This season’s five-week “Stripped/Dressed” series, curated by choreographer Doug Varone, opens with a sidelong 
tribute to The Rite of Spring, minus the Stravinsky score and the flock of pagan maidens. Zimbabwe native Nora Chipaumire’s rite riot addresses complex issues surrounding people in power gazing at women and Africans, the fickleness of American celebrity, spring rituals in Zimbabwe, and the sacrifices central to a dance career. The fierce Ms. Chipaumire, who holds a degree from Zimbabwe’s School of Law and advanced certificates in dance from Mills College, has won almost every prize the dance world offers in her 10 years stateside; she’s featured in several recent films, and has taught and performed nationwide. Now based here, she’s fearless, focused, and frightening.

Fri., Feb. 21, 8 p.m.; Sat., Feb. 22, 8 p.m.; Sun., Feb. 23, 3 p.m., 2014


Breakfast With Mugabe

Would you be brave enough to tell a dictator that his hour is up? Unlikely. Fraser Grace’s well-received drama about the Zimbabwean premier has returned for a few more sessions. The script imagines a series of encounters between Robert Mugabe and the white psychiatrist he hopes will aid his depression.

Tuesdays, 3 & 7 p.m.; Wednesdays-Saturdays, 8 p.m.; Saturdays, 2 p.m. Starts: Dec. 31. Continues through March 2, 2013



When Shabazz Palaces cryptically surfaced in 2009, their dense and recondite alloy of styles—inner-city griotry, Zimbabwean melodies, and nomadic sub-bass frequencies—was considered “avant-rap.” Since then, a whole new generation of indigo rap kids have been building online, lacing releases with knowledge and esoteric references (or, on Underachievers’s “Herb Shuttles,” references to their “esoteric tattoos”). And Future managed to crossover from second-wave ATLien to mainstream Astronaut Status with interplanetary braggadocio raps (he’s on Pluto and Mars at the same damn time!) and genuinely weird Auto-Tune vocal experiments. But space has been the place since at least Sun Ra, and Shabazz Palaces were always more Afro-Future-istic, anyways. With THEESatisfaction and Malitia Malimob.

Fri., April 26, 9 p.m., 2013


Haunting, Defiant Dispatches from Zimbabwe’s Chiwoniso

When she released her debut CD, Ancient Voices, in 1997, the Washington-born, Zimbabwe-raised singer Chiwoniso “Chi” Maraire—born into a family of musicians and raised on r&b, rap, pop, and Zimbabwean chimurenga music—was standing on the verge of global diva stardom with the likes of Oumou Sangare and Angelique Kidjo. But she had kids, and made the not terribly diva-esque decision to concentrate on raising them. Now, Rebel Woman, her first release in 11 years, surfaces not a moment too soon: With her homeland crippled by hyperinflation, poverty, and political upheaval fermented by a hero-turned-dictator, Chiwoniso’s songs of love, justice, and freedom have equal resonance from Harare to Harlem.

The furious and feather-voiced spark plug is backed by an eclectic, pan-African lineup, featuring guitarists Louis Mhlanga and Ivan Duran from Belize, South African trumpeter Hugh Masekela, and Zimbabwean drummer Sam Mataure. Rebel‘s 12 multilingual tracks swing and sing with stinging guitar riffs, ska hornlines, choral call-and-response, propulsively percussive counterpoint, hypnotic mbira thumb piano, and hand-held hosho shakers. Selections like “Vanorapa” and “Matosoti (Land of Peace)” focus on the healing powers of traditional elders and economics in the Shona language; English selections like the mid-tempo, Afro-anthemic “Kurima” and the tearful title track—a tribute to the female soldier, with the hauntingly sung line “She took off her hat and she leaned against a tree/Her rifle by her side, rough-worn hands upon her knee”—show that Chiwoniso channels Sheryl Crow and Joan Baez as easily as she does artists who prefer her ancestral tongue. To riff on Chinua Achebe, things are falling apart in Zimbabwe. But great women always make art out of man-made ashes.

Chiwoniso plays Joe’s Pub September 10


Zimbabwe’s Slow-Motion Horror Show

According to official results by Zimbabwe’s electoral commission on May 2, the great African liberator, Robert Mugabe, lost that country’s March 29 election to Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, by 43.2 to Tsvangirai’s 47.9 percent. Since the law requires a runoff, Mugabe, who is the law, had the second round delayed while his thugs terrorized those ungrateful Zimbabweans who dared to vote against him. (Or, at least, those suspected of doing so.)

As the supreme enforcer told the BBC on May 16: “We will not allow an opposition backed by Western imperialists to win.” The opposition is forbidden from holding rallies preceding the runoff.

On May 8, the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights reported that in the capital of Harare alone, “[s]o many victims [of Mugabe’s enforcers] have come in with broken bones in the last 24 hours that hospitals and clinics . . . are running out of plaster of Paris” (The New York Times, May 10).

And in rural areas, where the Movement for Democratic Change did well, the General Agriculture and Plantation Workers’ Union said that at least 40,000 farm workers and their families were driven from their homes on suspicion of having voted against the Liberator.

A doctor in Harare, submerged in the wounded, said of one night’s carnage: “What came in on the trucks was too pathetic for words. They can’t walk. Their feet are beaten. Their buttocks are rotting. Their arms are broken. They’re trying to walk on their knees.” In the Economist‘s May 10th bloody summation: “Following the aftermath of Zimbabwe’s presidential election is like watching a horror film in slow motion.”

Have you heard a word of protest from Nelson Mandela, the one African whose voice could awaken the world to these horrors? I asked someone who knows Mandela about his silence on the genocide in Darfur and Zimbabweans seeking real liberation. He told me: “This liberator cannot turn against this fighter who won the independence of his country from the British.”

