BEFORE YOU LOOK DOWN ON AFRICA, TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT YOURSELF
I have something to say to my fellow Black Americans, and I want to make my position clear before anybody gets emotional, starts throwing insults, or tries to twist my words into something they were never meant to be. I am not attacking every Black American, and I am certainly not suggesting that everybody living in America receives government assistance. I know there are Black people who work hard, pay their bills, raise their children, build businesses, and never receive a penny in public assistance. I also know that millions of Black Americans struggle with poverty, discrimination, high housing costs, medical bills, and other problems that make life difficult. However, I have watched a disturbing attitude develop in certain conversations between Black Americans and native-born Africans, and I believe it deserves a serious examination. Too many people have allowed the circumstances of their birth to become a reason to feel superior to somebody else who happens to have been born on the African continent.
I am a Black American born and raised in New York City, with Jamaican and Ghanaian lineage, and I now live in Ghana. I have experienced the fast pace of New York, lived in Central Florida for years, and chosen a different kind of life here in the mountains of Ghana. My experiences have taught me that life is not simply about how much money you make, what kind of car you drive, what phone you carry, or how impressive your address sounds when you tell somebody where you live. Life is also about peace of mind, the cost of survival, the people around you, the resources available to you, and the amount of pressure you must endure just to make it through another day. I understand what America offers because I lived there for decades, but I also understand that America comes with its own set of stresses. I can endure the pace of New York City, but at this stage of my life, I prefer the quieter rhythm I have found in Ghana.
What bothers me is the way some Black Americans talk about Africans as though being born in the United States automatically makes them better, smarter, more civilized, more successful, or more worthy of respect. I have heard the arguments about poverty, infrastructure, income, education, and the difference between American life and African life. Some of those comparisons raise real issues that deserve discussion. There are African countries where poverty is widespread, public services are weak, and people must struggle to obtain things that many Americans take for granted. But what kind of comparison are we making when we examine an African who has limited access to public support and then compare that person with an American who may have access to food assistance, healthcare programs, housing support, tax credits, public education, retirement benefits, and other forms of help? Are we comparing two people on equal ground, or are we ignoring the systems that helped shape their lives?
I want people to understand something that often gets lost in these arguments: receiving assistance does not make a person weak, lazy, or inferior. There is nothing shameful about a family receiving help with food, a senior citizen receiving medical coverage, a disabled person receiving financial support, or a working parent receiving a tax credit. These programs exist because people face different circumstances, and no society can honestly claim that every person will always be able to stand entirely on their own. My concern is not that Black Americans receive help. My concern is that some people benefit from opportunities and institutions available in America, then turn around and look down on Africans who may not have access to comparable support. If we are going to compare living standards, we must be honest about the advantages, disadvantages, and systems operating behind the scenes.
I also want to examine the wealth that Africa provides to the world and the difficult question of why so many people living on a resource-rich continent continue to experience hardship. The Democratic Republic of the Congo supplies a major share of the world’s cobalt, a mineral used in rechargeable batteries for many electronic devices. Yet child labor and dangerous mining conditions have been documented in parts of its informal mining sector. That reality should trouble anybody who carries an expensive smartphone while knowing little about the human cost that can exist behind the products we use every day. Africa contributes minerals, agricultural products, energy resources, and other materials to global markets, but the people living near those resources do not automatically receive a fair share of the wealth they help create. I believe we must look at the whole picture, from American government assistance to African resource exploitation, before deciding who deserves to stand on a pedestal and look down on whom.
THE AMERICAN SAFETY NET THAT MANY PEOPLE TAKE FOR GRANTED…
FOOD ASSISTANCE: HELP THAT CAN KEEP A FAMILY FROM GOING HUNGRY
Let us begin with food, because everybody understands what it means to be hungry. In the United States, eligible households may receive assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly called SNAP or food stamps. The program helps qualifying households purchase groceries, reducing the amount of their own money they must spend on food. The Women, Infants, and Children program, known as WIC, provides eligible pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children with nutrition assistance and related services. Children may also benefit from school breakfast and lunch programs, while summer meal programs and certain seasonal grocery benefits can help eligible families when school is closed. These programs do not make every participating family comfortable, but they can make a real difference in whether children have enough to eat.
There are also food distribution programs, emergency food assistance, food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and community meal services. Some are supported by public funds, while others depend on churches, nonprofit organizations, private donations, and community volunteers. The Emergency Food Assistance Program, known as TEFAP, helps distribute food through participating state agencies and local organizations. Other programs support older adults, including certain commodity food benefits and nutrition services. The important point is that an eligible American household may have more than one place to turn when food becomes difficult to afford.
