Africa Addio was an Italian documentary shot in the 1960s that showed Africa as a land filled with savagery and ruination as colonial powers withdrew (by Jacopetti and Prosperi, 1966). The book that accompanied the film was somewhat sympathetic to the plight of Africans with an appraisal of the burdens and damage wrought by unchecked colonial expansion. However, the images dominated and the text went by largely unnoticed. This film has seen a resurgence on YouTube, Google Video and other online streaming video sources. It now appears in small chunks of the most vivid and graphic details even further stripped of textual content. It is even available in full length directors cut with subtitles at Google Video and linked through to white supremist websites. The negative stereotyping and racialised discourses of ungovernable savage Africans still abounds as strong today as it was in the 1960s.
YouTube and other such sites are not to blame as they reflect the views of those uploading the videos. The African images on the international stage are overtly negative focusing on wars, diseases, failed states and terrible calamities. These are only countered by images of unspoilt and untamed wildernesses of dangerous animals as seen on National Geographic and Discovery Channel. Africa Addio drew on very similar tropes and documentary style images of a wild Africa, but focused not on the lives of the animals, but the often cruel deaths at the hands of Africans. The implications were that without colonial rule the Africans would ruin that beautiful, natural world. The film came to close with images from Tanzania of mass graves and piles of severed limbs, showing a progression in the violence from animals to people. It is supposedly a lament to Africa and its looming destruction as colonial forces withdraw at a time when Africans are ‘not yet ready’. Aspects of the film seem to have been born out with various brutal civil wars, rise of dictators, acts of genocide, mass poaching and foreign intrusions. And on the other hand, various success stories have since arisen, such as conservation of nature on a scale unseen in Europe, the rebuilding of populations of certain endangered species made rare during colonialism, a few successful democracies, some peace accords, and some economic development.
However, the failures dominate our media and are used in particular ways; similar failures elsewhere are not used in the same manner for say, Europe. For example, Russian conflict in Chechnya, civil war in the former Yugoslavia, IRA bombings, USA’s war in Iraq are not used to signify Western or white savagery or barbarism in the same way events in Africa are signified. Disastrous events in Africa are generally reported in terms of `tribalism’, `famine’, `disease’ and `war’, epithets which are rarely elaborated upon. These events are portrayed decontextualised from social and political events and unlinked to global phenomena or activities of Western states (such as the Cold War). Due to the seemingly overwhelming and pervasive nature of horrible events good things are often overlooked or relegated to tourism brochures. African political leaders often express valid concerns about how these images are used to portray a continent. These images contribute to racial stereotypes and views of Africans that are generally unflattering. A failed state on this continent is used as an example of a failed continent.
However, the legitimate political concerns and rightful anger expressed by certain leaders gets translated into an intolerant and unrealistic counter discourse that denies any problem on the continent. From a South African perspective the discourses of Afro-pessimism/optimism are telling as Thabo Mbeki’s and the ANC’s failure to act or even acknowledge civil wars, brutal repression, failed democracies, xenophobic attacks and Aids are all dismissed or downplayed with blasé statements claiming there is no crisis in Zimbabwe, no link between HIV and Aids, and no repression. This denial paints a rosy picture of Africa amidst real chaos, ruin and suffering.
African leaders, in an attempt to represent Africa positively, establish a set of privileged images of Africa. These images are not necessarily accurate or inaccurate, but they are privileged in the sense that the elites create them in order to push certain agendas. So real or not, the images have very real consequences.
The irony of the fight over these images is that the very violent inaction of African states to admit serious problems and their extent then allow these events to spiral out of control. Zimbabwe is a clear example over the fight for legitimacy of who represents the state. Robert Mugabe claims legitimacy as ‘liberator’ of the state against British Imperial rule, while refusing to accept his legitimate outing during the first election of 2008.
