Amid Squalor, an Aid Army Marches to No Drum at All

Published: December 7, 2005

BLANTYRE, Malawi - Here in Malawi's second city and in the capital, Lilongwe, it is hard to find an office building without some benevolent organization come to help Malawi's throngs of poor.

The United Nations is here in force. The British are omnipresent in this, their former colony. Some major charities occupy two floors in Lilongwe office blocks. Malawi may be destitute - in 2001, the average earnings were less than 50 cents a day - but commercial real estate is thriving.

It makes one wonder why, with so many experts here to do good, the rest of the country not only isn't thriving, but is slipping backward.

Since 1981, the United States Agency for International Development said in a troubling report in September, outsiders have sought to fix Malawi's ills through more than 20 economic adjustment programs devised by the World Bank and eight related loans from the International Monetary Fund. International charities poured in countless private dollars. Overseas development assistance - foreign aid - totals about $35 per person, and makes up $8 of every $10 spent on economic development.

Yet despite that, the report states, only Yemen, Ethiopia and Burundi have worse rates of chronic malnutrition than does Malawi, where 49 percent of all children are stunted. Moreover, that rate has not improved for 15 years.

Malawi is now suffering through one of the worst hunger emergencies in Africa. The ostensible cause is drought. The real reason, however, is worsening poverty. Many of the 12 million or so people are now so poor that they have nothing to fall back on in good times, much less bad ones.

By most appearances, neither legions of charity workers nor phalanxes of money-toting economic structural adjusters have done much except, perhaps, to prevent stunting among even more malnourished children.

Why?

Malawi's decline is a long and tangled story. The British set up tea and tobacco plantations in what was then called Nyasaland, taking peasants off their own land to grow more profitable crops. After the British left in 1964, an avaricious dictatorship expanded the plantations, leaving farmers with ever-smaller plots. By 1988, 8 in 10 farmers cultivated less than three acres of land - hardly enough to live on, much less make a profit.

A major drought ravaged those small farmers in 1992, and every effort to revive them has failed or, often, backfired. Families have increasingly resorted to casual labor to survive, further reducing the time they have to tend their own tiny fields, forcing them to sell off crucial assets like cattle to buy food.

In theory, all this is reversible. "Technically, we know what to do," Suresh Babu, a senior researcher at the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute, said in an interview. "We know how to prevent this crisis, to put them on a long-term path of development."

Mr. Babu knows: from 1989 to 1994, he advised Malawi's government and the United Nations on food issues. But practically, Mr. Babu says, Malawi's problems are intractable. International organizations and Malawi leaders disagree over anti-poverty strategies.

Government corruption siphons money and will. Global charities compete for their own pet projects, rather than cooperating on an integrated plan. Malawi hasn't the money or political consensus to do what is needed on its own.

Take irrigation: Amid drought, a gigantic freshwater lake runs virtually the entire length of eastern Malawi, enough water to saturate millions of now-parched acres. Yet only 2 percent of Malawi's arable land is irrigated. Virtually all of that grows cash crops like tobacco and sugar cane, not the corn that all Malawians eat.

The government wants to extend water to small farmers, but lacks money. So charities build local irrigation projects, but when they finish and leave, the projects fall apart for lack of maintenance and expertise.

Why doesn't Malawi train its own experts to improve agriculture? It did: Mr. Babu says he trained 450 experts in food policy and nutrition during his five years there. But "when I go back, I don't see them," he says: about 150 have died, many victims of AIDS. Others left the government for better-paying jobs in global charities or the United Nations.

That, say Mr. Babu and others, is central to the problem.

Malawi and its kin lack the capacity - skilled managers and policy makers, good roads and machinery, investors and entrepreneurs - to sustain any effort to climb out of poverty. So outsiders take up the task, often with conflicting aims and shortterm success, often to the government's dismay.

Such examples barely describe the difficulties attending African poverty. Books have been written on this topic. Many, with titles like "The Road to Hell" and "Lords of Poverty," lay the blame for third-world squalor at the feet of foreigners who want to end it.

There is even a hilarious poem demonizing "the development set":

We bring in consultants whose circumlocution

Raises difficulties for every solution

Thus guaranteeing continued good eating

By showing the need for another meeting.

If only the solution to Malawi's agony were as simple as punishing craven charities, however. Most people here want to do good, and succeed in the short run. But to many, this is a Salvation Army without a general, marching in different directions while poverty and pestilence pillage the civilians.

Seed is available, but without irrigation. Irrigation ditches are dug, but without fertilizer. Water, seed and fertilizer are donated, but the farmer is dying of AIDS. A healthy farmer raises a crop, but government grain policies make him sell his corn for a pittance.

A farmer sells his crop, but thousands in this densely populated country face similar hurdles, and stumble.

"The money being poured into Malawi is huge," said Sylvester Kalonge, the Malawi coordinator for food security and emergencies for CARE International. "But it's not holistic. CARE has holistic programs, but how much geographic coverage can they have? So the impact is localized, and maybe the impact will be washed away in a few years' time, and things will be worse."

And so Mr. Kalonge and his fellow saviors in the global aid network labor against the latest hunger crisis.

"That's what we do," he said. "We keep people alive."

I have no answer or verifiable solution to what is happening and has happened for generations in many sub-Saharan African countries.

I attended a fund raiser for AfriCare - an aid program that raised about $25 million at the dinner I attended in Washington DC. The thing that caught me, being a white person, was that the bulk of the crowd was black and the bulk of the donations were from very large multinational corporations (oil, food, shipping). Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young was there, Corette Scott King was there with their entourages. Lots of speeches about saving the young folks in Africa. Lots of money. What I did not hear or see was anyone saying - "I am going there to help and to make a difference. " Would their going actually make a difference? I do not know. I saw in Zim the impact of a French agricultural team near the Moz border. They showed the local folks how to cultivate and contour the land to retain the top soil and prevent erosion, how to irrigate with a solar powered water pump, dug a couple of water wells, showed how to protect the crop from buff and elephant, stayed 3 years to follow through and be sure the locals knew what to do.

