the spirit of Peace Corps Papal-and-Self-Styled Volunteers.

Today, the existence of organizations like yours is offensive to Mexico. I wanted to make this statement in order to explain why I feel sick about it all and in order to make you aware that good intentions have not much to do with what we are discussing here. To hell with good intentions. This is a theological statement. You will not help anybody by your good intentions. There is an Irish saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; this sums up the same theological insight.

The very frustration which participation in CIASP programs might mean for you, could lead you to new awareness: the awareness that even North Americans can receive the gift of hospitality without the slightest ability to pay for it; the awareness that for some gifts one cannot even say “thank you.”

Now to my prepared statement.
For the past six years I have become known for my increasing opposition to the presence of any and all North American “dogooders” in Latin America. I am sure you know of my present efforts to obtain the voluntary withdrawal of all North American volunteer armies from Latin America – missionaries, Peace Corps members and groups like yours, a “division” organized for the benevolent invasion of Mexico. You were aware of these things when you invited me- of all people – to be the main speaker at your annual convention. This is amazing! I can only conclude that your invitation means one of at least three things:
Some among you might have reached the conclusion that CIASP should either dissolve altogether, or take the promotion of voluntary aid to the Mexican poor out of its institutional purpose. Therefore you might have invited me here to help others reach this same decision.

You might also have invited me because you want to learn how to deal with people who think the way I do – how to dispute them successfully. It has now become quite common to invite Black Power spokesmen to address Lions Clubs. A “dove” must always be included in a public dispute organized to increase U.S. belligerence.

And finally, you might have invited me here hoping that you would be able to agree with most of what I say, and then go ahead in good faith and work this summer in Mexican villages. This last possibility is only open to those who do not listen, or who cannot understand me.

I did not come here to argue. I am here to tell you, if possible to convince you, and hopefully, to stop you, from pretentiously imposing yourselves on Mexicans.

I do have deep faith in the enormous good will of the U.S. volunteer. However, his good faith can usually be explained only by an abysmal lack of intuitive delicacy. By definition, you cannot help being ultimately vacationing salesmen for the middle-class “American Way of Life,” since that is really the only life you know. A group like this could not have developed unless a mood in the United States had supported it – the belief that any true American must share God’s blessings with his poorer fellow men. The idea that every American has something to give, and at all times may, can and should give it, explains why it occurred to students that they could help Mexican peasants “develop” by spending a few months in their villages.

Of course, this surprising conviction was supported by members of a missionary order, who would have no reason to exist unless they had the same conviction – except a much stronger one. It is now high time to cure yourselves of this. You, like the values you carry, are the products of an American society of achievers and consumers, with its two-party system, its universal schooling, and its family-car affluence. You are ultimately-consciously or unconsciously – “salesmen” for a delusive ballet in the ideas of democracy, equal opportunity and free enterprise among people who haven’t the possibility of profiting from these.

Next to money and guns, the third largest North American export is the U.S. idealist, who turns up in every theater of the world: the teacher, the volunteer, the missionary, the community organizer, the economic developer, and the vacationing do-gooders. Ideally, these people define their role as service. Actually, they frequently wind up alleviating the damage done by money and weapons, or “seducing” the “underdeveloped” to the benefits of the world of affluence and achievement. Perhaps this is the moment to instead bring home to the people of the U.S. the knowledge that the way of life they have chosen simply is not alive enough to be shared.

By now it should be evident to all America that the U.S. is engaged in a tremendous struggle to survive. The U.S. cannot survive if the rest of the world is not convinced that here we have Heaven-on-Earth. The survival of the U.S. depends on the acceptance by all so-called “free” men that the U.S. middle class has “made it.” The U.S. way of life has become a religion which must be accepted by all those who do not want to die by the sword – or napalm. All over the globe the U.S. is fighting to protect and develop at least a minority who consume what the U.S. majority can afford. Such is the purpose of the Alliance for Progress of the middle-classes which the U.S. signed with Latin America some years ago. But increasingly this commercial alliance must be protected by weapons which allow the minority who can “make it” to protect their acquisitions and achievements.

But weapons are not enough to permit minority rule. The marginal masses become rambunctious unless they are given a “Creed,” or belief which explains the status quo. This task is given to the U.S. volunteer – whether he be a member of CLASP or a worker in the so-called “Pacification Programs” in Viet Nam.

The United States is currently engaged in a three-front struggle to affirm its ideals of acquisitive and achievement-oriented “Democracy.” I say “three” fronts, because three great areas of the world are challenging the validity of a political and social system which makes the rich ever richer, and the poor increasingly marginal to that system.

In Asia, the U.S. is threatened by an established power -China. The U.S. opposes China with three weapons: the tiny Asian elites who could not have it any better than in an alliance with the United States; a huge war machine to stop the Chinese from “taking over” as it is usually put in this country, and; forcible re-education of the so-called “Pacified” peoples. All three of these efforts seem to be failing.

In Chicago, poverty funds, the police force and preachers seem to be no more successful in their efforts to check the unwillingness of the black community to wait for graceful integration into the system.

And finally, in Latin America the Alliance for Progress has been quite successful in increasing the number of people who could not be better off – meaning the tiny, middle-class elites – and has created ideal conditions for military dictatorships. The dictators were formerly at the service of the plantation owners, but now they protect the new industrial complexes. And finally, you come to help the underdog accept his destiny within this process!

All you will do in a Mexican village is create disorder. At best, you can try to convince Mexican girls that they should marry a young man who is self-made, rich, a consumer, and as disrespectful of tradition as one of you. At worst, in your “community development” spirit you might create just enough problems to get someone shot after your vacation ends_ and you rush back to your middleclass neighborhoods where your friends make jokes about “spits” and “wetbacks.”

You start on your task without any training. Even the Peace Corps spends around $10,000 on each corps member to help him adapt to his new environment and to guard him against culture shock. How odd that nobody ever thought about spending money to educate poor Mexicans in order to prevent them from the culture shock of meeting you?
In fact, you cannot even meet the majority which you pretend to serve in Latin America – even if you could speak their language, which most of you cannot. You can only dialogue with those like you – Latin American imitations of the North American middle class. There is no way for you to really meet with the underprivileged, since there is no common ground whatsoever for you to meet on.

Let me explain this statement, and also let me explain why most Latin Americans with whom you might be able to communicate would disagree with me.

Suppose you went to a U.S. ghetto this summer and tried to help the poor there “help themselves.” Very soon you would be either spit upon or laughed at. People offended by your pretentiousness would hit or spit. People who understand that your own bad consciences push you to this gesture would laugh condescendingly. Soon you would be made aware of your irrelevance among the poor, of your status as middle-class college students on a summer assignment. You would be roundly rejected, no matter if your skin is white-as most of your faces here are-or brown or black, as a few exceptions who got in here somehow.

Your reports about your work in Mexico, which you so kindly sent me, exude self-complacency. Your reports on past summers prove that you are not even capable of understanding that your dogooding in a Mexican village is even less relevant than it would be in a U.S. ghetto. Not only is there a gulf between what you have and what others have which is much greater than the one existing between you and the poor in your own country, but there is also a gulf between what you feel and what the Mexican people feel that is incomparably greater. This gulf is so great that in a Mexican village you, as White Americans (or cultural white Americans) can imagine yourselves exactly the way a white preacher saw himself when he offered his life preaching to the black slaves on a plantation in Alabama. The fact that you live in huts and eat tortillas for a few weeks renders your well-intentioned group only a bit more picturesque.

The only people with whom you can hope to communicate with are some members of the middle class. And here please remember that I said “some” -by which I mean a tiny elite in Latin America

You come from a country which industrialized early and which succeeded in incorporating the great majority of its citizens into the middle classes. It is no social distinction in the U.S. to have graduated from the second year of college. Indeed, most Americans now do. Anybody in this country who did not finish high school is considered underprivileged.

In Latin America the situation is quite different: 75% of all people drop out of school before they reach the sixth grade. Thus, people who have finished high school are members of a tiny minority. Then, a minority of that minority goes on for university training. It is only among these people that you will find your educational equals.

At the same time, a middle class in the United States is the majority. In Mexico, it is a tiny elite. Seven years ago your country began and financed a so-called “Alliance for Progress.” This was an “Alliance” for the “Progress” of the middle class elites. Now. it is among the members of this middle class that you will find a few people who are willing to send their time with you_ And they are overwhelmingly those “nice kids” who would also like to soothe their troubled consciences by “doing something nice for the promotion of the poor Indians.” Of course, when you and your middleclass Mexican counterparts meet, you will be told that you are doing something valuable, that you are “sacrificing” to help others.
And it will be the foreign priest who will especially confirm your self-image for you. After all, his livelihood and sense of purpose depends on his firm belief in a year-round mission which is of the same type as your summer vacation-mission.

There exists the argument that some returned volunteers have gained insight into the damage they have done to others – and thus become more mature people. Yet it is less frequently stated that most of them are ridiculously proud of their “summer sacrifices.”

Perhaps there is also something to the argument that young men should be promiscuous for awhile in order to find out that sexual love is most beautiful in a monogamous relationship. Or that the best way to leave LSD alone is to try it for awhile -or even that the best way of understanding that your help in the ghetto is neither needed nor wanted is to try, and fail. I do not agree with this argument. The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn’t have been volunteers in the first place.

If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at home. Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you speak. And you will know when you fail. If you insist on working with the poor, if this is your vocation, then at least work among the poor who can tell you to go to hell. It is incredibly unfair for you to impose yourselves on a village where you are so linguistically deaf and dumb that you don’t even understand what you are doing, or what people think of you. And it is profoundly damaging to yourselves when you define something that you want to do as “good,” a “sacrifice” and “help.”

I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce exercising the power which being an American gives you. I am here to entreat you to freely, consciously and humbly give up the legal right you have to impose your benevolence on Mexico. I am here to challenge you to recognize your inability, your powerlessness and your incapacity to do the “good” which you intended to do.

I am here to entreat you to use your money, your status and your education to travel in Latin America. Come to look, come to climb our mountains, to enjoy our flowers. Come to study. But do not come to help.

Even worse is this new breed of neo-liberal white kids who come traipsing into our country to ‘help the poor starving Black people’ and maybe even ‘find themselves’ while they’re at it. The nauseating testimonies I hear from these white kids on how ‘coming Africa changed my life’ are too many to recall…with their stupid comments like ‘now I’m so thankful to have running water at home’…or even better, ‘African people just seem so happy all the time.’ And then these students in ‘international development’ come from universities to do some research work for their thesis and feel like they have a right to ask all the communities they meet any question they want because they think doing something significant. Let me tell you this…WE’RE TIRED OF YOU!

