Message-ID: <0.aeec99cc.256c9085@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:51:17 EST From: mailto:AXEOXALA@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Road to Pan-Africanism - another development perspective To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
In a message dated 11/23/99 1:01:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, mailto:kanani@uoguelph.ca writes:<< This is nice talk ... but how do we ensure the dreams of Pan-Africanism are realised? What concrete steps need to be taken in light of the flawed Modern African States on the continent which seem to have lost all direction and capcity to promote peaceful co-existence and transformation of the poor majority?. Is it not time for the pan-African crusade to include concrete suggestions and strategies to achieve that envisaged african unity? >>
Those African states need to be held accountable, not to the IMF, not to the WTO, not to foreign governments and not to the demands of foreign NGOs or donors whom they want to pamper in order to receive money, but to the african people (and by african people I do not mean the elite/ positioned white residents who have benefited from the legacy of colonization).
Enhancing the capability of those African people on a larger scale to begin to expect that level of accountability requires the primary step of contradicting the subtle and overt messages that they are incapable of holding this position. As we have seen on this list, those supporting such messages do indeed attempt to make themselves formidable. I could almost hear some on the list stomping their foot down to what they think is proper development concern. Or maybe that sound is the cracking of the whip?
While they are impotent to my conversation, they are very damaging to those who are vulnerable. "They can't survive without us" is chanted over and over again in a variety of forms into the ears of Africans so much that after years they are believed. Some children are raised with such images as their only concept of African progress, and reaching adulthood, they cannot conceive of any other way to advance. Like the battering husband who convinces his wife that she can't survive without him, or the pimp who convinces the young girl that he is the only one that cares for her and prostitution is the only way she can survive.
It is indeed high time for concrete solutions.
I am very much for the strengthening of the indigenous African civil society capacity to analyze and advocate their own solutions. They need to begin taking away that control from foreign ngos by forming their own collective non-governmental work. Although they would like Africans to believe otherwise, these foreign ngos don't hold any "big magic" that is not accessible to Africans themselves which Africans can share with others. A good portion of these well-meaning modern day missionaries are not as "brilliant" as they would like Africans to believe. It's like some of them want Africans to believe that they can magically create fire from their hands, while not letting it be known that they are using matches.
Money given on behalf of African causes can be given to African themselves, instead of having massive portions of that aid siphoned off to support foreign ngo staff. There also needs to be intra-African collaboration on concrete levels that begin with the regular people in day to day addressing of African issues.
It seems kind of a collaborative effort that foreign corporations and governments engage in economic policies that strip African states of income from their resources (and African governments ignorantly participate, especially those 'bought off' so they can line their own pockets, like Abacha and Mobutu) - then foreign ngos step in with a small portion of such income (of which they take a lavish cut to fund themselves) to "manage" the natives and allow them just enough development to subsist, but not enough development to progress away from such management. And meanwhile the higher-level pillaging goes on...
There are many many efforts -- and I think THESE need to be made into a discussion of best practices to be circulated among Africans.
I remember an NGO meeting, at which there was an African caucus. Representatives of foreign ngos streamed in, so that around the table were all women - white women representing the ngos, and african women representing indigenous ngos or participating on their own. Foreign NGOs, even those that had branches in Africa, didn't send any African women to participate in this conference. The clash came when the foreign ngo representatives attempted to overtly dominate the conversation. An example is that one representative came with an African platform already written up, which she circulated around the room. She had identified the african platform on all the key themes of the conference. When the African women politely said thanks but we will continue to discuss and draw up a platform through our discussion, the representative expressed her dismay that "things wouldn't be handled correctly." Within three days of such daily clashes, the African women tossed out ALL the non-african women and continued - successfully - their african caucus meeting.
The ngo representative who circulated the african platform statement she wrote even said openly "If MY African group (meaning her "partner group") were here, I wouldn't LET them participate in this meeting. Another ngo representative talked excitedly about what HER (as she said) group of African women were doing she passed out a brochure and was unaware that the group sat baffled at how she described HER women in HER program in the same way one describes having taught their dog a new trick. Another woman (french) more subtle in her dominance, spent her time encouraging the french speaking women to not tolerate the "dominance" of the english speaking women and to form their own francophone African caucus, which her organization would help fund. Nevermind that the chair of the caucus was french speaking, that much of the conversation was in french and that there was no problem of "dominance" among the group. An american ngo rep went around the room asking if any of the women were from Sudan, because her program "doesn't have a Sudanese yet." Another woman, I don't know what ngo she represented, demanded time to address the meeting saying that her pr program wanted to do a report on the meeting and she wanted to get a picture of an African woman, in traditional clothes of course, to pose for the picture and give a quote they could use. She said it was important, because she was going to use it for a grant proposal.
It sounds extreme to have tossed them, but there was so much resistance against these African women leading their own meeting that it hampered all progress. There was antagonism towards intra-african collaboration because the foreign ngo representatives felt that the African women looked to one another more than they "looked up to" the ngo reps.
