h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hope you don't mind me paying you a visit, you seem to be fairly involved in a number of converstations already. I followed you're link from the 'Science is... conversation. I'm kinda new to this H2G2 thing, so bear with me.

Yeah, so are you some kind of hippy

I have to say that your philosophy and outlook re. nature and suchlike is fab. Could't agree more. I'm quite interested in Africa, and the changes that are going on. It is very easy, living in the UK, to still regard Africa as being, how can I put it, a bit backward. I must emphasise that this is a prejudice and obviously when rationalism creeps in, this point of view goes out the window. Too many Tarzan books when I was growing up I'm afraid.

But yeah, there seem to be so many problems associated with the shrinking globe. The stats on HIV are truly appalling, but the chances of getting your everyday British punter to consider it are minimal. I need to clarify a couple of things. You live in South Africa where the level of European settlers in the past was very high. I take it this demographic does not carry over the rest of Africa. I wonder how many of the problems are associated with a simple culture-clash between the West and Africa. Is it a case of Africa not being able to develop at it's own pace. I desperately hope I'm not coming over as a pompous Brit. If I am then I am truly horrified, it's certainly not my intention. As regarding the culture-clash I'm talking about, however, do you think that the internet and easier global communication will eradicate or excarcabate (dodgy spelling) this problem.

Yours with sincere interest

DUOTWR

Hi, how about if I called you Dube for short?

First there were the Hippies - they were okay, but ineffectual. Then there were the New-Agers - they were okay, but gullible. I'm one of the first of a new generation - what we will call ourselves I don't know yet.

Look, if you want to know about the problems over here, there are two forums where I have been talking about that at length. The first is the "wow" - forum that SEA started over here, the other is the "freedom from faith" forum that I started on Colonel Sellers' page, but you'll find it here as I post to it at least every day. But if you don't want to go there we can talk about it here as well.

Culture clash? Perhaps you can call it that. The problems in Africa as a whole are a long way in the making. What hit Africa hard was the slave trade. That was started even as long as 2000 years ago, by the Romans, and it has been kept up by the Arabs and the Europeans until very recently; it is even possible to say that it is still going on. The slaves usually were the losers of local wars, and so the "civilised" world has always been interested in keeping Africa in a state of perpetual war so that it can have a steady supply of slaves. When the "official" slave trade ended, the focus changed to precious minerals. Africa has some of the richest deposits in the world of extremely valuable materials such as gold, copper, zinc, platinum, uranium, vanadium, chromium, silicon and diamonds. During the colonial era countries like Britain, Germany, France, Belgium and Portugal raced against each other to grab as much territory as they could, and they also tried to export the riches to their own countries as rapidly as possible. The Africans themselves were treated abominably. There were scientific theories in circulation that said that Africans are naturally stupid, so they cannot even realise that they have valuable minerals, let alone figure out how to mine them. But they are perfect workers; because they have little feelings, they will work very hard, but if they need to be punished they must be beaten severely or it will not register. So the attitude of the colonists towards the Africans was one of using them as brutish labourers. They were paid, but very lowly wages; they were abused physically and emotionally. Africans who committed crimes were punished extremely harshly.

During the colonial era, Africans were brutalized to an unimaginable extent. It is difficult to express the kind of damage that was done to African society in words. People in Britain will have extreme difficulty even to BELIEVE what the British did over here. There is simply no way to reconcile the acts that were perpretated over here with the gentlemanly image and high ideals that the British Empire was supposed to represent. The same goes for Germany, France, Belgium, Portugal ... The image of "Dark Africa" might be useful - what the Europeans do in Europe is what people do in daylight; what they do in Africa is what people do in the dark. It is what people do who know they will not be seen, they will not be held accountable, they can get away with it. It's truly a Jekyll and Hyde kind of thing. I repeat, I don't know if Europeans will even be able to believe some of this stuff.

Anyways, this happened in the colonial era, which came to a close from about the nineteen fifties. Then the Europeans got back a dose of their own savagery. Let me be clear: the colonial wars were barbaric, gruesome, shocking to the extreme. Most of the violence was pointless. It was like a pressure cooker exploding. It was the result of a WHOLE LOT of pressure build-up.

