You may already have accepted that those images of swollen potbellies underneath protruding ribs, those sticky flies sitting on the starving child's eyebrows and lips, those panoramic views of refugee camps are not the be-all and end-all of Africa. Or those unclear references to Africa which suggest it's a monolith, or even worse, a country. You may have accepted that all these, some of which are not inaccurate in some places, don't provide the full picture. A picture which, if it were genuine, would reflect a continent of diverse peoples and ideas, varied standards of living (including horrendous poverty and unbelievable inequality) yet infinite potential, a picture of an eclectic mix of things good and bad.
Besides flies, potbellies and continental monoliths, here are some other telltale signs of simplistic and often pathetic attempts to cover Africa. If more than one of these apply to your print, online or broadcast journalism source, you're probably not getting your information from the most reliable place.
Darkness, darkness everywhere
If you come across a description of Africa as the "dark continent," Africa having a "dark history," especially if you come across Conradian references to "the heart of darkness," it may suggest the journalist relies too heavily on a book of fiction written in 1902 and is unlikely to have spoken to many people on the ground. Also, all this "dark" this and "dark" that business, feels just more than a little racist.
African sunsets, African skies
Only in Africa do news reports sometimes wax lyrical about golden African sunrises, molten lava African sunsets, azure African skies... I can assure you: The sun in Africa is the same sun as the rest of the world. The sky is exactly the same sky too. Trees are trees in Africa, not African trees. "Plumes of smoke went up, smothering the Japanese sky in Fukushima." If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is -- and for Africa it's no different.
They need a reason to kill each other?
Bill Maher recently interviewed the New York Times' East Africa bureau chief Jeffrey Gettleman on his show and Maher asked why it seems "in Africa... [there are] wars for no apparent reason... for the sake of." Gettleman then indicated that LRA leader Joseph Kony's insurgency might fit that category since he can't be bought, he can't be reasoned with and he has no ideology. I found it curious: Kony anointing himself as a messiah and calling his organization the Lord's Resistance Army still didn't qualify enough for Gettleman's definition of an ideology. This sounds a lot like someone who's watched that scene from The Dark Knight where Alfred (Michael Caine) tries to explain the Joker's psychopathic personality to Bruce Wayne using the example of the Bandit from Burma. Forget the layers upon layers of background to Kony's rise, including the terrible atrocities against civilians of the Acholi districts in Northern Uganda by rebels and the government since as early as 1986. It may come as a surprise, but no -- wars don't just happen for the sake of, in Africa. Like everywhere else, they have a context. Colonialism was real. So was apartheid. These phenomenon, imposed from the outside, have had a lasting effect on every thread of the fabric of society, from Morocco to Sudan, Ghana to South Africa. The continent cannot be reported accurately without recognition of these legacies. Any piece of journalism that doesn't -- is not worth trusting. We remember The American Civil War, The Russian Revolution, World War II, The Holocaust -- and factor them into how they affect realities on the ground today. Africa's history is no different.
They speak English?
Colonialism brought European languages to Africa. Any report that gives even the vaguest indication of surprise that this Angolan speaks fluent Portuguese, or this Ivorian speaks fluent French, or that Zimbabwean speaks perfect English -- should be mocked.
Can't understand 'em
When you do come across a news report that has an African interviewee speaking English, but still find the speech subtitled, ask yourself why heavily-accented factory workers from Glasgow, protesters in Belfast, or even the Australian PM Julia Gillard aren't subtitled too.
All dictators are equal, but some dictators are more equal than others
Confident, unapologetic use of the terms "Banana Republic" or "Tinpot Dictatorship" tend to feature heavily when it comes to Africa in the mainstream. Not that there aren't many, far too many -- but if a news source is going to call one dictator a dictator -- it should call all dictators dictators. Ask yourself, how many times has the d-word been used by your news source when referencing U.S. and European-allied absolute monarchs in the oil-rich Gulf? If the polite "strongman" or "pragmatist" or "reformer in a traditional society" can apply to them, it can apply to African leaders too.
No potholes -- it's a miracle!
Rwanda has been through a lot. It's a nation that's making big strides on many fronts, particularly economically. But the next time you read something about the lack of potholes in Kigali and the miracle that the roads and buildings are so incredible, so soon after the genocide, consider this: What the hell do potholes have to do with hacking someone to death with a machete? Nazi Germany had great infrastructure and probably zero potholes. The Tibetans have few roads, and those few probably have very many potholes. They're hardly the most violent people you'll ever meet.
