A rather anemic polemic by a guy with a swell CV. He's married to an African, though. And he lives in Berkeley, CA. Of course it's not the Africans' fault! It's racism! Colonialism! Just ask Robert Mugabe.

Almost all of Africa is fragmented by ethnic divisions and many of them actively dislike each other. This undercurrent of hate makes it easier for certain elites to play off one group against another. Look how Republicans play the Gay card, the Flag card and the Pro-Life card and how successful they are at it. Multiply that by 100 and you may begin to understand Africa.

I haven't read this book but Mr Zachary's allegation that the author is racist in his generalisation in referring to Africans when talking about diverse countries, peoples and cultures etc. and then throughout the article refers to the people who live in Africa using exactly the same term strikes me as a bit odd.

As I said I haven't read the book and would probably agree with a lot that Mr. Zachary had to say about it if I had however his seemingly kneejerk reaction that none of the problems that the continent faces are the responsibility of the people that live there again strikes me as a bit odd. Colonialism, slave taking, ruthless exploitation of natural resources by foreigners are all bad things that have left enormous problems in their wake, no argument. But Mr.Zachary must concede that it is as wrong of him to generalise about these things as affecting all of Africa as it is for the books author to generalise about all Africans. Slaves weren't taken from the whole continent, not all of Africa was colonised, and a number of African leaders aren't doing too badly in the ruthless exploitation of their countries natural resources.

Decry the generalisations when refering to a huge number of complex problems but not by making more generalisations.

Of course, Africans are responsible for their lot in life, but, yes, colonialism and slavery are huge contributing factors in their problems. Have you lived in Africa, CB? I have, and can tell you that this character flaw notion is pure nonsense. Mexico and many central/south American countries are just as bad or even worse than many African countries but I don't hear the "character flaw" argument used against them.

About 300 years of shipping out in chains, the healthiest Africans (slavery) and then followed by another hundred years of colonial rule that only plundered the continent. When independence arrived a few decades ago, the colonial masters installed corrupt self-serving puppets. Then there was the vicious circles of coups and counter-coups, civil wars coupled with super power cold war interference that followed. The place should be a mess. Anything less would be a miracle.

So, lets give Africans some time and I am confident they will sort it out. They are just begining to find their feet after the horrendous stagger of the last 400 years.

Calderisi has the stones to say publicly what has been said sotto voce. That the 'African character' has been denigrated and suspect is not new; neither is displacing all blame about the plight of an entire continent on the victims (and I use the word victims with intention), nor the offhand but breathtaking assertion that slavery was, on balance, a net good because, after all, it 'saved Africans from Africa'.

When I read about the situation in Africa, both now and in the past, I'm struck by the selective inattention and outright denial of those in the chattering classes. For as long as I've thought about the subject, I've considered the stories of North America, Asia, and Africa. I know Africa and Asia are hardly monolithic; indeed, that they comprise several countries, so the comparison meets inevitable limits, but some things are fairly easy to compare/contrast: a (very) large, (very) varied terrain, an abundance of natural resources (in the case of N. America, far less so for Asia), an existing native population that was too trusting by half (if anything can be said to fault Africans (and Native Americans), it could be that they were, in the early days of European occupation, too, well, nice. As distasteful as it is for this writer, a committed pacifist, to contemplate, perhaps a decisive and sustained resistance might have sent their future oppressors right back north.)

What makes the difference in my mind is the fact, seldom referenced, that the income from natural resources that financed America in the early days, when it was seen, like most 'developing' countries are seen these days, as good for only the exportation of raw material, for the most part, stayed in the country (let us put aside, for a moment, that only a small class actually profited from it staying 'in house' as it were). Later as we developed our own capabilities, we became producers of 'value-added' products, with the attendant higher margins.

Asia, for the most part poor in natural resources, is now a major producer of finished goods--with raw material frequently furnished by Africa. While much is made of the Asian miracle of the last half-century, it's seldom mentioned who, at least initally, financed factories, and imported raw materials to convert to value-added goods--Europeans and Americans. Asia, who has managed (some would say been permitted) to thrive, despite regimes every bit as corrupt as what supposedly damns Africa.

And then there's Africa, whose land has been strip mined, clear-cut, commercially grazed and farmed to within an inch of its life. Who, for the most part, has not shared in the profits, not for the raw materials, nor for the finished goods. Whose own citizens have starved while cash crops and cattle, intended for export to foreign lands, have used water, and ground nutrients, that could have gone towards feeding her people. Who has seen fertile grazelands turned into dust bowls, have had water supplies diverted. Who have had entire mountain ranges blown to bits for pieces of gold and clear glass. Who have had their groundwater poisoned.

(cont. next posting)