In the post, I argue that solidarity was easier in the time before the end of (formal) apartheid. But things are not so clear now. Many well-meaning Europeans have become disillusioned with Africa. Sometimes, this leads to a new patronizing type of attitude, one that puts the blame for Africa’s problems on Africans in general.
To avoid this, I think a choice must be made. My position is that neutrality doesn’t exist. I want to position myself on the side of those who are resisting oppression and are trying to build an Africa based on authenticity, based on the interests of the peoples of Africa and not based on narrow self-interest. For me, there is no alternative then to try to follow the thorny path of solidarity.
For me, this gave rise to several thoughts, that I would like to examine more in-depth in this post.
Firstly, I would like to look at the notion of tribe and tribal identity for a moment. For me, the word ‘tribe’ denotes a band of primitives, living at the outskirts of civilization. So, I decided to look at what my friend Google had to say about the topic. Indeed, there is controversy there because the word tribe is problematic, to say the least. After all, it was introduced in colonial times not always with the best interests of the so-called tribesmen in mind.
On the one hand, Anengiyefa Alagoa comments: “I totally agree that the use of the word ‘tribe’ has a definite connotation of primitive savagery, and I have for a long time refused to use it. The Basques and the Catalans are minority ethnic groups in Spain, but they are never referred to as tribes. Neither are the Bretons of France or the Welsh of Great Britain. Tribes seem to exist only in Africa, in the Amazon jungle, or in Papua New Guinea. Native Americans and aboriginal Australians were also referred to as tribal people because they were perceived by the white settlers to be savage and primitive.”
On the other hand, though, Gerlad Businge points out that: “its use in Africa is not as negative as it is in the US. In Africa, everyone belongs to a social grouping with a common heritage, practices etc and such kind of grouping, whatever word is used should not result in a bad description of any one or a group of people. I think, just like we have taken on English as our national language (it does present a lot of benefits), let us accept the word tribe without going along with the tribal connotation it alludes to in the west. I have no problem being referred to as of a particular tribe, so long as that description is not made a standard basis of judging me – my abilities, my situation, the opportunities I should get etc.”
So – this may be a cultural thing. For Africans, the word ‘tribe’ may have a different connotation than for Europeans or Americans. Being European myself, I am clearly emotionally closer to the point of view of Alagoa. For Africans, it makes things more complicated – because they cannot use the word ‘tribe’ when writing for a European audience in the same way they would if they were writing for an African audience.
In her post, Magero points out that she was first taught her ‘local dialect (mother tongue)’ and only then Swahili and English. She feels this is one of the reasons why Kenyans ‘instinctively self-identify by our tribes rather than the country’.
Ok – when I grew up in Amsterdam, I was first taught my mother tongue (Dutch), and only later started to learn English. But what is wrong with that? And if it is not wrong for me – why would it be wrong for Vera? Call me eurocentric if you will, but I believe that cultural identity and language are very closely related. Being securely rooted in a specific cultural and linguistic identity is, in my perspective, important for anybody’s sense of being grounded in society. I am not alone in saying this. That giant of African literature, Kikuyu author professor Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, has argued long before me and much better than I can that a renaissance of African languages is a necessary step in the restoration of African wholeness.
It goes beyond Africa: different languages represent subtly different ways of looking at the world and its problems. In order to retain and expand the ability of humanity to deal with the problems facing it, preserving linguistic diversity is just as important as preserving species diversity.
But of course, there is a difference between Vera and myself. Vera grew up in a country where her mother tongue was not the national language. I grew up in a country where my mother tongue was also the national language. In Vera’s country, five years ago people killed each other partly based on tribal stereotypes (and let’s hope it won’t start again after the elections of the 4th of March).
Is that because of Vera and the way she was raised? Or should we look for an explanation in an entirely different direction?
I believe that for any modern country to succeed, a certain amount of internal cohesion is necessary. This cohesion must be based on a shared (dominant) cultural identity. Language is an important element of such a shared identity. In Africa, due to the colonial history, most countries lack this shared cultural and linguistic common identity.
