Heirs to the Wreckage

I absolutely despise the phrase “There are children in Africa”, or “There are starving children in Africa”. It’s a tired out cliche at this point, “there are people in Africa dying so eat your food”, “people in Africa would die to be where you are right now”. Does this not seem a rather offensive characterization of Africa to begin with? Is it not common amongst westerners to cast Africa in this character of the “impoverished, Third World bushland between Casablanca and Johannesburg”. Facts are irrelevant here, whether or not this characterization contains any truth to the state of Africa is meaningless, for the mythology takes on a life of its own. I imagine the struggle for post-colonialists is to transcend the recurring fiction of “the wretched of Africa”, and to find a more nuanced and dignified history to champion. Is it also not a gross reduction of Africa’s material conditions? The saying reflects that western, anarchic techno-capitalist narrative, where Africa happens to be this undeveloped part of the world that simply hasn’t mastered the economic arts of self-enrichment. The only thing keeping Africa from the same prosperity is allegedly more First World innovations and the freeing of capital flows- of which the World Bank has made a century-long project.

Is it not the case that that the very existence of the developed world produces Africa’s antagonisms? Capitalism, the commodities we purchase all come out of what we deem the “Third World”. The relations between an (over)developed country and an “underdeveloped” country are never as independent or straightforward as they seem. Developed superpowers require, floating pools of cheap labor, raw materials, external fields to internalize, and the outsourcing of industries. The relation is such that the world economy (or rather the needs of the developed) are discriminatory, which means they directly shape the character of the developing state’s economy. The market is never apolitical, the “neutral” mechanisms of the economy are typically synonymous with political soft power. When Matthew Perry first attempted to open trade relations with Tokugawa Japan, he was refused… until he demonstrated the power of the cannons mounted on his frigate. As the saying goes, “speak softly and carry a big stick”.

In any case, when it comes to being a developed country, I imagine there isn’t much choice in which sectors are fostered, for the correlated reasons of competing with the larger world economy and maintaining political relations with the developed world. As such the superpower may encourage the growth of certain industries (in Africa’s case, diamonds, tourism, exotic animals, alloys), but the relationship is such that the developing countries can rarely outgrow the (this is a tasteless way of putting it) First World demand for Third World services. In a relationship identified by scholars of Dependency Theory, nations of the so-called “third world” are subordinated to popular economic demand, for what revenue they do get is from meeting said demand. This relationship, of course, can run contrary to the state’s social needs or its mechanisms for wealth redistribution. This is precisely what occurred in Nigeria where the externally funded growth of oil industries gave rise to corrupt oil barons; and in post-soviet Russia where American businesses- welcomed to the newly christened non-communist Russia with open arms- caused an unprecedented spike in organized crime. To put it in marxist terms, an underdeveloped country has comparatively more use-value to a developed country, and their whims are not independent from Third World poverty. And of course, we are all quite well-educated on the role of colonialism, that theft of people and resources that produced the original split between developed and underdeveloped, First and Third world.

Hence, I tend to be very skeptical of First-World narratives of charity, or the “there are children from Africa” saying. The saying typically implies, “there are children starving so be grateful you aren’t and finish your peas” when it really should be “there are children starving so that you could eat your peas“. And even then, it reflects a much deeper ontological sentiment: wealth is only valuable in scarcity, and can only be affirmed by referencing poverty. I am skeptical of because it all too often reflects back as self-valorization and fulfills that libidinal demand for moral validation, but I am also skeptical because it validates the worldview that neoliberalism works for the “Third World”: if enough successful people simply give back and feed the children, then it suggests the larger system is equitable enough to excuse its antagonisms? And I’m not one to idealize pre-modernity, but I’m not so sure neoliberalism does work. Can economic development be labeled a success if the shiniest building in a town is the Shell gas station? Sometimes it seems as if modernity is literally super-imposed, with skyscrapers and gas stations towering above more rudimentary homes and neighborhoods.