Week 13: Classes

Caity Wilson
Maggie Broad

This week, for most students, was focused heavily upon the idea of foreign/international aid. Through our course of study here in Namibia we have constantly been exposed to different people and organizations that are heavily effected by international aid. Many of our internships rely on international donors to keep their doors open and programs running smoothly. When we were given the opportunity to meet with aid organizations and discuss the topic of international aid in our development course, we were all very excited. We learned lots of interesting things in Politics, History, and Religion class, but a large part of the week was spent on international aid which is why we have chosen to focus this blog primarily on that topic.

For development class this week students were asked to arrange meetings with different aid organizations and agencies working within Namibia to fit in with our focus on international aid. One group organized a meeting with UNAIDS. Students attending this meeting met with Ms. Gloria Billy, a program officer at the agency. Ms. Billy explained to the students about the work of UNAIDS and its leadership role among non-governmental organizations within Namibia that deal with HIV/AIDS related issues.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the conversation, however, was when students asked Ms. Billy about her personal opinion about the work of HIV/AIDS organizations within Namibia. Ms. Billy replied that while many organizations are doing good work within the country, there are so many organizations and few, if any, are coordinating their efforts to both stop the spread of the virus and provide treatment for those who are already infected. Students also learned that many organizations have failed to develop any system within their organization for sustainability meaning that they constantly depend on more money from outside donors to keep their programs running rather than finding a way to gain support from the Namibian government or ways to fund themselves. These organizations can end up hindering development rather than helping it along. This was a very important meeting for students as it helped shine some light on questions students had raised about the number of organizations working with HIV/AIDS and the sustainability of such organizations.

Another group visited the Finnish Embassy, which was practically a cultural exchange in itself. The embassy, employing just nine people, was set on a plush green property. The students met with the Chancellor of Development, Janne Sykkõ. During that time, Mr. Sykkõ was more than happy to talk us through the history of both Finland and the relationship between Finland and Namibia. As he continued, his humility, honesty, and genuine nature was more than evident, and his hospitable nature was just astounding.

Speaking to Americans, he was more than aware of the amount of aid Finland offered in comparison to the US; however he admitted that with the little aid given they still tried their best to support locals and see long-term sustainability in each project. He also commented on the people of Finland’s desire to see their corporations continue to follow the same fair labor policies abroad and did their best to follow up on companies such as Nokia. Although some of us wish Americans did the same, we are often criticized for our lack of knowledge and desire to follow up on US companies’ actions abroad.

One question asked was about the nature or hidden agendas of international aid organizations and if he felt this was often true of international aid. His response was once again very genuine, and he admitted that sometimes there are personal goals acting as a driving force however, most often the goals of international aid are to see long term sustainable development. Although many of us wanted to agree with him, some felt that too many times international aid’s main purpose is other than seeing to long-term efficient development or change. Never the less, Mr. Sykkõ was able to inspire us to believe in the good nature many international aid groups claim to achieve.

Following our visits to the different embassies and agencies, our academic week culminated with a visit to USAID with the development class. The visit was very pertinent as a lot of students work at internships funded by international donors and/or USAID. At USAID we met with Debra Mosel, the assistant mission director of USAID in Namibia. Debra offered us a lot of insight into the work that USAID does both within Namibia and globally as well as insight into how the agency works with a foreign country while still holding to US foreign policies. Prior to the meeting, some in the group had expressed concern over the fact that the aid provided is strictly controlled and monitored by the US government and its foreign policies. This has the potential to conflict with the plans and ideas of the host country.

This meeting however helped some to see the different sides to various situation and organizations, helping to inspire a bit more faith in the development field.
Students seemed very drawn to the discussion of the work of the emergency department of USAID as they provide basic services quickly and with very little intervention from the US government. Overall the experience was a very important one as it allowed students the opportunity to not only find out more fully about the work of USAID, but also provided a forum for students to ask a lot of the lingering questions that had remained with many of us throughout the semester.

Although the visit with USAID was interesting, its slogan “USAID, from the American people”, struck a lot of students. This idea of aid coming from the “American people” is almost humorous when in fact not only do most US citizens not know where Namibia is, let alone how to pronounce it, but most are not even aware of USAID itself. This is perhaps a representation of the lack of care or understanding Americans have for countries outside of the US, but could also be related to the fact that most Americans have very little to do with where the aid goes and how it is used.

