My favorite source of inspiration, Orion Magazine, has an on-line department called “The Place Where You Live.” I was very excited this morning to get their e-newsletter and notice that my entry on Uganda is one of their featured pieces.
Check it out here: Orion Magazine – nature / culture / place.
Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala
“White people over there! Black people over there!”
My wife and I stared at each other in horror as our then-3 1/2-year-old son stood on his chair and shouted this during a dinner we were hosting for a group of Ugandan and ex-pat friends.
The girl next door, a 6 year old from Zimbabwe, had been learning about the Civil Rights Movement in the United States at her school. As the older and wiser of the two, she often plays the role of “teacher” when they are together in the afternoons. Apparently on this day she had been teaching him about segregation, and he was sharing with us what he had learned. Can you say “awkward?”
When we moved to Uganda in 2008, our son was 2 ½ years old and seemed to have no awareness of skin color or, really, of the fact that Uganda is a different place from America at all. Even though there were very few mzungu kids in his school, we never heard him talk about being different, or show any awareness of the fact that most people around us on a daily basis are black and that we aren’t.
About six months later, he came home from school talking about “the black kid.” We thought “ok – honeymoon’s over. Now we’re going to have to figure out how to talk about this with him.” But then moments later he started talking about “the blue kid” and “the red kid” and we realized he was referring to the clothes the other kids in his school were wearing. Whew. Dodged the bullet for a little while longer.
Then came the dinner party.
Not surprisingly, our Ugandan friends just laughed. I say “not surprisingly” because here in Uganda, you call it like you see it. Some people are black, some people are white, some are fat, some are skinny, and somebody with one leg is known as “the guy with one leg.” You frequently hear Ugandans say “you white people are like this” or “we blacks are like this.” It’s not like in the United States, where we all try to pretend we don’t notice differences between us, and where we will twist ourselves into all kinds of verbal contortions to avoid mentioning that someone is black/fat/disabled/whatever:
Person 1: “Excuse me, do you know if Jim is in today?”
Person 2: “Who’s Jim?”
Person 1: “Oh, you know, he’s about 5’8”, usually wears a sweater, has longish, shortish hair and a beard and mustache.”
Person 2: “Hmmm, I know a few guys like that here. Can you be more specific?”
Person 1: “Well, he’s worked here for about six months, has a blue coffee mug, and always reads a book in the break room at lunch.”
Person 2 (wants to say): “Oh yeah – do you mean the only black guy who works here? It would’ve been easier if you had just said that!”
Not that we should become known strictly by one aspect of who we are but, interestingly, we don’t have the same issues with using some physical descriptors, like “the woman with the really long, blond hair.”
We Need to Talk About Race
A recent article in Newsweek, See Baby Discriminate, makes me wonder if our son really hadn’t noticed skin color before, or if his “lesson” with his friend just finally gave him the language and permission to talk about it – an opportunity and framework that we hadn’t given him because we were waiting for it to come up (and on some level probably hoping it wouldn’t).
The take-home lesson of the article, written by Po Bronson and Ashley Merriman, is that kids develop racial awareness earlier than we expect, and that there is no substitute for explicit conversations about it (as opposed to vague platitudes like “everyone is equal”) very early in their development.
The first study that the authors looked at was done in Austin, in 2006, by Birgitte Vittrup of the University of Texas. Vittrup wanted to see if there was a change in kids’ racial attitudes after watching multi-cultural themed videos, watching videos with accompanying guided discussions with parents, and participating in race discussions without the videos. She selected 100 Caucasian families from the Austin area (a liberal bastion within Texas) who had kids between the ages of 5 and 7 and divided them into the three study groups.
The first thing she found was that most of these families just plain didn’t want to talk directly about race issues, and many either dropped out of the study or had conversations that were too vague for their kids to really get the point. According to Bronson and Merryman, “Of all those Vittrup told to talk openly about interracial friendship, only six families managed to actually do so. And, for all six, their children dramatically improved their racial attitudes in a single week.”
This finding is significant given that, according to a Journal of Marriage and Family article, 75% of white families “never, or almost never, talk about race.”
Kids Notice Color
Yesterday, as I was giving my son a bath, he sorted all of his bath toys by color along the edges of the tub. Is there any reason to think they don’t do the same thing with people?
Referring to findings by another researcher, Rebecca Bigler, Bronson and Merryman state that “kids are developmentally prone to in-group favoritism; they’re going to form these preferences on their own. Children naturally try to categorize everything, and the attribute they rely on is that which is the most clearly visible.” This was seen even when different shirt colors were randomly assigned. They also cited studies showing that 86% of white 3-year-old children show preference for white friends, and that by third grade, it might already be too late to reshape attitudes.