A report by Action Aid (click here to download the full report titled: Real Aid- An agenda for making aid work) showed that when countries in the global north give out what THEY call Aid, a lot of that money ends up back in their economies. The entire sector is structured to be inefficient and powerless, relying on funds from some of the very same institutions whose injustices we purport to be fighting…Does anyone bother to find out how the ‘big names’ in philanthropy and international aid invest their money? Is ethical investing a part of their vocab? As Graham Hancock so eloquently pointed out in his book Lords of Poverty, poverty is an industry that is far to lucrative for some to be done away with by them. That’s why its so nauseating see all these professionals and students from the global north arrive here by the bus load to ‘solve Africa’s problems’ when most of the bleeding trouble is generated by themselves, the hyper-consumerism of their nations, their insane financial and foreign policies and multinational corporate behaviour. They should bleeding well stay where they are and ‘help save the world’ from their own nations.

As Hancock explains:
At every level in the structure of almost all our most important aid-giving organisations, we have installed a tribe of highly paid men and women who are irredeemably out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the … underdevelopment which they are supposed to be working to alleviate. The over-compensated aid bureaucrats demand — and get — a standard of living often far better than that which they could aspire to if they were working, for example, in industry or commerce in the home countries. At the same time, however, their achievements and performance are in no way subjected to the same exacting and competitive processes of evaluation that are considered normal in business. Precisely because their professional field is ‘humanitarianism’ rather than, say, ‘sales’, or ‘production’ or ‘engineering’, they are rarely required to demonstrate and validate their worth in quantitative, measurable ways. Surrounding themselves with the mystifying jargon of their trade, these lords of poverty are the druids of the modern era wielding enormous power that is accountable to no one.” [pp.32-33]

It’s just so aggravating because its obvious that most of these white NGO professionals don’t give a shit and don’t even know the deal. They’re just delighted that they live in a mansion with 3 house servants and 2 nannies who take care of their children and make sure the house and compound are spotless. They could NEVER afford to live like that in the US, Britain, Sweden or wherever they come from. And these tend to be the same people to endlessly whine about ‘African corruption and incompetence’ and how ‘nothing works in Africa’ and how you ‘can’t find decent schools and hospitals here’…well if its so bloody awful why don’t you FUCK OFF!

Believe me I tried to have enlightened conversations with these white liberals (you know the ones who are beaten with clubs as they ‘peacefully protest’ outside WTO and G8 meetings) and frankly, they can’t even begin to see how even they way they think, how they spend their money, how they have been trained to perceive Afrika as a ‘desperately hopeless continent’ is all part of the way Africans are dehumanised. They don’t get that even though they as an individuals may ‘like African people’ on a conscious level, they are living with institutional privilege that degrades Black people, especially Africans….and as long as they do not fight this institutional privilege they’re part of the problem. These neo-liberals ‘committed to global equality’ need to devise ways to deliberately dismantle THEIR chains of PSYCHOLOGICAL SLAVERY that tells them its NORMAL for white people to be treated better on an individual and group level…and that they should generally expect to be treated better globally. Of course this isn’t a conscious thought that most of them have, but I can assure you that the sense of white entitlement is very much alive and kicking.

There was a time I and several other people are standing the line to check in for a flight airplane, and this group of white men just tried to push to front of everyone and be checked in first because they were ‘in a rush’. What?! And what were we doing there….standing there for decorative purposes?! But it didn’t occur to these white men that you know what, we Africans may also be in a rush but we’re WAITING IN LINE for our turn. But oh no…we Africans may be in a rush but white privilege dictates that its ok to barge in front of people, especially Africans who ‘can’t even run their countries’, right? Riiiiiiggght.

So unless these white liberals (bleeding heart varieties) make a point to re-train themselves on how they perceive Africans, they’re part of the damn problem. These white liberals who have actually convinced themselves that ‘they care’ don’t see that they have been trained to dehumanise Africa or -at best- view Africa as a little kid that desperately needs their help. It may not be their fault that they have been raised with this mentality but for FUCK’S sake, have the decency to study the culture you’re about to enter and make a bleeding effort to understand that YOU DON’T HAVE THE ANSWERS. So don’t come here with your damn righteous and pious talk to ‘save the starving negroes’ which, in its effort to ‘culturally sensitive’, just insults everyone. You can’t be culturally sensitive unless you’ve made an effort to understand the culture you’re entering. And to be honest many of these white NGO workers and students come to Africa and feel like the community ‘should cooperate’ and be willing to spend hours talking about themselves so that this white person can write a ‘groundbreaking’ study about’ the X village in Y country in Africa’ and thus skyrocket his/her career to career bliss…and leave the communities, that gave him/her the material for their work, in desolation. He/she can’t even be bothered to do some fundraising or find creative ways to incorporate community members into his/her work so that THEY gain visibility and are exposed to opportunities that otherwise do not exist for them. But NO…that’s far too involving and tiring for the white NGO worker, committedly trudging through the mud to continue their ‘all important work’….Fuuuuucccck offfff!

I personally do not see what all these multinational NGOs (that’s what they are) and endless lines of development students and professionals are doing in Africa. My advise to them is to LEAVE US ALONE. Go back to your country and grapple with trying to end unfair trade agreements, hyper-consumerism and figure out how to stop THAT. But oh, that doesn’t seem quite as exciting and oddly ‘glamorous’ as working with ‘slum communities in Africa’ does it? I doesn’t make you look like you’re really a white person who ‘knows the deal’, does it? And that’s exactly the problem. All these people who don’t know or understand our country are coming here by the THOUSANDS to solve a problem that’s existed for decades. If it were that easy to solve, Africans would have solved it by now. Why don’t they stop the problem at one of the sources, namely, the hunger for resources and wealth by the global north? And don’t say ‘its not us, its our government that’s bad’…I mean what the fuuuck does that mean when it’s the PEOPLE who leave lights on in buildings, buy a new wardrobe full of clothes every year, eat too much, leave water running…is THAT all the government’s fault as well?

But no, its not ‘cutting edge’ to protest outside the WTO anymore…now its trendy to go to and ‘ mingle with the natives’ and really get your ‘hands dirty’. Only then can you, as a white liberal in your NIKE sneakers, ADIDAS backpack and clothes from THE GAP, stand on the podium and be given the medal of ‘authentic development worker’.

Fuck false validation.

LA Times: Independence? Try ‘aid-dependence’

Colonialism didn’t cause Africa’s problems, and aid alone won’t fix them.

Culled from LA Tmes (March 11)

EVER BEEN HAD? Last year, the United States Agency for International Development gave Ghana $22.5 million in food aid.

Last Monday, that same country began a 12-month celebration of its independence from British rule, which was granted 50 years ago, on March 5, 1957. The total budget for these festivities, which commenced with an all-night party in Accra, is said to be $20 million.
You might reasonably ask if this is a sensible way of spending $20 million at a time when the typical citizen of Ghana has a daily income of $1.33. You might also ask what exactly Ghana has to celebrate after 50 years of “freedom.”
Let us not pretend that Gold Coast, as the country was known before independence, was a flourishing economy. The average Briton was 39 times richer than the colony’s average inhabitant. But Gold Coast was seen as one of the most advanced of Britain’s African possessions, which was one reason it was the first to be granted independence.
Yet the economic consequences of independence gave the lie to the old leftist claim that Britain was exploiting its colonies. Between 1960 and today, the gap between Britain and Ghana has more than doubled, so that the average Briton is now 92 times richer than the average Ghanaian. Today, according to the World Bank, aid accounts for 16% of Ghana’s national income and covers fully 73% of government expenditures.
So what went wrong? The answer is more or less the same answer you would give for any sub-Saharan African country since 1957. Kwame Nkrumah, who led Ghana to independence, was in many ways typical of the first generation of post-colonial African leaders. The product of a Catholic mission school and an American university, (Nkrumah was wholly incapable of distinguishing the virtues from the vices of British rule.)
Though it was tight-fisted when it came to education and healthcare, the Colonial Office at least provided the foundations for economic and political stability: trade, balanced budgets, sound money, the rule of law and non-corrupt administration. Nkrumah lost little time in ditching all of these things. If you look at the photographs of the handover of power in 1957, the Duchess of Kent looks pained; the governor, Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, looks skeptical. Those facial expressions proved eminently justified.
As soon as he had been brought into government, Nkrumah increased government expenditures by a factor of 10 and expanded the senior civil service by a factor of five. It was a classic case of jobs for the boys, as members of Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party hit the political equivalent of the jackpot. “The government is in the hands of knaves,” lamented one outgoing British official. Too late. Ghana provided the first of many examples of African democracy in action: One man, one vote — once.
The government was also in the hands of dupes. A long-standing Communist Party member, Nkrumah was easily persuaded by the KGB that the CIA was plotting against him and readily acceded to Soviet offers of assistance. This took the form of a KGB-trained national security service with a huge network of paid informers and more than 1,000 Russian “advisors.” By the early 1960s, Ghanaian women were staging protests with placards reading “Bring Back the British.”
Instead, it was left to the Ghanaian army to overthrow Nkrumah in 1966 (while he was visiting Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi). Far from improving matters, this proved to be the first of umpteen coups, culminating in the bloody seizure of power by Flight Lt. Jerry Rawlings in 1981. Although Rawlings formally restored democracy in 1992, he remained in power until 2001, and his party, the National Democratic Congress, continues to govern the country. Today, there are still people who fondly believe that all of Africa’s problems are a legacy of colonialism and the fault of the wicked British. Those people also cling to the notion that this legacy can be expunged only by the payment of reparations in the name of “aid.” Fifty years on, we can surely think more clearly.
In virtually every case (Botswana is the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence than they did under British rule. In virtually every case, as New York University’s William Easterly has pointed out, the expenditure of billions in Western aid has failed to raise their rate of economic growth.
In his forthcoming book, “The Bottom Billion,” Oxford economist Paul Collier brilliantly anatomizes the true causes of Africa’s post-colonial failure. He identifies four traps into which a depressingly large number of sub-Saharan countries have fallen since the 1950s. Some are trapped by their dependence on natural resources, such as diamonds or oil; some by being landlocked; some by recurrent civil war. But the fourth trap is the one that applies to Ghana: the trap of bad governance.
To illustrate the folly of giving aid to chronically misruled countries, Collier cites a recent survey that tracked money released by Chad’s Ministry of Finance to fund rural health clinics. Just 1% reached its intended destination. The rest was raked off by one corrupt official after another.
So forgive me if I don’t join Ghanaians in partying all year. I really don’t see much to celebrate if independence is just a euphemism for aid-dependence.

AfrikanEye’s response

Ok.
This is piece is flagrant misinterpretation of facts and this types of writing happens when people who have no real understanding of Africa try and write about Africa. This crap just needs to stop because clearly people just simply do not know what they’re talking about. Sure Ghana perhaps should not spend so much money on their 50^th anniversary celebration but then again perhaps the US should be willing to pay better prices for Ghanaian cocoa and perhaps they should be willing to pay Ghana the millions if not billions of dollar equivalent it lost when THOUSANDS of its people were ripped from her soil to go and work in the US during Slavery.