After the meeting one student had an interesting conversation with a local Namibian who works closely with such organizations as USAID, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, CDC, and other international aid organizations. During that conversation the student was trying to get a local’s perspective on these organizations work in regards to sustainability. During that conversation however, USAID was highly regarded as a flexible, well organized, and sustainability concerned organization. But, CDC, UNAIDS, and PEPFAR were noted to be result seeking organizations which do not look at sustainability, let alone the needs of locals. Instead, these other organizations were commented upon as being irresponsible and personal-agenda driven foreign aid groups - exactly what develop class has been critical of.

Week 12

Hannah Miner
Colleen Keeney


Easter week at CGE there was very little time for breaks or celebration. With the semester winding down the week was filled with classes, internships, speakers, a panel, and papers. On Easter Sunday we did take a break to enjoy some Easter festivities. Justine and Kristin planned a community event of egg dying, an Easter egg hunt and making deviled eggs. Overall, as we scramble to finish up our final papers and projects the reality of leaving is also setting in.


In internship class, on Tuesday, we had a panel of Americans working in Namibia. They spoke about their different experiences working and living in Namibia. The first speaker was Lucy Steinitz who is a Regional Technical Advisor for Family Health International, and covers the entire continent of Africa. Originally a New Yorker, she was very easy to relate to. When she spoke about her initial move to Zimbabwe, her return to the US, and later relocation back to Namibia, she stated, “I have always had Africa and adventure on the brain.” This is a feeling that drew many of the students to Namibia to study. She also spoke about the different kind of life that you find outside the US, which is closer to what really matters. It is these other kinds of things that has taken hold of many of us and made us love Namibia. It comes in the intimate relationships we have formed, the ten small conversations you have while walking down the street, the lack of TV watching, and the homemade bread we eat regularly. MaryBeth Gallagher was another captivating panel member. She recalled multiple stories from time spent in San Francisco as a Jesuit Volunteer Corp member, in El Salvador and Bangladesh through Maryknoll Mission Society, and finally at Catholic AIDS Action in Namibia. She quoted Mother Theresa saying, “When you are doing God’s work, God will provide for you.” She made clear that this statement has proved true in her life. Both of these speakers, along with the rest of the panel, told us to take risks and love what we are doing--if we do these things then we have very little to worry about. The final two speakers were Nick Deluca, who works the US Center for Disease Control and a member of the foreign service. They both gave us the perspective on working for the US government abroad and the benefits that can come along with that. All of the speakers were obviously very passionate about what they doing in Namibia, and gave us a lot to think about in terms of working abroad when we graduate college.


The religion class was also extremely privileged this week when they visited the Islamic Center here is Windhoek. With only five thousand Muslims living in Namibia, which is an extremely Christian country, it was insightful to meet with Imam Shafi to get a deeper look into Islam. He referred to Islam as, "not only a religion. Religion is the narrowest title that can be given to Islam. Islam is a complete way of life.” He spoke in-depth about how a commitment to the way of life of Islam is promoting social change in Namibia. Not that they are trying to convert people, but they want all Muslims to be the best Muslim in all areas of their life. His talk was very interesting because it was a reminder that all change does not come in the form of mass social movements, instead it can be a personal self-transformation and be reflected in how you live day to day. The meeting was an excellent exchange and both parties felt as though there was not enough time, so Imam Shafi invited back for dinner at a later date.


In History this past week, we considered racism through the lens of privilege by creatively presenting on either our own experiences with racism and how our position within society relates to one aspect of Namibian history or by comparing one facet of the history of racism and resistance in Namibia with one within the history of the United States. Students presented on important leaders in both liberation movements, including one of architects of apartheid, the parallels that exists between both apartheid and the separate but equal Jim Crow Laws and the Civil Rights Movement, particularly in Alaska, and the struggle for Independence, as well as womens rights in Namibia, South Africa and the U.S. The presentations provided an excellent segue into discussing our own personal experiences with racism, including when we first experienced racism and how racism manifests itself within us and affects our actions. In general, the conversation was very open, with many people giving testimony on a very emotional and charged topic. I was very impressed with my colleagues’ honesty and courage to face a topic that is often considered to be taboo in the U.S.


