Thinking about the African Studies Association – what it could do, ought to be doing, or should have done – brings to mind the suggestion once offered by some prominent academic group that the priority of their university African studies program should be Phonetics.

“What do you think of America?” No visitor to the United States can escape this question. From the moment he debarks, the foreigner is confronted by a question that will follow him throughout his stay in the U.S. At first he seems bewildered. But he soon gathers from the questioner’s tone that he is expected to respond favorably. “Great! I like it very much,” he answers. Indeed America is great, but the perplexed visitor has had no time to make even the most superficial observation of his own.

To write about a culture and its relevance of thought using techniques and methodology invented in another culture can be deceptive. Every culture has its raison d’etre. The ideology of a society moulds its culture as well as the values of that society. Those members of a society who have been indoctrinated and miseducated in another cultural setting simply do not qualify to use the techniques they have learned in formulating a framework for the constructs and principles of the culture in which they were born. They do not have sufficient knowledge of their parent culture, thus their analysis can be misleading and full of disturbed facts and findings. However, they can attempt to rediscover their culture and ascertain the salutary effect that certain of its characteristics or modes of thought might have when applied or adapted to another culture.

The attitude of the United States towards Namibia is somewhat like that of the "Sunday Christian" towards religion: it's great to stand up at intervals to self-righteously denounce sinners and ritually proclaim higher moral purpose – but God forbid that these pieties should interfere with the practical concerns of work-a-day existence.

The phrase communication for change is now entering the lexicon of America's Southern African policy makers with about the same regularity that President Nixon promises us that his foreign policy will lead to a full generation of peace. Both policies call for support as an article of faith since the payoffs – change and peace – will not be realized until Nixon, Secretary of State Rogers, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Newsom, and most other current policy makers have moved on to corporate law practices and foundation presidencies. The mere fact that we are urged to accept policies by those who will not be around to be held accountable for them should concern us and perhaps give us cause for a healthy degree of skepticism. This article is intended to briefly assess the current state of American foreign policy toward Southern Africa and to consider how (if at all) current policy offers promise to the millions of Africans who live under racist regimes.

Several years ago I testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the insufficiency of American aid to Africa. I urged that foreign aid be increased because, in Africa, our foreign aid still had the opportunity of being genuine economic assistance and not something else. It was understood in my remarks that the genuine nature of economic assistance would become apparent as structural changes in African economies took place.