Any time a Westerner expresses preoccupation about very high birth rates in a poor country, the conversation immediately turns to racism. Let’s dig deeper.
by Gaia Baracetti
Let’s not start with Prince William for once. Let’s begin with the great Italian poet Giovanni Pascoli. He was one of those rare rural poets who actually knew rural life, with intimacy and familiarity, who didn’t just use it as a romantic backdrop or an excuse for metaphors. He knew its animals and flowers, its cycles and rhythms; sometimes, reading his poems aloud, one finds oneself singing with the birds. Or thundering in the night.
Pascoli was a man of his time, the late 19th and early 20th centuries: a time of large families, widespread poverty and high child mortality – all recurring themes in his poems. He was also a socialist.
In 1911, Pascoli gave a speech in support of Italian soldiers in the war with the Ottoman Empire in Libya, titled La grande proletaria si è mossa – The Great Proletarian has aroused. The “Great Proletarian” is, of course, Italy. A proletarian is someone so poor they can only claim ownership of their prole, their children. That was his point: Italian workers, so numerous, so exploited, are finally rising up to the challenge of expanding, conquering and civilising. That is, of colonialism.
That expansion was aimed across the sea towards Northern Africa. Many times in history the people of the Mediterranean have taken turns in fighting, conquering, enslaving and invading each other, often with claims of superiority to justify the bloodshed. In 1911, smelling what was coming, would the Northern Africans have been justified in worrying about Italy’s demographic trends? I think so.
The conquest of Libya celebrated in such exalted terms by Giovanni Pascoli, and then the further expansion into Abyssinia at the initiative of another socialist (later fascist) from Romagna hoping to revive the long-gone Roman Empire, Benito Mussolini, brought to Africa yet more violence and misery. For the aggression Italy was put under sanctions by the League of Nations – somewhat hypocritically, as Italy was just the latest participant in an enterprise the other European nations had been busy with for centuries.
It was now “our” turn to relieve internal pressure through external expansion. To Pascoli, the conquering soldiers and the hard-working migrants were one and the same. “Why am I calling them heroes? Proletarians, workers, farmers,” reads his speech.
Many people will be offended at the suggested association between migration and colonisation. But some of the greatest mass aggressions of human history – such as the Barbarian Invasions of the late Roman Empire, or the European conquest of the Americas – began as regular, even humble, migrations. Colonisations and invasions are certainly not the prerogative of Europeans – pretty much any people has been guilty of them at some point – and they always stem from overshoot of some kind. For all the elites making grand speeches offering reasons to invade, it takes masses hungry enough to go through the trouble of leaving home and fighting in order to carry out the plan.
We can now move on to Prince William. Recently, he once again attracted controversy by saying: “The increasing pressure on Africa’s wildlife and spaces as a result of human population presents a huge challenge for conservationists, as it does the world over.”
For such a carefully worded statement of the obvious, the backlash sure was fierce. Racist! Sexist! Eco-fascist! Rich white people (with three children!) cannot tell poor black people how many babies to have! And not just Prince William – David Attenborough (two children), Jane Goodall (one), even Emmanuel Macron (none)… they are all white elitists.
This is where the topic broadens too much for a single essay. I’ll let these famous individuals defend themselves. I’d just like to say that I believe they are not the only ones who worry about what rampant population growth will do to Africa’s great wild habitats and to the last megafauna on the planet left relatively untouched by human expansion. I have gathered the impression that many Africans themselves are proud of their beautiful nature, of their varied wildernesses, of sharing their land with such magnificent animals. If these animals were hunted or starved to extinction, Africans, of any colour, would lose out – not just in terms of tourism revenues, but also in identity, culture, company… and the world as a whole would be poorer. We all have the right to be worried.
Also, what are we supposed to do? Give up on the giraffes because we blew our chance with the mammoths?
As much as racism is real and a force in history, this new fashion of making everything be about race has the effect of dividing us more than uniting us as humans, and of obfuscating true responsibilities and very complex challenges. It has also created a worldview that sometimes appears to be dominant everywhere, that paradoxically affirms rather than renounces racism – the idea that whatever happens anywhere in the world, no matter the complicities, choices or interests of the people involved, is always and solely white people’s fault. Everyone just has no say in how their country is run or their nature treated, not even in Africa or Asia, except white capitalists, white governments, and their apologists.
The argument dismissing concern about developing countries’ birth rates also revolves around the idea that Western overconsumption, and not population growth per se, should be blamed for environmental destruction. This in turn rests on three very odd assumptions: one, that any one phenomenon can only have one cause; two, that poor people have no impact on the environment, even when they number in the billions, and, three, that the exploding populations of Africa are all poor and will stay poor forever. And, unlike Pascoli’s great proletarians, never go anywhere else. But Gallup polls now suggest that one in three African adults wants to emigrate.
