Now, before you call the Geek a racist and similar unkind things, consider the growth of the human population when it left behind the continent of its origin. Then, think about the slow growth of the population descended from those who chose to stay behind.
When you have compared the numbers, consider the differences--and the reasons. The world outside of Africa presented a myriad of challenges, of opportunities, of new and different niches in which H. sap could make a living. Pace that misguided, agenda driven perversions of scholarship called the "Afro-centrists," the human race stretched its collective wings and flew once some folks went for the far horizons.
The ones who stayed in the birthing room expanded slowly, painfully. Geology and geography conspired against the fulmination of population, social complexity, technological innovation, economic advance, and political evolution which characterised those descended from the adventurous sorts who shook the dust of Africa off their (initially) bare feet.
Geology conferred upon Africa a plethora of natural resources, primarily those of a mineral sort, which were of no use to the locals until those who left had invented means of extraction, exploitation, and fabrication into useful implements. Balancing the abundance of sub-soil resources, geology provided little arable land, little opportunity to farm in quantities which would support urban centers, an expanding population, and provide the excess that leads to the division of labor and all that arises from that.
Geography, or more precisely, climate, made the agricultural base even weaker. And, it added factors of endemic disease such as malaria which are absent in much of the rest of the world. The deck was environmentally stacked against the Africans from the get-go. The basics which allowed, no, demanded change--advances in technology, organisational complexity, and, never forget, more population--were simply not present in Africa.
Consider that evolution did not even produce a suitable draft animal anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. No horses. No replacements for the ox, the ass, the camel, the llama. Not until the many times grandchildren of those who left came back, first from the Mideast and then from Europe, were these lacks remedied even in part.
Not until the much maligned Europeans returned searching for resources, global advantage, or simply glory and slaves, were any of the fruits of the human diaspora made available to the stay-behinds. Not all these fruits were sweet, pleasant to be sure. The colonisers and their successors brought many fruits which were bitter and some which were poisoned, but, on balance, the sweet and good over matched the bitter and poisoned.
The foundation of that contention can be seen in the explosive growth of the African population in the Twentieth Century as the agricultural, public health, and infrastructure innovations carried in the packs of the colonisers took hold. Birth rates soared. Infant mortality dropped. Longevity increased.
The availability of food was greatly increased. And, the average cost dropped. Education in the new means of production, of social and political organisation became available with the result that today's Africa has many who are completely at home with the latest gizmos and ideas.
Yes, the Africans paid for the benefits. They were enslaved not only by their own but by Arabs and, later, Europeans and Americans. The resources both of and below the ground were exploited with little reward to those who did the dirty work but much to those locals and foreigners who directed and were enriched by the exploitation.
There are people and organisations who argue that the rest of the world, particularly that part of the world occupied by Western Europe and the US still owe Africa much. There is particular hyperventilation regarding the way in which the "rich" countries of the "north" are stockpiling vaccines and therapeutic drugs against the new flu, A-H1N1. Ban Ki-moon, the World Health Organisation, and a host of non-governmental organisations are demanding that the same countries which are seeking to protect their citizens against a disease which may--or may not--be a global killer send billions of dollars to Africa to fight malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV infection.
These diseases are killers. There is no doubt about that. Malaria, even when it does not kill--and most forms are not all that lethal--has the capacity to enervate the body, the mind, the will. The Geek is personally acquainted with that aspect of malaria. TB has been called the "white plague" for centuries. Historically it has been the leading cause of death by infection in every continent on the globe. And, AIDS has hit Africa like a bio-weapon, wiping out the younger, more productive adults, leaving families and villages empty save for children and grandparents.
It is easy, very easy to invoke that most important of human characteristics--altruism--in the service of fighting deadly diseases in Africa. And elsewhere. Altruism is a good. But, it is not an absolute good.
Consider that Africa now has a population which far outstrips the agricultural carrying capacity of the land. Countries which were formerly either self-sufficient in food or even net exporters are now dependent upon imports, often provided gratis by donor governments including the US.
