Of the IMF, African Nations, and Misinformation (Activist Resolutions Update)
by Racialicious Special Correspondent Latoya Peterson
After I finished reading the article I was angry enough to want to put my fist through a wall.
That’s quite a remarkable thing. I have not worked myself into a proper activist rage since I was around sixteen years old, full of anti-establishment fueled anger and planning to skip school to protest the IMF by way of property damage back in 1999.
Eight years have passed and I realized a great many things, both about the world and about myself. I use anger as a signal to learn more and get involved, rather than an end in itself. I caution myself to remain calm and to explore multiple sides of an issue before jumping to a conclusion. I am wary of activists who will happily put a brick in my hand, but refuse to answer probing questions about the cause.
I am both older and wiser – but this article on Malawi took me right back to the let-me-grab-a-rock Latoya of old.
The New York Times article comes with a provocative headline: “Ending Famine By Ignoring the Experts.”
Malawi hovered for years at the brink of famine. After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid.
But this year, a nation that has perennially extended a begging bowl to the world is instead feeding its hungry neighbors. It is selling more corn to the World Food Program of the United Nations than any other country in southern Africa and is exporting hundreds of thousands of tons of corn to Zimbabwe.
In Malawi itself, the prevalence of acute child hunger has fallen sharply. In October, the United Nations Children’s Fund sent three tons of powdered milk, stockpiled here to treat severely malnourished children, to Uganda instead. “We will not be able to use it!” Juan Ortiz-Iruri, Unicef’s deputy representative in Malawi, said jubilantly.
Farmers explain Malawi’s extraordinary turnaround — one with broad implications for hunger-fighting methods across Africa — with one word: fertilizer.
Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers. But after the 2005 harvest, the worst in a decade, Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi’s newly elected president, decided to follow what the West practiced, not what it preached.
Oh, hold up. In the years post “the Battle of Seattle” IMF protest, I have kept up a casual interest in the activities of the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Researching a bit of the history, finding out what the goals of each group, and reading the arguments both for and against each organization consumed the next few years and I fully began to appreciate why people were protesting.
The quick and dirty explanation is this: each of these organizations purports to assist developing nations improve their global standing by lending money (the IMF), attempting to reduce poverty (the World Bank) and governing the rules of international trade (the WTO).
The country’s successful use of subsidies is contributing to a broader reappraisal of the crucial role of agriculture in alleviating poverty in Africa and the pivotal importance of public investments in the basics of a farm economy: fertilizer, improved seed, farmer education, credit and agricultural research.
Malawi, an overwhelmingly rural nation about the size of Pennsylvania, is an extreme example of what happens when those things are missing. As its population has grown and inherited landholdings have shrunk, impoverished farmers have planted every inch of ground. Desperate to feed their families, they could not afford to let their land lie fallow or to fertilize it. Over time, their depleted plots yielded less food and the farmers fell deeper into poverty.
Malawi’s leaders have long favored fertilizer subsidies, but they reluctantly acceded to donor prescriptions, often shaped by foreign-aid fashions in Washington, that featured a faith in private markets and an antipathy to government intervention.
These expert organizations continued to misdiagnose the problems of Malawi until their leader finally decided to break from tradition and try something radically different – to do what the country required, rather than what free-market theorists wanted. The result? Increased self-sufficence! Go Malawai!
The harvest also helped the poor by lowering food prices and increasing wages for farm workers. Researchers at Imperial College London and Michigan State University concluded in their preliminary report that a well-run subsidy program in a sensibly managed economy “has the potential to drive growth forward out of the poverty trap in which many Malawians and the Malawian economy are currently caught.”
Progress! So, what did the US say?
The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, except for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort.
But Alan Eastham, the American ambassador to Malawi, said in a recent interview that the subsidy program had worked “pretty well,” though it displaced some commercial fertilizer sales.
*sigh* Are you kidding?
And did y’all notice the numbers (emphasis mine)?
[The US] has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, [and] has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, except for helping pay for the evaluation of it.
So it makes more sense for us to keep shipping Malawi food, but not to assist them in becoming self-sufficient? Riiiiiight.
Eastham continues:
“The plain fact is that Malawi got lucky last year,” he said. “They got fertilizer out while it was needed. The lucky part was that they got the rains.”