Look, they're singing and dancing!
If a political report devotes a substantial chunk of attention to tribal dancing, and "vibrant African music" -- beware. You wouldn't sample the nightclubs and "vibrant American music" in Adams Morgan when doing a piece on Democrats and Republicans arguing over the U.S. budget. Just like the sky is the sky in Africa and not the African sky, music is music in Africa and not African music. And if music wasn't vibrant, well then it's probably not music.
What do you think about Obama?
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen or read a western reporter asking every African they come across what they think of Barack Obama (you know, because he's black and they are), I'd use the money to travel to Kosovo, or Latvia and ask people there what they think of Mitt Romney, you know, because he's white and they are...
SOURCE
Besides flies, potbellies and continental monoliths, here are some other telltale signs of simplistic and often pathetic attempts to cover Africa. If more than one of these apply to your print, online or broadcast journalism source, you're probably not getting your information from the most reliable place.
Darkness, darkness everywhere
If you come across a description of Africa as the "dark continent," Africa having a "dark history," especially if you come across Conradian references to "the heart of darkness," it may suggest the journalist relies too heavily on a book of fiction written in 1902 and is unlikely to have spoken to many people on the ground. Also, all this "dark" this and "dark" that business, feels just more than a little racist.
African sunsets, African skies
Only in Africa do news reports sometimes wax lyrical about golden African sunrises, molten lava African sunsets, azure African skies... I can assure you: The sun in Africa is the same sun as the rest of the world. The sky is exactly the same sky too. Trees are trees in Africa, not African trees. "Plumes of smoke went up, smothering the Japanese sky in Fukushima." If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is -- and for Africa it's no different.
They need a reason to kill each other?
Bill Maher recently interviewed the New York Times' East Africa bureau chief Jeffrey Gettleman on his show and Maher asked why it seems "in Africa... [there are] wars for no apparent reason... for the sake of." Gettleman then indicated that LRA leader Joseph Kony's insurgency might fit that category since he can't be bought, he can't be reasoned with and he has no ideology. I found it curious: Kony anointing himself as a messiah and calling his organization the Lord's Resistance Army still didn't qualify enough for Gettleman's definition of an ideology. This sounds a lot like someone who's watched that scene from The Dark Knight where Alfred (Michael Caine) tries to explain the Joker's psychopathic personality to Bruce Wayne using the example of the Bandit from Burma. Forget the layers upon layers of background to Kony's rise, including the terrible atrocities against civilians of the Acholi districts in Northern Uganda by rebels and the government since as early as 1986. It may come as a surprise, but no -- wars don't just happen for the sake of, in Africa. Like everywhere else, they have a context. Colonialism was real. So was apartheid. These phenomenon, imposed from the outside, have had a lasting effect on every thread of the fabric of society, from Morocco to Sudan, Ghana to South Africa. The continent cannot be reported accurately without recognition of these legacies. Any piece of journalism that doesn't -- is not worth trusting. We remember The American Civil War, The Russian Revolution, World War II, The Holocaust -- and factor them into how they affect realities on the ground today. Africa's history is no different.
They speak English?
Colonialism brought European languages to Africa. Any report that gives even the vaguest indication of surprise that this Angolan speaks fluent Portuguese, or this Ivorian speaks fluent French, or that Zimbabwean speaks perfect English -- should be mocked.
Can't understand 'em
When you do come across a news report that has an African interviewee speaking English, but still find the speech subtitled, ask yourself why heavily-accented factory workers from Glasgow, protesters in Belfast, or even the Australian PM Julia Gillard aren't subtitled too.
All dictators are equal, but some dictators are more equal than others
Confident, unapologetic use of the terms "Banana Republic" or "Tinpot Dictatorship" tend to feature heavily when it comes to Africa in the mainstream. Not that there aren't many, far too many -- but if a news source is going to call one dictator a dictator -- it should call all dictators dictators. Ask yourself, how many times has the d-word been used by your news source when referencing U.S. and European-allied absolute monarchs in the oil-rich Gulf? If the polite "strongman" or "pragmatist" or "reformer in a traditional society" can apply to them, it can apply to African leaders too.
No potholes -- it's a miracle!
Rwanda has been through a lot. It's a nation that's making big strides on many fronts, particularly economically. But the next time you read something about the lack of potholes in Kigali and the miracle that the roads and buildings are so incredible, so soon after the genocide, consider this: What the hell do potholes have to do with hacking someone to death with a machete? Nazi Germany had great infrastructure and probably zero potholes. The Tibetans have few roads, and those few probably have very many potholes. They're hardly the most violent people you'll ever meet.