As of this writing, nearly a hundred suspected wrong voters in the March 29 election have been murdered by Mugabe’s forces, which include his loyal “war veterans” of the liberation and his merciless youth militia. More than a thousand people—including children—have been badly battered by these goon squads, and over 800 homes have been burned down.

But Mugabe is so ferociously intent on staying in power (and finishing the grand palace he’s been building) that, as Doctors for Human Rights cautions, all of these figures, nightmarish as they are, “grossly underestimate the [actual] number of victims,” many of whom never made even it to a hospital or doctor.

Amnesty International, raising its voice back on April 25 against the storm that was gathering even before the election, declared: “The actions taken by the police today are unacceptable. The Zimbabwean police must stop harassing political and human rights activists immediately and act to protect victims of post-election violence.”

To whom are Mugabe’s atrocities “unacceptable?” The United Nations, of course, is useless, as it has been for five horrifying years in Darfur. The members of the African Union confer among themselves, with only Tanzania and Zambia being openly troubled. South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki—still the main negotiator on Zimbabwe—calmly said, in the days before Mugabi’s government unleashed its scorched-earth approach to the runoff: “It’s just an election. I see no crisis there.” Now Mbeki admits there may be one—but he remains as ineffective as U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Meanwhile, some of Mugabe’s terrorists are preening about their success in intimidating opponents of the deadly regime before the June 27 runoff. One of them, the Wall Street Journal reported on May 14, “showed off a written log of victims and their ‘confessions’ that they had voted for the opposition.”

But that runoff election could be delayed for months—until Mugabe feels certain that his voter re-education program has secured a sufficiently overwhelming victory for him. The BBC predicts that on that day, “people coming to every polling station will see ‘war veterans’ in police uniforms” waiting to check off their ballots. Untold numbers of Zimbabweans will be too scared to show up.

Meanwhile, in Darfur’s endless slow-motion horror show, the ghastly present scene is captured in the headline of a March 20 story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “No One Is Counting the Dead.” This Associated Press story quotes Jan Egeland, former U.N. chief of humanitarian operations, as urging the media to stop using the ubiquitous Darfur death count of 200,000: “It’s two and a half years old. It’s wrong.”

Now a special adviser to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Egeland does not doubt that thousands more have been killed or died of unintended diseases in areas that humanitarian workers can no longer reach. The A.P. report grimly adds that the United Nations doesn’t support the new large-scale mortality survey that Egeland insists is necessary, “because Sudan’s government doesn’t want one.” Sudan, you see, is a sovereign state!

A new mortality survey would include the seven children killed on May 4 when—as reported by the Paris-based Sudan Tribune‘s website—”Sudanese government planes bombed Shegeg Karo [in] Northern Darfur.” The raid’s targets included a primary school. General Al-Bashir’s Antonov plane (a retrofitted Russian cargo plane) destroyed kids in the second, third, and fourth grades—plus five-year-old Yusuf Adam Hamid in the kindergarten.

The names and ages are in a report by Eric Reeves, the most authoritative historian of Darfur’s genocide, in the May 12 Christian Science Monitor. He asks a question that some of you may find uncomfortable: “How would Americans respond if terrorists—acting on behalf of another country—deliberately killed, with complete military impunity . . . children in one of our nation’s schools? Outrage would bring the country to a halt. It would change the very nature of the presidential campaign. News coverage would be unending.

“Washington’s response against the offending nation would be swift and destructive. . . . The whole world should respond vigorously to a nation that barbarously bombs kindergartners such as Yusuf Adam Hamid. Instead, we lamely bow in deference to Sudan’s ‘national sovereignty.’ “

Next week: Only intervention by force into Zimbabwe and Sudan will put an end to these slow-motion horror shows.


AIDS: The Agony of Africa

November 9, 1999

Penhalonga, Zimbabwe—They didn’t call Arthur Chinaka out of the classroom. The principal and Arthur’s uncle Simon waited until the day’s exams were done before breaking the news: Arthur’s father, his body wracked with pneumonia, had finally died of AIDS. They were worried that Arthur would panic, but at 17 years old, he didn’t. He still had two days of tests, so while his father lay in the morgue, Arthur finished his exams. That happened in 1990. Then in 1992, Arthur’s uncle Edward died of AIDS. In 1994, his uncle Richard died of AIDS. In 1996, his uncle Alex died of AIDS. All of them are buried on the homestead where they grew up and where their parents and Arthur still live, a collection of thatch-roofed huts in the mountains near Mutare, by Zimbabwe’s border with Mozambique. But HIV hasn’t finished with this family. In April, a fourth uncle lay coughing in his hut, and the virus had blinded Arthur’s aunt
Eunice, leaving her so thin and weak she couldn’t walk without help. By September both were dead.

The most horrifying part of this story is that it is not unique. In Uganda, a business executive named Tonny, who asked that his last name not be used, lost two brothers and a sister to AIDS, while his wife lost her brother to the virus. In the rural hills of South Africa’s KwaZulu Natal province, Bonisile Ngema lost her son and daughter-in-law, so she tries to support her granddaughter and her own aged mother by selling potatoes. Her dead son was the breadwinner for the whole extended family, and now she feels like an orphan.

In the morgue of Zimbabwe’s Parirenyatwa Hospital, head mortician Paul Tabvemhiri opens the door to the large cold room that holds cadavers. But it’s impossible to walk in because so many bodies lie on the floor, wrapped in blankets from their deathbeds or dressed in the clothes they died in. Along the walls, corpses are packed two to a shelf. In a second cold-storage area, the shelves are narrower, so Tabvemhiri faces a
grisly choice: He can stack the bodies on top of one another, which squishes the face and makes it hard for relatives to identify the body, or he can leave the cadavers out in the hall, unrefrigerated. He refuses to deform bodies, and so a pair of corpses lie outside on gurneys behind a curtain. The odor of decomposition is faint but clear.