They had been gone about 3 years when we were there - the fences were gone (wire used for snares and to pen up goats), solar panels gone (unkown what happened), water wells still functional but only with hand pumps (no irrigation of the crops), no significant crops planted (seed not kept from last years crop), contours and irrigations ditches deteriorating (no use). The locals appeared to be living hand to mouth along the Zambezi, fishing, and growning a small plot of corn or mealies.

My perception was that the idea of working together on a larger plot was not something they were comfortable with or knew how to manage.

I was confused and still am...

Likely as a result of my western mind set versus hundreds of generations of re-learned methods that don't work for the masses.

An inigma to me....

dogcat, you mentioned the problem - they don't know how to manage. Historically the blacks were and are today only concerned with today. For some reason they do not comprehend tomorrow or maybe better said plan for tomorrow. I have only been to Zim. once - last Sept but it did not take one long to see how the blacks have left the farms and gone back to poaching and subsistance farming in the country. The cities I traveled thru were for all practical purposes almost vacant of any commerce.

As someone who has spent almost all of his professional life in "development" projects in Africa (first as a Peace Corps Volunteer, then with the United Nations Development Programme and since 1982 with a renowned private consulting firm) I like to think I have a few valid observations to make. Gentlemen, it's about culture and values. How do "train" people to be honest? What makes a man or woman behave with integrity? Why does anyone respect the rule of law? Why should one value life over property? How do you plan for the future when you don't have enough for today? When you think you know the answers to those questions, then figure out how you instill those qualities in people who weren't raised in an environment which is the product of 3000 years of Western culture. I promise I will send your answers to the President of the World Bank, the USAID Administrator, the UN, Congress and the Head of the European Commission. They are all interested.

Die Ou Jagter,
It puzzles me as I have no point of reference to understand why the locals behave the way they do. I saw the same thing in the New Orleans floods - people waiting for someone to come by and "save" them. It seems to me that many of them, if they had thought forward a little bit, would have had a mental plan to get out or at least take care of themselves. Many sat and waited for someone to come and offer help. I noted the ones in the Superdome and those that went to Houston seemed to sit around waiting for something or someone to "help" them. Why did they think that someone or something would "come rescue them"? Usually, you take care of yourself and search out your needs rather than wait for it to be delivered like a pizza from Domino's.

It must be a cultural or socio-economic situation.

I have read many books by the early hunters in Africa and on the history of RSA. Many times, the writers refer to just what you said - the locals see "today" only and do not prepare/plan or see the future as being different or better. I have seen similar behavour in American Indians when I lived nearby a reservation in Wyoming, not as pronounced as what we see in Zim, but similar.

I read the book - "Germs, Guns and Steel", which attempted to explain the differences in cultures and made a lot of sense to me, but I am sure the premise of the book is not 100% accurate. In summary, certain cultures (mostly the peoples that started out in the Fertile Crescent area and migrated to Europe) had the tools, resources and idea to cultivate food, domesticate local animals and live in groups rather than as nomads living off the land. This led to written language, metal tools and other "kit" that other groups did not develop. This led to faster developments in tools, use of fuels, medicine and on and on due to the fact they had the time and resources to pursue those ideas and ideals.

Some of the evidences of that type of adaptation are still with us in the 21st century. I am not sure that the cultures without the resources/motivation/intuition will ever be able to adapt and catch up.

We (westerners) are sometimes quick to say that when the oil dries up, the Middle Easterners will be back in tents living in the desert. Not sure if that is accurate, but the underlying thought is that you can take "Billy Bob out of the country, but can't take the country out of Billy Bob", much like the movie "My Fair Lady" portrayed when the two rich Londoners took the local country girl (a "guttersnipe") and tried to turn her into a Lady in English culture. Hard to do. Culture and societal issues are nearly impossible to change. It seems a spectacular event (birth of Christ or World War) or catastrophe (Plague in the Middle Ages, decimation of the Jews in 66AD and 1944AD and other events)brings the changes the force people to adapt and change or they perish. In the oil countries, where has the massive prosperity truly brought peace and intellectual enlightenment? Will people revert to the "old ways" when theh prosperity runs out? I do not know.

I suspect that it will take several generations of people that are educated in social and societal change to leave a place like Zim, learn this, go back and be patient to see the changes take place over the next 150 to 300 years.

I think we are seeing some of that in Russia. I worked there and saw incredible changes in thinking and in people when they were offered the chance to succeed based on thier own hard work. The changes in mentality happened rapidly primarily due to, (I think), a very educated populace and a desire to change. Changes in that country and some of the "..stan" countries will be interesting to watch. It will depend on leadership and the opportunity the locals have to better thier situation.

I look at Nigeria and wonder in amazement as well. I worked their briefly, but noticed that the locals in the cities were educated and smart business people. However, the underlying focus of nearly every business deal was how to swindle or lie your way to riches without working or providing a product. They have almost unlimited riches in oil, yet live in a fragile day to day existance. I saw this in the rank and file workers and the leaders. This is not 100% across the country, but I felt a pervasive attitude to lie, cheat or steal and that behavour was acceptable. How and why is that country like that when I go to Ghana and do not see that? No clue other than something deep rooted in the culture that will be difficult to change.

The answer? I have no clue...

However, throwing money at it makes it worse. I think that education and leading by example can bring the environment where change can occur, but it is not garaunteed unless the people want to change. Must come from inside each person.

Sorry for the long discourse....

Wink,
I just read your response after I wrote my essay. I am in the same boat as you...

I do not understand, but think the issue lies in the society, culture and soul of the people.

Hard to change.