We closed our history class that day with an exercise about diversity and privilege. In this exercise we lined up in a straight line and then responded to a series of statements like “If there were more than 50 books in your house when you grew up, take one step forward” and “If you were raised in an area where there was prostitution, drug activity, etc. take one step back.” At the end of the exercise we were left scattered across our carport, with those people who identified themselves as being more privileged standing only a short distance from the electric fence that surrounds out guesthouse (coincidence?) In the discussion that followed several students expressed surprise at how pervasive privilege and oppression can be and how interrelated race and socio-economic class are, noting how both have the potential to positively or negatively influence every aspect of our lives, from how we travel from one place to the next to how many books we had in our houses as we were growing up. It was also mentioned that the diversity found within our small group of twenty was impressive, though it was also acknowledged that despite some of us having at one point in our lives been at a greater or lesser advantage than others, we, as American college students are privileged relative to the rest of the world.


We started our The Development Process class on Friday by talking briefly about feminism. Essentially, feminism, in this educational context, refers to the attempt to create a space in which everyone--women, men, black, white, rich, poor, have the opportunity to speak about their experience in order to create an atmosphere and dialogue that is more diverse. This includes acknowledging that there are different knowledge systems dictating how we know, experience, and convey information. We then had a speaker from *Women’s Solidarity,* Rosa Namilas, come to out class to speak about gendered social justice issues found within Namibia focusing specifically on issues facing women and children, including corporeal punishment in the school system, the lack of participation of women in politics, and HIV/AIDS in an attempt to gain perspective on how the development process affects different groups of people.


Despite feeling overworked having handed in several papers this passed week, us students were still out in full force exploring Windhoek nightlife over the weekend. Several students were out late on Saturday in order to see a well-known local artist, Gazza, perform. We only have a few weeks left so we’re trying to enjoy every minute while staying on top of schoolwork.

Week 11: Classes and the South

Justine Goeke
Nichole Rohlfsen
Yedidya Tabanpour

In Political Science this week, a panel of experts on the land question in Namibia offered divergent opinions and solutions. Harold Schutt, a business consultant in Windhoek, started the conversation by asking students “Who owns land?” and “What happens to you when you die?” Over the course of his lecture, we realized that the two questions illustrate the tension between communal and commercial land and the difference between land for production and land as a spiritual entity. Schutt illustrated the limitations of commercial agriculture and argued that the more sustainable alternative is to recognize that “This is our mother earth that we borrow from our children, rather than inherit from our ancestors.” I, Justine Goeke, thought looking at land as something we “borrow from our children” also promoted environmental sustainability and an understanding of the world’s transience. While I am not sure I agree that land should be massively communalized in an upheaval of a corporate system, I do think that the “Western” way of looking at land could use revision.

Erkia von Wietersheim, author of This Land is My Land and former third generation farmer in southern Namibia, argued that despite Schutt’s implications, white farmers have an emotional and spiritual connection to the land. I felt like the conflict between Schutt’s implication that black Africans have a more spiritual tie to the land and Wietersheim’s assertion that white people are also tied to the land paralleled tension in the United States between Native Americans and white farmers. She said that, “In Namibia…people associate land with a mystical quality. Land means livelihood and safety and security and family. Something stable in their lives…something [they] cannot lose easily.” Some students felt that their experiences on farms or in their homes in the United States matched Witersheim’s spiritual connection to the land. While she indicated that the inequality in land distribution demanded change, she argued that Namibia must avoid the path of Zimbabwe in which land was taken violently from white farmers and redistributed to farmers that neglected the land.

In History, we examined the United Nations’ measurement of development. John M. Ashipala, an economist for the United Nations Development Programme, illustrated the use of the Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI uses three dimensions – life expectancy, population knowledge, and gross domestic product – to measure countries on a numerical scale. Over the course of Ashipala’s presentation, we learned that the decline in HDI is caused by the decline in life expectancy, which has a direct relationship to the rate of HIV/AIDS. Components of HDI were divided into population measurements by language, rather than by race, which blurred some measurements. The use of language rather than race was hotly contested both at the UN and in our classroom. Romanus Shivoro argued that, “It is somehow emotionally driven that we do not address color any more, but it is part of our history.” Race, while a means of dividing people to measure “development,” can also be incredibly inflammatory.