Additionally, the population of much, if not most, of Africa now vastly exceeds what might be termed the economic carrying capacity of each state and the region as a whole. Poorly considered development schemes coupled with inherent and endemic corruption and governmental inefficiency to assure that opportunities for proper, sustainable development went by without effect on the population beyond the most transient. Some countries have no real economic reason to exist.
Had these places been bypassed by the wave of colonisation, they would have slouched on as they had for tens of centuries with a base of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism and hand tool agriculture. The population limitation techniques practiced by women for hundreds of generations would have kept the population within the limits of sustainability.
The brutal fact which must be gripped is that a country without an economic reason to exist particularly if it contains a population which cannot be supported effectively by the agricultural carrying capacity of its land has no claim on others to keep it on life support in perpetuity. The actual nature of humanitarian aid in any of its many forms is one of never-ending life support unless the recipient has the means and will to adjust its population level to that which can be maintained in decency by the local economy and agriculture.
Secretary of State Clinton is off to Africa. Her tour has been widely touted by the White House, even to the extent of a text message from President Obama. Her eleven day jaunt is the longest she has taken since becoming SecState.
Highlighting her trip will be meetings with the leaders of three African "powers": South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. All three of these are regionally important. South Africa is the largest economy in the Sub-Sahara. Nigeria is the most populous in Africa. And, Kenya is Kenya.
All three are politically, socially, and economically in the deep kim chee.
Since the Anglo-Dutch minority surrendered total power to the indigenous majority, a combination of very bad economic decision making and political unrest has wreaked a species of havoc which has reached the level that electrical power supplies have become unreliable.
Nigeria has a deep split between Christians and Muslims, which recently left more than seven hundred dead. It also has a festering insurgency in the Niger Delta, which has crippled its number one foreign exchange earner: oil.
In Kenya, the fissures opened in last year's election and the consequent violence have been addressed cosmetically but remain wide and unhealed. Additionally, Kenya is under pressure from the refugee hordes crossing from Somalia. And, the Islamist jihadist threat is both real and growing. At the same time the global economic crisis has hit Kenya's foreign exchange position.
SecState Clinton will also meet with leaders from the (sorry, but it is the official name) Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Liberia. The flacks at the White House describe each of these as being recovering from war.
That description is more or less true regarding Angola and Liberia. It is false regarding the Congo. The fighting hasn't even paused in that resource rich, pathetically misgoverned country. Nor is likely to end simply to comfort the Nice Minded Ms Clinton.
The US has no direct national or strategic interests in play in any of the featured countries. That is other than access to natural resources, some of which have a great economic and military importance. The reason for Ms Clinton's extensive trip might be found in the Chinese diplomatic penetration of Africa in recent years.
That rational explanation has been explicitly rejected by Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa as "a Cold War paradigm." There is no rivalry, ASS Carson maintains between the US and its "colleagues from Asia."
Holy lost in space!! What has the ASS-A been smoking? What is the name of his dealer?
Of course, it really doesn't matter if China gets an even firmer grip on Africa. It will cost them money and energy without any great reward. The Chinese have tried the African gambit before. Once was roughly five hundred years ago. The next emperor called it off. More recently the Lads in Beijing tried with a massive set of aid projects which brought new railroads to Tanzania but nothing in return.
The emphasis placed upon women's rights and the travails of rape victims seems to indicate that there is little in the real, substantial goal department involved in the upcoming trip. Yes, the rights of just over half the population of Africa is important. And, rape is a real problem--particularly on the fringes of the endless wars within the less well governed, less socially and politically cohesive states (which is most of them.)
In the last analysis women's rights, rape, human rights, and the rest of the humanitarian concerns are simply the farthest edges of Africa's problems. The centrality is simply that there are too many people today for the economic and agricultural carrying capacity of the region and its many, many diverse states. The next ring out from the center of the problem is that the majority of the governments and their supporting elites are both inefficient and corrupt without any pervasive cultural or intellectual imperative to serve and benefit the commonweal.
Unless and until the SecState and the President can get a grip on these ground truths, there is no reason to go to Africa. We--and they--will be better off without the combination of photo-op and unrealistic expectations.
And, that's a fact, Jack.
No comments:
Post a Comment