Have they always had to leave bodies in the hall? “No, no, no,” says Tabvemhiri, who has worked in the morgue since 1976. “Only in the last five or six years,” which is when AIDS deaths here took off. Morgue records show that the number of cadavers has almost tripled since the start of Zimbabwe’s epidemic, and there’s been a change in who is dying: “The young ones,” says Tabvemhiri, “are coming in bulk.”

The wide crescent of East and Southern Africa that sweeps down from Mount Kenya and around the Cape of Good Hope is the
hardest-hit AIDS region in the world. Here, the virus is cutting down more and more of Africa’s most energetic and productive people, adults aged 15 to 49. The slave trade also targeted people in their prime, killing or sending into bondage perhaps 25 million people. But that happened over four centuries. Only 17 years have passed since AIDS was first found in Africa, on the shores of Lake Victoria, yet according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the virus has already killed more than 11 million sub-Saharan Africans. More than 22 million others are infected.

Only 10 percent of the world’s population lives south of the Sahara, but the region is home to two-thirds of the world’s HIV-positive people, and it has suffered more than 80 percent of all AIDS deaths.

Last year, the combined wars in Africa killed 200,000 people. AIDS killed 10 times that number. Indeed, more people succumbed to HIV last year than to any other cause of death on this continent, including malaria. And the carnage has only begun.

Unlike ebola or influenza, AIDS is a slow plague, gestating in individuals for five to 10 years before killing them. Across East and Southern Africa, more than 13 percent of adults are infected with HIV, according to UNAIDS. And in three countries, including Zimbabwe, more than a quarter of adults carry the virus. In some districts, the rates are even higher: In one study, a staggering 59 percent of women attending prenatal clinics in rural Beitbridge, Zimbabwe, tested HIV-positive.

Life expectancy in more than a dozen African countries “will soon be 17 years shorter because of AIDS-47 years instead of 64,” says Callisto Madavo, the World Bank’s vice president for Africa. HIV “is quite literally robbing Africa of a quarter of our lives.”


In the West, meanwhile, the HIV death rate has dropped steeply thanks to powerful drug cocktails that keep the disease from progressing. These regimens must be taken for years, probably for life, and they can cost more than $10,000 per patient per year. Yet in many of the hardest-hit African countries, the total per capita health-care budget is less than $10.

Many people-in Africa as well as the West-shrug off this stark disparity, contending that it is also true for other diseases. But it isn’t. Drugs for the world’s major infectious killers-tuberculosis, malaria, and diarrheal diseases- have been subsidized by the international community for years, as have vaccines for childhood illnesses such as polio and measles. But even at discounted prices, the annual cost of putting every African with HIV on triple combination therapy would exceed $150 billion, so the world is letting a leading infectious killer for which treatment exists mow down millions.

That might be more palatable if there were a Marshall Plan for AIDS prevention to slow the virus’s spread. But a recent study by UNAIDS and Harvard shows that in 1997 international donor countries devoted $150 million to AIDS prevention in Africa. That’s less than the cost of the movie Wild Wild West.

Meanwhile, the epidemic is seeping into Central and West Africa. More than a tenth of adults in Côte d’Ivoire are infected. Frightening increases have been documented in Yaoundé and Douala, the largest cities in Cameroon. And in Nigeria-the continent’s most populous country-past military dictatorships let the AIDS control program wither, even while the prevalence of HIV has climbed to almost one in every 20 adults.

Quite simply, AIDS is on track to dwarf every catastrophe in Africa’s recorded history. It is stunting development, threatening the economy, and transforming cultural traditions.

  • Epidemics are never merely biological. Even as HIV changes African society, it spreads by exploiting current cultural and economic conditions. “The epidemic gets real only in a context,” says Elhadj Sy, head of UNAIDS’s East and Southern Africa Team. “In Africa, people wake up in the morning and try to survive-but the way they do that often puts them at risk for infection.” For example, men migrate to cities in search of jobs; away from their wives and families for months on end, they seek sexual release with women who, bereft of property and job skills, are selling their bodies to feed themselves and their children. Back home, wives who ask their husbands to wear condoms risk being accused of sleeping around; in African cultures, it’s usually the man who dictates when and how sex happens.

    Challenging such cultural and economic forces requires political will, but most African governments have been shockingly derelict. Lacking leadership, ordinary Africans have been slow to confront the disease. Few companies, for example, have comprehensive AIDS programs. And many families still refuse to acknowledge that HIV is killing their relatives, preferring to say that the person died of TB or some other opportunistic illness. Doctors often collude in this denial. “Just the other day,” says a high-ranking Zimbabwean physician who spoke on condition of anonymity, “I wrote AIDS on a death certificate and then crossed it out. I thought, ‘I’ll just be stigmatizing this person, because no one else puts AIDS as the cause of death, even when that’s what it is.’ ”

    Why is AIDS worse in sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world? Partly because of denial; partly because the virus almost certainly originated here, giving it more time to spread; but largely because Africa was weakened by 500 years of slavery and colonialism. Indeed, historians lay much of the blame on colonialism for Africa’s many corrupt and autocratic governments, which hoard resources that could fight the epidemic. Africa, conquered and denigrated, was never allowed to incorporate international innovations on its own terms, as, for example, Japan did.

    This colonial legacy poisons more than politics. Some observers attribute the spread of HIV to polygamy, a tradition in many African cultures. But job migration, urbanization, and social dislocation have created a caricature of traditional polygamy. Men have many partners not through marriage but through prostitution or sugar-daddy arrangements that lack the social glue of the old polygamy.

    Of course, the worst legacy of whites in Africa is poverty, which fuels the epidemic in countless ways. Having a sexually transmitted disease multiplies the chances of spreading and contracting HIV, but few Africans obtain effective treatment because the clinic is too expensive or too far away. Africa’s wealth was either funneled to the West or restricted to white settlers who barred blacks from full participation in the economy. In apartheid South Africa, blacks were either not educated at all or taught only enough to be servants. Now, as the country suffers one of the world’s most explosive AIDS epidemics, illiteracy hampers prevention. Indeed, AIDS itself is rendering Africa still more vulnerable to any future catastrophe, continuing history’s vicious cycle.


