925, A Poem

I don't walk across the earth,

the earth moves under me.
And, if you dare to ask,
then I will tell you who I be.
You won't like it,but I'll tell you
that I'm G-O-to the D.
The only thing I understand
is there's no Dina Marie.
So He is all that I see,
or maybe He is a She.
But, then again, possibly,
Al-Ahad, Al-Wahid
is just too much to describe
and would rather be called We.
And if I leave a legacy,
no matter what the story be,
please make sure you erase me.
Concentrate all your belief
on your own divinity
then expand it out of that
and make it everything you see.


-Anonymous

The Medicalization of Childbirth, a Lie among Many

April 22, 2012

Some Aspects of the Medicalization of Childbirth

            Childbirth and a woman’s related natural bodily functions have become increasingly medicalized and, to some degree, viewed as an illness or disease which must be dealt with accordingly.  This opposes the true nature of a woman’s body and its functions.  In this paper, I will discuss the reasons leading up to this type of birthing culture as well as discuss some of the consequences of this birthing model on Western women.   My intention is to highlight evidence suggesting that Western birthing culture tends to disempower women and disconnect them from their own bodies and their children uneccissarily.

            It appears that, during childbirth in a hospital of an industrialized nation such as ours, women are assumed to be incompetent and in need of help.  Often times, a woman is rushed to a hospital, desperate for “help.”  A baby is coming and she can’t possibly do it on her own.  She believes she needs medical intervention.  Of course, this notion opposes the thousands of years prior to hospitals or industrialization or the Scientific Revolution during which a woman’s body was doing its part to keep our species alive with or without the help of modern technology.  How could this fear and expectation of trauma and the absolute need for help come to be?

            Firstly, it is important to understand the concept of authoritative knowledge and to describe where our authoritative knowledge pertaining to childbirth and motherhood is derived from. Davis-Floyd, while introducing the notion, states:

 56 “The central observation is that for any particular domain several knowledge systems exist, some of which, by consensus, come to carry more weight than others, either because they explain the state of the world better for the purposes at hand or because they are associated with a stronger power base, and usually both.  In many situations, equally legitimate parallel knowledge systems exist and people move easily between them, using them sequentially or in parallel fashion for particular purposes.  A consequence of the legitimation of one kind of knowing as authoritative is the devaluation, often the dismissal, of all other kinds of knowing.  Those who espouse alternative knowledge systems then tend to be seen as backward, ignorant, and naïve… Whatever they have to say about the issues up for negotiation is judged irrelevant, unfounded…”

            Helman, while discussing “The Origins of Western Birth Culture,” brings up several points on which I will hinge a major part of the discussion of this paper.  First, in terms of where our authoritative knowledge about childbirth originated, he mentions the Cartesian “body as machine” view which “established the male body as the prototype for this machine.”  Of course, a woman’s body can never be a man’s body and therefore cannot live up to this standard.  We can clearly see that, as Helman mentions, “the female body deviated from the male standard, so it was regarded as inherently abnormal, defective, dangerously unpredictable and under the influence of nature, and in need of constant manipulation by men.”171

            300Cartesian doctrine encourages a conceptual separation of mind and body as well. The body is seen as a machine.  When the machine breaks down, a technician is called in to repair it.  As the standard for this particular machine is based upon the male form, and the female derivation from it considered substandard, inevitably a technician will be needed to fix those derivations.   One could then logically pursue the idea that pregnancy and childbirth, being in extreme opposition to the male form, signify extreme need for the help of a technician. The fact that a woman enters into medical care or supervision upon conception of a child and then that care ends after birth reflects this notion.  Pregnancy is the malfunction; technology and medicine are the solutions.  The child is separated from the mother, leaving them both in a state more closely resembling the male prototype and, thus, repairing the machine to a large degree. 

(303)The birthing process is treated, quite often, as an assembly line with the baby presenting as the end product and, perhaps, the mother as nothing more than a component of the assembly line or a by-product of the process even.   This is evidenced by the following quote from a fourth year resident who states, “We shave ‘em, we prep ’em, we hook ‘em up to the IV and administer sedation.  We deliver the baby, it goes to the nursery and the mother goes to her room.  There’s no room for niceties around here.  We just move ‘em right on through.  It’s hard not to see it like an assembly line.”

