A Ghanaian soccer fan (Igor Marx / Shutterstock.com)

I have just returned from a short trip to back to the motherland and couldn’t help noticing the change in the demographics of the plane I flew out on. Around half of the passengers on this direct flight from London to Accra were now white! Of course it was mainly the half sat in First and Business Class, but it still signals a significant sea change from the plane rides of my childhood when the flight to Accra had all the racial diversity of an early Wu-Tang Clang concert. Back then  the idea of travelling around Africa was equated with a death-wish and nobody, I mean nobody had any idea where Ghana was. I’m not even sure I knew where it was and I was born there, all of my family were from there and I had lived there for the first couple years of my life! Ghana’s invisibility was best exemplified by one of my primary school teachers in the U.K, who I remember asking me where my family was from and then responding when I told her with “Erm, I think it’s pronounced Guyana!” 

Perhaps many people still don’t know where Ghana is (I’m looking at you Sarah Palin) but it seems a growing number of people do know and whats more, are interested in its culture. Common-placed questions about Ghanaian life in the 1990′s would include: do you have toilets? (yes), do you speak in clicks? (no), do you eat lions/white people? (only on birthdays and Christmas). Now the vibrancy of Ghanaian culture is being matched by its growing ubiquity here in the west: Hiplife music and its accompanying Azonto dance moves are burning up the clubs here in London, the national football (soccer) team won the hearts of neutrals by battling to the quarter-finals of the 2010 World Cup and young novelist Taiye Selasi is making currently waves as her debut novel Ghana Must Go is becoming a literary sensation. Suddenly Ghana is everywhere.

Forgive any murmurings of nationalistic triumphalism in this article; friends please rest assured that I still regard nationalism as a fallacy primarily employed to limit the ambit of our empathy, an illusion wonderfully articulated by comedian Doug Stanhope as ‘hating people you have never met and taking pride in accomplishments you had fuck all to do with.’ However, any joy (not pride) I feel at Ghana’s and in fact Africa’s rise in prominence is based not on any allusions of superiority towards other cultures but just relief at this eventual acknowledgement of the region’s existence beyond the narratives of perpetual war, famine and disease that used to dominate perceptions of Africa.

Unlike the countries in the West where patriotism is used to reinforce a superiority complex which justifies dominant positions within international relations, Africa requires self-promotion just to try and deconstruct the centuries of reductive, repulsive negative characterisation of her and her people in order to justify colonial and neo-colonial exploitation. Some of the worlds greatest minds colluded in this discriminatory portrayal: Hegel, despite being clearly unfamiliar with African geography and history choose to describe what we would now call Sub-Saharan African as the land of child-like infancy where men had not yet attained any realization of God, or Law; Joseph Conrad thought he was critiquing colonialism in the Heart of Darkness but was simultaneously re-inscribing the stereotype of the dark and dangerous jungle dwellers who defied the rational understanding of the Europeans. 

The insidious nature of this of depiction can not be underestimated, the consequences of it were still apparent as I was forming my own understanding of the world in the late 20th Century. I laughed as Tintin berated the slow-witted natives, cheered as Hulk Hogan beat some sense into the wrestler Kamala. I didn’t realize that as a young African boy, Kamala was supposed to represent myself. This now amazing clip shows why I may have had some trouble associating with my fellow ‘African’:

Yet nowadays, even The Economist is recognising the rising tide of optimising spreading over the continent . It has changed its tone from its 2000 declaration of Africa as ‘The Hopeless Continent.‘ to in March of this year stating on its front cover that ‘Africa is rising.’ In Ghana that optimism in tangible, reflected by the increase and the variety of visitors. With these visitors comes the evaporation of psychological distance on which economic exploitation was built. Ghana was a land which helped illuminate economic injustice even to a seven year old. “Mum, why was Ghana called the Gold Coast?” the conversation went. “Because there is lots of Gold there.” came the reply. “So Ghana must be really Rich, right?” “No, it is poor. All the gold is owned by multi-national companies based in the West.” That was lesson one in the imbalance of capitalist globalization. But as we move more and more towards a Mcluhan conception of a ‘global village’ the ignorance of Africa that underlies that imbalance will hopefully disappear.

Of course this is a qualified optimism. The continent of course still has a myriad of problems too extensive and complex to be adequately examined here. The region is too varied to really be spoken of as one entity. But if I can be indulged this once, the image of Africa is undeniable changing. The video of Kamala is hilarious now but it was only 1994 when this was normal. So while it may not seem like much to read some Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, cook up some Jollof rice for your friends, or even take the Madonna-sponsored tour of a Malawian orphanage, its all little baby steps to the time when the humanity of the inhabitants of Earth’s most resource rich but materially poor region is no longer minimized.