The fights within Zimbabwe are also symbolic fights over the images of Africa. Thabo Mbeki denies the crisis and keeps up his ‘silent diplomacy’. If Thabo Mbeki were to speak out harshly on Zimbabwe and treat the situation as a real crisis he would have to admit there are problems in Africa. Moreover, if he attempts to find a solution for the very real and serious problems and fails, it would be an indictment of himself. Thus a critique of Zimbabwe is to suggest Mbeki has failed as a mediator. In this I agree. The recent news about a potential settlement and power sharing between the two parties is disheartening as it confers legitimacy to failed elections.
It is tragic for the poorest and most desperate that legitimate anger by those in power over the representation of Africa is translated into intransigence and intolerance with regard to important debates in health and medicine, democracy and governance.
1)I am not sure I get this post. Are you saying that Africa is not in as much trouble as portrayed, or are you saying it is, and that leaders are failing to deal with it?
2)I also could not determine the stance on colonialism, are u saying that the film mentioned and subsequent downloads are portraying Africa incorrectly, yet that there are problems which leaders are not facing? In this regard do you think that colonialism dealt with similar problems more effectively or is it that all countries have these problems (surely not on the scale that we have) and it is not portrayed in the media?
Michael Francis
What is happening in Zim is ONLY the first step. Tragically and disasterously late, but still only the first step.
It does NOT matter about land reform etc at the moment. What matters is getting control of army and police.
AND someone at TL should twist Moeletsi Mbeki’s arm to do an analysis for us. No-one could do it better! Both on Zim and on Africa.
Michael Francis’ article is thoughtful and insightful. There is a lot of truth to it. I haven’t seen the film, nor the book, nor any of the youtubes/googles. I came to Africa first in 1968, tender of age, open of a heart filled with goodness, hoping by participating in the education of that generation of young Africans, my contribution would help those in the country where I volunteered my skills, feed the hungry, house the homeless and move forward in hope. I have passed through 5 more countries in the 40 years since then, ending up where I am now; a country as near to the standards, if i may use the word, as that of the country of my first African experience 40 years ago. I have seen all the ills described by Mr Francis, and I do agree, that with the exception of that old joke ‘what’s the difference between Somalia and Yugoslavia? Technology”, comparisons are not made. BUT, and it is a big difference…some trillion dollars in multi-lateral aid, not counting the bi-lateral aid, the aid offered by missionary societies, schools opened, hospitals opened, roads built, water plants built, and on and on, have come to African countries in a way that they didn’t in Russia, and the other countries mentionned in the article. What has happened is that ‘we’ thought ‘you’ were like us, and in many ways you are; but not all. Values are different; not good, not bad, just different, and exemplified by the argument currently going on in SA about the disbandment of the Scorpions. The ANC/black community seems to be saying ‘the Scorpions embarrass and humiliate our senior politicians and important people’; the DA/white community seems to be saying ‘they are accused of breaking the law, we must investigate and if guilty they must be punished. Embarrassment and humiliation comes along with doing wrong’. How to reconcile these issues. As to the issue of violence; my country too has close elections. In 1995, the province of Quebec held a referendum to decide about secession from Canada. The secessionists lost by 1%. No one was killed, not even windows shattered, no 3 year old tossed into a burning church. Tears were shed, but we had learned to reconcile our differences in peace. Mr Francis is an anthropologist, what comment does he have to make about this. I too am besotted by Africa, but I’m wrestling with the warts at the moment.
Michael Francis
My blog is down so I can’t write, but there are some things happening in SA at the moment which should be addressed. As you seem to be concerned, and level headed, I am passing on these ideas to you:
Home Loan Withdrawals
It is being reported on SAFM that some home loans are being withdrawn by at least one of the banks and buyers might loose their deposits. This makes NO sense! Estate Agents have an obligation to protect both buyer and seller and no trained estate agent would draft a deed of sale in a way that the buyer does not get back the deposit if the finance is not granted. Also the public is, or was, protected against incompetance by agents by the Fidelity Fund. Something is wrong. Don’t even bother to ask the Estate Agents Board. This is just another body mired in incompetance under the ANC jobs for pals system. Pam Golding, Samual Seeff, or whoever is Chairman of the Institute of Estate Agents, should be able to shed some light on this situation.
