Unmasking New York Times’ Propaganda against Uganda for Anti-LGBTQ Stand

The United States has a daily newspaper that is prototypically American, called the “New York Times.” This paper is extraordinarily moralistic, assumes the noble right to comment on everything in the world, and embodies the typical American mentality of ‘how things ought to be’. It makes obsessive use of this right, particularly against Africa, where it should naturally have no business.

In recent times, Uganda has become a target of the newspaper’s ridicule, animosity, falsehoods, and slander due to the passage of an anti-LGBTQ law in May of this year. The New York Times has taken great pleasure in criticizing Uganda on humanitarian, human rights, and moral grounds. Just recently, the paper published a defamatory article in which the author not only slandered but also mocked the people of Uganda. Despite the article’s misleading title “In Poorer Countries, Obesity Can Signal Financial Security,” its content primarily consists of derogatory and racist claims against Uganda.

It is worth noting the peculiarities surrounding the article’s author, an American citizen writing for an American newspaper, citing a study authored by an American lecturer at an American university to be published in an American journal. This blatant disregard for credibility suggests that the New York Times either believes its own fabrications or lacks respect for its predominantly American audience. Regardless, it exemplifies the coordinated efforts of the American propaganda machine, which coordinates its press, academic, policy, and diplomatic extensions.

However, the New York Times has crossed a line with its defamation of Uganda. The article not only labels Uganda as “one of the poorest nations” but also presents a misleading statistic claiming that “nearly half the people eat fewer calories,” and concludes that “excess fat is often a sign of wealth.”

These assertions are unequivocally false. For starters, in Uganda, you rarely encounter a “skinny person.” With the exception of a small number of individuals who may be obese, the majority of the country’s youth are physically fit. Their typical diet consists of at least three different types of dishes on a single plate.

Without delving into America’s domestic affairs to counter the falsehoods propagated by the New York Times against Uganda, it is worth noting that despite Uganda’s comparatively lower level of development, the cost of living is 57.7% lower than that of the US, and rents (excluding housing shortages) are 82.8% lower. This means that a one-bedroom apartment that costs $2,000 in the US can be obtained in Uganda for only $200.

Additionally, the article falsely claims that “excess fat is often a sign of wealth and can help secure a bank loan in Uganda.” This assertion is also unfounded. While banking and electronic financial services in Uganda may have some inefficiencies, banks and micro-finance institutions in the country provide loans based on factors such as having a legitimate source of income, tangible assets for collateral, or a well-defined business purpose for the funds. Obesity is not a determining factor for loan eligibility.

When it comes to food and nutrition, it is unnecessary to delve into extensive detail, as a simple search with good intentions will reveal that Uganda is rich in natural and organic foods. Healthy food not only fills the shelves of markets but is also among the most affordable in the world.

For example, a dozen naturally bred eggs in Uganda cost around 4,000 shillings, approximately $1.095 in dollars. In comparison, in New York City, the current price for a dozen eggs is $5.56. Shelves in the US, on the other hand, are often stocked with unhealthy GMO food.

The avocado, highly valued in the United States and Europe, actually originates from Uganda and is vastly superior to those found in the US and Europe. Europeans even travel to Uganda specifically to enjoy the avocados and bring some back home. A Swedish journalist recently conducted a comparison of avocados, weighing a Ugandan avocado at nearly 1 kg compared to European avocados, which she confessed were only slightly larger than strawberries and cost over 2 Euros/3 USD, while in Uganda, they cost approximately 0.2 Euros.

One can continue to make comparisons across various categories such as dairy and meat products, vegetables, crops, consumer goods, and more. The undeniable fact is that from agricultural activities to packaging and distribution, there are very few things that are not being done in Uganda at the moment. There are still opportunities for value addition, and the country is actively working towards that goal. At present, it is implementing a novel ‘Parish development’ Model to transition the country’s farmers from subsistence farming to commercial Agriculture.

However, it is important to note that Uganda places significance on the correlation between all other forms of development and moral health. The country has deliberately implemented measures to preserve its identity as a nation that upholds traditional values, rejecting attempts by the West to redefine it as an “LGBT nation” rather than a “Straight Nation.” Consequently, a few months ago, Uganda introduced an anti-LGBTQ law, which bears similarities to laws observed in some Muslim-majority countries.

And yet, the country has faced significant backlash from the US-led Western countries, including threats of sanctions and other measures. The bulk of the Western economic, political, and media machinery has been directed at challenging the country. This recent article by the New York Times is only part of that coordinated effort.

Of course, there is always much to discuss in any developing country, and there are many areas of concern that can be criticized. It is normal for a developing country to have numerous shortcomings. However, one of the significant drawbacks of Uganda has been its reliance on a “beggar-master partnership” with warmongering nations like the US as strategic allies. It is within the context of this patronizing relationship that some Americans believe it is their inherent right to rebuke and dictate our public life.

Fortunately, the emergence of a multipolar world is providing us with alternatives and the opportunity to build constructive and respectful relationships with partners who will respect our self-determination. Americans are good people, and there is potential for a more constructive relationship to exist. However, until American leadership reevaluates its foreign policy and takes action to address the misguided propaganda in its media, they risk further insulting and tarnishing the image of America before the world public.