I think that Obama, himself, generally tries to give credit to those who created the circumstances that allow him to be where he is and do what he's doing (whether it's be President, or call for democracy in Africa), but that gets lost in the coverage. Sometimes this is because of laziness (on the part of the media and media consumers), sometimes racism (or some other -ism), sometimes a surfeit of news shoves out nuance, sometimes it's because he's such a star that his shine kind of blinds us to other stuff, and sometimes, it's reflective of the way that we, generally, talk about history.

I'll tell you what: I was just glad he went to Ghana. I know that I am not the only one who discovered how deep was her lack of knowledge about that country, and ran out to educate herself a smidge bit. All in all, I honestly believe it was a good, good thing.

Also, I hope you're feeling better!

Lately I've begun thinking that Sharpton and Jackson need to retire from punditry as we raise a new crop of young people to counter the Obama homogenization effect.

His own father was torn between love and family in the U.S. and love, family, and duty in Africa. Obama's father was absent in part because of his commitment to and commitments in Africa. Involuntarily, Obama Jr. made a huge sacrifice for his father's commitments. (And Obama's 'dreams of his father' were tied up with visions of that man's idealism and his struggle).

Mugabe still gets his face on far-lefty banners in Harlem's African-American day parade ("end apartheid and colonialism, support Mugabe"). I think it is fairly safe to say he is an embarrassment to Africans not on his payroll.

The Europeans (and the first world) pillaged the continent for half-a-century, to be sure. But the big problem now is an impasse between organic and artificial structures of governance within Africa, where the ruler-line borders are the most visible manifestation of artificial governance.

Needless to say, this ongoing impasse provides opportunity for the developed and developing world to continue extracting resources and dumping trash.

However, I couldn't help but feel the speech did strike a particularly hollow and hypocritical note when he brought up the bit about how government shouldn't be a vehicle for leaders to enrich themselves. Yes, this is a reality in Africa - but in these post financial crisis/bailout times perhaps American leadership/elites should be a little more humble (forward to next post) when addressing their perception of the financial corruption of others.

I suppose this isn't a indictment of Obama per se, though Goldman Sachs was his largest campaign contributor.

He does at least walk this line somewhat more honestly than his predecessors - acknowledging the home sin, while at the same time pressing others on theirs, as in his Cairo speech.

Striking and very sad to me what that Sharpton's idiotic, self-pitying rant at the MJ funeral is what received the loudest applause. Does anyone else here see anything troubling about the adoring response to Sharpton?

Obama is a Leader. Sharpton and Jackson are not. And Sharpton is nothing less than a demagogue.

I recall some comments on another forum being dismissed by someone using the rhetorical club of "colonialism." The country in question had been given its freedom back in 1959, fifty years ago.

In 1783 the Treaty of Paris brought independence to the English colonies strewn along the Atlantic coast of North America, leaving them bankrupt, without an effective government, poisoned by a wide-spread slave economy and ruling elites not too keen on the concept of mass democracy.

Fifty years later, we have the presidential campaign between Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay in 1832. Were either of them still blaming British colonialism for our troubles? Could any candidate have done so without being shamed into silence for refusing to take responsibility for dealing with our nation's problems ourselves?

This, in my estimation as the privileged white male scion of privileged white males, is exactly right. Most discussions I have with white peers eventually devolve to "But things are so much better now than they were" or "We're past all that as a country." It's not true, but boy do a lot of people desperately want it to be.

Mr. C. I think what you're describing is a back handed form of paternalism. I don't know how best to describe it, but if it's possible to deny someone's humanity by painting them as inferior I think that it's also possible to deny someone's complete humanity by painting them as utopian "noble savages."

Both sets of stereotypes deny that other people are capable of the same deeply complex feelings and motivations that we are. In part I think that these tendencies exist because it's easier for thought patterns to flow down previously carved channels than it is to break new ground. I also think that it's easier for many people to think in terms of an ideal type of person that doesn't exist than it is to think in terms of individuals.

It should be blingingly obvious that there is usually a nativist side that looks in the mirror and sees the same faults that others see, but recognizing this, I think, means that we have to stop seeing communities as monolithic and start seeing them as collections of individuals with similar internal motivations to ourselves.

did the US have to contend with lingering corporations (like Goodyear rubber, DeBeers diamonds, etc.) that excercised unethical contracts, like 100 year land leases bought for $1, and gave corporations and political regimes economic incentive to further exploit the population and continue to export wealth generated by the nation's natural resources to post-colonial industrial powers, many of them based in the U.S.)

did the post-colonial US enter the world market well after the major power players in capitalism had been decided? Did the US need to negotiate with the IMF to repay its debts, which tended to expose it to disastrous structural adjustment programs?

i just think there were different historical/economic/cultural forces at play when the US overthrew colonialism than when African nations did so at a much later date.

the fact that African nations needed about 100 extra years to get to the point where they could throw off colonialism says something about the specific ways colonialism played out in africa.

