In July, I had the privilege of presenting at the International Association of Genocide Scholars‘ twelfth meeting in Yerevan, Armenia. The conference’s theme of comparative analysis of twentieth century genocides brought experts from around the world to Armenia’s capital city for five days of presentations, learning, and networking. More than 180 attendees, representing more than two dozen countries, shared their research and insight into many of the twentieth century’s most infamous atrocities.

The conference began on Wednesday, July 8^th with a welcome from Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to attendees. In his address, President Sargsyan discussed the legacy of the Armenian Genocide, not only for the Armenian people, but all of humanity. He also spoke about moving forward, highlighted by his announcement of the creation of a new biannual conference sponsored by the Armenian Republic that will discuss the lasting effects of genocide and how the global community can overcome episodes of violence. A full transcript of President Sargsyan’s address can be found on the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute’s website.

The conference kicked off Thursday morning with more than 20 breakout sessions exploring themes like prevention, intergenerational trauma, perpetrator justice, and gender and sexuality. I presented research I did this past spring, comparing themes of nationalism in pre-genocide late Ottoman and early American politics. University of Minnesota alumna and current Ohio State sociology professor Dr. Hollie Brehm presented her research analyzing rates of violence at a community level during the Rwandan Genocide.

My favorite session was the cultural genocide breakout. The presentations primarily focused on the continuing destruction and appropriation of Khachkars, ornate stone crosses, and Armenian churches that are scattered across modern Turkey. The presenters brought different and insightful perspectives to the session; an art historian talked about the effect the destruction from an artistic perspective and an Armenian PhD student shared her research from the viewpoint of the Armenian people. There was a great conversation that followed, discussing the limits of the legal definition of genocide versus Raphael Lemkin’s original ideas. The session was moderated by Dr. Adam Muller of the University of Manitoba. Dr. Muller will be visiting the University this fall to discuss his virtual museum project which sheds light on the residential schools for Canada’s First Nations people.
On Thursday evening, we were given a tour of the renovated Armenian Genocide Museum and Tsitsernakaberd, Armenia’s official memorial site. Visiting the museum had a tremendous effect on me. It was a reminder of the human toll of the first genocide of the twentieth century, something I had only experienced through books and documentaries. The museum recently opened its expanded exhibit with new photographs, artifacts, and testimonials in time for the commemorative events marking the 100^th anniversary of the genocide. The tour was led by Dr. Hayk Demoyan, the director of the museum and organizer of the conference.

The conference came to an end on Sunday with the unveiling of a stamp by the IAGS executive committee and the Armenian Postal Service, commemorating the conference. Sunday was also Vardavar, the Armenian water festival in which kids toss water on unsuspecting passersby. The soakings made for a refreshing end to an incredible, and hot, conference in Yerevan.

Created in 1994, the International Association of Genocide Scholars is one of the world’s largest groups dedicated to gaining a greater understanding of episodes of genocide and mass atrocities. In 2001, the University of Minnesota hosted the conference. IAGS’ next conference will be in July 2017 in Phnom Penh at the newly opened Sleuk Rith Institute which is Cambodia’s permanent research center dedicated to the Cambodian Genocide.

Joe Eggers is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, focusing his research on cultural genocide and indigenous communities. His thesis project explores discrepancies between the legal definition and Lemkin’s concept of genocide through analysis of American government assimilation policies towards Native Nations.

A Good Place to Hide: How One French Village Saved Thousands of Lives During World War II

By Peter Grose

A Good Place to Hide is the story of an isolated community in south-central France, Le Chambon, that conspired to save the lives of 3,500 Jews under the noses of the Germans and the soldiers of Vichy France. It is the story of a pacifist Protestant pastor who broke laws and defied orders to protect the lives of total strangers. Powerful and richly told, the book speaks to the courage of ordinary people who offered sanctuary, kindness, solidarity and hospitality to people in desperate need, knowing full well the consequences to themselves.