Now imagine comparing an American household that has access to several of these resources with an African household that has little access to formal food assistance. The African family may have to depend on its own income, relatives, savings, farming, or community support. That does not mean every African country lacks food programs, and it certainly does not mean African communities lack generosity. Many African families have strong traditions of sharing food and helping relatives. However, informal assistance is not always enough to meet the needs of an entire community, especially during economic hardship, drought, unemployment, or a medical emergency. If one household can receive groceries through a formal program and another has no comparable support, we must acknowledge that difference when comparing their circumstances.
HEALTHCARE: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE DOCTOR’S BILL ARRIVES?
Healthcare is another major part of the American safety net. Medicaid provides coverage for eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, older people, and people with disabilities under federal and state rules. The Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, helps cover eligible children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but may still struggle to afford private insurance. Medicare primarily serves people aged 65 and older, along with certain younger people who qualify because of disability or specific medical conditions. Eligible people may also receive help through Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidies, state health programs, public hospitals, community health centers, and other assistance programs.
There are also programs that help certain people obtain prescription medicines, mental health services, substance-use treatment, preventive care, and specialized treatment. Federally qualified health centers provide care in many communities and generally use income-based fees or other payment arrangements. Hospitals may offer financial assistance or charity care to qualifying patients, although the rules differ from one hospital to another. People with disabilities may qualify for Medicaid home and community-based services, depending on their circumstances and state rules. None of this means every American can obtain every treatment they need without difficulty. Healthcare in America can be extremely expensive, and many people remain uninsured, underinsured, or burdened by medical debt. Still, the existence of these programs matters.
Think about what happens when a person develops diabetes, suffers a heart problem, requires surgery, or needs medicine every month. If the person has adequate insurance or qualifies for public assistance, some of the cost may be covered. Without such support, the same medical problem can become a financial disaster. In some African countries, people may have access to national health insurance or public medical services, while others must pay a large share of their medical costs themselves. Ghana, for example, has a National Health Insurance Scheme, although coverage, medicine availability, provider access, and out-of-pocket expenses remain real concerns. The situation differs from one country to another, and even within a country, but the central issue remains the same: access to healthcare can determine whether a family recovers from a crisis or falls deeper into poverty.
I want Black Americans to consider this before boasting about how much better they live than Africans. Are you comparing the cost of a medical emergency in both places? Are you comparing access to insurance, clinics, medicine, and public support? Are you considering what happens to a family when its main breadwinner becomes ill? You cannot simply look at a person’s clothing, house, or income and decide that you understand their entire economic situation. Sometimes the most important advantage is the help that becomes available when life goes wrong.
HOUSING: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAYING RENT AND LOSING YOUR HOME
Housing assistance is another area many people overlook. Eligible American households may qualify for Housing Choice Vouchers, commonly associated with Section 8, which help pay rent in privately owned housing. Public housing provides homes for qualifying low-income families, older adults, and people with disabilities. Project-based rental assistance supports eligible tenants in certain properties, while state and local programs may offer emergency rental help, homelessness prevention, temporary shelter, or transitional housing. Availability varies, and demand often exceeds the number of homes or vouchers available. Many eligible people wait for years or never receive assistance, but these programs still represent an important part of the country’s support system.
There are also programs that help eligible households pay heating or cooling bills, improve energy efficiency, and make certain necessary home repairs. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, can help qualifying households with energy costs and certain emergencies. Weatherization programs can make approved improvements that reduce energy use. Local housing agencies and nonprofit organizations may offer additional services, including foreclosure prevention counseling and help for people facing eviction. These programs do not erase the American housing crisis, but they can help some households avoid losing their homes or falling further behind on essential bills.
Now compare that with a family in an African community where formal rental assistance is limited, public housing is scarce, or emergency support is difficult to obtain. That family may depend on relatives, community savings, or its own ability to negotiate with a landlord. If the family cannot pay, it may have few practical options. Yet some people will look at the condition of an African home and treat it as proof that the people living there are inferior. They may never ask whether the family had access to affordable mortgages, public housing, housing vouchers, reliable infrastructure, or emergency assistance. They see the visible result without examining the economic structure behind it.
I know what it means to value a home, privacy, and peace of mind. Living in Ghana has taught me that a person’s sense of well-being cannot be measured only by the value of the property they occupy. The ability to enjoy one’s home without the constant pressure of an expensive, fast-moving lifestyle has value, too. Some people in America have beautiful houses and enormous debts. Some people in Africa live modestly but maintain strong family relationships and a meaningful connection to their community. Neither picture tells the entire story, but both deserve to be considered honestly.
