African Nations Alienation

No this is not to do with African nations turning their people into aliens. Well at least not in the term it is commonly used for. I may not be speaking for the majority of people,but I speak of a growing mindset within our people. A mindset that is based on despising any foreigner outside the continent of Africa and creating our own form of a bubble, in efforts to incorporate a sense of a developed Pan-Africanism.

By just reading the above you may think of this mindset as utterly ridiculous, but there are always the advantages and disadvantages of each and every mentality within the world.

This mindset in a general summary is one whereby African nations focus on solely developing the continent and severing any ties with any nation outside of this beautiful continent. The perspective incorporates ideas such as leaving the colonial mindset and understanding our true rich identity, culture and resources which we can then use to the most of our advantage.

A good example of an outline for what would be implemented is seen in the speech of the first President of the independent Republic of Ghana, Mr. Kwame Nkrumah, whilst attending the opening ceremony of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU, which is now known as the African Union, AU). In this speech he emphasise the factor that Africa is rich enough to depend on its self only if it is willing to do so with full co-operation between nations. He stresses the fact of how Africans are deceived to believe that they are incapable of finding and developing the resources needed, when in fact the truth is most of the resources the 'colonial power' (developed countries in this context) have been imported from Africa.

Another argument is the factor that foreigners do not incorporate educating their people on all matters of Africa, yet they still manage to become successful in most if not all sectors that can be measured. Therefore, is it then reasonable for Africans to incorporate the study of the 'foreign way', instead on focusing on our own matters first? If foreigners are able to encompass themselves in a bubble of their own and not know a single thing about Africa, why then must Africans know practically every detail of what occurs in the foreigners nation? The suggestion is that Africa should alienate itself from the study of non-African areas and be more specific to their surrounding, because the system in place outside of Africa may not be particularly suitable for Africa.

ilike2learn.com

On the other hand, it can be argued that the reason we study foreigners ways of living is because we have implemented their system in many if not all of our nations. Due to this situation, we must then learn from them on how to make this system successful, by learning everything they have done to arrive where they are at this present time. It is more than obvious that “The West” and “The East” are more developed than Africa and therefore Africa should be the student and learn from the teacher. After all the way we have founded the system and way of living, is in attempt to fully reflect the nations of those who colonised us.

There are others who would rather argue that we should not disregard foreign history as it would help us both learn positive aspects that we can implement and negative aspects that we can avoid. At the same time, we can manage to bring mixture of both the foreign knowledge, as well as the Africans. In essence creating a balance, whilst producing a generation that is more equipped with a higher level of knowledge that they can adapt nearly anywhere. However, what is to determine what is taught and passed down to younger generations and what is not, if we are truly to have this acclaimed balance?

In conclusion, my simple question is should Africa alienate itself from foreigners in order to develop and prevent further exploitation without development? Or is there truly another way?

Mismanagement of Resources

http://www.eco-pros.org/naturalresources.htm

Within every area where there is some form of a population of a living organism there usually tends to be one person who assumes the role as the leader and sole decider on the methods of living, conduct and improvement of the conditions. This usually results in reforms and change in tactics, or none at alll in effort to keep the population just a breath above stability. 

However, there is a saying "With power comes greed." People soon succumb to the greed that greets them at every doorstep and what was once a successful and progressive region, now walks into the future with nothing but the terrible pain and anguish they suffered in the past before their lives saw so much beauty. 

The 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the late Wangari Mathaai  said  "Development to me is a quality of life. It's not necessarily acquisition of a lot of things. I have been using the example of an African stool. An African stool has three legs. On those legs balances a basin. One of those three legs is peace. Another is good governance. And the other is good management of our resources. Now this good management of our resources, as I've said, includes equitable distribution -- allowing as many people as possible to share in the natural resources. This allows as many people as possible to experience respect, dignity."

Misplaced priorities and misappropriation of assets in any given budget is what some may say is the inhibiting the growth of areas? However can Mathaai's idea of equitable distribution be achieved or is just another dream that cannot be implemented into the reality of life? There are many theories and ideas that are proposed such as this but is this particular better management of resources possible or simply just another writing on paper?

IS WOMEN IN-POWERMENT THE ONLY WAY OF EMPOWERMENT?