    Yet AIDS is not merely a tale of despair. Increasingly, Africans are banding together- usually with meager resources-to care for their sick, raise their orphans, and prevent the virus from claiming more of their loved ones. Their efforts offer hope. For while a crisis of this magnitude can disintegrate society, it can also unify it. “To solve HIV,” says Sy, “you must involve yourself: your attitudes and behavior and beliefs. It touches upon the most fundamental social and cultural things-procreation and death.”

    AIDS is driving a new candor about sex-as well as new efforts to control it, through virginity testing and campaigns that advocate sticking to one partner. And slowly, fitfully, it is also giving women more power. The death toll is scaring women into saying no to sex or insisting on condoms. And as widows proliferate, people are beginning to see the harm in denying them the right to inherit property.

    The epidemic is also transforming kinship networks, which have been the heart of most African cultures. Orphans, for example, have always been enfolded into the extended family. But more than 7 million children in sub-Saharan Africa have lost one or both parents, and the virus is also killing their aunts and uncles, depriving them of foster parents and leaving them to live with often feeble grandparents. In
    response, communities across Africa are volunteering to help orphans through home visits and, incredibly, by sharing the very little they have. Such volunteerism is both a reclaiming of communal traditions and their adaptation into new forms of civil society.

    But even heroic efforts can’t stop the damage that’s already occurred here in the hills where Arthur Chinaka lost his father and uncles. The worst consequence of this epidemic is not the dead, but the living they leave behind.

  • Rusina Kasongo lives a couple of hills over from Chinaka. Like a lot of elderly rural folk who never went to school, Kasongo can’t calculate how old she is, but she can count her losses: Two of her sons, one of her daughters, and all their spouses died of AIDS, and her husband died in an accident. Alone, she is rearing 10 orphaned children.

    “Sometimes the children go out and come home very late,” says Kasongo, “and I’m afraid they’ll end up doing the same thing as Tanyaradzwa.” That’s the daughter who died
    of AIDS; she had married twice, the first time in a shotgun wedding. Now, the eldest orphan, 17-year-old Fortunate, already has a child but not a husband.

    Few people have conducted more research on AIDS orphans than pediatrician Geoff Foster, who founded the Family AIDS Caring Trust (FACT). It was Foster who documented that more than half of Zimbabwe’s orphans are being cared for by grandparents, usually grandmothers who had nursed their own children to the grave. But even this fragile safety net won’t be there for many of the next generation of orphans.

    “Perhaps one-third of children in Zimbabwe will have lost a father or mother-or both-to AIDS,” says Foster. They are more likely to be poor, he explains, more likely to be deprived of education, more likely to be abused or neglected or stigmatized, more likely to be seething with all the needs that make it more likely that a person will have unsafe sex. “But when they get HIV and die, who cares for their children? Nobody, because they’re orphans, so by definition their kids have no grandparents. It’s just like the virus itself. In the body, HIV gets into the defense system and knocks it out. It does that sociologically, too. It gets into the extended family support system and decimates it.”

    Foster’s chilling realization is dawning on other people who work in fields far removed from HIV. This year, South African crime researcher Martin Schönteich published a paper that begins by noting, “In a decade’s time every fourth South African will be aged between 15 and 24. It is at this age group where people’s propensity to commit crime is at its highest. At about the same time there will be a boom in South Africa’s orphan population as the Aids epidemic takes its toll.” While some causes of crime can be curtailed, Schönteich writes,
    “Other causes, such as large numbers of juveniles in the general population, and a high proportion of children brought up without adequate parental supervision, are beyond the control of the state.” His conclusion: “No amount of state spending on the criminal justice system will be able to counter this harsh reality.”


    More AIDS and more crime are among the most dramatic consequences of the orphan explosion. But Nengomasha Willard sees damage that is harder to measure. Willard teaches 11-and 12-year-olds at Saint George’s Primary School, located near the Chinakas and the Kasongos. Fifteen of Willard’s 42 pupils have lost one or both of their parents, but he’s particularly worried about one of his students who lost his father and then, at his mother’s funeral, cried inconsolably. “He doesn’t want to participate,” says Willard. “He just wants to be alone.”

    “I see thousands of children sitting in a corner,” says Foster. “The impact is internalized-it’s depression, being withdrawn.” In Africa, says Foster, the focus on poverty eclipses research into psychological issues, but he has published disturbing evidence of abuse-emotional, physical, and sexual. Meanwhile, the orphan ranks keep swelling. “We’re talking 10 percent who will have lost both parents, maybe 15 percent. Twenty-five percent who will have lost a mother. What does that do to a society, especially an impoverished society?”

  • Among his students, Willard has noticed that some of the orphans come to school without shoes or, in Zimbabwe’s cold winter, without a sweater. Sometimes their stepfamilies put them last on the list, but often it’s because grandmothers can’t scrape together enough money.

    Among economists, there has been a quiet debate over whether HIV will harm the economy. Some think it won’t. With unemployment rates in sub-Saharan Africa between 30 and 70 percent, they reason that there are plenty of people to replenish labor losses. One scenario is that economic growth might slacken, but population growth will also dwindle, so per capita GNP might hold steady or even rise. Then, says Helen Jackson, executive director of the Southern Africa AIDS Information Dissemination Service (SAfAIDS), Africa might face the grotesque irony of “an improvement in some macroeconomic indicators, but the exact opposite at the level of households and human suffering.”

    But evidence is mounting that the economy will suffer. Between 20 and 30 percent of workers in South Africa’s gold mining industry-the mainstay of that country’s economy-are estimated to be HIV-positive, and replacing these workers will cut into the industry’s productivity. In Kenya, a new government report predicts that per capita income could sink by 10 percent over the next five years. In Côte d’Ivoire, a teacher dies every school day.