CASH ASSISTANCE, RETIREMENT, AND DISABILITY SUPPORT
The American safety net also includes programs that provide financial assistance to eligible people and families. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as TANF, supports qualifying families through state-administered programs that may include temporary cash assistance, employment services, childcare support, and other services. Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, provides payments to eligible people who are aged, blind, or disabled and have limited income and resources. Social Security Disability Insurance, or SSDI, provides benefits to qualifying workers whose disabilities meet the program’s requirements and who have sufficient work credits. These programs have different rules, and receiving one benefit does not automatically qualify someone for every other program.
Social Security retirement benefits deserve special attention because people sometimes lump them together with welfare. Retirement benefits are generally based on a person’s earnings record and contributions through payroll taxes. They are not the same thing as needs-based public assistance. Survivors benefits may provide financial support to eligible family members after a qualifying worker dies. Unemployment insurance can provide temporary income to eligible workers who lose their jobs under qualifying circumstances. Workers’ compensation may cover certain medical costs and replace part of lost wages when a person suffers a qualifying work-related injury or illness. Veterans may also qualify for disability compensation, healthcare, education benefits, pensions, and other services based on their circumstances.
The tax system offers another form of support. Eligible workers may receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, which can increase their refund or reduce their tax liability. Families with qualifying children may qualify for the Child Tax Credit, including a refundable portion when the legal requirements are met. Certain education credits, dependent-related tax provisions, and other deductions may also reduce the tax burden for qualifying households. These benefits do not all operate in the same way, and some reduce taxes owed while others may produce a refund. However, they can help families keep more of their earnings or receive money through the tax system.
I want to be clear that receiving these benefits does not mean a person is living a life of luxury. Some Americans receive assistance because they are elderly, disabled, unemployed, or raising children on low wages. Some have worked for decades and are receiving benefits they earned. Others have paid taxes for years and still struggle to cover basic needs. My point is not that these people should be ashamed. My point is that when we compare the American experience with life elsewhere, we must recognize that public programs can change the outcome for a household. A person who receives support may be better able to survive an economic crisis than someone who has no comparable safety net.
CHILDREN, EDUCATION, AND THE HELP THAT SHAPES A FUTURE
American families may also receive support through programs designed to help children and young people. Head Start and Early Head Start provide early education and family services to eligible children. Childcare subsidies can help qualifying parents pay for approved childcare while they work, study, or participate in training. Early intervention services support eligible infants and toddlers with developmental delays or qualifying disabilities. Public schools provide tuition-free K–12 education, although families may still pay for supplies, activities, transportation, and other expenses. Children with disabilities may receive specialized instruction and related services through public education systems.
School breakfast and lunch programs can help eligible children receive meals during the school day. Foster care programs provide care for children who cannot safely remain with their families, while certain adoption assistance programs help eligible families caring for children with special needs. State child support agencies can help establish and enforce child support orders. Some programs provide additional assistance to families dealing with domestic violence, housing insecurity, or other serious challenges. These services are not perfect, and many American children still face hunger, unsafe housing, and unequal educational opportunities. Nevertheless, public institutions can provide resources that would otherwise have to be purchased entirely by the family.
Higher education offers another set of opportunities. Eligible students may receive Pell Grants, federal student loans, work-study employment, and other forms of financial aid. Pell Grants generally do not have to be repaid when their conditions are met, while student loans usually must be repaid. Public community colleges can provide lower-cost education, and some states offer free or reduced-tuition programs to eligible residents. Workforce development programs, vocational training, registered apprenticeships, and programs such as Job Corps can help qualifying people develop skills for employment. Public libraries also provide free access to books, computers, internet services, educational resources, and job-search tools.
When I consider these programs, I think about how many young people can use them to improve their lives. A person may begin with limited money but still have access to public education, job training, financial aid, and a library where they can study. That does not guarantee success, but it can open doors. In countries where educational opportunities are limited by cost, distance, inadequate facilities, or a lack of available places, young people may have to overcome additional barriers. There are talented young people throughout Africa, and many African countries have universities, scholarships, and public education programs of their own. The point is not to deny those achievements. The point is to recognize that opportunities are shaped by the resources and institutions available to a person.
UTILITIES, COMMUNICATIONS, LEGAL HELP, AND THE EVERYDAY SAFETY NET
Some assistance is less visible because it does not always arrive as cash. Eligible Americans may receive help with electricity, heating, cooling, telephone service, or internet costs. Lifeline, for example, offers a discount on qualifying communications services to eligible consumers through participating providers. Some cities and transit agencies offer reduced public transportation fares for older adults, people with disabilities, students, or qualifying low-income riders. The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program provides free tax preparation through participating sites for eligible taxpayers. Legal aid organizations may provide free or reduced-cost legal services to people who qualify for assistance.