Diverse Environments Don’t Necessarily Engender Racial Equality
Perhaps the finding in this article that surprised me the most is that integrated school environments might actually increase racial segregation socially. This goes against the prevailing view that kids who are raised in diverse school environments are more likely to have inter-racial friendships and see other races as equal, something the authors call the “Diverse Environment Theory.”
A study done by James Moody from Duke University on 90,000 teenagers at 112 different schools found that “the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school, and thus the likelihood that any two kids of different races have a friendship goes down.” Only 8% of white American teens have a best friend of a different race.
We have just assumed that by raising our son in Africa he will develop a feeling of equality with people of other races because that is who he interacts with the most every day, and that he will somehow not really feel that there is any difference between him and the other kids around him. This article shows that we might be very wrong about that.
If you ask him who his best friend is in Uganda, he names the girl next door, who is black. However, if you ask him who his best friend at school is, where most of the other students and all of the teachers are black, he will usually name the girl who is the only other white kid in his class.
My wife and I originally wanted to believe that it was because the two of them transferred together from their old school so they had more history with each other, but I really think it has to do more with this desire to categorize, and Bigler’s finding that “kids are developmentally prone to in-group favoritism.” He and she notice that they are similar to each other in a very obvious way, and this draws them to want to form a group in the same way that my son’s bath toys “belong” in groupings of red, blue, green and yellow.
Lessons Learned
I don’t think it is bad that he has formed this bond with his friend at school. He plays with all the other kids, loves his teachers, and the girl next door is like his sister. While it is obvious that he is becoming more aware of the differences between himself and so many of the people he sees around him, I don’t notice any type of value judgment. Different, to him, does not mean better or worse.
But if what this article says is true, we need to get busy and make sure that we don’t leave a vacuum to be filled regarding what those differences mean. We can’t just expect that living here in this environment will lead to him believing that everyone is equal. We can’t even expect our own attitudes about equality to magically transfer to him, not least because we might have unconscious bias that we aren’t even aware of, but that he picks up through subtle behaviors. We need to be clear and explicit with him about our belief that different races are equal and that discrimination is not acceptable. And we need to start having these conversations…ummm…about a year and a half ago.
Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala
This book should be read by everyone who works in (or donates to) conservation anywhere in the world, as it is always important to examine the work we do and think about how we can do it better. This book exposes some of the worst aspects of conservation, particularly some questionable practices that the Big 5 (TNC, CI, WWF, WCS and AWF) engage in to maintain their massive budgets.
There are some holes in the book, however, and I was disappointed to find that he gives no viable alternative approaches to conservation. The success stories he cites are primarily forest-based, indigenous cultures with low populations that are still practicing their traditional methods of survival through care of their primary resource, the forest. He does not talk about the very different reality of communities that are heterogenous due to immigration, resettlement, etc, and who have no common historical practices to rely on to preserve their environment. The forest communities he talks about are also not dealing with the massive population pressures of the savanna areas in East Africa, and they are not agricultural to the extent that some other areas are, which causes encroachment on forests and other landscapes.
This book could be the basis for an incredible graduate seminar about global conservation, both for what it does bring to the table and for what it doesn’t bring. Definitely read this book, but read it with a critical eye. Thanks to Mark Dowie for fearless reporting.
Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala
Last night I dreamed that I was put into prison for a crime I didn’t commit. I was filled with sadness not just for the life I was leaving, but the life that I would never get to live.
In the developed world, in addition to our material luxuries, we are blessed with stability and predictability. Our governments do not change through coups, we generally don’t have rebel groups operating within our borders, and our children usually make it to adulthood. Much of the world does not live with such a sense of security.
I woke up thinking about Uganda, and everything the people here have been through. The older people can remember colonial rule, two reigns of Milton Obote, Idi Amin’s terror and the horrific activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army. On top of that, how many children and grandchildren have they lost to malaria or other illnesses? And it is not just in the past. In the last ten years, how many have lost homes, lives or livelihoods to one or another rebel group, political regime or natural disaster like the mudslides in Mbale last week?
What does it do to one’s psyche to live in a perpetual state of insecurity? To feel like you can’t count on having any future, much less one of your own designing? The phrase that came into my head this morning was “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” This term gained some traction last year in relation to Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who went on a shooting rampage after receiving orders to deploy to Afghanistan.
I have no doubt that I would be a little freaked out, too, if I knew I had 30 days before I would be sent into a death trap like Afghanistan. Who knows what I might do? But at least I would have a specific date and event to process. What about people who have to live day to day with the idea that something might happen? Or, more accurately, people who have little reason to think that something won’t happen because so many things already have?