On April 23-25 the Center for Holocaust and Genocide studies, along with the Human Rights Program, Institute for Global Studies and the Ohanessian Chair, marked the centennial of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 with a series of events. This included a keynote by Middle East scholar Bedross Der Matossian, an international student conference titled “One Hundred Years of Genocide: Remembrance, Education, Prevention”, a teacher workshop on World War I and the Armenian Genocide, as well as a guided tour of Bdote, a sacred Dakota site at Ft. Snelling State Park led by Professor Iyekiyapiwin Darlene St. Clair.

The three-day program was opened by the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Lecture, also serving as keynote for the international student conference, delivered by Professor Bedross Der Matossian, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His talk was titled “The Armenian Genocide Historiography on the Eve of the Centennial: From Continuity to Contingency”, and gave a comprehensive overview of the different approaches to studying and interpreting the Armenian Genocide, highlighting the importance of multi-causal interpretations and micro-historical approaches to understanding the emergence and execution of the genocide.

The international student conference on April 24 addressed the topic of one hundred years of genocide from different aspects, and saw student presenters from Armenia, Hungary, the UK, and US. It was moderated by Der Matossian and UMN professors Joachim Savelsberg, Barbara Frey, and Alejandro Baer. First, Angel Amirjanyan and Varduhi Gumruyan delivered their presentations on the psychological effects of genocide and posttraumatic stress in Armenia via Skype, identifying a clear thread of trauma as inherited. Both scholars spoke of the still notable effects of the genocide, even in their generation, manifesting in lack of confidence, inferiority complex, and hesitance to interact with Turkish youth. Both presenters also noted the importance of engaging in a dialogue about the past, and making connections with their Turkish counterparts, in order to minimize tension between the two communities. They also noted, however, that in order for healing to occur, a clear recognition of the events of 1915 as genocide on behalf of Turkey must happen. Peter Kranitz presented on the fate of Armenian refugees in Constantinople, including the problematic “repatriation” of displaced Armenians to the new Soviet Republic from former Ottoman territories.

The second session addressed Armenian and Turkish relations after the genocide. Vahram Ayvazyan spoke about the discrepancies between official state and unofficial, civic society, NGO discourse on the genocide and ways of moving forward, noting that the former is at times inflexible. Torkom Movsesyan raised the question of whether having international judicial bodies tackle the issue of the Armenian Genocide might help mediate the situation, and motivate Turkey’s recognition of the past events. Gevorg Petrosyan gave a presentation on Turkey’s current policy of genocide denial, carried out through the “Shared Pain” discourse, which does not recognize the Armenian Genocide as such, but rather wraps it in with other World War I tragedies, as merely a casualty of the war, among others.

The conference did not just address the Armenian Genocide, however. Lindsay Blahnik talked about the effects of punitive and restorative justice on social cohesion following the Rwandan Genocide, while Tom Dunn informed the audience about the problematic British intervention in the Sierra Leonean Civil War. Finally, Rebecca Shnabel presented on the problematic power relations associated with the translation process, as exemplified by Elie Wiesel’s Night, wherein the original was significantly abridged and modified to be less disturbing to a post-World War II readership.  The conference was wrapped up by presentations by Kayla Nomina, speaking on the possibility to determine causal agents of genocide, and the potential for prevention; and Joe Eggers, who presented a comparison of the Native American and Armenian genocides, looking at the role of nationalism in both contexts.

The discussions continued the next morning at Ft. Snelling State Park, where Professor Iyekiyapiwin Darlene St. Clair, St. Cloud State University, led a tour of Dakota sites and history connected to both the genesis and genocide of the Dakota people: “Bdote” is the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, the sacred site of Dakota creation stories and the location of Fort Snelling, where many Dakota were imprisoned and died in in the 1860s.

Concurrently, a Teacher Workshop on World War I and the Armenian Genocide was taking place on campus.  Sessions led by Der Matossian and UMN faculty, staff and community members illustrated various historical perspectives in Europe and the colonies at the imminent approach of World War I.

Over all, the three-day events highlighted the lasting traumatic effects of genocide, even several generations on, but also saw potential in new ways of dealing with the past, including recognizing micro-histories, establishing cultural exchanges, considering different and at times uneasy ways of approaching justice and reconciliation. While the conference also showed that each genocide is a unique event, some parallels were evident, even in contexts seemingly as distinct as US-Native American and Ottoman-Amenian relations.

