Botswana Travels- part 1

The first two weeks of my semester abroad in Botswana have been full of things that remind me of home. They started in the Johannesburg airport, on the tarmac to our flight to Gaborone, sitting next to an Asian Muslim family as their two-year old sang “The Wheels on the Bus.” We attended a traditional dinner as an introduction to Tswana culture, where we, among other things, played an African game that was basically “Duck Duck Grayduck” along with “London Bridge is Falling Down.” At another traditional dancing performance, one of the dancers slipped on her pair of Crocs as soon as she was finished dancing.

The more time I spend in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana and the largest city, the less these reminders of home begin to seem out of place in an African country, and more like normal occurrences. Coming to this place, I had no preconceptions of the area, and I could not have been more surprised at what I would find. The main thing to do in Gaborone is go to malls. I have never been to so many different malls, so many times in my life. I think I average about one trip to the mall a day, sometimes two trips. Some of these malls are combination strip malls with open-air markets, but most are typical shopping centers you would find back home. The most interesting site so far is the road-side vendors underneath large umbrellas selling candy and food right in the shadow of these massive malls. I have also seen a few cardboard shacks advertising “Hair Cut,” “Car Wash” and even “Defensive Driving School.”

Although there are many things to remind me of home, I have seen things that I would never see in America. We had a traditional dinner the second night we were here, were I tried caterpillar and goat meat. After the dinner, the native women in attendance started to dance and attempted to teach us their songs and dances. Some of the students were more successful than others. We also spent a day at a game reserve not to far from the city, were I saw four elephants, an ostrich, some antelope-like impala, and a whole bunch of giraffes. I have been eating a lot of traditional food from the roadside vendors, which includes a giant bread dumpling, rice, chicken or beef, pumpkin, and a bunch of other stuff I can’t really describe—all for only 12 pula, about two dollars American.

One thing I have not seen a lot of here is poverty. It exists, but it is not as apparent in Gaborone. Botswana is one of the most unequal countries in the world, and with a population of around 1.6 million, most of the wealth in concentrated in the city. I have seen two very very bad shantytowns within city limits, but other than that, most people here seem pretty wealthy. The students on campus dress nicer than any other student body I have ever seen. In the coming weeks, I hope to get out and see more of the country, so I can get a better picture of what it actually means to live in Botswana.

Another thing I haven’t seen is the effects of HIV/AIDS on this country. For those of you who don’t know, Botswana has the highest rate of AIDS prevalence in the whole world, the UN has estimated that around 40% of the population is HIV positive. If I hadn’t known this statistic going into this semester, I probably would not have been able to tell. There are the occasional advertisements on billboards and in newspapers promoting safe sex, as well as free condom dispensers everywhere, although most of the time they are empty. Other than that, and the occasional side comment in conversations, you wouldn’t know the epidemic had spiraled out of control.

I do not know why the AIDS crisis is not so visible here, even though it is a huge problem, and I have been heard conflicting viewpoints about the epidemic in general. My Setswana (the other national language, besides English) teacher told us yesterday that the AIDS epidemic is really not that bad—she actually referred to the crisis in the past tense. Anti-retroviral drugs have been distributed free here since the late 90s, curbing the problem and making it less visibly apparent. She said that the 40% rate is much too high of an estimate, and that it is actually only around 30%. Even if that were true, that would mean about one in three people would have AIDS, better than two in five, but still a huge problem. On the other hand, I’ve also heard that the University of Botswana has the highest AIDS rate in the country, making it the “AIDS capital of the world.” I don’t know which viewpoint is true, but either way, it still is a huge problem.

I have been spending a lot of time with the people on my program, as well as the other Americans here. The University of Botswana has around 40 Americans currently on campus, the most they have ever had. The other 18 students on my program (organized by the Associated Colleges of the Mid-West) are amazing and I couldn’t have asked for a better group of people to spend four months with. I can’t remember the last time I laughed as frequently and as hard as I have been in the last two weeks. Some of us went to an Applebee’s-like restaurant in one of Gaborone’s most popular shopping malls a few weeks ago, and it could have been the three dollar mixed drink, but sitting in that restaurant talking with all of my new friends, I forgot I was in Botswana and thought I was back in the States.