    Then there are the effects that can’t be quantified. “What does AIDS do for the image of Africa?” asks Tony Barnett, a veteran researcher on the economic impact of AIDS. To lure investors, the continent already has to battle underdevelopment and racism, but now, he says, many people will see Africa as “diseased, sexually diseased. It chimes in with so many stereotypes.”

    Beneath the corporate economy, millions of Africans subsist by cultivating their own small plot of land. When someone in the family comes down with AIDS, the other members have to spend time caring for that person, which means less time cultivating crops. And when death comes, the family loses a crucial worker. Studies have documented that among rural AIDS-stricken families, food production falls, savings dwindle, and children are more likely to be undernourished.

    For Kasongo and her 10 orphans, food is a constant problem, but now it has become even harder. On her way back from the fields, carrying a basket of maize on her head, Kasongo tripped and fell. Her knee is swollen, her back is aching, and cultivating the fields is close to impossible. Here, under the radar of macroeconomic indicators, Kasongo’s ordeal shows how AIDS is devastating Africa.

    This is the context in which one of Africa’s most agonizing debates is taking place: Should doctors administer drugs to pregnant women that sharply reduce the chances that a baby will be born with HIV? So far, the debate has centered on the cost of the drugs, but a new, inexpensive regimen has pushed thornier arguments to the surface.

    The “vaccine for babies,” as it is sometimes called, does not treat the mother and so does nothing to reduce the chances the baby will become an orphan. That’s why Uganda’s Major Rubaramira Ruranga, a well-known activist who is himself infected with HIV, opposes it. “Many children in our countries die of malnutrition, even with both parents,” he argues. “Without parents, it’s almost certain they’ll die.”

    Isn’t it impossible to know the fate of any
    given child and presumptuous to decide it in
    advance? “That’s sentimental,” he snaps. Even Foster, who believes “every child has a right to be born without HIV,” wonders whether the money is best spent on the “technical fix” of giving drugs to the pregnant women. The medicine is only a part of the cost, for women can infect their children during breast feeding, which raises expensive problems such as providing formula and teaching mothers how to use it safely in places where clean water may not exist. Would all that money, Foster wonders, be better spent alleviating the root causes of why women get infected in the first place? “It’s very difficult to stand up and make such an argument because you get portrayed as a beast,” he says. In fact, such arguments testify to how the epidemic is forcing Africans to grapple with impossible choices.


  • Weston Tizora is one of thousands of Africans who are trying to give orphans a decent life. Just 25 years old, Tizora started as a gardener at Saint Augustine’s Mission and threw himself into volunteering in the mission’s AIDS program, called Kubatana, a Shona word meaning “together.” Next year he will take over the program’s leadership from its founder, British nurse Sarah Hinton. Kubatana’s 37 volunteers care for homebound patients, and they help raise orphans by, for example, bringing food to Rusina Kasongo’s brood.

    Just a few steps from Kasongo live Cloud and Joseph Tineti. They’re 14 and 11, respectively, and the oldest person in their home is their 15-year-old brother. They are, in the language of AIDS workers, a child-headed household. Who’s in charge? “No one,” Joseph answers-and it shows. Their one-room shack is strewn with dirty clothes, unwashed dishes, broken chairs. On the table, a roiling mass of ants feasts on pumpkin seeds and some kind of dried leaves.

    The troubles run deeper. Their father, who had divorced their mother before she died, lives in nearby Mutare. Does he bring food? “Yes,” says Joseph, “every week.” It’s not true, Tizora maintains. Kubatana members have even talked with the police in their effort to convince the father to take in his children or at least support them. But the police did not act, explains Tizora, because the father is unemployed and struggling to provide for the family of his second wife. Once a month-sometimes not even that often-he brings small amounts of food, so the orphans depend on donations from Kubatana volunteers.

    But if little Joseph’s version isn’t true, it’s what an orphaned kid would want: a father who at least brings food, stops by frequently, and acts a little like a dad. And his mother: What does Joseph remember of her? The question is too much, and he starts crying.

    Kubatana volunteers are supposed to look after the Tineti orphans, so why is their home so unkempt? There used to be two volunteers in this area, explains Tizora. One has been reassigned to work in the nearby mining village, ravaged by AIDS. The other has been away at her parents’ home for two months, attending to a family funeral and to her own late-stage pregnancy.

    And everyone in these villages has their hands full. Standing in a valley, Tizora points to the hillsides around him and says, “There are orphans in that home, and the one over there, and there by the gum trees. And see where there’s that white house? They’re taking care of orphans there, too.” By the time he finishes, he has pointed out about half of the homesteads. When the Kubatana program started, in 1992, volunteers identified 20 orphans. Now they have registered 3000. In many parts of Africa, notes Jackson of SAfAIDS, “It has actually become the norm to have orphaned children in the household rather than the exception.”

    Foster makes some quick calculations: Given the number of volunteers in the Kubatana program, there’s no way they can care for all their orphans. So when a volunteer gets pregnant, has a family emergency, or gets sick, kids like Cloud and Joseph fall through the cracks. Says Foster: “You can’t lose a quarter of your adult population in 10 years without catastrophic consequences.”

    In his office, Tizora has a wall of photographs showing the original 20 orphans. One is a girl who looks about 12. She lost her parents and then she lost the grandma who was caring for her. At that point, she started refusing to go to school, hiding on the way there. Now, she’s run away and, Tizora says, “we don’t know where she is.”

    Additional articles in this series.