And the World Bank now sometimes supports the temporary use of subsidies aimed at the poor and carried out in a way that fosters private markets.
Umm…that was a two year in a row “lucky” streak. Can we blame the people in Malawi for trying for the third year? And I am all for capitalism as a system, but can we at least wait until the people of Malawi have recovered from the widespread starvation that rocked their nation before we shove more flawed economic theory down their throats?
What pisses me off to the nth degree is this whole idea that the third-world is our own free market petri dish, a way to test economic principles with nations that are under financial duress with little to no regard for the people who are dying while the market is forming.
What makes it even worse is the attitude that is echoed so often – that any success from a deviation of policy is an accident and that the policies created and formed in another nation will automatically cure what ails – just give it time.
Digesting the information in the article, I was reminded of a post over on the Undercover Black Man blog (h/t Rachel’s Tavern) surrounding some inflammatory remarks made by Nigerian writers after James Waston’s famous remarks.
UBM writes:
It blows my mind that this is the character of a public discussion in a major newspaper in the capital city of Africa’s most populous nation.
Think about what Bill Cosby is catching hell for saying. Now re-read Zainab Kperogi. “Most of us blacks simply do not have the capacity to think very deeply…”
It’s one thing to want to shake folks up… to demand the best from your people. It’s another to be fully invested in the psychology of black inferiority.
I don’t know how Africans can get past that.
(Please take the time to read the UBM piece and the following comments. They may upset you, but the commenters are making well reasoned points that are oft-repeated in the realm of economics, sociology, global business, and global policy.)
I like the conversation over at UBM because it reminds me of a common refrain when discussing African issues.
“Why can’t Africans get their shit together and join the global economy?” is a question posed in many different ways in different spheres of conversation.
Answers range from corruption to distribution of resources to genetic inferiority, but rarely do we point to situations like the one described in the NYT article and wonder if this kind of jacked up logic is being applied to the rest of Africa as a whole. How many other leaders have a vision for their country that they are not able to implement because the financial backing they need is tied up in conditions placed upon them by donor nations?
Again, I caution everyone to be wary of people who present you with the smoking gun solutions. I highly doubt that dismantling the IMF, WTO, and World Bank tomorrow will create some kind of magical utopia where the third world will suddenly spring out of poverty and become economic juggernauts.
These issues are complicated and interconnected. Africa is composed of 61 countries, each with their own specific history and set of problems. In one area, the IMF/World Bank restrictions may be the greatest stumbling block to progress. In another region, it could be corrupt leadership. In another territory, it could be the destabilization of currency and trying to restore the economy in a time of crisis. An economic emergency has many causes.
However, the best thing to do to start untangling all the misinformation is to start paying attention.
******
Related – The Bookish Black Girl on Africa Rising…To Whom is Credit Due?
Unlike what Bono, Angelina Jolie, Jeff Sachs, Tony Blair et all want the west to believe, YOU CAN’T FIX AFRICA. Putting aside the simple question of what it means to “fix” a continent, the bottom line is that no country has ever developed under a master plan created by another country or group of country. So as much as the Millenium Campaign wants Americans and the like to feel good and empowered to solve Africa’s problem, the underlying truth is that the Millenium Campaign was bound to failure before it ever began. A country, not to talk of an entire continent, will not grow because of some top-down plan formulated by Western economists and their hollywood buddies. Foreign aid is at best, a fruitless divestion of energy and at worst a contributor to the problems it seeks to correct. Let aid money go to those who use it best–the WHO, nonprofits like MSF but not to governments. There’s only one way for Africa to grow and alas, it is not for Jeff Sachs to waive his magic wand. The continent will grow when its people and entrepreneurs are empowered to tackle the problems in its governments, judicial systems and infrastructure.
The New York Times – A Question of Blame When Societies FallThe backlash had been brewing since a symposium last year, “Exploring Scholarly and Best-Selling Accounts of Social Collapse and Colonial Encounters,” at a meeting of the American Anthropological Association in San Jose, Calif. Although “Guns, Germs and Steel” has been celebrated as an antidote to racism — Western civilization prevails not because of inherent superiority, but geographical luck — some anthropologists saw it as excusing the excesses of the conquerors. If it wasn’t their genes that made them do it, it was their geography.
“Diamond in effect argues that no one is to blame,” said Deborah B. Gewertz, an anthropologist at Amherst College. “The haves are not to be blamed for the condition of the have-nots.”