The thing that amazes me the most about my first two weeks here in Gaborone is not the American influence, the giant shopping centers, or even the public transportation, which is basically made up of fifteen person, semi-broken down vans called “combis” that stops whenever and wherever you want, and holds as many people as can be stuffed in. What I find most surprising is the way I fit in here, the way I feel perfectly at home. This could be due to the prevalence of American culture, and if I was European, Asian, or from another African country, I might not feel as comfortable as I do now. I don’t know. But for better or for worse, maybe that’s what globalization is really about; feeling at home wherever you go, even halfway across the world.

It’s also hotter than hell.

Botswana Travels

Well, I don't know if anyone still reads this thing, but I just wanted everyone to know that I'm going to be heading out to Botswana this Thursday for a semester abroad and probably won't be posting much on this blog from then until I get back in mid-May. I know I haven't been posting much anyways, but a semester's worth of school work can do that to you.

What I do plan on doing is writing "letters from abroad" and emailing them to my friends and family. This seems like a popular form of communication, and I'll post them on here as well. If you want to be included on this email list, let me know at raderstr@grinnell.edu. I'll have periodic access to email if you want to contact me for any reason, but other than that, I have no idea about other forms of communication.

So, have a good four months and happy new year!

The Evils of Sesame Street

Most of you probably watched Sesame Street growing up. It is one of the longest running shows in television history, as well as one of the longest running experiments in child psychology and education. It was started in 1969 and was one of the first shows to use television to educate children. Last month the first five seasons were released on DVD, and many nostalgic adults eager to share their childhood with their children were shocked to learn that these "early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child."

How could that be? Have we really gotten so paranoid that we think ancient Sesame Street episodes could actually hurt preschoolers? Sesame Street has been through many controversies, from Ernie and Bert outed as gays, to the more recent revelation that Cookie Monster could be teaching children obesity. It seems like a sad reflection on society that even Sesame Street needs to be labeled as potentially dangerous to children.

I don't know the reasons the company had to issue this warning, but in their defense, Sesame Street has gone through many changes since its creation. It is constantly going through focus groups to improve its teaching capacity as time changes. The Sesame Street from the first season is much different from the Sesame Street of today, and the older episodes are not designed for children today, but for children of the sixties and the seventies.

However, the PR person that made the decision to put a warning on the Sesame Street DVD probably wasn't thinking about the evolution of the show, only about how overprotected parents might react to the old-school Sesame Street. Apparently, the first episode has a segment with a young girl going home with a strange old man to have some cookies. There is no way the producers could do that today, without lawsuit threats from a number of concerned parents.

This warning label reflects how hyper-concerned our society has become. Sesame Street was created to entertain kids as well as adults, so parents could be engaged in their children's education. Parent reinforcement of education is an important aspect of learning, either real-life or televised. These DVDs give parents the opportunity to tell their kids why they shouldn't go home with strangers, or just eat cookies all the time, even though those things once happened on Sesame Street. The warning label isn't necessary, and parents should be involved enough to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.

Leading by Example

Yes I know my enemies...
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Zack de la Rocha

It is another sad day in US history. Once again this administration has compromised our morals to a point that makes me wonder if we ever had any.

You may wonder what I'm talking about, and that shows just how far gone this country is. Today, I'm talking about the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan by General Pervez Musharraf, and the US' decision to continue aid to the country as an ally in the "war on terror." The Bush administration is obviously upset about the numerous suspensions of civil rights in the country, but not enough to do anything about it. Musharraf, who declared the emergency to suppress "terrorism" in the state, did not expect any reaction from senior US officials to his tightening of power over the country, and he didn't get any. This suspension of the Constitution and the firing of the Supreme Court was conveniently made days before the court was to rule on the legitimacy of his recent reelection.