  • Categories

    Positive Approaches

    Except when it screams, which only happens at a few brief instants late in its 95-minute running time, In the Continuum is a subtle, smartly staged piece on a subject that could make a great deal more screaming understandable. Which, in turn, makes the self-restraint of the work that much more admirable: Young as the artists involved are, they have the wisdom to know that screaming is no way to get an adult audience emotionally involved. And their subject is one that calls for involvement: the spread of AIDS among Africans and African Americans. HIV and its hideous effects have faded from the headlines these days, in the wake of wars and global disasters; there are other pandemics, with names that somehow seem more chic to drop, like avian flu. Even so, AIDS rolls on: Both the death toll and the new-infection rate keep mounting, and those now principally afflicted are young women of color in southern and central Africa and in African American communities like South Central Los Angeles

    The link, or at least the parallel, between those two realms of young women has been made in essays and editorials but not, as far as I know, on the stage. In the Continuum, a small, bare-stage piece performed by its two authors under Robert O’Hara’s direction, makes it in an unobtrusive, cannily indirect way that reverberates all the more for not being didactic. If anything, the piece is a walking demonstration of what young women with HIV shouldn’t do, and the best thing about it is the way this reverse twist always implies its opposite: You never feel you’re being lectured on what to do about AIDS, but there’s no way not to get the message. And because of the hardheaded good sense and sharp observation that Danai Gurira and Nikkole Salter have put into their writing, it all seems, tragically and comically, pretty much what a young woman who found herself diagnosed positive would do.

    Abigail (played by Gurira) is a good girl, an educated young Zimbabwean who has played by the rules of the system and now expects to enjoy a Zimbabwean version of the good life, having acquired a good job (TV newscaster) and a good husband (handsome, educated, employed). Nia (played by Salter) is, in contrast, a bad girl, a troubled SoCal teen living in a halfway house, whom we first see having snuck out after curfew to go to a dance club. She, too, thinks she has snared a good husband, a high school basketball star named Darnell, currently being courted by a glittery string of colleges offering big-money scholarships. “We been together 10 months and three weeks. . . . He practically my husband.” But neither woman is feeling well, neither is in a stable world—a power outage in the Harare TV studio coincides with a shooting in the hip-hop club—and each is about to discover that her marital situation, like her health, has bleaker prospects than she can imagine.

    Both women discover their HIV-positive status as a side effect to discovering something else: Both are pregnant. The mixture of the viral and the human reproductive life growing inside of them gives each character, in effect, a double story. Two things are happening to them at once, each of which provokes a different response in others, calls for different treatment, demands different social strategies, provokes different psychological dislocations in the carrier. As we start seeing their lives refracted through the eyes of those they turn to for help and advice, we also evolve a picture, whenever they themselves speak, of what they aren’t saying, of their struggle to deal with the emotional double whammy their condition has visited on them. (Salter is particularly good at conveying the complex reactions involved, Gurira at evoking the sheer terror behind the social mask.)

    Abigail has to deal with a nurse, a haughty school friend back from London, another who has become a prostitute, and—final humiliation for a Westernized modern woman—a witch doctor. Nia contends with her difficult but sympathetic halfway house supervisor, with her own mother (who refuses, with devastating reasonableness, to take her in), and finally with Darnell’s mother. The authors’ refusal to make anyone else a villain, including the men responsible, gives their indirect tactics a final justification, as well as a powerfully understated climax: The absence of explicit statement, the taboo against saying certain things out loud in public, is the source of the problem; it is what allows the plague to spread and continue. It is men doing what they have always done, and women letting them, and nobody standing up to tell them the consequences, that keeps AIDS spreading. Not that it is easy to stand up and speak—the authors are eminently fair-minded. A woman in particular, in these contexts, has to be extremely brave, especially in a place like Zimbabwe, where the risks involved can include life-threatening danger as well as public humiliation, verbal abuse, and ostracism. That a work of In the Continuum‘s simplicity and delicacy can carry all this tragic weight comes, as a sort of final irony, from its spirit of playfulness: Its indirection is the product of a teasing game of guess-who-I-am; it begins—and, terrifyingly, ends—with an image of children playing.


    Bulletproof Hunk

    Alexandra Fuller evokes her thirsty love of Africa, brawny men, and the hard life with the parched tongue of the expat. In her new memoir, Scribbling the Cat, verbs erupt, bugs “dash themselves to death,” wounds are “wept open,” tears “swell and tremble.” Her geographical descriptions swoon: Her parents’ town is a “low slink of a land on the edge of perpetual malaria,” ruined by a drought “that didn’t stop gorging until it fell into the sea, bloated with the dust of a good chunk of the lower half of Africa’s belly.” Her writing crackles, consumed by the memory of war.

    Fuller’s acclaimed 2001 memoir, Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight, left her married to an American and living a conventional life in Wyoming with her two children—in drastic contrast to her youth in war-torn Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) during the ’70s, when her hardscrabble, hard-drinking parents farmed tobacco, cooked on an outdoor fire, lost three of five children, and advised her not to “look back so much or you’ll get wiped out on the tree in front of you.” To have read Dogs first helps one understand the journey the now 35-year-old Fuller takes in her new book.

    In Cat Fuller road-trips with K, a white African and veteran of the Rhodesian War (1966–1980), in an effort to suck meaning from the conflict, which gave her childhood nightmares of having her eyelids chopped off (as described in Dogs). K, a man of her father’s generation, captivates her with his story as well as his beauty: “His nose was unequivocal—hard and ridged, like something with which you’d want to plow a field. . . . He looked bulletproof . . . his own self-sufficient, debt-free, little nation—a living, walking, African Vatican City.” Hardy, born-again, and smitten with Fuller, he agrees to revisit scenes of his old battles. Sexual tension runs high, and Fuller permits the flirtation its tango. She poeticizes in homage to one of her heroes, Michael Ondaatje, and offers candid aches à la Mary Karr. She incorporates Zimbabwean slang (“they blallered his skop”) with aplomb. She knows her masters (Achebe, Naipaul), but her Africa is a white one. Rarely do black Africans appear except as servants and shooting targets, a reality of which she is keenly aware.

