AFRICOM and the perception mess

[Dayuhan]

The point is that Mobutu benefited from the death of Lumumba and the United States was one of the most prominent Western sponsors of Mobutu for a period of about thirty years. So the US is guilty by association (in the African mind).

There's a lot of guilt from that period, and not only in Africa... both the US and the Soviets spent those years freely propping up despots that suited their interests and trying to undermine the other guy's despots. Proxy war was never pretty.

Still, at a certain point the past has to be the past. Latin America and SE Asia saw as much of this as Africa, but most countries in the areas have let go of the past and established functional working relationships with the US. The Vietnamese took as much merde from the Americans as anyone and have more reason for lasting suspicion than most, but they've managed to build a quite reasonable working relationship.

The wild-eyed conspiracy stuff is not just historical residue, it's a bogeyman myth concocted and preserved by political factions that use it to advance their own interest. That myth will eventually fade, but pushing that process along isn't just about Americans putting effort into winning African opinion over, it's also about Africans waking up to the fact that past is past and that the Americans aren't the only ones who have manipulated and used them. The people who aggressively cultivate fear of the US are doing that too.

The same applies to African perceptions of the US Military. It is just what it is. We've had fifty years of conditioning, so it will take a herculean effort to change our minds. Similarly, Hollywood and Western media have sold a negative image of Africa for the past hundred years. Consequently, the man on the street in America finds it extremely difficult to think positively about Africa.

The negative impressions of Africa aren't entirely the product of media distortion, just as the negative impressions of the US in Africa aren't entirely the product of distortion. There's a lot in the history in both cases to justify negative impressions, and if "herculean efforts" are going to be made to correct the various misimpressions on both sides, those efforts have to be made on both sides.

I find it a bit ironic that the US is so routinely (and justifiably) castigated for propping up compliant dictators in the past, while the Chinese are doing exactly the same thing today and nobody seems to mind.

I do not see any justification for a "herculean effort" to win over African populaces. I don't think any such effort would accomplish anything: no matter what the US says or does it will be interpreted as a manipulative and evil conspiracy to gain control.

My solution for the US is to simply and to the greatest possible extent... disengage. Leave. No point in being where we're not welcome. Pack up the aid, pack up everything else, and walk away. People don't want us there, fine, we won't be there. Africans want to deal with the Chinese, no problem at all for us. In a decade or two they'll realize they've been recolonized with their own consent. That will be a hole to dig out of, and it'll be a problem, but it won't be our problem.

I see no reason why the US should have any presence beyond minimal diplomatic representation in any African country, unless that presence has been openly requested by a government that has a reasonably legitimate claim to represent its populace.

[KingJaja]

I find it a bit ironic that the US is so routinely (and justifiably) castigated for propping up compliant dictators in the past, while the Chinese are doing exactly the same thing today and nobody seems to mind.

The Chinese, unlike the US, don't describe themselves with missionary language. They don't claim to be a shining city on a hill or the hope for all mankind.

You are judged by the standards you set for yourself. You've set very high standards which you are not meeting (doing business with the likes of Idris Debby and Obiang). On the other hand, the Chinese have set very low standards.

Finally, the Chinese are one of your largest trading partners. So if you don't have any issues dealing with them, why should Africans?

[Dayuhan]

The Chinese, unlike the US, don't describe themselves with missionary language. They don't claim to be a shining city on a hill or the hope for all mankind.

There's no shortage of smug and self-serving rhetoric coming form the Chinese... and at the end of the day, why would anyone judge anything on the basis of what anyone says?

Finally, the Chinese are one of your largest trading partners. So if you don't have any issues dealing with them, why should Africans?

A lot of Americans do have issues with the way China does business... often less than rational ones, but such is the way of issues. If the Chinese were openly bribing our politicians, buying up land and importing their own laborers to work it, taking over the retail sector, etc and ad nauseam, I think there would be more issues. More likely hysteria.

Again, though, I'm not saying that Africans should or shouldn't "have issues" with the Chinese. Not my problem, nor that of any American. It's almost amusing to hear all the recitations of American evil in support for the pliable dictators of the past while the Chinese are doing exactly the same thing today without complaint, but hindsight is always clearer. Eventually the realization of recolonization will set in, and with it, presumably, the realization that the today's thief walked in the door while the intellectuals were all ranting about the need to keep yesterday's thief out.

[Fuchs]

African retail is hardly being taken over by Chinese -rather wholesale.

Well, who dominated the Sub-Saharan African wholesale sector previously?

First did
- in West Africa the Europeans
- in East Africa the Arabs
then for several centuries the Europeans everywhere, and then during living memory afaik:
- in West Africa the Lebanese
- in East Africa the Indians

The black Africans are hardly losing much if the Chinese take over 'their' wholesale sector.