Community health centers, public libraries, workforce centers, domestic violence services, disaster assistance programs, and nonprofit organizations can also help people through difficult periods. Some communities offer clothing banks, school supply drives, emergency transportation, or help with essential household items. After a qualifying disaster, eligible households may receive government assistance or support from charitable organizations. The details depend on the location and the nature of the emergency, but the larger point is that support can come through many different channels.
There is no single American program that guarantees a comfortable life, and there are people who fall through the cracks every day. Some people cannot find affordable childcare, some cannot get a housing voucher, and some cannot afford the medical treatment they need. I would never deny those realities. However, a system can have serious failures while still providing resources that make a difference to millions of people. When we compare countries, we must look at both sides: the failures of the system and the assistance that is available to those who qualify.
BUSINESS GRANTS, LOANS, TAX ADVANTAGES, AND AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES
Now we come to a subject that is often left out when people argue about government assistance: support for businesses, property owners, farmers, investors, and other economic interests. When people hear the word welfare, they often picture a low-income family receiving food assistance or a person receiving a small monthly payment. Yet government support can also take the form of tax credits, deductions, loan guarantees, grants, insurance programs, research funding, agricultural payments, and contracts. Some of these programs support people in need, while others are designed to encourage investment, protect industries, promote production, or support particular economic goals.
The Small Business Administration, for example, works with lenders and other partners to support eligible businesses through certain loan programs, counseling, contracting assistance, and other services. Government-backed loans are not the same as free money, because borrowers generally have to repay them. Certain businesses and research institutions can also compete for grants, including funding for eligible research and development through programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. State and local governments may offer additional business incentives, workforce training support, or economic development grants. Eligibility depends on the program, and many opportunities are competitive.
Agriculture is another important example. Eligible farmers and ranchers may receive support through commodity programs, crop insurance subsidies, conservation programs, disaster assistance, farm loans, and other forms of public support. Some payments help protect producers against certain market risks or losses. Others encourage conservation, provide disaster relief, or support the production of particular crops. These programs are not identical to household welfare, and they do not mean every farmer receives a government payment. However, they show that public support extends well beyond the families people traditionally associate with assistance.
The numbers make the discussion more concrete. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, data from 2022 showed that 26 percent of non-Hispanic White-operated farms received government payments, compared with lower participation rates among several groups classified as socially disadvantaged. Among farms that received payments, non-Hispanic White-operated farms received an average of $16,417, while non-Hispanic Black or African American-operated farms received an average of $7,774. The same analysis reported a national average of $16,308 per participating farm. These differences were influenced in part by farm size and the kinds of crops grown, since some major government programs favor particular agricultural sectors. The figures do not prove that every White farmer receives more than every Black farmer, but they demonstrate why agricultural subsidies belong in any honest discussion about public support. The USDA’s 2022 farm payment analysis provides the underlying information.
Businesses can also benefit from tax provisions that reduce their tax liability or change the timing of payments. The federal tax code includes credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and preferential tax treatment for different activities. The Treasury Department describes these provisions as tax expenditures when they reduce federal revenue compared with the applicable tax benchmark. Some major tax expenditures relate to employer-provided health insurance, retirement savings, housing, and capital gains. Other provisions apply to particular industries or activities. These benefits do not all go to wealthy people, and some directly help ordinary workers and families. But they illustrate an important point: government support is not always a check sent to someone who is struggling. Sometimes it is money that the government does not collect because the law allows a deduction, credit, exemption, or other tax advantage. The Treasury’s tax expenditures overview explains the concept.
Government contracts can provide another source of opportunity. Eligible businesses may compete for public procurement contracts, and certain programs are designed to expand access for small businesses, including businesses that meet specific ownership or socioeconomic requirements. Veterans may qualify for certain contracting opportunities, while eligible disadvantaged businesses may participate in designated programs when the relevant legal requirements are met. Public research funding, infrastructure spending, disaster recovery contracts, and other government-supported activities can also create income and business opportunities. Some programs provide grants, some provide loans, some offer guarantees, and others create a market for goods or services. Those distinctions matter, but all of them demonstrate that the relationship between government and economic life is much broader than the narrow image of welfare that people often carry in their minds.