Yes the answer is in the culture of thousands of years. It took our society thousands of years of hardships to get where we are today but the experts expect this to happen in certain countries over night. If you address the problem in NO after the storm you are a racist. Every thing is sooo complicated but the answers are very simple, very painful but simple. No one wants the pain!

While it's a topic that few people want to address or acknowlege, the economic and social facts around the world beg a hot potato issue to be discussed, and that is the racial differences in IQ and its ultimate result on human activity and behavior. A 60-page study on this topic was just completed in April of 2005 and was the lead article in the Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association. The article, called, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, concludes that "Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause."
It's a facinating topic that largely explains why most of Sub-Saharan Africa has evolved little beyond bows and arrows, and tends to move back to that that lifestyle worldwide, once the influence of outside cultures have been removed.
Here are the some of the study's findings:

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the same in all races, and race differences are most pronounced on more heritable abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages - Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.


It's an interesting theory, while not politically popular to discuss, seems to address many of the problems we see around the world. If you'd like to read the entire study, you can find it here.

Spring,
Thanks for the info and summary. I have not read the entire study, but did it make any recommendations or any conclusions which offer an idea of how to help with this problem?

This study is particularly interesting in mentioning Asians. China's technological innovations and its benefits rarely penetrated to the majority of the population, including farmers, for much of China's history. China has been subject to generations of dynasties, marked by revolutions where the broad base of agricultural folks ended up rising against oppression. The new dynasty performed well until rulers too stupid to realize their mismanagement would kill them got their population too angry -- then there'd be a new dynasty. Never did the conditions for farmers improve significantly.

For Urban China, movement has been from near 1800's conditions within the last 40 years to ultra-modern, where cell-phones outnumber landlines. Building has sucked up a lot of petroleum and raw materials, driving up manufacturing costs everywhere (not easy for economies trying to compete with Chinese manufacturers and still maintain western standards of living). However, the Chinese agricultural base has NOT made the trip with the rest of China.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/05/content_3876990.htm

Even the Chinese state-owned press admits their problems managing this problem. Many rural folks travel to the cities looking for work; building contractors take their labor and refuse to pay because the rural people don't have work permits, and their complaints do not get a lot of official support.

Having said that, the boom that many of the urban people enjoy, has brought with it western music, dancing, disrespect of parents and older cultural values, drugs, VD (including aids), unwanted pregnancies, crimes for which there are no laws or police procedures to deal with yet. The rapid increase in wealth for some has brought very rapid divisions in opportunity that didn't exist before -- at least they're not so strictly party-oriented, either. This has not been easy on Chinese culture, and they're suffering with many of the problems that the western world has had a long time to grow into.

Contrast that with Mugabe's country. One thing that strikes me most is the individual initiative in China is much higher than much of what I've seen in Africa. But the initiative has tended to be oriented towards improvements measured by a specific cultural yardstick; the tolerance that individuals have for poor conditions in China is grinding. Yet, one thing about Africans I've met who came from traditional villages (Bushmen) is that they have a system of living, systems of medicine composed of herbs and local plants, ways of managing social problems, that have been sufficient for a long time. Right now, they're being challenged in ways they've never been before -- primarily because of the increase of exposure to highly mobile people and the exposure to the diseases they bring, the economic opportunities that seem to come (a fair number who try city life do return to their villages, given the choice). But I don't think there is a road back: the population pressure is much, much, much higher than it used to be. I expect that the simple village life has to pass away -- the problem is that the current choice is to move to urban shanty towns and get burned by people like Mugabe.

Bottom line -- much of the economic opportunity in today's world is technological and urban. One question is whether the culture is ready to move there.

Dan

What's this ... a civil and rather intellectual discussion of a highly sensitive issue? What the hell is wrong with you people??

Spring, If we assume for a moment that the studies findings are 100% accurate, the God's truth, well, so what? If Asians are smarter than whites does that mean that life is better in Asia? The study is talking about averages in the best of sampling scenarios. The truth is that it is the social organisation of Western society that allows for more people to profit from that same style of organisation. Even dumb as dirt Americans get along just fine while brillant Africans are locked into a no win situation (if they can't get out). As true as that studies' findings may or may not be, it adds little to explaining why Asians aren't at the top of the heap in social organisation (ie. sharing the wealth in a society striving for social equality, human rights, etc.). I contend that these are social values that have little real relationship to a few average IQ points.

African "Brain Drain" is another significant issue.

An estimated 20,000 professionals flee Africa annually. The International Organization for Migration says the cost to South Africa has been more than $5 billion in "lost human capital" since 1997.

“In 25 years, Africa will be empty of brains.†That dire warning, from Dr Lalla Ben Barka of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), reflects the growing alarm over Africa’s increasing exodus of human capital. Data on brain drain in Africa is scarce and inconsistent; however, statistics show a continent losing the very people it needs most for economic, social, scientific, and technological progress.

The ECA estimates that between 1960 and 1989, some 127,000 highly qualified African professionals left the continent. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Africa has been losing 20,000 professionals each year since 1990. This trend has sparked claims that the continent is dying a slow death from brain drain, and belated recognition by the United Nations that “emigration of African professionals to the West is one of the greatest obstacles to Africa’s development.â€

Brain drain in Africa has financial, institutional, and societal costs. African countries get little return from their investment in higher education, since too many graduates leave or fail to return home at the end of their studies.

In light of a dwindling professional sector, African institutions are increasingly dependent on foreign expertise. To fill the human resource gap created by brain drain, Africa employs up to 150,000 expatriate professionals at a cost of US$4 billion a year.

The departure of health professionals has eroded the ability of medical and social services in several sub-Saharan countries to deliver even basic health and social needs. Thirty-eight of the 47 sub-Saharan African countries fall short of the minimum World Health Organization (WHO) standard of 20 physicians per 100,000 people.