Over here in SA we actually escaped the worst. We were perhaps more tolerant and humane than the colonial authorities in most other African countries. SA was settled earlier, there has been a more gradual exposure of Africa to Europe, we have had some time to get to know one another and understand one another. And SA actually held up much longer than the other African countries because of our more considerate approach. The white SA government "fell" long after the other African colonial governments, in 1994. But we didn't really fall, of course; the peacefulness of the transition was like a dream. We had no right to expect that things would go this smoothly.

But post-colonial Africa is still a mess. Traditional structures have been destroyed, and Africans have been left in a social and moral vacuum. There are no tried and tested institutions, no traditions, no leaders any more, so we have chaos.

It seems to be still in the interest of America, Europe and Asia to keep Africa in a position of weakness. We are still exploited, our raw materials go to other countries and we receive very meagre compensation. We are not in a position where we can compete effectively in the global Market Economy. We have to contend with natural disasters and diseases to an extent that few other countries can match. So the odds against us are very high.

If you consider Africa to be backward, you're right, in the sense that most people here live in a state of poverty and deprivation. But Africans are just as human as Europeans, we have very deep and intense feelings and we are sensitive. So the suffering that we undergo right now cannot be lightly dismissed. What is happening here is not right! Africans also have a potential similar to any other race. We CAN live in peace, we CAN be highly educated, we CAN be prosperous. Africans themselves need to realise that, because there exists a "negative self-respect" among Africans that acts like a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it's not going to be like this forever. Currently there are many Africans, black as well as white, who have decided that this nonsense must end. There are people willing to fight against the unbelievable odds, who refuse to admit defeat. Stay tuned, because there will be positive developments on this front that will amaze the rest of the world!

By the way, I consider myself an AFRICAN. I am an "Afrikaner" or a Boer; my ancestors have been on this continent since the mid-seventeenth century. My language is a language that came into existence on this continent and isn't found in Europe. This is my home now. My veins are filled with the red African dust. My grandparents and great-grandparents and scores before them have been buried in this soil. We, the Boers, were/are also considered to be backward, especially by the English. So the struggle of Africa to find back its dignity is MY struggle also.

But I also am a citizen of the world, and my outlook also goes beyond the limits of my country and culture. Here on h2g2 I do a lot of talking about the problems of the world in general. I believe that Africa has a lot to teach America and Europe. But we also need to learn from the developed world. The internet is a great tool to enable us to communicate at an intricate enough level. Used rightly, it will definitely help SOLVE the problem. There are already a great number of positive internet projects going on.

Hope I haven't bored you, but this is in fact quite a short answer to your questions. The problems happen to be very complicated!

Stay in touch!
Case

Hi, yeah call me whatever you want.

Your post was very interesting. Let me clarify a few things, I have a neuroses about benig misinterpreted. I have enormous respect for Africa and all it's peoples. The use of the word 'backward' was not ideal, I hope you understood what I was trying to say.

I should point out that I am Scottish. I don't know if you're aware, but there quite a lot of ill-feeling between Scotland and England, more so from the Scottish side. You may be aware that we managed do get a semi-devolved parliament in Scotland last year. I'm not entirely convinced that it s a good thing in it's present state, but we shall see.

I have been aware of some of Africa's past, but one TV programme I saw recently slightly altered my outlook. There is a chap called Louis Theroux who youi may or may not have heard of. He did a programme from South Africa where he was speaking to Boer, emm... what can I call them, 'separatists' maybe. I don't know your views on a seperate Boer state, I am convinced from your tone that you are not an extremist in this respect. What interested me was the vehemence with which the Boers interviewed spoke of England. I then recalled some of what I have read on British colonialism and thought, fair enough. I remember reading George Orwell's essays based around when he was a policeman in colonial India, some of them are shocking. I'm not aware of details about colonialists methods, but I'm only too aware of the usual techniques used for suppression and I would have been surprised if any of these had not been employed. Believe me, the upper-class honourable English colonial stereotype is laughable to me.

It's interesting what you say about the vacuum that there is at present in Africa. The fact that years of colnialism managed to undermine the indiginous cultures and institutions, and then the colonialists upped-sticks and left. It must be very difficult for a society to regain any kind of structure in such circumstances.