Arta Ankrava holds an MA in Social Anthropology from Goldsmiths, University of London and is currently a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Minnesota. She is interested in diasporic identity, transnationalism, and collective memory. Arta is working on a dissertation about anti-Communism in the Latvian American exile community during the Cold War and through the collapse of the USSR. It is based on her research in the Latvian American Periodicals Collection at the Immigration History Research Center, University of Minnesota.

The Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and the Department of History are pleased to announce the 2015-2016 Bernard and Fern Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

Yagmur Karakaya is a PhD student in Sociology at the University of Minnesota. She is interested in collective memory, popular culture and narratives of history. Yagmur is currently working on her dissertation project on Ottomania, which focuses on contemporary interest in the Ottoman past in Turkey. She is interested in how different groups of minorities engage with the ways in which Ottoman past is recalled and how they situate themselves in this narrative. During her Badzin Graduate Fellowship year, she will focus on the commemoration of the Holocaust in Turkey, and the relative silence on the Armenian genocide situating both of these phenomena in the current political interest in the Ottoman past. This project will engage with current debates regarding memorialization and denial in the field of Holocaust and genocide studies within the context of Turkey. She will be focusing on two major non-Muslim minorities in Turkey: the Jewish and Armenian population, conducting interviews with the members.

Archiving the Unspeakable: Silence, Memory, and the Photographic Record in Cambodia

By Michelle Caswell

Roughly 1.7 million people died in Cambodia from untreated disease, starvation, and execution during the Khmer Rouge reign of less than four years in the late 1970s. The regime’s brutality has come to be symbolized by the multitude of black-and-white mug shots of prisoners taken at the notorious Tuol Sleng prison, where thousands of “enemies of the state” were tortured before being sent to the Killing Fields. In Archiving the Unspeakable, Michelle Caswell traces the social life of these photographic records through the lens of archival studies and elucidates how, paradoxically, they have become agents of silence and witnessing, human rights and injustice as they are deployed at various moments in time and space. From their creation as Khmer Rouge administrative records to their transformation beginning in 1979 into museum displays, archival collections, and databases, the mug shots are key components in an ongoing drama of unimaginable human suffering.

Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions

Caroline Sturdy Colls

Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions aims to move archaeological research concerning the Holocaust forward through a discussion of the variety of the political, social, ethical and religious issues that surround investigations of this period and by considering how to address them. It considers the various reasons why archaeological investigations may take place and what issues will be brought to bear when fieldwork is suggested. It presents an interdisciplinary methodology in order to demonstrate how archaeology can (uniquely) contribute to the history of this period. Case examples are used throughout the book in order to contextualize prevalent themes and a variety of geographically and typologically diverse sites throughout Europe are discussed. This book challenges many of the widely held perceptions concerning the Holocaust, including the idea that it was solely an Eastern European phenomena centered on Auschwitz and the belief that other sites connected to it were largely destroyed or are well-known. The typologically, temporally and spatial diverse body of physical evidence pertaining to this period is presented and future possibilities for investigation of it are discussed. Finally, the volume concludes by discussing issues relating to the “re-presentation” of the Holocaust and the impact of this on commemoration, heritage management and education. This discussion is a timely one as we enter an age without survivors and questions are raised about how to educate future generations about these events in their absence.

Talking to a journalist in Nairobi this weekend, he mentioned something that I thought was as unnerving as it was interesting. The journalist lamented at the fact that it seemed the world had gotten so tired of Darfur that the news of soldiers raping at least 221 women and girls in the village of Tabit last October hardly caused a ripple. The first allegations of the 36-hour rape ordeal came in November when Radio Dabanga (The Hague) initially reported on the crimes. In December, the ICC prosecutor decided to shelve the war crimes probe after almost five years of stagnation by the world court, stating she needed more support to address Sudan’s lack of cooperation, and that the rape of the 200 women and girls in the village “should shock [the] council into action.” Sudanese security forces killed approximately 200 protesters in 2014 and the Sudanese state has been so confident that nothing would happen to it, it created a new force, the Rapid Support Forces, which was accused of having burned 3,000 villages in 2014.