This continuous outflow of skilled labour contributes to a widening gap in science and technology between Africa and other continents. Africa’s share of global scientific output has fallen from 0.5 in the mid-1980s to 0.3% in the mid-1990s. There are more African scientists and engineers in the USA than in the entire continent.

The flight of professionals from Africa endangers the economic and political systems in several African countries. As its middle class crumbles and its contributions to the tax system, employment, and civil society disappear, Africa risks becoming home to even greater mass poverty.

Terry, the health sector is a shambles. Even if there were more doctors most of the hospitals don't even have a clean rag much less autoclaves that work. For any of you that think South Africa is any way typical, well, it isn't. Check out a hospital in N'djamena or Bangui and you will wonder why anybody would even check in since most don't check out alive. We will watch with little power to help as hundreds of thousands die of HIV/AIDS and related diseases over the next few years. Even if aid funding was doubled and there was a world consensus on doing everything possible, the rational approach would be to help the living and the ones who will live through the pandemic, not spend money on comforting the ones soon to die. There are nothing but Solomon's choices when it comes to helping Africa solve its problems.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Spring,
Thanks for the info and summary. I have not read the entire study, but did it make any recommendations or any conclusions which offer an idea of how to help with this problem?

Their primary conclusion, in a nutshell, was "that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups."

One thought in these studies that I thought was interesting concerned the concept of what would happen if you took a group of people with a low IQ and placed them in a place with generally a much higher IQ. How would things turn out? Basically they said this scenario has already been tried and the results are largerly what you would expect. See the USA....

Wink,
I read a book recently, "Guns, Germs and Steel", a very intellectual look at the differences in the way civilizations developed. One of the very interesting parts of the book was a discussion about why the Chinese did not sail to the western hemisphere or settle it first. The summary was that due to societal issues and the bias toward not going beyond the next hill in that culture, that they mostly stayed where they have been. The society issues did much to keep them close to home and gave no momentum to explore.

I do not know if brain size actual has a lot to do with IQ. I think there are other critters with bigger brains that can't reason as a human. Would the analogy between computers be reasonable? The "brains" of a computer keep getting smaller, but faster and able to do more. I do not know if there is enough human knowledge about the brain itself to be able to say that size matters. I think that what makes one race seemingly smarter than another is in the exercise and "feeding" of the brain. When my kids were in school in Katy, Tx, the Asian kids were about 75% of the top 10% at the school. These kids studied hard, worked hard and did not participate much outside of the classroom. Is their natural high IQ enhanced by "exercise"? I would say yes, but I think that the white kids or black kids have the opportunity, in that school system, in the society, to excel academically. However, the white and black kids spent a lot of time on sports and other non-academic activities (band, cheerleading, etc.). My sons could hit a curve ball and the Asian kids did not know what curve ball was. I think this is a microscopic picture of the world to some extent. You excel at what your peers and society value.

However, that runs counter to the argument voiced by the Air Force Academy football coach in saying he needed more black running backs because they run faster than whites. A look at the NFL, NBA, college football and other speed sports (exclude skating and skiing), and the black athlete appears to have an advantage physically. Why? Not sure. A 150 years ago, the Irish did the heavy lifting, boxing and other "rugged" sports due to size and physique. That has passed nowadays.

I think it is very hard to generalize about a race of people even with the evidence that the referred to research portrays or that my observations of athletes indicates. I tend to side with the argument that society, external factors (weather, food availability, educational opportunities, etc.) play a big role in this.

My granddad was a circuit court judge in rural West Virginia. A common statement he made to me was that "poor folks have poor ways", meaning the poor/disadvantaged were that way by thier actions and acceptance of what goes on around them. He said that the welfare system was partly to blame in that it rewarded non-activity and non-participation in life. That welfare led solely to dependance on handouts and raised a couple of generations of people who expected to be taken care of. This was in a 95% white area with the bulk of the welfare folks being white. He was raised along side several families that stayed "addicted" to handouts while his family worked and left the area to make a way for themselves in life. I go back to the area and see my equals in terms of generational time and see the affects of living hand to mouth, expecting a hand out. The differences are incredible - education and motivation seem to be the cause for the differences.

Again, that does not answer any questions about why one race does "better" than another or why Russians and Americans can build space ships and Africans cannot build bicycles. My western/white bias starts with - "they are lazy, they are dumb, they are ....", but reality is that they are not lazy or dumb, just focused on different activities and priorities for thier lives. I think a mistake we make as westerners is that when we see something like starving people in Malawi, that we should pour food and money onto the problem to "help" the people. That never seems to work in the long term, just a short term fix for a very different problem. What did the Malawians do before the good ol' westerners shipped food and money to them? Died, starved, moved on? The images of flies on the faces of children with distended bellies is hard on us westerners as we cannot understand how they got in that mess in the first place, when in reality they have always been in the mess.

Have we as westerners, introduced concepts of governments or social values or education that have created this problem? Were these folks better off before or after Dr. Livingstone traveled to the source of the Nile? I do not know for sure. Sometimes I think the colonial influence, that seemed to disrupt Africe but created America and Canada, is a blessing and a curse. Good ideas (democracy, schools, churches, wearing clothes, health care) have created some bad unintended consequences for several races of people (Africa, Papauns in New Guinea, Aboriginese, American Indians and others). The intentions were good, the help locals deal with problems that we westerners learned to deal with but in reality may not have been problems for the locals.

I confuse myself on all of this as I do not know what to think.

One thing I have seen was in Somerset East in the RSA. The locals are decimated by AIDS. The whites, in an effort to not lose the labor force and for humanitarian reasons, started working one on one with the local black families to teach about AIDS - all in the context of the black culture. They are working with the blacks to teach them how to work within thier own communities to meld/blend the values of the black culture with the effort to stop AIDS. It was not a program where the white man comes in and says - stop this and stop that. It was a program of showing the locals about AIDS, and letting them figure out how to spread the word on prevention. It is working but will take one or two generations to convince everyone. The ones that do not learn will die of AIDs.