    K’s story unfolds mostly before they hit the road. His tough-broad mom dies from polio; he joins an elite white military troop and inflicts horrific torture; his son dies of meningitis; his wife goes mad, and they divorce; K finds God. Once he and Fuller are on their way, the energy flags. There are anecdotes like the one about a vaudevillian fight among K’s drunk former comrades on a remote island patrolled by a quasi-domesticated lion. K and Fuller travel over land swollen with unexploded mines (psychological and actual), but if curiosity nearly killed (“scribbled”) Fuller the cat (as she claims), it remains unclear how. K prays, cries, rages; Fuller shuts down. This emotional disconnect becomes the memoir’s liability. Fuller funnels feeling into the landscape beautifully—Mozambique lies “bleeding flatly into the lake”—but when she and K reach an emotional impasse, she declares she has nothing to say, no grand truths about war. K’s shards don’t satisfy her, as when he asserts, “Sixty pounds of gear, bored to death, and shit scared. That’s what war is. Until you’re dead.” The trauma of war is untidy; one hopes that this journey continues for Fuller, and that the nightmares reveal themselves in ever brighter light.


    U.S. Black Leaders Confront Mugabe

    Police in Harare [forced] about 50 people, some of them women, to lie on the street while they beat them with batons and whips. . . . Police stopped thousands of University of Zimbabwe students from marching into the city. They then stormed the campus, forced some students to lie on the grass and pavements, and beat them with whips. —Zimbabwe’s The Independent newspaper, June 3, reporting on a week of protests to oust President Mugabe

    Having written of the silence of most American black leaders about the oppression of Zimbabwe’s black citizens by President Robert Mugabe, I can now report on a powerful, insistent message sent to that dictator on June 3 by one of this country’s leading labor union figures, William Lucy, international secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (the other influential signers are named below):

    “We have strong historical ties to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, which included material and political support, as well as opposition to U.S. government policies that supported minority [white] rule. . . .

    “At the same time our progressive ties have grown with institutions of civil society, especially the labor movement, women’s organizations, faith communities, human rights organizations, students, the independent media, and progressive intellectuals. . . . We stand in solidarity with those feeling the pain and suffering caused by the abuse of their rights [and] the increasingly intolerant, repressive, and violent policies of your government over the past three years, [and] the devastating consequences of those policies.” (Emphasis added.)

    Among many recent illustrations of those violent abuses, there is the report in the June 7 Economist of demonstrators lying on the pavement “with policemen’s feet on their heads. . . . Police even burst into a private hospital to drag out injured protesters. According to the Movement for Democratic Change [the opposition party], one of its activists, Tichaona Kaguru, died after being tortured by the security forces.”

    The letter from American black leaders to the brutal source of this devastation speaks of the famine in Zimbabwe “triggered by the recent southern African drought and exacerbated by the economic policies and food distribution practices of your government. . . . Land redistribution in Zimbabwe [should] be used to fight the poverty of the majority and not to promote the narrow interests of another minority”—the cronies and other supporters of Mugabe who have taken over the farms and badly mismanaged them.

    Moreover, the new Amnesty International Report 2003 points to “widespread reports . . . [of] the deliberate denial of food aid by [Mugabe’s] ZANU-PF officials to Movement for Democratic Change members and supporters. Youth militia stationed outside long queues to buy grain reportedly targeted MDC supporters for assaults and intimidation to prevent them from getting food.”

    The letter to Mugabe by William Lucy and his fellow signers tells Mugabe: “We have communicated clearly [to Mugabe’s representative in Washington] that we view the political repression underway in Zimbabwe as intolerable and in complete contradiction of the values and principles that were both the foundation of your liberation struggle and of our solidarity with that struggle.” (Emphasis added.)

    In addition to being secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, William Lucy is president of an international body, the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. The other signers of this urgent letter to Mugabe—which I doubt will get much, if any, coverage in the mainstream American media—include:

    Willie Baker, executive vice president, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists; Salih Booker, executive director, Africa Action; Bill Fletcher Jr., president, TransAfrica Forum; Horace G. Dawson Jr., director, Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center, Howard University; Patricia Ann Ford, executive vice president, Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Julianne Malveaux, TransAfrica Forum board member; Reverend Justus Y. Reeves, executive director, Missions Ministry, Progressive National Baptists Convention; the Coordinating Committee of the Black Radical Congress.

    In their letter, they ask Mugabe to “initiate an unconditional dialogue with the political opposition in Zimbabwe and representatives of civil society. . . . We call upon you to seek the diplomatic intervention of appropriately concerned African states and institutions, particularly South Africa and Nigeria . . . and the African Union.”

    The problem with that approach—as the new Amnesty International report points out—is that “efforts to promote Zimbabwe as a potential test case for the efficacy of the newly launched African Union and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development failed, following reluctance by most African leaders to condemn the Zimbabwean government’s human rights record. The UN Commission on Human Rights passed a ‘no-action’ motion on a resolution criticizing Zimbabwe.”

    Zimbabwe, believe it or not, is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Commission! And have you heard anything lately from Nobel laureate Kofi Annan about state terrorism in Zimbabwe?

    What hope is there for the black citizens of Zimbabwe? In the June 3 issue of The Independent, a spokesman for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, Paul Themba Nyathi, told the newspaper—as resistance to Mugabe rises at grave peril to the resisters—”We are humbled by the strength and resilience of our people in the face of this naked brutality.”

    And an editorial in another Zimbabwean independent newspaper, The Daily News, roared, “Freedom is coming tomorrow.” These are brave people, but what is to become of them?

    At the end of his widely lauded book, Our Votes, Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe (Public Affairs), Martin Meredith writes that Mugabe’s “sole purpose has become to hold on to power. Whatever the cost, his regime was dedicated towards that end. Violence had paid off in the past; he expected it to secure the future.”