Nonsense like this article needs to end because it continues to distort the truth.

So in then name of truth and my sanity let me make a few points:

1. Contrary to what this article argues, colonial powers did NOT provide a sound foundation for economic and political stability for Africa…umm do we not remember how North and South Sudan were TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES until the Brits came up with the brilliant idea of joining them into ONE country and they’ve been at loggerheads ever since. They have been at WAR for over 50 years because of British colonial ‘brilliance.’ And oh yeah there’s the little matter of the problems in Nigeria’s political and economic system that stem from the manner in which Britain AGAIN screwed things up and created a situation where they preferentially trained Northern Nigerians to join and enter the military to the extent that most senior posts in the military are held by one part of the country which can then hold the country at ransom if need be…why do people think Nigerian has had so many coups and military governments?

And to say that the colonial powers were ‘tight fished ‘ when it came to education and healthcare must be the bleeding understatement of the century. For the ‘first three decades of colonialism hardly anything was done that could remotely be termed a service for the African people’.The Europeans established services to serve themselves with absolutely no regard for the welfare of the Africans whom they so heavily taxed, exploited and on whose land they were living. In terms of healthcare the discrepancy between the state of health between African and Caucasian populations spoke volumes. For example, the European population in Algeria recorded an infant mortality death of 39 per 1000 live births whereas the local Algerian population suffered 170 deaths per 1000 live births! What the hell is that and then the colonial powers made our traditional healthcare system ‘illegal and demonic’ and in Kenya they legislated the Witchcraft act that made it impossible for our health care system to flourish…I mean we’re talking the type of lunacy that banned drum-beating in parts of West Africa!

Then let’s not forget how European and North American powers flagrantly supported bloody dictatorship just for financial gain during the Cold War in particular. They used their economic greed and clout to undermine political freedom Africa and patted dictators such as Mobutu, who was openly slaughtering THOUSANDS, on the back for making them rich.

2. Economically again this writer fails to comprehend some really very basic truths to the extent that one wonders just which planet he/she is writing from. So let me clarfiy some issues otherwise we willa ll be grossly misled:

When loans and ‘development AID were initially given to African countries, they were given to political establishments that typically did not represent the interests of the people. Why? During the struggle for independence, African leaders were the leaders of the mass movements and they relied on the people for their survival. They, therefore, had to fight for something the most of their people believed in. They had to be ACCOUNTABLE to the people…the Mau Mau struggle in Kenya would not have survived without the support of the people.

This all changed once independence was gained because of the Cold War. Those African leaders who found themselves in power discovered that they had to choose which camp to side with- the Soviet East or Capitalist West. Once that decision had been made, the leaders discovered that they were NO LONGER accountable to their people, but rather to the ‘bosses’ of their respective camps. As a result Mengistu of Ethiopia could line up thousands of Ethiopians and kill them with NO incrimination because he had the support of the Soviets. And Mobutu could plunder Zaire’s riches, use the country treasury like his personal bank account and massacre thousands of Zairians with not ONE word of protest from the so-called ‘international community’ because he had the support of the Capitalist West.

So this supposed AID did no really AID most African and the Northern countries were very aware of this fact when they were being so ‘generous’ SO they should just shut up when it comes to governance in Africa because they played a critical role in creating of a culture of a lack of accountability of many Africa leaders to their people. It is only NOW that African people are really beginning to engage working towards making sure the political leadership is accountable to THEM!!! But AGAIN there are problems because ‘Aid’ and loans from the outsiders creates a situation where African governments still are NOT fully accountable to their people.

3. Economically again this writer is clearly in the dark…how can he/she ask ‘what happened’! Don’t we tire of hearing the example that ‘in the 60s South Korea and Ghana were at the same place economically…NOW look at Ghana its so poor and the underdeveloped (I hate that term)..’. What people, like this writer tend to forget or tend to have selective amnesia about is that during the Cold War the global North poured MILLIONS of dollars into countries like South Korea. In the context of the Cold War, USA had to finance its East Asian clients mostly with gratis grants, not loans – thus, they could enter the industrial stage without too big “backlog” of the foreign debt (debt accumulated afterwards)’. They did this to in order to ‘protect these countries from the villainous Communists’ who they were close to. They provided markets for these countries, bolstered their industries and now they have the f*%*ing audacity to sit their and patronisingly ‘ask Africans ‘what happened’?

4. And yet despite all this and CONTINUED particularly, economic exploitation of Africa’s natural resources and linked political interference and coercion, unfair trade agreements, unfair un-cancelled debt, creation of military inroads into Africa (case in point Somalia), the ‘war on terror’ which as affected many African tourism industries, but to mention a few problems…this writer has the nerve to ask ‘uuuuuhh,…what happened?’ Of course colonies fared worse alone than when under colonial power. Just in one example: the prices of raw materials such as tea, coffee, copper etc were MUCH higher during colonialism because the colonial powers were reaping SICK profits from them. Once we gained independence suddenly prices began to plummet because of ‘market forces’ and countries such as Zambia found that for a long time, the metal that had made the colonial powers so rich was actually becoming the bane of their existence as Africans because the colonial powers in all their stupidity at the time created situations where 1) African economies were dependent on mainly one raw material or crop, 2) had prevented Africans from industrialising to process that raw material/ crop and therefore add value to it and 3) made sure that Africans had NO SAY whatsoever in determining the prices of the raw materials on which their economies were based.

Let me stop there. All I can say is that if people are too ignorant to write balanced and reasoned papers on Africa they should just STOP…in the name of intellectual excellence and the preservation of truth just STOP!

DO NOT WRITE ABOUT AFRICA UNLESS YOU’RE GOING TO BOTHER TO ACTUALLY TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTINENT.

This put on we’re-so-socially-conscious mien is really crap and it needs to end now!

I went to see Blood Diamond yesterday in order to get an understanding of the way Africa was being portrayed to the masses. I left with such a bitter taste in my mouth I’m still gagging.

Yes the film movingly depicts the way children are broken into being child soldiers;

Yes the film revealingly shows the path that smuggled diamonds take;

Yes the film shows us just how brutal civil war is Africa;

Yes the film illustrates just how costly the corruption of some African leaders is…

BUT BLOOOOODYYY HELL!!!

As an Africanwoman I was disgusted at the way black women were portrayed as the prostitutes or fodder for the guns. There was not one depiction of the resilience of African women who EVERYDAY pick up the shattered pieces of society around them, mend them and find a way to heal and continue. Instead we were treated to endless amounts of bosom shots of an American reporter traipsing around the country looking for a story. Yeah sure she has a good heart and story to write but you know what, her story should have been counter-balanced with the story of the hope and resilience of an African woman. But NO…we are left with the image that African women are either hookers or helpless

victims to violence perpetrated by Black African men. If Hollywood is obsessed with showing how abused African women have been why don’t they go further back in history …but hmm I WONDER why Hollywood does not tell the stories of rape and torture African women have experienced at the hands of white slave traders, white colonial landlords and NOW white soldiers from military bases in various African countries? Why doesn’t Hollywood want to tell that story and depict THOSE acts with as much gory enthusiasm as they did in this case? This trend of repeatedly depicted African men as senselessly ruthless and brutal is dangerous because it creates the image that most African men are just ruthless and violent!

And as USUAL there is absolutely no historical context laid down that even seeks to explain WHY there are so many civil wars in Africa and in Sierra Leone in particular. There is NO mention of the devastation that 500 years of slavery then British colonial rule left on that country. No mention of how, at independence, power was turned over to a ruling minority. Moreover, people seem to have forgotten just what the Cold War did to African politics….so let me just give you an idea

During the struggle for independence, African leaders were the leaders of the mass movements and they relied on the people for their survival. They, therefore, had to fight for something the most of their people believed in. They had to be ACCOUNTABLE to the people…the Mau Mau struggle in Kenya would not have survived without the support of the people

This all changed once independence was gained because of the Cold War. Those African leaders who found themselves in power discovered that they had to choose which camp to side with- the Soviet East or Capitalist West. Once that decision had been made, the leaders discovered that they were NO LONGER accountable to their people, but rather to the ‘bosses’ of their respective camps. As a result Mengistu of Ethiopia could line up thousands of Ethiopians and kill them with NO incrimination because he had the support of the Soviets. And Mobutu could plunder Zaire’s riches, use the country treasury like his personal bank account and massacre thousands of Zairians with not ONE word of protest from the so-called ‘international comunity’ because he had the support of the Capitalist West.

What this resulted in is the creation of a culture of a lack of accountability of many Africa leaders to their people. It is only NOW that African people are really beginning to engage working towards making sure the political leadership is accountable to THEM!!! But AGAIN there are problems because ‘Aid’ and loans from the outsiders creates a situation where African governments still are NOT fully accountable t their people.

Also bear in mind that all of this was preceded by 500 years of the Slave trade when most Africans were constantly running and fleeing for their LIVES. FIVE HUNDRED YEARS of complete social chaos and disarray caused by an endless demand for black slave labor by the West. Can you even begin to imagine what 500 years of that is like and what that leads to? Where captured women are told to throw away their babies so that they can carry cargo to the slave ships?

CAN YOU EVEN BEGIN TO COMPREHEND WHAT LEGACY AFRICA IS DEALING WITH?

So when Hollywood presents recent events in Africa in a manner that PROMINENTLY displays the corruption of leaders, the ruthlessness of African men with no mention of our historical legacy, Hollywood is guilty of reinforcing the idea that Africans may be inherently inferior because why else would it be taking so long for Africans to get their shit together?

Why does the world think that despite the fact that Africa was and still is being directly and deeply fucked, Africans should ‘just get their act together’?

Lets see how well other continents would function after living through a series of horrific events mainly created, developed and coordinated by outsiders, to the extent that they have not had a coherent living memory of our truly indigenous social, judicial, educational etc systems for over 600 years! Go through that then you can comment and make movies about Africa that depict Africans in such a demeaning and inhumane manner.

I’m tired of this quasi-conscious-I-really-care-for-the Third-World bullshit that Hollywood is into right now. Its dangerous because its creating an incomplete and therefore INACCRUATE image of Africa and Africans.

But I’m sure Hollywood and the herd of Hollywood’s blind followers will go watch the flick, be deeply moved, then smile and fawn as Hollywood stars buy diamond rings and bracelets to congratulate themselves on a job well done.

Fuck Blood Diamond.

