Oh dear, I promised myself I wouldn't bore you all with my African stories, but I'm afraid I'm going to.....
Yes, they do have a 'mindset' about possessions being shared out, that the individual has a duty to share his good fortune with his wider family and friends. This might shed a slightly different light on why, if someone gets into a position of power, he helps out his extended family and friends with jobs, perks etc etc, It's not corruption, it's his duty.
I watched an interesting programme (last in a series) about the historical, geographical and evolutionary reasons why Africa remains underdeveloped when the first humans came from there, migrated and became successful elsewhere. There are good sound reasons to do with natural resources ( eg, game, animals that could be domesticated - there are no native animals that can be domesticated in Africa - cows and horses were introduced from the European land mass), poor soil, tsetse fly and disease being the primary reasons.
In addition to these naturally occurring constraints, there continue to be social constraints on the education of, and attitude to, women. I will relate a tale which illustrates this neatly. However, I need to be careful, as my father still lives and works in this country.
A report was drawn up after this particular country had achieved stability after suffering years of drought and civil war. The aim of the report was to identify reasons why the people who had survived, had survived - what had they done that was different to the others who had died? My father contributed to this report and he told me that some of the findings had been suppressed, because the new Government didn't want the world to know that:
1. 75% of the widows that existed at that point in time were under the age of 15
2. In African society men have first call on food and water, before their wives and children. Not all of them follow this rule, but a good many do. Some wives had been actively 'running in' their husbands to the soldiers who visited, looking for recruits, telling them where he was hiding. They did this to get rid of him, so what little food they had could be given to their children and themselves. In some cases, the women murdered their husbands, so they could access the food.
3. After the war, they found that many widows were refusing to remarry (absolutely unheard of). In fact, in many instances the traditional structure was turned on its head. The guerilla army (which consisted of both men and women, boys and girls) had managed to continue educating their young soldiers in the bush. But they found that the young lads didn't concentrate on their studies, whereas the young girls did. So after the war, these girls were finding jobs as clerks, translators, administrators, teachers etc and were able to support themselves financially. Not only were they refusing to remarry (why? they would only have had to hand it over to him indoors, to go and spend at his favourite bar, whilst he was getting his eyes kohled and his hair plaited!!), BUT they were also having children and refusing to live with the fathers! They formed female communes and they looked after each others chidlren whilst they went out to work.............
And these were the primary reasons why these women and children had survived the years of privation, in different tribal groups and on different sides of the warring factions.
In Somaliland (I'm pretty sure it was there, might have been the Sudan) women have recently started a 'sex strike' in order to stop their men from fighting a long protracted war. The women on both sides of the war are doing it - you fight if you insist, but you will have no sex if you do. Maybe not surprisingly, it is already having an effect - both sides have agreed to a truce to discuss a treaty.
So, to go back to the original thread, a regionally based solution is much better than an external white solution.