Yes, it’s true: Europeans are worried about African babies. That is not because they do not value African lives. On the contrary: I do not think it’s “white saviourism” to point out how many efforts are made by Westerners, among others, for the sake of African children: in terms of aid, medical or development assistance, and adoptions.
Let’s go back to Libya. The Mediterranean pendulum has swung once again. Italians left long ago; Libya is now the stepping stone for migration in the opposite direction: from Sub-Saharan Africa, after a perilous journey across the desert, in the hands of smugglers, rapists, kidnappers and torturers. In the final stage of this long-distance migration many drown in the sea. Many others make it to Italy. Besides the constant worry about the loss of human lives, the consequences are growing profits for local and transnational criminal networks, polarisation in the receiving societies, and the resurgence of the far right.
And it’s not just Italy and Libya. Morocco and Spain, Turkey and Greece, Belarus and Poland, even France and Great Britain … it’s gotten to the point that migrants from the South and East of Europe are cynically being used as pawns in geopolitical conflicts that much predate their arrival. Authoritarian regimes exploit them as bargaining chips for money and political influence from the EU. And it keeps getting worse.
No country can take in this many people, with so many more on the way, without losing social cohesion and economic stability. Yet they cannot be sent back to Libya, where they face horrendous abuses, nor to their home countries, which do not have enough jobs for all their young people, constantly growing in number, constantly fighting over dwindling resources. Just as the Europeans themselves have been doing until not so long ago. And if it was bad when the Europeans did it, and there was fewer of us, imagine what it’s going to be like in the near future with the population of Nigeria alone projected to reach, even with declining birth rates, 400 million people in a couple decades. That is close to the population of the entire European Union today—which already includes millions of African-born migrants from both sides of the Sahara.
One thing about Europeans, perhaps more so than some other cultures, is that we are acutely aware of history. We see the marks it left in the landscape, we learn about it in schools, in our thousands of years of literature, it’s in our conversations and in the very air we breathe. We are obsessed with warning signs.
Giovanni Pascoli’s birth place, San Mauro, in Romagna in Central Italy, was renamed San Mauro Pascoli in his honour. It is the village where my maternal grandmother was born.
I know that part of Italy fairly well. It is almost unrecognisable from the countryside idyll Pascoli celebrated in his poems, and others after him. Gone are the malnourished children – and the singing birds, too. Romagna is now a prosperous, cheerful wasteland. The internal uplands have been somewhat spared, but the coast – hyperdeveloped, incessantly built – is one of the most popular tourist destinations of Italy, in spite of not being the most beautiful. In the fertile plains, agriculture and animal husbandry have gone industrial. Warehouses, malls, big houses, roads and parking lots have taken over the landscape in a disorderly fashion. Trucks, buses and cars are constantly speeding along the roads on which Roman legionaries used to march.
Romagna is the land through which one of history’s famous rivers, the Rubicon, flows. In my grandfather’s village there’s a monument where Caesar is believed to have carried out his fateful decision to move his army past the river. But the Rubicon is now mostly reduced to a dirty puddle, leaving one to wonder why crossing it had been such a big deal.
All of this was our own doing, not any immigrant’s. But such a prosperous place, offering abundant jobs, has attracted many workers from all over.
One of the things that the champions of the worry-about-your-own-consumption camp seem to reliably forget is that Europe would be on track to slowly reduce its population, and therefore both its overall consumption and its exploitation of other continents’ resources, if it wasn’t for immigration. Prominent among the arguments against Prince William’s claim is that Europe is way more densely populated than Africa. It’s true, and it might remain true for a long time, as Africans keep risking their lives to leave their home countries and come here.
Many of us do want some of our wild nature back – but where? There are too many people, everywhere. We are also uncomfortable with other people being so much worse off than us. We feel guilty because in part we are contributing, but that’s not the whole story. And no reparation we can offer will ever suffice if the population never stops growing.
And that’s why we worry about birth rates in Africa.
25 thoughts on “Why Europeans are worried about African babies”
Outstanding article!!! Gaia Baracetti should head a population stabilization organization! The world needs her thinking and her writing style NOW!
Thanks, but given that I’m currently struggling to find a single employee for my farm, I think I shouldn’t head anything and stick to writing instead 🙂
There’s many organizations that do great field work on this where it’s most needed – bringing contraceptives and medical assistance, beyond just advocacy. Population Matters sometimes features them on their website. I was reading about this one yesterday, which looks great, because it’s got the camels! https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/23/camels-bearing-healthcare-deliver-hope-in-kenya-photo-essay
No-Scalpel Vasectomy also looks to be doing great work.
Accusations of Racism are an excellent tool for shutting down debate.