Previous comments on this post

Mona said…

Hi, your blog is really impressive, keep up the good writing. However, i can’t find a way to subscribe to your posts. Is that intentional?
Also, I hope it’s ok that I put a link to your blog on mine.
All the best
Mona

5:12 PM

Mona said…

“[...]have not had a coherent living memory of our truly indigenous social, judicial, educational etc systems for over 600 years!”

You should read Harold Pinter.
“To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”

Colonization adversely affected Afrikan development in all aspects of life. The ensuing discussion will be broad and will highlight the adverse effects of colonization on Afrikan development in social, political, cultural and economic spheres of life.

1. Underdevelopment in social services

Firstly, colonization led to social underdevelopment of Afrika in terms of the social services. In fact, for the ‘first three decades of colonialism hardly anything was done that could remotely be termed a service for the Afrikan people.’ It is only due to selfish reasons that he European colonizers came to provide health services for the ‘natives’. They realized that more blood and sweat could be squeezed out of a relatively health Afrikan than an unhealthy and malnourished Afrikan. As far as education is concerned, Afrika had developed an education system that reflected the needs and aspirations of a given society. This education entailed informal education where the young learnt values and behaviour from adults, as well as formal education where the youth would be trained medicine, carpentry, iron smelting, professional trading etc. The advent of colonization did not introduce education to Afrika. Rather it introduced a different set of formal education systems which encouraged the development of principles, values, and schools and methods of thought that partly replaced both the Afrikan formal and informal education systems. The western-type schools aimed at removing Afrikans from their culture and assimilating them to European culture thereby alienating the Afrikan. The speaking of Afrikan languages was prohibited in these schools The vast majority of Afrikans did not even have access to this ridiculous education system. They sadly, could not however, benefit as much from both the formal and informal Afrikan education systems as most of the adults were now engaged in various activities for the Europeans. What this led to was chronic underdevelopment in the sphere of education. On the one hand Afrikans were being denied access to western education and on the other hand, the indigenous system of education was being undermined due to the imposition of colonial rule and the inhuman conditions that went with it.

2. Political underdevelopment

The entire purpose of colonization for the Europeans was to politically dominate other nations. The aim was to take away the independence of the colony and make it an extension of the mother nation. This meant the destruction of Afrikan political institutions. Leaders who opposed the invading forces were dethroned and often killed, for examples King Lobengula of the Ndebele who was removed in July 1893. Once an area had been ‘pacified’ a term used by colonialists to refer to the destruction of local freedom and sovereignty, the colonial power established an administrative system. The colonizers use numerous methods to ensure the political subjugation of Afrika. (Check out the Pulitzer-winning prize book titled BRITAIN’S GULAG: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya by Caroline Elkins). Some used existing traditional leaders to administer their areas. These Afrikan leaders were always answerable to a white superior. Therefore, their previous political power and respect no longer existed. Colonization effectively prevented Afrika from flourishing politically. It also dramatically altered the path of Afrikan political development in that it caused Afrikans to fully embrace western political styles once independence was gained.

3. Cultural underdevelopment The cultural degradation that colonization ushered in truly compromised Afrikan development as a whole. The colonial set up did a fine job in convincing Afrikans that the values and principles that had guided Afrika for centuries were wrong. Colonization caused Afrikans to question and, sadly, often dismiss the Afrikan thought that had created the Afrikan way of life.

This dismissal dealt a very serious blow to the confidence of Afrikan people, to the point where Afrikans feel they must have the approval of a white man in order to ‘know’ that what they are doing is good. This is a very dangerous mind-set for Afrikans to have considering the fact that history PROVES that European powers do not have Afrikan well being at heart Colonization led to the demonization of Afrikan cultural expressions of spirituality, Afrikan dance, song and instrumentation, especially the drum. Afrikans were taught to worship a white God and hate the black Satan. The alienation of Afrikans from the religio-spiritual expression they were familiar with deeply affected the Afrikan. Colonization also led to the imposition of western languages into Afrikan culture. The use of western languages in Afrika led to the entrenchment of European systems of thought and the neglect of the study of Afrikan languages. Many Afrikans began to believe that western languages and culture was superior to theirs. This led to the wholehearted acceptance of western cultural practices both those that undermined Afrikan culture as well as those that were destructive to the well being of Afrika as a whole.

4. Economic Underdevelopment Colonization ushered in devastating economic underdevelopment, the effects of which are still haunting Afrika to this day.

Land

When the colonial powers entered a nation they established ownership over the most fertile and productive areas of the nation. In Kenya, the Europeans settled in the fertile highlands where they bought land for as little as a penny an acre and in doing so were able to acquire vats tracts of land. This acquisition of land by the Europeans led to the displacement of the Afrikan population and an end to the economic activities Afrikans had engaged in, on their land, for centuries.

Taxes

The introduction of taxes forced Afrikans to abandon their previous modes of production in order to seek employment. The wages Afrikans earned from these jobs was intentionally very low. These low wages ensured constant Afrikan labour for the European powers.

Agriculture

The introduction of monoculture agricultural styles led to the development of cash crop economies. Colonialism pushed certain colonies into an over dependence of the export of one or two crops. The profits made for the export of these crops were expatriated to the western metropoles therefore although the cultivation of the crops was growing, the colony did not benefit from this growth. Moreover, the prices of the crops were determined by Europeans who did what they could to buy the crops as cheaply as possible.

Prevention of industrialization

The colonialists specifically discouraged Afrikan industrialization. Europe was (is) determined for Afrika to remain a source of raw materials so as to stimulate European industrial growth. This utilitarian policy led to the effective suppression of any Afrikan industrialization thereby giving a tainted view of the industrial and technical potential of Europe and Afrika.

Denial of access to capital The colonialists further sabotaged Afrikan economic development through their policy of denying Afrikans access to capital. Thus, Afrikans had no capital with which to build their own businesses, farms and industry. This effective prevention of the accumulation of capital by Afrikans forced them into a state of pauperism. Afrikans were the exploited working class and the Europeans were the capitalists. It is therefore with irritation that one listens to the sniggering laughs of and snide comments concerning Afrikan economic underdevelopment.

AND YET AGAIN, STILL WE RISE!

MAU MAU!

(Muzungu arudi Unigereza, MuAfrika Apate Uhuru)

This post is on the effects of Slavery on Afrika…once more…the aim is to understand NOT blame. Moreover, by no means is this post exhaustive. It aims to simpley highlight a few key points. ( By the way for hard to find pics of Africa during the slavery era click here.) Thank you for the encouraging words you have said in the past. As for the racist remarks…I won’t even dignify such ignorance with a response. This blog is by an Afrikan for Afrikans…and those who are interested in the continent. May we have the courage to engage in our healing…I mean REALLY do the work required for us to heal…and of course a critical step in that process is learning how we were wounded…so here we go…this is PART of the story.

The Trans-Atlantic and East Coast Slave trades

Slavery occurred on both the West and East coasts of Afrika. The West Afrikan /Trans-Atlantic slave trade moved Afrikans to the Americas whereas the East Afrikan slave trade sent Afrikans to Asia and the Middle East. The most intense period was from about 1300- 1800 AD. Five hundred years of persecution and destabilization is a long time! The slave trade on the West and East coasts of Afrika was abusive, exploitative and inhumane. This slave trade had several negative effects on Afrika. Here are a few of them: Firstly, an enormous amount of human labour was ripped out of Afrika and transplanted to various, predominantly European-owned ventures. The estimated number of Afrikans that were forcibly removed from Afrika range from the few millions to the hundreds of millions. The Trans Atlantic Slave Trade took away the working engine of the continent. When the European slave masters came to Afrika they made a point to take the healthiest and most able-bodied individuals with them. Slave buyers preferred their slaves to be between the ages of 15-35 with a ratio of two men to one woman. The slave trade took Afrika. The removal of the development agents from Afrikan soil led to severe stagnation in Afrikan development as a whole. The slave trade in Afrika was achieved by social violence and barbarism. Afrikans were tricked, beaten tortured and raped into the shackles that led them to bondage. This intense social violence occurred for at least 500 years on the West Coast of Afrika and a bit less on the East Coast of Afrika. In order to avoid capture, Afrikans were on the run all the time, running away from slave traders and running away from Afrikan neighbours who worked in collusion with the predominantly European slave traders. It is basically impossible for individuals to devise economic development strategies when the threat of being carted away and beaten into submission is an ever-present threat for them. Thirdly, slavery caused Afrikans to abandon other modes of production in favour of slave raiding. In Accra and Dahomey, slaves were traded for gold form Brazil thus undermining the gold trade that had flourished in this region for eons. Slave In the Gold Coast the shift form gold mining to slave raiding occurred in a period of 10 years from 1700-1710. Fourthly, the violence and violation of sovereignty entailed in slave raiding led to the spread of war like bushfire across portions of Afrika. War makes normal life impossible. Agricultural activities were negatively impacted in Western, Eastern and Central Afrika as labour was drawn from agriculture and the environment because more volatile and unpredictable in nature. As a result nations were unable to feed the sparse population they had left. An example of this is Dahomey which ‘ in the 16th century was known for exporting food to parts of what is now Togo, was suffering from famines in the 19th century.’ (Rodney, How Europe underdeveloped Africa, 108) Finally, slavery gave birth to racism. The inhumane treatment meted out to Afrikans by the Caucasian slave traders in particular forced them to devise theories to rationalize the barbaric manner in which they treated the Afrikan slaves. They rationalized that Afrikans had to be inferior beings. These racist theories became so common place that soon it was accepted as gospel truth. The birth of racism is what allowed the Caucasian race to subsequently colonize Afrika and it is what enables them to continue treating Afrika and Her people as subhuman beings whose survival is of no importance.

Caputuring slaves

On the ships…

If slaves resisted

BUT AS ALWAYS STILL WE RISE!

FOR THE RESTORATION OF AFRIKA AND ALL HER PEOPLE AT HOME AND ABROAD!

Previous comments on this post

The Angry Mallard Duck said…

This post is missing one basic point. The concept of slavery was stamped out in Europe by the fall of the Roman Empire. It was reintroduced to European culture by Africans who tried to trade their own slaves to European traders and settlers as currency.

Slavery was common in Africa long before the Europeans showed up. When tribes raided one another, they raided not only for goats and whatnot, but for slaves as well. The check that kept this practice in balance was the lack of large market in slaves.

When the Europeans learned of this practice, they introduced that market, and more often than not, bought their slaves from African slave traders.

I know that you quoted the passage from “How Europe underdeveloped Africa” thanks to your bibliography, but keep in mind that not all histories are accurate and complete. All too often the slave trade seems to be laid soley at the feet of villianious Europeans, and while I do not dispute this fact, I will point out that they were not alone in this villiany, nor where they the instigators of it. They merely took unfair advantage of an existing cultural practice.

