Well, this topic couldn't have come at a more appropriate time, as I am currently working on a paper about Botswana for another class. In doing research for my paper, I have come across much of the information Professor Kaplan divulged in class today. As such, I have had the time to ponder the fate of Botswana as a democratic nation. Its interesting, because, like Prof. Kaplan mentioned, Botswana showed an inherent element of democracy in its pre-colonial history, thus boosting their democratic continuance into today's modern society. While, I don't doubt there were these democratic elements, I don't think the idea that the colonial history of Botswana left them unaffected. Which brings me to my dilemma; we talk about remaining respective of the culture of the nation we are trying to develop/aid, but the culture of a nation is the culture that exists in that moment--any previous cultural elements of a society should no longer be considered the culture of a people, especially if they are aspects that existed prior to the institution of a major change in their society. If we revel in "the way things use to be" we lose sight of the situation in front of us and our efforts become blinded by longing. When we talk about the culture of the people, we should be aiming to highlight the least harmful aspects and working to eliminate those aspects that will inhibit the progress of a nation at large. I tend to disagree with the theory of cultural ecology because it allows for no change in a society. But the progress of a nation, whether it be the U.S., or a country we're seeking to develop, aim for an agenda of progress. When I talk about progression, I mean progress in the realm of the nation we're dealing with and within their cultural constructs, not a westernized progress--as the progressive state of a nation is subjective.