One question that does interest me. I am not aware of the extent to which the Boers were subdjucated (is that the right word?!) during colonial times. I must admit that I have been brought up with the African stereotypes. Not overtly, but the stereotypes still prevail even in these slightly more enlightned times. It is only in the last few years that I have come to realise the extent to which propaganda is used, in the subtlest of ways. The English have certainly had a tendency to employ this. Scots were historically portrayed as a barbarian race from the North who had to be controlled and treated with what verges on pity. Traditionally the Irish are seen as being stupid in the UK, the butt of many jokes. This stems from, I think, 18th century propaganda in the English newspapers. As I say, it's only fairly recently I have some to appreciate this fully.

I'd like to finish by emphasising that I am a humanist, although that does not extend to a disprespect for nature. I believe all humans are equal, regardless of colour, race or religion. I think cultural diversity is something to be respected and enjoyed, not something upn which divisions should be based.

I hope you have optimism about Africa's future. The current Western culture does not, I think, respect Africa, or consider it to be equal. Hopefully this will change.

Much respect

DUOTWR

PS. I use 'hippy' as an affectionate term for those who have a generally peaceful considerate outlook, but who believe and will work for a better future.

Hey, don't worry about being misunderstood! People only understand what they are able to understand anyways. And I do not object to anything that you said. If I did, I would have made it clear. But I am by nature thick-skinned and friendly, and in fact I wouldn't even mind if you insulted me directly, which of course you did not do in the slightest. Here on h2g2 there is ample opportunity for us to explain ourselves and to iron out misunderstandings. Anyways, my own style of writing is intended to make people feel just a little bit uneasy, vaguely worried. That is the attitude in which they are most likely to respond, and I want responses, I have things that I seriously want to communicate. If it turns out I upset someone a bit too much, I back off immediately. Because I really am friendly and easy-going, not belligerent in the slightest.

If that doesn't convince you, here's a smily face:

I have nothing against the Scottish, and I have nothing against the English either. Here I am, writing in English on a website inspired by Douglas Adams, after all! I can identify with people from many different backgrounds, and to me ethnicity does not mean exclusivity. I think it will always be good if people know a number of different languages and cultures, and interact with people from different countries. I am much in favour of an overreaching sense of citizenship of the world as a whole, even while people still retain their native ties and traditions.

The "Boer Seperatists", are called "Volkstaters" here. They want a small homeland for Afrikaners where they can have self-determination. I was sympathetic to that cause when I was younger, and in a way I still am, but there are many problems with the attitude of the typical "Volkstater". They tend towards religious and political fundamentalism with no tolerance for different views. Culturally they cling to established traditions that leave little room for growth. They tend to bear grudges against the English and other prosperous nations, and they mistrust the black Africans. They are also extremely narrow even in their conception of what an "Afrikaner" or "Boer" is supposed to be. In addition to being an Afrikaans speaking descendant of the Dutch colonists you have to be white (while most actual Afrikaans speakers and many descendants of the Colonists are coloured), you have to be a protestant Christian, you have to be extremely conservative in your general belief system, especially where politics and morality is concerned. According to those criteria not even I am a Boer! But my heritage is as Boer as you can get, and I've been raised on Boer history since before I could speak. So the separatist cause rests on rather shaky foundations.

I don't get to call any shots, but my definition of an Afrikaner would include coloureds and blacks, and Muslims, Buddhists and atheists as well as Christians. I would base it on language rather than anything else, because every language contains a particular view of the world and molds the people who speak it into a group that shares particular values; those values are not all-important ones, rather the "quirky" things that gives people or groups of people a certain character. Afrikaans speakers all laugh at the same kinds of jokes, for instance. That is more ethnically-definitive to me than the politics and religous stuff.

The British did try very hard to subjugate the Boers. There were two major wars between us and the British, from the end of the nineteenth to the start of the twentieth centuries. By the way, there were Scottish regiments also fighting against us, so it wasn't just the English! During those wars the Boers developed trench and guerilla warfare. I don't know if we were the very first, but we were at least among the first people to do that. We dug trenches from which we picked off the Khakis, and we grouped ourselves into small commandos that were autonomous and able to rapidly execute small-scale raids.