So when someone mocks an African for struggling economically, I want that person to consider the full picture of American life. The American economy is supported by public roads, ports, airports, schools, courts, research institutions, infrastructure, emergency services, and a wide range of public programs. Businesses operate within that system, workers benefit from public institutions, and some households receive direct assistance. People do not have to be poor to benefit from the government. They may benefit through a tax break, a government-backed loan, public infrastructure, a business contract, a retirement program, or an agricultural subsidy. The question is not whether those benefits are automatically wrong. The question is why some people recognize government assistance when it goes to someone they dislike but ignore it when the assistance helps themselves or the people they admire.
WOULD SOME AMERICANS STRUGGLE LIKE PEOPLE IN POORER COUNTRIES WITHOUT THE SAFETY NET?
Here is the question I want people to think about seriously: what would happen to some American families if the government removed the programs that help them survive? What would happen if a senior citizen lost retirement income, a disabled person lost financial assistance, a working parent lost food benefits, a child lost public health coverage, or a family lost access to housing assistance? What would happen if eligible students could no longer receive grants, public schools disappeared, and low-income households had no access to community health centers or emergency food programs? Would every family suddenly become wealthy because the government stopped helping? Of course not. Many would face greater hardship, and some would struggle to meet basic needs.
I am not suggesting that removing public assistance would turn the entire United States into a poor country. That would be an exaggeration. America has a large economy, extensive infrastructure, private investment, productive industries, and many other sources of wealth. However, the absence of assistance could push some households into severe hardship. A person who currently manages rent because of a housing voucher might lose the home. A family that depends on school meals and SNAP might have to make painful choices about food. A disabled person who depends on SSI or SSDI could face a crisis if those payments disappeared. A family whose child relies on Medicaid or CHIP could struggle to pay medical bills.
That is why I want people to stop using the word poverty as an insult against Africans. Poverty is not a personality trait. It does not mean a person is stupid, lazy, dirty, or incapable. It can be shaped by history, political decisions, conflict, access to education, economic conditions, healthcare, infrastructure, and the availability of jobs and public services. A person born into a country with fewer formal safety nets may have to overcome barriers that someone born in America never has to consider. That does not make the American person more worthy. It means the two people are navigating different systems.
There is also a difference between having a safety net and being financially secure. Many Americans receive assistance and still live under enormous pressure. Some work multiple jobs and remain unable to afford housing. Some have insurance but cannot afford all their medical expenses. Some receive retirement benefits that barely cover food, rent, and utilities. Others have no savings and live one emergency away from financial disaster. The safety net can reduce hardship without eliminating it. We must recognize that reality while still acknowledging the advantages that certain public programs can provide.
My argument is not that America is bad because it helps people. I believe a society should care whether its children eat, whether its older people can survive, whether disabled people have support, and whether families can recover from hardship. My argument is that people should not confuse access to public resources with proof of personal superiority. If you receive help, you may be grateful for it, you may have earned it, or you may need it to survive. But you should not use the fact that another person lacks the same support as an excuse to look down on them.
AFRICA’S RESOURCES: WEALTH UNDER THE GROUND, HARDSHIP ABOVE IT
Now let us turn to Africa, because the discussion becomes incomplete when we focus only on what African countries lack and ignore what they contribute to the world. Africa has enormous natural resources, agricultural potential, mineral wealth, energy resources, and a large population of young people with skills and ambition. Countries across the continent produce gold, diamonds, cocoa, oil, natural gas, copper, cobalt, bauxite, manganese, timber, and many other resources. African nations also produce major agricultural commodities and supply raw materials that enter international manufacturing and food systems. However, the presence of natural resources does not automatically produce broad prosperity for the people who live near them.
The phrase “breadbasket of the world” expresses the idea that Africa has tremendous agricultural potential, but I would not describe the entire continent as already feeding the world. Africa imports food as well as exports it, and many countries face food insecurity. Agricultural output is affected by access to water, storage, transport, financing, equipment, land, climate, and reliable markets. Some countries have the potential to produce much more food than they currently do, while others face serious environmental or infrastructure challenges. The real point is that Africa’s agricultural possibilities are enormous, but potential is not the same as a guaranteed harvest, fair income, or food security for every African family.
The same is true of mineral wealth. A country can possess valuable minerals while ordinary people remain poor if the money generated by those resources does not reach them. Weak public institutions, corruption, unfair contracts, tax avoidance, poor regulation, conflict, and unequal bargaining power can all affect who benefits. Foreign companies may bring investment, equipment, jobs, and technical skills, but the public must still ask whether the contracts are fair, whether workers are protected, whether environmental damage is addressed, and whether governments receive a reasonable share of the value being extracted. Resource wealth can be a blessing, but without accountability it can become a source of exploitation and conflict.