Gender inequality has been an issue in both the local scene and the international arena with women fighting for equal opportunities with men if not greater ones. Looking at women in powerful political seats is the assurance we need to prove that women in Africa and Kenya to be specific are really being empowered.  In the new Kenyan constitution women are further empowered with 47 assured women representative posts in the senate and a few other elective posts. Such seats taken up by women such as Millie Odhiambo are some of the testimonials we have of empowered African women, however a conversation with a group of friends gets me thinking, is this the only way to empower women? Is this even empowering women? And I ask myself what exactly is empowering women? Think of the woman in Turkana south with about 4 children how do you empower this woman to make them self-reliant, to make them know the difference between arrogance and assertiveness, to make her able to provide for her children in the right manner. Maybe answering such questions is our way of finding out how to empower women.

         Giving  women many politically assured seats is not the way to empower them, what we need is  to make women people , by people I  mean that awareness should be created to let it be known that women also have a voice and don’t need  posts reserved for them because that’s not what it takes for them to be empowered. Let’s be realistic all this posts reserved are they left for us  because we now have gender equality or is it because we just want to harsh up the talk concerning gender discrimination? Political seats are not the only form of empowerment or are they? How many political seats are there in one government? Are they even enough for half the population of Kenyan women? No. what we need is a system to get to each and every woman, make them believe in themselves then push the rest of the population forward.

      But then again these reserved seats can be a boost to the woman, an avenue to use to push other women forward. An avenue to start projects that will make women self-reliant. A way to show other women that they to have a voice and its time they showed it. These seats may not necessarily be for all women but the whole idea is to put a fraction of the women out there to help others and to implement policies in favor of women.

   Are we as Africans using in-powerment to empower women?, is it working?  And is it only way we can use to reach out, to make our nations stronger?

A Democratic Dictatorship or Monarchy?

Most people regard a dictatorship or monarchy as barbaric and uncivilised due to the stereotypic ideologies an images people have of areas with this sort of leadership facing severe conflict due to these types of leaders oppressing the people. 

In many cases this has been proven to be true, however have we ever thought that in some nations (as hard as it may be to imagine) this type of leadership may essentially be the best for the people. In addition, have we ever thought that some of these leaders are supported by the people they lead? Even though there are the disadvantages, these leaders manage to control the situation within the area to suite firstly themselves but also their nation as most dictators have this nationalistic and patriotic passion to bring it's nation to glory. 

With the recent gruesome removal of General Gaddafi in Libya 2 years ago and the last ruling monarch of a nation in Africa beginning to face extensive criticism. It is time we reviewed the glories and failures of some dictators and monarchies in Africa:  starting with Gaddafi we may attempt to find the reason why he committed some of the acts he did was it due to pure malice? or did he have a driving force to make his desert country autonomous of the western power  according to reliable sources Gaddafi oversaw the building of the greatest man made river of our time built in Libya his dream being to provide fresh water for the peope of Libya.  Was he really a bad leader? or someone driven by the ambition to see his country succeed?

Not to far from Africa to the West we find Fidel Castro, a man said to have been an extreme marxist and totalitarian yet when you look at his country i would like to say he removed them from a ditch and put them on level ground. Don't you think the people of Cuba needed such a leader at that point of their countries development? For the them to attain autonomy they needed a man of different mettle one capable of going against the western nations for the sake of his country.

Now as much as dictatorship or monarchy is looked down upon by societies that have a liberal democracy for reasons such as the people are oppressed and do not support the people in power. However, many countries within Africa are now facing a lot of turmoil against the leaders they have 'democratically elected' yet this is meant to be the 'civilised' and 'correct' way of people coming into power. Monarchy and Dictatorship has its flaws but also its peaks, so does democracy.

In your opinion would you rather an extreme monarchy or dictatorship that actually helps the people and the majority of the population is content with, or a democracy that does nothing for the people but instead tries to enlarge the size of their bellies and leads to the discontent within the majority of the people?

Is it alright to displace people off wildlife areas in effort to preserve the environment?

With a growing population not only in Africa but globally, there is a great increase in demand of land for shelter and work where there is no available space unless...
   Forest and natural areas are cleared for settlements to be built, whereby animals are displaced due to the loss of their habitats and in most cases eventual death and extinction.
 

