Geo-branding is a serious thing. It is particularly serious when people from other geographic areas decide to brand your geographical area and the people in it, the way they see fit and the way that fits their purposes. No other country, region or continent, I’d argue, suffers from other peoples’ nonsense as much as the continent of Africa. Actually, the reason why people generally and casually talk about Africa as one place is because of what Nigerian-American author C. P. Eze refers to as "their geo-branding war". Warfare indeed. Eze of course is concerned with business. He argues that the image issues instigated by outsiders – oftentimes the representatives of the aid industry – hurt the business sector as the whole continent is seen as unworthy of investment. Very importantly, according to Eze, an increase of just 1% of Africa’s share of global trade would bring in US$70 billion annually; more than all aid and debt relief combined. Yet the trade with African countries is not encouraged much in the West. I have made mention of Eze’s book before, and I, as much as many others here, have written about the role the NGO sector plays in news gathering from the African continent – in short a very central one. There is no shortage of these pseudo-selfless, supposedly well meaning case studies around so lets have a look at a current one. At the moment I am based in Helsinki, Finland, and currently all over town we are bombarded with images of a new advertising campaign. Seemingly endless amounts of paid posters with a model depicting a generic shirtless African rebel soldier with baby-oiled-slash-sweaty body and an intense look, carrying a rifle on his back, squeezing the strap in his fist and wearing some kind of necklace, which may or may not be intended to appear witchcrafty, and a belt full of ammunition. All this makes him look like some kind of Nollywood version of Rambo against a dramatic black background. The text in the advert says "future chef" and the key that is dangling from the aforementioned necklace suggests that he needs to be given a key to a better job opportunity. That metaphoric key in real term means our financial donation and perhaps a signature in a petition which, the campaign promises, can change the destiny of this poor soul. There are other images too; some of them featuring other models, some with the same male model, now smiling with a little less witchcrafty necklace and his upper body no longer bare, but covered with a worn-out t-shirt advertising the first US Iraq war effort from the early nineties. I am scared to even attempt to attach meaning to it. According to the photographer Antti Viitala these photos were taken in Cape Town, South Africa and the campaign was designed by Helsinki based advertising agency Dynamo. Viitala says that the models used had been spotted on the streets of Cape Town. So they are just that; models who broadly appear to fit the purposes of the campaign. For the gentleman in the leading image that means that basically he’s black. That is enough. The campaign is run by Finn Church Aid, a missionary and aid wing of the Finnish Lutheran Church – the state church – which especially in recent years has struggled with negative stereotypes of their own in the form of homophobia that undeniable exists within their ranks. They don’t like to be represented in a simplified manner themselves, but when it comes to others, this moral consideration is less central. The campaign is a high profile one. Its patron is Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari (1994-2000) and the purpose is to both influence politicians and to raise funds. Of course it has to be said here that this problem at hand is bigger than this campaign. It’s a global issue, mainly instigated by the civil sectors, some media and a traditionally inaccurate and one-sided history of colonialism that is still being read and told in the countries of the global north. True, the Finnish church is follower rather than a leader in this, but I am curious to know a bit more about what goes on when an idea like this is born. After asking from the photographer – who was helpful but who also wasn’t sure what my point was; and I felt that that in itself was noteworthy – I emailed the public relations and communications officer Veera Hämäläinen, who is part of the team behind this campaign to hear her version of the story. The first thing I realised from our correspondence is that Hämäläinen and I really see this whole phenomenon differently. She insists that the campaign is a positive one. She mainly feels that way because the text in the middle of the poster suggests that this shirtless rebel soldier is a future chef. So this is a positive transformation and the video version of the advert and further reading material on the campaign's website explains this to her satisfaction. Here's that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_meVAH20w4 Hämäläinen also believes that Finns are clever enough people to understand the simplification. I, as a human being, but one that could also be described as a Finn, would strongly disagree. I watched the ad online, but haven't seen it on TV yet – even though in our household the TV is on quite a bit (maybe our family doesn’t watch channels where church would advertise on). What I have seen, however, are tons and tons of these posters. I couldn’t imagine that under any circumstances would I have read the additional information online if I didn’t decided to write about this. I think it’s ambitious to think that people would take anything other from this campaign than, yeah, that’s Africa alright; always in trouble and always needing help–our help–nothing new. I wish this wasn’t the case but I have lived this life and heard people speak, even many very clever ones, so I am not just trying to be negative about it. I am trying to be realistic: these images have just been used as they were considered as the most effective ones regardless of their nature. Also, and I really don’t even wish to take this opportunity to be too sarcastic about it, but questioning its sources hasn’t traditionally