Primitivising Conflict_Reading Memo

Throughout modern history the interest in the African continent was rather low. Since the first colonization expeditions the continent became part of European history and an “object” of interest. Indeed, undiscovered human and natural sources attracted European powers who seized the land without any respect to local populations. However, from the very beginning there was little interest in the way of life of African people's nor in their histories, languages, cultures. More worldwide interest got African countries during the decolonisation process after the Second World War when the two super powers both the US and the Soviet Union tried to gain the sympathy as many African regimes as possible to demonstrate their domination. Finally again during democratization processes after the end of the Cold War Africa got more international attention, this time not by great powers but by the media who brought conflicts in Africa to the people worldwide. However, I argue that the interest has always been very selfish and short-term. Africa was, is and will be crucial for the world. Still, there is lack of deeper knowledge and interest about it. Instead, there is generally superficial interest in the African continent and its people based on widely spread stereotypes. Those are created by a general lack of interest of the “West”, poor media coverage together with lack of information. Let me present some main ideas that came to my mind when I was reading the literature for lesson II.

The first main reason for superficial interest in African issues is definitely the existence of stereotypes. Many of them are based on the “creation” of Africa as part of “our” history, by us, indicating and confirming Africa's incapability and dependence. Those stereotypes about African inferiority are deeply rooted in “Western”, or as I prefer to call them “Northern societies”[1]. For instance, in European schools African history is usually taught from the colonisation as if there were no history before; African countries are being labelled as “developing”; reducing Africa to one homogenous area or society by e.g. talking about “African culture” or “African people” etc.

Those stereotypes drive the work of journalists too. Since the end of the 1980s Africa became more present in “Northern” media. For example, pictures of children suffering from famine in Ethiopia started a “worldwide pity” mainly reflected in pop culture. Unfortunately, many of the reports usually were confirming existing stereotypes about “poor, savage, uneducated, incapable African people”. The current media landscape demands short, simple stories with attractive pictures. Given the complexity of conflicts in Africa many journalists simply don't write about them or they need to simplify them to draw attention to them as it was the case of the film “Kony 2012”.  

The film and the campaign is definitely an example of the very simplified and “northern” perspective of conflicts in African countries. I think that the question whether it is good or not to draw such huge attention to a particular conflict is very difficult to answer. It seems that international attention should help to bring a positive change. However, too much global attention overlooks and basically wipes out all the other efforts of local people. Since I am convinced that long-term positive changes have to come “from the bottom”, from people in site, I am very sceptical to foreign interventions. International attention is important and can influence a lot but is it always a step in the right direction? And what comes next? Campaigns such as “Kony” are based on one main idea or aim and they don't present any plans for the following development which in my opinion makes them very short-term. Efforts of local people's organizations and associations are deeper because people in site have a much bigger interest in working on long-term solutions because the following development will influence them and the lives of their descendants. Therefore, I think that instead of using social media to gigantic campaigns they can be used to smaller ones, directed and controlled by people from the affected countries, and supported (financially, technically, know-how) from abroad. The progress will be slower but at the same time more genuine and considered.

When I watched “Kony 2012” I was surprised how less attention was actually given to people from Uganda. It seemed to me that it was more a promotion film about the director, about his son and about the uprising American youth. In the beginning the director says that media allow us to intervene. But do they indeed? And who are we intervening for – for people in trouble or for our conscience's sake? If it really was for the Ugandan people, children, the campaign would not take place in such a range because people would show real interest and look for information about the country, about the history, about the government. It was paradoxically people's disinterest that enabled the campaign. 

The film also reminded me of the well known film “Hotel Rwanda” where the Rwandan protagonist asks the American journalist to spread the pictures of the Rwandan genocide as soon as possible so that American people rise up and make the government to intervene. The journalist answers: “People will see this footage and say: 'Oh my God, it's horrible.' And then they go and eat their dinners.”

There has been too much external interventions in Africa and most of them based on “northern” perceptions of the world. International support and solidarity remain very important components of further evolution in Africa but they should not be forced nor central as it is often the case.

---

[1] „The North“ or „Northern societies“ meaning countries of the Northern hemisphere but mainly Europe, North America. Often also called “the global North” in contrast to the undeveloped or developing “global South”.