We have come a long way from events that sought to raise awareness such as ‘Rock for Darfur’ (which according to Voice of America had 22 concert in 2006 alone), a long way from buying, and proudly donning, t-shirts with ‘Save Darfur’ emblazoned on them. Syria, Iraq, Liberia, South Sudan, and Central Africa Republic have overtaken Darfur in the attention sweepstakes in the news. In previous posts I have talked about Compassion Fatigue and the four horsemen of the apocalypse whenever atrocities were covered in the media. However, when is it ok to say enough is enough? When do we, as global citizens, stop shaking our heads and going “tsk tsk, it is so sad what is happening in that country”?  These are questions I have asked myself over the past few years. As a graduate student, I have often wondered if my keeping an eye on Darfur is influenced by the fact that my research is in the region. Would it matter as much if my research was on, say, farming practices in Africa?  I would like to think it would, if for no reason other than the fact that my country (Kenya) shares a border with South Sudan. I would like to think that whenever I opened the local daily at a coffee shop, or on my way to work in the morning, I would read the news about Darfur and seek out like-minded individuals to try and help in some way, shape or form. What form of help this would be I’m not sure as of yet. So to the question, what have I done for Darfur lately? My honest answer is not as much as I would have liked to do. As Darfur has morphed into a conflict occurring in the shadows (a dreadful prospect) my sense of hopelessness has also increased. What will your answer be?

Wahutu Siguru is the 2013 Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and PhD candidate in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. Siguru’s research interests are in the Sociology of Media, Genocide, Mass Violence and Atrocities (specifically on issues of representation of conflicts in Africa such as Darfur and Rwanda), Collective Memory, and perhaps somewhat tangentially Democracy and Development in Africa. 

Event Review: International Symposium “Reframing Mass Violence: Social Memories and Human Rights in Post-Communist Europe”

(IAS Collaborative)

March 4-6, 2015

An international symposium on “Contested Past, Contested Present: Social Memories and Human Rights in Post-Communist Europe” took place at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities on March 4-6. It was organized by the IAS Collaborative “Reframing Mass Violence”, and sponsored by the Human Rights Program and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, among other supporters.

The symposium opened with akeynote lecture by Prof. John-Paul Himka , who spoke about the reception of the Holocaust in post-Communist Europe, especially its legacies in Poland and Ukraine. OnThursday and Friday, sessions covered different aspects of contested memories in post-Communist European countries, from depictions in theater, museums, and film, to transitional justice policies, and the current conflict in the Ukraine. The presentations and ensuing discussions illustrated that the past of post-Communist states remains, indeed, a contested space, negotiating narratives of rising nationalism, victimhood, responsibility, retribution and rehabilitation.

Several themes emerged as central to the discussion of post-Communist memory. First, one theme highlighted the tension, but also interaction between a multiplicity of vernacular memories and often more hegemonic, official ones. Dr. Lars Breuer addressed this in the German and Polish context, as categories of perpetrator and victim appear fluid, and memories multidirectional. Prof. Matti Jutila also focused on challenging interpretations of the past by examining the film “The Soviet Story”. He argued that the film illustrates the “Double Genocide” thesis, which seeks to posit Soviet atrocities on par, if not as exceeding those committed during the Holocaust, and asked how might it be possible to criticize the political use of mass atrocities without denying or downplaying their significance.

The second key theme was the potentiality of creative spaces to deal with past atrocities, but also their limitations. Prof. Sarah Wagner addressed this in her talk about Srebrenica, noting that parallel sites of commemoration exist in the space, symbolizing the divided publics not in conversation with one another. The potentiality of creative spaces as redemptive was also highlighted during the last session of the symposium, where Prof. Michal Kobialka presented on a 1944 staging of “The Return of Odysseus” by Tadeusz Kantor in a bomb-damaged room in Krakow as a radical event, bringing into question the distinction between being and appearance, use value and uselessness, and the role of art as autonomous. Referencing a more contemporary context, Margarita Kompelmakher spoke about the Belarus Free Theater’s performance as one of a human rights paradigm, aiming to be universal, but also limited by the very explicit body it uses to make its point.