The population problem is global. We must be lowering our birthrate and our human population all over the planet. I appreciate the work of this article (very good), but we don’t need to be looking for poets and others from the past to justify the actions that we need to take today. Today we have a terrible crisis The crisis is today, and is unprecedented.
This issue of racism and the related concerns that go with this broad subject are not relevant in this case … they have been overtaken by events. This is a crisis. The people using “racism” should not be accommodated and pampered. They are oftentimes selfish and operating with a narrow focus. Sadly the people of the rapidly expanding nations, all over, will be running into terrible shortages … of land and food and water. These nations need to understand that they must look out for the welfare of their people. They have to plan, and must see that shipping people out and then around the planet will no longer work.
All over, the planet’s wild areas are disappearing … we are all doing this, and it is tragic. It happened in Europe, and it’s rapidly happening in Africa,
“The people using ‘racism’ should not be accommodated and pampered.” Agreed. But such comments come up repeatedly and population advocates need to find effective ways to respond to them.
Among the most effective responses are one that you deploy in your comment: people in fast growing African countries have a responsibility to look out for their descendants’ futures–which could be terrible if they don’t rein in rapid population growth.
Stephen, here in Italy at least, we are often reminded that we used to be emigrants, poor, discriminated against, badly treated, etc. The purpose is to make sure we don’t feel “superior” to the people who are migrating to Italy now, and that we empathize with them.
I think it’s good to remind people of this and to always remember how quickly and radically things can change in history and in life. What is often missing, however, is the acknowledgment of the damage that European and Italian migration (not as opposed to conquest, but accompanying it) did to receiving countries. It’s almost as if these intellectuals were saying: look, Italians are doing great in America now, so: no problem. We should be nice to immigrants and everything will be fine. Except every wave of migration to America brought tension and pressure on resources along with it. Not to mention Africa, which I discuss in the article, Argentina…
People tend to take sides ‘a priori’. They’ve decided who the bad guy is and who the good guy is, and don’t look at the actual actions.
Hopefully, when you show them perpetrators change, but causes and effects are similar, they go beyond this and focus on the issues.
I didn’t know that in Italy people are reminded of their past as immigrants; here in the U.S. the refrain is “we are a nation of immigrants”, thus halting further discussion of any of the perplexing issues you have so brilliantly raised.
As you have pointed out, “perpetrators change but causes and effects are similar”. I wish I could be as hopeful as you that once this is pointed out, people can focus on the issues. It’s easier to say “racist”, which as you say is a denial of the complexity of the interplay of population growth and environmental sustainability.
Thank you, you are a gifted writer and this piece should be distributed widely.
I haven’t read this book, but it’s the thing I had in mind: https://www.ibs.it/orda-quando-albanesi-eravamo-noi-libro-gian-antonio-stella/e/9788817108072
Of course, we are not reminded of that all the time. Narratives need to suit interests more than reality. Also, such as huge movement of people, over such a long time, as the Italian out-migration was is too complex to fit into a single story.
One of the reasons immigrants now refuse to be repatriated, even when they are offered money to go back to their countries, is that the expectations are so high they don’t want to be seen as failures.
In Italian we have an expression, “trovare l’America”, it’s kind of like “hitting the jackpot”, but more long-term. Those that didn’t probably didn’t want to show it.
You write a lot of nonsense.
We are birthing another 206,000 innocents daily on our dying planet. Ask the sad folks in Mayfield, KY, if this is the world they want to bring more helpless children into. Also, all of our current top ten killers of us modern humans are caused by “population density stress”, as we are becoming sicker and less resilient. Don’t believe me? Read the free online e-book/PDF, “Stress R Us”, at stressrus.wordpress.com. Stress R Us
I’ve been an anti-racist my whole life. I think it is racist to ignore the misery of Africans whose lives are blighted, bodies stunted, land degraded by overpopulation. An anti-racist policy for Europe would be to fulfill pledges of family planning aid and greatly increase them for any African government or organization that works to reduce fertility rates. I call reducing fertlity rates the “Norwegian solution” to migration and poverty. Norwegians used to be poor and emigrate (mostly to America) in their hundreds of thousands. Now they are prosperous and stay home. A big thing that changed Norwegians (and all Europeans) lives for the better was family planning, adopting small family norms, carrying out a fertility transition to less than replacement birthrates. For Africans to become better off, they will have to do the same. I don’t see anything racist in pointing towards the path to prosperity and a sustainable world.
Offering good, free contraceptive options to high-fertility countries at the (partial) expense of wealthier countries would be a win-win. It would benefit everyone – and that might be the problem! Since these issues are so divisive, some truly cannot see that one thing that benefits their ideological rivals would benefit them too. Less African babies means less migration, yes, but also less poverty!!