So, is part of the answer, educate-present alternatives-coach-, then turn them loose to sort this out themselves within their own culture and society? Or what do we do to help, if we should help at all....

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:
What's this ... a civil and rather intellectual discussion of a highly sensitive issue? What the hell is wrong with you people??

Hard to imagine isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Spring:
One thought in these studies that I thought was interesting concerned the concept of what would happen if you too a group of people with a low IQ and placed them in a place with generally a much higher IQ. How would things turn out? Basically they said this scenario has already been tried and the results are largerly what you would expect. See the USA....

I have seen a study or two on that - with conflicting results. My favorite was when two second grade teachers were assigned classes of a random mix of kids - all about average in intelligence. The teachers were told - class A has a bunch of smart kids that will exceed your expectations and , class B has a bunch of underachievers that will barely learn the basics. At the end of the year, this bore out in standardized testing. The expectations of the teachers carried over onto the kids. Now, do we do the same thing to races of lower IQ's? I do not know.

In Papua New Guinea, I worked for a short time on a project of drilling oil wells in the remote highlands. We hired a bunch of locals, straight from the bush. We put clothes on them, taught them about oil field machinery, taught them about safety and doing normal physical tasks. We had mixed success with them. Many had to be re-trained nearly every day. They did not grasp that what they were being shown was to be done repeatedly. Others picked up on the tasked, learned new skills and worked up the labor ladder. Several that showed promise, we sent to school to learn English and get some formal schooling.

I cannot say that the Papuans were dumb or smart - just that some wanted to learn and do more and others were content with who they were.

These were very protected people having very little contact with the rest of the world. They had hand tools, but nothing motorized or using fuel.

Again, motivation and aptitude may be part of the person or culture but I cannot conclude that one race has "lock on the market" for smarts, drive or ambition. Some societies reward these traits more noticeably than others, hence we as westerners see this as a "dumb culture" vs "smart culture" issue.

I do not think that is the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:
What's this ... a civil and rather intellectual discussion of a highly sensitive issue? What the hell is wrong with you people??

Oh, don't get you hopes up too high. There are plenty of the usual suspects conspicuous in their absence.
Dave

Nothing like Northern migration and a prolonged ice age or two to elect out for light skin, more agile brains, foresight and cooperation.

As for East Asia, perhaps the coastal cradle areas were much more suited for cooperative agricultural pursuits than nomadism. Even now, the non producers there are left to fend for themselves. 40,000 years of that seems to have been quite effective as well.

There was a long period, ending about the time of the first pharoahs, that today's dry parts of Africa were moist and green. No reason to give up the nomadic or subsistence farming lifestyles. Hell you already had the three requirements for a happy life: loose (no) shoes, tight pussy and a warm place to shit.

Culture is to genetics what a good piss is to a class five hurricane .

And don't forget Statistics. If the mean score for a population (in anything you measure from inteligence to ear lobe length or little finger circumference at the distal knuckle) is eighty five, that means that for every individual who scores 100, there is another who scores 70.

Unfortunately, all of this will prove to be academic in a decade or two. Nature has come up with a near perfect pandemic to cut the population of Africa down to a number that will accomodate a nomadic lifestyle. Spread through sexual contact guarantees a microbe a wider audience even than opening at Carnegie Hall. If a microbe allows a carrier enough time to transmit the infection to many other peole before the original host dies, well that is the very definition of success (for the microbe, not the host). In any human society, the best educated, wealthiest and most successful individuals have access to the most sexual partners (if they so choose). So, in the absence of very strong societal restrictions, the best and brightests will succumb first, leaving the remaining individuals in that society without even a vestigal rudder. Since sex is a drive, not a cultural concept, even the brightest of people get stupid at boinking time.

Huge human tragedy that no amount of dedication, money or good intentions can change.

LD

quote:

I read a book recently, "Guns, Germs and Steel", a very intellectual look at the differences in the way civilizations developed. One of the very interesting parts of the book was a discussion about why the Chinese did not sail to the western hemisphere or settle it first. The summary was that due to societal issues and the bias toward not going beyond the next hill in that culture, that they mostly stayed where they have been. The society issues did much to keep them close to home and gave no momentum to explore.

The pictogram/pictograph for china is pronounced "Zhong guo" in Mandarin (in other parts of the chinese empire it is pronounced "zhan go", etc.). It is loosely translated Middle Land, or Middle Country. The Chinese have always known (believed) that their empire was and is the center of the world. The words they use to describe Westerners in private roughly translate as "big nosed barbarians". Since they were already in the center of the world, there was no reason to go sailing out and about since they could only meet inferior beings that smelled bad.

quote:

My perception was that the idea of working together on a larger plot was not something they were comfortable with or knew how to manage.

I was confused and still am...

Likely as a result of my western mind set versus hundreds of generations of re-learned methods that don't work for the masses.

There isn't anything the slightest bit confusing about what happened in that situation.

Only Katie Couric and sociologists still think that culture trumps genes.
LD

PS Pretty sloppy work in the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". You would be better off starting with my favorite kids book, "Plague, Pox and Pestilence".

quote:

However, that runs counter to the argument voiced by the Air Force Academy football coach in saying he needed more black running backs because they run faster than whites. A look at the NFL, NBA, college football and other speed sports (exclude skating and skiing), and the black athlete appears to have an advantage physically. Why? Not sure. A 150 years ago, the Irish did the heavy lifting, boxing and other "rugged" sports due to size and physique. That has passed nowadays.