Look, they're singing and dancing!
If a political report devotes a substantial chunk of attention to tribal dancing, and "vibrant African music" -- beware. You wouldn't sample the nightclubs and "vibrant American music" in Adams Morgan when doing a piece on Democrats and Republicans arguing over the U.S. budget. Just like the sky is the sky in Africa and not the African sky, music is music in Africa and not African music. And if music wasn't vibrant, well then it's probably not music.
What do you think about Obama?
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen or read a western reporter asking every African they come across what they think of Barack Obama (you know, because he's black and they are), I'd use the money to travel to Kosovo, or Latvia and ask people there what they think of Mitt Romney, you know, because he's white and they are...
SOURCE
this stood out for me though but still find the speech subtitled, ask yourself why heavily-accented factory workers from Glasgow, protesters in Belfast, or even the Australian PM Julia Gillard aren't subtitled too.
On German tv a lot of German regional accents are subbed and it always makes me smile, the fact that people really are not able to understand other accents.
We covered ancient Egypt (with hints that the Egyptians maybe weren't actually black, y'know, because black people lived in sub-Saharan Africa - in other words, don't you little niglets go trying to claim Egyptians) and I grew up believing that the only thing great that had ever came out of Africa was Egypt. After that, it was a wasteland. Which means my ancestry was a wasteland.
In college I learned about Great Zimbabwe and Mali (we read Sundiata) and the Kingdom of Ghana, and then I was just angry that nobody had ever taught me that and I had to go to a historically black college to learn about great African kingdoms. Before that I literally believed that when the Europeans found Africa, they found a bunch of black people in loincloths roaming around in tangled jungles and broad savannah with no signs of civilization.
Fuck, we even learned about the Chinese dynasties (although with the implication that the Chinese's greatness ended in ancient times and WE, THE MIGHTY WHITE AMERICANS, are superior.) But ancient history in school was limited to empires that are perceived as having direct impacts on U.S. history - the Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, western European kingdoms of the Middle Ages and then right onto the Renaissance and Enlightenment and all that good stuff. You would think that nothing was happening anywhere other than Europe for all of history until they sailed over to
the AmericasNorth America in the 1400s (because we never learned about South America, either. Closest we got was the Mayan and Aztec empires, and they STILL managed to make the Mayans and Aztecs sound like semi-civilized savages instead of a great advanced civilization of the time.)/rant
The only thing I do disagree with it on is the subtitles; it's not unusual for me to see people speaking English with extremely strong accents subtitled, so I think that's more of a general thing. The stuff about references to Conrad's Heart of Darkness, though - who even does that? Why would you think that that is a thing?
Edited at 2012-06-07 03:37 pm (UTC)
(although as a couple of people have already said, the subtitle thing is a bit off... I've seen subtitles for Norn Iron accents on the news enough times)
Maher would
The subtitles thing reminds me of
Edited at 2012-06-07 03:44 pm (UTC)
Of course, when there *are* subtitles, i'm *compelled to read them*, omg.
this is also a problem in foreign language instruction... i don't know about spanish, but the french taught in the vast majority of american schools is still the french of l'hexagon, and specifically paris -- when french is spoken on four continents, and americans are overwhelmingly more likely to interact with people from francophone africa or other former colonial possessions than people from france itself.
i'm not saying people should feel guilty for not understanding africans when they speak. but i think the answer is for media sources, especially those aimed at young people, to incorporate voices that speak english (or french, or portuguese, or any other colonial language) differently. there is nothing inherently more "correct" about the english spoken in the west as compared with what's spoken in africa, and we need to stop acting like there is.
Edited at 2012-06-07 04:07 pm (UTC)
i don't know about spanish
Depends on where you're learning and the teacher. If you're in Europe, you learn a dialect from Spain, and if you're in the US you generally learn something geared more toward Mexican Spanish. Though I've had instructors from Cuba and Argentina as well, so you might get bits of other regions.
It's a beautiful, complex continent, but no more beautiful or diverse than any other. Reporters should treat it that way.
unless its in reference to something that only happens in very few places (like the auroras), in which case its only mildly cheesy.
or medium or mild accent. ALL OF THEM.
it makes me wonder if other countries use subtitling for Newfoundlanders when they show up on the news.
http://www.granta.com/Archive/92/Ho
This was an excellent list, by the way. And wow, when is Bill Maher NOT an asshole?