12:40 PM

Afrikan Eye said…

This is a common misconception about African slavery that is popular…and often used in an attempt to say that ‘well Afrikans were already engaged in slavery so what’s the big deal about the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade?…afterall Afrikans were already treating each other badly’.
This sort of attitude is a clever means of dehumanising Africans further by spreading inaccruacies of ‘innate and indigenous BARBARIC African slavery.’ This line of thinking creates a wall of impersonality and indifference to the horrors of the Trans-Atlanic and East African slave trades because it allows people to say (in the back of thier minds) ‘Well Africans were already doing this to each other before the West or Arabs came in…so the Trans Atalantic and East African slave trades really didn’t introduce anything new to the continent.’ That is a LIE and I encourage you to REALLY read and look into the nature of the indigenous Afrikan slavery. I refer to a book titled Pre-colonial Black Africa by Cheikh Anta Diop. But to make life easier I will list here a few CRITICAL disctinctions bewteen African and foreign slavery:
- During the times of INDIGENOUS Afrikan slavery, Afrikans did not go around raiding each others’ villages for the SINGLE purpose of getting slaves. Slaves were usually the result of a war with the conquered group becoming captives and slaves for the victor. Afrikans didn’t just senselessly run around attacking each other to get slaves…we were busy doing other things and building our civilisations. It is, sadly, when Western and Arab/Asian slavery started that Afrikans began to conduct slave raids on each other.
- In certain parts of ancient Africa, slaves composed part of the infantry, the kings army and the Calvary alongside freemen and were treated in the same manner. Slaves of the King enjoyed privileges that many free men did not have.
- In many parts of Africa there were two main types of slaves:
1. There were slaves of the mother’s household who were responsible for running the house alongside the mother. These slaves were respected, feared and consulted by the children. The slaves often became a part of the family and therefore didn’t have a desire to over throw the household or social structure.
2. The slave of the father’s house were’t as warmly embraced into the family as the slave of the other’s house. He/she had no special privileges in society and basically had to ensure that the household was looked after.
- The abuse and barbaric treatment of slaves that characterised foreign slavery of Afrikans was NOT common in indigenous Afrikan slavery. The mistreament of slaves was seriously discouraged as can be see in the fact that if it was known that a noble man abused his slaves, he would lose his stature and respect in society.
- In some (albeit rare cases) slaves actually married into royality.
- In the indigenous Afrikan slavery system you did not remain a slave FOR LIFE. There came a time when you were released into society as a free person. This practice only began to happen in the Western-style slave trade after a great deal of noise-making about the issue.

This is a brief overview and I urge you, if you’re serious about what you’re saying, to look into the implications of your words.
The indigenous African slave trade was a COMPLETELY different creature to that that was brought to Africa by foreigners…and it a SERIOUS problem that when people think about slavery the immediate image is that of the Western and Arab/Asian types slavery. This therefore, as you have illustrated, leads to the misconception that Afrikan slavery had the same character as that of the foreign slavery. It DID NOT… and we should be aware of that.

12:15 PM

giovanni.dicristofano@tin.it said…

Some (simplified) facts.
1) During Roman Empire slavery was much similar to the Slavery in Africa as Afrikan Eye describes.
2) During the Middle Ages in Europe there was widespread a particular kind of slavery. The Slavery of the Land. Peasants were a property of the landlord for life. Peasants lost their freedom but got protection from the invaders. In case, they could shelter inside the landlord’s castle. (Dozens of tales, movies and cartoons describe the Right of the First Night: the virgin wife of the peasant had to spend the first night of her honeymoon with the landlord.). Peasants remained in a condition of slavery in Russia till the year 1860.
3)First slaves in America were WHITE. Poor starving Europeans emigrated to America to work in a condition of near-slavery in coffee or cotton farms. African slaves were imported in America later when the businessmen realized that Africans would cost less and work harder. But an American white bachelor could still buy and marry a white emigrant woman in some market nearby an harbour. Strudel

6:59 PM

Anonymous said…

and boring men who mobs wives?

1:47 PM

sokari said…

Hi, I have set up an African Women’s Reblog at:

http://www.africanwomenblogs.com/africanwomen.html

Myself and Mshairi are hoping to develop the REblog into a space for African women – we are not sure what yet but would appreciate it if you would have a look through the reblog and add a link to it on your blog.

many thanks

3:31 AM

dark-into-light said…

Fact is.. this world is ruled by the white man. It will always be.

It´s so heart-breaking to see what they´re still doing to our home Africa and our brothers & sisters up to today!
…Then turn right around & start talking about “helping” them poor afros, “supporting” them, when they´re the major cause for all this sh**!

The only thing that would really help us would be them to finally leave our people alone.
Stop interfering and confusing everything & everyone in Africa.

Besides that, an african will always be “just” an african ..no matter where he/she will ever go.
They will never recognize you as a human being like them, instead keep on reminding you how black you are in everything you try to do.

I´m not hatin.. just talking out of experience.
This is just the sad reality.

http://mosmos-dark-into-light.blogspot.com/

Firstly, women were affected by the alienation of land experienced by most Africans. However, women appear to have been more personally affected by this land alienation. This is because, ‘As women lost access and control of land they became more economically dependent on men. This led to an intensification of domestic patriarchy, reinforced by colonial social institutions.’ Among the Kikuyu of Kenya women were the major food producers and thus not only had ready access to land but also authority over how land was to be cultivated. Speaking about African women in general, Seenarine, in quoting Sacks explains that, ‘the value of women’s productive labor, in producing and processing food …established and maintained their rights in domestic and other spheres – economic, cultural, religious, social, political, etc.’

The advent of the British colonialism and the settler economy negatively impacted Kikuyu women because the loss of land meant a loss of access to and authority over land. Kikuyu women found that they no longer had the variety of soils needed to grow indigenous foodstuffs. Traditionally, certain pieces of land were associated with the growth of certain crops. Thus the variety of soils was required to ensure food security . Moreover, land loss meant women were restricted to smaller tracts of land for cultivation. Continuous cultivation of these areas of land led to soil exhaustion and nutrient depletion which ultimately adversely affected crop yields. Land alienation reduced the economic independence enjoyed by women by compromising their economic productivity. As colonialism continue to entrench itself in African soil, the perceived importance of women’s agricultural contribution to the household was reduced as their vital role in food production was overshadowed by the more lucrative male-controlled cash crop cultivation.

Secondly, colonialism negatively impacted women by introducing wage labour.
Women were directly affected because they were required, by law in some cases, to provide wage labour for the European plantation economies. The Northey Circular in Kenya (1919) commanded district officers and African chiefs to procure women and juvenile labourers for private and public works. Women were deeply affected by such directives because it drew them away form their usual economic activities. In come cases European labour demands were most intense during the peak labour requirements for their own agricultural activities. As Mbilinyi explains, ‘ Women and children were the major source of casual labour during labour peaks in the Rungwe tea industry and Mbosi coffee industry.’ This produced a conflict in women as they were forced to leave their duties to work for Europeans. Keep in mind that this forced labour was accompanied by acts of physical and sexual abuse which were often committed by African men against their own women. Therefore, working on the plantations further compromised women’s well being and ability to be as productive as they previously had been in past.

Thirdly, the introduction of wage labour affected women through its denial of African women to African male labour. The colonial economy forced men to seek employment in European economic ventures and took them away from the labour responsibilities they used to have in the traditional African economy. As Mbilinyi explains, ‘The withdrawal of male labour from peasant production intensified female labour, and led to a drop in cultivated acreage.’ Women found that not only did they have to fulfil their traditional duties as women, the loss of male labour forced them to take on the duties previously carried out by men.

Fourthly, this loss of male labour was often in the form of male migrant labour where men left rural areas to seek employment in urban areas. This led to both social and economic impacts on women. The focus in this section will be on the economic repercussions of male migrant labour.

Due to male migrant movement, women found that they had to hire labour to substitute for absent male household members. In Tanganyika, hired labour cost, ‘ (T)wo Tanganykinan shillings (Tshs 22) per month with food ration.’ This cost added to the economic strain already being felt by the African woman.

Problems posed by male migrant labour were exacerbated by changes in bridewealth arrangements. In many areas bridewealth had evolved from being a payment made in livestock to a cash exchange. As a result bridewealth was inflated and became a way of putting monetary value on the bride’s wealth. Thus, instead of the bridewealth process being one that affirmed the woman’s worth, it became one that judged the woman’s worth. This inflation in bridewealth meant that most young men were unable to pay it and thus had to go to urban areas in order to earn enough to make the payment. Now women lost their husband’s economic (and other) support at the onset of marriage thereby putting them in a disempowered economic state from the beginning of marriage.

Fourthly, taxes were introduced by the colonial economy. In most cases taxes were to be paid by men to the colonial authority. In some cases, however, taxes were also imposed on women. For example, among the Egba of Nigeria, the British colonial authority used African males to impose taxes on women. Women could be taxed from the age of fifteen! This tax was seen as a nuisance for women who not had enough economic responsibilities of sustaining the household in the absence of males.
Taxes also indirectly affected women by affecting bridewealth exchange as exemplified by the situation in colonial Zimbabwe. By the 1930s, African patriarchs in particular had become extremely preoccupied with controlling bridewealth. As Barnes explains, ‘(F)athers and guardians had come to regard this payment- once only a symbolic exchange of gifts between families- as a fair means of accumulation cash to pay taxes and meet other financial obligations. This change represented the commdification of a woman’s value to her family.’ In the past, African women in some societies had retained a measure of control over their bridewealth which economically empowered her. Sadly, with the new financial constraints experienced by males, especially in the form of heavy taxation, bridewealth became a source of income that males sought to control. Thus, once more, women were excluded from traditional provisions that had previously given women some measure of economic independence.

A fifth way in which colonisation negatively impacted women was through the introduction of the cash crop economy.
Initially, Africans were not allowed to grow cash crops because the settlers feared that the ‘primitive’ African agricultural practices would spread crop disease and contamination to their plantations. But eventually the colonialists permitted Africans to grow cash crops. In Kenya this took place between 1950-1963.Given the mandate to grow cash crops, many Africans chose to take the opportunity and in doing so women were adversely affected.

First, men intended to control the cash crops and their proceeds. Women were to continue with subsistence farming except in the cases where subsistence crop became cash crops with a market value. In this case males swiftly took control of the crop’s proceeds although the women continued to do all the work around its cultivation.

Secondly, as the cash crop economy grew, the colonial government imposed the new cash crops (cocoa, coffee, cotton etc) on men and because of their market value, men accepted to cultivate them. So although women were expected to grow foodstuffs, their labour was also required in the growth of cash crops. This doubled the agricultural load on women.