The third theme was that of transition, justice and rehabilitation. Prof. Jelena Subotic spoke about the ways a mythologized Communist past shapes how former Yugoslav states imagine their future, at times building on problematic and nationalist pre-WWII narratives and mechanistic assessments of success by ICTY standards. Thomas Wolfe questioned the nature of the field of transitional justice. Its assumptions, its philosophical sources and allegiances, its methodological orientations, and most of all, its understanding of how the past exists in, living through the present. Dr. Ryan Molz addressed the lustration policies in Macedonia, Croatia and Serbia, arguing that each of the states had a differing level of implementation of this vetting process due to internal factors, while external factors, such as the international community, have largely been unsupportive of lustration policies. Later, Prof. Adam Czarnota addressed the tension between a demand for formal “rule of law” in countries in transition and the realities of lived memory and informal rule of law already existing in the states. Czarnota noted that there is often a “supply of law”, but no matching demand in transitional contexts. Finally, Prof. Nadya Nedelsky spoke about Slovakia’s struggle with its past, pointing out that societal and academic discourse often do not intertwine on the ground, leading to deeply problematic issues, such as the downplaying of the Nazi-aligned state of the 1930s.

The symposium also held a session on the Ukraine conflict, where professors John-Paul Himka, George O. Liber and J. Brian Atwood addressed the different aspects of the current events. Himka spoke about the role of the regional specifics of Ukraine, and historical differences between them, while Liber addressed Vladimir Putin’s response to the Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-2015 and Russia’s current aggressive foreign policy in the region. Atwood provided an informative view on the current crisis from a U.S. perspective, based on many years of experience in various state institutions, including USAID.

Overall, the event foregrounded issues of how long a transition lasts, what are ways contested pasts are conceptualized and dealt with, legally, commemoratively, and artistically, and how memories can be and are at times used for political purposes. The symposium also highlighted a need to balance contested memories, interpretations of the past with long-term policies that are not merely cosmetic and mechanistic, but often demand a true reevaluation of a country’s history. However, this demands interest and a willingness to do so by the communities in the states themselves. Arguably, the race for EU accession and externally shaped Transitional Justice policies may have resulted in speedy formal establishment of institutions to this effect, but equally seems to have in some instances created a space for hegemonic and reductionist narratives to take hold.

(Full video recordings of all sessions available here, here, and here.)

Arta Ankrava holds an MA in Social Anthropology from Goldsmiths, University of London and is currently a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Minnesota. She is interested in diasporic identity, transnationalism, and collective memory. Arta is working on a dissertation about anti-Communism in the Latvian American exile community during the Cold War and through the collapse of the USSR. It is based on her research in the Latvian American Periodicals Collection at the Immigration History Research Center, University of Minnesota.

The Dark Heart of Hitler’s Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government

by Martin Winstone

Even amidst the horrors of Nazi rule in Europe, the tragic history of the General Government – the Nazi colony created out of the historic core of Poland, including Warsaw and Krakow, following the German and Soviet invasion of 1939 – stands out. Separate from but ruled by Germany through a brutal and corrupt regime headed by the vain and callous Hans Frank, this was indeed the dark heart of Hitler’s empire. As the principal ‘racial laboratory’ of the Third Reich, the General Government was the site of Aktion Reinhard, the largest killing operation of the Holocaust, and of a campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing against Poles which was intended to be a template for the rest of eastern Europe.

Utjiua Muinjangue is the chairperson of the Ovaherero and Ovambanderu Genocide Foundation. Ms. Muinjangue spoke on behalf of the school of Social Work at the University of Minnesota on the genocide of the Herero on November 10, 2014.

Q: Is there an official count and is it different from people’s own memories of the number of victims of the Ovaherero genocide?

A: The estimated number is that before the genocide, the Ovaherero people were more or less 95,000. After the genocide, they were reduced to 15,000.

Q: Were there other communities that were targeted in the same way?

A: We have 11 ethnic groups in Namibia and all these groups have been living there…during the time of the Germans as well. But for reasons known to the Germans they targeted mainly two groups. The Ovaherero and the other group, called the Namas. The Hereros then by that time they were living mostly in the central parts of Namibia, while the Namas were in the southern parts of Namibia. They had cattle and their cattle were targeted, their land was targeted and what is very interesting is that during war it’s difficult to differentiate who is not Herero or who is a Namas and so on. But what is interesting is that they, the Germans, issued an extermination order on the 2nd of October 1904, which was specifically directed towards the Ovaherero people. So for us, it’s like they knew there were other groups, but their aim was that specific group. And then in April 1905 they issued a similar order to the Nama people.

Q: How is the memory of the genocide kept alive? Not just among activists and activist groups but also among survivors?

A: There are very active commemorative events that are happening on an annual basis. Since we started, or since the establishment of the Genocide Foundation, we have been having commemorative events. We singled out the more important dates in the history. Like the 12th of January which commemorates the first bullets that were shot against our people. We have the 30th of March, we call that the reparation walk – we started with that one in 2007 when we erected a monument at the place which was a concentration camp. So we go there every year, and that is in another town, it’s a town called Swakopmund which is one of the coastal towns and that was and still is German. You still feel and see the German influence in the architecture, the numbers on the buildings, some buildings still have numbers like 1902, 1904 and so on…and it’s a tourist attraction. Then we have the 11th of August, that was the battle of Ohamakari, that was when people were driven into the Omahake desert; and then there is the 23rd of August, which  is a very important day also in the Ovaherero community – that is the day after the war, the Hereros fled to neighboring countries. Samuel Maharero, who was the chief of the Ovaherero fled to South Africa, where he died. Before his death he used to say “when I die I want my remains to be transported back to Namibia…”

Q: Considering that the genocide happened 100 years ago, how do you help non-Namibians make sense of it?

A: We started talking about the genocide because many Namibians needed this education and awareness. Many of them were ignorant. But today it’s in the schools, in the history books. Learners are becoming aware of it. And of course we have a lot of public lectures. We get lawyers and international speakers to come and talk about the genocide and compare it with other genocides that were committed. And especially the Jewish…the Holocaust. Because what happened to the Jewish people – they (the Germans) just copied what they did to the people in Namibia and they applied that to them. I remember also there was a time we had connections to a Jewish association in South Africa, to learn from them how they went about it…and so on. And of course some people are saying but this is something that happened over 100 years ago we should forget and move on. But we want to see justice prevail and done.

Q: Considering that the genocide convention came about almost 44 years after this genocide, have you received any push back against using the term genocide in the way that you see fit to use it to explain what happened to the Herero?

A: You know for us murder is murder, whether you committed it 100 years ago, today or tomorrow, it will remain murder. And we were happy when a German minister visited Namibia and attended one of our commemorative events. She said “on behalf of my government I want to say that what happened 100 years ago could be seen today as genocide and I want to apologize.” The German government was very unhappy about what she said and when she went back home she was severely criticized. When did the Jewish Holocaust take place? If they could see that as genocide what makes our case different? So we are saying, you have created that model already, so apply that to us as well. We cannot allow things to be discussed on our behalf, as if we don’t have voices. So that’s our motto: It cannot be about us without us. Anything about us without us is against us.

Q: Do the Herero now consider themselves survivors of the genocide or victims of the genocide? Or do they view the two as the same thing?

A: I would say the educated ones see themselves as descendants of survivors of genocide but you find the older generation who see or consider themselves as victims of genocide. Victims in the sense that they have no place to stay – we have been marginalised economically, socially, politically. As I said the other day, whether we like it or not, politics in Africa is organized along ethnic lines. So, today we are like the fourth largest group, about 200,000. If we are today 200,000 what would our numbers have been should there have been no genocide? So there are those who see themselves as victims but of course there are others who see themselves as survivors. If you see yourself as a victim there is a negative connotation to that. You know, you develop this “pity me” attitude which we don’t want. Some people are saying “but why can’t you just forget?” We are saying we want to talk about the past in order for us to understand the present. We want to talk about the past in order for us to liberate ourselves from what happened in the past and move on.

Wahutu Siguru is the 2013 Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and PhD candidate in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. Siguru’s research interests are in the Sociology of Media, Genocide, Mass Violence and Atrocities (specifically on issues of representation of conflicts in Africa such as Darfur and Rwanda), Collective Memory, and perhaps somewhat tangentially Democracy and Development in Africa.