Basic physiology. First, don't even think of talking about "Blacks" as if they are a uniform or monolithic group. A goodly percentage of Kenyans and Ethiopians from their respective higlands have slight, but strong bones and very resilient joints. Their muscle fibers are predominatly of the slow twitch variety, with just enough fast twitch fibers to use for the last 200 yards of a 26+ mile race. It is no coincidence, and there is no cultural reason to point to to explain those folks' dominance in international marathon racing.
The black athletes who populate all the winning college football programs are not from the highlands of Kenya or Ethiopia. They are descendants of lowland tribes from equatorial Africa who were delivered up to the English and then American ships by costal and/or Arab folks to be sent to the Caribean and the American mainland as slaves. The folks that the football coaches are looking for are genetically coded to develop lots of thick and dense muscles fibers, primarily of the fast twitch variety. The first thing colleg and pro coaches measure about a prospect is his speed in the forty yard dash. See, fast twitch muscles. For a center or guard, nothing beats a Samoan. They can't run fast, but those guys are HUGE, and strong.

LD

Lawndart,
Interesting points. I agree with your comments on the fast twitch/slow twitch muscles. I believe the Russians did a study on this and tried to overcome the physiology with training, stimulants and technique - the last being the most successful method but not repeatable.

You are correct on the football/basketball/track coaches. They have a mind set of what they are looking for and recruit those body and skill types.

The different areas of Africa produced different body types and hence the different athletic specialists.

I have not heard of the book you recommend but will look it up and see about it. My source was "Guns, Germs and Steel" was very hard to read and keep sorted - again- I did not see all of the answers as "clear" but many of the hypothesis were reasonably presented.

I had not "seen" China from the perspective you mentioned - being the center of the world and no need to go elsewhere. Here in Oklahoma, we have a few similar people. It makes sense, however.

One curve in the entire culture/gene pool equation is the internet and the transfer of information. I lived in Kazakhstan for a year and noticed that the internet was a frightening, yet provocative tool to the locals. Most were highly educated, spoke at least 2 languages and had a defensable world view. What intrigued and scared them was the overwhelming amount of information out there and thier access to it. It was like young boys finding a Playboy magazine for the first time - they heard a lot about the object of thier curiosity but seeing is believing. The exchange of ideas and being told that there is another way to live and view the world shook them up. The government tried to control access to the internet but failed miserably. Not sure where this will lead - but if the "Law of Unintended Consequences" holds true, then there will be big changes in that country as the people have the information to make informed decisions about who and what they will become.

Now - will the internet affect Africans collectively? Yes, to some degree, in the bigger cities, but education has a long way to go to equip them with the "head" tools to be able to make decisions other than _what to eat or where to sleep. Will the internet usher in the changes, will it be a leader with a vision for the people, will it be teachers, what?

If the brain drain continues, what will fill the void? Marxism, communism, Islam, Christianity? All have tried, failed and succeeded to various degrees. Mandella did a remarkable job in RSA by not creating an ongoing white vs. black over civil war. But he has yet to find someone to carry the country to the next level.

I think in the long run that culture will change slowly as information is brought to bear that impacts the people. When and if the people decide to change, the climate becomes ripe for that change. They cannot be led from the outside, it must come from within. You would think we westerners would learn this after seeing the impact of the UK on India and Pakistan, the US on Korea and Vietnam and Iraq, of the Russians on Chechnya and Afghanistan. People only change from the inside, when they decide to change. The US did not bring about the changes in the USSR in 1989. The USSR changed when the people and the leaders decided to change.

Oh well, so much for philosophy 101. THanks for responding with ideas.

It is of course almost impossible to transfer values and culture by monetary means. In fact, the irony of aid is that the transfer of money from North to South may even be detrimental to the cultural development of a society; they don't have to change because others will foot the bill for the shortcomings of their own systems. The moral dilemma for the West of course is that we can help financially and technologically and to stand back and watch suffering and disaster without helping is counter to our own values. I still think a few sentences penned over two hundred years ago are the best synoptic expression of what Western society has come to believe about how men should organize themselves. You will probably recognize the author. Read it closely, it is packed with cultural, religious and moral values.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Lawndart had a piece of it. "Culture" is a system of built-up habits used to address the environment in which the society exists.

Part of the environment is climate. Temperate climates had societies that valued planning from year-to-year - planting, growing, harvesting, winter, and repeat. Much of central Africa had climates and soils in which a seed could be planted anytime, or a living foraged without much planting or planning. We may deplore it by today's standards, but it the system hasn't much changed in thousands of years. In that sense, it's a very "strong" culture - it's just the individual within it who are at risk.

Change is certainly not merely an education issue. Most of my African travel has been to the north - Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia, plus some Kenya and Somalia. Egypt, particularly, has high levels of education. Back to the lack of infrastructure - college graduates have no place to work and so drive taxis or sell rugs and pewter.

I suspect as people from a planning culture who want to move that set of societies, we will be unable, based upon our own cultural blinders, to envision an adequate result. We have a (failed) model of this in the American Indian Reservation system. Maybe the answer is to give the money to the people who run the graft-ridden economies, and merely ensure it doesn't end up in Switzerland. I do suspect the piecemeal approach we follow now won't have much effect, but it's hard to concentrate on completely changing one small geographic culture at the expense of dying children 100 miles away. No, I have no answers either.

Jaywalker

Wink,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, especially the quote from one of our "sacred" documents. The truths stand firm for us in the west, but I am not sure the Middle East or Far East have the cultural/societal truths or the context to be able to grasp the depth of the statement. THey understand it, but the family values/truths/whatever likely would prevent them from enacting these statements. The North American countries as well as Australia and South Africa were largely settled by people that had the cultural bias toward moving away from family and society to set up a new and different society bring what they perceived as the best of the old world and combining with the new world and their own ideas.

The US Declaration of Independence and other governing documents (along with similar documents in England, France and others) set down prinicples and truths that the leaders agreed to - agreed that they were good and would serve the people rather than being served by the people. The ideas were cobbled together as a result of watching other governments rise and fall, a broad liberal arts education, studying the writings of the sages of the ages (Plato, Socrates, others) plus the influence of the a society that espoused pursuit of dreams, land, freedom. Many other places do not do that as they may be trapped by family ties, religous ties or whatever.