If someone who’s suspected (rightly or wrongly) of racism offers contraception, they’re assumed to just want “less” of those undesired people in the world.
Humans are truly self-defeatingly stupid sometimes.
Thankfully, the leaders of poor, high-fertility countries seems to have figured out they have a problem. Even Egypt, Nigeria or Pakistan seem to be trying to do something.
Well the Vatican might have something to say on contraception not only in Africa but in the donner countries like the US where Trump pulled the plug.
My anthropological perspective
Excellent article Gaia, even in once holy catholic Ireland, family sizes have plummeted from an average of 4/5/6 only 3/4 decades ago to now, less than 2. As a member of several environmental organisations, I find that people in these orgs.are ignorant on human overpopulation issues and if you dare to mention that overpopulation on the African Continent is soaring at exponential levels you are quickly accused of being a fascist, bla, bla, bla.
Here in Italy, some environmental organizations or movements are actively helping refugees crossing borders, or campaigning for their resettlement. I can understand why they would want to help on a personal level (some activities are hard to argue against, such as bringing food or denouncing police violence), but I think it sends a very confusing message when done by those who claim to want to protect the environment.
(P.S. Fascists were super pro-births)
Reading between the lines the article makes it clear: the solution to Africa’s problems lies within their own continent. Running away from a problem has never been the solution. African immigration to Europe will drag down Europe, not give Africa a lift. They will just continue producing more babies, more misery. Yes, family planning is the answer. Cultural change is another answer, and that includes moving away from their various beliefs and cults, find what unites them, not what they divides them. Cooperation and organisational skills need to improve. At the moment too much chaos and corruption take hold. Last but not least: the Europeans can only blame themselves for not taking decisive action, fortifying their external borders, providing in situ help.
Europeans are very hypocritical, all of them (us). They pay others to do the dirty work, act horrified when it emerges just how dirty said work is, then sweep it back under the rug.
I was speaking to a young African man recently. We were talking about Africa, Europe, colonialism, migration… I sometimes feel I can speak more freely with immigrants about their home country than with Westerners, who love to get offended on everyone’s behalf.
Anyways, when I asked him why they didn’t fight back if they hated France so much (he was from Western-Central Africa), he said: “unfortunately Africans value their life more than they value freedom.”
I’m sure it’s not always true, while it’s true to some extent about a lot of people, but it really stuck with me.
don james owers, you’re right but the Vatican isn’t a government and should only have jurisdiction over itself. It’s up to governments, from the US to Africa to Asia, to provide contraception the same way they provide other forms of healthcare. It’s up to Catholics to decide whether they want to use said contraception (and most do).
They might consume less if they stay there in Africa, byt they M I G R A T E and get infiltred into other countries societies, therefore consuming as much as the native in that gived country where they settle in. It’s simple logic, out of 1.4 billion people, MILLIONS migrate. So you’re not thinking only of these africans who remain in Africa, but take into qccount those who migrate out in the world..
Think UK, France, Norway, Austria etc, who are full of immigrants from Africa, India, Pakistan.
Utter complete nonsense. India has the same population as Africa and Africa is three times its size, no complaints about population growth. Africa is two times the size of China and has the same population, no complaints of population growth. But Africa that has ample room for growth is being told by Europeans who are having their own difficulty of having children that they need to slow down?
Well the best way to decrease population in Africa is to help Africans become rich, there is no greater way to slow population than enriching the people.
Has Europe not done enough harm to Africa?
Is Africa telling Europe how to grow ?
The greatest fear Europeans will ever have is that the population of Africa continues to grow till the point it consumes Europe.
Both India and China have their problems with population growth, but their projected population is not as large and they have come a long way in reducing their fertility and achieving higher standards of living. This of course does not mean that they are out of the woods: both countries are far in ecological deficit and local wildlife has been decimated as a consequence. Africa on the other hand is still growing rapidly in population. The continent does not have ample room to grow and sustain such a large population, especially not while protecting their wildlife. Over half of the countries on the continent are in ecological deficit and many Africans want to leave their home country due to high unemployment and low wages. Meanwhile, undernourishment is still a major issue, and in for example Madagascar, feeding the population is becoming impossible. At the same time climate change is ramping up and making more of the continent unusable for agriculture.
Education, family planning, and lower fertility rates resulted in a demographic dividend in Europe, which allowed for better living conditions and a more just society; denying this to African countries on the basis that historic interference from Europe has been negative is much more unjust than acknowledging the harmful actions of the past and providing assistance in such an important transition that we have already experienced. This is touched upon in this excellent article by Florence Blondel, an inspiring activist from rural Uganda, who is tired of claims of racism preventing honest discussion on population and its effect on the people locked in a society wracked with poverty and hunger where girls are valued mainly for their ability to bear children: https://www.overshootday.org/florence-blondel-population/