I do not believe every foreign company is dishonest, and I do not believe every African politician is corrupt. There are responsible investors, honest public servants, hardworking business owners, and people trying to improve their communities. But corruption and weak accountability are real concerns in some resource-rich settings, and they deserve serious attention. When leaders sell national resources through unfair arrangements or fail to use public revenue for schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and economic development, ordinary citizens may see little improvement in their lives. The people can live above valuable minerals and still struggle to afford basic necessities because ownership of the resource, control of the revenue, and distribution of the benefits are separate questions.
This is where the arrogance of some outsiders becomes especially troubling. They may look at a struggling African community and assume that the people living there have nothing to offer. They may fail to understand that the materials used in their own technology, vehicles, construction, and other products can originate in African mines and fields. They may see only the finished product in a store and never consider the workers, farmers, transporters, and communities that helped make it possible. A smartphone can look like a symbol of personal success while concealing the complicated global supply chains that bring its components together.
THE CONGO, COBALT, AND THE HUMAN COST BEHIND THE PHONE
The Democratic Republic of the Congo offers one of the clearest examples of the difference between possessing valuable resources and ensuring that ordinary people benefit from them. The country is the world’s leading supplier of cobalt, a mineral used in rechargeable batteries for many electronic devices and electric vehicles. Cobalt is important to several battery technologies, although not every battery uses it. Mining is carried out through different methods, including large industrial operations and smaller artisanal mines. Conditions vary across the industry, but serious abuses have been documented in parts of the artisanal and small-scale mining sector.
A 2016 investigation by Amnesty International and African Resources Watch documented children and adults working in dangerous conditions in parts of the Congolese cobalt supply chain. The report described children carrying heavy loads, sorting and washing ore, and working in environments where they could face dangerous dust, collapsing tunnels, long hours, and inadequate protective equipment. More recent efforts have continued to address child labor in the sector. In November 2024, the International Labour Organization announced a project funded by the U.S. Department of Labor to strengthen efforts to identify children engaged in hazardous mining, provide remediation services, support families, and improve accountability. The ILO reported that a monitoring system had registered more than 6,200 children engaged in mining in the provinces of Haut-Katanga and Lualaba. These are documented concerns, not simply rumors circulated on social media. Readers can examine the Amnesty International investigation and the International Labour Organization’s 2024 announcement.
Now consider the contrast between a child who should be in school and a consumer who proudly displays an expensive smartphone. One person is enjoying the benefits of modern technology, while another may be working in dangerous conditions because a family has few economic alternatives. The consumer may have purchased the phone legally, may have worked hard to afford it, and may have no direct knowledge of where its materials originated. We cannot assume that every phone contains cobalt mined by a child, and we should not accuse a particular manufacturer of wrongdoing without evidence. But documented abuses in mineral supply chains raise a fair question: how much do we know about the human conditions behind the products we use every day?
This issue is not limited to one phone brand or one country. Cobalt can pass through traders, processors, refiners, battery manufacturers, and other suppliers before it becomes part of a finished product. That chain can make it difficult for consumers to know exactly where a mineral came from and under what conditions it was mined. Companies have a responsibility to carry out proper checks, address serious risks, and work toward safer and more transparent supply chains. Governments also have a responsibility to enforce labor protections, while consumers can ask companies for clear information about their sourcing practices. The goal should not be to shame every person who owns a smartphone. The goal should be to recognize that the global economy connects our comfort with the working conditions of people we may never meet.
I want people to think about the child in the Congo before they use an African’s poverty as a punchline. That child is not inferior because of the conditions surrounding them. The child may simply have been born into a place where family income, schooling, public protection, and employment opportunities are limited. The same child could possess enormous talent, intelligence, creativity, and ambition. If that child’s country has valuable minerals, the real question is why the wealth generated by those resources has not done more to protect children and create better opportunities for their families.
WHY AFRICA’S NATURAL WEALTH DOES NOT ALWAYS REACH ITS PEOPLE
The resource problem goes beyond cobalt. Across the world, the value of a raw material often increases as it moves through processing, manufacturing, branding, and retail. A country that exports raw minerals may receive only part of the final value, while other countries and companies earn money from refining, manufacturing, technology, and distribution. This does not mean exporting raw materials is automatically harmful, or that every country can immediately build every stage of an industrial supply chain. It means that countries seeking greater prosperity must consider how to develop skills, infrastructure, processing capacity, fair contracts, and stronger local industries so that more value remains in their economies.