I am not sure what it is that causes men to break with the past, see a better future, live/die trying to make it happen. I think it is this pursuit of happiness, life, liberty we in the west want. Why not other places? Or are we wrong?

Do any of you remember the multi- issue spread Sports Illustrated did in the late 60s or early 70s entitled "The Black Athelete"? It raised an incredible shit storm at that time.Physiological differences between the races and "hybrid" vigor were discussed and debated. Reading through the above the thing that strikes me most is the media's "hands off" policy to any information regarding race differences for a LONG time now.

I'm sure Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder and Al Campanis would love to hear about the change in venue.

I remember the Sports Illustrated controversy. Seemed that article put in print what many people experienced and saw first hand.

We have had a recent experience of a similar sort as well. My son is a good football player getting a lot of offers from colleges. A couple of schools that initially showed interest in him have dropped out. I inquired as to why. I was told, off the record, that - all things being equal between a white and black position players, that the white coaches will usually take the black kid. This is assuming speed, strength, prowess are all equal. I was not surprised at all as the coaches react to what they see on the field and the black kids are stellar athletes in many positions. No issue with me as I would likely do the same.

That process of selection steered us toward schools that have a different criteria for admissions and a different view on the "student athlete". I believe that Paul Horning got in hot water with TV and Notre Dame when he made the same comments about what was needed at Notre Dame to help them. (He may be wrong as ND has risen to a high level with a new coach and the same players).

All of us have a bias based on what we have experienced. To overcome or broaden our view, education is needed. In this entire discussion on "Aid not working in Africa", I am trying to broaden my view outside of my bias. At the end of it all, different people have different strengths and weaknesses. No one group has a lock on ability, brains or good looks. The variety of all of us is what makes us stronger, not weaker.

It's incredibly frustrating to have the media fuel the flames of politically correct but wildly off base notions of equality. Equality before God, equality before the law, equality in your obligations to your community, equality of access to the political process; these are all the values that make up the best aspects of Western civilization. There is nothing there about equally "intelligent", equally "strong", equally "fast". When people confuse the two they dilute the merits of social and political equality by making the astute observation that we aren't all endowed with the same capacities. I don't think one has anything to do with other.

In my limited travel around Africa it has been pretty obvious that there are big differences between individual tribes or racial groups. The San may excell at one thing and the Bantu groups something else.In a couple of camps the PH has delegated tasks as per his perceptions of that races strengths and/or weaknesses. Those perceptions may be born from generations of interaction. Never saw a san spanner. Would not the working knowledge of these traits be helpful in how to (or not to)administer aid?

Crane,
I would think so - in working with Papuans, those guys were excellent riggers (working winches and pulleys, tying off cables to hoisting) but no clue about wrenches (spanners) or rotating equipment. Hence we delegated rigging tasks to them and rotating equipment work to other groups.

I think the aid groups miss the target at times in sending what they think the people want/need without asking. When the tsunami hit, lots of people where I live wanted to help and sent crates of clothes. They did not need clothes, especially our types. They needed other things. The wildlife "aid" groups do the same.

There is a guy named Bruce Olson, a missionary, that went to Colombia to teach/work with indigenous Indian groups about 25 years ago. He failed badly at first as he tried to bring the US version of life to them, rather than learning their language, customs and methods - then trying to apply that knowledge to more "modern" methods, showing the locals that some things can be done a better way or that a standard of health can be raised. They picked up on it over time and ultimately were able to get the language written down, send kids to schools, educate some to be doctors - then go back and help the next generation. The key was that Bruce learned to work within the culture and with the local guys before trying to show them a new way. It took a long time but it is working. I suspect this has been tried in Africa as well with degrees of success, but this mess in Malawi and the last big messes in Sudan, Ehiopia, Rwanda and Somolia cannot be fixed by westerners parachuting in with "aid" then leaving. It will take several generations just to turn the corner.

I wish I were able to better present what I think is the point about differences in culture and values as the underlying causes for the lack of motivation of some cultures to adapt or organize along the same lines as Europe or North America. Spring may be able to add to the IQ line of reasoning but in that case we should add the IQ studies done on Native American Indians as well. It turns out they score fairly high on the IQ studies. Long before going to Africa I worked for the Federal Highway Administration, which among other responsibilities manages much of the road networks in National Forests and some Indian lands. Most Americans haven’t spent much time on an Indian Reservation. Now, here are several societies (depending on the tribe you want to use as an example) surrounded by American culture and values, with access to our system of education, our economy, our educational opportunities, etc. And they have high IQ’s. Tell me why they, in many cases, continue to live their traditional life styles and refuse to conform to our notions of technological and economic organisation? There are still many Navajo living in hogans and doing, from the average American’s point of view, mostly nothing except for perhaps the occasional look on how the sheep are doing. What happened to the Indians in Oklahoma who received sizeable amounts of money when oil was discovered on their land? You don’t have to look as far as Africa to see the dilemma. PhD anthropology students have gone crazy trying to describe, for instance, Navajo cultural values in their dissertations and why they do not adopt “our†values.

This has nothing to do with using tools or knowing how an internal combustion engine works. It has a lot to do with why you think you are here on earth.

Wink- I think it's pretty simple- it is because they didn't have to. Entitlements have a history of failure from day one. Without handouts the Native Americans would have been forced to assimilate. As you noted a quick drive (daylight only please) through Browning MT or Pine Ridge SD will tell you all you want to know. Would it be fair to apply the same logic to aid in Africa?