been the church's, or its followers', strong point. So I’d argue that what we are really left with is the poster and for the most part its photograph. There are a lot of these images everywhere – there hasn’t been this kind of 'military presence' on the streets of Helsinki since the 1940’s – but now this what appears to be a two-dimensional cloned nondescript African rebel army stares at me from my neighborhood bus stop, all the way to the office, to town and pretty much anywhere else I might want to go. From a distance, in a hurry or uninterested, one is not able to read the text – or just care to read it – and the imaging is building on our collective prejudices, our already existing ideas of Africa. I am not talking about any silly magic bullet theory here, but this is part of the same narrative that has been explained to us in media, school books and also very importantly in these aid campaigns. It’s not a question of this, or any other country’s collective cleverness, because this doesn’t break a pattern. It continues it like there simply was nothing wrong with it and based on my correspondence with campaign people I am getting a distinct sense that they don't have any issues around this representation. It’s quite curious how it is possible to see one thing differently. Hämäläinen explains that this campaign is unlike the ones before it: "We have chosen a different angle," she says, "not always using images of starving children, but for a change strong young people from developing countries, who are able to be in charge of their future as long as they are given the right tools." So that’s what this is about: breaking the pattern. I admit this guy is no child – even though they may have been generous with the baby oil – but I just can’t see how this is a complete departure from the traditional style of imaging aid campaigns. It still communicates three very traditional ideas: 1) Africa,  2) problem and 3) ’our help needed'. I am wondering how this impacts the many people from around Africa who live and work in Finland? Is there no chance that the negative attitudes towards immigrants are strengthened if the native people conclude that we have basically done a massive favour to each and every one of them? I ask my South African wife and she’s not impressed, but of course the point here must be that one doesn’t have to be from Africa to see and condemn the problems of these image politics. Too many people are still thinking that if it’s not directly about you, then why complain. But that’s nonsense. We are all people here. Then Hämäläinen surprises me by mentioning that this is not just about Africa though. Youth unemployment is a global issue. Of course she’s right. She continues to say that for this campaign however the developing world is the target. So not Africa as such but, (even) more broadly, the developing countries in general and this single image has been selected to communicate that. If you carefully read the website you’ll find mention of specific countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Honduras, although by now I think it is evident that my focus is less on what the project is about and more how they choose to communicate it. I think it would also be misleading to suggest that the small print and the big print are as effective. I’d venture a guess that not many of the ones seeing the poster will read all of the material available. How about the trade aspect? I am wondering what this kind of campaigns that very much support our existing negative ideas of Africa – again, very generally – do in a long run to the trade? The attitudes of the business sector? Does it matter? "Trade aspect is important," she admits, "it’s important for it to grow. In this campaign we have wanted to highlight one angle and describe the magnitude of the problem at hand – 80 million unemployed youth and most of them in the developing world – and something must be done on the grassroots level although of course, politicians could also use their own forums to make difference." Fair play, except essentially that is to say politely that as important as trade may be, it’s got nothing to do with us. I am not suggesting that any overtly positive spin should necessarily be applied – just information that is more accurate, balanced and with a bit more context. Are we Europeans (North Americans, Australians, etc) so jaded that we need to be hit on the head with the worst of problems before we will react? I am asking genuinely since I don’t have an answer to this question. I have been thinking about the ethics of development aid work a lot and I think it’s still something where a lot of dialogue needs to be had. Neither am I suggesting that these campaigns never have any positive results, but I have seen this sector enough to say that they advertise to both justify and secure their own existence and function. I know that these organisations often have glass ceilings for the staff members from the southern partner countries and I think that the aid industrial complex is altogether… well, a complex matter, but is there a realistic way for it to be something other than patronising and enforce the pre-existing ideas of geographical – and I can’t leave it unsaid, ethnic – hierarchies that are around, no matter how much you or I may wish they were not? My understanding of this whole situation could be summarised by my five year old son’s current key phrase. "This is unfair." I would like to think that this is more inconsiderate than evil, but we are playing with images of real people, and therefore their lives here. People are not some kind of mascots you can freely use in any way you wish for fundraising purposes in order to be able to hire yourself to help them. One problem doesn’t mandate you to create another problem. At the very latest, now is the time to discard 'good intentions' as sufficient justification to absolutely any shock tactics or otherwise. The Finnish church and their ilk won’t do it, but as people, surely we need to start questioning the dominant practices of aid advertising. It would still be better late than never.

Zahara has become the top pop artist in South Africa in a fairly short time but curiously enough, for the media, she has remained something of an enigma because she doesn’t appear to have any obvious unique selling points beside her talent.

I am no contemporary art expert. Sometimes one has to start with a disclaimer. The term and whatever definition whoever gives to it have been on that awkward zone where I have felt that I should be equipped with more specific knowledge to say even something quite generic about it. Also, my intuitive and somewhat outdated direct connection between the idea of contemporary and fine art has always had this self-manufactured inner conflict with my identity relating to counter culture. Even if the conflict wouldn’t really exist, I have imagined it. I think I have been quite elitist in avoiding certain kinds of art, so I found myself rethinking a few things as I was going to see ARS 11 exhibition in the Kiasma museum of contemporary art in Helsinki, Finland. This year the tag line promised that the exhibition “changes your perception of Africa and contemporary art”. Of course, first I had to figure out what exactly is my–let alone everyone else’s–perception of Africa. Isn’t it false-advertising to promise to change something that you can’t universally define and which varies from individual to individual? The use of this misguided slogan is hardly the fault of the many artists featured in the exhibition, so I thought, for my benefit  and just in general, let me have an open mind. Perhaps that is the prerequisite for art anyway. The museum is bang in the city centre overlooking the brand new state of the art music house (also, regardless of the official version, built largely for the purposes of fine art) and the nine tents of Occupy Helsinki that are standing in the rain next to it. It’s all very Global Village. My experience of the art was pretty much as I expected; some works were great, some not to my liking which is understandable considering the quantity of art in this exhibition, but admittedly, very little of it did much to change my perspective of the African continent and cultures. I don’t know if it did more to someone else. Generally speaking a lot of recycled materials had been used and waste was a recurring theme that was approached from many angles. A lot of beautiful photography (some examples of my favourites were Samuel Fosso, Kudzanai Chiurai and Maïmouna Patrizia Guerresi), various installations and sculptures were scattered around the five floors of Kiasma. For me, by far, the most interesting parts of the exhibition were the work of Nigerian photographer J.D. ‘Okhai Ojeikere and South African artists Mary Sibande. Ojeikere‘s photography collection titled ‘Moments of Beauty’ consisted of beautiful black and white images recording the Nigerian history. I found it interesting that in an exhibition that is supposed to change my view of something, the items I most enjoy, and which I think may work the best in delivering the promise of performance the curator has made, are the ones that are not abstract at all. It is just straightforward snapshots of real events in history. If reality changes our perspective, then what is our perspective based on to begin with? Mary Sibande’s art had more layers. She is playing with the idea of South African (and perhaps beyond) maids and their role in society. There were some beautiful photographs, but the piece that really stole the show was a large dressed up statue of a maid wearing a Victorian style royal blue dress riding a stallion reaching to the sky (my image at the top of this post). Whether by design or by accident this horse riding maid was separated only by a window from the native horse riding statue of the Finnish war marshal and former president C.G Mannerheim (see in the background). Next to each other, quietly they ooze thousands of meanings from different struggles; one from the top of his local food chain and the other from the bottom of her own. Yet, and this might be largely due to my own values and interpretations of history, the one on the inside, the maid, was the one whose horse was to ride her to triumph, even a modest one if such an expression exists, as the historical narrative becomes less Euro-centric. I still see Africa as I did before this show, but I enjoyed much of the art. Perhaps the exhibition mainly changed my idea of contemporary art which it also promised to do. So that’s okay, but if this exhibition really changed the perceptions of its viewers on Africa, I think we should move to an area that is closer to my main interest and ask why–and media I am looking at you now–is it that these works would change the way anyone sees a continent that is frequently in the news? Perhaps there are more people than I’d care to imagine who view the whole continent of Africa as 90% disaster zone with disease and corruption sprinkled over it desperately relying on the kindness of Bob Geldof and Bono, and on the other side, 10% safari game drive utopia with animals and poor, but smiling locals and Out of Africa settlers. If that was your idea, then perhaps it was high time for it to change. The image problem that Africa has, to a large extent, is a result of the terrible geo-branding warfare by the global north which is an extension of colonial attitude that created the realities on the ground in the first place. If the low expectations that are in our midst change because of an art exhibition we shouldn’t expect anyone to thank us, but rather we should say sorry this didn’t happen sooner.

Land reform and Zimbabwe; say those words in any order and you get a reaction. It obviously was a failed and atrocious attempt of a corrupt leader who bribes people to vote for him and then still lies about the result just to be popular amongst his people. Obviously. Well, obviously at least if you have been following the story through almost any media with the exception of New African magazine – I honestly cannot think of another exception that I’d know of. According to this news narrative that unsurprisingly enjoys unquestioned consensus in the western press, the agricultural sector of Zimbabwe collapsed and violence coloured the previously white farms first red and then black as the ownership landed neatly in the hands of Mugabe’s political cronies. Right? Wrong. A group of researchers mainly from Zimbabwe has conducted a fascinating study* which focuses on the Masvingo Province in the southern part of the country, but reflects the circumstances on a much broader national level. Based on their on-the-ground research they found out – and I am not going to get too much into details since the findings are available in the booklet that I have (and in the book, which I haven’t read) – that many of these myths are just that. Myths. Admittedly, agricultural production has struggled in many ways and since the land reform certain crops such as wheat, coffee, tea and tobacco have not reached the same production standard as before. That is the kind of stuff we know because the media – even if not so much recently – went on and on about how terribly things have been going. What was forgotten was that the production of certain other crops such as small grains, edible dry beans and cotton have been increasing. The production of dry beans is actually up 282% since reform. Production is also much more diverse than what it was with new ideas and new products introduced. And while political corruption did exist, and still does, in the form of inside golden handshakes and the so-called cronies owning the land, the truth isn’t quite as simple with regards to that either. Out of the people who own any of the redistributed land only less than five per cent fall into that category. Mostly the new owners are a diverse group of people of all ages, some former farm workers and others from the cities. They invest in the land and farms so much so that the research team had calculated the full amount of investment for the country being US$91 million since 2000, which is quite a bit for a financially struggling country. The main points – at least some of them – are that Zimbabwean agriculture is in transformation. The old didn’t continue in the new, but structures are changing and considering the short time period of a mere decade as well as largely absent state or NGO funding, the successes, where they have been, are remarkable and can be attributed to a few things, but mainly hard work and a certain amount of creativity. I really recommend you to read the booklet as it is very interesting. The ultimate condensing of its message is that not that it’s all good, but it’s not all bad either; it’s complex, but there’s a lot of potential and promise. The reason why I am particularly interested in all this is the fact that I spent some time in the country soon after the main wave of reforms and farm takeovers, when according to the news white people were being killed in the country as a rule. Of course that was a lie – much of the news is very one sided anyway – but since agriculture or land reform aren’t something I know all that much about, I wanted to expand the idea to a few things I am able to speculate on. I also want, at this point, to emphasise that I am neither celebrating the current political structure of Zimbabwe nor trying to tell how the future should go. I am not a specialist and even if I was I'd have the decency to shut my mouth about it. I am, however, interested in the reaction of the so-called western media. So based on these findings, why is it that the news stories from Zimbabwe were, and still are whenever occasionally they are published, so misleading? First we need to understand that the now heavily demonised President Mugabe is one of the world leaders who chose not to be a western puppet. He hasn’t been taking orders from the north and he has been very vocal about it. I am not saying that he is a great leader – I believe he definitely was a great leader and one of the heroes of the independent Zimbabwe, who got somewhat sidelined and forgot to share the power, but his biggest sins, in this context at least, are not the ones he has committed against his people – especially the ones in the urban areas – but the ones where white people have been at the receiving end; the farmers and the western leaders, the BBC journalists and NGOs. To mess with those people is to lose a PR war. No matter what the actual outcomes of your actions and policies are, you are ranked lower than Nazis on the morality chart of western norms. If there’s one thing we white people are, we are sore losers. And I don’t say this to generalise individuals, only to describe our mostly racist structures of power and communication. You are free to disagree, but what has been normalised in the past centuries runs deep. And deep down there it informs our school books, media and through that, our world view thus being kind of invisible, because it is what we are so used to see and because it doesn’t really inconvenience us, we simply don’t pay attention to it. The news about Africa – to a large degree – are informed by development aid providing NGOs, suggests Karen Rothmyer in her Harvard University discussion paper They Wanted Journalists to Say ‘Wow’: How NGOs Affect U.S. Media Coverage of Africa (2011). A similar idea is also explored in C.P. Eze’s brilliant book Don’t Africa Me (2008). The fact is that there is a whole industry of western aid that employs thousands of Europeans, Americans, Australians and people from many other countries. These NGOs rely to a large extent on outside funding and in order for them to receive that funding they have to prove that the need is huge. In order for Bono and Bob Geldof (who rely on this less financially) to raise funds for an urgent need with famine or so, they must basically paint as terrible a picture as possible for us to give as much money as possible. While some great things might be achieved, some other terrible things come as a result. This goes to your red nose days and all. So the reason I have digressed a bit, is that what has happened in Zimbabwe has happened outside of that structure; there haven’t been any gap-year Dutch teens patronising locals because they receive a bit of money and an experience of a lifetime to do so. There haven’t been that many older professional aid workers either, but local people have come together. That goes against the aid narrative according to which such aid is needed that only predominantly white Europeans and Americans can oversee it or else the corrupt and uneducated locals will make a mess of it. Finally, the last of my speculations is that Zimbabwean land reform comes too close to something that is non-negotiable: South African land reform. In order to keep away from any meaningful debate around the land issue in South Africa, Zimbabwe has had to look like a failure. It has had to look not only like a bad idea, but also as an evil idea. It can't be only a question of agriculture and economics, but it needs to be a question of human rights, and mainly, the rights of the white humans at that. The long knives are terrorising the nightmares of the white farmers so subsequently they will also dominate the news dystopia. I am sure there are other reasons as well and the matter is complex. The summary of the whole thing, in the real world, is that it’s not that it’s all good, but it’s not all bad either. Like my undergraduate Professor always told me – It’s complicated. The news, as opposed to the reality on the ground, thinks that it's simple, but my argument is that they are simply wrong. Some recommended reading: 1. Download the booklet: Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: A Summary of Findings 2. Download the discussion paper: They Wanted 3. Journalists to Say ‘Wow’: How NGOs Affect U.S. Media Coverage of Africa 3. Video series: Zimbabwe’s land reform: Voices from the field – Parts 1- 8 4. Ian Scoones et al. (2010) Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities. James Currey. * Mikko (@mikmikko) blogs at Welfare State of Mind.