The foreign ngos tried to divide up the group based upon whom they previously knew, if they had attended "their meeting" or "their conference", in which case they should leave the caucus for a private meeting for "their program" goals. The french woman tried valiantly to establish a francophone african caucus by saying that the french must stick together and if they came, she could arrange future funding. One christian ngo rep, told the African women who were christian they must be wary of the muslim women and not allow them to influence the meeting. She expressed hope that they find "jesus" one day.
Fortunately, the African women participating were strong indvidually, as well as because of their unity in the room, and were not dependant upon the funding or program job, of the organizations tossed out. The meeting didn't collapse, it thrived. Within that room were women from all over the continent, some more experienced in such a forum, some less experienced, but they worked together well and learned from each other. They shared "best practices," of how THEY were able to handle problems, from which other women present could learn and all expressed the common concern and joy that it was Africans working together as family for their continent. They expressed dismay at the level of dependence, frustration at the Africans who had learned to "work the system" and get money to front for foreign ngos while really doing very little for Africans, and disgust with the programs that only did enough to make sure the staff was well funded and that the Africans would never get a foothold in handling their own business.
The lack of autonomy was not seen as "working together and sharing info with the gloabl community" as Kelly wrote, but as being dependent on others. Because we need their money, because we haven't made plans to do without them and/or because we find that unless we go through them, we don't get the money set aside for us as "aid", we don't get access to participate in conferences about African issues at which African governments participate (by order of bigger donors), was stated as a NEGATIVE, not a positive. They talked about learning what to say, what to do to get by, how to "talk like they want us to talk " and they wanted such dependence to be part of what one has to go through to get help, but certainly not the ultimate goal of progress.
Although I have the urge to say it is sad that some so-called "development specialists" disregard such feelings rather than understand that though in hard situations the Africans (or others) they claim to want to help are not helped if they are not progressing to no longer need help. But it has become such an industry and the same mentalities that drove colonizers are replete among many "aid givers" and "development specialists."
You wrote << How is the call for African Unity today different from the earlier calls echoed by the founding fathers? And what have our leaders done about the need for unity for all these years that the OAU have been in existence?
I don't think the calls for unity are different; the difference needs to come in the application.
<<This are just some questions which came to mind after reading once again about the Pan-African vision - which I share as well. >>
Wait, shhh, don't say that too loud or Kelly will be angry with you. Are you in Ca? And she is in CA? Are you sure you aren't her spy sent to destroy the vision? :-)
mailto:Kthompson@partners.ca wrote " I believe as a listserv we do need to argue and grapple with development issues, but this particular exchange really irritates me. Nicole is speaking for herself but using her righteous indignation to justify speaking on behalf of "all" Africans (I note she never answers my question about her nationality). "
I note that kelly feels it needs to be proven to HER why I can feel as I do, one needs to prove to her why such questions of autonomy are "legitimate." I note that she thinks her permission is needed. I note that she thinks my autonomy is under her influence - she has perhaps taken the idea of "development" to include people outside of her programatic range.
I note that people are committed to psychiatric institutions for a lower level of insanity than is required for her to believe that her approval is required for me to speak on this topic.
And isn't it sick that she tries to find personal security in the idea that "all" Africans aren't thinking about autonomy? Maybe that idea comforts her? Yes, and it is the same kind of security and comfort that some men find in the idea that "all" women aren't thinking of being without a man's complete control.
It is okay to discuss development issues, but not okay to include autonomy and self-direction of Africans in that discussion. I note that she thinks that she can decide such issues to be excluded from development debate, yet she doesn't realize that this is THE central debate on development for Africans. I note that the very same Africans she thinks aren't thinking this way, because they "talk the talk" to her, are probably among very same Africans leading such autonomy discussions among other Africans.
If this were a conversation about women's development, women's issues, the importance of women owning their own issues, being the primaries on their own issues, would go, for most people, without question. Anybody who dared to say that such autonomy was not proper conversation, or not important, they would be considered anti-woman. There wouldn't even be the pretense allowed that they want to help women progress. However when we switch "women," with "Africans," then it is considered acceptable to say that it is not proper. Switch "women" with "Africans" and all kinds of opposition ranging from the European saying "we"Africans are autonomous to the Life in Africa Foundation saying "we are leading and teaching Africans to be autonomous" to "that is too big a goal" let's not discuss it. It is disturbing, upsetting, a distraction from "real" talk about development, it is a "personal debate" and shouldn't be discussed out in the open.
The "personal" point is the closest argument to rational.
We can talk further, personally and privately - in a practice of pan-africanism, both for the sanity of the "givers" (kelly is really irritated...) and because I think sincerely that the desire to eliminate this vision is so strong that if we did begin discussing "best practices", some may find a way to co-opt them, incorporate them into their own programs and alter the vision to fit what they prefer.
You have brought up some good points and I would like to discuss them, "share" further with you on this topic, also linking into other discussions.
nicole