Our first night on our trip to the south was spent just outside of Mariental at the Hardap Dam campsite. After speaking to Catherine Boois, the Mariental Municipality Public Relations Officer, we were able to gain a different perspective on the development of the campsite and the effects of tourism on the town of Mariental. Mariental has experienced flooding in recent years and as a result, many businesses have been devastated. The dam provides an opportunity for locals to sell crafts and other traditional materials to tourists and also has the potential for businesses such as bed and breakfasts. I was surprised at all the dam is used for: fishing, water sports, water for irrigation schemes, water that is bought by the municipality and sold to residents for drinking, water that is used for non-drinking purposes (ie, residential gardening) and various scientific endeavors and experiments, such as aquaculture (fish farming).

The dam seemed to be quite useful, but Ms. Boois insisted the dam is under-utilized and has great potential to become a large tourist spot and as a result, economic booster for the town of Mariental. She commented on the campsites and how they needed updating. I, Nichole Rohlfsen, agreed that better facilities would help to attract more business, along with more advertising. But I doubted the dam’s ability to lift up the town of Mariental; I felt as if the dam was seen as sort of the messiah, the potential savior of the town’s woes. Informal settlements were also present in Mariental as was unemployment and the possibility of job creation through the tourism raised interesting possibilities: a way for more people to be employed, but this is dependent on the flow of tourists. Also, Mariental is not largely populated and I feel like there would be competition between different craftsellers, bed and breakfasts, etc if the starting of small businesses for tourism purposes was endorsed. All in all, the dam was a beautiful man-made part of nature that had various uses but the role it plays within the community of Mariental could be helpful or detrimental, depending which way you look at the situation.

On our way to the Berseba Community Campsite, it was hard not to notice the hitchhikers on the side of the road. We picked up a mother and her children who were on their way home. Being on a hidden gravel road, it would have taken her at least a full day, if not more, to walk.

Upon our arrival to the campsite we met Peatrus, the Berseba chairperson and development coordinator. His role was to oversee the construction of the community project and represent the town on political issues. He earned this title by being the second citizen of Berseba. So far, the campsite and project has built a total of four shelters, two fire places, two outhouses and has bought a container for the future storage of water. In an extremely dry and impoverished climate, it was fascinating to see that it took over thirty years, starting in 1984, to achieve such few tasks. With the mountain as the main attraction, they initially hoped to lure tourists for the future development of other projects in Berseba. With a lack of funding and water resources, their ultimate goal of building a lodge seems unlikely to happen any time soon. The difficulty in sustaining a community through ecotourism was a direct reflection of development readings on sustainable tourism and pro-pour tourism.

After camping, the adventurers in the group explored the landscape. Some went for a hike up the mountain, where two of the four shelters had been placed, and the others walked through the streambed. The fierce hike and the scarce water clearly exhibited some of the current development issues. Later on we had been joined by the local HIV/AIDS club to help clear a patch of grass to deter snakes. We took on the role of community members by interacting and working with the curious, energetic singers of Berseba. They taught us songs and dances that they used to reach and teach others about HIV/AIDS. The good byes were difficult, but we held great hopes of continuing our alliance.

The Kambahok project was quite interesting to find and get to. While sitting next to Passat and Linda, I Yedidya Tabanpour, noticed how the language barrier prevented us from obtaining proper directions to the site. We were told to “just go straight.” The issue was our own fear of getting stuck on the sandy road. Luckily, we made it with minor stalls and stops. The community campsite had been run through council of sixteen women, all running individual projects, such as sewing traditional Herero dresses, catering, and camping. Like the previous community campsite, this group hoped to make money through ecotourism. The main attractions were the salt pans and the vivid history of the Nama war against the Germans. Njandee Kazongominja, the chairperson of the project, often found weapons left over from the war. She spoke to us about her project efforts and methods of achieving her goals. For cheap sustainable construction, she used beer bottles to build the walls and tall grass for the roofs of the shelters, bathrooms and workshop. As quick as her warm welcome came, we were off to go back home to complete our upcoming school assignments on our current educational experiences.

Week 9: Up North

Abi, Britta and Sam

This was by far one of the busiest weeks the group has had since Johannesburg. We met with scores of speakers and drove for hours (a special thanks to our amazing driver, Passat). Therefore, the three of us could not possibly dedicate the space to reflect on everything we did, but here are some of our favorites. Enjoy!

