The practice of circumcising girls, otherwise known as female genital mutilation (FGM) is widespread in Africa. The issue has recently been brought to the fore by the death of a young girl in Egypt caused by this barbarous practice. Even though this practice is justified by both men and women and on both religious and non-religious grounds, the practical value of the practice is still to be proven. However, it is a fact that this practice has been killing many young girls in Africa. Practices that kill children are barbaric and should not be defended either on religious or secular grounds. The practice should simply stop.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
That Melissa Harris-Perry Ad and African Communitarian Ethics
A short while ago, the Tulane University political science professor and host of "Melissa Harris-Perry" show on MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry, made an ad enjoining that the education of kids should be based on a communal understanding of children rather than an individualistic one.
After she made the ad, many critics, especially those on the right, charged her with fascism and wanting to hand over children to the government. However, her ideas directly derived from African communitarian ethics where traditionally children in a community are understood not only to belong to their parents but to the community as a whole. This has, however, never meant handing over kids to the government or a centralized system. Writing about the education of children in an African traditional community, an influential African ethicist puts the matter thus: "Children do not belong to the parents in the Euro-American sense, but also to the whole clan community. The right to education must therefore involve this community as a whole and not limit itself to the parents alone" (Benezet Bujo 2005:434). Prof. Harris-Perry was therefore suggesting that there is an element of African ethic that can inform policy debates in the United States. The argument her ad raised was actually supposed to be about the merits of an element of African traditional ethic rather than an argument about communism. Those who made it about communism did not know what they were talking about.
After she made the ad, many critics, especially those on the right, charged her with fascism and wanting to hand over children to the government. However, her ideas directly derived from African communitarian ethics where traditionally children in a community are understood not only to belong to their parents but to the community as a whole. This has, however, never meant handing over kids to the government or a centralized system. Writing about the education of children in an African traditional community, an influential African ethicist puts the matter thus: "Children do not belong to the parents in the Euro-American sense, but also to the whole clan community. The right to education must therefore involve this community as a whole and not limit itself to the parents alone" (Benezet Bujo 2005:434). Prof. Harris-Perry was therefore suggesting that there is an element of African ethic that can inform policy debates in the United States. The argument her ad raised was actually supposed to be about the merits of an element of African traditional ethic rather than an argument about communism. Those who made it about communism did not know what they were talking about.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
African Economies Reliant on Export of Primary Products
The recently released African economic report indicates that African economies are still reliant on export of primary products such as oil and timber. According to this report, remittances also make a substantial contribution to economic growth in the continent. The report however calls for a sustained focus on industrialization without abandoning the production of food, if the growth is to be sustained. Since the beginning of this year, the continent has recorded a 4.8% growth.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Paul McCartney and that Lagos Album
Appearing on the Colbert Report today night Sir Paul McCartney acknowledged that he recorded one of his 1970s albums in Lagos, Nigeria. Instead of showing gratitude to the people of Lagos for the time he spent there and the money he made off the album he recorded there, he decided to remember Lagos for the cholera outbreak that apparently happened there at about the time he was there. in fact, he says that he remembers Lagos for "the disease." It is quite sad that even with such an illustrious career, Paul McCartney cannot speak well of his own achievement without speaking ill of an African city. Mr. McCartney's statement is just the latest manifestation of the distance we still have to go in our effort to reform Western negative discourses about Africa. Mr. McCartney needs to address this matter in his own imagination.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Land Grab and the New Scramble for Africa
A dominant image about Africa, which has been sold around the World is that it is a continent of deprivation characterized by poverty, hunger and famine. However, it is little known that corporations all over the world are scrambling for land in Africa to grow crops meant to be sold around the world. This is similar to what happened during colonial times when African lands were taken to grow crops such as tea, rubber, cocoa, coffee, cotton, etc., meant for foreign markets rather than for Africans. Thus, even as many Africans pine in penury, their resources are feeding other people around the world. Talk about the sacrifice of Africa for the life of the world! Plus ca change . . . .
Saturday, June 1, 2013
ESPN Commentators and the Nigeria vs. Mexico Game
Nigeria and Mexico played an international friendly game yesterday (31 May 2013) and the game was apparently accidentally shown on ESPN. I say accidentally because the program stated that ESPN was supposed to be showing women's college softball competition that is taking place in Oklahoma but due the tornado that landed in Oklahoma, the game was postponed. In its place, the Nigeria vs. Mexio friendly was shown. Now, my point is not that the game was shown by accident - ESPN had no obligation to show it at all!