Road Accident Fund Rip Off
There was an after 8 debate on this topic. I missed most of it – my husband forgot to wake me up! I only caught the end, but it was clear people did not have a clue what they were talking about. 50 years ago my father and Chief Justice Corbett wrote a book, a textbook on damages, which has been updated every year, so that this could NOT happen. The book is called “Quantum of Damages”. Any attorney or advocate could tell you the point.
The facts as presented in the media are that attorneys are ripping off clients. The truth is that the Fund is so incompetant it can’t administer or settle and half its income is going on paying its own attorneys to act as consultants to do the job of the “pals” technically in charge. The attorneys have to fund vast costs to keep their clients going till a court date, including medical and maintenance costs, because the fund NEVER pays until the court door. Imagine how the victims would be ripped off by these bureaucrats if they did not have attorneys to protect them!
The Constitution Court Judges
I read a small item in a paper that said 6 of our Constitutional Court Judges finish their terms of contract in Spetember – which is a few weeks away. This is surely VERY important – and explains a lot of the stalling tactics of both Zuma and Hlope. I did not even know our judges had contracts or terms of office. One of the reasons for the independence of the judiciary was security of tenure! Are the ANC stalling till past September to load the bench, old fashioned apartheid style?
As I said, I can’t write myself at the moment – so I hope you will consider these topics.
Suzanne the Canadian
Quote:
“the DA/white community seems to be saying ‘they are accused of breaking the law, we must investigate and if guilty they must be punished”
The DA/white is also very hushed up about atrocities and corruption committed by the NAtaionalist and their followers.
Suzanne your one sided logic as well as the seems to dull the truth.
“”, comparisons are not made. BUT, and it is a big difference…some trillion dollars in multi-lateral aid, not counting the bi-lateral aid, the aid offered by missionary societies, schools opened, hospitals opened, roads built, water plants built, and on and ”
If you think that aid is given to, and intended to benefit the ordinary african then you are seriously mislead. The actual intention is to fill the pockets of the greedy african leaders so that they can act to the beck and call of corrupt western and asian organisations all in the quest of gaining control af african natural resources. These western and asian organisations have little regard for africans and are much more interested in laying their slimey hands on african oil, gold, diamonds etc.
The ordinary african have very little control over these things and thus for them wether it be colonisation or “independence”, it makes very little difference to their fate.
Alas, the understanding of the term ‘democracy’ in Africa is severely deficient in western terms. During and after the colonial retreat African leaders found that lip service to this idea was very positively received in western circles and was effective in opening generous aid facilities, which were then to a large degree usurped by the governing classes for their own personal benefit. In African tradition the chieftain is entitled to the tribe’s holding and has almost absolute discretion in distributing right of use among his followers. While talking democracy to the west, African leaders were almost invariably feathering their own nests in the traditional way in their own countries. Aid coupled to specific projects often had a promising start, but quickly decayed and ground to a halt under subsequent African management. African apologists are quick to find excuses. This contrasted markedly with South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) before ‘majority’ rule, where infrastructure development and maintenance was a priority and corruption was not at a level to prevent this.
Zimbabwe is a prime example of possible consequences of the deficient understanding of democracy. The institutions on which democracy depends, (private property rights, free press, independent judiciary including police and uncorrupt military) were all usurped by the Mugabe clique. Interference in the independence of the reserve bank has fueled the unprecedented inflation. A so-called power sharing solution of the government crisis would be next to useless for solving the corruption and economic woes if these matters are not adequately addressed. Mbeki’s obvious bias and his attempts to save Mugabe’s presidency will further taint his legacy. Etc, etc…
My intention is to highlight two things about Africa
1) The dominant images of Africa are racist and often colonial constructs of difference. These images of Africa are used in particluar ways in which images of Europeans are not. Conflict between Russia and Georgia are never used to show white people’s inate violence in the way that images of Africa are used.