Africa’s agricultural sector faces similar challenges. A farmer may grow cocoa, coffee, fruit, vegetables, or other crops but receive only a small portion of the final price paid by consumers. The finished product may be processed, packaged, branded, and sold in markets far away. Farmers need roads, storage facilities, reliable electricity, affordable financing, equipment, and access to fair markets. Without those things, even a hardworking producer can remain economically vulnerable. The issue is not a lack of effort or intelligence. It is the difference between producing a valuable resource and having the power to control how that resource is processed, sold, and priced.
Governments play a major role in determining whether natural wealth benefits ordinary citizens. Public revenue can be invested in schools, hospitals, clean water, roads, electricity, job training, and economic development. It can also be wasted, mismanaged, hidden, or directed toward the interests of a small group. Citizens need transparent budgets, independent institutions, effective courts, responsible public officials, and the ability to challenge corruption without fear. These are not simple problems to solve, but they are central to building societies where resource wealth improves daily life.
Foreign companies and international markets also have a responsibility. Investment can create employment and provide technology, but companies should not be allowed to treat weak enforcement as permission to exploit workers or ignore environmental damage. Contracts should be examined carefully, taxes should be collected fairly, and labor standards should be enforced. Local communities should have a voice in decisions that affect their land and livelihoods. If the world depends on African minerals and agricultural products, the people producing those resources deserve safe working conditions, fair treatment, and a meaningful opportunity to share in the benefits.
This is why I reject the idea that a country’s present difficulties define the worth of its people. An African country may be struggling with corruption, weak infrastructure, or inadequate public services, but those problems do not make its people less intelligent or less deserving of respect. A country can be rich in resources and poor in public outcomes because of political choices, historical conditions, economic arrangements, and institutional failures. Those conditions can change. The question is whether leaders and citizens can build systems that turn national wealth into broader prosperity.
THE SOCIAL MEDIA DIVISION BETWEEN BLACK AMERICANS AND AFRICANS
I have watched social media become a place where people who should be learning from one another are encouraged to compete over whose life is better. Some Black Americans ridicule Africans for their accents, clothing, housing, infrastructure, or economic struggles. Some Africans respond by mocking Black Americans for their social problems, political divisions, family struggles, or dependence on government assistance. The arguments become personal, and before long, people who have never met each other are fighting over broad stereotypes as if millions of individuals can be reduced to a single personality.
I believe social media can reward conflict because anger attracts attention. A video that insults a whole group may generate more comments than a thoughtful discussion that recognizes differences. Algorithms can help spread inflammatory content, and creators may have financial reasons to keep an audience angry. However, I cannot honestly claim that every disagreement between Black Americans and Africans was deliberately engineered by a single hidden power. There is no need to make that claim to recognize the damage. Whether the division is driven by profit, politics, prejudice, ignorance, or ordinary human conflict, the result can still be the same: people who share important historical and cultural connections begin treating one another as enemies.
We must also understand that Black Americans and native-born Africans have different histories. Black Americans have a distinct history shaped by slavery, segregation, racial discrimination, the struggle for civil rights, and generations of life in the United States. Africans have their own national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and historical identities, shaped by different societies, colonial experiences, independence movements, and modern political conditions. The African continent is not one country, and the African diaspora is not one uniform community. We should not erase these differences in the name of unity, but neither should we use them as an excuse to disrespect one another.
As a Black American with Jamaican and Ghanaian lineage who now lives in Ghana, I see no reason to pretend that every person on either side has the same experience. I have seen the speed and pressure of American life, and I now appreciate a quieter pace. Someone else may prefer the opportunities and energy of a major American city. Both experiences can be valid. The problem begins when personal preference becomes a claim of human superiority. Choosing to live in America does not make someone better than a person who lives in Ghana, and choosing to live in Ghana does not make someone better than a person who lives in America.
I also believe we must challenge the habit of using economic hardship to humiliate people. If an African has limited access to healthcare, housing support, or unemployment benefits, that should be a reason to discuss what can improve, not an excuse to mock them. If a Black American struggles with poverty, discrimination, or the cost of living, that deserves understanding as well. We can talk honestly about problems without turning entire populations into targets. We can criticize bad leadership, unfair policies, and harmful behavior without claiming that one group is naturally better than another.
WHAT BLACK AMERICANS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES BEFORE CLAIMING SUPERIORITY
Before anyone boasts about living better than Africans, I want them to examine the systems surrounding their own lives. Did they have access to public education? Did they benefit from roads, public libraries, emergency services, or government-supported infrastructure? Have they or their family members ever used Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, housing assistance, unemployment insurance, disability benefits, public education, tax credits, or other programs? Have they benefited from a public pension, a government-backed loan, an agricultural subsidy, or a tax provision that reduced their costs? Not everybody has received these benefits, and not everybody qualifies for them. But the existence of these systems is part of the American economic picture.