The labor, for instance, is expected to conform to hospital standards in order to produce the baby, just as a factory has standards by which it is required to operate in order to produce its end product.  In The Technocratic Model of Birth, Davis-Floyd says that “the less conformity a labor exhibits, the greater the number of procedures that will be applied to bring it into conformity… the natural process of birth is deconstructed into identifiable segments, then reconstructed as a mechanical process.”   (302) One physician stated “There was a set, established routine for doing things, usually for the convenience of the doctors and nurses, and the laboring woman was someone you worked around, rather than with.”  Shedding more light on this mode of thought, Mckay, explains the history behind  our traditional dorsal recumbent position in which a Western woman is expected to be in during the second stage of labor when she writes that it “is not based so much in psychological principles as it is on the needs and convenience of the obstetrician… this posture originated in the 1600s when Mauriceau, a French obstetrician proposed it as an alternative to the commonly used birthing stool… because Mauriceau disliked having to carry the woman to her bed after delivery.”   

Jordan discusses the fact that even a woman’s natural hormones which are used during childbirth have been replaced with synthetic ones.  Jordan notes that pitocin, a synthetic version of oxytocin, is often administered to speed up labor when the medical team prepares for the delivery and the woman’s labor slows down.  Administering pitocin has been shown to decrease the production of oxytocin which plays a major role in mother-child bonding, something pitocin cannot do.  Also, there  is evidence to suggest that during the first hour after delivery there are significant increases in oxytocin levels which begin with the expulsion of the placenta.  It would appear that this is a crucial time for initiating the bond between mother and child and that the four hour post partum observation of the child by hospital staff is depriving them of this natural process.  (nissen)  Therefore, we can also see that the institution, or factory, takes precedence over the individual- either mother or child. 

            303Parelleling the separation of mind and body is the separation of mother and child. The new member of society is first observed by medical staff for four hours while lying in a plastic bassinet before being placed back into the arms of his or her mother.  Tests are done, medicines or vaccines administered.  It seems that Helman summed this up quite accurately when he refered to the process as being baptized into technology. Not only is this completely unnatural in terms of bonding between mother and child, but this act alone displays one way in which “society demonstrates conceptual ownership of its product.”  Thereafter, the baby is seen by a pediatrician while the mother sees her own doctor for follow up and it is quite clear that the two are very separate beings at this point.  Six weeks later, the mother leaves medical supervision, the process of rectifying the problem of her body/machine malfunction is done, and the child goes on to be vaccinated and tested routinely for years to come until finally being “confirmed” into the religion of medical technology once making the move from their pediatrician to their physician as an adult.

            So what does all of this mean for the psyche of the Western mother?  What messages are these practices sending her?  One way to interperet this birthing culture is through the lenses of control and power.  In this model, the technicians, or hospital staff, are in control.  They are the ones aware of what’s going on and administering the help or fix which the mother needs.  The mother is neither perceived to be in control of the situation nor have the power to be.  She is neither the factory nor the product.  She is merely one component of the mass production of social members.  Her rite of passage into motherhood is not acknowledged nor is her personal accomplishment cited as an important function in the process.  Essentially, her power and her worth are stripped from her and she is disconnected from herself, her child and her social identity.

            This message can be contrasted with fieldwork done by Jordan on Maya in rural Mexico.  In these communities, women are accompanied by and assisted by the people present during labor which could include family members, the village midwife and other women with experience in childbirth.  Each birth is individualized through “a shared store of knowledge…demonstrations, and remedies… a joint view of what is going on in this  labor, with this  woman-plus-baby, is constructed in which everybody involved in the birth participates… there is no one in charge here… the store of knowledge required for conducting a birth is created and recreated by all participants.” (Davis-Floyd, 60).