2) The debates in Africa (using Mbeki’s discourse as one example) are battles over representation of Africa.
This being said does not mean there is not real issues and social ills in Africa. But the two opposing ideas are both damaging and harmful as neither helps the continent. One is racist and disparaging and the other is a refusal to acknowledge and therefore a refusal to do anything about the problems. ie silent diplomacy is an inertia developed from such a refusal.
Social ills in Africa are discrete events that need to be challenged and dealt with as individual problems. There is no one fit solution to the ills in Africa. Thus what works in South Africa will not work in Zimbabwe, Congo etc.
Oosthuizen – Development has been a problematic model of one solution fits all and the imposition of western models onto Africa to the benefit of the West (by and large). It reflects the power imbalances between the rich and poor internationalLY and within Africa (the elites that often benefit as you mention).
But at the same time there has been some good that has come through under the rubric of development so its again not time for a blanket condemnation of development. We need to complicate the ideas and unpick the complex webs of relations that accompany such development or other such things.
As someone who comes from a donor country I feel that issues of governance and so forth must be adhered to. Its not colonialism or even neo-colonialism if a donor country says that they won’t give aid to a country if they don’t respect basic human rights within their borders. It is neo-colonialism when the donor countries say open your borders to trade to a degree we won’t do ourselves (structural adjustment status quo).
And I agree that the DA has been silent about issues from the past this does not negate their critique about current issues.
Whatever about the content of the film, it cannot be denied that is a phenomenally well made film. The camerawork is brilliant and the makers unbelievably brave and far more willing to get down and dirty than today’s paid hacks.
( personally I found it refreshingly honest… living in PC Europe all we really are informed about is how the poor Black african is trying so hard to recover from what was done to him by us, a notion many of us are growing tired of.)
As for the idea that images of white man’s savagery is never used to show white people’s inate violence in the way that images of Africa are used, well that’s plain rubbish. It’s just that the contrast between the modern post industrial white and the primitive tribalism of the black african can be shockingly stark.
Last point. I have seen with my own eyes the environmental disaster unfolding in Zimbabwe as a result of unthinking politicians. To me that justifies most of what the film was saying anyway.
Michael Francis’ piece is superb. I am definitely a fan of his posts. I have been teaching English in China for three and a half years and the view here of South Africa and the rest of the continent, at the grass roots level, is as follows:
- Mandela is a great man (even semi-literate taxi drivers to whom I chat in my pidgin Chinese know that)
- Africa is rich and has a lot of wealth
- “Zimbabwe? Where’s that?” “Well,you know, the country where China at the UN vetoed sanctions against Mugabe?” Complete silence. Masks of oriental inscrutability. The Chinese government never does anything wrong.
- South Africa is a great country, lots of gold and diamonds. You are a South African? Why aren’t you black? White people live in South Africa?? Jaws literally drop.
- You can’t teach English because you come from South Africa and you are therefore not a native speaker of English.
Ed – The film was beautifully shot even if the images were of horror and brutality. They are considered the fathers of shock-umentary films as they made films to shock not to document.
You state “As for the idea that images of white man’s savagery is never used to show white people’s innate violence in the way that images of Africa are used, well that’s plain rubbish. It’s just that the contrast between the modern post industrial white and the primitive tribalism of the black African can be shockingly stark”
Its not rubbish its true. Think of the horrors inflicted recently as Yugoslavia fell apart. No commentator looked at that conflict and said look at white or European savagery. Your post industrial white is responsible for the Holocaust against Jews and Gypsies but this again never is used to say look how bad whitey is by any credible commentator. What you call tribalism is no different than the ‘ethnic’ conflicts in Europe or elsewhere – why the racial spin? You in fact prove my points I raise.
