Saturday, February 25, 2012
Salvaging The Help, a film worth watching
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Labels:
Africa,
Creative Writing,
Domestic Workers,
East Africa,
Film Review,
History,
Human Rights,
Kenya,
Nonviolent Resistance,
Opinion,
Race,
Racism,
Review,
Servants,
Slaves,
South Africa,
USA
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Africa: an impending ecological catastrophe
http://nutritionafrica.blogspot.com/2012/02/africa-impending-ecological-catastrophe.html
Much has been written about global warming and the fact that Africa is least responsible for the emission of the associated pollution. Yet Africa remains most vulnerable to the impact of global warming. Rather than remaining silent observers of this issue, Africans can take certain steps to intercede.
Much has been written about global warming and the fact that Africa is least responsible for the emission of the associated pollution. Yet Africa remains most vulnerable to the impact of global warming. Rather than remaining silent observers of this issue, Africans can take certain steps to intercede.
One of the factors that touches Africa directly, helping to increase its
rate of deforestation, is the spread of organisms such as hybrid maize. Hybrid
organisms, apart from being less nutritious than native species, tend to
dominate the environment by thawarting the growth and propagation of indigenous
species. Africans need to rediscover the farming techniques and foods of their
forefathers, which were more environment-friendly than those in wide use today.
The crops they grew were also more nutritious than the ones we depend on today.
Reducing malnutrition in Africa's child population requires that we radically
rethink our agricultural practices. In the long term, doing so would force us to
improve the quality of leadership on the continent. Currently, we tend to
promote exploitative models of leadership, which idealize short-term gain and
turn a blind eye to environmental degradation.)
One article illustrates my point: In the Democratic Republic of Congo,
some chiefs were bribed with bags of sugar in exchange for allowing European
transnationals to exploit virgin forests in the region. Whereas the value of the
sugar, salt etc was estimated to be US $100, each tree was priced at $4000. This
is just one example of the waste that goes on on the continent. Increasingly,
Africa's indigenous resources are being exploited for the benefit other people,
but Africans get the blame for their depletion. Ignorance, the stigmata of
extreme poverty (e.g. childhood malnutrition which interferes with optimum
intellectual development) and the despair associated with disease likely all
contribute to impairing the judgment of those concerned.
This phenomenon is not new. It was apparent when the trans-Atlantic slave
trade was at its height. It was also apparent during the era of forced colonial
labour. Today, malnourished communities watch as their resources are taken over
by those claiming to bring the benefits of globalization to the African village.
Africans have a long way to go before they can stem the out-of-control
exploitation of the continent's resources. They must wake up and take charge
as the custodians of their resources.
References
- “Alert over food security.” Peter Cummings Thatiah. Sunday, November 6th, 2005. East African Standard.
- “Vast forests with trees each worth £4,000 sold for a few bags of sugar.” John Vidal. Wednesday, April 11th, 2007. The Guardian.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Slang Ban in Sheffield School
According to a Daily Mail article, a school in Sheffield, UK, has banned the use of slang on the school premises. Apparently, this measure has been taken to ensure that the students master Queen's English and "professional culture" in preparation for post-school employment. To anybody who grew up in a British colony, this is old news. In the colonial era, it was standard policy to ban children from speaking their indigenous languages at school: students who slipped up were subjected to humiliating punishment. As a consequence, indigenous language use was stigmatized.
Not surprisingly, the move by the Sheffield school has some critics, some of whom point out that banning the use of slang will have a negative impact on students' self-confidence. Others express concern about the logistics behind the ban: "'Who is going to adjudicate? Who is going to say slang, dialect or accent? And which one is right and which one is wrong?" These are all valid questions.
As for me, I am curious about the story behind the story. I find myself wondering why there is no concrete indication in the article that previous students from the school have had a hard time getting jobs and navigating through the professional world. From my perspective, if there is an actual problem that this new policy has been set up to fix, then why isn't the problem being explicitly identified? Why aren't the readers being presented with reams of data showing that slang has limited former students' chances at career success? Why aren't employers being consulted on this issue? Does this oversight reflect a half-baked job on the part of the journalists writing on this subject, or it more indicative that the school didn't do its homework?