            In this model of birthing, the woman in not disconnected from herself through the notions of assembly line production nor is she separated from her role in society.  The mother is not looking for help or a fix.   There is no technician taking specific control of her problem.  There is no dominant authority. She remains an individual, within an inclusive network of family, and a central aspect of the end product, woman-plus-baby. The individualization of the process avoids the concept of conforming to standard practice and, therefore, the perceived need for interventions to bring the labor and birth up to the desired standards.  Their culture establishes the experienced and/or those vested with personal concern for the mother-plus-baby as the ones possessing the authoritative knowledge necessary for the specific birth- including the mother herself.  Through this, the mother is empowered in her roles as a woman, individual, family member and community member, reinforcing both kinship and social bonds.

            The information covered in this paper could be eye opening to many health care professionals in the West as well as women as individuals.  In understanding the social messages being sent to mothers-to-be, medical staff can shift their expectations of women towards a more natural and empowering method of interaction with them.  One change that can be made, and absoloutly should be made is having patience during the labor.  As mentioned in the introduction, birth is a natural process which has been accomplished more often than not without the intervention of medical technology.  It is an atrocity that womens bodies are being expected to adhere to the schedules or convenience of medical staff who she perceives as there to help her. In America, there has been an obvious breakdown of kinship bonds which I, myself, have witnessed progressing during my own short life.  This progression could be slowed,  perhaps, beginning with the separation of mother and child if we begin looking them as connected both to eachother and their family as well as to the society at large- even during childbirth.  Education about childbirth should come from a multitude of knowledge bases which connect the mother to her natural spheres of influence and not only from a separate and somewhat anonymous medical community who is only present during the onset of mechanical malfunction.    

The Sad Case of the Caveman (ooga booga)