The British were not prepared for these methods of warfare. So they invented another first: the concentration camp. The Boer soldiers were dependent on getting supplies from their wives and children left on the farms, or from sympathetic people living in the area. So the British set up a number of camps, and started rounding up people. Anyone suspected of supporting the Boer cause was taken. Men were usually exectuted for treason. They loaded the women and children on wagons or made them walk behind the horses and put them in the camps. They did this with the blacks as well, because the Boers sometimes enlisted their help. They also took English people, in their case to protect them against the raids of the Boers and blacks. They gave the same reason for the taking of the Boer women; they were honest about the reason for taking the blacks, as nobody back then even cared about what happened to them. They put the blacks in separate camps, and in the "white" camps they also separated English people from Afrikaans women. But while the English lived as if in a holiday resort, the Afrikaans camps were hell. The women and children were only given extremely meagre food rations and medical supplies. Many became emaciated and died of hunger or disease. Children were born in the camps and usually died within the week. The women did not know where their husbands were, the children did not know where their fathers where, and the men did not know where their wives and children were. In the black concentration camps things were even worse. All in all 26 000 Afrikaans women and children died in those camps, and about 50 000 blacks. The English said the people died because of their primitive understanding of health and hygiene. But the fact is that they had to live in tiny little tents set up in the dust and were not given nutritious food or medical supplies! They sure as hell would not have died if they were allowed to stay in their homes on their farms! The concentration camp method allowed the English to win the war. The Boers couldn't bear what was being done to their wives and children and surrendered.

The Boers had a lot of support from Americans, French, Russians and other Europeans. Britain became extremely unpopular because of its methods. After the war the English for a while tried their best to destroy Afrikaans culture. I don't know about everything they did, but they did prohibit the speaking of Afrikaans in schools. If a child was heard to utter a single Afrikaans word anywhere on the school grounds any time, he/she had to carry a large wooden board around the neck on which the words "I am a donkey, I speak Afrikaans" or something similar were written. They also prevented Afrikaners from having any kind of political power; the reason for their annexation of the Boer republics was of course to get their hands on the gold and diamonds. But Britain backed off soon, partly because of the pressure from the rest of the world, and South Africa regained a degree of self government when it became a union in 1910. What the British did over here set the stage for Apartheid later on when the Afrikaners at last managed to regain full political control, with the victory of the National Party in 1948.

But I do not bear any grudges against the British. The people who did all of that are now long dead. Even while it all happened the common folk in Britain did not have a clue what their respected politicians and officers were up to down here. And after the British, I assure you we the Afrikaners did things every bit as bad. But I do believe that this kind of disrespect for human life gets carried from one generation to the next. I believe that people who are mistreated are more likely to mistreat other peoplel; this goes for parents and children and in this way the mistreatment continues. The culture of brutality goes way back, and it is still thriving. Getting rid of it is also going to be very hard and will probably also take a number of generations.

I am positive about the future of Africa. When I think of the rapidity with which the Afrikaners bounced back after the Boer Wars, it gives me reason to believe Africa as a whole might also recover, although the problems of the continent are daunting. How long will it take? I predict that over the next twenty years politics in Africa will stabilise to the extend that tourists in general will be able to go to any African country without fear. And regaining political stability is the hardest step. Once that is done, the rest will be smooth going. We will probably never be RICH, but at least we can have decent lives. You can live in a village in a hut and grow your own vegetables and own a few animals and marry and have children and friends and be a very happy and fulfilled person. We don't need cars and TV sets and hi-fis and so on, we just need to have peace and dignity. But some technology will benefit Africa, such as computers and the internet, four-wheel drive vehicles, modern medicine, productive agricultural methods, a thorough knowledge of nature and ecology. There are attempts underway to distribute the needed kind of knowledge and technology more widely among Africans.

The human race in general is still backward - in the sense that prejudice and ignorance is still extremely widespread, even in places like America and Britain and Europe. Hopefully this will change!

I don't mind being called a hippy. If that's your definition of a hippy, then I am one. But the term has been used against me as an attempt at an insult, as well!

I hope I wasn't wrong in assuming you don't mind long posts!

All the Best,
Case