I am not saying that the unexpected doesn’t happen everywhere. Sadly, and ironically, in the middle of writing this entry, I received an e-mail telling me that a friend just died suddenly of a brain aneurysm. In gang-ridden cities throughout the United States, mothers send their kids off to school and pray to see them again at the end of the day. It can happen anywhere. However, most of us living in the developed world can make plans for our futures, and can envision the adulthood our kids will grow into, without worrying that we are putting too much hope into something that might never come to be. How might we live differently, and how might we be differently, if that wasn’t the case? How can we live more compassionately towards those who aren’t so lucky?
Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala
Last night in Kampala there was a forum held by NatureUganda about whether sports-hunting should be used as a wildlife management tool in Uganda. This is obviously a hot issue, with strong feelings on either side. I invite you to read this post, and then vote in the attached poll.
Achilles Byaruhanga
Speakers:
Achilles Byaruhanga, Executive Director of NatureUganda
Sam Mwandha, Director Conservation, Uganda Wildlife Authority
Dr. Richard Lamprey, Technical Advisor, Flora and Fauna International
Philip Chollet, Owner, Karamojo Safaris LTD
Background:
Sport hunting in Uganda is an activity that falls under “Wildlife Use Rights” in the Wildlife Act of 2000, as one of six ways that wildlife can be “used” to benefit people and the economy in general. After nearly 90% of the wildlife in the country was decimated in the 1970s under the Idi Amin regime, all hunting was made illegal to allow wildlife populations to recover. However, poaching continues to be rampant. The Wildlife Authority decided that the populations of some species had recovered enough that they instituted a pilot sport-hunting concession around Lake Mburu National Park in 2001 (it is important to note that no hunting will be allowed inside the national parks). The pilot period was subsequently extended twice, and finished in October 2009. The Uganda Wildlife Authority website states:
“The overall objective of granting WUR is to promote sustainable extractive utilization of wildlife by facilitating the involvement of landowners and users in managing wildlife on private land. The underpinning principles are that;
Many more official details about Use Rights can be found at: http://www.uwa.or.ug/Hunting.htm
The main arguments against sport hunting at this time are based on questions about whether the population sizes of the targeted species are actually viable, and whether the data the Wildlife Authority is using to set quotas is accurate. There are also concerns about the transparency of the concessions granting process and the oversight of the actual hunt.
Here is a link to an article that covers some of the concerns: http://www.eturbonews.com/12343/uganda-s-new-hunting-license-promises-more-controversy
Here are some highlights from each of the speakers:
Achilles Byaruhanga, Executive Director of NatureUganda
As the host of the evening, Achilles was primarily setting the stage for the discussion. He pointed out a number of concerns that he has with the current arrangements for sport hunting.
Sam Mwandha, Director of Conservation, Uganda Wildlife Authority
The Uganda Wildlife Authority position is based on what they say are observed increases in wildlife numbers in the areas where hunting has been happening during the pilot phase. He started his talk by stating that for the sport hunting companies, “Their business isn’t sport hunting, their business is wildlife management.” Here are some other points from his talk:
Dr. Richard Lamprey, Technical Advisor, Flora and Fauna International
Richard Lamprey has been involved in parks management in many parts of Africa and has been involved in decision-making around sport-hunting in Tanzania. His talk was the most balanced of the evening, and I honestly couldn’t have told you at the end whether he is for or against sport hunting in Uganda.
He started his talk by saying that to truly get involved with this debate, you need to begin to understand the mentality of the dedicated sport hunter, who is passionately dedicated to the hunt and who will willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to do it (currently a 7-day hunt for sitatunga in the Ssesse Islands of Uganda costs about $20,000).
Here are some of the points he made:
Philip Chollet, Owner, Karamojo Safaris LTD.
With Filip’s talk, we were able to get a glimpse of the passion of the hunter that Dr. Lamprey referred to. He started his slide presentation with images of an eland that was wounded by poachers. Clearly, his main thrust was to emphasize that sport hunting can reduce poaching. Here are some of his points:
General Discussion:
There was a lot of discussion around whether the survey numbers that Uganda Wildlife Authority was using are accurate. It doesn’t seem possible that impala numbers could increase from 5,000 to 35,000 in less than ten years. Aggrey Rwetsiba, Director of Research for UWA, admitted that they had switched survey methods between the earlier and later numbers and that animal population counts are very difficult to do accurately.
If 30% of the permit fee goes to the landowner where the animal was killed, and most people are too impoverished to own land, it is a fair distribution of the revenue?
