July 9, 2007

What I often look forward to at work are the conversations I have with my co-workers. Their opinions are often so different than the mainstream opinion fed to us in America that it is hard to wrap my head around.

Since the office is so small, any comment anyone makes turns into a full-blown conversation. Today my boss and co-workers were discussing the disgust they felt toward the new Vanity Fair 20 cover issue on Africa and how it is a complete publicity scheme that does no good except improve the involved actors' images.

Actors and aid dollars
I personally have not read the magazine, but I did not have a negative view prior to this conversation. I had heard about it on Oprah, and of course she was very proud and said only good things about it. But the point my co-workers were making was that the focal point is not on Africa, it is on the actors. It is not discussing the real Africa, it is discussing how the actors are lending a hand to an Africa that is a huge charity case. Most of the writing is about how the actors are helping without good explanations of the issues and how to help in other ways than giving aid.

This led to the ongoing frustration they have with aid and how it is not helping most of Africa, and in fact hurting it more than helping. This aid controversy is very familiar to me after two weeks of working here, to the point that working for an aid organization that provides aid to people who are not in need of immediate relief is out of the question.

Before, I thought aid was a great thing, until my colleagues who grew up in Africa reported to me that it is weakening the continent. Instead of working, people are just waiting for their promised $100 a month that they will receive from aid organizations. Although my co-workers hesitate a little, they often say aid is making too many capable Africans who are not in need of immediate relief lazy and dependent on outside sources. Aid is great for areas that are war-torn or hit by natural disasters, but for the majority of the continent, they need to learn how to sustain themselves through job refinement and job creation rather than relying on outsiders.

I know this may sound like a biased argument since I have been working for an organization that completely focuses on job development and entrepreneurial support in Africa, but to me what they are arguing makes a lot of sense. Don't give them a fish; teach them how to fish because there will come a day when aid does not come, and they will truly be left with nothing.

Angelina and Brad
It was also interesting how Jessie, who is from Kenya, was ripping on Angelina and Brad Pitt. Of course, I took this personally because I am a huge fan. I always thought what they do is great, and even after my conversation with Jessie I still see them as good people doing great things, but I am a little more skeptical than before.

She has friends in Namibia, where Brad and Angelina decided to give birth to their baby Shiloh. Jessie's friends said her friends were terribly bothered and frustrated by having the American celebrities there, because they completely disrupted their lives. The whole country was on shutdown due to security. Photographers of any kind were not allowed into the country without written permission by the couple. They bought out the hotel where they were staying and paid all the tourists to move to another location.

And from that perspective, I see how the Namibians could feel it was a huge publicity scheme. All the write-ups I read about Brad and Angelina’s stay in Africa was that they were in a remote location, nobody around, and living like natives would live. But apparently that is completely wrong. The Namibians were happy they left, and they report that Namibia is yet to be seen on the map, as Brad and Angelina stated it would do.

Raised in America, I don’t have as harsh of an opinion about the actors, because if I was in such a public position and wanted to do anything for the good of mankind, I am sure everyone would say it is a publicity scheme as well. To me, it is not their fault that reporters always follow them and make a big deal about everything they do. At least they have turned some attention they are receiving to the issues of this world. But I don’t agree with shutting down cities and countries for your own safety.

Kessie’s point was that if you are going to do something good, don’t disrupt everyone else’s lives to show what you are doing. There are quieter and more effective ways to change the world.

Steps toward change
This weekend I worked at an event that my organization, AFFORD, hosted on Saturday. The Africa Foundation for Development (AFFORD) mission is to expand and enhance the skills and knowledge of the African diaspora to better serve Africa's development. African Diaspora and Development Day (AD3) is a way for all the African diaspora groups in the UK to get together and to discuss the progress they have made in the last year and debate Africa’s issues and the best ways to fix these problems. It is set up like a conference, with master speakers, but everyone is encouraged to voice their opinions.

Africa is a huge continent with over 53 countries, so it was interesting to see the variety of opinions that the African UK diaspora has alone. I witnessed what we have been discussing in my civil society class, which is that the problem with the civil society sector is that it doesn’t have enough general love to see the benefit of collaboration and consolidation to tackle a problem. Too often, NGOs are set up with a certain mission and with a perspective of a certain leader and are too selfish and stubborn to try to join together to take leaps instead of small steps toward change.

Obviously, there are different ways to tackle problems, but if we collaborate we can take the best aspects of each individual idea to create one great one. I think the event on Saturday could be created to encourage an atmosphere for collaboration rather than a forum for people to express their views and complaints.