I also find myself wondering why the school would come up with a schoolwide ban on the use of slang when all they really need to do is ban the use of slang in the classroom? Does it really matter what language the students speak when they get together to gossip and have a few laughs at break time or lunch time? And is it even possible, in practical terms, to put such a broad policy into action? For the record, I am not opposed to any move to ban slang within the classroom. I do think that language standards are falling in different national contexts, and that students are not getting the necessary linguistic reinforcement they need to master the official languages. So a form of intervention is necessary. However, the most effective form of intervention would entail making better use of classroom time.
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Not surprisingly, the move by the Sheffield school has some critics, some of whom point out that banning the use of slang will have a negative impact on students' self-confidence. Others express concern about the logistics behind the ban: "'Who is going to adjudicate? Who is going to say slang, dialect or accent? And which one is right and which one is wrong?" These are all valid questions.
As for me, I am curious about the story behind the story. I find myself wondering why there is no concrete indication in the article that previous students from the school have had a hard time getting jobs and navigating through the professional world. From my perspective, if there is an actual problem that this new policy has been set up to fix, then why isn't the problem being explicitly identified? Why aren't the readers being presented with reams of data showing that slang has limited former students' chances at career success? Why aren't employers being consulted on this issue? Does this oversight reflect a half-baked job on the part of the journalists writing on this subject, or it more indicative that the school didn't do its homework?
I also find myself wondering why the school would come up with a schoolwide ban on the use of slang when all they really need to do is ban the use of slang in the classroom? Does it really matter what language the students speak when they get together to gossip and have a few laughs at break time or lunch time? And is it even possible, in practical terms, to put such a broad policy into action? For the record, I am not opposed to any move to ban slang within the classroom. I do think that language standards are falling in different national contexts, and that students are not getting the necessary linguistic reinforcement they need to master the official languages. So a form of intervention is necessary. However, the most effective form of intervention would entail making better use of classroom time.
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Putting Polygamy in Context
In my last blog entry, I spoke at some length about polygamy as a legitimate form of marriage, and as one that wasn't inherently evil. I have since come across another blogger who has written on the same subject: Nano Muse.
Nano Muse's blog entry on "Polygamous Marriage and Women" is excellent for its emphasis of the degree to which sexism in society (as opposed to the structure of the marriage) determines the way women will be treated within their marriages. The fact that women were treated as second-class citizens in Western society (the bastion of monogamous marriage) until relatively recently makes that evident.
Another point in favor of Nano Muse's blog entry is that it reveals that the social aspect of polygamy is potentially positive. In those cases where polygamy works, it often does so because the relationships between co-wives or sister wives (as they are called in some American communities) constitute an important support system. I actually encountered an enlightening paragraph about the importance of such a support system on another blog, the Ms. Magazine Blog.
In response to an article written by Jessica Mack, "One Feminist Asks, 'Is Polygamy Inherently Bad for Women?'" one reader by the name of Christine wrote: A few years ago, I was in Kenya for work. I had the opportunity to travel with one of my Kenyan colleagues to her father's home in a semi-rural area. Her father was in his 60s and was polygamous. While traveling there, my colleague told me the past few months had been very difficult at her father's house because his "first wife" had died. I said her father must be devastated and she responded that, yes, he was, but it was his second wife who was the most devastated. Seeing that I was baffled, she explained that the two wives were best friends and were each other's most important support system. The death of the first wife left the second wife with a devastating emotional hole and doubled work load overnight. I had never thought about the support system some women get from polygamy.
This response by Christine struck a chord with me because, even though I didn't mention it in my previous blog entry, that important support system is one of the most striking things about polygamy as I have witnessed it in my friends' families. I am glad to have come across Christine's response because it humanizes the co-wife relationship in a way that few articles I have read do.
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Nano Muse's blog entry on "Polygamous Marriage and Women" is excellent for its emphasis of the degree to which sexism in society (as opposed to the structure of the marriage) determines the way women will be treated within their marriages. The fact that women were treated as second-class citizens in Western society (the bastion of monogamous marriage) until relatively recently makes that evident.
Another point in favor of Nano Muse's blog entry is that it reveals that the social aspect of polygamy is potentially positive. In those cases where polygamy works, it often does so because the relationships between co-wives or sister wives (as they are called in some American communities) constitute an important support system. I actually encountered an enlightening paragraph about the importance of such a support system on another blog, the Ms. Magazine Blog.
