As society becomes more aware of the fruits of racism, the institutionalized Western colonialism that for so long defined the ontology and epistemology of persons of color is viewed as a historical event that ended with the civil rights movement. The West views remnants of structural racism as existing passively as opposed to being actively discriminatory. As such, the West, particularly the United States, has shifted the way they interact with African culture from a conscious colonialism to an unconscious colonialism. This slight shift in mindset among individuals and communities alike has led to the growth of unconscious oppression of distinctly African values. Through the United States’ structured racism and policies formulated based on false assumptions, reproductive aid from the United States has become a tool of ideological neocolonialism.

The history of America’s interactions with Africa is a troubling one. The Middle Passage, which sociologists identify as, “The transatlantic slave trade [which] concerns the history of three continents over four centuries… has served as a crucial element of New World [development] since the slave trade soared in the eighteenth century in response to the increasing demand for unfree labor….”[1] This caused a shift in the way that African slaves viewed their role in relation to others. (From now on, this particular shift will be referred to as an “ontological shift.” Ontology refers to the study of being). This shift created a hierarchy within American culture that has lasted for generations. As such, the Middle Passage has become a defining historical event, and the cultural impact of this event “has become the discourse of the oppressed… more authentic and better suited to our chaotic times than the (official) historical discourse.”[2] The remnant of racism in society shaped the way in which Africans relate to, and see themselves in relation to white American culture. This “self-definition” was created by the slave traders who believed themselves to be superior based upon a Western ideology that allowed for individuals to be “natural[ly] order[ed].”[3] This historiography is the foundation upon which internalized modern racism rests.

The ontology influenced by colonialism provided a fundamentally hierarchical way of understanding the nature of reality, shaped the way in which America understood and processed information (the way in which individuals and societies understand and process the world will be referred to as epistemology).[4] That is, the ontological underpinnings created in the Middle Passage shaped the epistemology of Americans. This epistemology allowed for, and even excused colonialism in Africa. The Berlin Conference of 1884, which was called in order to properly “partition Africa into territories that would then be occupied, annexed, and colonized by the participating countries,” was the beginning of the American participation in the direct colonialism of Africa as a nation.[5] After WWII, however, the Atlantic Charter made it difficult for the United States to continue as a colonizer of Africa. The Atlantic Charter identified the right to govern one’s own nation as “the right of all peoples.”[6] As such, the 1950’s saw the end of the colonization of Africa, and the beginning of independent African nations, returning Africa to independent governance after a century of occupation and colonization.[7]

While the United States has attempted to alter and minimize the way in which racism is verbalized in political discourse and policymaking, these methods of curbing epistemological assumptions remain unsuccessful. This has led to “the durability of racial inequality in the face of both political contestation and individual identity.”[8] Not only does this account for racism domestically, but these epistemologies have also informed the way in which the United States Government interacts with the international community, particularly African nations. Amongst American policymakers, tribal customs and morals are trivialized and viewed as savage.[9] African values and ideologies are largely based on what would be referred to in the U.S. as “superstition,” and what is referred to in Africa as religion.[10] As a country whose epistemology is largely influenced by post-Enlightenment thinking, the United States automatically counts superstitious beliefs as invalid and untrue. This evaluation of African ideology and epistemology may be unconscious, but it is evident in the results of Foreign Aid to Africa.

Despite the end of overt racism through colonialism, the United States still exercises control and influence on African institutions, resources, and ideologies. The epistemology and ontological ordering created by colonialism makes it easy for the United States to execute ideological control over African nations. This power over Africa is implemented in the form of influence. As Dr. Ernest Wilson, a former senior staff member of the NSA and Information Agency, and specialist in International Policy explains, “In international politics, having ‘power’ is the ability to influence another to act in ways in which that entity would not have otherwise acted.”[11] This is the case in Africa; African policy makers frequently cede their right to govern their nation to the influential U.S. policy “advisors” who expect, and receive “obedience [from African leaders] due to the African predisposition, from the days of colonialism, to look up to the White Man.”[12] This way of exercising influence is referred to as “‘political will,’ a term that, by definition, implies a certain show of force and commitment on the part of leaders to carry through a policy, especially one that is not popular. It is a soft version of totalitarianism invoked by imperialists… who want to force millions of Africans to let go of their morals.”[13] While this form of colonialism and totalitarianism is implemented in many ways, it is especially implemented through aid.

The political ideology that motivates aid can often be measured by “legislative coalitions” in Congress that support or suppress certain ideals.[14] Legislative coalitions in Congress are not traditional alliances for re-election or to please constituents.[15] They are formed because of the ability of foreign policy to export ideologies and values to the world. Because ideology is the way in which individuals export epistemology into culture, “ideology shapes foreign policy, and [thus] aid policy.”[16] Dr. Helen Milner and Dr. Dustin Tingley, experts in International Affairs and Government, examined five sets of Congressional votes on foreign aid and determined control and independent variables to ensure exact results. The goal of their study was to “explain legislators’ votes on foreign aid bills from 1979 to 2004… [and determine if it is true that] no set of systematic political factors explains support for…aid….”[17] The result of their study was that. “Interests matter, but so does ideology. Legislators respond…to their ideological predispositions.”[18] Because United States policy makers are predisposed to understand their policies as superior, it becomes natural to impose ideology through aid.

One of the most culturally intimate forms of foreign aid is reproductive aid, as it goes beyond politics and economics. Reproductive aid is, at its core, about the family, and the ability to manipulate, control and shape the way in which family is formed (or not formed). The United States is the largest donor of reproductive aid in the world and is one of the largest purchasers and distributors of forms of contraceptives internationally.[19] The stated goal of USAID (United States Agency for International Development) according to R. T. Ravenholt, one of the directors of the USAID program, is to “improve the health, well-being, and economic status of the peoples of the developing countries by improving the conditions of human reproduction in these societies.”[20] While this seems like a noble statement, it is necessary to understand the motivation and enforcement of this endeavor before embracing its policies.