Our time in the North was a totally different experience than anything we had done in prior months in my mind (Sam). The North has been plagued by flooding for weeks due to the runoff of heavy rainfall in Angola. The damage to small and large businesses as well as homes and farms was certainly devastating. When similar scenarios hit the U.S., there are scores of good Samaritans stacking sand bags and quickly cleaning up the damage. What we saw in the North were tens, if not hundreds, of locals fishing in the flooded plains and setting up tents and makeshift homes along the road. I (Sam) was amazed and intrigued by the way people were going about their daily lives and looking at the situation as one to make a profit off of by selling fish. I couldn’t help but wonder what measures the government was taking at that moment to ensure the area would not flood again the next year, as this is year two. Regardless, the communities seemed to be pulling together once again to make light of a devastating event. Your browser may not support display of this image.

Here in Namibia they have managed to keep many traditions alive despite the continuous modernization of the country and its people. We experienced an example of this social contrast when we were visiting the North. We were lucky enough to be able to meet with King Kauluma, the king of the Ovambo tribe Ndonga. Typical of Namibian time, even though we were late, we waited for the king for close to half an hour. Something we all found interesting was the rule that the king himself could not speak to us, but sat there as two of his council members answered all of our questions. It was a little difficult to figure out whether you should address your question to the king, even though he wasn’t the one who would answer you. We learned that the king and his council members have a very active relationship with the current government and that they manage to keep a pretty solid balance between the two.

The next day we visited the Red Cross at Onandjokwe Hospital. It was very inspiring to hear what the Northern branch of the Namibian Red Cross is doing. One of their largest programs is their home care system for people suffering from HIV and AIDS. A person who is a part of this program receives assistance with daily care from Red Cross employees and volunteers. Services include help with medications or common household tasks. It is always uplifting to visit an organization that is clearly doing a very good job to help those in need.

We were also able to witness what the Ongwediva Rural Development Centre (RDC) does for local constituents. The RDC serves as an educational and entrepreneurial facility. Local inhabitants are able to attend training courses at RDC ranging from water table horticulture to sewing to jam making to craft production. Locals who attend these courses are then able to turn their training into a skilled profession. I (Sam) found this part of the RDC to be rather empowering for men and women who know to utilize the facility. The second part of the facility was a workshop in which latrines, among other things, were manufactured and for sale. While this was an impressive process, I (Sam) couldn’t bring myself to understand why the RDC would not teach locals the process of making their own latrines and allow them to use their workshop. Instead, the latrines were manufactured by a few locals employed by RDC (which is great, don’t get me wrong) and in turn sold for a pretty penny. Regardless, it was very interesting and informative to visit a center that promotes rural empowerment and development at a grassroots level.

The group also visited the Ruacana Dam, the location at which NamPower does its utility generation. The dam is located right next to the Angolan border near the well-known Ruacana Falls. NamPower is the largest power utility in Namibia and the vast majority of employees are Namibian. The types of jobs available at NamPower range from engineers to manual laborers who perform heavy lifting and maintenance on the generators and other machines. Visiting the dam raised a number of questions for the group. For one, it seems as if NamPower has very little competition in Namibia. Coming from the United States, this can be perceived as a negative aspect for the consumers. How do prices stay competitive when such a large and wealthy company exists without significant threats? Many households do not have electricity at this time. If they wanted it, could they afford to pay for NamPower’s services?

It was also an interesting dynamic between the current flooding of many northern towns and the use of the water in the dam to make electricity. While we saw the devastation that massive amounts of water caused, we also saw productive use of water intended to improve people’s lives. The students discussed later how perhaps some of the dam employees had to return to flooded homes after their day of using water for a benefit. The complex impacts of an abundance of water helped us to gain perspective on the different ways in which people may relate to the land in northern Namibia- it can be a resource, a tool for production, an unpredictable and destructive force, or a natural part of the ups and downs of living in the region.

Since we stayed so far north, we were also able to go to the border between Namibia and Angola at Oniipa. This border crossing location is particularly busy and crowded with chaotic stores, border control officers, and people crossing from side to side. When we arrived, we approached the border towards “no man’s land” in order to watch the goings on around the crossing point. However, we were promptly asked to leave. On the way out, scores of people started running to cross the border back into Angola. The police ran after some and tried to hit them with batons. The runners were experienced though; they carried mattresses on their backs so as not to get hurt from the baton blows. Most of the runners made it to Angola safely.

