Recently in Understanding Africa Category
There is currently a *job opening* for a Resident Director-Ghana, University of California.
For recent grads (with experience in Africa). An MA is required, but not a Ph.D. The closing date to apply is*February 22, 2011*. See the following website for information:
http://www.eap.ucop.edu/jobs/
There's no doubt that Sankara was an honorable man determined to help his country. His goal was to make Burkina self reliant, ridding its dependence on all foreign aid.
One of the first things Sankara did once in power was reduce the salaries of ministers and chief public servants...starting with his own. Other actions including launching a huge vaccination campaign to eradicate polio, measles and meningitis; building roads and railways; planting groves in villages to encourage reforestation; promoting women's rights. He wanted the Burkinabe to become dependent on no one but themselves.
Despite his good intentions, Sankara's methods of presiding were not supported by everyone. He upset a lot of people and pissed off many powerful figures, especially the French president. Even local Burkinabè began complaining that his demands on the people were too strict, such as imposing a 7 p.m curfew. He soon developed enemies, including his once best friend Blaise Compaoré. In 1987 Compaoré (supported by the West) led a coup d'état against him, killing Sankara and becoming president (where he remains to this day).
I enjoyed the documentary. It was short and sweet (52 minutes) while giving a nice, relatively objective overview of Sankara's presidency. It spoke of both his achievements and his flaws. I actually wouldn't have minded if the film was a bit longer in order to learn more about Sankara's life leading up to his presidency. (What kind of upbringing is needed to create more Sankaras in the world?!)
Was Sankara a socialist? Yes; which is why the western powers wanted him out. I wonder though, if socialism was really such a bad thing for Burkina at the time. It's impressive to see all the accomplishments Sankara was able to do during in 4 years. It's especially impressive when you compare him to other African presidents, nearly all (OK all) of whom are corrupt.
After watching the movie, one can't help but wonder the "what ifs." What if Sankara was never assassinated? What if Blaise never took over? What if Sankara was able to accomplish everything he wanted for the country? Where would Burkina Faso be today?
(If you are interested in seeing the film, get it at www.newsreel.org)
HT: Fred Foldvary
Relevant to that discussion is this from Deric Bownds' MindBlog:
It dents my tidy self image just a bit when I read articles like this one from Atarashi et al. (summarized by Barnes and Powrie). A very indispensible part of my 'self' is an astounding 10^14 bacteria that reside in the large intestine alone, alongside various viruses, fungi, protozoa, and parasites, all of which can affect chronic disease progression. Lee and Mazmanian point out that:Although microbes have been classically viewed as pathogens, it is now well established that the majority of host-bacterial interactions are symbiotic. During development and into adulthood, gut bacteria shape the tissues, cells, and molecular profile of our gastrointestinal immune system. This partnership, forged over many millennia of coevolution, is based on a molecular exchange involving bacterial signals that are recognized by host receptors to mediate beneficial outcomes for both microbes and humans....specific aspects of the adaptive immune system are influenced by intestinal commensal bacteria.
Understanding the molecular mechanisms that mediate symbiosis between commensal bacteria and humans may redefine how we view the evolution of adaptive immunity and consequently how we approach the treatment of numerous immunologic disorders.
Il dit ne pas comprendre que "Laurent Gbagbo qui appartient au petit nombre des intellectuels arrivés à la tête d'un Etat, qui fut un militant, un opposant de la première heure au pouvoir personnel d'Houphouët-Boigny et un partisan de l'unité africaine, n'ait ni évité d'instrumentaliser les appartenances ethniques des électeurs, ni su échapper à la tentation de s'accrocher au pouvoir malgré le verdict des urnes".
We arrived at the courtyard of the newborn around noon, and were quickly funneled into a small hut - someone's bedroom it appeared, with an old wooden bed and clothes strewn about. We scrunched together on mats on the floor, taking turns stretching out our legs and then folding them up again. And we chatted. And we waited. Occasionally someone came to doorway and greet us, then walked away. And we waited some more. At one point a women handed the newborn baby through the doorway, and we passed it him around for a while. Then we waited again. Thankfully this is the cool season, but with 14 women and six small children in a tiny room with no windows, things heat up pretty fast. Flies swarming. Babies crying, and peeing, and crying some more. It's almost two now and none of us have had lunch. Most of the women just walked a dry 10 km get here, and have had nothing to drink. My filtered water has run out.
This is what David Campell has to say about the visual representations of the referendum in Sudan. The last paragraph is especially poignant and I think it's important to try and imagine what a photograph that captured these complexities would look like. A group of South Sudanese in heated debate, perhaps with political posters on a wall behind them framing their engaged expressions? A voter leaving a polling station with a look of dismay, confusion, or trepidation on his or her face, rather than the stock happy voter images we're seeing over and over? I'm not that either of these theoretical images, or any image for that matter, might do the trick. Perhaps this isn't the kind of complexity that can be captured through spot news photography.
In Ivory Coast, an equally complicated political situation is being widely photographed. In yesterday's New York Times, a story about civilians paying the price for political tumult is accompanied by two photographs by different photographers of dead bodies.The question is what each photograph tells us about the politics of the situation, and the answer, I fear, is very little.
I strongly believe this has far more to do with the demands of newspaper photography and news imagery than any shortcoming on the part of the photographers. Both snappers are well established image makers who have worked in West Africa for many years and undoubtedly know far more about the politics involved than either of these images lets on
....
The photographs coming out of Sudan and Ivory Coast at the moment mainly reflect instances of these known visual codes. This is partially because they are all news photographs, which are constrained by factors like time, budget, and logistics, and partially it's because this is what newspapers think that readers want. They are documents of the situation, verification of what's happening and when, rather than explanations or commentary.
Readers, what do you think? Do these types of photos do the trick when it comes to illustrating what's going on? Or do you want to see something else? Also, can anyone point to examples of images that illustrate politics, in Africa or elsewhere, more effectively than these do?
The quote on the cover of the earlier Jeune Afrique is widely used to summarize his position: "I'm here, I'm staying." More recent analysis (in French) is here.