Btw, I do occasionally think about economic development issues at a low level (= so called "less developed countries").
One of the inhibitors to development appear to be a competent and reliable pool of personnel for technical and organising jobs.
Infrastructure projects, major plantations, new industrial plants and new mines require such personnel, and the Chinese bring this to the deal.
Their managers may still be corrupt, but they steal from their Chinese overlords more than from their African clients afaik. Plus the job gets done, often even in time afaik.
This is a fruit of decades of investment in education. The stability of China post-Mao enabled this and now the Chinese have the skilled personnel for a middle class that's still relatively rare in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Dayuhan]

African retail is hardly being taken over by Chinese -rather wholesale.

Well, who dominated the Sub-Saharan African wholesale sector previously?

First did
- in West Africa the Europeans
- in East Africa the Arabs
then for several centuries the Europeans everywhere, and then during living memory afaik:
- in West Africa the Lebanese
- in East Africa the Indians

The black Africans are hardly losing much if the Chinese take over 'their' wholesale sector.

In much of Africa, particularly in the east, the Chinese are becoming a ubiquitous presence in retail as well, right down to the street vendor level.

While it's easy to say the Africans aren't losing much - and to an extent true, as many of them haven't much to lose - they may at some point want to gain, and to regain control of economic sectors that have been traditionally dominated by foreigners. There is some potential for tension and conflict there, especially when the foreign presence is perceived to be sustaining its presence and privilege by paying off corrupt officials.

Btw, I do occasionally think about economic development issues at a low level (= so called "less developed countries").

It is good of you to devote an occasional moment to the problems of the larger part of the world, and I'm sure that you won't need much more than the occasional thought to solve such low level problems.

One of the inhibitors to development appear to be a competent and reliable pool of personnel for technical and organising jobs.
Infrastructure projects, major plantations, new industrial plants and new mines require such personnel, and the Chinese bring this to the deal.
Their managers may still be corrupt, but they steal from their Chinese overlords more than from their African clients afaik. Plus the job gets done, often even in time afaik.
This is a fruit of decades of investment in education. The stability of China post-Mao enabled this and now the Chinese have the skilled personnel for a middle class that's still relatively rare in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

That's one of the problems, yes... one among many. It's exacerbated when many of the qualified indigenous personnel leave to work elsewhere.

Of course this has traditionally been an argument used to support colonial and neo-colonial investment: the colonist/neocolonist provides the capital and expertise needed to develop all of those lovely plantations, mines, and factories. The problem is that the colonist/neocolonist develops and organizes these systems for their own benefit, not for that of the host country. That's not immediately apparent, and in the early stages, when the net flow of resources is inbound, the host may feel like they're getting a good deal. When those projects mature and the net flow of resources starts running the other way - as is clearly the intention; the Chinese aren't in it for charity - things may start to look a bit different.

[KingJaja]

The Chinese are not recolonising Africa. That perception comes from Western Media. It is wrong.

There is a China Town near my house (walking distance), it is a very small affair and the Chinese are leaving because they cannot compete with Nigerian business men (who have found out the route to Shenzhen and know the Nigerian market much better than the Chinese).

One out of every five Sub Saharan Africans is a Nigerian, so what happens in Nigeria is significant.

If East Africans cannot compete against Chinese business people on their soil, it is hardly colonisation, it points to a lack of business acumen. You cannot blame the Chinese for that.

Secondly, Chinese may be corrupt and steal from their bosses, but they don't demand to stay in five star hotels like Westerners, so their costs are lower and they are more efficient.

[Fuchs]

It is good of you to devote an occasional moment to the problems of the larger part of the world, and I'm sure that you won't need much more than the occasional thought to solve such low level problems.

Show me anyone who's delusional enough to believe he can 'solve', not just 'understand' the problems.

Besides, you misunderstood me. I am an economist and keep myself fit beyond my (these days quite repetitive) job by thinking a lot about case studies. The (not so much) developing countries provide interesting (different) case studies.

After all, one of my focus studies back at university was "growth and income distribution", so I'm equipped with the basic tools of the trade (and no, IMF recipes are not really economic science).

[Dayuhan]

The Chinese are not recolonising Africa. That perception comes from Western Media. It is wrong.

There is a China Town near my house (walking distance), it is a very small affair and the Chinese are leaving because they cannot compete with Nigerian business men (who have found out the route to Shenzhen and know the Nigerian market much better than the Chinese).

One out of every five Sub Saharan Africans is a Nigerian, so what happens in Nigeria is significant.

What happens in Nigeria is significant, especially to Nigerians, but it's not all of what happens in Africa. A Senegalese or a Zambian or an Angolan might have a different view of whether China is recolonizing Africa... and in fact Senegalese author Adama Gaye is one African intellectual who has specifically stated the belief that China's aspirations are colonial. It's not just the western media.

