Where there’s a well, there’s a way. But that way might take 30+ minutes…
The title of this week’s blog leads me to the debate of accessibility Vs availability. In 1984, the song ‘Do they know it’s Christmas?’ was recorded by Band Aid, later sung at Live Aid in 1985, in attempt to raise money for famine relief in Africa. The concert raked in $127 million and remains an acclaimed moment in musical history. In 2019, ‘Do they know it’s Christmas?’ was voted the UK’s 8th favourite Christmas song of all time.
The lyrics should be scrutinised for a number of reasons. Firstly - following on from my opening blog - the representation of Africa is premised upon eurocentrism. This is particularly alarming considering that the song remains a national favourite, suggesting that Britain has done little to disengage from colonial beliefs. Further, Band Aid epitomises the white saviour complex of the West; sustaining the binary distinction between 'us' and 'them' that was established throughout the colonial era. Such control is perpetuated through the words ‘We let in light and we banish shade’; ‘Here’s to you’ and ‘Here’s to them’ as well as - more explicitly - ‘our’ world.
Secondly, it seems almost unbelievable that the song is titled ‘Do they know it’s Christmas after all?’, insinuating that Africans are, collectively, incognisant victims. Yet the homogenisation continues, as the vast continent is described as ‘a world of dread and fear’… ‘where the only water flowing / is the bitter sting of tears’. This misrepresentation reiterates Wainana’s (satirical) suggestion of an Africa that should be pitied, where water availability is scarce and aid from the West is a requirement. Whilst droughts may be characteristic of many African countries - and should not be ignored - these lyrics fail to demonstrate the climate variability across space and time, instead trivialising the continent’s complex hydrological system. These words contribute to the belief that the entire continent is water scarce. In many instances, it’s a question of accessibility rather than availability.
Groundwater in Africa
In 2012, researchers revealed the magnitude of groundwater availability across Africa: estimated to be 0.66 million km³. Groundwater comes mostly from rainfall that has infiltrated into the ground; contradicting Band Aid’s depiction of Africa being where ‘no rain or river flows’. In fact, Sudan, Chad, Egypt and Libya all exist above the Nubian Sandstone - the world’s largest known fossil aquifer system (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Nubian Sandstone Groundwater
Now it is true, the research came after the release of Band Aid’s song and much of the aquifer's water is from rain that fell over 5,000 years ago - so placing the blame on these singers alone may seem unfair. Instead, should it be spread evenly across the numerous singers who re-released the song in 2014? Despite more accurate knowledge and post-colonial perspectives highlighting the misconceptions of 1984, the hit ‘rebooted’ its popularity and reinforced a Eurocentric narrative.
Accessibility
Arguably, the issue of water is one of accessibility rather than availability. Research has shown that it is the ‘lack of infrastructure investment’ that is driving water scarcity across African countries, rather than a total lack of rainfall/water storage. Subsequently, this crisis can be framed as economic-based, rather than (natural) resource-based.
Consequences
Due to this lack of water infrastructure, more than two-thirds of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa must leave their home to collect water. The UN has proposed that the average trip takes 33 minutes. In periods of intense heat and drought, this figure drastically increases in frequency and/or length. For example, during Ethiopia’s dry season, collection times can amount to 9 hours due to both physical distance and queuing times.
Social Norms
Patriarchal norms dominate societies across Africa. The 2021 Global Gender Gap Report found that Sub-Saharan Africa was the third lowest-ranking region for gender equality, whilst North Africa was in the top lowest-ranking region. Subsequently, the burden of water collection falls upon females. In Tanzania alone, women could save 1,128 million hours a year (collectively) if access to water was increased. These hours are 5 times that of men. Therefore, in addition to more abundant water infrastructure, harmful social norms must be dissolved.
It's only a song...
To finish, I return to the ‘hit’ ‘Do they know it’s Christmas after all?’ Whilst this is just a song, it demonstrates the extent to which colonial legacies are ingrained within British society. Its continued popularity could also be harmful to the future of water development. Moving forward, the issue must be accurately framed: predominantly being one of inaccessibility rather than unavailability. Such an injustice disproportionately affects females of all ages, making this not only an issue of water, but also of gender.
To those whose Christmas song I have ruined, I simply can't apologise.
Thank you for opening my eyes to the true meaning of this song; I had never listened closely to the lyrics until now. I wholly agree with all of the points you made in this post, and while song lyrics might not be the most important injustice in the world, it serves as a brilliant example of Western perceptions of Africa. I think the concept of Live Aid as a whole was also problematic. It's incredibly ironic that the bands name is Band Aid, because that's, at best, all Live Aid was: a band-aid solution. Even if this song itself was free of harmful stereotypes and colonial thinking, the fundraising concept behind it was still fraught with injustice. A quick google search led me to this article https://www.spin.com/2015/07/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/, and many more articles, discussing where the live aid funds actually wound up. The Spin piece was an expose published in the 80s, claiming that Live Aid funds were given to the corrupt Ethiopian government during the civil war, and towards the purchase of weaponry rather than famine relief. From a glance, it looks like a lot of these claims are still disputed (and I'd be interested to do further research into this), but it goes to show that our concept of 'aid' has to go further than a benefit concert if we actually want to help those in need. Considering there were no African performers invited to Live Aid, and considering the lack of accountability in the distribution of funds, there is no doubt in my mind that this concert and this song were just a way for the West to feel good about ourselves. Great post, and thanks for opening up these important topics.
ReplyDeleteThank you!! These are all such good points. And thank you for sharing the article, wish I'd read that before writing the blog! At first I thought that Geldof might've fallen victim to the stereotypes of Africa and the normalisation of colonial language - not that this is right but just that it shows how deeply entrenched imperial legacies are - but actually this article shows that he knows about his involvement in corruption and refuses to address it. At the very least, he should be held publicly accountable. Instead, it implies that BandAid was more of a publicity stunt for him. Also a very interesting point that no African performers were invited to LiveAid; showing that this was much more about the White saviour complex of the West than truly making a difference.
ReplyDeleteCreative approach to exploring the debate of water accessibility Vs availability using a song, anyways it looks like you missed out on the 2014 edition against the backdrop of Ebola crisis in West Africa. If i may add MacDonald et al's findings were published before the 2014 attempt to republish the song in ligh of the health crisis, which could be an alternative approach to critiquing the song and its faulty misrepresentation. I would like to learn more about your perspective of the oxfam policy brief in relation to water and gender in a specific case study African country, could be a future post.
ReplyDeleteThe title of this week’s blog leads me to the debate of accessibility Vs availability
Thank you for pointing this out - I didn't realise! That's really interesting and supports my argument more then. I'll look into the Oxfam policy brief, thank you.
ReplyDelete