3 ms·

I read this before it 508'ed and now can't quote from it (so you will forgive a critique in abstentia), but I think this energy is misdirected. The author is b

I read this before it 508'ed and now can't quote from it (so you will forgive a critique in abstentia), but I think this energy is misdirected. The author is broadly correct about how much space Africa takes up in western "popular thought" - though I think they are totally wrong about how aware policy makers are of the goings on in other countries (they are very aware, but they focus on issues that are understood to be domestically relevant). But this isn't really about "Africa" in any specific way - most of this article is about the difference between "the map and the territory" of "western discussion of the world." More specifically discussion of world events in the united states. People in the US exist inside an information bubble that warps our understanding of the rest of the world. Because we are wealthy and resource-rich our country and its goings on are shockingly well covered (and that coverage can generally be distributed in exchange for ads). We are at the center of a world-wide attention economy that knows that the most valuable information is the information that we know we already want. This creates perverse incentives where a comparatively easy way for any particular individual to make money is to produce information on any subject that closely aligns to the views & lifestyle of wealthy westerners - those westerners will tend to prefer your perspective to others that might be closer to reality but further from the average western perspective. This is a hard problem! It's hard to measure and hard to judge. Our information feeds are now relentlessly customized to fit the understood desires of every individual person. Information feeds that aren't shaped in that way contain too much information for any human to make sense of. We desperately need algorithmic assistance in processing and understanding the flood of information from everywhere but every company that has deep investments in that area has done so with the goal of selling us toothpaste. We're in a tough spot - us and the people who are trapped in our economic wake.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
I'm not sure this is quite on the mark. What makes the Gaza conflict more prominent to the US than what's happening in Africa? To some extent the US was less involved in Africa. Once it left the slave trade, its main involvement until the Cold War was with Liberia. But since the Cold War, the US has had varying levels of involvement in the continent. During the Cold War the US did some pretty nasty things in Angola. The US pledged aid to Ethiopia as a way to keep it from falling into the pocket of the Soviets. The US was involved with the South African government in both propping up apartheid during the Cold War and decades later trying to speed its dismantlement. I think it's just that the Middle East has more wealth than Africa and that regional powers like Qatar and Israel can afford to cover news in the area with more speed and fidelity, which means that outlets like Al Jazeera can provoke other news outlets to react with their own takes. Africa just doesn't have as much money and just can't afford to diplomatically exist on a larger scale the way the Middle East can. Though I think this article does raise a huge risk that China can swoop in and count Africa easily given how little awareness the average Western voter has of African politics.
- aeturnum 3y ago
  > What makes the Gaza conflict more prominent to the US than what's happening in Africa? Lots of things! Israel is generally the largest recipient of foreign aid[1]. This is partially, but not exclusively, because Israel is considered important to various domestic groups for reasons that are outside of normal policy concerns[2]. For lots of reasons Israel (and the groups it abuses) are an important domestic political issue. I don't think it follows regional wealth either. For instance - the Saudi involvement in the Yemeni civil war has been going on for a long time, is pretty objectionable, and is pretty hard to defend. Yet it's not covered very much because the fact of the Saudi-Yemeni conflict is awkward for the US. The US security apparatus thinks its important to be on good terms with Saudi Arabia for various reasons and so our information delivery apparatus warps the information it shows us to avoid making us think about it too much. Another way to think about it is that the news that is distributed most is at a local maxima of the intersection of "salience to US politics" and "capacity to make some money by sharing this news somehow." Gaza (and Israel) are, for various reasons, at the exact center of those two categories. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    > Lots of things! Israel is generally the largest recipient of foreign aid[1]. This is partially, but not exclusively, because Israel is considered important to various domestic groups for reasons that are outside of normal policy concerns[2]. For lots of reasons Israel (and the groups it abuses) are an important domestic political issue. I didn't grow up in a particularly Jewish part of the US so I keep forgetting what a big deal Israel is to American Jews. You're right. There's lots of domestic groups in the US with ties to Israel and they're a huge political entity. I just didn't put two-and-two together. > For instance - the Saudi involvement in the Yemeni civil war has been going on for a long time, is pretty objectionable, and is pretty hard to defend. Yet it's not covered very much because the fact of the Saudi-Yemeni conflict is awkward for the US. The US security apparatus thinks its important to be on good terms with Saudi Arabia for various reasons and so our information delivery apparatus warps the information it shows us to avoid making us think about it too much. It is awkward, but the Khashoggi incident got plenty of airtime in the US despite it also being awkward for the US and despite the US only dealing with Turkey in terms of NATO. I'm still not convinced this is how the news apparatus works because I can think of many counterexamples like this. But I'm not going to deny that Israel is a huge issue in the US because of how deeply involved Israel is with American Jews.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago

I'm not sure this is quite on the mark. What makes the Gaza conflict more prominent to the US than what's happening in Africa? To some extent the US was less involved in Africa. Once it left the slave trade, its main involvement until the Cold War was with Liberia. But since the Cold War, the US has had varying levels of involvement in the continent. During the Cold War the US did some pretty nasty things in Angola. The US pledged aid to Ethiopia as a way to keep it from falling into the pocket of the Soviets. The US was involved with the South African government in both propping up apartheid during the Cold War and decades later trying to speed its dismantlement. I think it's just that the Middle East has more wealth than Africa and that regional powers like Qatar and Israel can afford to cover news in the area with more speed and fidelity, which means that outlets like Al Jazeera can provoke other news outlets to react with their own takes. Africa just doesn't have as much money and just can't afford to diplomatically exist on a larger scale the way the Middle East can. Though I think this article does raise a huge risk that China can swoop in and count Africa easily given how little awareness the average Western voter has of African politics.

aeturnum 3y ago
> What makes the Gaza conflict more prominent to the US than what's happening in Africa? Lots of things! Israel is generally the largest recipient of foreign aid[1]. This is partially, but not exclusively, because Israel is considered important to various domestic groups for reasons that are outside of normal policy concerns[2]. For lots of reasons Israel (and the groups it abuses) are an important domestic political issue. I don't think it follows regional wealth either. For instance - the Saudi involvement in the Yemeni civil war has been going on for a long time, is pretty objectionable, and is pretty hard to defend. Yet it's not covered very much because the fact of the Saudi-Yemeni conflict is awkward for the US. The US security apparatus thinks its important to be on good terms with Saudi Arabia for various reasons and so our information delivery apparatus warps the information it shows us to avoid making us think about it too much. Another way to think about it is that the news that is distributed most is at a local maxima of the intersection of "salience to US politics" and "capacity to make some money by sharing this news somehow." Gaza (and Israel) are, for various reasons, at the exact center of those two categories. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  > Lots of things! Israel is generally the largest recipient of foreign aid[1]. This is partially, but not exclusively, because Israel is considered important to various domestic groups for reasons that are outside of normal policy concerns[2]. For lots of reasons Israel (and the groups it abuses) are an important domestic political issue. I didn't grow up in a particularly Jewish part of the US so I keep forgetting what a big deal Israel is to American Jews. You're right. There's lots of domestic groups in the US with ties to Israel and they're a huge political entity. I just didn't put two-and-two together. > For instance - the Saudi involvement in the Yemeni civil war has been going on for a long time, is pretty objectionable, and is pretty hard to defend. Yet it's not covered very much because the fact of the Saudi-Yemeni conflict is awkward for the US. The US security apparatus thinks its important to be on good terms with Saudi Arabia for various reasons and so our information delivery apparatus warps the information it shows us to avoid making us think about it too much. It is awkward, but the Khashoggi incident got plenty of airtime in the US despite it also being awkward for the US and despite the US only dealing with Turkey in terms of NATO. I'm still not convinced this is how the news apparatus works because I can think of many counterexamples like this. But I'm not going to deny that Israel is a huge issue in the US because of how deeply involved Israel is with American Jews.