It was interesting how commonplace these events seemed. While the guards were there and carried weapons, it seemed like their presence was just an illusion of border security. We learned later that the reason so many Angolans cross into Namibia every day is because goods are extremely expensive in Angola. They use the U.S. dollar but wages cannot keep up to this currency rate. Once Angolans buy the goods cheaply from Namibians, they sneak them back over to avoid claiming their goods so they can sell them for higher prices in Angola.

On the way out of Oniipa, we had a number of discussions about why people would choose to cross illegally, why the guards do not seem to care, and why the governments of either country have not done anything to prevent this everyday occurrence. It seems as if this practice would be detrimental to the economies and both countries would want to prevent it. Coming from the United States where the border is generally very secure, it was extremely interesting for us to see the opposite in this town.

Overall, our experience in the North seemed to be quite opposite of what would have happened in the U.S. under similar circumstances. Regardless of the chaotic border and the immense amount of water the group encountered, our week in Northern Namibia was educational, as always, and on the whole a good time. Needless to say, after a week of tireless travel, everyone in the group was ready to enjoy Spring Break!

Week 8: Farming and Flooding

By Christy Allan, Kimberly Hanson, and Elisabeth Preisinger

Ever since our beloved intern, Kristin, described her rural homestay as one of her favorite experiences during her own study abroad in Namibia, we had been very excited to start ours. Also, before most of us got to Namibia we had heard of its famous Etosha National Park. This week, we got to do both!

Approximately thirty kilometers from our host farms is Khorixas, one of the most well known towns in Damaraland, in the northwestern region of Namibia. It is the closest many rural peoples in the area can get to a grocery store, bank, or post office. We stayed at our host farms for five days, two of which we toured Khorixas, visiting organizations, speakers, and a school.

We were given the opportunity to eat lunch at the Cornelius Goreseb High School before we were given a tour and allowed to visit with the learners who boarded at the hostel there. Many of the students were from farms both near and far from Khorixas. It was interesting to see how similar the students' experiences were with others that we have met from more urban areas such as St. Martin’s in Johannesburg, South Africa and how excited they were to chat with us. Although located in different countries, these schools struggle with the same issues: lack of funding, decrepit buildings, minimal resources, limited classes, and few, if any, extracurricular activities. In addition, the schools struggle with community issues resulting from HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, and alcohol abuse. We have found it particularly upsetting that twenty-five percent of the Namibian GDP goes towards education and, in addition, the students must pay tuition, yet they are still in need of so many things. It was encouraging, however, that these children have very high goals for themselves. Of those we met, many wanted to go to university to become doctors, pilots, accountants, etcetera.

We were also given the opportunity to meet with the mayor of Khorixas, Matheas Tsaeb. He gave us an official welcome and described the obstacles that Khorixas has conquered since independence and the obstacles it is still facing. The lack of employment seems to be causing the most problems for the community. We spent the prior week learning about foreign direct investment’s (FDI) largely detrimental impact on less developed countries. This prompted us to ask the mayor for his opinion. He was very enthusiastic about it, assuming it would only help to alleviate poverty and unemployment, although it has proven to not be sustainable in many cases.

At our farms, our hosts did their best to welcome us entirely into their families. This meant participating in daily activities that many of us have never experienced; such as milking livestock, herding goats, riding in donkey carts and cooking over open fire. Many of us were also unable to imagine what living without electricity and indoor plumbing would be like and were surprised to find it less uncomfortable than we may have first believed it would be. The families' innovative methods of farming were very impressive. Many of the farms were operated communally where different families took on different obligations necessary to run a productive farm, and shared in the profits of their labor. They often used the small amount of resources available to them to their fullest. For instance, the small rooms that most of us stayed in were made from tree branches and cow dung, providing reliable shelter in an economically and environmentally friendly way. Many families have small vegetable gardens and earn money by selling their crops in town. The families were nearly completely self-sustainable and only needed to go into town once a month or so. This made many of us question our western perceptions of what wealth is and what is necessary to live a happy life.