Having said that, seeing an African-American POTUS in Ghana got me way more emotional than even the Inauguration did. Call me a sucker for symbolism.

BTW Im not surprised Nigeria felt a way about Obama visiting Ghana first, since they view themselves as the powerhouse of West Africa, but the fact is that Ghana is not only a much more stable democracy, but its a better example if Obama is addressing corruption and factionalism than, all due respect, Nigeria would be.

A lot of white conservatives treated the Great Cosby Scare the same way - as though black folks were suddenly hearing something that wasn't already deeply embedded in the black communities' and black families' conversations. Most white journalists covering this story thought they were Christopher Columbus and most conservatives who tried to exploit Cosby's comments were playing out the old game of imagining they had themselves a brand new sock puppet, not for "hard truths" but lazy stereotypes that they were gleefully immersed in.

But it's because the comparison is totally false. The British colonies in North America and those (of any European power) in Africa have nothing in common save the name "colony." But it meant very different things in these two places. A better (theoretical) comparison would be to suppose what would have happened had the British sent only a few settlers to North America and, instead of either killing or pushing them deeper into the hinterlands, forced them into labor. Then after many decades or maybe a century, they suddenly cut the colonies free. Said to the Native Americans who remained: "Ok, you're independent states now. Go at it!" Nevermind that many of their own governing structures and societal bonds had been obliterated.

And, again, saying that Africans needed an extra 100 years to throw off their colonizers is another bad comparison, a little patronizing, and also misleading. Most of that continent was colonized in the 19th century and gained independence in the late 1950s/early 60s. By contrast, Jamestown was first settled in 1607; the Americans didn't win their independence until 1781--a long time. But it's apples to oranges.

It's widely acknowledged that modern popular African dance music beginning in the 30s and 40s emerged from Ghana--what is now called "Highlife." As with the rest of Africa, Cuban music and American dance jazz combined with traditional and village music, utilizing western instruments, including the trumpet that came to Africa, mostly via military and police bands, were all propellents of this new wholly modern (much in the way jazz in New Orleans was new and modern) sound.

In Ghana, E.T. Mensah, trumpet player and bandleader, is generally considered the greatest of the early generation of Ghanian High Life stars; his first hand encounters with Armstrong were legendary, and he oplenly discussed Armstrong's influence (which was almost universal in sub-Saharan Africa).

One, I think the tone of the stories reflect a desire for white people to be off the hook. I don't know that for fact, but I believe it.

This is true in my experience. Some whites of my acquaintance think we've done our part (some even think that they now have it harder than people of color) and now it's time for blacks to figure out their remaining problems for themselves, whether in Africa or here in the U.S.

I hear what you're saying about the "extra 100 years."

i think that the presence of eurpoeans in africa materially affected the political and economic climate before the 18th century. even though the formal colonial process hadn't been completed, the exploration and exploitation of land and people was definitely underway in the 1600s

I wasn't trying to say that African nations were slow in getting out from under colonialism, just that the forces in place when the Americas were throwing off colonialism were totally different from what African colonies were facing and the timeline difference is just another example of that.

A footnote to that - some scholars argue that the coincidence of jazz evolving in New Orleans at the particular time it did has to do with the influx of cheap brass instruments dumped by military bands returning from the Spanish-American war through that port city...

Sorry if I got too high on my soapbox. So we agree--it's a terrible comparison any way you look at it. And you're also right that exploitation started, if less officially, earlier than the 19th century.

White folks want to be off the hook. That's not what Obama was saying. There are enough resources in Africa for Africans to be taking care of business. They are in a far greater negotiating position than maybe they believe themselves to be.

Seems like they'd be tired of running their countries into the ground but...

...human greed knows few bounds.

I've lived in Ghana, and the peace and much lower level of corruption there (it exists, but unlike Nigeria it's entirely possible to get around it) are part of what make it such a wonderful place to visit (Juba, you should definitely go). A further irony in the coverage of Obama's speech is that he was clear that he chose to go to Ghana not just because Bush and Clinton said they loved their visits, but to reward a working model of democratic transitions and better governance -- something Ghanaians have been working to build in fits and starts since independence, but solidly at least since Rawlings took power. What Presidents Kufuor and now Atta-Mills have managed to do is to attract foreign investment in ways that at least sometimes help to develop the internal economy, rather than just more efficiently extracting resources, and foreign aid, with at least some of it going to develop infrastructure rather than vanity projects or "getting spoilt."

The dirty secret behind European political stability is a half-millenium or more of ethnic cleansing.

As Obama has said, money plays the role of original sin in politics.

I pray we can get through enough of our current mess to rebuild traditions of political penance.

As annoying as the rhetoric may be, I tend to think that whites in a 'post-racial' society tend to be less intransigent... and more likely to turn on the bull Connors, et. al.