Moreover, the introduction of new technology, especially the plough actually had a negative impact on women. Firstly, the plough enabled men to cultivate more land. But men left the backbreaking, labour intensive work of sowing and weeding to women. Thus the women’s load was increased. Secondly, the plough made men more directly involved in crop cultivation thereby increasing the men’s right over proceeds earned from the cash crop. To many men, this meant they could dispense with the money earned without consulting the women who did most of the work in earning the money. Hence, women, once although women were working more, their economic dependence on men was increasing.

Finally colonialism led to the complete loss of access to land by women. The colonialists brought with them the idea of private ownership of land. Women were completely excluded from this ownership. Berger explains that in Kenya, the Swynnerton Plan of 1954 began a process of, ‘registering and consolidation land and granting titles to individuals, almost all of whom have been men.’ This policy weakened rural women’s autonomy in the economy.

It is clear that colonials had devastating economic impacts on women. As the colonial government entrenched itself into the African nations, women found their labour being increasingly exploited, their autonomy decreased and their levels of dependence on males increasing.

Socio- Political impact
The first socio-political effect of colonialism was the concept of the Victorian woman which the colonisers brought with them. The colonialists came with the belief that women were to remain creatures of the private domain. Women were to preoccupy themselves with domestic issues and leave the ‘real work’ of ruling and running the nation in terms of politics and economics in particular to the men. The role and position of the pre-colonial African women did not conform to this concept of a women. Hence, the implementation of policies seated in this myopic perception of women led to the erosion of women’s position in society.

Secondly, male migration profoundly affected women especially in rural areas. In Tanganyika, male migrancy nearly halved the male population such that there were nearly twice as many women than men. The removal of males form African society le to the destruction of the African family. Household no longer had father, brother, uncles and nephews thus leaving a void where the male used to reside. Male participation in their traditional roles in ceremonies, rites and rituals was distorted. The responsibility older males had of guiding and steering young males was abandoned as many went to urban areas. Women could not rely on the social support and protection men offered them and in many cases became the de facto heads of household. The problem is that the increase in women’s social responsibilities did not lead to a rise in their status, if anything it led to an erosion of their status.

Thirdly, as colonialism progressed, African patriarch’s, and the colonial government to a certain extent, attempted to restrict movement of women in a bid to control their sexuality. As Parpart explains, ‘Colonial policy pushed men into migrant labour leaving women stranded in the rural areas with an increasingly onerous workload. As rural conditions deteriorated, the cities beckoned. While women had little chance of waged employment in town, their opportunities to earn money existed.’ As a result, more women migrated to urban areas but were met with stiff opposition in the form of disapproval of African patriarchs in particular. Both they and colonial officials disliked female migration because they felt it led to moral decline and female indiscipline. African patriarchs were particularly concerned with controlling women’s movement and thus sexuality for a number of reasons. Firstly, they wanted to retain the purity of their clan. When women moved away form home, the patriarchs had less control over whom the women married or cohabited with. Thus, African males wanted to keep women under their noses so as to ensure endogamous marriage by the women. Secondly, African patriarchs discovered that if women left home and got married in her new area of residence, the groom often did not pay the bridewealth. Since there was no social pressure on couples in urban areas to pay bride wealth, African patriarchs began losing a great deal of income in the form of unpaid bride wealth.
Therefore, African patriarchs become preoccupied with controlling female mobility. The colonial administration also become concerned because some African men left their employment early due to domestic problems that arose in the form of accusations of adultery and wives leaving them for other men. This caused the colonial administration to assist the African patriarchs out of (initial) mutual benefit. In Zimbabwe, the administration passed Ordinances and Laws such as the 1926 adultery ordinance which applied to married women and the 1929 Native Affairs Act, which applied to prostitutes, in an attempt to, ‘assist the kraal native to control their women’. However, it must be noted that the colonial administration was not very serious in their attempts to control the movement of women due to the observation that the men were more productive when he had his wife or a female companion around.

Nonetheless, rural women’s mobility was constrained thus limiting the social freedom they used to enjoy. In the past women had participated in activities that required quite a bit of movement. Fro example, among the Kikuyu since trading was carried out by women they enjoyed freedom of movement in order to dispense of their duties effectively. Colonialism caused some women to lose the freedom they once enjoyed.

Fourthly, due to the Victorian concept of women held by the colonialist and embraced by the African male, women were excluded from the new political and administrative system. In the past, most African societies had a dual sex political system which allowed for substantial female representation and involvement in governance and administration. The position of Queen mother seen across Africa in Ghana among the Akan, Egypt, Uganda, Ethiopia and Rwanda but to name a few, gave women prominent and visible political authority in running the nation.
However, the chauvinist and misogynistic colonial officials made no provisions in the initial administrative design. It is often only with women protests as was the case of the Aba women’s war and the actions of Mekatilili was Menza, that a meagre number of woman’s positions were created in the colonial set up.
This marginalisation of women led to an erosion in the position and influence of women in society. As this new status quo was maintained, African men actually began to believe that women were incapable of leading the nations. This erroneous opinion is still held by many Africans to this day and is reflected in the meagre number of appointments women receive to parliament and ministerial positions.

The discussion on the socio-political effects of colonialism on women is not exhaustive by any means. However, it is designed to give the reader a good impression of how foreign colonial domination truly led to deterioration in the status of women across Africa.

The African women’s response

African women did not appreciate the new form of foreign and local patriarchal domination that was being meted out to them due to colonialism. They thus voiced their concerns in numerous acts of protest an defiance in an attempt to not only vocalise their anger and frustration and the new state of affairs, but to also improve their situation. Therefore, although colonialism led to detrimental effects in the economic and socio-political spheres, African women used these challenges to empower themselves and move forward. Colonialism increased the levels of awareness in women about their situation, their rights and the ability they themselves had to alter their environment. As Parpart explains, women used the court system in colonial Zambia to their advantage, ‘They (women) learnt the value of protest and the need to frame arguments in certain ways.’ Thus, women adapted to their new realties and gleaned methods of self-empowerment in the process.

This resilience and ingenuity of African women is seen in the acts such as the Aba women’s war (1929) where women came together in protest of certain colonial policies. Queen Sarraounia (1899) of Azna defended her nation from French invaders while Mekatilili wa Mennza mobilised her community to protest against the British. Women formed associations and unions as a statement of their unity as well as to contribute to the push toward independence. Fro example, Oyikan Abayomi founded the British West African Ladies Club in 1929 with a member ship of 500-200 women. This organisation was anti-colonial and brought women’s voices together as a powerful against colonialism.

It is evident that colonialism led to a definite decline in women economic independence as well as their socio-political status in society. Colonialism managed to instil in African men a strange feeling of superiority over women despite the fact that for centuries prior to colonialism, this unfounded feeling of superiority was generally absent in non-Islamised African states. It is evident that even today, in modern Africa, women still have to live with continued subjugation and abuse because they are women. However, it is with great joy that once more, we are witnessing a rise in women consciousness and self- confidence as women say NO to continued social scorn and disrespect. Women today, just as they had during the colonial era, refuse to accept the injustices meted out to them by men of whatever race.

May we as Africans strive to restore African women to a position of respect and dignity that even exceed that which she enjoyed in the past. For it is only when a nation respects women and treats them with dignity that true development can occur. Women are at the frontlines of humanity as mothers and primary caregivers. Therefore, in nurturing and building them, we are building the whole nation and continent.

For the Restoration of Afrika and all Her peoples at home and abroad.

Previous comments on this post

giovanni.cristofano@tin.it said…

Sooner or later somebody should write on the effect of women on men, irrelevant of skin color. gdc

2:45 PM

africanmessiah said…

Hello African eye……first of all i would like to say that i love your blog….we are on the same theme so much respect and more support !!Second, you may be right with the effect of colonialism to african women………but as you said we should not blame the past……..look at Afghan women……….they had their problems up to the 90s and after being liberated from their Taliban fashist leaders……they even play football now!!…..and this has been done within less than 5 years since the Americans touched the Afghan land !!……….then why African’s women still undermined?!!……..i believe the women themselves have not done enough to change the situation……..how can someboy help if you do not say that you need help?!……..see my blog if you have time, i have the same topic as yours and i believe solutions can be found to this………i am trying to bring as much awareness to the people and how to solve the problems!!Last question, what is your solution to the effect caused by colonialists to african women?

8:08 PM

Anonymous said…

Hi
I find your writing interesting and thought provoking and I was wondering if you would be interested in contributing articles to www.africangn.net (aGN)
Best
Akpesiri
aGN a division of www.globalents.net

INTRODUCTION: THE GREAT BLACK MOTHER

Africans were the first to inhabit the earth. Fossil records as well as DNA analysis give scientific evidence to support this fact. Therefore, the first woman to give birth was a Black African woman. It is from us that all humans have come. The other races of humankind all evolved from Black Africans.

Ancient Africans had a deep-seated respect for women. Charles Finch in the book Echoes of the Old Darkland explains that early man did not know the link between sex and birth. Therefore, it was believed that new life was created by the woman, the mother alone. It was perceived that all life in nature emerged from women ALONE. Therefore when the first concept of God was developed, the female served as the model of the Supreme Being. Finch explains how it was under this initial Matriarchal System that the first rules and taboos to govern human behaviour were articulated. Another important contribution of ancient woman can be seen in the fact that as the gatherer of grains, seeds, roots berries and plants to the group, we had the opportunity to observe how seeds sprout when they fall in the ground. This observation led to the practice of organized cultivation. It was the woman who probably developed the practice of purposeful cultivation. This may have happened as early as 15,000 BC. It is the practice of agriculture that made population expansion, food surpluses and community settlement possible.

It is not known exactly when the role of the male in procreation was discovered, but this discovery did not enhance the status of men much until the necessity of men became clear in war and conquest. The vital role of men did not lead to an imposition of the male on the female, rather it served to enhance the principle of duality evident in creation. Males and females were seen as complements to one another and a harmony between the two was necessary for harmony to continue on earth. Therefore, it was seen as prudent and wise to ensure the well being of both men and women if the successful survival of humans was to continue. The respect for women was reflected in society and the seriousness and consideration women were given. In Egypt and Kush the importance of the mother was seen in the facts that the children took their surname from the mother and that the mother controlled both the household and the fields. In Kush, the Queen Mother had the right to choose the next Pharaoh. Prior to Islamic conquest of sub-Saharan Africa in the 12^th and 13^th centuries, the system of succession to the throne was matrilineal. Cheikh Anta Diop in his book Pre-colonial Black Africa explains that in the African custom of matrilineal succession, very strict rules were observed which stated that the heir of the throne was not the king’s son but the son of the King’s first-born sister (the king’s nephew). This is because, as an African proverb states, ‘ You can never be sure who the father of the child is; but of the mother you can always be sure. The brilliance of this logic cannot be missed. This saying underpinned the rationale many African societies used to ensure that conference of power and titles of leadership were reckoned through the mother’s line. This matriarchal foundation of African society meant that respect for women was woven into the very fabric of society. Women had numerous important roles and functions to carry out, many of which conferred a great deal of power and respect to them. The erosion of the status of women occurred gradually but was significantly exacerbated and hastened by foreign invasions, particularly colonialism.