    The future will become much bloodier. As The Economist (June 7) foresees, “Larger [demonstrations] may follow. As people get hungrier, they may feel that they have nothing to lose by confronting the regime.”

    Will any of the corpses be shown on American television?


    Terrorizing the Press

    Councilmember Charles Barron, according to Newsday, is considering a run for mayor. He has already targeted a key vulnerability for the incumbent’s re-election: “I don’t think Bloomberg knows what he’s doing educationally.”

    Meanwhile, Barron’s defense of the increasingly volatile, tyrannical regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe puts his own sharpness of judgment in question, as I have demonstrated in previous columns. A further, quite startling example of his myopia can be found in Barron’s official report of a fact-finding trip he took to Zimbabwe from October 11 to 23 of last year:

    “It has also been widely reported that the press are routinely suppressed. However, we found a reasonably vibrant free press in the country. . . . [The independent newspapers] appeared to be able to go about their daily business without interruption . . . ”

    It may interest Mr. Barron to know that on May 3, 2002—World Press Freedom Day—the Committee to Protect Journalists named Zimbabwe one of the worst places in the world to go about the daily business of being a journalist.

    And on May 2 of this year, Amnesty International released Zimbabwe/Rights Under Siege, a long, extensively documented report—largely ignored by the American print, broadcast, and cable television media. (It’s only Africa, after all.) This report stated:

    “State repression of the media has never been worse. Prior to independence, the media was strictly controlled by the [white] government of Ian Smith through the use of restrictive legislation to defeat the nationalist movement. . . . However, the past three years have seen a sharp escalation in the government’s hostility towards the independent media. . . .

    “There has been a significant increase in the incidence of state intimidation, criminal defamation charges, arbitrary arrests, and attacks on independent journalists and media houses. . . . Two media houses were petrol-bombed in 2002, bringing the total number of bomb attacks on the physical infrastructure of the independent press to four since 2001.”

    When Councilmember Barron speaks of the “reasonably vibrant free press” in Zimbabwe, he omits the physical courage it takes to rebound against Mugabe’s brutal press critics.

    In October of last year, Sandra Nyaira, the former political editor of the independent Daily News in Zimbabwe, was in New York to receive the International Women’s Media Foundation Courage in Journalism award. Councilmember Barron was in Zimbabwe during that week, but I doubt that had he been here, he would have celebrated Sandra Nyaira at City Hall—as he did the month before in welcoming Robert Mugabe there.

    On accepting her award, Nyaira said: “Day in and day out, journalists in Zimbabwe work without knowing what the future holds for them—could it be a bomb? Could you be thrown behind bars for being too critical? Or could you just lose your job? . . .

    “I stand here today to accept this prestigious award, [but] I feel so ashamed that it is because of my African brothers and sisters, who are so power hungry. I watch in sadness as we fight for democracy and see Zimbabwe, the jewel of Africa, being turned into a pariah state all because of one man’s search for power.”

    Her reference to “the jewel of Africa” has chilling resonance. It was the title of Doris Lessing’s piercing history of Zimbabwe under Mugabe in the April 10, 2003, New York Review of Books. She grew up in Zimbabwe, and her first-person account of those years begins:

    ” ‘You have the jewel of Africa in your hands,’ said President Samora Machel of Mozambique and President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania to Robert Mugabe, at the moment of independence in 1980. ‘Now look after it.’

    “Twenty-five years later,” Lessing continued, “the ‘jewel’ is ruined, dishonored, disgraced.”

    In New York, Sandra Nyaira, reflecting the courage and determination of her country’s independent reporters and editors, made clear that Mugabe has “failed to dampen the spirits of most journalists in the independent media, who continue to work tirelessly to keep the nation informed by giving the other side of the story.”

    A March 25, 2003, report by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (with offices in New York and Washington) puts an additional harsh light on Councilmember Barron’s notion of Zimbabwe’s journalists going “about their daily business without interruption”:

    “On March 18, lawyer Gugulethu Moyo, a director of the company that publishes the Daily News . . . was assaulted and detained at the Glen View police station. Ms. Moyo had gone to the police station to provide legal representation to a Daily News photographer who had been arrested for allegedly participating in a mass action called by the MDC [the opposition Movement for Democratic Change].

    “When she arrived at the police station, Ms. Moyo was physically assaulted by two individuals in full view of the police officers present, who did not seek to intervene.” One of her attackers was Jocelyn Chiwenga, wife of the Zimbabwean army commander, Lieutenant General Constantine Chiwenga. Moyo was “punched, kicked, and hit many times.”

    Last year’s October issue of the New York-based World Press Review featured Iden Wetherell, editor of the Zimbabwe Independent, recipient of the magazine’s International Editor of the Year award.

    Charged with “abusing journalistic privilege” under Zimbabwe’s fierce censorship laws, Wetherell has been arrested, threatened, and otherwise harassed—but not intimidated. In the World Press Review article, Wetherell spoke of the “balancing” of stories about Mugabe in some of the American media:

    “Stories start off by saying, ‘Whilst President Mugabe is demonized as a tyrant, he is a hero to many.’ That sort of approach fails to explain anything—that more than 1 million Zimbabweans voted against him in the 2002 presidential elections. It obscures the fact that it is Zimbabweans who are saying this man is a tyrant, not just the West, that the allegations of misuse of power, of misallocation of funds, come from well-documented sources within Zimbabwe. To situate him as ‘under fire’ from forces in Washington mistells the reality that he is being widely criticized as abusive within Zimbabwe itself.”

    Wetherell believes that despite Mugabe’s ceaseless terrorism against his people, “democracy will win over tyranny.” Next week: What are the odds? And why has Nelson Mandela been silent about the acute suffering of the people of “the jewel of Africa”?

    “If only Mandela would speak out,” a human rights worker told me, “what a difference that would make!”