Subscribe

's feed

Enter email below:

Homo Rudolfensis specimen

Researchers studying fossils from northern Kenya have identified a new species of human that lived two million years ago.

The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans.

The research has been published in the journal Nature.

Anthropologists have discovered three human fossils that are between 1.78 and 1.95 million years old. The specimens are of a face and two jawbones with teeth.

The finds back the view that a skull found in 1972 is of a separate species of human, known as Homo rudolfensis. The skull was markedly different to any others from that time. It had a relatively large brain and long flat face.

But for 40 years the skull was the only example of the creature and so it was impossible to say for sure whether the individual was an unusual specimen or a member of a new species.

With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H.rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans.

For a long time the oldest known human ancestor was thought to be a primitive species, dating back 1.8 million years ago called Homo erectus. They had small heads, prominent brows and stood upright.

But 50 years ago, researchers discovered an even older and more primitive species of human called Homo habilis that may have coexisted with H. erectus. Now it seems H. rudolfensis was around too and raises the distinct possibility that many other species of human also existed at the time.

This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved in a smooth linear progression from our primate ancestors.

Subscribe

's feed

Enter email below:

Filipines a popular place for cheap labor

by Will Fitzgibbon: Newspapers across the United States of America are outsourcing the production of local news to low-paid researchers and writers in the Philippines, radio progamme This American Life has revealed.

In an interview with a young American journalist, Ryan Smith, This American Life presenter Sarah Koenig exposes the work of outsourcing company Journatic and the newspapers for whom it works, many of whom would rather remain unknown.

Former Journatic employee Smith says in the report that Journatic’s news is ‘written overseas, half-heartedly edited and slapped on a page’.

Smith, who risked being fired for speaking publicly, says he wrote and edited stories for newspapers in Texas while never leaving Chicago, about 1,000 miles away.

Using freelancers in the Philippines, Brazil, Eastern Europe and Africa, Journatic produces vast quantities of local stories, such as death notices, house sales and bowling scores based on publicly available information, for American newspapers that no longer have the resources to cover the micro detail of daily life.

Journatic and some of the newspaper companies who use it told This American Life that no writing was done in the Philippines itself. Rather, the Filipinos, who earn between 35 to 40 cents per story, ‘assemble information, in paragraph form,’ which is then written and edited in America.

However, it is hard to know how true this is. Koenig spoke to one anonymous Filipino freelancer who claimed to write stories himself. Yet their real names are never published. Instead, American newspaper publishers can click a ‘Select Alias’ button and choose Americanised names such as Jenny Cox or Glenda Smith.

While the programme paints the practice in a negative light, Journatic CEO Brian Timpone argues a good case for his model. He says he knows that he will be criticised for his business interests, but he argues that outsourcing information aggregation is the way forward for the financially-strapped media industry.

‘I personally think we’re saving journalism with our approach, ‘ says Timpone.

‘The single reporter model, the old model, just doesn’t work and hasn’t done for 30 or 40 years.’

‘We’ll be able to see more things, things that no one covers,’ Timpone says.

He goes even further, asserting that having journalists on the ground does not produce more accurate or more engaging stories than his at-a-distance model.

Timpone claims that his company can produce more content for less, helping to drive traffic for newspapers and encourage local advertising, an important stream of revenue.

‘If you have a better idea, I’m all ears,’ challenges Timpone.

Listen to the original This American Life programme here.

This article originally appeared on The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Subscribe

's feed

Enter email below:

The autopsy report from Libya:

Muammar Gaddafi's body has a bullet in the head and a bullet in the abdomen, a medical source told Reuters on Sunday.

Earlier, a doctor involved in an overnight autopsy on the former Libyan leader's body told Reuters he had died from a gunshot wound.

"There are multiple injuries. There is a bullet in the abdomen and in the brain," the medical source said.

The postmortem was carried out at a morgue in Misrata. Local officials said Gaddafi's body would be brought back to the cold storage facility at a market in Misrata where it has been on public display.