The question is not whether people deserve the assistance they receive. Many do, and some benefits are earned through years of work and contributions. The question is whether we acknowledge the role those programs can play in shaping a person’s opportunities. If a family has access to public health coverage, food assistance, and housing support, it may have a better chance of surviving a crisis than a family without comparable help. If a student receives a grant, that may make education possible. If a disabled person receives income support, that may help them maintain a basic standard of living. These are real advantages, even when the recipients continue to face hardship.
I also want people to understand that government assistance is not a measure of personal worth. A person who receives SNAP may be working hard. A senior citizen receiving Social Security may have spent decades paying taxes. A disabled person receiving SSI may have no realistic ability to earn a full income. A farmer receiving a subsidy may be trying to manage the risks of agricultural production. A business receiving a loan guarantee may be trying to create jobs. These programs serve different purposes, and they should be judged according to their goals, results, fairness, and costs. But nobody should assume that a person is inferior simply because they receive support.
The same standard must apply when we examine African countries. A person who has not received government assistance may still be supported by family members, community networks, religious institutions, or other informal arrangements. Another person may have access to a national health insurance system, a public pension, a government scholarship, or a social assistance program. The details differ widely, and it would be inaccurate to claim that all African countries provide no help to their people. The World Bank’s social protection data show substantial differences in coverage across countries and programs, which is precisely why country-specific comparisons are more useful than sweeping statements about an entire continent. Readers can explore the World Bank’s social protection data to see how coverage varies.
A fair comparison asks what each person earns, what each person must pay, what services are available, what risks they face, and what support exists when things go wrong. It also asks whether the person has access to reliable electricity, safe transportation, affordable housing, healthcare, education, and opportunities to build wealth. The answer may differ from one household to another, even within the same city or country. That is why the blanket claim that Black Americans are better off than Africans, or that Africans are better off than Black Americans, is too simplistic to explain real life.
HUMILITY IS NOT WEAKNESS
I want my fellow Black Americans to understand that acknowledging an advantage does not diminish your accomplishments. If you worked hard, built a business, raised a family, earned a degree, or purchased a home, you deserve recognition for your effort. But you should also recognize the institutions, opportunities, and public resources that may have helped make those accomplishments possible. Nobody succeeds in a complete vacuum. We all depend on systems, relationships, infrastructure, and circumstances that are not entirely of our own making. The more honest we are about those influences, the less likely we are to confuse personal achievement with proof that we are superior to somebody else.
I also want native-born Africans to know that I am not placing all the blame on Black Americans. Africans can fall into the same trap when they use the struggles of Black Americans to claim that they are morally, culturally, or socially superior. Neither side should be allowed to turn history into a weapon against ordinary people. We need to be able to discuss racism, colonialism, corruption, economic inequality, family problems, political failures, and cultural differences without reducing millions of people to insults. Respect does not require agreement, and unity does not require pretending that our experiences are identical.
The relationship between Africa and its diaspora deserves more serious attention than a constant competition over who has the better life. There are opportunities for trade, education, investment, tourism, cultural exchange, and cooperation that can benefit people on both sides of the Atlantic. Black Americans have skills, experience, and resources that can contribute to African development, while Africans have knowledge, talent, culture, and opportunities that deserve respect. None of this means every person must move to Africa, invest in Africa, or share the same political views. It means we should stop allowing stereotypes to prevent us from seeing the value in one another.
As somebody who has lived in New York City, spent years in Florida, and now lives in Ghana, I understand that a person’s priorities can change with time. What I wanted in my younger years may not be what I want in retirement. The pace of a major American city may suit one person and exhaust another. A quiet community in Ghana may feel peaceful to me while someone else prefers the energy of a large city. There is no universal lifestyle that proves one person is better than another. We should be able to appreciate what different places offer without insulting the people who live there.
So the next time somebody looks at an African and assumes that they are inferior because of their income, clothing, house, or access to modern conveniences, I want that person to stop and think. Look at the systems that support your own life. Look at the public resources you may have used. Look at the natural resources that enter the products you purchase. Look at the children who may be working in dangerous conditions while the world enjoys the benefits of their country’s minerals. Then ask yourself whether the person you are judging has been given the same opportunities, protection, and choices that you have had. I am not asking anybody to feel guilty for being American. I am asking people to be honest, to show humility, and to stop confusing economic circumstances with human worth. We can be proud of our accomplishments without looking down on others, and we can demand better from African governments and American institutions alike. That’s the reality check I believe we need, and that’s the conversation I want us to have.
