While I'm at it, I may as well show more insensitivity by linking to an article by one James Jackson, who opines that Africa is hell, beyond help, and ought to be left to itself.
I have a friend who heads a religious order with houses in Africa, including in Rwanda, land of the Hutu-Tutsi genocide. He was being driven in from the aiport there by a taxi man who at one time had been a member of this Catholic order. When my friend, a white American, expressed sadness and horror about the slaughter of the Tutsi, the driver, a Hutu, replied without embarassment, "They deserved it."
I knew a Nigerian priest, studying in the West, who was a great fave of the social justice crowd. I remember that when the story of the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon came on the news, he jumped up and clapped. And when I asked him to explain why Nigeria summarily expelled over a million Ghanaians in the mid 80s, he answered, "They're all thieves."
In my more Guns, Germs and Steel moments, I think of Africa as Europe in the 10th century.
____________
2 comments:
Wow,that was quite an article.
Years ago there was a reporter for the Washington Post, I think his name was Strawberry.
Anyway, he said that he is very sorry for the pain and suffering of his ancestors being brought here and living here as slaves.
BUT, he is so grateful that they went through that so he could be a free American.
Yeah, he put up with a lot of s**t for that comment, but it sure rings true.
The question whether Africa should be left to itself is possible only because of the difference in power and wealth between Africa and the "technologically advanced" societies -- who maybe can help Africa in some way, or perhaps can't and might as well not bother trying, as this journalist argues.
But other societies have seem'd and been intent on irretrievably ruinous paths at various times, regardless whether outside countries could help or not, or should or should not futilely try to help. For example, when Germany elected the author of Mein Kampf in order to lead them to a new era of political stability and economic prosperity. Should "we" (USA, Britain, France etc) have try'd to "help" Germany in 1936? (Too late by then, I guess. But maybe we "should" have try'd?)
The West needed help but presumably would have refused help and try'd to undermine help from outsiders during the build up to WW1. (America insisted on getting involved in that war even after long years of slaughter and maiming. Unitarians excommunicated any preacher who opposed joining in Europe's great war.)
What about Russia from 1919 onwards till Gorby? (Actually, Herbert Hoover in charge of foreign relief help'd Lenin's new state survive the famines of the early 20s caused by the Russian civil war.) What about China under Mao? Cambodia's red guards presumably felt that their victims "deserved it." ... We still feel that the Japanese and German populations whom we firebomb'd during WW2 deserved it, sort of, anyway.
"Caliban's Kingdoms" are us, eh?
jpmills
Post a Comment