Unfortunately, most people, Africans and non-Africans alike, assume that the current status of women in Africa is reflective of their status in ‘traditional African societies’. This is wrong. The status and power of women in Africa in antiquity and the pre-colonial period was significantly healthier than it is today. Therefore, referring to the second-class citizen status of African women today as ‘traditional’ is erroneous and must be rectified. Africans cannot afford to continue thinking that traditional African societies perceived women as inherently inferior creatures and thus sidelined them from positions of power and influence. In this article we will look at some of the roles, functions and related power that African women had before the onslaught of colonialism. In later articles we will look at how colonialism in particular led to the erosion of the power and status of women in African society. This article is by no means exhaustive but instead seeks to provide a brief overview of the role of women in traditional African society. The article will close with several examples of exceptional African women who transformed their societies and the world.

AFRICAN WOMEN’S ROLE IN SOCIETY AND GOVERNANCE

Economic roles

In traditional Africa, women had recognized and vital roles in the economic development of their communities.

Among the Kikuyu of Kenya, women were the major food producers and thus not only had ready access to land but also had AUTHROITY of how the land was to be used and cultivated. Therefore, the value of women’s productive labour in producing and processing food established and maintained their rights in the domestic and other spheres. Nowadays, although women still are major food producers either directly or through employment, they do not receive the recognition and respect that they used to. Colonialism profoundly negatively affected the role and status of women in African society.

Moreover, in much of pre-colonial Africa, bridewealth gave women a certain amount of economic independence and clout. In the past, African women in some societies retained a measure of control over their bridewealth which economically empowered them to a certain extent. Sadly, with the new financial constraints experienced by males due to colonialism, especially in the form of heavy taxation, bridewealth became a source of income that males sought to control. Thus, once more, women were excluded from a cultural prative that had previously given women some measure of economic independence.

Among the Egba of Nigeria, women were the economic powerhouses of the nation due to the trade and market system they had developed. Among these people from West Africa, women dominated the trade and merchant exchange of goods of their communities. Women were responsible for a number of things including: setting the rules of trade among themselves i.e. market taxes and tariffs; organizing and managing the market system; agreeing on lucrative terms of trade with outsiders; holding meetings to discuss how to improve their trade and marketing system and more. These women had a highly developed business acumen which they used for the economic upliftment of their community. Keep in mind that many of these women were taking over their businesses from mothers or aunties of the same profession. Therefore, the economic knowledge they implemented had been honed for centuries. In short, they knew what they were doing. To this day, women still dominate the local market scenes in Africa but almost none can be found in the ‘formal’ Westernised economic institutions that have developed in Africa since independence. Perhaps the absence of women, and thus the absence of ancient African economic knowledge is contributing to the LACK of economic organization and power in many African nations.

Spiritual Roles

In ancient Africa, women were often the most powerful spiritual figures in the land. Women were often in charge of the spiritual systems in their communities. This group of female spiriual leaders were a select group, and not all women were allowed to join the ranks of spiritual leadership. Nonetheless, women dominated the positions of spiritual and religious power in most African traditional societies. These were responsible for announcing dates and times of ceremonies, rites and rituals. These women were oracles, spirit mediums, knowers, seers and advisors. These women had the power to place and remove curses.

African people are known for their spiritualism and the seriousness with which they take religion. Therefore, we can see how a dominant feminine energy in the spiritual sphere helped to ensure that women were respected in society.

Political Roles

We will begin with a intimate type of governance system used by African women. In parts of pre-colonial Nigeria, newly-married women of a given town would form an organization designed to look out for their interests and those of their families. Among the responsibilities of this body was the governance of their husbands! If one of the members came to the group with a serious and valid complaint about the behaviour of her husband, the group would find this man, confront him with the allegations and keep and eye on him until his behaviour improved. This method was highly effective because it did away with the often destructive and frankly, Western notion, that a marriage (or a serious relationship) if only the business of the two involved. This system of inter-personal governance ensure that BOTH the man and woman were accountable to each other and treated each other with respect and dignity.

In terms of macro-political organization, in the past, most African societies had a dual sex political system which allowed for substantial female representation and involvement in governance and administration. The position of Queen mother seen across Africa in Ghana among the Akan, Egypt, Uganda, Ethiopia and Rwanda but to name a few, gave women prominent and visible political authority in running the nation.

In most cases the Queen Mother was older than the King and was biologically related to him. She often had her own land, from which she gained revenue through tax and her word was law on the land she owned. She had her own courts complete with courtiers and staff. It is only through her courts that decrees, especially death sentences, made by the King could be annulled. Therefore, although the King had the technical power of the lives of those in his kingdom, the Queen Mother could often give someone back their life.

The Queen Mother among the Akan of Ghana also had very important role in terms of ensuring the well-being of the women and children of the nation. Therefore, she and her staff were responsible for designing and implementing the educational system of the land. As you can see, the nation was entirely comfortable with the Queen Mother and her staff being in control of the structure, organization, some content and day-to day running of the educational system which ALL their children were affected by. We as modern African women should remember that not too long ago the minds of all nation were moulded by the vision women.

Often the Queen mother also in charge of childbirth, coming-of-age and marriage ceremonies.

In some nations, the role that the Queen mother played was also played by the King’s wife. For example among the Baganda of Uganda, the Kings wife had considerable power. But usually, the King’s wife either had as much power as the Queen mother but usually had less.

A very important role that the Queen Mother, and sometimes also the wife of the King, had was that of either selecting or endorsing the King’s successor. In some cases, the Queen was responsible for nominating the King’ successor and it was up to her to convince a panel of advisors to agree with her choice. In other cases, other people nominated the King’s successor and only with the Queen’s consent could the heir-select be allowed to rule.

Women also directly ruled many African nations. We should remember that this was the exception rather than the rule. However, women did rule their nations. At the end of this post you will find a list of women from whom we can draw inspiration, courage and self-confidence. Many of these women were Queens. African Queens had supreme power and authority over all inhabitants of her Queen-dom. Her word was law and no man or woman could defy her. She had supreme military, political, spiritual and economic power.

In the book Black Africa, Cheikh Anta Diop explains bicameralism, a type of governance some of our ancestors used to rule their people. Before Africa was under the dominance of any foreign powers, women had a position of influence in society. In African bicameralism, women participated in the running of public affairs within the framework of a women’s assembly. This assembly sat separately to the man’s assembly but the two shared influence and power. The resistance against foreign invasion and occupation of West African nations such as Dahomey and the Yorubas is said to be a result of the women’s assembly meeting at night. African bicameralism allowed the blossoming of both males and females and allowed the full use of both the feminine and masculine mind. Bicameralism is an ancient example of African democracy that put full to use the human resources of society in a manner that supported and encouraged everyone.

THE LEGACY OF AFRICAN WOMEN

These stories are taken from the book In praise of Black Women by Simone Shwarts- Bart and seek to give us all concrete examples of the power, scope and nature of African women in the past. African women should NEVER accept being told that they have done nothing. We have created religions, resisted invasions, raised kings and more.

Lucy

Humanity was born in Africa, Black Africa to be precise. In 1959 two palaeontologists dug up the skull of a human like being dated to be 1.75 million years old. The place of the discovery was Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. In 1974, at the same location, they discovered Lucy, a 3 ½ million year old fossil of a small woman. This young African woman, Lucy, may be the womb from which all humanity came.

Queen Tiye

Little known today, Queen Tiye is among the women who have most marked history. 3,500 years ago she was the wife of the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III. Queen Tiye’s beauty was legendary, but her personality was even more powerful. For her pleasure the Pharaoh built a new palace for her in Thebes (now called Malkata). He also dug her a lake in the middle of the desert, just to please her. The revolution in Egyptian art dates back to her rule. Her influence on the Pharaoh was so great that she seemed to the supreme authority in the empire.

When the Pharaoh died, Tiye’s son Akhenaton came into power and it was during his rule that Queen Tiye took action that has most decisively marked history. Up until then Egyptians, like many others, were polytheists, they saw the world around them as governed by several gods. But suddenly, under Queen Tiye’s influence, the Pharaoh proclaimed for the first time in human history, a single God-Aton. This reform may have inspired Moses to establish the monotheism that has since spread all over the globe. So today when people pray to God in a church, mosque or synagogue, they may be, in some way, under the invisible influence of Queen Tiye.

The Candaces

The kingdom of Kush so renowned and honoured in ancient times was headed by Queens know as the Candaces. The Black Kingdom of Kush was born about 3,000 years ago and lasted until 350 AD. In the year 750 BC, the kingdom expanded north along the Nile and conquered Egypt founding the 25^th dynasty, the illustrious dynasty of the Black pharaohs.

However in 666BC the Assyrians invaded Egypt and defeated them. The final battle took place in Thebes which the Assyrians burnt to the ground.

Tautaomon is the name of last black pharaoh to rule Egypt, he fled to Napata (Maraw) after the fall of Thebes. Napata was then the capital of the Kingdom of Kush. Of the Queens of Kush, the Candaces, two names stand out. The first is Amanireans, the Queen of Kush when the Romans followed the Nile south after the defeat of the last Pharaoh Cleopatra. She is described as a ‘very masculine woman who had lost an eye in battle’. Masculine probably meant courageous. Remembering her Pharaoh ancestors she went down the Nile to meet the Romans and defeated them at Aswan where her soldiers broke all of statues of Emperor Augustus. Although the Romans formulated a counteroffensive in the form of a strong army that stormed the kingdom of Kush up to Napa, it failed. This army was thoroughly humiliated by Amanireans and her army. The Roman army was withdrawn back to Egypt. Finally giving up the conquest of Kush, the Romans suggested that Candace ask for peace which the Emperor Augustus granted.

The second Candace is mentioned in the Bible in Acts 8. The story explains how the apostle Philip heard a voice telling him to go to Jerusalem from Gaza. On his way he met a eunuch, who was a Minister to Candace ‘Queen of Ethiopia’ (Kush was called Ethiopia by this time). The story goes on to detail how Philip told the eunuch of ‘the good news of Jesus Christ’. The eunuch was baptized and went o back to Kush filled with a desire to share the news he had been told. It appears that Candace was the first in Africa to embrace the faith. As a result Christianity went down the Nile reaching the area we now call Ethiopia. The biblical Candace and Amanrenias, the brave lady with the missing eye, give us a glimpse into our buried African past.