Please note: I shared the Times article with some friends (who proofed this piece) and they noted that this article is a bit difficult to follow if you have not read Jared Diamond’s work. If you find yourself confused, try to focus only on the sections of the article that specifically deal with Diamond’s work.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Colin wrote:
I tend to disagree about the thrust of Diamond’s work. I can see where one would say he’s an apologist for European aggression, but I think he takes his job as an anthropologist more seriously than any activist job he could have. (Not to say activism is bad, I have FRIENDS who are activists…<-joke) He seemed to try to tell it real, I thought. Europeans started with an advantage geographically speaking. The only complaint is the rampant Eurocentrism and lack of intensive focus on other geographically well-to-do regions like much of China.
I don’t personally like to bash activism myself because I think that it’s one of the needed enzymes for what seems more and more like a failed American democratic system. Activism and protests, these things can at times make America stand at attention. They are not infallible means of action, but they can be effective in producing progressive change. So I wouldn’t poo-poo protest as some pedantic, ill-informed tantrum that can be solved by one just reading “both sides” of the issue.
That early part of your post got MY blood boiling because it seemed you were making such a suggestion — that activists or even potential activists need to just read what the other side has to say on any given issue and then we’ll come to our senses and see that things will be alright if we just shut our mouths. Was I reading too much into it? Sure, I’ll readily admit as much, but I do think that you yourself showed why “both sides” are not always equally right.
In particular, I think this is a view held often by the media “bipartisan” elites like David Broder of the Washington Post or David Brooks for the NY Times, or Tim Russert of NBC News, this view that both sides have points to make even if one is saying, “Let’s at least try to help,” and the other says, “Let’s try to make a decent profit off these poor saps”. In that case, it is highly disdainful to say to activists, many of whom in fact already do read as many sides of the issue as they can, that they just don’t get it.
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 1:21 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
See http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2007/12/diamond-blames-victim.html for my comments on the Diamond article.
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 1:42 pm ¶
Cactus Lion wrote:
Read this NYTimes article when it came out. My overwhelming reaction was also “Go Malawi Go!”, and I also love this post (thanks Latoya) for spreading the word and adding value through thought in the process.
I would just add however, that there are counterarguments to The Bookish Black Girl excerpt included in the post: countries *have* indeed developed successfully under a master plan created by another country/group of countries. West Germany and Japan after WWII. Besides the odd growing pain here and there (esp. on the Japan side), these two countries were completely rebooted, if you will, by the allies after the war, right down to new consitutions written/codified *for* them. It’s sometimes easy to forget how bombed out and future-less those two nations seemed at one point in time. I’m not advocating that countries that “aren’t” working be “fixed” by outside interests necessarily (as this post points out, every country is a pretty pretty snowflake – unique and different), but just that actually, it has happened in the past.
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 1:42 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Thanks for the comments.
Colin –
I did quite enjoy Guns, Germs, and Steel when I read it. However, I tend to read these kind of books as extended theories and not cold hard fact. That’s one of the reasons I included the counterpoint piece – it felt like GGS was being held up in the same way as Freakonomics – a definitive answer to certain question.
Diamond’s research is thorough and I really enjoyed it, but the NYT piece was illuminating as it flipped the central premise. You really could draw a different book.
In terms of activism, I’m not sure where you got that impression from in the piece. I am very wary of activists who want you to shut up and do what they say. That is one of my biggest issues with the WTO/IMF/WB protests and organization strategies. Some protest groups (obviously not all) focus on rage, not dedicated action. So while there are many different ways to make a difference or a point, protest (peaceful or not) is not always the best way to do it. It really depends on the situation that you deal with.
That’s why I believe it is important as an activist to educate first. I never said that you hold your tongue on these kind of issues but realizing what you are fighting and what you are up against allows you to take more effective action. I personally hate the idea that “analysis leads to paralysis” – you can get more information on a subject and STILL execute a plan of action.
One of my experiences with the WTO protests is that while a lot of people are recruited each year (from high schools, colleges, etc) very few of them return year after year – or stay involved in the cause, or even stay abreast of what is going on. So, I guess I am looking for more people to understand because through understanding is how people stay committed to a cause.