In fact China's goals in Africa - access to resources and export markets on preferential terms - are not much different than those of past colonists. The Chinese just find it cheaper to gain preferential terms by bribing government officials than by physically taking control. Of course the Chinese have another goal that previous colonists didn't have: they are using Africa as a dumping ground for excess and potentially disgruntled labor, a trend that is likely to continue as the Chinese real estate bubble deflates and Chinese construction slows, leaving a lot of laborers unemployed, something China can ill afford.

Imagine that everything the Chinese are doing today in Africa was being done by [insert horrified gasp here] white people: the Americans, British or French. Don't you think that the same African intellectuals who are making a mountain of the molehill that is AFRICOM would be howling over the new colonialism? Of course they would. They don't recognize the new colonialism because it's entrenched in their minds that colonialism and neocolonialism are by definition things done by white people. In time - like I said, give it a decade or two - it will be too obvious to deny.

If East Africans cannot compete against Chinese business people on their soil, it is hardly colonisation, it points to a lack of business acumen. You cannot blame the Chinese for that.

People can - and will - blame their governments for not passing (or more often enforcing) laws keeping non-citizens out of jobs and businesses that can just as easily be done by citizens. This is common enough in the developing world, and even in the developed world.

[KingJaja]

You don't get it, the West has history stacked against it in a way the Chinese never will. It happened, it is unfortunate and we are trying to get past it, but the effects linger.

His ebony skin stood out in sharp contrast to the white crowd pressing to get a better view.
The young African boy bared his teeth at the men and women staring at him through the bars. They were sharpened into dagger-like points, making him appear all the more barbaric to the ignorant hordes.
Above the cage hung a sign proclaiming: 'The Missing Link.' A baby chimp sat disconsolately at the bottom of the enclosure, a single companion to the boy.

The year was 1906. This was a pygmy, brought to America as a novelty to be put on display in the monkey house.
The New York Times reported: 'There were 40,000 visitors to the park on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the star attraction in the park - the wild man from Africa.
'They chased him about the grounds all day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him.'
Suddenly, the boy turned. Taking the bow and arrow given to him as an ethnic accessory, he shot at the gawpers. His arrow did no harm, but he did scare the life out of the onlookers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1fl1y2ZcH

As Faulkner wrote; The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past. Take a trip to Georgia (I was there in 2005), and you'll see flags like this:



Those flags are still being sold and used. If the American South can't get over the Civil War, then Africans will find it difficult to deal with the legacy of the West in Africa (and the intense humiliation that accompanied it).

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
You may be mistaking what we call "Southern Pride". It has little today to do with the South and the North. As you may have studied, the Civil War was not just about slavery, but Money as well. The North could not have financially survived if the South was to become independent.

The funny part about the Confederate Flag is that many in fact erroneously think the Confederate battle flag is the official flag of the Confederacy. The actual battle flag was/is square (based on the cross of St. Andrew).

[KingJaja]

I know the rationale for the Civil War is a little bit more complex than the abolition of slavery. I also know that Lincoln wasn't the unquestioning abolitionist he is made out to be. (He was a little bit of an opportunist).

The point is that the South still bears some grievance against the North (or somebody), 150 years after the fact. It has mellowed and is almost benign but it still exists.

People don't forget their history. We have the tradition of the griot in Africa, griots remind us of where we are coming from, so we can understand where we are going. The West is a large part of where we are coming from, and our history with the West will not be forgotten.

So the American tendency assume that the rest of the World operates on a "forget and forgive" basis acts as an impediment to understanding the rest of the World.

For example, the US government has spent the past sixty years dealing with all sorts of nasty fellows in the Arab World. The general tone from US official pronouncements and from some of the most esteemed think tank scholars assumes that the Arab Street will simply abandon this history and enter a new age of cooperation with the US.

That is cognitive dissonance.

[Fuchs]

It's a bit more than just that.

It's a national belief in the malleability of almost all foreigners and their national ability to exploit it.

[Stan]

The point is that the South still bears some grievance against the North (or somebody), 150 years after the fact. It has mellowed and is almost benign but it still exists.

There are several members herein that live in the South and can better address that subject than I can. I don't see even the most remote grievance you speak of and don't take much stock in listening to someone with a flag in his pick-up that can't even tell me why, yet alone the fact that the very same individual probably did not study history nor can tell me much about our history.

People don't forget their history. We have the tradition of the griot in Africa, griots remind us of where we are coming from, so we can understand where we are going. The West is a large part of where we are coming from, and our history with the West will not be forgotten.

With the exception of my Lingala teacher, I don't know many Africans (present company accepted) that knew much about their heritage. Hard to be pissed off about something that you know little about. Kind of like the guy with a flag in his truck and 6th grade education.

So the American tendency assume that the rest of the World operates on a "forget and forgive" basis acts as an impediment to understanding the rest of the World.