My point is that events in Africa (that are real horrific things) are used to show how the continent or a race is violent and the continent is a failure. This then justifies interventions in economies, types of Aid that entrench asymmetrical relations of production, Africa as a source of raw materials not value added products, and allows the big powers that have meddled in Africa (see the Cold War) an excuse for supporting dictators, killing democratic leaders (Congo) and so forth. It is a way of silencing African critiques of the world that are valid as well. An African state that fails can damn a region as investors and tourists etc see the continent as one place with the same problems all over. This negative imaging hurts South Africa directly as investors see the mess in Zim and think South Africa is as messed up (it isn’t yet).
The leaders respond to this negative imagining very poorly and in their attempts to redefine Africa they refuse to acknowledge the very real problems of facing African nations. They create an inertia whereby they dismiss crisis after crisis and brush very real problems under the rug.
All I demand is that Africa is given a fair representation. The first step is to acknowledge the diversity of the continent and to work from each place as a discrete location with its own trials and tribulations that then can be looked at regionally and how it articulates with other locations across Africa and around the world. Crass generalisations are less than useful whether positive ones or negative ones.
Michael Francis
Home Loan Withdrawals
You can dump that topic. There was an After 8 Debate on it on SAFM this morning. You can believe that FNB was mis-quoted if you like.
Me, I have a “suspicious mind”.
Think about it? Look at Developer’s Boards – they all have supporting banks on them. Nice if the banks could cancel their guarentees and the buyers loose their deposits to the developers. Nice for the developer clients and their banks that is!
Thanks for the reply. You do make a fair point. However…
I do not agree that i proved your point. What I proved perhaps is that anyone can use either positive or negative stereotyping to justify their views.
The croats use images of the Yugoslav war of death camps to show how barbaric the serbs are. You just haven’t seen them.
Anytime somebody questions the huge non European immigration situation in Europe is usually shut up with the usual Nazi/KKK/skinhead thing. These images, holocaust etc, are used far more frequently by the liberal media than negative black imagery. That’s why the film is so interesting… obviously it is shocking and back when it was made perhaps a little easier to produce (can you imagine trying to make it now?… No chance!)
It is unavoidable that people create either negative or positive stereotypes and imagery of others. It is natural. If you don’t like it, fine… but don’t try to stop it.
If there is one detrimental use of images though, it is all those pictures of bloated bellies. We are so saturated with those images, In magazines, at bus stops etc that we have grown accustomed to equating famine and helplessness with Africa. That I believe is harmful.
I am glad Michael (perhaps too gently) rebutted Ed on the image of Africans as savages. Ed neatly leaves out savagery such as the ethnic purges in Bosnia and Croatia. I doubt Africa will ever be given a fair representation. We need idealists like Michael Francis, but “acknowledging the diversity of the continent and to work from each place as a discrete location with its own trials and tribulations that then can be looked at regionally and how it articulates with other locations across Africa and around the world” is quite an idealistic mouthful and is not going to happen.
Zimbabwe and other failed African states such as Ethiopia will always be despised by “Westerners”. Here in Shanghai I have well-educated ex-pats from all over the globe as friends: attorneys, fellow teachers, high-powered businessmen and they all firmly believe that Africans cannot run a country.
We get together in a typical post-colonial pub called Long Bar on Beijing West road and the fate of Zimbabwe, South Africa and the continent in general often gets bemoaned. I try stay away from the destructive, non-productive conversation but my opinion as a South African is often sought out and I get “sucked in” to agreeing with the facts, Mbeki’s intransigence, Zuma’s certain guilt, Mugabe’s….
History, and its consequences, is like a massive cargo truck, once it has started rolling down a hill, it is very difficult to stop, and Africa has been that cargo truck for a long time, “acknowledging the diversity” notwithstanding..
Michael’s idealistic mouthful, quoted above, does not really mean anything. Too much vague information. Most of us do not really even know what is really going on behind the scene in our own or neighbouring countries, let alone try to understand both the apparent and hidden “diverse” agendas of an entire continent. When I say we don’t know I am speaking for myself (though I know I also speak for others): I am just too deeply cynical of what goes in and out of the daily tabloids….Russia’s continued occupation of Georgia after signing a peace treaty being a case in point.
