« What, to the Native American, is Thanksgiving? | brbuchwal's Blog | 300 Dead in Nigerian Riots... »
Is Africa African?
Ezra Klein asks whether we should refer to African countries as "African." The basic arguments are as follows.
So I don't think that we should unilaterally say that the "African" connection should be used or avoided. But I think that we need to be careful about how we talk about African countries on a cas-by-case basis.
- It
is ridiculous to refer to all countries on the continent as similar.
The continent is infinitely larger than the United States, and we
barely speak of people from California and Oregon as the same
nationality. Referring to it all as "Africa" instead of the name of the
specific country being discussed reinforces the idea of Africa as the
Dark Continent, a large mass of indistinguishable land.
- There is a really powerful connection to be drawn between the African countries. Even though each has its own distinct history, countries as diverse as Ghana, South Africa, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have a similar post-colonial identity because of the shared legacy of European colonization. Speaking about "Africa" is useful to study this connection.
So I don't think that we should unilaterally say that the "African" connection should be used or avoided. But I think that we need to be careful about how we talk about African countries on a cas-by-case basis.
Advertisement
I dunno - I asked the Europeans and Asians about it and they didn't find a problem, and the Australians couldn't even figure out what the issue is.
November 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with calling countries in Africa African, but it would be nice if more Americans could name a few of those countries and had some idea of their diversity. We do have a tendency to lump all these countries together as if they were all one indistinguishable mass and that is harmful.
November 28, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence suggests that Africa is Africa.
November 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the question is too simplistic -- and therefore illustrates the problem of developing a rational foreign policy for the continent.
Canada and Mexico are part of "America" and hence "American" but neither is a part of the United States of America. Big difference. And although Californians or New Yorkers are often referred to by the names of their states, they are "Americans" in nationality.
Africa is not one cohesive country that sits on the African continent. The needs of Morocco or Libya are different than those of Ivory Coast or Liberia. Somalia and Ethopia are not the same as Sudan or Congo.
So, IMHO, no... Africa ia not African. It is a collection of nations and peoples. Even your example is not accurate. Ghanaians are their people (ethic group), their nation (Ghana) and THIRD, "African." In the same sense that Europeans are not an indistinguishable, homogenous group.
We are precise when speaking of, say Walloons, who are (SECOND) Belgian (for now) and THIRD, European. We must do the same for the residents of the continent of Africa.
November 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your position. The fact that someone who writes for a political publication would even bring it up illustrates our general ignorance of all things non-American (not to mention most things in social science). Point in fact, using your example, the usual American centric position that North America includes only those countries which border us, ignoring the some 35 additional countries. Only Americans usually use American Continent rather than North American Continent. Our desire to understand the world is hardly expansive or inclusive in scope.
Just as a lesson in geography (and I hope I don't mess it up - I am guilty of being the Ugly American too). And as you should see, it is all by interpretation - so paying attention to the nuances is the important thing which makes Kleins' simply worrisome.
The Americas = all of the Western Hemisphere the "New World" - our brash insensitivity really shines here.
North America = starting at Panama up to Greenland (sometimes geeky geographers consider Central America as a subcontinent because it was under water most of its history - like anyone was there to see it)
Latin America = all countries south of us who speak Spanish and Portuguese and French dominantly, strictly a colonial geopolitical creation
Then there are the other geopolitical considerations: Anglo-America, Middle America, British North America, Middle America (again), MesoAmerica, AasisAmerica, USA
This of course neglects what, who we renamed, the Native Americans called the land after we rediscovered it.
November 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink