Middos, and war in Sudan
I was invited specifically to be a foil between my rav and the non-jewish guests that his family had invited to the meal. Besides the questions about whether non-Jews can make certain brachos and if one would be over on lifnei-iver for saying a dvar torah in a mixed audience the evening went swimmingly...
Except for the fact that I couldn't translate this phrase into Twi:
Simba: Man, I'm stuffed.
Pumbaa: Me, too. I ate like a pig.
Simba: Pumbaa, you *are* a pig.
The Rav's daughters have been "collecting" how to say these lines in as many languages as they can and my complete lack of Twi fluency was disappointing.
What disappointed me was the later discussion about the situation of most of Africa. The consensus of most of the frum side of the table was that the instability of most of the African countries and the atrocities that has been repeated time and time again in the wars that have ravaged the continent stem largely from some sort of inborn trait (midda). I am at a loss to understand why the wars in Africa are so brutal, only a monster could justify the cutting off of arms and legs, but only a narrow view of history yields the perspective that the African violence is unique... The western world saw similar violence throughout most of its history (ever wonder why we say "pay through the nose"?) and Africa's development has been hindered tremendously by colonialism. It goes against my general distaste for moral relativism to in any way excuse the barbarism in places like Rwanda, Congo or Sierra Leone. But I do wonder, "who appointed the west as the authority on how one is supposed to conduct war?" Is war any less barbarous because it's fought with laser-guided missiles and M16s? At a time when the US military is having a hard time fighting muslim insurgencies using the rules of engagement originally developed for fighting the wars of the 1910s and has caused a large amount of "civilian casualties" perhaps there should be a more nuanced view of the wars of Africa.
But I was most frustrated by the lack of perspective on African history. Much of the instability in Africa is a direct result of Africans having had no part in determining their own political and social destiny until recent times. Between having the borders of countries drawn without respect to traditional ethnic borders (as has happened in Europe) and acting as the battleground for the US and the USSR's proxy fights during the cold war it's little wonder that most of sub-Saharan Africa has had its lines redrawn more times than a set of construction documents.
But I had another thought... The idea that people are forced by external factors to become barbarians is patently false. The poor person is no less chiav for stealing the loaf of bread than the rich man. True, it is more understandable... but the actions are the same. So if I apply the same structure toward national struggles as I would apply to a personal struggle, the preliminary deficiencies that Africa faces aren't only surmountable… They are a call to greatness. After all: the tzaddik will never stand in the place of the baal-teshuva. But, and this is how I ended the discussion, I think that sub-Saharan Africa will be besieged by constant turmoil for hundreds of years, righteousness is only possessed by the few. So maybe the scores of different peoples do really need to work on their middos on a personal and national level.