It is well known and, hopefully, understood that movies and other forms of mass media don’t typically portray reality as it is. For the purpose of entertainment often mixed with some ulterior motives, movies tend to be a romanticized version of the facts.
The stereotyped caricature image of prehistoric man, who is sometimes referred to as the “caveman,” can refer to a wide range of time periods which are at times intermingled and disregard technologies and other progressions of the periods. The movie “10,000 B.C.” is a prime example of how the “caveman” image has been misconstrued. Modern archeology can, however, correct the inaccuracies which occur in the said movie as well as other depictions of prehistoric man in mass media.
One of the first questions to arise concerning the movie “10,000 B.C.” deals with dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Where are they? DNA evidence suggests dogs diverged from wolves about 100,000 years ago (Haag, 28). In reference to Bonn-Oberkassel, a German burial site containing intermingled human and dog remains, they were domesticated at least 14,000 years ago which makes them the earliest known example of domestication by humans (www.mnh.si.edu).
Based on the archeological record, horses, however, were not yet domesticated. “10,000 B.C.” portrays invaders on horse back. The earliest unambiguous direct evidence for horse domestication is provided by the Sintashta chariot burials. They date to roughly 2,000 B.C. and were found on the south Ural Steppe. Some archeologists believe that horse domestication could have occurred as far back as 4,000 B.C. but the evidence is unclear. Either way, these dates fall short of the 10,000 B.C. mark.
The movie portrays giant, flightless predatory birds. These birds, Titanis walleri, did really exist, but, again, in a completely different time and place and Titanis walleri never co-existed with humans. During an MSNBC interview, Bruce McFadden, a paleontologist from the Florida Museum of Natural history stated, “We found that the Titanis fossils were 2 million years old and not 10,000 years old as had been suggested. This also shows the last known occurrence of Titanis in the fossil record and reflects its extinction.” The fossils referred to here were from North America and it is unlikely that, if they lived in Europe or Africa, the birds existed any time near 10,000 B.C. There did exist a much smaller carnivorous bird in parts of both North America and Europe named Gastornis. Gastornis was not only smaller than the birds depicted in “10,000 B.C.”, however. The youngest known Gastornis remains date to 45 million years ago and, thus, did not co-exist with humans either (Beauffetaut, 359).
Another prehistoric animal shown in the movie is commonly referred to as a saber-toothed tiger. When reflecting on the size of the animal depicted, it is obviously a reference to some type of Smilodon. Although the most recent known Smilodon fossils found do date to as late as 10,000 B.C., Smilodon remains are only found in the western hemisphere. There did exist in Africa and Eurasia another machairodontine cat, Homotherium, with a smaller body mass than that of the Smilodons. However, the youngest Homotherium fossils suggest the species died out in Africa about 1.5 million years ago and about 30,000 years ago in Eurasia for climatic reasons (Turner, 219-244).
.
Whether the movie takes place in Europe or Africa is debatable but in either case the mammoths depicted are completely unrealistic. If the movie takes place in sub-Saharan North Africa, which is the general assumption, one should be aware of the fact that there is no archaeological record of either Mammuthus primogenus or Mammut americanum populations in that area at any time and were basically extinct at the time in question. Mastodons, mammoth genetic cousins, may have roamed North America at the time, but were likely on the verge of extinction. The land was as dry as it is today which is an improbable landscape for woolly mammoths anyhow (Clark, 60-64).
As mentioned, the film depicts dessert landscape although desertification did not begin to occur in the north of Africa until about 2500 B.C. There are also scenes depicting tundra and steppe, which is unlikely considering the fact that the area endured little glacial impact (Clark, 57-59). At the end of the movie, the lead characters are given seeds to grow by what appears to be Africans. This doesn’t make much sense either because it is common knowledge that those plants would never survive in the icy cold mountains the main characters come from.
The Iron Age in Europe started at about 1,000 B.C. In “10,000 B.C.,” the humans in the movie are readily using iron in the forms of axes and swords, for example. One of the earliest examples of iron workings globally is iron beads worn in ancient Egypt around 4,000 B.C. and they were merely rubbed smooth like stones commonly were. Other than that, the oldest known iron artifact shaped by hammering is a dagger, also from Egypt of Hittite workmanship, circa 1350 B.C. (www.answers.com).
The movie also has some Egyptian/Atlantis stuff going on (for lack of a better term). There are pyramids, huge temples and a Sphinx. Archaeological records indicate that the mega-building period in Egypt occurred around the same time that Stonehenge was built and is estimated to be circa 2,500 B.C., after the unification of the Upper and Lower Kingdoms provided the man power and resources for such a project. Although radiocarbon dating has been problematic in Egypt, 2,500 B.C. is an estimate based on king’s lists and the Egyptian civil calendar. Along with these depictions is a river, assumed to be the Nile. However, there is no sign of vegetation, only sand. The Nile River would be lush and green, probably with palms. Based on soil analysis and knowledge of unusually strong rains in central Sahara contributing to local runoff from Sudanese tributaries, it is assumed that the area actually suffered violent floods from 15,500 B.C. until about 9,000 B.C (Koch, 26-33).