In response to an article written by Jessica Mack, "One Feminist Asks, 'Is Polygamy Inherently Bad for Women?'" one reader by the name of Christine wrote: A few years ago, I was in Kenya for work. I had the opportunity to travel with one of my Kenyan colleagues to her father's home in a semi-rural area. Her father was in his 60s and was polygamous. While traveling there, my colleague told me the past few months had been very difficult at her father's house because his "first wife" had died. I said her father must be devastated and she responded that, yes, he was, but it was his second wife who was the most devastated. Seeing that I was baffled, she explained that the two wives were best friends and were each other's most important support system. The death of the first wife left the second wife with a devastating emotional hole and doubled work load overnight. I had never thought about the support system some women get from polygamy.
This response by Christine struck a chord with me because, even though I didn't mention it in my previous blog entry, that important support system is one of the most striking things about polygamy as I have witnessed it in my friends' families. I am glad to have come across Christine's response because it humanizes the co-wife relationship in a way that few articles I have read do.
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Believe it or not, polygamy isn't evil
It
intrigues me greatly that mainstream American society, which is open to all
sorts of ideas about sexual identity and different family types, is so intolerant
of polygamy. I can understand, to some degree, where this intolerance comes
from. Polygamy, as it has been practiced in the United States and elsewhere,
has done its fair share to create rigid hierarchies, inequality and resentment
within families. It is precisely the sort of situation that could facilitate
exploitation and abuse, and in the case of Warren Jeffs of the FLDS Church, it
has done just that. In sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, where polygamy
is part and parcel of various communities’ traditional practices, there are
many cases where the institution has been abused to force teenage girls into
marriage to older men.
However,
it would be dismissive to run up a catalog of all the evils that have been
committed in the name of polygamy and then say that was the full story about it.
The truth of the matter is that polygamy is not epitomized by Warren Jeffs' version of the institution. It is part of normal, everyday life for many people in many
societies globally. There are plenty of people who have grown up in families
that have practiced polygamy for generations. Some of them have learnt to
idealize the practice by virtue of their experiences; others hate it; yet
others are neutral. Their varying responses to polygamy are indicative of their
unique experiences, not of some general rule that can be applied to all
polygamous marriages.
The
point that I am trying to make here is that polygamy is a complex institution: so
there is no point in presenting a one-dimensional view of it. There are
different stories to be told about polygamy. Warren Jeffs’ story is just one of
them. So we should not do this subject a disservice by painting polygamy as the
great subjugator and monogamy as the great equalizer. Some might find this hard
to believe, but out there in the world are situations in which men and women have
fared better by virtue of being in polygamous marriages than they would have
done in monogamous marriages. At this point, I should mention that I am aware
that the term “polygamy” applies to men who marry more than one woman (polygyny)
as well as to women who marry more than one man (polyandry). Polygyny happens
to be more widespread than polyandry, but my observations apply to both.
Polygamy
can be functional or dysfunctional. Co-wives or co-husbands can hate each other
and fight tooth and nail over family resources; or they can learn to
accommodate each other and even develop close friendships. In the most
functional of polygamous families, all children see each other as brothers and
sisters and they see all the adults in the marriage as their parents. I’m not
just saying this. I see it with my own eyes every single day in the lives of my friends. They may be Muslim or follow indigenous African religions, but for all of them, polygamy is just the ordinary, everyday life that they know. These
are well-adjusted families in which the different people have learnt to live
together and work together harmoniously. Any objective observer of these
families would have to admit that, for them, polygamy works.
I
suspect that many critics of polygamous marriage are so strongly against these
marriages because they assume that they exist solely to meet the sexual needs
of the men. They may not realize that there are other motivations for
practicing polygamy. This is where sociology comes in handy. It allows us to set
aside our cultural prejudices and to study societies through objective lenses.
In
those societies that have practiced polygamy for generations, it can be thought
of as a social adaptation to their unique environmental and economic
conditions. For instance, in cases where there are significantly more
productive-age females than males, polygyny is almost inevitable. In some
societies, the beliefs and practices surrounding childbearing required women to
abstain from sex beginning in early pregnancy and ending when the children were finally
weaned off their mothers’ breast milk. This allowed the mothers to concentrate their
energy on their pregnancies, and then on nursing. Their husbands would turn to their second
wives under these circumstances. Now, keep in mind that these were societies
that did not have the same contraceptive options we do today. So these
practices helped women to space their children and to give them constant
attention during those crucial (and dangerous) first years. Thus, they promoted
maternal and child health. In other societies, post-menopausal women actually
talked their husbands into marrying younger wives because they were no longer
interested in having sex.