Kimberly had an excellent conversation about development with some of the younger men on her farm. She got upset because they made assumptions about her reasons for being in Africa and actions once she leaves. They also made assumptions about her opinions about Namibia, itself. From there they engaged in a long discussion about how the Western world may consider a village like Khorixas to be extremely impoverished, but how the people who live there are satisfied with the way they live and can meet their basic needs. Many of the students encountered individuals on the farm who would not choose to live anywhere else. They may not have easy access to communications, information, sewage, running water, or even jobs, but they utilize what resources they do have efficiently. The men discussed how the North has an advantage due to much of the leadership of the country hailing from that region. They said that it was in the South where the real poverty existed. Kimberly wondered, though, if there would be agreement on the part of the people in the South on their own poverty. Yes, we lived in houses made of cow dung, had little, if any, access to refrigeration, and used the outdoors as our toilet, but we learned to adapt to this lifestyle and realized that once you’re living it and surviving, it’s not so easy to consider it poverty.

During the rural homestays it was very interesting to observe the position of many women on the farm. It was clear that women were seen as the head of the house, particularly as they got older. Women were in charge of preparing and serving food, and rarely left their homes. However it was interesting because these women catered to the men on the farm. The men did all the work with the livestock, and some of the female students were expected to fulfill the stereotypical female role. It was not uncommon to hear the men say things like “I can’t do that, I’m a man!” The men may be ordered around by the female head of household, but they are also given a lot of freedom to do as they like. This gender dynamic helps to further the Khorixas farms’ reputation for being more traditional.

On Saturday morning we said goodbye to our host families and headed to Etosha National Park for two days. We went on game drives through the park looking for wild animals. We saw giraffes, zebras, springbok, oryx, ostrich, hyenas, wildebeest, dik-diks, birds, an elephant, and a lion from a distance, as well as full views of gigantic rainbows. When we were traveling, the Etosha Pan was flooded again, after flooding already once this year. Considering that this used to only happen once every fifteen years, the park staff has become concerned. It was impossible not to consider global warming and environmental pollution’s impact on this conservancy.
We also learned about the history of the park from a speaker from the Environmental Education Center. The land was originally occupied by the San people. This tribe was forcefully relocated when the Germans established Etosha as a national park in 1907. Many of the students had mixed feelings upon learning this because, while it is unfortunate that the San were forced to live elsewhere, the park, as the country’s top tourist destination, has generated substantial amount of income for Namibia. In addition, we were informed of the controversies between the park and the surrounding rural communities. Conflicts arise when animals get outside of Etosha’s fenced boundaries and disrupt the farms nearby, whether by preying on livestock or endangering human life. There are strict penalties for killing one of Etosha’s animals, even if outside of the park itself. There has been discussion, with no resolution, about compensating those people whose property (specifically livestock) has been damaged. This is yet another example of how the colonial legacy continues to impact the social and economic dynamics of communities in Namibia.

Week 7: Classes

Nathan Cahn
David Schupak

Week seven was not as eventful as most weeks at the Center for Global Education in Namibia. It was marked mostly by excitement and anticipation for the rural homestays, the seminar in the North and Spring Break. Most people did not spend much time out of the house, as they spent most of their free time working on a research paper for The Development Process in Southern Africa. We did, however, take a full week of classes and had some interesting speakers.

We had a fascinating speaker in our class The Development Process in Southern Africa. The speaker had written an article on a case study that he and some colleagues had done and came to our class to discuss this case study through the lens of the effects of Foreign Direct Investment. The case study was done on the impact of the establishment of a factory owned by the Malaysian company Ramatex in Namibia’s capital city of Windhoek. The article painted a very grim picture of the impact of the establishment of the factory and the Namibian government’s role, highlighting many labor abuses by the factory managers and much special treatment afforded the factory by the Namibian government that had detrimental effects on Namibians.

During class, the speaker raised some interesting points and questions. The most interesting point was that, even though he had painted a grim picture of FDI, he still believes that FDI is positive. He said that, to him, the question is not whether FDI is positive, but rather what kind of FDI is positive. This was encouraging for me (David) because so far on this program, I have seen foreign-directed development in a negative light. I have seen many positive examples of internally-driven development, but few of externally-driven development.