An obvious fault of the movie lies in the English language being spoken. Of course, one might expect that from a movie for practical purposes, but it is an inaccuracy nonetheless. Even Old English, a conglomerate of North Western European Germanic languages, which replaced Celtic, was spoken from about 450 A.D. to 1000 A.D. after Anglo-Saxon migrations to the British Isles (Arnold, 44), proven through Y chromosome haplogroup analysis. Anglo-Saxon migrations are also hinted at in literature such as Beowulf (ca. 1000 A.D.) and the writings of Gildas (ca. 540 A.D.) and Bede (731 A.D.). The language transformed even further after the Norman invasion of 1066, which is documented through written language as well (Arnold, 45). Place names derived from Proto-Germanic languages first appear in England circa 500 A.D. Thus there is ultimately no evidence whatsoever that the English language was spoken whatsoever 12,000 years ago (Arnold, 44-63).
“10,000 B.C.” is far from being the only image of a misconstrued version of prehistoric man, however. The comic strip Alley Oop was created in 1932 by V.T Hamlin. The main character (perhaps Neanderthal?) rides a pet dinosaur. There has never been any archeological or paleontological records dating human remains and dinosaur remains contemporaneously. He lives in a place called Moo and fights with villagers from Lem. These are apparent references to the fabled lost continents of Mu and Lemuria which was a popular theory at the advent of the comic and later discredited with modern knowledge of plate tectonics.
Another comic strip example of prehistoric man is Tor, created by Joe Kubert and debuting in 1953. The story of Tor is said to take place a million years ago. As mentioned earlier, the earliest example of animal domestication known involves dogs about 14,000 years ago, yet Tor has some version of a domesticated monkey on his shoulder. Another interesting topic worth noting, and is by no means exclusive to Tor’s world of a million years ago is that of prehistoric clothing. In the comic strip people wear loin cloths and the garments pertaining to women always cover their breasts which is probably more of a tribute to Western morals than to archaeological data. Genetic analysis of body lice suggest the species probably originated about 107,000 years ago and may have coincided with the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago into cooler areas. Because humans have very little body hair, lice need clothing to survive (Kittler, 1414-1417).
The idea of prehistoric man living in caves is not completely unrealistic, although over exaggerated. Of course, our ancestors did not live in ranch style houses of rock as seen in The Flintstones, however. People have lived in caves throughout most of human history. This was not always the case, however. Aside from the obvious examples of well preserved cave paintings (i.e. the cave of Lascaux in France), this is evidenced in the simple fact that some people still do live in caves. As of 2005, an estimated 40 million people in Yanan, China lived in caves. Keep in mind that the locals both have access to and utilize modern technology such as refrigerators and television. They claim that one benefit of cave dwellings is that the shelters are naturally cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Another major factor in the decision by so many to choose a cave to live in pertains to the difficulty in manipulating the hard mountainous soils of the region (Yu, www.thingsasian.com). For most living creatures, the decision to create some sort of settlement is most often based on convenience whether it is due to the issues of geography, safety or resources.
Thus, it is true that prehistoric man could have, and probably would have, thought a cave to be a legitimate structure for habitation. The oldest known human habitats, however, are not of stone. It is possible that huts of dirt, wood, leaves, grass or a combination of materials could have been built as early as 500,000 years ago. A site in Chichibu, Japan, dates to a time contemporary with Homo erectus who was capable of building a relatively sturdy structure. The site consists of ten post holes believed to be the remains of huts which are accompanied by a variety of stone tools.
The stereotypical prehistoric man tends to be quite ignorant to his surroundings and may repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It is true that cranial sizes slowly increased over the 4 million years of human existence. However, basic observations and analysis of one’s surroundings is a simple concept displayed by lower order animals as well as upper order life forms. Through evolution, humans are designed to abandon any instinctive behavior in favor a more beneficial one. Things like curiosity, cooperation and inventiveness (some of the driving forces behind survival) are instinctual and cannot be changed by education. However, the self-discipline it takes to modify an instinct gives humans the ability to be trained through experience (Calvin).
Mass media is not designed for the dissemination of knowledge. Rather, it is more useful for disseminating novel ideas for the purposes of entertainment. This is the sad case of the “caveman.” He is seen as barbaric, incompetent, dim witted, and fantastical. With science, however, it is possible to honor the true image of our ancestors and respect them for their innovations and adaptability.

