Monday, April 22, 2019

"After Empire" - a doctor reflects on Rhodesia and Africa

Following my series of three articles on Africa last week:

I thought it might be useful to provide some additional perspective.

Theodore Dalrymple (a pseudonym) is a British doctor who's traveled extensively in Africa, and (to my mind) understands African culture very well.  He writes about it trenchantly and without any attempt to sugar-coat the bitter pill that is often one's experience of Africa.  His portrayal of the aftermath of the savage, brutal Liberian civil war, "Monrovia Mon Amour", is a heartrending look at the destruction of that nation by tribal and ethnic rivalry;  and his travelogue "Zanzibar to Timbuktu" is an amusing, whimsical look at the people and places encountered during a transcontinental journey.  I recommend both books, as I do all his many other works:  and, since they've recently been republished in e-book format, their prices are very affordable.

Dr. Dalrymple wrote in 2003 about his memories of working as a doctor in Rhodesia, and what he learned (the hard way) about Africa.  Here's a lengthy excerpt from a much longer article.

As soon as I qualified as a doctor, I went to Rhodesia, which was to transform itself into Zimbabwe five years or so later. In the next decade, I worked and traveled a great deal in Africa and couldn’t help but reflect upon such matters as the clash of cultures, the legacy of colonialism, and the practical effects of good intentions unadulterated by any grasp of reality. I gradually came to the conclusion that the rich and powerful can indeed have an effect upon the poor and powerless—perhaps can even remake them—but not necessarily (in fact, necessarily not) in the way they wanted or anticipated. The law of unintended consequences is stronger than the most absolute power.

. . .

Unlike in South Africa, where salaries were paid according to a racial hierarchy (whites first, Indians and coloured second, Africans last), salaries in Rhodesia were equal for blacks and whites doing the same job, so that a black junior doctor received the same salary as mine. But there remained a vast gulf in our standards of living, the significance of which at first escaped me; but it was crucial in explaining the disasters that befell the newly independent countries that enjoyed what Byron called, and eagerly anticipated as, the first dance of freedom.

The young black doctors who earned the same salary as we whites could not achieve the same standard of living for a very simple reason: they had an immense number of social obligations to fulfill. They were expected to provide for an ever expanding circle of family members (some of whom may have invested in their education) and people from their village, tribe, and province. An income that allowed a white to live like a lord because of a lack of such obligations scarcely raised a black above the level of his family. Mere equality of salary, therefore, was quite insufficient to procure for them the standard of living that they saw the whites had and that it was only human nature for them to desire—and believe themselves entitled to, on account of the superior talent that had allowed them to raise themselves above their fellows. In fact, a salary a thousand times as great would hardly have been sufficient to procure it: for their social obligations increased pari passu with their incomes.

These obligations also explain the fact, often disdainfully remarked upon by former colonials, that when Africans moved into the beautiful and well-appointed villas of their former colonial masters, the houses swiftly degenerated into a species of superior, more spacious slum. Just as African doctors were perfectly equal to their medical tasks, technically speaking, so the degeneration of colonial villas had nothing to do with the intellectual inability of Africans to maintain them. Rather, the fortunate inheritor of such a villa was soon overwhelmed by relatives and others who had a social claim upon him. They brought even their goats with them; and one goat can undo in an afternoon what it has taken decades to establish.

It is easy to see why a civil service, controlled and manned in its upper reaches by whites, could remain efficient and uncorrupt but could not long do so when manned by Africans who were supposed to follow the same rules and procedures. The same is true, of course, for every other administrative activity, public or private. The thick network of social obligations explains why, while it would have been out of the question to bribe most Rhodesian bureaucrats, yet in only a few years it would have been out of the question not to try to bribe most Zimbabwean ones, whose relatives would have condemned them for failing to obtain on their behalf all the advantages their official opportunities might provide. Thus do the very same tasks in the very same offices carried out by people of different cultural and social backgrounds result in very different outcomes.

Viewed in this light, African nationalism was a struggle as much for power and privilege as it was for freedom, though it co-opted the language of freedom for obvious political advantage ... These considerations help to explain the paradox that strikes so many visitors to Africa: the evident decency, kindness, and dignity of the ordinary people, and the fathomless iniquity, dishonesty, and ruthlessness of the politicians and administrators.

. . .

The naive supposition on which the argument for education rests is that training counteracts and overpowers a cultural worldview. A trained man is but a clone of his trainer, on this theory, sharing his every attitude and worldview. But in fact what results is a curious hybrid, whose fundamental beliefs may be impervious to the education he has received.

I had a striking example of this phenomenon recently, when I had a Congolese patient who had taken refuge in this country from the terrible war in Central Africa that has so far claimed up to 3 million lives. He was an intelligent man and had that easy charm that I remember well from the days when I traversed—not without difficulty or discomfort—the Zaire of Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko. He had two degrees in agronomy and had trained in Toulouse in the interpretation of satellite pictures for agronomic purposes. He recognized the power of modern science, therefore, and had worked for the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, and was used to dealing with Western aid donors and investors, as well as academics.

The examination over, we chatted about the Congo: he was delighted to meet someone who knew his country, by no means easily found in England. I asked him about Mobutu, whom he had known personally.

“He was very powerful,” he said. “He collected the best witch doctors from every part of Zaire. Of course, he could make himself invisible; that was how he knew everything about us. And he could turn himself into a leopard when he wanted.”

This was said with perfect seriousness. For him the magical powers of Mobutu were more impressive and important than the photographic power of satellites. Magic trumped science. In this he was not at all abnormal, it being as difficult or impossible for a sub-Saharan African to deny the power of magic as for an inhabitant of the Arabian peninsula to deny the power of Allah.

