The Root | TheRoot.com
Skip Navigation
Cancel

Blog Title

  •  
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:18 PM

Bush in Africa[response]

lacewellm

Marc,

It is really hard for me to refrain from teasing you about being a 20-something bachelor who is both opposed to abstinence-until-marriage as a public policy and suspicious of it as a human possibility. But I won’t go there.

There is no doubt that Bush’s policy in Africa is rooted in old assumptions about the hypersexuality of "native peoples" who must be civilized through missionary imperialism. Nation making and sex have been intimately linked for two centuries. Controlling the fertility and sexual practices of colonized and enslaved peoples was key for generating wealth for the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Americans.

But let’s be clear. This is not philanthropy; this is government aid. Bush is not acting as a wealthy, committed private citizen. Those 30 million dollars do not belong to Bush. They belong to us. They are our tax dollars. That means that we are implicated in the evil. We cannot simply wash our hands of and shake our heads at Bush’s African policies.

Black communities must stretch beyond a limited, parochial sense of what constitutes our interests. Now is the time for a more holistic, Diasporic politics that can mobilize against destructive policy like Bush’s determination to intervene in African sexual practices and equal determination not to intervene in Sudanese genocide.

Black Americans should be the domestic opinion leaders on Kenya, Somalia, sub-Saharan HIV-AIDS, and Darfur. Instead we are largely silent. Not even condoms can save us from apathy.

 

Melissa

 

 

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: mike (February 21, 2008 at 9:33 AM)

couldn't agree more melissa on the kenya,darfur,soamlia,sub saharan HIV-AIDS apathy.  Although i must give some credit to Don Cheadle.


Posted By: Dr. Marc Lamont Hill » Down From The Tower - Bush in Africa (February 21, 2008 at 12:58 PM)

PingBack from http://www.marclamonthill.com/mlhblog/?p=4955


Posted By: Cézsar (February 21, 2008 at 4:58 PM)

Melissa, thank you. Thank you for staying true to the name of this site, and for your honesty. I dare say it's beautiful. It's time for the fruit to stop being ashamed of the root, and re-connect with it's life source.  It has saddened me for a long time now, how African-Americans have chosen to consider themselves a brand new species called "Black", and better than the very Africans that they themselves are. And even as they purposefully seek to make this transition from Africans to Americans, America insists on reminding them that they are not Americans but "African-Americans". Not once has Barack Obama been referred to as just plain & simply American in this entire campaign. Why is that?

Now I understand that through no fault of their own, generational links have been surgically & precisely severed by imperialist design...but a tree can always grow new branches so long as it stays connected to it's root. For so long as Africa remains a source of opprobrium to Africans living in America, a significant part of themselves will also be submerged beneath that opprobrium. I agree with the entirety of your comments whole-heartedly Melissa.

African sexual fecundity is a threat to imperialists for one reason & one reason only - there is strength in numbers. This is why the top 5 percentile of China's highest IQ'ers outnumber the entire population of the United Kingdom, and China is in a lot of ways already the world's super power. Forget Bush in Africa, we need Africans in Africa. It is time for a new approach people. Half a millenium's worth of constant, concerted & applied effort at suppressing a people tells me there's something about the man, the Blackman...but when will the Blackman realise this?


Posted By: Student (February 22, 2008 at 8:14 AM)

I agree that Bush's approach is wasteful, unscientific, and unhelpful. However, I am not sure I can agree that it is due "old assumptions about the hypersexuality of "native peoples" who must be civilized through missionary imperialism." This is because he enforces the exact same backwards approach to sex ed on all American children in our public schools.


Posted By: ejc737 (February 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM)

ARE YOU ALL DELUSIONAL?!?

Uhh...people, I'm scared here.  The tone of this article completely dismisses the value of what Bush's policies mean for the people who received the aid the US has provided Africa.  This is more blind Bush-bashing and it's coming from a completely irrational place.  The author, Ms. Harris-Lacewell, and the folks commenting here are asserting that Bush's policies are "rooted in old assumptions about the hypersexuality of "native peoples" who must be civilized through missionary imperialism".  This is ludicrous.  

Before Bush's effort, a mere 50,000 people were receiving US assistance for HIV/AIDS treatment.  After 5 years that number is now at 1.5 MILLION.  In the five years since Bush got involved US-funded anti-retroviral drugs have PREVENTED 10 MILLION new cases of mother-to-child HIV transmission.  This is a BAD THING?  This is some sort of imperialistic view of "native people"?  That assertion is crazy.  

So, if we don't help people, we're selfish, capitalist, war-mongering pigs but if we do help people we're doing it because we are trying to control, subvert and convert them?  Right, OK.  If Clinton did what Bush did, he'd get a Nobel Prize...

PEPFAR is the largest EVER investment to combat a single disease in AMERICAN HISTORY.  The number, by the way was $30 BILLION not $30 million and yes, as difficult as it is for you to swallow, it was spearheaded by George W. Bush.  It was a well-organized, well-funded and well-intentioned program and it was NOT based on any of the ridiculous assumptions suggested in the article or agreed to in the sheep heard of comments.

Good job everyone: you went to college to learn how to be anti-establishment and skeptical about eveything but you missed out on the whole critical thinking thing.  This article's thesis is insultingly off base and the comments following it are foolishly uninformed.


Posted By: liwalo na liwe (February 23, 2008 at 12:59 PM)

cezsar...you are right...but just as much as we attempt to transcend our parochialism we must do the same with gender biases as black women are standing up, too, for Africa (like eslanda goode robeson, florence ladd, marita golden, alice walker, etc).  yes blacks need to be invested in africa, it would do them a world of difference. i am tired of having discussions about african countries where i have been and the only persons that relate are white people. it is frustrating. we should not be called african-americans if we do not seek out africa.  one way to challenge this is to have more diaporic africans involved in the african studies programs.  


Posted By: Cobb (February 26, 2008 at 2:46 PM)

This is precious. Understand, EJC, that these folks aren't going to pay attention until somebody who is exactly their idea of a black role model gets involved in something 'positive'. Until then, they considere that the real business of the world, is somebody else's business. Unless there's an evil white man to blame, so then it becomes 'black' business to cobble together some mau-mau tirade. It's identity politics.