This has got to be one of the most impressive threads I have read in a long time!
A couple of points:
1. In many cases there is a conflict between "culture" and progress. In India, they seem to have been very successful. Presumably because they "copied" or learnt from the British Raj. However, they still have the caste system. So, presumably one can change one's outlook and still retain significant parts of ones cultural heritage?
2, The other example which still puzzles me is the Middle East, where "progress" seems to have an uneasy alliance with significant religious beliefs. I don't think that we in the West understand how central and all encompassing religious beliefs can be. We tend to "compartmentalize" our religious beliefs whereas for the Moslem it is absolutely central to their life. It is not "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but rather doing God's will in everything we do.
3. Do Africans have a strong set of religious beliefs?
Peter.

Crane, if the options are 1) we give no aid, and 2) we give aid (as in financial support) then I would contend you get the same result in terms of changes in organization of the society, IN THE SHORT TERM. Some countries in Africa have benefited from very little aid for a variety of reasons. It doesn't mean they develop any faster or somehow make a quantum jump in thinking about how to deal with their problems. Besides, most of the aid only benefits a very few people anyway. All the others should be mobilized into action, right? I am not so sure Native Americans would be forced into assimilation without aid. I think they would continue to live as in the past with even less than what they have with the aid. In any event, the US has almost total control over what we give or do not give American Indians so if there is a system that can work we can sure test it in an environment where almost every factor is controlled. If we can't get it to work under those conditions than we shouldn't kid ourselves about getting it to work on another continent where we have no control over anything.

If you found Jared Diamonds book Guns, Germs and Steel interesting I'd suggest Collapse by the same author. It's book two, so to speak, on the same subject.

I think that we fail to realize how much environment plays in the development of IQ and the "type" of IQ. Diamond points out that the same Papuan natives that have no real concept of what a wrench might be know the names, locations and uses for literally hundreds if not thousands of plants, a useful skill if you live in a jungle. The bushman tracker I admired in Namibia had a "nack" for tracking that was wonderous, or was it a necessity if his forefathers wanted to live to the end of the month? Those with a nack for herbology or tracking get to pass their skills onward, the environment over thousands of generations selects for those individuals that conform to its demands.

Forward thinking may have evolved because of long winters, lasting 4 to 7 months, when plant foods are not available and game may be more difficult to obtain., plan ahead and live, don't plan and die. If the "lean times" are no more than a few weeks scattered over the course of a year, what is your motivation to "plan ahead"?

Africa began to "change" in only the last 200 years, ten generations. Many areas were not subject to radical external influence until less than 100 years ago, 5 generations. The mind set of the African was perfectly adapted to his world, adapted by 5,000+ generations of natural selection, not 5. These new changes are, for the most, part purely sociological in origin and generally unballenced in application. (Vacinations are a great idea IF you have a agricultural system IN PLACE that will handle the resultant increase in population. If not, well the examples are almost endless in Africa.)

What next? IF the rate of change in the environment outstrips the organisms ability to addapt then the organism will die out. Period. Human growth and reproduction rates are far slower than the pace of technological and sociological change. Northern Eurasian peoples have a several thousand generation head start on the African in terms of addapting to constant, severe and seemingly random changes in the environment. We seem to thrive on change and challenge, only natural since those that didn't like change probably just died. The African has been the "victum" so to speak of a remarkabily stable environment that has provided everything in realtive abundance, until recently. Is the ability to accept things "the way they are" is a key to success in a constant environment? Perhaps.

It's interesting how aid, or lack thereof, can impact social change. I have long felt that much of the foreign aid given Africa, while well-meaning, has had the inverse impact of the intentions of the collective donors.
First of all, we have to acknowledge that many of the African governments have been corrupt at worst and inefficient at best. Many of the handouts that the outside world has doled upon these countries have been dispersed by the local officials for political gain as an obvious quid pro quo, or as a more subtle tradeoff that generates good will for the local government, as compared to the original donor. Each of these circumstances, in effect, has helped entrench the lousy governments in the face of the need to boot the whole lot. Hence, the donations have helped keep the status quo in power, rather than motivate a disgruntled populace to demand more significant long-term change.
The Live 8 concert last July 2nd, which focused on debt relief for African countries, was probably one of the most obvious functions of this type. Helping out the poor and African countries that have "so unfairly" been hurt by loans given them from outside countries sounds like a noble effort, but in reality, wouldn't debt relief for poorly managed countries only prop up their respective leaders and keep the current inefficiencies in place? Won't the African people only demand change if their situation provokes it? If foolish leaders are propped up by outside aid, will they ever give way to better statesman?

I visited Malawi in 1988 and then it did not seem 'depressed' at all and was in comparative terms quite prosperous.

The dictatorship of Banda insisted the populace must be well dressed with a common article of clothing being a "Banda portrait T-shirt".

My guess is if there is great poverty there today it has been caused by a number of factors:
- pro-longed drought;
- aids and the 'culling' of able bodied young adults and middle aged persons leaving only the old and youth to do the work. Any society that looses the key workers in the populace suffers muchly. The 'black death' did this to Europe in the middle ages.
- unsustainable population increases. I would guess the population of Malawi is porbably much greater today than when white man arrived AND
the resultant continual erosion of "farm" sizes. If a viable subsistence farm plot is continually sub-divided among off spring the plots get smaller and smaller with each generation having less resources to live on. This phenomenon has occurred in many third-world countries such as India in the past.

I do not like the tone of the article posted above. To me it reads like the usual "guilt trip" where "white man" in this case, charities are blamed for all the ills of society. Perhaps people should take responsibility for themselves and not try to blame all on "outsiders" in this case charities.

Also it sets a tone where it is pushing a not so stubtle line that the cash crop plantations should be taken back and returned to the "people". Perhaps this movement could be called "Mugabesation" of economically productive land turning it back into nationally useless subsistence farming which achieves little other than the bare minimum of food for one family and actually harms the ecomony immensly by destroying the meagre exportable crops of a third-world nation. A more insidious objective of "Mugabesation" is just the simple transfer of ownership to new corrupt and connected individuals, but also results in the cash crop land also being wasted.