I also don't think that the "difference argument" has to reinforce differences. I'm generally uncomfortable with the idea that there's a pedagogy here -- and I think this is more true of aid than journalism. I think one of the amazing things about the world is it's not all the same. I like differences; they're interesting. How we talk about them can be good or bad -- we can be racist, we can exoticize, or we can be overly sentimental, we can be naive, etc. etc. -- but I run around Africa because I like to try and understand something of a place I don't know. Sometimes what's there is sad and depressing, and sometimes it's not. The trouble with advocacy, and with Kristof, and with lots of journalism, is that it doesn't, and in advocacy's case probably can't, recognize the simultaneity of those things. I like journalism that does, and that's what I try to do.

Thanks for your really thoughtful response!

It seems that some of the discussion about this (or just the way I think about it?) swings between poles of sameness and difference. The 'sameness' argument goes something like: if we felt that the subjects of our journalism and activism were our equals then we would see and depict their agency; we would be featuring them as the protagonists in these stories, not as cameos in the lives of outsiders who, because they are like us, have an identity that we are quicker to recognize. The 'difference' argument goes something like this: because of the historical legacy of the culture and the profession of journalists and activists, there is a need to rebalance the relationship by making an extra effort to depict individuals with agency.

But both have inherent contradictions. The 'sameness' argument has to account for the fact that even with peers we use lots of tricks of distinguishing others in order to do whatever we're trying to do. And the 'difference' argument has to account for the fact that this sort of re-balancing ends up reinforcing the difference it's meant to overcome.

I don't have any answer to that, of course, but I do like your nuanced take. You have a tough job, sorting this out!

Thanks for your reply!

B

The vast majority of our writing about Europe isn't pegged to 'white characters.' I bet the Americans in the Bolshoi ballet was interesting, but I also bet that most of the articles run by the NYT this year about Russia are *not* pegged to Americans.

I think the pilers-on tend to feel that Kristof doesn't try to make it unnecessary, and that if he did, he'd find different kinds of stories than he reports. I think he uses it more often than is "necessary." And alas, there's too long a tradition of the white man in the Dark Continent for that trope *not* to have to do with whiteness and with Africa. I'm all for counter-criticism, and I get a little bored of the neo-colonial media critique, but I think they're right about this one. And if they weren't, I would think Kristof would be the first person to point out that it doesn't have to do with whiteness or with Africa, but with something else. Alas, that doesn't come up.

To be sure, it's a trope that's problematic elsewhere; a lot of research showed the same white-hero story after the tsunami. But the literary tradition that comes out of Africa is particularly prone to this problem, in large part because white people brought written documentation with them to SSA and were the first to do it, in their own image---and with themselves as the heroes of their adventure stories, whatever discipline you want to put those in.

That said, I would say -- and I don't think a lot of the pilers-on would agree with this, necessarily -- that there are ways to use white characters well. That tends not to be newspaper journalism, which isn't very good at going deep with people. Gourevitch's use of the then-unknown Romeo Dallaire story to connect readers to Rwanda was not unlike the Kristof technique, but it was applied in a wholly different and more comprehensive fashion; and of course, there were also Rwandan main characters in his book, too. Ryszard Kapuscinski (whatever you have to say about the conveniently posthumous criticism) is another example, though he treats himself more as a device than a character.

The fundamental question is, does the white character do something critical *and* unique that advances or illustrates the story? And is that the right story, or one that's just easier because the main guy is white?

Apologies to @viewfromthecave for the use of "characters." But I believe in the use of the word in nonfiction, and one day I'll write about why...

I feel like there's some piling-on taking place against Kristof. "If we don't write about Americans in Berlin in order to interest readers in Germany, do we really "have" to write about white people in Africa in order to get readers "engaged"?" But American journalists do write about Americans in Berlin to make Berlin interesting. I read an article about young Americans at the Bolshoi ballet recently -- nice article. We don't always do that, of course -- but nor does every Kristof column contain an American protagonist. It seems like a basic and forgivable trick of journalists that they use to help their readers identify with the issue. Kudos when a writer can make that unnecessary. But is it really so outrageous when it is? And does it really have anything to do with whiteness and with Africa?

B

i came to call them the Dirty Backpackers and i have pissed off a lot of people by classifying them as such, but you hit the same nail on the head with your analysis of everyone thinking they are the first when the reality is that africa existed before they arrived and will continue long after they pack up for their lives and careers after having their experience they will always talk about as their 'time in africa.'

i don't suppose that i have much more to add, but thanks for being much more eloquent in your description than i!

But there's another thing that's missing here: the fact that Kristof et al assume that the American audiences won't be able to connect with African protagonists. Not that I'm one to often defend the American public, but come on, let's give ourselves some credit. If the opportunity for connection isn't offered by insightful journalists working hard to make different parts of the world relevant, then of course the public won't connect.

I would actually argue that some people want more. Sure, some people want Kristof. But I get a dozen emails a week from people asking me to point them in the direction of some good reads. The people who like Kristof may not want more than he's offering, but there are people out there who want something else.

This isn't to say that some of the problem isn't market based. There is a reason that news agencies throw Republicans and Democrats into a room, the public eats it up. Shame on all of us for that. There is, however, something to be said for creating a market. If you're a producer and one type of story receives less ratings, but you think the story is important, do you give up? I would hope not. The same should be true for a newspaper columnist. There are plenty of engaging ways to tell a story. There are plenty of local ordinary Africans doing amazing things for their communities that one could write about that would resonate with the American public.

I blogged about that just yesterday: http://adamhooper.com/blog/posts/172