Western literature's common depiction of Africa and other places is not destructive.

It is not that the depictions are a misconception - it is that they cause negative results. Even if EVERY SINGLE claim made by the Western media about Africa's problems are true, it is still destructive because the literature only focuses on the negative, and not the positive. This puts Africa on the other end of the "us-them" mindset, causing the problems to become THEIRS and not OURS as well. If Africa was depicted more evenly, the problems were more isolated, and positive features were also made known, we would be more knowledgeable of the reality of Africa. This enables us to solve because recognition of the specific issues is the first step. You think that Africa is not hopeless, however in a terrible predicament. That's fine, and probably true. I'm guessing neither of us have ever been to Africa. However, my arguments still apply. As I said above, the mindset will still exist when literature refuses to fairly depict Africa. The feelings of a fake sense of immunity from disease because the diseases are "in Africa" will still exist when we use damning rhetoric like "Africa is the global hotbed of AIDS." Even though AIDS might be prevalent in Africa - the rhetoric is destructive in that it oversimplifies the situation and damns the entire continent as a whole. You say the situation is not being overlooked because the US and other countries support development assistance. This claim is exactly why our oversimplified view of Africa as a whole is destructive... When we think in the mindset like we do now - we throw money at Africa like we do now. This, even though it might be good in some instances, is not solving the problem and actually creates African dependency on the US. (When we inflate their economies, even if they become stable, they will not be able to survive on their own if we stop giving aid for any reason because the proportions are not equal or make sense in newly developing economies.) Furthermore, when the US gives money now to "fix" things like poverty, it goes through governments in Africa. This oversimplification causes more problems in places like Zimbabwe, where the corrupt Mugabe regime is proven to steal the aid in order to prop up his ruling party, continuing the cycle of poverty and violence in that country. These responses that yield negative effects are the result of the current depictions of Western literature oversimplifying the problem. On the flip side, we fail to yield positive effects because of the current mindset. Our president REFUSES to give aid to certain clinics in Africa because they do not follow "our morals" because they fund abortions as well as medicine and treatment. Clearly, Mr. Bush knows what is better for Africa than Africa itself. We also refuse to intervene in Darfur because "we cannot solve violence in all of Africa." This depiction of rampant violence throughout Africa has caused us to fail in places like Darfur. Fine, it might be a bad idea to stop all violence in Africa at once, but we can attempt to stop the genocide IN DARFUR. As I stated before we need to recognize the source of the problems, and not blame it on Africa's primitiveness. We need to isolate certain problems and help in whatever way we can. This way, it will actually be effective.