What that means, is that loyalties in African countries are not to the state, not also to the tribe or people but, much more narrowly, to the extended family, to the clan, or to another instrument of sharing favours and patronage, such as the political party. In such countries, national wealth is not governed and redistributed by a democratic process. The system of checks and balances that exists in other countries depends on people feeling loyal and committed to the state. That feeling is lacking in many African countries. That means that any system of checks and balances fails. The result is that small élites, based on clans, on tribes, or on narrow economic interests, take over. It leads to corruption and to dysfunctional states (which in turn leads to a loss of any feeling of loyalty to the state).
Under the best of circumstances, the different power élites in these societies reach some sort of understanding or accommodation, so that there is a certain amount of peace and stability in the country. That does not mean there is no corruption, or that there is any real development – it simply means that people do not kill each other on any large scale. But when there is a power struggle between the élites, they mobilize their followers, they stir up ethnic sentiments – and there is fighting. And then people like Vera Magero start to do soul-searching to find out what it is, in their own attitude and upbringing, that may have caused this. To Vera and people like her I would say: there is nothing wrong with you! These mechanisms can and will work anywhere.
This, in my view, is the tragedy of so many African countries and this is also, I think, what is holding Africa back in its development.
So – where to look for a solution? Forgive me for looking at Europe for this. In the part of Europe that is now the European Union, there were 15 independent countries in 1880. Today, there are 27. Large multi-ethnic states, like the Austro-Hungarian empire have disappeared and many much more homogeneous nation states with one dominant national language and culture have appeared. Some of these countries, such as Malta, are quite small, with less than a million inhabitants.
For Africa, I think that there is only one way forward. New forms need to be found to manage a transition away from the national boundaries that were dictated by the colonial powers over a century ago, in complete disregard of ethnic realities.In Europe, this process took seventy years. A huge price was paid in terms of human lives and suffering. That is partly why Europeans have never dared to propose such a development path to Africans and why Africans themselves are shy of thinking in this direction. But in some parts of Africa, the colonial borders are losing their meaning. Some Africans are starting to see that a radical re-thinking of the current states is necessary. Starting a debate along these lines is, I think inescapable: the taboo on a rational discussion on this topic has to be broken.
On 30 January 2013, Shell Nigeria was convicted by a Dutch court to pay compensation to Friday Akpan, a farmer in Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria, for damage that he suffered from oil spills many years ago. The court judged that according to Nigerian law, Shell Nigeria had been negligent in this case by failing to take action to stop sabotage of its installations. In four other cases brought before the court, Shell was acquitted.
The verdict marks a climax in a long process, that was coordinated by Environmental Rights Action (ERA – Friends of the Earth Nigeria) and Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands). A climax – but also a bit of an anticlimax. The magnitude of the oil spills problem in the Niger delta is well document, among others by a UNEP investigation in 2011. In fact, there is little doubt that if oil spills of this magnitude would occur in North America or in Europe, the media would be up in arms and would force all concerned to address the issues much more urgently than is currently being done. Compensation for one farmer is a drop in the ocean. Still, the verdict is hailed as a partial victory by environmentalists in Africa and Europe as well.
But this victory begs one question: why was it necessary in the first place to collect money from Dutch individual donors (myself included) to make a Dutch court pass judgement on a Nigerian company, applying Nigerian law, for crimes committed in Nigeria? Would it not be much more logical and much simpler to take Shell Nigeria to court in Nigeria itself? Shell Nigeria turns over around 1.8 billion euro a year in profits to its parent company. Surely, it has the money to make a positive difference in the Niger delta?
Those who know a little bit about Africa in general and about Nigeria in particular may think my question is naïve. And indeed, ERA has considered this issue. The Guardian has quoted a spokesman for the group as saying: “We considered all the options and the history of litigation in Nigeria before deciding to take the case to Holland.We could not have confidence in the judiciary in Nigeria because, coming from our experience, when the judiciary gives a judgment, the enforcement of that judgment by the executive becomes a problem. Shell is a very stubborn company, and in Nigeria, in some situations, it is more powerful than the Nigerian government.”
Of course, I will continue to support the decision by ERA to work with its Dutch counterparts in bringing this matter before the Dutch courts. It seems to be the only peaceful way still open in order to call attention to the environmental tragedy in the Niger delta and to force Shell to mend its ways.
