Do We Need Heroes to Tell an Important Story?

In a recent post, reader Madalife commented how people are looking for "political saviors" this year in countries around the world, including the US and Madagascar. While I think people often feel the need for a champion of their cause(s), it is really the media that often truly needs heroes and champions to tell its stories (and then reinforced by the history books).

Tonight I finally "got around" to watching a documentary that I had heard about for a while, Mugabe and the White African. The film is about a family of white Zimbabweans fighting (in court) to keep their farm from President Mugabe's eviction and redistribution plans. The film is pretty unsettling, focusing on the hardships the family faces in keeping their land. Here is the trailer:


It is also unsettling for other reasons: the film focuses on the White Hero to tell its story. The family continues its fight despite mounting physical and legal dangers, and they are portrayed as shedding light on the extremes of the Mugabe regime. The film makes cursory mention of the many black Zimbabweans standing up to the regime, whether in court, on the farms, or in the streets. It appears the film makers felt it necessary to portray whites as the champions of the anti-Mugabe cause, in order to appeal to viewers around the world. Perhaps the reasoning for this portrayal is similar to aid organizations using Poverty Porn to elicit donations: "because it works!" This is hard for me to accept. I do not understand, for instance, how the story of fighting the Mugabe regime could be told less-effectively from the perspective of the (black) opposition candidates briefly seen in the film, or the (black) lawyer representing the white family. Include the white farmers' personal story as one aside, but focus elsewhere to provide both a more realistic view of who is fighting the violence and corruption of Mugabe's government and a fresh documentary look at justice in an African country. Whether in terms of development, conflict resolution, or any other story in Africa, we need to move away from the "White in Shining Armor" story framework and towards more realistic and inclusive stories.

I was wondering if I was along in thinking this, as the movie was well-reviewed and received awards (and it is a pretty powerful movie, emotionally/graphically/story-wise... especially if you ignore the subtexts). So I decided to search my favorite blog on Africa, Africa is a Country, which is usually full of righteous venom towards critically-acclaimed portrayals of the continent. And I was not disappointed, as you can see here.

 "the danger of this movie is that is posits the White farmers as trying to help, as just being ‘good guys’. Too many other people are trying to pass themselves off as ‘good guys’ in Africa (see: International Development), there’s no need for any more."

The whole article is worth a read, at least if you watch the movie. I do think it is a bit too venomous; the article seems to preach "an eye for an eye"-type of tactic for developing a country post-oppression (in this case post-colonialism/ post-apartheid). But such strategies are drastic and dangerous; I would argue South Africa's success was due to a President who favored reconciliation over retribution. But I digress a bit...

A final thought: the Zimbabweans who are taking the land and the farms are portrayed as feeling it is their right to do so. They see the land as their own. They feel entitled to it. It is hard to argue with someone whose family has been oppressed for generations that they deserve something in return. And the wounds of colonialism are still fresh in Zimbabwe, due to its independence coming in 1980. This is why land redistribution in former colonies, much like reparations for slavery in the USA, is so rarely discussed at high levels. Development sages focus on new policies and investments to counter the unfair wealth and resource distributions in former colonies, yet steer clear of the questions of nationalization and redistribution of resources. It is indeed a tough topic, but one that needs to be openly discussed. Now, before you go calling me a pinko-communist for even mentioning these inequities, I will close by saying the feelings of these Zimbabweans seeking to "reclaim" the white family's land reminded me of Herman Cain, of all people. While doing laundry this morning, the laundromat's television was on the View, and Herman Cain was on to talk about something or other. Besides announcing a coming "unconventional endorsement" (one guess was "endorsing Obama!"), he mentioned one of his catchphrases that I felt actually rings true in development and equity relations around the world: going from an "entitlement society to an empowerment society." That, I like to think, is the end goal: empowering people to improve their own lives. But when and where do entitlements play into that empowerment?