For example, the US government has spent the past sixty years dealing with all sorts of nasty fellows in the Arab World. The general tone from US official pronouncements and from some of the most esteemed think tank scholars assumes that the Arab Street will simply abandon this history and enter a new age of cooperation with the US.

That is cognitive dissonance.

I think the military (EUCOM and AFRICOM) have taken great steps to make sure their service members serving in Africa have a better understanding through language and cultural training. I can't speak for the remainder of the USG.

Dayuhan provided you with an excellent example where people are willing to forget and move on.

People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence.

[Stan]

It's a bit more than just that.

It's a national belief in the malleability of almost all foreigners and their national ability to exploit it.

We've learned from the best Europe and Africa have to offer - when one considers where most of us came from

Except the American Indians !

[Fuchs]

I doubt that it's about forgetting and moving on. Almost nobody actually remembers colonialism, even in the late colonies of Portugal.
The demographics are quite clear about this.

It's rather about resurfacing, about anti-colonialism being part of culture, scapegoating, politics, about explaining how the world works.

Look at Greece. Almost no Greeks remember German occupation, but some idiots dragged the issue back to the surface in the wake of the fiscal crisis - even after being allied and befriended with Germany for decades and having signed a treaty in the 60's that settled all claims once and for all.


Caucasians as evil wannabe colonialists will likely remain in the cultural/political repertoire of Sub-Saharan Africans for generations to come.


If I was British, I would be more bothered about the Chinese culture's memory, though...

[davidbfpo]

King Jaja posted:

People don't forget their history.

I don't know about Africa in detail, but can give two local illustrations seen at first-hand.

An academic group organises a conference, one of the issues is counter-terrorism; they completely miss the date is close to 9/11.

In November 1974 there were the Birmingham Pub Bombings, which killed 21 people and injured 182. In 2005 very few in the city's emergency services, let alone the general population, even remembered the events and the backlash endured by the Irish community.

Elsewhere on SWC threads others have commented on collective memories. I recall 'Red Rat' posts on how quickly British Army units lost personal knowledge of a campaign. Ken White has posted on war weariness, IIRC even after Pearl Harbour in WW2.

People do forget their history, it is replaced with a void or a very sketchy memory, especially when only oral and activists, who can be state and non-state, insert their own version. The often cited 'Battle of Ideas' could be better called, especially in COIN, the battle of ideas and memories.

[Fuchs]

There's a difference between "to not apply" and "to forget".

We casually call it "to forget" when people don't apply the lessons of the past, but we'd hardly know about it if the lessons were truly lost.

Opportunists warm up stories such as colonization whenever they feel like it.

[KingJaja]

People do forget their history, it is replaced with a void or a very sketchy memory, especially when only oral and activists, who can be state and non-state, insert their own version. The often cited 'Battle of Ideas' could be better called, especially in COIN, the battle of ideas and memories.

People may forget minor events, but the Africa opinion-shapers are not going to forget four hundred years of contact with the West (especially when there is an entire industry built around reminding them).

Almost nobody actually remembers colonialism, even in the late colonies of Portugal.
The demographics are quite clear about this..

I was more than a decade after 1960, so I shouldn't remember colonialism, but my dad and grandmother did. So those memories are carried on. The slate is not wiped clean with every new generation. Nobody tends to bother about the West in day-to-day life, but what is latent comes bubbling up to the surface when the right buttons are pressed.

With the exception of my Lingala teacher, I don't know many Africans (present company accepted) that knew much about their heritage. Hard to be pissed off about something that you know little about. Kind of like the guy with a flag in his truck and 6th grade education.

Quite possible, but what do the opinion-shapers know? What message do the ethnic "Big Men" pass on to their followers when the right buttons are pressed. I remember when Nigeria had to take an IMF mandated structural adjustment program with all the associated pain, the usual suspects educated the masses on the many evils of the West and Americans.

What triggers strife between ethnic groups? Normally a first event and a recital of long-forgotten grievances by the usual suspects. You should be extremely worried that you were training blank slates - the most dangerous kind of African is the most ignorant. They tend to believe anything - from juju to wild conspiracy theories.

[KingJaja]

I doubt that it's about forgetting and moving on. Almost nobody actually remembers colonialism, even in the late colonies of Portugal.
The demographics are quite clear about this.

Did you ask them why they speak Portuguese or why some of them are surnamed da Silva or who built the old grand mansions in Luanda?

[Fuchs]

Did you ask them why they speak Portuguese or why some of them are surnamed da Silva or who built the old grand mansions in Luanda?

I meant personal memory.
The Portuguese left over 30 years ago. The median African person is much younger than that.

They may know about colonialism - because they learned about it. They did not experience it (unless we consider apartheid South Africa).

Now as I understand it, that's not remembering, but being informed.


Or do I remember the Punic Wars?