I'm finding it difficult to weigh in with an opinion on Gaddafi's death. The former Libyan leader certainly was no angel, but his legacy is a mixed one and it is not necessarily fair to condem his rule in its entirety (for a brief overview it's worth checking out this article, and this longer one to get a basic understanding of his complex leadership over Libya). Gaddafi was still wildly popular with vast sectors of the Libyan population and his militant stance against Western imperialism was widely respected around the world. He could be brutal and repressive, yet generous and inspiring at the same time. Gaddafi brought economic prosperity to Libya, largely by refusing Western oil companies the right to exploit Libya's resources, and was always on hand trying to prevent the same in other African nations.  Gaddafi was feared as a leader but respected as a revolutionary. He was a bizarre conundrum of contradictory traits that manifested itself in a confused premiership that spanned 42 years. He killed many people, yet spent millions promoting peace initiatives, anti poverty programs and safeguarding human rights. 

With the onset of the Arab Spring, it was clear that his time was up and Gaddafi could have gone gracefully into exile without sending his country into civil war. He chose not to, and he paid the price with his life. As they say, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

The problem with assigning Gaddafi a definitive label is that we are too used to viewing foreign leaders as 'good guys' or 'bad guys' according to how useful they are to us. Saddam Hussein was an ally and a good guy until he threatened our oil supply, and so was Gaddafi until it became apparent he no longer could control his country.

The media dutifully regurgitates the official government line without question, making debate close to impossible. Anyone arguing Gaddafi's merits has been labelled a terrorist loving communist, despite the fact that only a year ago he was viewed a critical ally in the war on terror.

Any dictator is by definition a bad one, but some are more complex than others and it is worth examining their legacies honestly rather than repeating government propaganda.

Gaddafi's history isn't black and white, and neither should our analysis of it be.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

After spending months on the run, this is apparently how it ended for Muammar Gaddafi:

Libyan officials and most media outlets are confirming that the above photo is legitimate, and that Gaddafi is indeed dead. However, the White House has yet to confirm the former Libyan leaders death as there is still apparently some confusion over the events.

This was the scene of the killing, a ditch in the coastal city of Sirte in Libya:

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Matt Osborne has done a brilliant analysis of the Libyan crisis that is definitely worth reading in full. His conclusion:

Two myths should be put to rest. First, the idea that Libya’s war originated as anything but a native conflict is nothing but paranoid speculation. Indeed, freedom fighters have systematically ignored international sanctimony and calls for a cease-fire. Libyans fought, and appear to have won, their own war, following their own plan. That they had help — from the sky, or via Egypt, or by sea — does not detract from the sacrifices of Libyans who refused to stop fighting and dying. They own their victory.

Second, the image of “ragtag revolutionaries” is also false. Freedom fighters have in fact been consistently clever and creative. While still undisciplined tactically, they have demonstrated good operational discipline and planning, and in fact have done a very good job of coordinating with air power despite the challenges. Never wavering in determination, Libyans have written their own epic, and it is a good one. All the allies did was help.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Image via Wikipedia

Having set back the African continent several hundred years through brutal colonialism, the West is still finding new ways to exploit the region this time through its ultra wealthy universities and its banking system. From the Guardian:

Harvard and other major American universities are working through British hedge funds and European financial speculators to buy or lease vast areas of African farmland in deals, some of which may force many thousands of people off their land, according to a new study.

Researchers say foreign investors are profiting from "land grabs" that often fail to deliver the promised benefits of jobs and economic development, and can lead to environmental and social problems in the poorest countries in the world.

The report shows that lack of government regulation on the continent allows Western entities to buy land on the cheap, then exploit it for financial gain (usually farming) irrespective of the damage it does to local communities:

Research by the World Bank and others suggests that nearly 60m hectares – an area the size of France – has been bought or leased by foreign companies in Africa in the past three years.

"Most of these deals are characterised by a lack of transparency, despite the profound implications posed by the consolidation of control over global food markets and agricultural resources by financial firms," says the report.

"We have seen cases of speculators taking over agricultural land while small farmers, viewed as squatters, are forcibly removed with no compensation."

The exploitation of the poor both domestically and abroad is a symptom of the free market doctrine that advocates unfettered capitalism. Third world countries are less able to control their own economies, so are extremely vulnerable to financial speculators wanting massive returns on their investments. Lack of regulation benefits the wealthy as it allows them to dictate terms and conditions while minimizing their  own risk. They can purchase arable land extremely cheaply while reaping rewards by selling the produce back to their own countries at a higher price than the locals can afford. As a result, locals starve, the west gets cheap food, and the universities and banks get richer.

In other words, it's colonialism 2.0. 

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below: