This is a fascinating article discussing the recent historical narrative of Ghana and its democracy.
It's striking to compare the various components that are highlighted with the recent Presidential electoral campaign that carpet bombed America with advertisements.
Here's the article.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
African Views on World Economy
I've been browsing through the Economist a bit lately, and found an interesting chart that is somewhat relevant. The chart on this page, as the title implies, compares results of polls on the status of the world economy in April, July and October in various regions around the world.
The only section other than America predicting any improvement was the Middle East and Africa. How much of this is skewed by the positivity that follows any government change? It's hard to say. The statistics may be skewed by a sample that obtained too many individuals who are benefiting from the Arab Spring, or are benefiting from not being suppressed under dictators such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. But it's a trend that is interesting, and worth keeping an eye out for.
Another chart that I found interesting, although of fairly little relevance, is this one that describes the economic situation of various nations around the world. In particular, I was surprised by Egypt's 12.6% unemployment in Q2, and South Africa having 25.5% unemployment during the same quarter. The only nations even close to South Africa are Spain and Greece, with Spain at 25.8% and Greece at 25.4%. Those who pay attention to the news can testify however, the western media is a lot more worried about Spain and Greece than South Africa. I hadn't even realized it until I hunted it down in that graphic.
It's an interesting notion, that the Middle East and Africa is the most positive region when it comes to the world economy. It's dangerous, as their own economies include a large amount of outside investment which would take a few years to hit them. At the same time, it indicates a simpler lifestyle that simply isn't as oriented around the ultra-competitive numbers game so common in the West.
Perhaps this is why South Africa's unemployment is so high; a large portion of the population is still oriented as a rural nation, and drags the unemployment numbers up. The graphic doesn't provide enough data, but it's food for though.
The only section other than America predicting any improvement was the Middle East and Africa. How much of this is skewed by the positivity that follows any government change? It's hard to say. The statistics may be skewed by a sample that obtained too many individuals who are benefiting from the Arab Spring, or are benefiting from not being suppressed under dictators such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. But it's a trend that is interesting, and worth keeping an eye out for.
Another chart that I found interesting, although of fairly little relevance, is this one that describes the economic situation of various nations around the world. In particular, I was surprised by Egypt's 12.6% unemployment in Q2, and South Africa having 25.5% unemployment during the same quarter. The only nations even close to South Africa are Spain and Greece, with Spain at 25.8% and Greece at 25.4%. Those who pay attention to the news can testify however, the western media is a lot more worried about Spain and Greece than South Africa. I hadn't even realized it until I hunted it down in that graphic.
It's an interesting notion, that the Middle East and Africa is the most positive region when it comes to the world economy. It's dangerous, as their own economies include a large amount of outside investment which would take a few years to hit them. At the same time, it indicates a simpler lifestyle that simply isn't as oriented around the ultra-competitive numbers game so common in the West.
Perhaps this is why South Africa's unemployment is so high; a large portion of the population is still oriented as a rural nation, and drags the unemployment numbers up. The graphic doesn't provide enough data, but it's food for though.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
President Obama's Actions in Africa
The article investigates the role of America in Africa, or rather lack thereof. It looks at the influence that China and other investing nations have gained, and notes that the Obama administration has done little but warn of accepting too much investment. The author, Todd Moss, goes on to advocate increased investment from the US in the developing continent.
One line in particular that stood out to me is "Finally, whoever occupies the White House for the next four years will have to resist knee-jerk efforts to counter Chinese influence in Africa. This is not a new Cold War. U.S. and Chinese interests only rarely conflict..." It's a concept that I've noticed in American politics when dealing with China for quite a while, and is frankly dumb. Yet should America attempt to escalate things into a Cold War state, I can see three major battlegrounds. First, the Middle East and in particular Iran. Next, possible Venezuela- but given the close proximity to Brazil, I seriously doubt this would happen. Finally, and most relevant to this class, I fear Africa would become the host of Cold War grandstanding.
The next question the article raised in me, is to what extent foreign investment is harmful versus beneficial. There is little doubt that building up infrastructure helps raise the standard of living. Nobody argues that. What the article didn't adequately address (in my opinion) is to what extent the debt of African nations will be exploited in the future and how effectively that investment is being utilized.
It's an interesting article however, and a good read.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138158/todd-moss/missing-in-africa?page=2
It's also worth noting that under the Author Biography in the article,
"TODD MOSS is vice president and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. From 2007 to 2008, he served as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State."
So he was employed during the Bush presidency, and may present politically charged views.
One line in particular that stood out to me is "Finally, whoever occupies the White House for the next four years will have to resist knee-jerk efforts to counter Chinese influence in Africa. This is not a new Cold War. U.S. and Chinese interests only rarely conflict..." It's a concept that I've noticed in American politics when dealing with China for quite a while, and is frankly dumb. Yet should America attempt to escalate things into a Cold War state, I can see three major battlegrounds. First, the Middle East and in particular Iran. Next, possible Venezuela- but given the close proximity to Brazil, I seriously doubt this would happen. Finally, and most relevant to this class, I fear Africa would become the host of Cold War grandstanding.
The next question the article raised in me, is to what extent foreign investment is harmful versus beneficial. There is little doubt that building up infrastructure helps raise the standard of living. Nobody argues that. What the article didn't adequately address (in my opinion) is to what extent the debt of African nations will be exploited in the future and how effectively that investment is being utilized.
It's an interesting article however, and a good read.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138158/todd-moss/missing-in-africa?page=2
It's also worth noting that under the Author Biography in the article,
"TODD MOSS is vice president and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. From 2007 to 2008, he served as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State."
So he was employed during the Bush presidency, and may present politically charged views.
Coptic Christians select new Pope
Using an apparently random process, Coptic Christians in Egypt have selected their new leader. It will be interesting to see how the new Pope reacts to increasing Islamization in the government of Egypt; I suspect the West will be offering as much support as it can get away with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20192922
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20192922
Monday, October 15, 2012
Intervention in Mali update
Well, it's been a while since I posted but now is as good a time to restart as ever.
Looking at the article found here, one can see the initiation of the legitimate intervention process. In this case, the UN Security Council charged ECOWAS and the government of Mali to deliver a proposal on how an international force could intervene within 45 days. This proposal would then be discussed at the Security Council, and then possibly enacted to prevent humans rights abuses.
It's also interesting to note that the major driving force behind the Resolution passing was the threat of humans rights abuses. In the Western world in particular, this abstract concept has taken on a role of sanctity. To draw an analogy that is admittedly a bit of a stretch; the Islamic world tends to riot at the display of Muhammad due to religious reasons, but then the Western world simply invades when it hears of human rights abuses. I'm uncertain if this a good thing. Humanitarians would argue these invasions are good; most Westerners would as well. The concept of realpolitik demands that you deal with other nations as they are.
Overall, this is an interesting snapshot of the divides between parts of African culture and foreign cultures. The diplomatic situations of the nations surrounding Mali is interesting as well; but that can be saved for another post.
Looking at the article found here, one can see the initiation of the legitimate intervention process. In this case, the UN Security Council charged ECOWAS and the government of Mali to deliver a proposal on how an international force could intervene within 45 days. This proposal would then be discussed at the Security Council, and then possibly enacted to prevent humans rights abuses.
It's also interesting to note that the major driving force behind the Resolution passing was the threat of humans rights abuses. In the Western world in particular, this abstract concept has taken on a role of sanctity. To draw an analogy that is admittedly a bit of a stretch; the Islamic world tends to riot at the display of Muhammad due to religious reasons, but then the Western world simply invades when it hears of human rights abuses. I'm uncertain if this a good thing. Humanitarians would argue these invasions are good; most Westerners would as well. The concept of realpolitik demands that you deal with other nations as they are.
Overall, this is an interesting snapshot of the divides between parts of African culture and foreign cultures. The diplomatic situations of the nations surrounding Mali is interesting as well; but that can be saved for another post.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Terrorism, Extremism, and the Future of Africa
Given the perturbing nature of the crimes that made international headlines
in Benghazi, Libya today, I decided now would be a good time to explore terrorism and citizen unrest in African.
First, it is necessary to pay respect to recently-deceased US Ambassador Chris Stevens; in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya on September 11th / 12th protests broke out in front of US embassies protesting a YouTube video that I will not post here; it can be reached by searching "Muhammad Movie Trailer" but doesn't merit the creation of a hyperlink. The video itself isn't all that offensive from a Western perspective; it satirizes the foundation and principles of Islam in a crude fashion, to be sure, but a number of exploitative movies exist about most religions. This video specifically exploits the hatred that Islam has for personifying a religious figure, and then implying that religious figure was involved in various different socially unacceptable situations including but not limited to open warfare, uncalled for torture, rape, marriage out of wedlock and numerous other crude actions. In short- the movie was created to exploit numerous things that are nearly guaranteed to draw a reaction from known Islamic extremists in the world. I'd almost say it was tailored specifically to draw a reaction, given historical events and the debacles that have ensued after them.
Anyways, to return to the situation. Crowds gathered outside each embassy, and protests ensued. As far as the West has been able to tell, these protests in and of themselves were peaceful. In Benghazi, Libya however, tragedy struck; while few likely know what exactly happened due to the chaos of combat, one recounting can be found here. Now that some of the smoke has cleared, the upshot is fairly simple- Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya is dead, and as CNN Wire Staff has put it, "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act," President Barack Obama said. "And make no mistake, justice will be done." The US has stated that it believes the attack was orchestrated by a small group of extremist militants who chose to take advantage of the visual unrest that the protests signified. Demonstrations broke out in Libya to show solidarity and compassion for the victim, and the US stated political bonds would not be broken with Libya. US Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney offered brief comment. Al Jazeera, a Qatari news network that is common throughout the Arab world, is running the ticker "U.S. PENTAGON SENDING TWO WARSHIPS TO THE LIBYAN COAST FOR "CONTINGENCY PURPOSES" FOLLOWING ATTACK ON CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI." It might be worth noting that some in the West don't particularly trust Al Jazeera.
So the simplest way to describe the events of Libya is to state that terrorists took advantage of Islamic protests outside of the US Embassy to carry out a 'complex' attack and assassinate the Ambassador, which has placed the US on red alert and led to a vow of vengeance, which generally speaking precedes violence and intervention.
So that is the Islamic Maghrib. Now, to move to other parts of Africa.
Next, we have an article from Reuters that discusses Islam in Africa. In particular, it discusses Kenya's actions in Somalia and their consequences from Al Shabaab and Nigeria's Boko Haram. Essentially it proposes that Kenya is struggling to repel a force that it can ill afford to be fighting against, and that Nigeria's north is "arid, poor, less well educated, lacking in resources and facing the decline of its few industries."
Somalia, as immortalized in the film "Black Hawk Down" is still a disaster zone. It has recently elected a President, but he will have to deal with Al Shabaab as well as prove himself to numerous warlords and small city-states that have developed. (a rather fascinating article, "Somalia at the Tipping Point?" by Ken Menkhaus, is available in the May 2012 Current History journal available at NDNU's library)
Various West African nations are apparently dealing with general chaos, and Mali (as outlined by my previous blog posts) doesn't have a strong government at this point, with the North offering haven to local terrorist organizations.
When it comes to how to deal with them, I somehow doubt there is any single answer. I also doubt that violently eliminating them as the US has attempted to achieve against Al Qaeda is possible, which forces one to wonder: how can one reason with organizations that care so little for human lives that they will kill innocents to get their point across?
I see no rational response, but I suspect this is going to be the question of at least the next Century.
First, it is necessary to pay respect to recently-deceased US Ambassador Chris Stevens; in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya on September 11th / 12th protests broke out in front of US embassies protesting a YouTube video that I will not post here; it can be reached by searching "Muhammad Movie Trailer" but doesn't merit the creation of a hyperlink. The video itself isn't all that offensive from a Western perspective; it satirizes the foundation and principles of Islam in a crude fashion, to be sure, but a number of exploitative movies exist about most religions. This video specifically exploits the hatred that Islam has for personifying a religious figure, and then implying that religious figure was involved in various different socially unacceptable situations including but not limited to open warfare, uncalled for torture, rape, marriage out of wedlock and numerous other crude actions. In short- the movie was created to exploit numerous things that are nearly guaranteed to draw a reaction from known Islamic extremists in the world. I'd almost say it was tailored specifically to draw a reaction, given historical events and the debacles that have ensued after them.
Anyways, to return to the situation. Crowds gathered outside each embassy, and protests ensued. As far as the West has been able to tell, these protests in and of themselves were peaceful. In Benghazi, Libya however, tragedy struck; while few likely know what exactly happened due to the chaos of combat, one recounting can be found here. Now that some of the smoke has cleared, the upshot is fairly simple- Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya is dead, and as CNN Wire Staff has put it, "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act," President Barack Obama said. "And make no mistake, justice will be done." The US has stated that it believes the attack was orchestrated by a small group of extremist militants who chose to take advantage of the visual unrest that the protests signified. Demonstrations broke out in Libya to show solidarity and compassion for the victim, and the US stated political bonds would not be broken with Libya. US Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney offered brief comment. Al Jazeera, a Qatari news network that is common throughout the Arab world, is running the ticker "U.S. PENTAGON SENDING TWO WARSHIPS TO THE LIBYAN COAST FOR "CONTINGENCY PURPOSES" FOLLOWING ATTACK ON CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI." It might be worth noting that some in the West don't particularly trust Al Jazeera.
So the simplest way to describe the events of Libya is to state that terrorists took advantage of Islamic protests outside of the US Embassy to carry out a 'complex' attack and assassinate the Ambassador, which has placed the US on red alert and led to a vow of vengeance, which generally speaking precedes violence and intervention.
So that is the Islamic Maghrib. Now, to move to other parts of Africa.
Next, we have an article from Reuters that discusses Islam in Africa. In particular, it discusses Kenya's actions in Somalia and their consequences from Al Shabaab and Nigeria's Boko Haram. Essentially it proposes that Kenya is struggling to repel a force that it can ill afford to be fighting against, and that Nigeria's north is "arid, poor, less well educated, lacking in resources and facing the decline of its few industries."
Somalia, as immortalized in the film "Black Hawk Down" is still a disaster zone. It has recently elected a President, but he will have to deal with Al Shabaab as well as prove himself to numerous warlords and small city-states that have developed. (a rather fascinating article, "Somalia at the Tipping Point?" by Ken Menkhaus, is available in the May 2012 Current History journal available at NDNU's library)
Various West African nations are apparently dealing with general chaos, and Mali (as outlined by my previous blog posts) doesn't have a strong government at this point, with the North offering haven to local terrorist organizations.
When it comes to how to deal with them, I somehow doubt there is any single answer. I also doubt that violently eliminating them as the US has attempted to achieve against Al Qaeda is possible, which forces one to wonder: how can one reason with organizations that care so little for human lives that they will kill innocents to get their point across?
I see no rational response, but I suspect this is going to be the question of at least the next Century.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Mali: How Did a Coup Occur, and How Do International Actors Respond?
In my previous post, I discussed the fall of Mali and what effect it might have on US Foreign Policy. I chose to look somewhat deeper into the details surrounding the Coup of early 2012, and found an interesting article (that linked to another interesting document) on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. The article provides a cursory overview; reading the actual Congressional Research Service document provides a simply fascinating amount of depth.
To summarize; in 2011, Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM; it is also recognized as a FTO by the US) and various other Islamic extremists groups, as well as Tuareg fighters, seized land in northern Mali; they were able to settle into the society, and have become ingrained. The lands they control can be seen on page 3 of the CRS document; they include Timbuktu. At the same time, a military coup overthrew the (most likely corrupt) "democratic" government that was held by the US to be “a leading regional partner in counterterrorism." (p 13 of the CRS document)
The first point that I believe deserves highlighting is the impact of the Western military intervention in Libya; as the CRS document phrases it on page 7, "Tuareg combatants, some of whom
had fought in Qadhafi’s military or looted military stocks during Libya’s conflict, reportedly
carried heavy weaponry back into Mali."
I also find it rather interesting to note how on page 9, there is mention that whereas the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson calls on ECOWAS (Economic Community Of West African States) to focus on supporting transitional bodies in the south instead of intervening militarily, France has "taken a more assertive public position in support of a regional military force." Within the same context, the document also comments that France is arguably more directly threatened by AQIM.
According to the CRS document, Algeria (the predominant military forces in the region) has attempted to stay out of the conflict and has instead called for negotiations,(p 9) but it is hard to say; this Al Jazeera article suggests that changing situations may result in different circumstances.
How this conflict unfolds may well serve as an indication of whether or not foreign nations feel strongly enough about economic investment to intervene militarily in West Africa. I am curious how this will play out.
To summarize; in 2011, Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM; it is also recognized as a FTO by the US) and various other Islamic extremists groups, as well as Tuareg fighters, seized land in northern Mali; they were able to settle into the society, and have become ingrained. The lands they control can be seen on page 3 of the CRS document; they include Timbuktu. At the same time, a military coup overthrew the (most likely corrupt) "democratic" government that was held by the US to be “a leading regional partner in counterterrorism." (p 13 of the CRS document)
The first point that I believe deserves highlighting is the impact of the Western military intervention in Libya; as the CRS document phrases it on page 7, "Tuareg combatants, some of whom
had fought in Qadhafi’s military or looted military stocks during Libya’s conflict, reportedly
carried heavy weaponry back into Mali."
I also find it rather interesting to note how on page 9, there is mention that whereas the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson calls on ECOWAS (Economic Community Of West African States) to focus on supporting transitional bodies in the south instead of intervening militarily, France has "taken a more assertive public position in support of a regional military force." Within the same context, the document also comments that France is arguably more directly threatened by AQIM.
According to the CRS document, Algeria (the predominant military forces in the region) has attempted to stay out of the conflict and has instead called for negotiations,(p 9) but it is hard to say; this Al Jazeera article suggests that changing situations may result in different circumstances.
How this conflict unfolds may well serve as an indication of whether or not foreign nations feel strongly enough about economic investment to intervene militarily in West Africa. I am curious how this will play out.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Legitimacy of Governance in Mali, and Western Diplomatic Tendencies in "Third World" Nations
As I was browsing the wonderful and (often) intellectually stimulating subreddit known as TrueReddit, I noticed a rather fascinating article written by Bruce Whitehouse, PhD found here discussing recent events in Mali. The article, as is seen by a cursory glance at the title, deals with Mali, or rather what went wrong. After giving a brief background, it discusses how the Democratic government that numerous Western nations held as an example of success (and funded, as well) slid into corruption and was eventually taken over forcibly by a military junta. The author goes on to propose at the end that "It may be that the way to help these societies sort out their conflicts is to let them do it on their own." This concept is one that has intrigued me since the start of the Wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan; to what extent does the United States and other Western Powers have any ethical or moral legitimacy to interfere in so-called "third-world" nations?
Naturally, given that analysis is easier from the perspective of the United States, I'd like to approach the topic from that degree.
After the dust settled on the horrors of September 11, 2001, the United States was hungering for blood. President Bush promptly authorized the so-called War on Terror, and the game was afoot. Using the so-called "War on Terror," Iraq was later invaded; the sovereignty of Pakistan has been continuously invaded via Drone Strikes, and national boundaries have come to mean almost nothing so long as a "terrorist" is present. To be fair, I'm massively simplifying things; this thought has little to do with Africa, and more to do with US (and by extension Western) foreign policy in the 21st Century. This is merely one example of the US (and NATO) interfering with the development of foreign nations.
Another contemporary example, that is quite curious and more so relevant, was the alleged "No-Fly Zone" over Libya during the Arab Spring. As those of us who have been studying our maps of Africa know, Libya is along the northern coast of Africa; this places it on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, and a potentially dangerous outpost for many European nations. I don't want to go into the details of the morality of the No-Fly Zone, as I feel it will suffice to put this quote here- "Nato military operations played right into the tribal animosities which exist in Libya," says India's UN ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, calling NATO the "armed wing" of the Security Council. "I think in retrospect, we were right to have abstained." Now, I personally believe after discussion with a friend who is an Economics major at USF, Sean Gabel, that the intervention was more of an economic endeavor to protect European oil prices, but it is yet another example of Western manipulation.
The classic historical example of a Western coup that backfired is of course Iran. Details can be found here, and again a theme I proposed in the section on Libya is present; that of stabilizing oil supplies.
The answer will likely not be decided for a number of years in the future, as politics tend to take a long time to work itself out. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Drone Strikes in Pakistan) reflect the US' War on Terror in an applied form; it's difficult to believe, however, that potential payout resources were not secretly considered by those who were planning the war. Given the presence of natural resources the West has interest in in the majority of nations that it has interfered in throughout history however, I can only conclude the West has (rather obviously) systematically set up points of control throughout the greater World in order to stabilize supplies of resources.
Is this the best answer? Economically speaking, probably; but I'm inclined to stop fighting and try Whitehouse's proposed solution in which "It may be that the way to help these societies sort out their conflicts is to let them do it on their own."
Naturally, given that analysis is easier from the perspective of the United States, I'd like to approach the topic from that degree.
After the dust settled on the horrors of September 11, 2001, the United States was hungering for blood. President Bush promptly authorized the so-called War on Terror, and the game was afoot. Using the so-called "War on Terror," Iraq was later invaded; the sovereignty of Pakistan has been continuously invaded via Drone Strikes, and national boundaries have come to mean almost nothing so long as a "terrorist" is present. To be fair, I'm massively simplifying things; this thought has little to do with Africa, and more to do with US (and by extension Western) foreign policy in the 21st Century. This is merely one example of the US (and NATO) interfering with the development of foreign nations.
Another contemporary example, that is quite curious and more so relevant, was the alleged "No-Fly Zone" over Libya during the Arab Spring. As those of us who have been studying our maps of Africa know, Libya is along the northern coast of Africa; this places it on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, and a potentially dangerous outpost for many European nations. I don't want to go into the details of the morality of the No-Fly Zone, as I feel it will suffice to put this quote here- "Nato military operations played right into the tribal animosities which exist in Libya," says India's UN ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, calling NATO the "armed wing" of the Security Council. "I think in retrospect, we were right to have abstained." Now, I personally believe after discussion with a friend who is an Economics major at USF, Sean Gabel, that the intervention was more of an economic endeavor to protect European oil prices, but it is yet another example of Western manipulation.
The classic historical example of a Western coup that backfired is of course Iran. Details can be found here, and again a theme I proposed in the section on Libya is present; that of stabilizing oil supplies.
The answer will likely not be decided for a number of years in the future, as politics tend to take a long time to work itself out. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Drone Strikes in Pakistan) reflect the US' War on Terror in an applied form; it's difficult to believe, however, that potential payout resources were not secretly considered by those who were planning the war. Given the presence of natural resources the West has interest in in the majority of nations that it has interfered in throughout history however, I can only conclude the West has (rather obviously) systematically set up points of control throughout the greater World in order to stabilize supplies of resources.
Is this the best answer? Economically speaking, probably; but I'm inclined to stop fighting and try Whitehouse's proposed solution in which "It may be that the way to help these societies sort out their conflicts is to let them do it on their own."
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Introduction
Greetings I suppose,
This is Edward Boscacci's blog on the topic of NDNU's African Area Studies course offered in Fall, 2012. The class seems interesting, and intrigues me as I know little to nothing of Africa; I've briefly explored nations along the Mediterranean in courses on the Middle East, however sub-Sahara has always eluded me.
I'm hopeful that this class will remedy my ignorance.
This is Edward Boscacci's blog on the topic of NDNU's African Area Studies course offered in Fall, 2012. The class seems interesting, and intrigues me as I know little to nothing of Africa; I've briefly explored nations along the Mediterranean in courses on the Middle East, however sub-Sahara has always eluded me.
I'm hopeful that this class will remedy my ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)