The underlying assumptions upon which policy is made are necessary to examine, as they inform the development of the policy. The epistemology of policymakers affects policy and can have positive or negative ramifications based on the ideology exported through said policy. According to Ravenholt, the creation of USAID was because “coercive social measures of population control are needed [to curb population increase].”[21] This necessary curb of population increase refers to the “population explosion” expected in Africa. While statistics regarding the population growth from 1969 are difficult to find, the projected trend has remained the same, and USAID continues to operate based on fear of a drastic increase in population. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs projects that the percent of the global population in Africa will grow to 25% in 2050 and to 39% in 2100 due to high fertility rates.[22] The same forecast shows that the United States will have one of the lowest replacement fertility levels.[23] The concern for population levels has to do with resources and the lack of land to populate. The current population density of the United States is 92.2 people per square mile, and the United States has 4.2% of the world population.[24] On the other hand, the continent of Africa (which contains 54 countries) has a population density of 65 people per square mile with 15% of the world population.[25] In comparing these statistics, it becomes clear that it is not a question of land available, or of population density, as both of these problems have solutions in the status quo (low population density in Africa, and low replacement rates in the United States and other Western nations). The rhetoric of the “African population bomb instead of a population boom, which could help to grow African economies and to lift many Africans out of poverty…bring[s] back to life every debunked Malthusian prediction.”[26] The underlying assumptions that necessitate coercive control of populations are false, based on fallacious principles. A proper understanding of this evidence removes the urgency of the USAID’s mission, and leaves the voluntary endorsement of its policies to African nations.

African values are vastly different from modern Western values, despite the influence of colonialism on the nation. In Africa, family is the “primary unit of the social life of the community”[27] In Africa in particular, reproductive aid is aid that has to do with the very core of all African values and ideologies. Reproductive aid in Africa is particularly influential, as all other facets of African life flow from it. The USAID’s current platform is based on the “unmet need” of contraceptives and abortions.[28] However, this platform is not consistent with African values. In 2010, USAID reported that Africa had the countries with the highest desired number of children, with averages ranging from 9.2 desired children in Chad, 9.1 in Niger, 4.1 in Zimbabwe, and the lowest in Swaziland with a desired 2.7 children.[29] In the same report, it states that Africa has the countries with the lowest rate of unwanted and terminated pregnancies.[30] While an American woman may be blown away by these numbers, they are commonplace to an African woman, as these statistics demonstrate the strong emphasis on family in Africa. While reproductive aid labels these desires and practices as false or misogynistic desires, they are simply descriptive of the culture of Africa. The majority of reproductive aid, which targets birth control and abortions, is irrelevant in Africa, as it is not consistent with African values. In fact, Obianuju Ekeocha, a Nigerian woman who serves as an advisor to African Members of Parliament, African United Nations delegates and Ambassadors, explains that the ideologies that are exported through reproductive aid are destructive to the family-oriented culture of Africa, and make it more difficult to solve human rights abuses against women. As such, many of the feminist movements in Africa have re-entrenched dangerous practices like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking, and child marriage.[31] Because African and American epistemologies differ, policy makers must be sensitive to the way in which American policies are received in African nations, especially when they are detrimental to the health of those they seek to help.

Many argue that it is necessary to solve HIV and AIDS epidemics in Africa, and as such, it is necessary to provide reproductive aid.[32] Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 70% of the global population with HIV, and 74% of death due to AIDS.[33] This is certainly an out-of-control crisis that must be solved, but the United States’ aid has been woefully insufficient and ineffective. The policy solution exported through reproductive aid was to legalize sex work, which would reportedly “reduce HIV infections by 33-46% over the next decade.”[34] This solution, however, would only increase sex trafficking in Africa and legitimize the sexual subjugation of young women.[35] International Planned Parenthood Federation, whose main funding and influence comes from the United States, has attempted to destigmatize HIV through a “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide to life with HIV, which encourages non-disclosure of HIV before sex, and encourages youth to have sex, and encourage underage drinking and drug activity.[36] These strategies are not only ineffective, they are counterproductive, and the HIV and AIDS rates continue to rise. African solutions, which were ideologically aligned with African values, saw a 70% reduction of HIV. Instead of focusing on American values of individualism and sexual expression, the campaign provided the “ABC prevention plan,” which stood for “Abstinence before marriage, Be faithful in marriage or to one partner, Condom use if A and B are impossible.”[37] These policies, written by Africans for Africans, focused on values that supported the African ideology of family first, and through working within the African ideological system, was able to successfully reduce HIV in Uganda.

American policy making, which is shaped by epistemologies rooted in racism, has the tendency to apply uniquely American ideologies on Africa, believing that American ideals are more evolved than African ideals, and therefore superior. These remnants of structural racism have influenced American reproductive aid to Africa, and are the basis for the “need” for such aid. While the epistemologies are passively discriminatory, they have tangible negative effects on African nations through policy failures and the adoption of ideologies antagonistic to African culture. This has led to the unconscious oppression of distinctly African values, pushing reproductive aid into the hands of Africans who do not desire it. Instead of freeing women from the burden of misogynistic policies, the United States has created ideological neocolonialism, a new, unconscious colonialism that co-opts healthy African movements, and leaves them useless. This ideological neocolonialism is rooted in racism and is perpetuating and retrenching policies that are detrimental to Africa, and African ideologies.