Africa Representation_Reflection Memo

In this reflection memo I would like to focus on two topics, the first being the concerns aroused by simplified narratives. As I stated in class, while watching Kony 2012 I asked myself whether or not the film was even worth watching because of the way that the story of Joseph Kony is presented: as a narrative so simple that even a four-year-old child can comprehend it. At the end of the film, my understanding of the conflict in Uganda was no better than it was before watching it: poor. Indeed, Kony was not even active in Uganda in 2012, a fact that the film neglects to mention. Regardless, the class discussion raised an interesting question: what is the value of the knowledge that Kony 2012 and other simplified narratives present?

            The value depends on whether you are the presenter or the receiver of the knowledge from a simplified narrative. As a presenter, a simplified narrative is essentially a propaganda tool because it manipulates the uninformed into supporting said narrative. I must assume that the vast majority of those who participated in the Kony 2012 campaign knew only as much as they gathered from the film or perhaps slightly more from other sources that reinforced its narrative. Invisible Children generated millions of dollars for its cause off of the ignorance of its supporters. Thus, the knowledge from simplified narratives is valuable to those who produce the narrative because it benefits their cause.

            It is a different story for the receivers of the simplified knowledge. Without context and nuance, the knowledge that a simplified narrative provides is useless. For instance, all I gathered from the Kony 2012 film was that Kony is an evil man who abuses children, and for these reasons he needs to be stopped by military force. This is hardly the whole picture. There are very few, if any, black and white issues when it comes to security, and without understanding the grey area, no true comprehension of the issue is possible. The knowledge that a simplified narrative provides is therefore not valuable to its receiver.

            On the other hand, the point was brought up in class that simply knowing about the issue may spur further research into it. This is probably true, but there is a problem. It is not research that people will be spurred to do; they are more likely to seek out other sources that reinforce the narrative to which they subscribe. The 2016 United States presidential election demonstrates this vividly, as there were a large number of exaggerated and simplified narratives concerning each candidate. But rather than truly educate themselves on these narratives, many Americans preferred to find and share fake news stories over social media that reinforced their preferred narrative. It seems that people in general are much more interested in having their viewpoints validated than challenged. Hence, the value of simplified narratives to their receivers is extremely low. It might be better to be totally ignorant than to know half of a story or to be fed misinformation. It is clear that presenters of simplified narratives profit the most from them.

            The other topic I would like to touch on is Africa being portrayed as one country by individuals and the western media. First, where does this tendency come from and why has it persisted? Like most successful narratives, the tendency to represent Africa as a single country has perhaps developed from an already existing narrative: the colonial mindset that all African groups are primitive, backward, and uncivilized. Westerners have been equating African groups for hundreds of years so it is no wonder that they continue this practice post-colonialism and equate African states.

As to why this narrative has persisted, the western media certainly plays a large role in propping it up. All that most westerners see and hear concerning Africa in the news are the very worst situations that are occurring across the continent. For instance, the Ebola epidemic garnered massive coverage, while the peaceful, yet not without its problems, transition of power in Gambia this year was largely a non-story. This is not entirely the media’s fault, nor is it strictly an African phenomenon. When I turn on the local news at home in Canada the top story is usually a murder or a car crash. In general, bad news sells better than good news. Plus, it is more difficult to spark a viewer’s interest if the story does not affect them, as in the case of the Gambian election. Yet it is more than just the media. It comes down to the fact that it is very hard to break a narrative that has permeated western society for hundreds of years. More time and more education of the general population is needed to change the narrative, as not even a century has passed since the end of colonialism in Africa.

Furthermore, the characterization of Africa as one country is problematic because it can have negative effects on African nations and their citizens. For nations, it means that if a civil war erupts in one country the conflict permeates to all other African countries, stigmatizing them as war-torn. As a result, economic investment in an African country that is a thousand kilometers away from the conflict may be negatively affected. For citizens of these African countries, traveling or living abroad may present problems as individuals are negatively stereotyped. Many people automatically associate Nigerians with internet scams for example. In fact, I am sure that this represents the extent of the knowledge of many North Americans concerning Nigeria.

There is no quick fix to Africa being seen as one country, but the first step has clearly been taken: the assigned reading demonstrated that the problem has been recognized, thus it can be addressed.