Also, listening to other sides of an argument is the best way to hone your own, as I am sure you have noticed. The article on Malawi illustrates some of the holes in logic our world leaders – so, you want to help build a society and yet you deliberately stifle progress because it does not fit your theory on how a nation should become self-sufficient?
Acknowledging another viewpoint does not mean conceding that they are correct. It just means you look more at their motivations and why they do what they do. I see what you mean though – sometimes the best way to get through to someone IS to have a huge protest. But if that method hasn’t worked in 10 years, it is time to reevaluate.
Anyway, I’ll write more about activism methods and such in the next post on New Orleans.
Rob –
Thanks for the link. I would have to go back and read Collapse to comment any further.
Cactus Lion –
Understandable. I would argue a coalition of nations after a world war fostering a plan of action is a different circumstance than one or two independent organizations, but I am getting too far out of my comfortable knowledge range. I did include Bookish Black Girl’s piece because the perspective she shares follows closely to what I have seen as true – a change in a nation has to come from within. The people have to feel empowered to make that change. So, a trickle down effort that goes through a government may not be the best venue to empower the people. But again – every country is different, so some countries may benefit from an integrated economic plan.
The point I made in the piece (which you totally got) was the one size fits all thing has to end.
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 2:42 pm ¶
Peter wrote:
It’d be cool if the link to the source NYT article was at the top of the post, where it is first referenced. And the current link goes to the second page, not the first.
And I am all for capitalism as a system
I used to say this myself, but then I finally took the time to figure out the core of this Capitalism vs. Socialism thing, and find out why so many anti-Capitalists are, in fact, anti-Capitalist.
So, now I say things that I think are more responsible – things like:
* Obviously Capitalism is broken, but…
* We can have the Capitalism vs. Socialism argument another day, but…
The reason to do that, of course, is just so you can focus on your main critique. But if folks want to talk about the evils of Capitalism – its inherently self-destructive features – fine, then you can walk them through it.
So, _if_ you have any doubts as to the relative efficacy of ‘capitalism as a system’, then you should definitely figure out why so many of us are so against it – because it is the central economic philosophy that underpins global institutions like the IMF, World Bank, etc.
If, on the other hand, you really do think Capitalism is OK or tolerable or the best thing since sliced bread, then just ignore all this.
“Diamond in effect argues that no one is to blame,” said Deborah B. Gewertz, an anthropologist at Amherst College. “The haves are not to be blamed for the condition of the have-nots.”
in the related post section, i strongly disagree with Gewertz, as well as a previous commenter. Within the first two chapters of Guns, Germs, and Steel, the reader is given the strong impression that the author of the work, Jared Diamond, is going to shred ‘with extreme prejudice’ every racist explanation for the current state of the world.
maybe in one of his later books or television series productions Diamond has miraculously morphed into a vile apologist for state power and terror and the West’s hegemony over the rest of the world at this current point in time, but I seriously doubt it. The humanity embodied in the work of his that I’ve read/seen is obvious – even overwhelming.
Reading the rest of this particular article, we see the real meaning of these anthropological soirees – to whine about how a professor from California who happened to write a book is getting all this attention and we real anthropologists are not. Boo hoo.
The one prof goes so far as to call Diamond a racist by implication – saying that Diamond “shifts all of the burden to people and their stupidity…”. Unfortunately, Diamond’s work does not bare this out. I specifically remember reading in GGS an account where Diamond was taken aback by how intelligent the people of PNG were – and not in a faux liberal kinda of way – he gave details of his hunting partner’s ability to rattle off hundreds of different types of fauna and implications of contact with each. This and other evidence specifically led Diamond to conclude that the intelligence of the population of PNG was _not_ to ‘blame’ for the relative lack of development of PNG when compared to the rest of the developed world. This conclusion forced Diamond to continue his search for the real reasons PNG was ‘behind’ in development.
[I use the quotes because lots of 'forward progress', like the nation state, is not progress in any meaningful sense of the term.]
In short, it just sounds like sour grapes. Anthropologies should do more to stop cooperating with the U.S. government and other governments around the world who seek to enslave people, and do less attacking of colleagues who raise their profession out of obscurity.
p.s. preview button, please.
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 5:20 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Wow. I love posts like this. I get such knowledgeable arguments and counter arguments.
Peter –
The article was a monster to write as I try to frame these topics in a way someone without much background in any of these topics can still follow. That being said, I still try to keep them short.