A study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that during the decade from 1980 to 1990, the world's tropical forests were reduced by an average of 15.4 million hectares per year (0.8 percent annual rate of deforestation). The area of land cleared during the decade is equivalent to nearly three times the size of France. Imagine that?
   However, in some areas indigenous cultures and traditions have managed to live in symbiosis with the wildlife around them in effort to survive with all the available neccessities. One of these cultures are the Maasai who have been living in gaming land with their herds and whom have recently faced pressure to relocate and leave the area.
    Even though the animals do face great threat and danger from people interfering within the 'ways of nature', what happens to those who took the initiative to find a way to create their own shelter and work but are forced to end up majority of the time on the streets? Is there a way to possibly preserve the wildlife whilst still managing to provide shelter space for people especially in our continent? Or are we forced to disregard human rights in effort to preserve animal rights?

IS FOOD SECURITY THE CAUSE OF CIVIL WARS?

An inauguration is supposed to be a lively event. One of those where we get to see our political leaders in a different light. We get to see the people in them because for once they are not making promises but eating the fruits of their labor just to say the least but a comment made by the president of Uganda Yoweri Museveni during president Uhuru Kenyatta’s inauguration sent my mind sprawling in thought.
 He said that the Pokot are stealing his cattle i.e. the cattle of the people of Uganda. At first I thought how absurd but think about it, is it really that absurd?

Have you ever thought of the implications of such utterances to the regional relations between two countries?  Or let’s say his words were true the implications of such actions by the Pokot to the relations between Kenya and Uganda?

I don’t mean to be alarming or look like I want to create a mountain out of a mere mole hill but that is the very cause of some of the civil wars we have witnessed in Africa over the last decade. It is such small matters that can pass for absurd ideas that cause bloodshed and death of innocent people.
 The factor behind this is idea is food insecurity; it is this competition for resources that generates cycles of hunger and hopelessness that are likely to bred violence. The cycles occur mostly in areas with great population dispersion over the national territory and thus prove difficult for the government to control rebel groups that might spring up.

But is it really fair to blame our wars on food security? When we are resting on our laurels, a vast majority of our population is ignorant and we get swayed easily by the wind blown by our political leaders to do whatever they want? Is it really food security that is the problem or are we sitting on a stool without all three feet?

Much as we would like it to be food security alone we can’t ignore the fact that we are failing in other areas thus we are hurting each other with our continued hostility towards each other. But what is the way forward do we focus on one side and try solve one issue at a time and watch the other issues grow or do we act blind to everything except that which we want to be the main factor. I don’t but I think you just might be the next Einstein with your contribution to this topic. It’s your Eureka moment

Can Equality ever be fully sustained?

With two female presidents in Africa and women now battling men for political seat, it is now more than ever that women within our continent are beginning to rise up to the same level to their male

counterparts.

Equality on a widespread scale can be argued to be idealistic, as women are mostly naturally sculpted and gifted for certain sectors whereas men are sculpted for other tasks as well. A woman is originally seen as a mother who nurtures and teaches the value of morals and life skills, whereas the man is seen as the breadwinner who goes out into the ‘wild’ to bring back the food.

Nevertheless, during this century there has been an overturn between the responsibilities of both genders. African men have become more reluctant to work and instead decide to be the ones to up bring their children, whilst women more focused than ever have gone out into what was once a male dominated ‘wilderness’.

A woman once told us that religion, tradition and morals are passed through the mother as only the mother knows the father of the child and has the emotional capability of teaching her child of how to deal with emotions. A man on the other hand has the mentality to make decision based majority on logics of gaining the best out of it. Imagine Didier Drogba the Ivorian Captain & striker playing in defence. Now Drogba could do well in that position but he would be most effective up-front as a strikers. How does it relate? Place either women or men as Drogba, then their most effective position in life as striker and the least effective as defence.

Yet for there to be leadership or a sense of control one must be lower than the other. Equality can be achieved in certain scenarios as seen in our world of today, but can we sustain this equality or are the laws made just pen on paper and not actually implemented?

In the words of Golda Meir, “To be successful, a woman has to be much better at her job than a man” Does this mean that men are naturally better than women at being decisive or are women becoming Africa’s new men? Why try to be the man when women are the most valuable part in human life?