Musharraf knew that the US cares too much about the war on terror to do anything about a attack on democracy in the name of fighting terrorism. “They [the US] would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” said Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information.

And even though Bush's presidency has been based on the platform of spreading freedom and democracy, the administration has done nothing but encourage Musharraf to loosen his control. Bush will condemn and sanction anti-democratic actions in Myanmar, a country we have nothing invested in, but then less than a month later, allow one of our "allies" to suspend the rights and liberties of its people. How can we expect other countries, like Iraq, to encourage democracy, when we won't even to it ourselves?

Bush's hypocrisy runs deep. I remember the moment I realized what kind of person we had for a president when he nominated Harriet Miers to the supreme court. He used her track record as an "Evangelical Christian" to try to win her support from the Republican party. This is the same president who said: "It's going to be the spread of democracy, itself, that shows folks the importance of separation of church and state." Obviously, democracy hasn't spread too far in this country.

I can continue to blather on about how much I disapprove of what the administration is doing, and how Bush really only cares about stabilizing his own power, and about how Musharraf's actions will only create more terrorism, as well as Bush's actions in Iraq, but this is something we all know. We knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. We knew that Bush was lying to us. We know that they could have gotten Osama bin Landen instead. We know Karl Rove exposed Valarie Plame. We know this because these senior level administrators have no respect for the values that they claim to promote, or for the citizens they claim to represent.

My question is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it?

Discontentment in the New Gilded Age

All around are the signs of a new Gilded Age, as people are starting to call our present. VH1 has a show called "The Fabulous Life of...", which dives weekly into the extravagance of one celebrity after another. Internet start-ups continue to make more and more money for their founders, some serving the purpose of only rating strangers' attractiveness. Of the 30 riches Americans, most made their fortunes either during the last Gilded Age or before, with the three exceptions being the contemporary billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Sam Walton.

But what has this newly re-found extravagance brought the United States? All of our money is not making us happier, we rank 150 out of 178 in the Happy Planet Index. Its income inequality is comparable to Ghana and Turkmenistan. Our popular culture may depict the United States as a glamorous, wonderful place to be, yet it seems that our large, ever increasing incomes leave us wanting more.

And many people are asking themselves why they aren't happy with their large quantities of cash. (To learn more about the lack of contentment among the wealthy, see the NYTimes series "Age of Riches".) And why is this? The easiest answer is something everyone knows: money can't buy you love. But that is too simple. Money cannot buy love, or happiness, but it can buy just about everything else. One of the first things I learned about Economics is that currency is just a proxy for happiness, something to use as a model of utility and not actually utility itself. And although money cannot actual buy the feeling of being happy, I think they should be at least positively correlated.

So why are we not content in this new Gilded Age of glamor and extravagance? Does the income inequality force most of the population out of the celebrations gained by the wealthy? Yet, not even the wealthy are content, and are driven to work to fill up their lives.

And I don't know the answers to those questions. I have not seen enough of America, or talked with diverse enough amounts of people to determine what is plaguing our nation, if anything is at all. Are we morally bankrupt? Has our culture been hijacked by a small group of corporate executives? Is it really the end of history, and have we forgotten we once had one?

I do think that many people in this country have forgotten the common sense maxim of money cannot buy love. Accumulation of currency does not equate to instant satisfaction, though that is what I expect most people assume, even if they won't admit it. What does actually create happiness is something much more complicated and something people cannot leave up to their bank accounts to determine.

Making History

I often like to think of what events in my life will be remembered in years to come. When 9/11 happened, I think I began to grasp what kind of time I was growing into, what things the world would face as I started to face the world.

I have always been optimistic, trying to find good even though this country continues to disappoint me. Lately it has been hard. Instead of coming together to try to fix a broken health care system, Republicans and Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, each one not trying to be seen as Socialist. The problems in Iraq are surmounting, beyond repair, yet we continue to stay in it. The Democrats are allowing the wiretapping of Americans, trying not to be seen as "soft on terror."