Maybe from now on I will spell out my assumptions. I understand the criticisms of capitalism as a system but that is a whole other topic in itself. I do like capitalism for other reasons, namely social mobility. But again, we are talking about capitalism in theory, not as currently implemented. That’s a whole other blog post though…maybe when I post about Objectivism I will throw some more discussion of economic theory in there.
I don’t think Diamond intended his work to get labeled as the one and only answer at all, but it did. That’s why I drew the comparison to Freakanomics (though Diamond’s work is much better researched and in my opinion, less flawed.) I read Freakonomics and found it to be a quite interesting take on random trends in development. Some things rubbed me the wrong way – like the drug dealer chapter and the black names chapter – but overall, I found it an interesting way to think about things from a different perspective.
It wasn’t until I read reviews of the book,and heard it discussed where people took the black name theory and held it as gospel that I was like – oh hell no. So, again, in my opinion, I think that it’s less of what the author did and more of how pop culture chose to interpret it.
(Re: the preview button. Yeah, uhh…that’s a Carmen question. I know WordPress wants her to update but I’ll mention it to her when she gets back.)
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 6:54 pm ¶
Mark La Roi wrote:
A formerly suckling country develops legs and begins to stand so the country which had developed financial dependence upon creating suckling people and countries doesn’t want to help the new country stand alone.
Sadly, not a surprise.
Posted 01 Jan 2008 at 9:24 pm ¶
Orville wrote:
I honestly believe part of the problem with western nations and organizations such as the IMF is their attitude towards African nations. The attitude is very paternalistic it is an attitude of superiority. I cringe when I see Angelina Jolie on CNN giving her views on world politics. Its like give me a break. The problem is I honestly believe the West wants to keep the third world poor it serves their interests. There is an attitude that African people are inferior to the West. Of course this attitude is racist and wrong but it persists.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 12:58 am ¶
luckyfatima wrote:
I am trying to have a greater understanding of the role of World Bank and IMF and their role in what is so wrong in the developing world. Thanks for this.
On a side not, I did not like that NYT characterization of Malawi as a beggar with a bowl. Very dehumanizing to the people who live there.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 3:27 am ¶
dnA wrote:
That is absolutely correct.
They don’t want any goods competing with American goods, so they kneecap the competition by ghettoizing them.
Hundreds of billions in farm subsidies for American farmers? What the FUCK kind of free market is that??!?
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 4:34 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Hundreds of billions in farm subsidies for American farmers? What the FUCK kind of free market is that??!
Exxxactly.
It’s not about “free market”, it’s about multinational profits.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 10:26 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Mark –
Very true. And very sad that human lives and well being do not factor here.
Orville –
Also very true. Each country -from what I understand – is seen as a problem to be dealt with, not a nation with its own interests or as a trade partner.
LuckyFatima –
I will try to cover more information on this in subsequent posts. However, I must mention that in all the reading I have done about other nations and their dealings with the WB/IMF/WTO, this is one of the few articles that was actually pretty positive toward Malawi. I’ve read other things that will turn your stomach.
dnA -
Precisely. That’s why I liked this article so much – it clearly illustrates the huge gap between theory and reality. If we, in our (mostly) stable nation, need the additional help and subsidies to benefit our citizens, then why are we telling other nations NOT to assist their citizens in a time of need?
Gatamala –
You got it. That’s why I used the phrase “free market petri dish.” A lot of nations are just experiments, using the strictest of economic theory with no room to manuver to the needs of the populace.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
dnA wrote:
Toya and Gatamala,
Don’t forget what a great “petri dish” for those economic theories Iraq turned out to be. The lessons of colonialism have not been learned; the West is still in love with the idea of its own social superiority. Of course, that was true when there were universities in Damascus and people in Britain were running around half naked in blue paint and eating gruel, but you know, old habits die hard.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 11:13 am ¶
Anna wrote:
I am currently reading Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, that explains clearly and concisely the post-colonial exploitation poorer regions(she includes New Orleans) by corporations, aid organizations and western governments, under the guise of free market ideology. The ideology requires a disaster or trauma to precipitate the “free market”* take over.
You know there is already a plan developing for Pakistan and Kenya this week (if not months/years ago). Also disappointment that Chavez** accepted that defeat of his constitutional amendments (for now). Another pretext for a coup needs to be created for Venezuela.