My complaint is with the two commentators who handled the game. First, they could not properly pronounce many of the names of the Nigerian players. This, in itself, would not be problematic were it not that this inability to pronounce the names of Nigerian players (for they had no such problem with the names of Mexican players) appears to have resulted from lack of trying. Any sports commentator knows that one of the first things you want to do if you are going to be reporting a game on air is to take time and learn the names of the players. You may ask those who know how to pronounce the names or ask the players themselves. I have watched may soccer games in my lifetime but no where have I experienced such a disdain about pronouncing the names of players. In fact, at one point, the name of a player who scored a goal was poorly pronounced and one of the commentators did not even know what the name of that particular player was. Instead of being quiet, the one who did not know how to pronounce the name laughingly asked his colleague to pronounce it again, as they both made a joke of the name. I have seen many althletes with many funny names in America but never have I heard commentators making fun of the name of an athlete.
Further, the commentators were quite correct that the Nigerian players did not play quite well but the description of the state of the Nigerian players during that game was beyond the pale. For a background, it should be noted that one of Mexico's players was shown a red card and then sent out of the game and so Nigeria had eleven players while Mexico had ten players for much of the game. Although Mexico had ten players and Nigeria had eleven, Mexico went on to play really well and in fact scored a goal. By the way, the game ended in a 2-2 tie. However, the commentators were talking as if the fact that Mexcian players played well was unprecedent. At one point they even described the Nigerian defence as confused. Just the other day, the American soccer team played Belgium and Belgium beat America 4-2. Even though the American defence was really bad in that game, at no point did I hear the commentators say that the players were confused. I always teach my students that they are not to use language to talk about Africans which they would not use to talk about themselves.
At the end of the game, however, the commentators spoke as if the Mexican players played better than the Nigerian players, saying that the Mexicans ought to be proud about their achievement. May I take this opportunity to remind these commentators, who appeared not to be quite aware of football history, that in the 1990 World Cup Cameroon beat Argentina 1-0 when Cameroon had nine players and Argentina had eleven. Mexico, could have in fact won that game and their performance was nothing to be pround of.
My complaint is with the two commentators who handled the game. First, they could not properly pronounce many of the names of the Nigerian players. This, in itself, would not be problematic were it not that this inability to pronounce the names of Nigerian players (for they had no such problem with the names of Mexican players) appears to have resulted from lack of trying. Any sports commentator knows that one of the first things you want to do if you are going to be reporting a game on air is to take time and learn the names of the players. You may ask those who know how to pronounce the names or ask the players themselves. I have watched may soccer games in my lifetime but no where have I experienced such a disdain about pronouncing the names of players. In fact, at one point, the name of a player who scored a goal was poorly pronounced and one of the commentators did not even know what the name of that particular player was. Instead of being quiet, the one who did not know how to pronounce the name laughingly asked his colleague to pronounce it again, as they both made a joke of the name. I have seen many althletes with many funny names in America but never have I heard commentators making fun of the name of an athlete.
Further, the commentators were quite correct that the Nigerian players did not play quite well but the description of the state of the Nigerian players during that game was beyond the pale. For a background, it should be noted that one of Mexico's players was shown a red card and then sent out of the game and so Nigeria had eleven players while Mexico had ten players for much of the game. Although Mexico had ten players and Nigeria had eleven, Mexico went on to play really well and in fact scored a goal. By the way, the game ended in a 2-2 tie. However, the commentators were talking as if the fact that Mexcian players played well was unprecedent. At one point they even described the Nigerian defence as confused. Just the other day, the American soccer team played Belgium and Belgium beat America 4-2. Even though the American defence was really bad in that game, at no point did I hear the commentators say that the players were confused. I always teach my students that they are not to use language to talk about Africans which they would not use to talk about themselves.
At the end of the game, however, the commentators spoke as if the Mexican players played better than the Nigerian players, saying that the Mexicans ought to be proud about their achievement. May I take this opportunity to remind these commentators, who appeared not to be quite aware of football history, that in the 1990 World Cup Cameroon beat Argentina 1-0 when Cameroon had nine players and Argentina had eleven. Mexico, could have in fact won that game and their performance was nothing to be pround of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)