Back to the Long Bar blokes and the cant: Africans can’t run a country, the Chinese need the West’s help or they’d never get their value-added products out of China in good nick and on time…. most of these ex-pats come from England where they cannot get adequate employment in their own country because of the stagnant economy there… hmmm…. but please never vilify John Bull.
Rod – I hardly see myself as an idealist more of a pragmatist. I want to see people move beyond easy and lazy stereotypes. Grand notions of ‘Africa’ or ‘The West’ or ‘Europe’ etc obscure as much as the elucidate.
England’s economy is still strong and Ethiopia is not quite a failed state either. It has some serious problems for sure, but also has its successes.
Ed – The Croats did use such images to villify the Serbs. My point is that the images are not used to damn a continent the way African images are. Its a not so subtle difference. You highlight a a regional issue that is treated as a regional issue and attention in that region focuses on that specific population and acknowledges their differences and the peace accords worked within regional structures.
And as for the images of bloated bellies, you are correct they are overused and misapplied. Think of Band Aid from the 80s, the concert got more attention than the causes of the famine which were geopolitical not environmental. The famine was rarely treated as a social/political issue.
I would love to see an NGO use positive images of Africa for fundraising – look at these people trying/succeeding etc and lets support them instead of dropping the success stories in favour of images of depravation to suck off of liberal guilt. People get saturated and quit caring and these NGOs often reuse images from the 80s that no longer apply.
Anyways, you get the point
I listened to Martin Kramer (spelling?) on the radio presenting his weekly slot “On The Coalface”. Apparently chrome ore sells for 10% of ferrachrome. Both India and SA were advised at the same time to benificate and produce ferrochrome (which is not difficult). India did it as soon as possible. SA still has not, and has vastly stepped up its exporting to China of the chrome ore. We are BACK to a government that just CAN’T administer! Why? If it is not being African then WHAT is it?
Michael and Oosthuisen – why should the DA comment on the history of the Nats? They did not even exist under apartheid, they are a new party.
You can hardly say that the party that did exist then, the Progressive Party, did not object to everything!
Quote Suzanne Canada
“The ANC/black community seems to be saying ‘the Scorpions embarrass and humiliate our senior politicians and important people’; the DA/white community seems to be saying ‘they are accused of breaking the law, we must investigate and if guilty they must be punished.”
Lyndall, Why does the DA/white want perceived law breakers in the ANC to be investgated ? If it is justice and fairness that the DA/white want then why stop at the ANC, why don’t they also ask for the crooks in the previous NAT government also to be investigated ? or is it that its not really justice and fairness that they are looking for ?
Suzanne Canada – The ANC is not just black and the DA does not represent all the whites. These simplisitc racial categorisation is not helpful or accurate.
Oosthuizen – Even if the DA ignores previous crooks as you suggest that has no bearing on the current calls for justice. To say someone else has done the same or worse does not justify villiany of today’s elite.
Lyndall – I said the DA is a little silent about the past not that they should have a specific say on the Nats. They do not self critically look at their social position in any meaningful way. They end up looking like a bunch of ‘whinging whites’ who only represent the middle class. No party has reached out in any meaningful way to the poor whites of South Africa – the ones who actually paid the heaviest price over the demise of Apartheid. The white middle class has valid complaints about crime and are justified in calling for justice, equality and so forth. So far though the DA has not gone about that very well.
Michael
The Freedom Front and Oranje have done LOTS for the poor whites, even to asking Zuma for help.
Oosthuizen
There were Nat AND ANC atrocities. BOTH sides agreed to amnesty. That was a political solution after a civil war.
Compare how De Klerk, in control of the most competant militarised state in Africa, kept control of police and army AND handed them over to Mandela – AND compare that to Mugabe and Kenya AND WAKE UP!