The Berlin Conference and Rwanda, observations

Late in 1884, several major European powers held a conference to discuss the future of Africa, “the dark continent.” Most of the interior of Africa had not been seen by European explorers yet. Nonetheless, these Western nations, including France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Great Britain and the United States (fourteen nations total), sat down with their host, Chancellor Otto Von Bismark of Germany, to carve Africa into spheres of European influence in response to the “scramble for Africa.” Concerned with European trade and industry interests and attempting to keep good relations between European powers, the Berlin Conference essentially gave parts of Africa to parts of Europe. This decision, which unfortunately did not incorporate Africans in the process, has had far reaching effects on Africa.
Before the Conference, Europe’s involvement within Africa was limited to coastal regions where they established some settlements. Great Britain, Portugal and France had the largest involvement in Africa. Europe was becoming industrialized, with Great Britain possibly being the very first industrialized nation. Thus Europe was in need of resources such as cotton, rubber and tea which were not available domestically and came from Asia or the Americas. Africa, although its resources were barely known to Europe as of yet, seemed to offer an alternate supply.
There were other interests Europe had in Africa as well. Many people in Europe believed that Africans were uncivilized, unintelligent and un-Christian in their ways. Somewhere along the line, the idea was propagated as an obligation. Europeans, including explorers, scientists and missionaries, believed that it was their Christian duty to “civilize” the continent of Africa. This idea is called the “white man’s burden.”
Europeans had begun exploring Africa before the Conference, and some nations had claimed spheres of influence over certain regions. Colonization was not officially initiated, however, until the Conference.
Colonialism was part of the transition from exploitation in Africa based on an agricultural Western economy to exploitation based on an industrial one. When the Berlin Conference took place, Spain was not sufficiently industrialized and, therefore, could not compete in the changing economy. Hence, more industrious nations took the forefront. Germany, Portugal, France and Great Britain were competing for resources and cheap labor to support their ongoing industrialization. The race between these four powers resulted in the Berlin Conference.
During the Conference, certain terms were agreed upon before the division of Africa. These terms were designed to prevent tension between the powers involved in the Conference. The first term was that the colonizing nation must prove that they can effectively control an area. Free European trade and access to the Congo and Niger River basins was agreed upon next. Any nation involved was also required to campaign against the slave trade in their territory and allow Christians of all sects the ability to establish missionaries in the territories.
The Berlin Conference did manage to prevent wars amongst European nations. However, the Conference was designed to benefit Europe in disregard of the African people. The traditional rule of nations changed under European control, as did education and religion. Colonial rule in Africa forced Western culture, priorities, economics, religion, politics and world views on to the indigenous people. African people were segregated, discriminated against and exploited economically. European colonies in Africa were small dictatorships who were at the mercy of their imperialist, oppressive rulers.
The colonial division of Africa did not end with the Conference in 1885. In 1914, Egypt was the last to be annexed when it was taken over by Great Britain. Only Ethiopia and Liberia remained outside of colonial rule. In 1936, however, Ethiopia was finally dominated by Italy who had attempted to establish colonial rule several times before. Liberia eventually became a victim of American economic imperialism but remained outside of official colonial rule.
Until after World War I, Rwanda was under the control of colonial Germany. Before German rule, Hutu and Tutsi people lived amongst one another, intermarrying, speaking the same language, practicing the same religion, using the same land and tracing their ancestors to a common people. Colonialism played a large part in changing this way of life and Rwanda is merely one example of how the Berlin Conference and colonialism still effect Africa today.
According to a European myth, Hutu were decendents of Bantu people and are “black Africans” while the Tutsi were decendents of a variety of Nilotic peoples. In the mind of German explorers Tutsi people appeared taller, lighter and more aristocratic which made them more suitable candidates for “civilization” than the Hutu. Also, Tutsi were mainly herders as opposed to the Hutu who were agriculturalists. Cattle was a valuable asset in the eyes of Europe and seemed to denote wealth which reinforced their ideas about the Tutsi.
After World War I, Germany was forced to resign its colonial territories and Belgium took control of Rwanda. The country was severly polarized by this time due to the unfair priveledge allotted the Tutsi under colonial rule. Tutsi received leadership positions and became the security and beurocratic wings of the colonial government while the Hutu were treated like slaves.
One of the first actions Belgium took after acquiring Rwanda was send armies of missionaries into the area. With the missionaries came scientists who weighed brains and measured noses to further propagate racial myths. The analysis done by the Belgian scientists insisted that the Hutu were coarse and bestial while the Tutsi were nobler by nature. The Catholic Church backed Belgium in reconstructing Rwanda along racial lines. By the 1930s a Belgian census produced identity cards for the people of Rwanda. In turn, the Catholic Church established schools that exclusively taught Tutsis and indoctrinated the students with the notion of racial superiority.
When the idea of Rwandan independence arose, the Belgians switched sides, however. Suddenly there were masses of Belgian priest preaching Hutu “empowerment” and “equality” in preparation for independence. Empowerment and equality basically translated to power and retribution and the European divide and conquer tactics worked again.
Strategies and practices like what happened in Rwanda were common practice under colonial rule in Africa. In the case of Rwanda, the divide created by Europeans between the Tutsi and Hutu eventually resulted in Tutsis being massacred by Hutu in the early 1990s.
It is clear that this was a result of the open wounds left from the division placed between the integrated Tutsi and Hutu societies by Rwanda’s colonial rulers, explorers, and scientists born of the Berlin Conference. The Tutsi/Hutu society of pre-colonial Rwanda had been ripped apart and the thus created factions then set against one another. Had the Berlin Conference not occurred, had Germany never ruled, had the explorers never set foot in Rwanda, if there was no state called Rwanda, what type of relationship could the Tutsi and Hutu have with each other today? Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what could have happened had the state of Rwanda not been carved out during the Berlin Conference of 1884.