Another poster mentioned Japan and West Germany after WWII, as successful examples of the US directing other countries. That was before the accendency of free market ideology. The US supported local business development and the government providing essential services in those countries.
*There has never been an actual “free market” anywhere. The ideology under that name, developed by Milton Friedman and his followers, requires the handing over of natural resources and essential services to international corporations to exploit as monopolies.
**I don’t think Chavez is a good and honorable leader, he is a corrupt dictator just one that doesn’t follow the US gov’t.’s directions. I just don’t think Bush & Co. would have any problem with a corrupt dictator who sold off his country’s oil to Exxon and water to Coca Cola.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 1:25 pm ¶
Logan wrote:
Not going to add much to the conversation, but drawing on my past experiences:
In the Winter 04/Spring 05, I took some classes at Lorain County Community College in International Relations. The professor who was there, who was from Ghanna, had us read for class numerous articles about Africa in general, as well as the role of the IWF and such. To me, it seemed almost obvious years ago, with little economic knowledge, that it was obvious that the countries that were “helped” were going further and further in debt without any hope of coming out. The point of these articles I believe was to question whether or not the debts accrued by countries in Africa should be wiped off considering how bad things were getting and how long it’d take to “fix” things.
The most telling example of how bad matters were came from, and I know I’m remembering this wrongly, a deal worked out with an African country, and I believe Japan or Taiwan, where as a condition of receiving foreign aid money from Japan, they had to buy potatoes from Taiwan with that money, to increase the Taiwanese potato market. These potatoes then sold in that market were cheaper and of a better quality than the native grown potatoes. It cause a situation where the country turned away from potato production due to being unable to make money on potatoes, and turned them further into a debtor nation. That to me was what still stands out about the issues with borrowed and lent money.
Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶
Needs wrote:
Africa this, Africa that, we are not one. One cannot hope to apply the same system of “aid” to the whole continent. It cannot be done for one country let alone a whole continent. I also take issue with the fact that only one side of the argument was presented (as per the Nigerian columnist), did anyone take the time to look for a Nigerian columnist that disagreed with James Watson?
Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 4:07 am ¶
latinamericanprinces wrote:
Wonderful article and many interesting comments. I do not know enough about the Jap/W. Germ conditions to comment, but I recently attended a panel in which the case of S. Korea was explained. Essentially the key to S. Korea’s successful launch from undeveloped to developed was the lack of conditions set upon its development and little interference from the West. Gross violations and exploitation of workers occurred. At one point it even seemed to regress after some initial success. However it is now the only nation in the world to have “transformed” in one generation (Germany and Japan were bombed but had already begun modernizing earlier).
We see it again today in the criticism of China’s environmental and labor policies. Again the West forgets the squalor of European and American cities and factories. The major violations that occurred during our “development” and modernization. Granted we should be concerned about pollution and exploitation. But vilifying other nations is not the answer. I don’t mean this in a patronizing way, but I keep thinking about how we learn as children. We have to be free to make our own mistakes while at the same time learning from the experience of others. Too much restriction and lack of diversity in aid planning kills any hope of real development.
Orville is right about the patronizing superiority-complex in terms of African nations (Zoe’s Ark!). Not that the West doesn’t see itself as superior to other regions but I think with Africa its probably worst. This further complicates things in terms of development in Africa versus Latin America or Asia. Geography does play a role, but there are many factors. All those factors play a role at every level: local, national and regional.
Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 4:35 pm ¶
J. wrote:
If you’re interested in more about how the IMF and World Bank (and predatory global capitalism in general) fuck over Africa, try Patrick Bond’s _Looting Africa_. Great economic analysis.
Also, I’ve read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and it’s of course not meant to be critical race theory. It applies its ecological/environmental theories a bit in the same way as evolutionary biology so popularly applies itself to gender issues, and such analyses will always, by default, be incomplete and often reductive and even misleading. But in spite of giving only part of the story, _GGS_ is a valuable read and can be a partial help to the anti-racist cause by at least reminding ignorant Americans that … peoples do not all start on even playing fields, whether because of geographical/environmental factors or, perhaps more importantly, oppression.
Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:40 pm ¶
Jenny wrote:
I know this is a very late,but a marxist view of Jared Diamond’s various theories can be found here: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/yalis-question/
Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 4:20 pm ¶