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?

Week 6: Not Such a Tourist

Ben Averill, Leann Vice-Reschel, Yedidya Tabanpour

From political science papers and development guest speakers to the dusty pits of the Rossing Uranium mine, from the lush tourist attractions to the sandy floors of the informal settlements in Swakopmund. This was the experience of our trip to the coast.

As any other week would be at CGE, week six has been heavily packed. With religion papers due along with a political science creative project, as well as internships, many scrabbled to get work done before our trip to the coast. For some of us our bags were barely packed minutes before it was time to leave. The kombi ride reunited the group as some say all you need for a vehicle is four wheels and a radio. We listened to the usual Julio Iglesias that Passat, our driver, loves so much. CD’s changed along with the vibe in the car. Some sang, others danced, and a few slept from the long, tiresome night before. At the half-way mark the scenery became bland, dusty, ere and desert-like. The plains stretched far off into the distance and we began to wonder what lie ahead.

Swakupmund is a small town near the coast of Namibia. We in stayed in apartment-like dorms where we would be staying for the next couple of days. It was nice to look forward to the vacation that lay ahead. Little did we know that we would be getting up at six or seven in the morning getting ready to visit the Rossing Uranium mine, a fish factory and various organizations. Although we had a lot of group activities planned, CGE made sure to make the trip unique for each individual. First, we received a packet of N$500 or the equivalent of over $50 US. Not much many would think, but quite enough for our basic needs.

Each morning the group split off for breakfast, in the afternoon for lunch, and then again at night for dinner. The evenings held the biggest adventures for many; we tried a vast array of foods from fish to pizza. Nighttime activities ranged from skinny-dipping in the ocean to dancing at a local club.

The two most influential parts of the trip took us to the informal settlements and the Rossing uranium mine. On the first full day in Swakupmund, the Township Tour Company took us around to various organizations and homes within the Mondesa Township. While we were sleeping comfortably in a beautiful and comfy guesthouse only a couple miles away, families of sometimes five or more were sleeping cramped into one room in the Mondesa Township. This was a reoccurring theme that we had previously seen in Katatura and Kliptown. Yet, unlike Katatura and Kliptown, the streets of Mondesa were clean and resonated a relatively safe feeling. Similar to our tour of the DRC school there were a few awkward moments of feeling invasive while on the tour. The use of the tour company was a display of our privilege. As informative and touching as the tour was there was a sense of invasion of privacy and social boundaries on our part. Some of us could not help but to wonder if the locals were scared of us or have become immune to the presence of tourists.

The Rossing Uranium Mine is located in Arandis. During our visit we learned about the mine’s operations and its role in Namibian society. The key speaker at the mine broke down many of the misconceptions that we had gained over the years about the human rights abuses, the mines labor practices, and environmental regulation. We had the opportunity to see a short film about how Rossing works and what exactly it does. Rossing uranium mine is one of the world’s largest uranium mines and produces mainly uranium oxide. Rossing employs around 3,000 Namibians and serves as a major employment source for the town of Swakopmund.

I found it pacifying but deceiving that Rossing says they are doing a lot for the community. On our tour we learned that Rossing is trying to give back to the community by preserving the natural environment around the mine, creating a healthy work environment for its workers and serving as a major employer in Swakopmund. Rossing says that it does all this and much more. This leaves me to wonder why the mine is seen in a negative light by environmentalists, trade unionists, and other activists.

Rossing Uranium mine tries to do well, and does as well as any uranium mine can in helping its workers. Rossing built and maintains a housing facility in Arandis for its workers. These facilities are adequate, but not the best houses. They seemed to be more structured towards small families and single workers instead of permanent family homes. They were probably made in this fashion to create a housing structure that wasn’t too expensive in its construction cost.

Rossing also seems not to care too much for their workers long-term health care, since most workers leave after a few years of service. Even though they stated that they are working for the community it’s hard to tell how much investment is actually brought into Swakopmund. Although it is a source of income for locals and the Namibian government, much of the wealth is taken abroad by the Rio Tinto Group, by the Iranian government and by other private owners.

After looking at the full picture of the Rosssing uranium mine I left still unsure of the role it plays in daily Namibian life. Is it a good thing that the mine is there to give some form of employment to a town that is teeming with a large unemployed population? Would it be better if there was a more permanent large-scale employer with better working conditions? What will happen when the mine closes down when the uranium deposits are depleted? With my mind spinning from these questions we left the mine to head to a different organization.

During our free day and time away from academic papers and guest speakers we all ventured out in different directions seeking adventures and relaxation. For the first portion of the day we all took advantage of the tourism aspect of Swakupmund. One group of daredevils jumped out of a plane over the desert, while another group took advantage of the natural beauty of the coast and kayaked with the marine life. At the same time a larger group bravely tried their hand at the extreme sport of sand boarding while an additional group hiked up Rossing Mountain to slide down the Flying Fox cable slide. While all of these tourist attractions were thrilling and created what will be life-long memories, it was difficult to partake in these activities without realizing the privilege we have as Americans. Coming from a first world country the majority of us come from relatively wealthy backgrounds, in comparison to the majority of Namibians. Trips ranged from N$ 300 (US$ 30) to N$ 2,000 (US$ 200). For a Namibian working in Chinatown it would take one months pay to go sand boarding and seven to go skydiving. If we were a group of local Namibian students it would be a rare and special occasion to get to participate in even one of the previously mentioned tourist attractions. Tourism in place such as Walvis Bay and Swakupmund is merely a source of employment and income for locals; and merely another story for foreigner to tell friends and family back home. In general it was difficult to look past the excitement that was bubbling within us as we embarked on our free day. Yet, at the end of the day I could not help to have a slight feeling of guilt over the amount of privilege I just exhibited.

The trip ended back in the kombi with all twenty students reflecting on the events of week 6. Many questions had been answered, but many more are yet to come.

Week 5: Classes and Field Trips

Caitlin Wilson, Hannah Miner, and Matthew Moldan

Political Science focused on the education of Namibia. Our speaker, a teacher and principal within Namibia, elaborated on her experiences with the Namibian education system and the changes that have come about due to its apartheid history. The different educational systems that have been employed pre- and post-independence include the Bantu, Cambridge, and the Child-Centered approaches. Similarly, the American education system and society follows a type of Child-Centered approach. In Southern Africa, the role of children in the household adheres to the more traditional seen but not heard value system. For some students this has been a hard concept to grasp especially after being raised in a child friendly and focused household. Nevertheless, children are inevitably an important aspect of Namibia and families alike and with the changes occurring in the education system now, we will most likely see their role in the family transition to something more similar to what we are accustomed to in the U.S.

The next day each student began the day with either their internship or Religion class. Religion focused on the relationship between African traditional religions and Christianity—the most common religious affiliation of Namibians today. The speaker, a retired Lutheran pastor, addressed the class on the concept of ubuntu – “I am because you are, you are because I am.” This ancient philosophy was employed in African tribes to foster the concept of community and permeates all aspects of life. Therefore, religion is extremely important to those Namibians that have converted to Christianity.

History class concentrated on the liberation struggle of Namibia. After a brief discussion regarding the independence struggle, the class embarked for Hero’s Acre, a national monument honoring the heroes and heroines from Namibia’s bloody and difficult liberation struggle. This tribute, located just outside the city limits of Windhoek, consisted of an assortment of real and symbolic graves with a statue and tomb at the summit honoring all those unknown soldiers who lost their lives in the struggle. The stunning site itself was built using local natural resources at a cost of N$80 million. When this cost is compared to American prices it is appropriate for such a large site. However, in Namibia an expense of N$80 million is absolutely astounding. It is a shock that the Namibian government found it appropriate to spend so much on a historical site while citizens in the nearby informal settlements do not have basic services such as water, sewage systems, electricity, proper housing, and access to healthcare. In addition to the astounding cost of construction, the government must continually reinvest resources thanks to the destruction of property by the baboons.

After returning from Hero’s Acre our class reconvened to hear Pauline Dempers, a past prisoner of SWAPO (South West African People’s Organization) and current activist with Breaking the Wall of Silence. She spoke about her history as a SWAPO member where she received training in Angola to be part of SWAPO’s military wing, which was formed to fight the Apartheid government system. However, after being falsely accused of treason by the suspicious SWAPO fearful of apartheid government spies, she spent her remaining three years within their “dungeons.” Since her release she has worked with Breaking the Wall of Silence, which advocates for those imprisoned and improperly treated by SWAPO during the liberation movement. She has also worked towards revealing the popular political group’s troubled history, to the surprise of many SWAPO-loyal Namibians. Due to the violent history of SWAPO it is a wonder that it remains the most popular and powerful political party in Namibia.

Late that evening, the entire group attended a public lecture by Joseph Diescho, an esteemed professor from University of South Africa. Dr. Diescho is well known for openly opposing the existing political parties in both Namibia and South Africa. This criticism comes as a surprise in Africa as outward government disapproval is not tolerated due to people’s staunch loyalty to political parties. This concept is abstract to us because U.S. citizens can openly criticize government and many see this as an important principle of democracy. His main critique of the parties, including the ruling Namibian political party, SWAPO, is that they lack ideology and instead of focusing on changing policy, work towards placing their party members in government offices in order to provide them with an income. This is one example of how often times, especially in Namibia, it is not what you know, but who you know. This in turn brings to light how powerful the rich are here and weak the poor. The division of political power further intensifies the divide between the rich and poor of Namibia. As a result it is easy to see how politicians can easily forget about the people they once set out to serve. He continued to argue that all political parties in Namibia have the same goal, to oust all others in order to control government spending. Government officials are capable of doing this because voters elect parties, as opposed to individuals, which results in strong party patriotism within the government and little concern for citizens. There seems to be a common consensus among the group of students in attendance that he spoke too much about America and our system of political parties, which is vastly different from the Namibian system. Though his points were well researched, they were also selective and focused only on the positive aspects of the American system. We’ve encounter this opinion, that Namibia should look to the United States as a model, throughout our time in Namibia and this perspective often overlooks the fact that America has a history of slavery and segregation, has been a country for a longer period of time and has a different electoral system.

In Development class we visited the BIG Coalition. The Basic Income Grant (BIG) is a proposed welfare program in which the government would distribute a stipend of N$100 each month to every Namibian resident under the age of 60, at which point people qualify for the pension grant. We heard a lot about the pilot program that is testing the impacts of this proposal on a small community 100 km west of Windhoek. So far this program has been successful in addressing a wide range of social issues but is nonetheless controversial. The students seemed to have mixed feeling in regards to this program. There is a mindset criminalizing people living in poverty which influences the creation of welfare programs throughout the world. The poor are often misconstrued as lazy, dirty, drunk, and incapable of caring for themselves. The representatives from BIG emphasized the ability of people living in poverty to make sensible decisions when given the opportunity and have helped us view the situation differently. One important aspect to keep in mind when reviewing this proposal is Namibia’s history which has led to many Namibians’ current situation today. Because of the Apartheid, some citizens have never received even basic education and as a result have few resources to rely on when job searching. Therefore, this N$100 is intended to jump start businesses, job searching, and healthier lifestyles. Instead of viewing BIG as a safety net it is more appropriate to categorize the relationship between those receiving the grant as that of a person falling into a trampoline. The grant is designed to not only catch people when they encounter hardships while also propelling them upwards. It was a thought provoking presentation at the very least.

The majority of Saturday was spent participating in an “international” charity fashion show. The purpose of the show was to raise funds to help a designer, Taura, establish a center in one of the northern regions of Namibia. Her program, Nurturing Grounds Centre, is dedicated to supporting orphans, elderly people, and individuals living with HIV and TB. It seems as though everyone was involved, either applying make-up, modeling in the show, selling jewelry and tickets, or acting as a master of ceremonies. Taura asked the group to be involved based on our nationality in order to set an atmosphere and target a particular audience. On Namibian standards tickets were high priced which excluded many people who would have enjoyed the entertainment as much as anyone who was able to pay.

Week 4: Classes and Urban Homestays

Colleen Keeney, Christy Allen, and Nichole Rohlfsen

As we settle into our second week here in Windhoek, we have fallen into the routine of classes and internships, the schedule of life here at the CGE house. We’ve had our first full week of classes and have felt the reality of being college students once again. Hours of reading, papers to be written, and large projects at the end of the semester keep our minds active and help tie in experiences outside of classes. This week we have continued the Urban Homestay, leaving our host families in the mornings for classes and internships during the day and returning to our families in the afternoon and evenings.

All of Week 4 was spent living with Namibian families during our urban homestay in Windhoek. While living with our families, we had the opportunity to experience family dynamics as a part of Namibia. We ate meals, interacted, did chores, and attended church with our families. Our new families allowed us a new context to explore Namibian culture first hand. We had a variety of experiences, as the families came from different neighborhoods and various socioeconomic statuses. Common topics discussed during the homestay were religion, family structure, HIV/AIDS, politics, and education. Commuting from our homestay to class, we were filled with fresh information on how social issues are affecting Namibians today. The homestay enriched not only our academics but allowed us to bond with wonderful people and create a home away from home. When we all returned from the homestay on Sunday evening everyone was filled with stories. However, everyone was very happy to be back at the center and the growing bond between our group was evident at our welcome back braai (barbeque).

On Thursday, Professor Romanus Shivoro arranged for a former freedom fighter turned teacher and politician to address the class. This proved to be a great privilege for the class, as he was an important figure in Namibia’s quest for independence from South Africa. He relayed to us his remarkable story of being the first young black man to leave Namibia for the United States by ship, overcoming the apartheid government’s determination to stop him and then receiving an education at Lincoln University in Oxford, Pennsylvania. While there he continued to fight for his country’s freedom by petitioning to the UN until he was able to present his case to various international leaders. He eventually played a major role in the organization of SWAPO, the ruling political party, through overseas correspondence and even coined the national title of Namibia! All of this while studying medicine! It was not an easy journey, ultimately leading to the death of his brother by the Southwest Africa government’s hands, yet he continued the fight for independence and eventually returned to his country. His determination and bravery was inspiring and made us question what our position would be if we were eighteen years old and in that situation. Would we have the courage to take action against a violent government that forbade any political involvement from the majority blacks? Would we leave the cushy life of a college student in the United States to return to an oppressed country in the midst of turmoil?

Another speaker raised more questions as to our position as youth in today’s world. In development class on Friday, a speaker from UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, discussed the roles of various UN organizations, programs directed through UNFPA, and the greatest challenges of development that UNFPA is working to overcome in Namibia. The three main areas of UNFPA focus on productive health, gender, and population and statistics. Within these areas, the UNFPA works to create sustainable government policies and ensure their implementation, addresses multiple impacts of HIV/AIDS, ensures food security and environmental sustainability, and addresses other issues related to poverty and disparity.

Ms. Hailonga knew the experience of poverty first-hand, as she grew up an orphan in Katatura. However, Hailonga ascertained that the current rate of crime and rape is much higher, along with a loss of sense of community. Hailonga also concluded that today’s youth, especially in Katatura, are set up for failure. There are no activities for youth, which she believes leads to a lack of options outside of crime and hanging out in shebeens. For example, youth do not have spaces for recreational activities and sports, movie theaters or other entertainment venues, or youth programs to keep them off the streets.

After working for the Ministry of Health and then receiving her masters, Hailonga joined the UNFPA, one reason being to look for ways to empower youth. She formed a group called Young Achievers, a group of high-school and college-aged students from Katatura which meets every Saturday. The group is career-focused, giving students a chance to hear from professional guest speakers and concentrate on their intellectual, social and professional skills. Hailonga also maintains the group instills vision and teaches students to be responsible citizens. The group is funded by donors and the money raised is used to help students pay for their university education.

As we all come as students from different universities in the U.S., we realize the privilege by just being able to have the opportunity to study at a post-secondary level. This week has given us an even greater insight to our own cultural perspectives and experiences, as we become more immersed and exposed to the Namibian society through our homestays and other Namibian contacts.

Week 3: Classes, Internships, and Homestays Begin

Justine Goeke, Abi Dvorak, Eli Preisinger


Most of the students started an internship this week at different locations around Windhoek. The organizations vary according to our interests and goals for the future. The organizations deal with issues from HIV/AIDS to political development to education. Most organizations rely on foreign aid and work directly with local Namibians. While organizations in the U.S. and other westernized countries contribute, the aid contracts may end and leave organizations unfunded. Many students are struggling to gain more international aid for the organizations. Also, students this week attempted to meet with their internship supervisors to discuss goals and a project for the semester. Most of us are still negotiating our role at our placements and encountering cultural practices unfamiliar to us. We attempted to navigate our role as an intern, rather than as a foreigner imposing American ideologies. Even seemingly simple exchanges carry cultural weight that we may not anticipate or understand. Internships are a regular reminder of this reality.


In The Development Process - Southern Africa, we watched clips from the 1990s and contemporary commercials depicting Africa. Christian Children’s Fund, Red, and the One Campaign solicited foreign aid, while an interview of Angelina Jolie romanticized charity and travel abroad. The purpose of these commercials was not to educate, but they were produced with a distinct bias for consumption. Linda Raven led a discussion on the language we use to describe development. This class conversation paralleled the conflict in belief systems we have had over the importance in language in representing the way people think about ideas. While we regularly hear “First World / Third World” rhetoric, that dichotomy disempowers countries associated with the “Third World” label. We discussed descriptive accuracy’s power to confront these perceptions.


This week the group started our weekly language class with our teacher, Baby. We are learning Damara-Nama, which is a click language. It is important for us to learn key phrases in this language because we will be staying with Damara speaking people on our rural homestays and it will be nice to be able to communicate basic things in their language rather than expecting them to always use English. When we visit Damaraland we will encounter some of the language difficulties that we have already confronted through our Soweto and Urban homestays. Some students have experienced families that will not translate from their native languages and a few students have found this to be isolating. Even English in Namibia (called Namlish) can be confusing some of the time as this dialect has differing phrases and words than the English spoken in the United States.


In our history class, Racism and Resistance in Southern Africa and the United States, we touched on the role of history as a method of inquiry. Based on class conversations and readings, we discussed history as a narrative – rather than as an empirically based science. As students of history we bring our preconceptions and misconceptions to our understanding of history. In addition, writers of history impose their individual and collective paradigms. We discussed reading for contrast across a breadth of works as a remedy. From class, we went to the Owela National Museum. A member of the museum generously led a tour of the exhibits. While students learned meaningful material about the San, Hambi, Ovambo, Nama, Caprivi, Swana, and Damara peoples, the museum seemed to have been constructed by white historians for a white tourist audience. Depictions of native peoples objectified an experience removed from the reality of the museum. Inevitably, after the conversation about history as a narrative, students recognized the exhibits as a creation of history. As Romanus Shivoro, the history professor, explained, “Truth in history books is very very questionable.”

On Thursday we began our Urban Homestay. Living with families around Windhoek enabled us to experience profoundly different cultures and lifestyles. Many of us lived in family situations that we were unfamiliar with. In the United States, while there is a division of roles, we do not necessarily encounter husbands expecting to eat first and to be exempted from household chores. Girls in their homestays necessarily reminded themselves that gender constructs vary dramatically country to country and even household to household.


In addition, Namibia seems much less individualistic than the United States. Families seemed to know neighbors and extended family in the area very well. Some students encountered family friends that would walk in unannounced and act like family. In the Damara/Nama language there is no word for uncle, aunt or cousin; everyone is either referred to as brother or sister. Also families are always there for each other. Families seemed to travel for miles and miles for an engagement, a wedding, or a funeral.


Some of the challenges students faced were differences in food. For example, five students are vegetarians yet most Namibian households eat meat for nearly every meal. Even those of us who eat meat are not used to the type of meat served. For example, some families served spring bok, chicken livers, and gizzards. It was an exciting experience that we would not have gained living in the CGE house.


In our third week in Namibia, we continued to encounter cultural differences. We were constantly striving to learn from our diverse experiences.

Week 2: Take-Offs and Landings

Leann Vice-Reshel, Maggie Broad, Nathan Cahn

Monday marked the end of our Soweto home-stay. We left our home-stays and traveled with the group to 17 Shaft. 17 Shaft is an organization that works to train youth in vocational skills. Their mission statement asserts that “17 Shaft Training aims to alleviate poverty through skills training and job creation by implementing projects aimed at empowering marginalized groups such as youth, women ex-combatants and disadvantaged sectors of South African communities.1” In addition to all the goals laid out in their mission statement, 17 Shaft is playing a pivotal role in job creation in South Africa. This is something that the country is in desperate need of, given the high rate of unemployment among its citizens. We were also able to see other forms of job creation during our stay in Johannesburg, such as workers who are hired to sort plastic bottles out of the trash rather than having separate recycling bins. While at 17 Shaft, we were given a tour of the facilities and the current projects to give us a feel of how they function. The sight of the organization is on a former gold mine, as well as a former meeting place of political leaders. One project we were able to see was a building the staff was in the process of constructing. Additionally, because of 17 Shaft’s proximity to one of the World Cup stadiums, the organization will be hosting some spectators of the Cup.

We then departed to one of the three capital cities of South Africa, Pretoria. We visited the US Embassy where we met with a public relations staff member. She informed us of the embassy’s role in terms of international relations, such as establishing exchange programs. Some of the embassy’s recent work has been on combating ignorance of HIV/AIDS issues. For instance, they have begun testing young children, in order to instill a sense of normalcy to the tests, thereby reducing stigma associated with the disease.

The next stop on our Pretoria visit was the Voortrekker Monument. The Monument is in commemoration of British colonizers, now known as Afrikaners, who made the trek from Cape Town to Pretoria in the mid 1800’s. While the monument is a source of pride for many Afrikaaners, it has been the cause of much controversy amongst the non- Afrikaaner South Africans. The monument has been called a “fascist” symbol and the controversy has been heightened by the fact that the monument sits atop a hill overlooking Pretoria, reminding South Africans of that moment in history. A large tomb rests just inside the monument to honor those who died on the journey to Pretoria. Each year on December 16th, Afrikaners gather at the monument to celebrate their forefathers’ exploits and watch as sunlight strategically shines at an angle that lights up the tomb. The Voortrekker Monument can easily be related to many monuments and holidays found around the United States, such as Mount Rushmore,Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. Similar to the Voortrekker, these are all symbols of one culture’s colonization and domination over another culture.

We then ate lunch and met with a linguist professor from the University of South Africa who spoke with us about white identity in South Africa. Born in S.A. of German ancestry, he tried to explain some of his predecessors’ actions and thought processes. He spoke of three prejudices (gender, race, and nations), which played a large role in the formation of white identity. He claimed that apartheid was not exclusively a South African problem, for there are instances of social division all around the world. He also claimed that South African church and state were not connected, as opposed to other historical accounts we heard. The overall reaction to his discussion amongst the group was split.

After we left the monument we traveled to the South African Parliament, a grand building overlooking monument. On the Parliament’s hills we reflected on our experiences in South Africa, commenting on the implications of race and wealth. We returned to That’s It! and then flew to Namibia.

On our first full day in Windhoek we were taken on a tour of the city. On the tour we saw Katatura, the former black township from the time of Apartheid. Similar to Soweto, Katatura has a wide range of economic situations (hardships and triumphs). Both Katatura and Soweto have areas of extreme poverty situated directly next to areas of wealth. It is not uncommon to find a nice house across the street from a house built out of sheet metal. One single road separates the black, colored, and white townships created during Namibia’s apartheid regime. After leaving Katatura, we drove to a hill to look over the informal settlements of Windhoek. For at least two miles in either direction, sheet metal houses could be seen glinting in the sun. Among the shacks we could see one medical clinic, a church, and one small schoolhouse.

The next day was Friday and that meant Katatura Quest. Students were split up into groups of three and assigned a tour guide from a local student leadership program. These groups went to areas around Katatura such as the Soweto market, a political opposition’s headquarters, and other points of interest in the area. This experience was very rewarding because we got new insight into the community. We were no longer one large group of white American students parading through an area, affording us a better chance of being accepted into the community and getting the chance to directly with locals. With less attention placed on us, we became more comfortable in the community. After this, many students took the opportunity to go to the local shopping mall. Prices here are very different from the US. The exchange rate has been hovering around 10 Namibian dollars to one US dollar, which makes it very cheap to buy things such as food, phone cards, and jewelry: cheap for us Americans that is. Price levels are very high for many Namibians, making necessities difficult to acquire and luxuries out of the question. Outside of the mall you can see the way in which many Namibians make a living, selling “air time” or extra minutes for your cell phone. This reflects our learning of the many different opportunities that have been created to increase job opportunity in a country where unemployment is a very serious issue.

Week 1: Johannesburg Visit and Soweto Homestay

Sam McCabe, Carolyn Gaglione, Clarke Reeves

Our journey in Southern Africa began on January 18, 2009. After a 17-hour flight, we finally descended into Johannesburg, South Africa (SA). Despite severe jetlag, our learning experience began immediately. As we all departed for Southern Africa with different backgrounds and knowledge of the region, our first speaker proved to be an essential foundation to our understanding of Southern African history. He offered a personal account of his struggle with the institutional racism, known as Apartheid, imposed by the Afrikaner National Party. He took us back to pre-colonial South Africa where indigenous tribes evolved on their own time. We then moved on to the colonial period in which indigenous people were enslaved, displaced and exploited. Black Africans were seen as uncivilized, inferior intellectual beings, therefore justifying the imposition of European settlers. His personal experience during the Apartheid years (1948-1994) exemplified the horrific actions of Afrikaners against black Africans. After years of oppression, black Africans began to organize and revolt and many such citizens were targeted by police forces to be imprisoned or killed. In this regard, the speaker drew many parallels to the United States Civil Rights Movement. In both cases, many blacks simply disappeared never to be heard of again.
Unfortunately, we learned shortly after this brief history lesson that nothing much has changed in South Africa post-Apartheid. This was apparent as we traveled through Soweto, one of the best-known and largest townships of South Africa. Soweto’s population (approx. 3-4 million) is greater than the entire population of Namibia (1.9 million), and it is contained in a mere 31 sq. miles. A visit to Kliptown, an informal settlement in Soweto, showed us firsthand the conditions under which the people there lived. We were shocked by the number of barefoot, unclean children we saw running free with no parent supervision, playing in open sewage systems that ran through the dirt streets of the community. We walked through a tiny 2-room house made of tin siding and scraps of wood which six people called “home.” We were also unprepared for the overall kindness of the Kliptown dwellers who we passed as we walked by their homes.
Settlements just like Kliptown exist all over Soweto, and it is difficult for the government to deal with increasing unemployment rates and growing poverty rates. The government is building new, permanent homes for people to move out of the settlements, yet as quickly as one family moves out a new family moves in. Seeing the settlements firsthand made it clear that the government’s efforts to eradicate poverty are nowhere near adequate, and a new method of dealing with this catastrophic problem needs to be implemented.
As poverty is one challenge that black Africans have had to face, violence is another. This was clearly demonstrated on our visit to the Hector Pieterson Museum, which was created in memoriam to the first student killed in a protest that took place on June 16, 1976. The protest was against Bantu Education, in which black Africans were forced to learn Afrikaans, the language of their oppressors, as a medium of instruction. This system also furthered the institutionalization of Apartheid. A picture of his small body being carried away from the gunfire by a young man and Hector’s older sister stands outside the museum. The sister who is in the picture, Antoinette Sithole, spoke to us about her experience on that fateful day, as well as her opinions about the entire Liberation Struggle. It was powerful to hear an opinion from a person who has such strong ties to the liberation of SA and eradication of Apartheid.
Our group was able to hear many more voices such as Ms. Sithole’s on our visit to the Apartheid Museum. This trip was well placed in the itinerary because it acted as a sort of culminating event of what we had learned up to that point. The most interesting part for me (Clarke Reeves) was seeing the black and white stills of daily life for black Africans under Apartheid. The museum covered everything from the founding of Johannesburg to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Apartheid was formerly implemented in 1948 by the Afrikaner National Party, an all white party. Black people were forced to live outside of the major cities like Johannesburg in townships like Soweto. Soweto is literally an abbreviation of South West Township. Segregation, racial violence, and an education system designed to keep blacks at the lowest rung of society were the norm. Resistance to Apartheid grew from the 1970’s onward. From the student protest of 1976, resistance against Apartheid snowballed until 1990 when Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress (ANC), was released from jail. The ANC was the main opposition to Apartheid. In 1994 South Africa held its first free elections and Apartheid was officially ended on paper. Learning all of this history throughout the week and at the Apartheid Museum was both significant and humbling. Although South Africa banned Apartheid by law, socio-culturally and economically there was still much to be desired for the newly freed, Black South Africans.
We were struck by the relatively short amount of time between the eradication of Apartheid and the erection of the Apartheid Museum. We compared this with the large amount of time between the end of the Holocaust and the erection of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and wondered why the Holocaust Museum took so much longer to build.
Later on that day we had a speaker who talked about Apartheid more. He surmised that the political changes looked good for the country and for the people but that socio-cultural and economic changes were few and far between. For instance he said the fact that 13 percent of the population (which was mainly white) owned 87 percent of the land didn’t change after Apartheid was banished. He further said that politics was de-racialized but economics were not. This was evidenced by sites we had seen such as Kliptown. Since there was a lack of redistribution of fundamental opportunities, education and social services not much had changed in South Africa. His solution for the problem involved replacing capitalism with a more socialist economic system, in which local forms of government had more political power. In this way government would really have to answer to the people. He was great speaker who offered many interesting insights into poverty and capitalism.
After a long and educational first week in Southern Africa, we reflected on our experiences, and realized that many of our preconceived notions were far different from what we had seen. For example, in post-Apartheid South Africa, land distribution and socio-economic disparities have not been improved upon by the government. We were grateful for what we had learned and the speakers we had met throughout the week. They broadened our perspective on both the history of South Africa and its contemporary political situation.

That evening we visited a local bar in Soweto and watched the inauguration of Barack Obama into the American presidency. It was clear that this was not an event solely contained in the US, but created an impact that was felt all over the world, and specifically in SA. The bar was quiet during his inaugural address, as South Africans listened to Obama, hoping for personal words of encouragement from this inspiring man. Additionally, throughout our time in Africa so far, we have been asked questions about Obama, and been told that everyone is waiting for him to change the world. The Africans’ optimism is met by our group’s skepticism. While we all hope for the best during the Obama Administration, we understand that Obama will not be able to “save the world” or even Kliptown for that matter.

To start the tour we all given cards that classified us as white or black. We were forced to enter the museum through different doors based on our card. The paths beyond the doors were different for each group. The people with black cards got to see the passbooks they would have had to carry and the segregation that they would have been exposed to. The white group got to see what a life of privilege was like. This section was short and the group came back together after the black and white entrance.