Some Thoughts on Ghana, (just a few)

Both the history and the current state of African politics and economics are drenched in complexities. Where Africa stands relative to modern capitalist world economic powers leaves the continent in a position of dependency and open to exploitation. After fifty years of political independence, many regions remain unstable, impoverished, and unable to either compete with global powers or become self sustaining.
Although many great thinkers have brought forth various ideas about where African politics and economics should head, there are three perspectives which will be discussed here. These hypotheses were, quite obviously, founded on the events and issues corresponding to Africa during the era in which they were conceived. Although the ideas can conflict, the reader should keep in mind that each theory is backed by passion, logic, and an earnest desire to invest in the resurrection of the Mother Land and her children.
During the first wave of African independence, Ghana was an example of statism being used in an effort to expedite modernization. Kweme Nkrumah may have intended on transforming Ghana into a trend setter in the eyes of the west. His economic plans for the country included varied agriculture and industry working symbiotically. In The Origins of Modern African Thought, Robert William July states “Productivity had to be increased significantly and changed from subsistence farming to a commodity cultivation carefully designed to provide adequate food for a steadily rising population while supplying local industry with raw materials and producing cash crops which could pay for necessary imports”(July 2004, 470). His method for application was to centralize economic power and planning which included establishing one party-rule of the state. It should be noted, however, that a one party state may have been an effort to create a sense of nationalism and unity within Ghana as well.
Under British colonial rule, Ghana exported cocoa to a degree that verged on excluding crop diversification. To combat this problem, Nkrumah directed attention towards other potential exports such as rubber, coffee, palm products and tobacco. Diversifying Ghana’s exports could potentially protect against price fluctuations felt by international markets (July 2004, 470). Nkrumah’s plans seemingly relied on a little of everything, taking a somewhat “post-modern view… that Africa uses whatever works” (Hudson 2009). In this case, at the birth of African independence, Ghana was attempting to diversify its assets and compete in a modern economic paradigm.
The goals appear honest and sincere, but many problems were to arise with the attempt to modernize and the use of statism. The centralization of the government brought about the socialization of the agricultural system and, thus, diminished wages for farmers who began migrating to urban areas. The government took control of the cocoa industry which was sold on the international market at inflated prices while the cocoa farmers saw less and less of their earnings. Also, larger cities contained government run centralized facilities such as universities, hospitals and other such “modern” services. Urban centers had high unemployment rates and the farmers struggled.
Ghana’s attempt at industrialization was somewhat blunderous. A canning plant intended to can about 7,000 tons of mangoes per year was built and the cost was well over budget. Shortly thereafter, it was found that barely any wild mango trees grew in the region and that it would take years for new trees to bear fruit. Another example was the government’s attempt at creating a shoe industry. The shoe plants were located at a great distance from the cattle industry, making the necessary leather and tanning facilities nearly inaccessible (Koney 2006). Simply put, Ghana was experiencing urbanization without industrialization.
The International Monetary Fund invested in Nkrumah’s plans. In 1973, however, the IMF began asking for early reimbursement of the loans made towards the failed projects in Ghana (Hudson 2/10/09). Ghana remained underdeveloped and dependent on the West. As Mazrui said, “100 years of African colonial rule demands structural revolution to make right 500 years of systematic exploitation” (Mazrui 1986). Africa needed to be reinvested in by those that stole from the continent and reaped the benefits of such thievery. Included in this idea is debt relief for cases such as that of Ghana.
Many people believe that the only way for Africa to survive is to compete in a neo-liberal economic paradigm. It seemed as though Ghana made an attempt which only created a sustained dependency on the West and further exploitation from global investors. Africa began to try out new leadership styles. Examples include Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under Mugabe’s rule and Mandela’s South Africa (Hudson 2/12/09). Mugabe is an example of highly corrupted statism, as with Ghana, where the power wielding elite benefit at the expense of the masses. This type of exploitation is usually initiated under the cover of forming a national identity.
Centralized political and economic planning can be cause for hope as well, however. When centralized, an economy could potentially be more closely guided in the desired direction. As mentioned in the case of Ghana, although a failure in practice, statism may help expedite a nation’s leap into the 20th century after hundreds of years of systematic exploitation. Different types of systems, both economic and political, were toyed with to move towards the “structural revolution” Mazrui demands (Hudson 2009).
Surely there are those who are enamored with the idea of Sankofa, returning to an era before Africa was defiled by the West. It is true that before European influence Africa contained many rich kingdoms, economic systems and trade routes that had been well established for hundreds of years in some cases. Perhaps Africans can return to this era in some metaphorical sense, but the sheer fact of the matter is that there has been too much damage done to allow for the necessary unification and direction of the entire continent towards the application of Sankofa. The poverty and conflicts within Africa (which I would term the results of European intrusion) make the return home seem impossible.