Last year, when the Democrats took control of Congress, America, to the best of its abilities, was trying to send a message. We do not like the way things are going. And we still don't. Recent Gallup polls show a 32% approval rating for Bush, and a even lower 23% approval rating for Congress. For some reason, Democrats and Republicans are still fighting amongst themselves, trying to gain our approval, and obviously failing.

The case of the recent veto of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and the Democratic response is a perfect example of how politicians only care about their personal perception. One Democratic ad attacks incumbent Representative H. James Saxton of New Jersey: “Did you know Congressman Saxton gets health care at taxpayers’ expense, but Saxton and Bush are blocking health care for 10 million children? Tell Jim Saxton to put families first.” The Democrats used Graeme Frost, a 12-year old suffering from brain injury, to issue their rebuttal to Bush's veto of the program. Republicans responded by undercutting Frost and his family, and accusing them of exploiting a young boy for political gains. (To see a pretty awful, but informative, run-down of the tearing apart of the Frost family, read conservative Michelle Malkin's blog.)

Instead of working together, our two-party system is fighting against themselves, not realizing they're destroying each other and bringing their country down with them. I no longer have faith in this political system, because those in charge of it only care about their own credibility and not about making this country a better place. If our leaders do not worry about those they govern, what makes them leaders? They may say that they are concerned about what the average American citizen thinks, but, as shown by their approval rating, they do not have the courage to try and make a difference. Attempts at change will always bring failure with it, but our leaders refuse to subject themselves to the potential for failure, and therefore, the potential for change.

I cannot have faith in a system that not only refuses to learn from failure, but actively denies it. We are no longer the greatest country in the world, if we ever truly were. I am still optimistic about what history will say about my generation, but I no longer care what it will have to say about the American political system. If our political leaders do not care about my generation, then I do not care about them.

The Trade-off for Eritrea

Isolationism is a big buzz word when it comes to international relations, as is dependency. When talking about developing countries, it seems as if these two concepts work as mutually exclusive events. If a country does not want to be completely dependent on richer countries for aid and support, then they must close down their borders.

Eritrea is one such country. This year alone, it has rejected over $200 million in food aid and loans. This East African nation has had the same leader since independence in 1993, Isaias Afwerki, who spearheads their isolationist stance.

Afwerki's words are very inspiring, and he talks of making his country "stand on its own two feet." Afwerki, in a LA Times interview, explained his policies by saying:

Self-reliance is perceived as isolationist. But self-reliance is a means, not an end. It's a means of taking you to the bigger market and the biggest markets. How can I do that with handouts?

The results of these policies are mixed. Eritrea provides free education and health care, and it has higher scores on health indicators than most countries. But Afwerki has jailed people opposing him and restricted religion. He has canceled elections twice and has called those he jailed "crooks" and Eritrea's liberal constitution only a "paper."

Eritrea is a perfect example of the trade-offs between isolationism and opened borders. Although Afwerki may be trying to decrease their dependency on foreign aid and hegemonic powers, he is cutting them off from the rest of the world. By leaving no room for opposition or outside influence, he is stifling the country, economically and socially. Eritrea's growth rate is 2% annually, ranked 179 out of 205.

The international community does not help to make a distinction from "self-reliance" and "isolationist" that Afwerki talks about. If a country refuses aid, or neglects to remove tariffs, it is branded "isolationist" or "totalitarian", and their rulers are seen as insane. There are obvious civil rights abuses in Eritrea and countries similar to it (like North Korea), but that does not mean isolationist policies are inherently bad. There also doesn't have to be such a wide discrepancy between the extremes of dependency and isolationist. There can be a middle ground, with some protection and some free trade.

With some amount of protection, countries can develop their own domestic markets and eventually "stand on their own two feet." After this, they can actively participate in the global economy. Third World countries will never break away from the cycle of aid unless they start to develop themselves. As Afwerki says: "You can't keep these people living on handouts because that doesn't change their lives."