More encouraging, however, is that the speaker offered possible ways to make FDI positive for developing and under-developed countries. The solutions that I thought were most notable were being selective in which FDI is accepted for the given country and creating regional and continental blocs. I found the former notable because I think, after reading the speaker’s article, that the biggest problem with the Ramatex factory was that the government offered the company too many incentives. It seemed to me that the factory was a law unto itself and I do not think that allowing corporations to occupy that kind of position in an industry is helpful.

I thought it was interesting that the speaker suggested forming continental and regional blocs because it made me think about the growing power of corporations in the current global economic climate. I began to think about how some of the largest corporations have become semi-states with the power to negotiate with, and bully, economically weak nations. It is interesting, I think, that someone is suggesting that nations form alliances to defend against the power of private companies.

The speaker also seemed to be addressing a widely held belief that foreign investment is the key to solving poverty in Namibia and other economically impoverished nations. This made me (Nate) think a lot about the nature of how countries are ranked according to a particular set of standards. Given the increasing global participation and involvement with the creation of the standards by which certain groups of people judge other groups of people, I suppose the rules become less biased and more valid. That is to say, certain development and wealth indicators such as GDP, GNP, GINI coefficient, etc., may indeed reveal accurate, reliable data, yet these indicators may merely reflect the values of one group at the expense of another group which falls under the former’s judgment.

Furthermore, not only does one group judge another group to be impoverished and underdeveloped, terms that can have little significance or different meaning to the judged upon group, but the judging group offers solutions to the judged upon group’s problems. Two assumptions are made here: that one group’s judgment of another group is consistent with the way that group sees itself and therefore valid, and connected but a step forward, that the judging group can therefore offer solutions that will “help” the other group.

Within this hypothetical model, I would say that the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, private investors, and other capitalist nations would be the group judging Namibia to be impoverished and underdeveloped. And the solution to these ailments, according to their ways of thinking, is foreign direct investment. And of course, Namibia is also a capitalist country and is a full participant in the global, formal economy, thus members of this country may fully agree that foreign direct investment is a viable solution to problems they believe the country has.

Nonetheless, assuming that Namibia has problems which need solving, that foreign countries know what is best for Namibia, and that capitalism is the most effective and universally health and happiness inducing system, then foreign investment is still not necessarily the answer to reducing poverty and inequality. After all, I need only to consider New York City. Some parts are extremely wealthy and many investors buy up land and other assets there, while neighborhoods nearby may remain very poor and experience high levels of inequality. As it relates to Namibia, and our speaker points out, foreign direct investment does not magically reduce poverty. If foreign investment is to actually help reduce poverty, then the investment must be directed towards the areas in need.

The speaker also made me think about our history class during the same week, in which we discussed the similarities and differences between segregation in the US and apartheid in Namibia. This relates directly to FDI in Namibia because it appears FDI and apartheid both contradicted autonomy and independence from other nations. Although the nation has been free for 19 years, it is clear that within the global economy, they are still being overpowered: in terms of not being able to control their own resources like the uranium and gold mines, as well as needing to import goods like bread and juice.

This phenomenon of continual subordination to foreign powers is similar to impoverished people in the US. As formal segregation has been largely eradicated over the past 50 to 60 years, many neighborhoods still seem to be segregated and outside the global economic order. By that I mean many poor, minority US citizens still do not have much power and autonomy in several aspect of their lives, considering lasting employment, home ownership, gentrification forces, and racial profiling. FDI and the legacy of segregation and apartheid represent impediments to autonomy and self- sufficiency for many US and Namibian citizens.

I (David) also saw one big parallel between general arguments made about FDI and the speaker we had in our politics class, who discussed Namibian democracy in general. What raised the biggest questions for me was when the speaker talked about how many people believe that others should “vote with their feet,” or move away from a locality if they do not like that locality’s government. I have since begun to think a lot about why, if FDI is so problematic, so many nations accept it. Many economists are adamant in their argument that the four “Asian Tigers” (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea) became prosperous through highly capitalistic reforms. Is FDI a good idea that many governments are still learning how to use effectively?

I personally am unsure about whether FDI is a boon for developing nations. Do the governments simply lack for better alternatives? Are the “Asian Tigers” anomalies (after all, two, Hong Kong and Taiwan, are not even nations and one, Singapore, is a tiny island that is very unlike many developing nations, especially those that are vast and hard to govern do to tribal divisions)? Are the governments of many developing nations acceding to the wishes of developed nations that they accept FDI because of dependency issues?