Santa Claus Can Suck A ****

I am sick of Christmas, and especially Santa Claus. Yes, he was a real person. Yes, he was generous to the less fortunate. Perhaps he deserves recognition for that, but not in this way. If Christmas is supposedly a religious holiday, and Santa Claus is a saint, then shouldn't there be an underlying understanding that we should thank God for what we have and the people He has blessed with generosity? Instead, we surround ourselves with pagan symbolism, ignore our parents in favor of toys, and thank some fat, magical white guy. "Oh thank you, rich white man, for all these gluttonous possessions." Ok, ok, I know it's hard to see it that way. The only difficulty you are having right now in visualizing how useful this type of propaganda can be is that you have been trained from birth to accept these persuasions. So the next time you get ready to write "From Santa"on the tag of a new bicycle, think about how many hours you put in at work to buy it, and how blessed you are to have a job... and stop. Write YOUR name in the "From" spot. And when your children finish opening their presents, have a family prayer time in recognition of who really provided the gifts. This would be a much more appropriate celebration that would be closer to worship than the typical Christmas. Although hard to convince people of, the MOST appropriate version of Christmas would be a Christmas where we tear down the pagan symbols (i.e. Christmas trees and reindeer) and give away things to people who are in NEED of things. As people of the line of Abraham (PBUH) we have an obligation to provide people with basic necessities and, based on the luxurious Christmas's possible in America, we have more than enough to do that. God would be praised in that way.

Obama: Friend or Foe (Maybe Both)

So he won! I voted for him and I am excited about the future. At least, I'm much more excited than I was four years ago. I mean, it appears that he is the lesser of two evils. He's still a politician. He had to reject Jeremiah Wright for the campaign, and I guess we can all understand why. He can't complain about Israel, and I guess we can all understand that as well. I guess. He's just a politician, right? He's gotta play the game to win. What that means is that he's still the elite even if he is half black. Of course, you know, he's ALMOST acceptable to the system as a black man because they always have his white half in the back of their mind yet can still call him black. I'm sure he'll help incite changes in the government, but we must never forget that although individuals are to blame for certain decisions it is the ENTIRE SYSTEM AS IT STANDS TODAY that supports and gives rise to the elitists within it. Will he talk of reparations (whether one agrees with the idea or not, it should be discussed)? Will he help every non-white and/or poor person in prison be retried by a jury of their peers? Will he admit that Jeremiah Wright is more sane than most people? Well I believe the answers to questions like this lie in the simple fact that the system itself will not allow him to- whether he wants to or not. Please, just don't forget that Obama is not some sort of savior, he's a politician.