In
yet other societies, women became second wives to their brothers-in-law after their
husbands died. This gave them protection within their late husbands’ extended families
and access to the families’ resources. The alternative would often have involved
being sent out into the harsh world without a penny to look after themselves
and their children. In those Asian communities that traditionally practiced
polyandry, a woman would often marry a man and his brother(s). Doing so ensured
that the families’ resources were pooled instead of being fragmented with each
generation. I am not claiming that these circumstances were ideal or that they
worked equally well for all concerned. I'm just pointing out that they were practical arrangements that made economic sense in the bigger picture and helped families to survive. Chances are that, if some of these societies had not practiced polygamy, they would not have lasted as long as they did.
For the record, I am not actually a proponent of polygamy. I wouldn't sit my young nieces down and tell them fairy tales about the joys of polygamy. But I do think it is naïve
to call it an evil practice. Polygamy is not any more “evil” than monogamy is.
Both institutions can be used to promote inequality and to facilitate abuse. Both
institutions can leave the participants immensely dissatisfied. In fact, they both do all of the above, and that is why
divorce rates are so high. Whether a marriage
(polygamous or monogamous) is healthy and functional ultimately comes down to
the circumstances surrounding it and the personalities and motivations of the
individuals involved.
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
This work is licensed to Rose Kahendi under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Lwimbu lwo Kusyoma: A Lamentation
When I was a little girl, I learnt a song from my sisters. It was a Maragoli folk song, the sad lament of a monkey who had just lost his pregnant partner, Shinyosi. She was carrying sextuplets (inside her) when she was killed by the farmer, Marangaranga, who had caught her plucking a cob of maize from his garden:
LWIMBU LWO KUSYOMA (Maragoli Original)
Nonoji kaduma kalala kalala kalala
Ma Marangaranga ahenzelitsanga, atunyelitsanga:
"Ndori ingugi! Ndori ingugi!"
Marangaranga unyeri vutswa, unziti vutswa!
Mbugi vutswa!
Yita Shinyosi naheridzi; avana vatano na mulala.
Mbugi vutswa!
LAMENTATION (Approximate English Translation)
When you pluck just one piece of maize
And Marangaranga sees you, he gets agitated:
"I have seen a monkey! I have seen a monkey!"
Marangaranga has killed me; he has finished me!
I can't believe this!
He has killed Shinyosi, who was pregnant; five children and one.
I am full of grief!
Although I didn't think about it at the time, I now realize that this is a remarkable song. It humanizes the wildlife, our fellow creatures and reminds us of their struggle to survive as we encroach on their natural habitats. In this way, and in other subtle ways, the song reminds us just how precious life is. Today, when I sing the song to myself, I think about our role as stewards of the earth's resources and wonder whether we are living up to our God-given responsibility.
LWIMBU LWO KUSYOMA (Maragoli Original)
Nonoji kaduma kalala kalala kalala
Ma Marangaranga ahenzelitsanga, atunyelitsanga:
"Ndori ingugi! Ndori ingugi!"
Marangaranga unyeri vutswa, unziti vutswa!
Mbugi vutswa!
Yita Shinyosi naheridzi; avana vatano na mulala.
Mbugi vutswa!
LAMENTATION (Approximate English Translation)
When you pluck just one piece of maize
And Marangaranga sees you, he gets agitated:
"I have seen a monkey! I have seen a monkey!"
Marangaranga has killed me; he has finished me!
I can't believe this!
He has killed Shinyosi, who was pregnant; five children and one.
I am full of grief!
Although I didn't think about it at the time, I now realize that this is a remarkable song. It humanizes the wildlife, our fellow creatures and reminds us of their struggle to survive as we encroach on their natural habitats. In this way, and in other subtle ways, the song reminds us just how precious life is. Today, when I sing the song to myself, I think about our role as stewards of the earth's resources and wonder whether we are living up to our God-given responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)