The owner of a lodge in Lake Mburu National Park pointed out that the quotas are based on total populations in the area, both inside and outside the park, while hunting is only allowed outside the park. He argued that the quotas should only be based on the average populations outside the park since that’s where the hunting takes place.
The same lodge owner claimed that there have already been impacts on game viewing opportunities in the parks. In Lake Mburu NP he has observed that the eland herds have become more skittish, as they have nearly all been shot at at some point. This could have a serious impact on eco-tourism, which is still the primary form of tourism in the country.
There were also questions about whether ecotourism and sport hunting are compatible. In general, eco-tourists don’t want to be in a place where animals are being shot.
Inconclusion (yes, I meant to spell it like that):
Sport hunting has the potential to increase livelihoods in communities around protected areas, fund the wildlife management activities of the Wildlife Authority, and reduce poaching which could result in increased wildlife populations. At the same time, it is unclear whether the animal populations here are ready for hunting, there is a lack of trust in government institutions to manage the process in a legal and transparent way, and there are concerns about the impacts of sport hunting on other forms of tourism.
There was virtually no discussion about whether hunting is “right” or “wrong,” which is perhaps not surprising in an African context. Hunting is being used as one component of wildlife management around the world (think about deer permits in the U.S.), and it does have the potential to bring far more money into local communities than game viewing.
If you really want to go deeper into this issue, here is a book that Dr. Lamprey referred to in his talk:
Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice
So what do you think? Should sport hunting be allowed in Uganda?
Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala
This is an older post of mine that has renewed significance. CNOOC, China’s state-owned oil company, is currently Tullow Oil’s first choice as a partner in its Ugandan oil fields now that Heritage Oil is selling it’s stake. MJ
You can really tell that the Cold War is over. We almost never hear about the influence China is beginning to have in Africa and other parts of the world. If Russia had this much reach during the Reagan era, we might have already experienced World War III.
Since the 1960’s, the West’s relationship to Africa has been primarily built around foreign aid. Billions of dollars have been given in food aid, medical supplies and other direct assistance. It would be difficult to make the claim that these efforts have been wildly successful. Most of the problems that the money has been intended to fix have gotten worse, and very few African nations seem to be any closer to being independent from donor money.
Perhaps part of the reason for the lack of success stories is that very little of that money has gone towards building infrastructure, industry or skill capacity on the continent itself. One could even make the claim that western countries want Africa to remain underdeveloped, because it makes it easier to keep prices low on all of the raw materials we take from the continent, including oil, diamonds, cotton, coltan (used in cell phones and other electronics), cocoa, coffee, and tea, just to name a few.
China is taking a very different route in Africa. China is building roads, factories, hydroelectric plants and refineries. Their commitments to oil development alone are about $16 billion. Africa is China’s third-largest trading partner, behind the European Union and the United States. Their goal is to increase the volume of trade from approximately $50 billion today to $100 billion in 2010.
Let’s not be deluded into thinking they are doing this out of any charitable intent. Their phenomenal growth needs to be fueled by raw materials from somewhere. They are coming in with very clear business objectives and plan to make a profit here. And what’s wrong with that? For a nation that elevates the “free market” to a religion, America has shown very little inclination to use it as a solution to Africa’s challenges. Will China use our favorite tool to succeed where we have failed?
In the past, the U.S. and Europe were the only places African nations could look for an influx of cash. That has changed now. Sometime in the next couple of years, Chinese loans to African nations will surpass those of the World Bank. I can’t help but envision the United States as a parent who’s kids just moved out of the house. We will be left standing there, looking forlornly at Africa, saying “Oh…they don’t need us any more. When did that happen?” Well, it’s happening now. Our influence is already diminishing.
Put yourself in the place of the leader of an African nation that might have a questionable human rights record. The money that you receive from Western governments probably comes with a lot of strings attached – those donors will want free and fair elections, improved working conditions, environmental protections, reduced corruption, etc. Then in walks China and offers to invest millions of dollars without wanting anything more than a financial return. Who’s your daddy?
We must pay attention to Africa. The continent’s population passed 1 billion this year, so more than 1 out of every seven people on the planet lives in one of Africa’s 53 countries. Combine that with China’s population and you have an economic relationship involving nearly a third of the earth’s population, driven by leaders who often do not have the best interests of people and the planet in mind. For decades, we in the United States have been able to just assume that we will be in the center of anything important happening in the world. But guess what – if we rest on those laurels, the world is going to pass us by.
Mark D. Jordahl – Kampala
Wild Thoughts from Uganda 