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

Dr. Dalrymple's story about Mobutu's alleged powers of witchcraft reminded me of other African superstitions I have known.  There are many of them.

Old Africa hands (of whom I'm one) say that the place gets into your blood, along with the malaria and other illnesses that infest the continent.  Once "bitten", you can never break free of it.  I can't say they're wrong.  Having spent more than half my life in Africa, I can still remember the good times, the good people, the sunrises and sunsets, the incredible beauty, the wildlife . . . but I also can't forget the savagery, the butchery and the inhumanity that can and do arise at the drop of a hat.  I buried too many friends in Africa.  Those memories haunt me still.  Sadly, on balance, they outweigh the good ones.  I daresay many like me can say the same.




I was a child when I went to Kenya and Zambia - with a quick "off the books" jaunt into Rhodesia (which I don't remember, just the fact of my parents telling me about it).

What strikes me is, many years later, discussing the AIDS crisis in Africa. My father related how he'd been speaking to an African about it, and asked why condom use wasn't more prevalent. The response was something to the effect of "Oh, we just use condoms for dirty whores". My father made it clear in our discussions that the man thought sleeping with a friend's wife, or sister, or so on didn't require a condom.

A small tidbit, but...

Nate Winchester said...

Hard not to read the bit on families and tribes and think the biggest problem with Africa is socialism. It's just a local, close variety rather than the national kind.

Uncle Lar said...

Hard for an animal to survive and prosper with a multitude of leeches sucking its lifeblood.
Same is true for a human.
The message I'm hearing is that other than in superficial and mostly technical areas sub Saharan Africa simply cannot be converted to a more western democratic culture. Not so long as its current inhabitants continue their ingrained policies of entitlement and superstition.
Of course Aids, Ebola, and a host of other maladies are doing their best to kill off the current population leaving the region open to newcomers from more efficient parts of the world, such as China perhaps.
To me one take away is that the only form of charity that isn't just pouring good money down a never ending rat hole is the sort that identifies worthy individuals and extracts them from that crippling culture which is preventing them from ever succeeding and places them somewhere that their abilities can be properly appreciated and rewarded.

deb harvey said...

is there any way to change this degrading system?
if an african is trained at no expense to relatives is he still obligated to let them overrun and ruin him and his property?

Beans said...

deb, the only way is to break the tribal social structure, and for the people to see themselves as individuals, not as part of a collective.

Star Trek's 'The Borg' isn't just about a machine society absorbing everything into it. It also can be applied to societies such as this.

Dark Enlightenment said...

So, basically the problems are genetic and the "white supremacists" are correct

Uncle Lar said...

Dark Enlightenment said...
No, not at all. It's not at all about genetics, it's all about the pervasive socialistic tribal culture.
You take any from that culture young enough, transfer them to a modern western country, and fully assimilate them and they will do just fine. At least those at the middle to upper range of the IQ bell curve. And IQ is a combination of genetics and early nutrition.

Beans said...

To expand on what Uncle Lar said,

What the issue with Africa is the same issue with most of Central and South America, the Carribean 'nations' and most third world places. The emphasis is not on civilization and advancing civilization, but first on Family, then on Tribe, then on Religion/Political Ideology, and so on until down at #240 or so is a vague concept of advancing civilization and such.

Anywhere bribes are a requirement for anything, anywhere the concept of time is vague if not non-existent (Inshallah, Island Time, etc.), anywhere where the person you are talking to will agree with you no matter what because it's against his 'culture' to say no directly. This is what we are fighting against.

Glen Filthie said...

Oh shush, Beans. Don’t you people ever think?

Good grief. So your argument is that “The problem isn’t inferior intellect; it’s inferior behaviour!!”

Buddy - behavioural patterns are a function of intellect! Let me dumb it down for ya: stupid people do stupid things. I dunno if it is that Africa keeps winning, or that white people insist on losing all the time now.

As for me - I’m done. I don’t care how many pictures of starving babies with distended bellies that Leftie throws up on the TV. I don’t care how many sobbing celebs are on about the hell that is Africa. I am not going to send one penny of charity and strongly oppose my taxes going to provide “humanitarian relief” to people that act like animals. As for you virtue signalling bleeding hearts - stop it. You aren’t fooling anyone, all you’re doing is making yourselves look foolish.

Tom Grey said...

The social obligations - so poignant.
Recently there's been some written articles to the effect that the Catholic Church strongly pushed a taboo against marrying cousins. This helped separate and "nuclearize" the family into husband-wife plus kids, getting some small help and giving some small help to cousins & uncles, but mostly doing it on their own.

The great independence of American immigrants might well have more to do with a lack of personal social obligations than the "immigrant mindset" which I've long thought was most important, willingness to try new things.

Nick Kristof, great hearted great writing useful idiot socialist of the NY Times helped young working girl prostitute start her own business, but it was only successful for a short time. Her "men-folk" came in and took over and took everything.

There is far too little talk about the Swiss Canton system. I now believe Africa should be split into smaller tribal-cantons, if not tribal-nation states.

They also need individualism, a lot more individualism. As is clear, this is in contrast with solidarity / equal outcomes. More aid donors need to be aware of the social obligations.

Dark Enlightenment said...

Uncle lar, you're just flat wrong. Twin studies have shown that being raised in nice white suburbs has nearly zero effect on IQs of non whites. If you disagree with me, you're just not up on the current knowledge.The facts are simply that intelligence is 75%-80% heritable, and non whites, with the exception of jews and Northeast asians simply aren't smart enough to run a civilization.
tribalism is the mechanism of stupid people to protect themselves in a hostile world.