Makeda- Queen of Sheba

The story of the Makeda is recorded in the Bible in the second book of Chronicles and the first book of Kings. Makeda had learnt of the wisdom of Solomon and went to Jerusalem to test it with riddles. The Kebra Negast, a 14^th century book of legends of Ethiopia says that the visit of Makeda lasted more than six months. At the first sight of Makeda, Solomon was struck by her miraculous beauty and he said in his heart ‘May God bless me with offspring through her’.

On the day of Makeda’s departure, Solomon had gifts loaded on 6,000 chariots for her alongside a vessel to travel in the air. He begged that if a child should be born of their union that she send him home to Jerusalem and give him a ring so that the child be recognised. So Makeda went back to her country where she gave birth to child and named him Ibn el Hakim: Son of Wisdom. When the child grew up, Makeda gave him the ring and sent him to visit his father. The child was 22 years old. In Jerusalem, crowds gathered in the streets surprised to see someone who looked so much like Solomon. Some people thought he looked even more like his grandfather David. During his stay in Jerusalem, the young man was adorned and consecrated a king in the Temple of Jerusalem. This is how he became Menelik I, the first king of the famous dynasty of the Lions of Judah, the last of whom was Negus Haile Selassie, the last Emperor of Ethiopia.

Sarraounia- The panther queen

In the 1890 a French colonial operation was planned whose mission it was to force the submission of an empire along the bend of the river Niger. Lieutenant Voulet and Captain Chanoine were the colonial officers in charge of this mission. The Voulet-Chanoine mission met with success as they spread death and ravaged the villages they took. It was in 1899 that they would go on their final and fatal expedition to Chad. It was there that they met a woman, Sarraounia, the queen who opposed their bayonets with the strength of her soul and the white man’s tricks with the traditional magic of Africa.

Sarraounia’s father was a warrior who had distinguished himself from the those who were hungry to sell black men. He had become the king of a small territory of the Azna’s. Sarraounia’s mother had died giving birth and it was thought that her child would follow her to the grave. But the little child with her pinched mouth and clenched fists opened her eyes and revealed shining yellow eyes; the people recognized the sign of the panther. The Azna’s always knew that they been born of a panther, and it was this animal which was sculpted in front of their houses, embroidered on their clothes and was their symbol among the other tribes. Panthers are made for the bush and the panther child soon learnt how to use a bow and arrow. She learnt the secrets of ‘hyena’s ear’ a poison that gives arrowheads merciless power over everything that breathes. She was the king’s daughter and she went with men as she pleased, but never wanted a child clinging to her breast. Sometimes she would disappear for weeks at a time and they said that she would talk to the spirits of the Shadow who taught her all the secrets of good and evil, the elixirs of power and wisdom and the plants that kill and those that bring back life. This is how she became Sarraounia, daughter to the king, sorceress, great dame of the Shadow.

She was 20 when was brought to the throne due to her father’s death. At the slightest danger, she would be at the head of her troops, her pales eyes shooting lightening. Her silhouette became legendary. Then a rumour made its way to her: a column of white men were marching east, devastating everything in their path. Sarraounia immediately sent messengers to her Muslim neighbours suggesting that theyunite against their common threat. The Muslims did not even bother to reply: you don’t make alliances with the seeds of slaves. So Sarraounia had a fortress wall built around Lougou, her capital. She smashed open the granaries and sent the women, children and old men to safe places in the bush. The warriors waited while the queen applied an ointment on them that was supposed to stop bullets. Then having hand-picked a group of archers, the silent warriors, she slipped into the tall grass to seek out the enemy. When night fell, a cloud of arrows from nowhere threw the Voulet-Chanoine expedition into a state of chaos for the first time. The next day 150 porters were missing at roll call and a dozen native infantrymen had deserted preferring to wander in a strange land that confront Sarraouina. The troops enter a deserted city. Another arrow flew in sky and shouts rang out, a woman’s laughter was heard: that was the beginning of the end for the French force. Day after day Sarrounia harassed the divided and crippled column until one of her warriors brought now Chaoine with a rifle shot, while Voulet was slain further along. That was the end of their adventure.

The capital kingdom was rebuilt, but new French soldiers followed those who had died and the traditional cunning of the Azna people could not sustain them. Eventually a French flag was raised in the middle of the great court of Lougou and the queen shut herself up in the shadows of her palace. One day at the end of a fiery hot afternoon, a yellow-eyed panther burst out of the throne room and disappeared into the bush. Sarraounia was never seen again.

Ana de Sousa Nzinga

In 1860 the Scottish missionary David Livingstone reached the old Portuguese stronghold of Luanda. Bare stairs, cells and shackles told of the horrifying recent history here. As he reached a courtyard he saw the imprint of a woman’s foot engraved in stone. When he asked whose it was an Angolan man declared it was the imprint of the great Ngola Nzinga who had set foot in this courtyard 300 years ago.

Ana de Sousa Nzinga was born in 1581 in Basa the capital of the kingdom of Ndongo, a land ruled by leaders called ngolas. During this time the Portuguese were advancing towards Ndongo with the aim of converting them as they had the peoples of Kongo. However, the greatest treasure in the minds of the Portuguese were the very people of Angola- the black ivory- slaves.

Ngola Karensi, Ana de Sousa’s father, had thought about the European effect on neighbouring Kongo and decided to bar missionaries from his country. War is waged against him for this decision. This war will last more than 40 years, until his very last breath. On the King’s death, power falls into the hands of his oldest son Ngola Mani a Ngola who raises an army of 30,000 men who he intends to put to fight against the Portuguese. Ana de Sousa Nzinga, the amazon and warrior considered the greatest political mind of her time plans to join them on the battlefield. She realizes that their traditional lances are no match for the Portuguese guns and points this out to the king in a council meeting saying, ‘My dear brother, your warriors are many, but their chests are bare; if you go this course, your defeat will be that of the whole nation’. Furious, the king has the throat of Nzinga’s only son cut and has her sterilized some say using red hot pokers while others claim they used scalding water.

A few months later after having been defeated again, the king begs Nzinga to negotiate a peace agreement with the Portuguese governor of Luanda. Since she speaks Portuguese and has studied their customs, ways of thinking and military strategies, Nzinga agrees to go though she cannot forget her dead son and ruined womb. But the lamentations of her people give her the conviction she needs and so she sets off for Luanda. She enters the white’s fortress accompanied only with a few of her fellow women. At that moment, trying to test her, the governor fires a 21 gun salute. But the princess already knows the sound of the white man’s music and she enters the fortress without blinking an eyelid. She crosses the courtyard where her step leaves an imprint in the stone as she makes her entrance into the main reception room. The room is full of armed men. All the way from the back of the room the governor signals her to step forward, but still wishing to embarrass her, he has not prepared a seat for her. She gestures to one of the women who kneels and Ana de Sousa Nzinga sits upon her human throne. The governor rudely asks her what the conditions of her surrender will be to which she replies, ‘I represent a sovereign people and I am ready to continue this conversation only on that basis.’

A few months later in 1623 a peace treaty is signed between the kingdoms of Angola and Portugal. But Nzinga knows the tricks of the Europeans and is still determined to fight in order to protect her people from the slavers. On her return home she jails her brother and proclaims herself ngala.

The passage of time proves Nzinga was right about the Europeans. The peace treaty lasts the space of only a dream and soon the Portuguese are moving deeper into her kingdom. Though she suffers setback after setback she fights until the very end. For 30 years she will fight to win her homeland. She will return blood for blood and slaughter for slaughter, all to save her people from slavery. She dies at the age of 84 without having been able to rebuild her homeland but she is still remembered as the woman who lost many battles but never lost the war. Ana de Sousa Nzinga lived a queen and died a queen.

Bibliography

1. Shwartz- Bart, Simone. In praise of Black women. Texas, Modus Vivendi Publications, 2001.

2. African Women in history course

3. Diop, Cheikh Anta. Precolonial Black Africa: A comparative study of the political and social systems of Europe and Black Africa, from antiquity to the formation of modern states .New York, Lawrence Hill Books. 1987

4. Mbiti, John. African religions and philosophies. Nairobi, East African Educational Publishers, 1969.

5. Ehret, Christopher. An African Classical Age: Eastern and Southern Africa in World History 1000BC to AD 400. Virginia, The University Press of Virginia, 1998.

6. Finch, Charles. Echoes of the Old Darkland: Themes from the African Eden. (Georgia, Khenti Inc. 1999)

Previous comments on this post

ziwani said…

Great respect to the phenomenal women you highlight, it is a great read. In addition another woman ruler occcured in the Shilluk kingdom around the early 18oo’s. She was ruoth Abudhok Bwoch and effectively ruled the Shilluk kingdom in current northern Sudan. The shilluk Kingdom is a branch of the ancient Luo nation, part of which settled in Kenya.

9:44 PM

Ms K said…

Hey great blog you have here.

I just wanted to ask, what’s your reason for spelling Africa with a ‘k’. I’m sure there’s an interesting story behind that.

3:04 PM

AfricanSunset said…

Check out this Book
“For Women and the Nation”-Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of Nigeria.

Cheryl Johnson-Odim and Nina Emma Mba Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti was a Nigerian feminist who fought for suffrage and equal rights for her countrywomen long before the second wave of the women’s movement in the United States. She also joined the struggle for Nigerian independence as an activist in the anticolonial movement. For Women and the Nation is the story of this courageous woman, one of a handful of full-length biographies of African women activists. It will be welcomed by students of women’s studies, African history, and biography, as well as by opponents of the Nigerian military regime that has held one of her sons, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, in solitary confinement since August 1995.

3:42 PM

Afrikan Eye said…

Thank you for your comments…
@ms K…Afrika with a ‘K’ because that’s how it is spelt in Kiswahili…also signals a break from the ‘Africa’ that has been created by the West…Westerners have created an idea of ‘Africa’ in our heads that misrepresents our history and tends to belittle our legacy, who we are, our achievements/ contributions and our potential.

4:11 PM

giovanni.dicristofano@tin.it said…

dear Afrikan Eye, we hope you will soon post the second part of ‘African women in civilization’. Some question now..
1) can I republish your posts in my (penniless for now) webzine www.strudeltimes.it ?

2) can you upgrade ‘African Women in..” adding tales, stories, so on ?

And last but not least, I have a dream (yep). Even if I am just a white male, my ambition is an international respectable webzine. There is a column ready for you, think on it . Thanks gdc

10:23 AM

Afrikan Eye said…

Will soon post the next spiel…effects of colonialism on women as well as other great examples of Afrikan women
@gdc Thank you for your encouragement Will soon holla at you. in peace!

11:48 AM

AfroFeminista said…

I love this! I’m no fan of historical writing, but this, this was just so inspiring! Proving that there was a time when women and men were held in equal regard by a society not tainted by patriarchy borne of displacement, colonialism and globalization!

Thanks for sharing this!
I’m adding you to my blogroll – fasta fasta:):)