But – what does this say about Nigeria as a nation? This July, Croatia will be the 28th country to join the European Union. The process of joining the EU was held up for years, in part because the EU felt that the rule of law was not yet strong enough in Croatia. Europeans have learned, after centuries of fighting, that the rule of law is essential. No state can command the respect and loyalty of its citizens if it does not manage to protect the rights of those citizens through a sound legal system. Clearly – in Nigeria, as in so many other African countries, the state fails miserably in this regard. I think this means that one of the greatest taboo questions in the discourse about Africa needs to be asked now, with greater force than before: can a country like Nigeria ever work? Would it not be better for everybody (except the ruling kleptocratic élite) if, by peaceful means rather than by force, Nigeria would be broken up and split into different, smaller and more coherent countries? That will mean a difficult debate and an even more difficult transition – but perhaps time has come to consider this alternative as the least of all evils.
My posts are published now on ‘Africa on the Blog’.
On 27 July 2016, a post was published entitled ‘Let’s look at South Sudan‘. In it, I look at the sad situation of South Sudan. I point out that the Dinka and Nuer languages are both part of the Kitara dialect continuum. However, this is clearly no guarantee that brothers won’t kill each other.
I point out the analogy with the war in Bosnia in the 1990’s and suggest that a similar solution might be needed: one in which the international community steps in not only militarily, but also in terms of civil administration, so that effectively the country is put under Trusteeship. This is what has happened in Bosnia and I support the call of others for the same. That way, perhaps the situation five years of now will be a little more hopeful.
My posts are published now on ‘Africa on the Blog’.
On 4 February 2016, a post was published entitled ‘Let’s look at African languages‘. In it, I ask the question why in Africa, local languages have a much lower status than in most European countries.
One of the reasons I put forward is the traditional way in which languages are defined – a way that basically comes from American Protestant missionaries who sought to bring the Gospel in every ‘tongue’ they could find. I point how this leads to apparently absurd results in Europe. In a country like the Netherlands, for example, there are supposed to be twelve different languages – where ordinary Dutchmen know of only two. I suggest that things may be similar in many parts of Africa, but that African languages have not been studied in the framework of what they have in common, rather than what is different.
I point to the fact that many languages as used today, in Europe as well as outside of Europe, are the result of a conscious policy of building up those languages, using a continuum of dialects as a starting point. I wonder why this does not seem to have been done for African languages. I point out that in Africa, local languages are not protected, barely studied, and not studied from the point of view of what they have in common, rather than what is different. Local languages are not supported or promoted.
My thesis is that in Africa, like in Europe and in other parts of the world, there must be a number of distinct and distinguishable dialect continuums that together can form more standard languages. Those languages can be used for vehicles of communications and for art and literature. The question I ask is: has not the time come to put resources into these, to study, protect and foster them?
In the post, I point to research done by CEPR economists Michalopoulos and Papaioannouis, who have demonstrated how the fragmentation of ethnic groups over different countries in Africa has led to civil conflict, discrimination by the national government, and instability. This fragmentation is the result of sticking to the colonial boundaries, boundaries that were established by the Berlin Conference of 1885, also known as the ‘Curse of Berlin’.
In the post, I ask the question what to do with this knowledge. I then summarize some of the key points made in my own longread, “African Identities: a New Perspective”, in which I call for a renaissance of African languages, for a better appreciation of African cultures, for greater regional autonomy and – in some cases – for reconsidering the old colonial borders.
I point to the start contrast between developments in this area in Europe and those in Africa. Why is this so and what can be done to overcome the ‘Curse of Berlin’? In my longread, I call for:
– A study of African culture using modern theory of culture and intercultural communication;
– A study of African languages from an African perspective, looking not only at differences but also at commonalities; I support a renaissance of African languages;
– A Panafricanist perspective that does not gloss over differences but that respects and cherishes them, seeking to heal the wounds that were inflicted by the curse of 1885 and that is grounded in an appreciation of the uniqueness of all of Africa’s many peoples.
Most of the ideas that have been exposed in various posts on this blog have now been brought together in a longread, called “African Identities: a New Perspective”. This longread is published as a free e-book through Smashwords.com and available from most e-book retailers.
In this polemic longread, I take a critical look at the differences in the discourse about Africa and about Europe. Comparing Africa and Europe 130 years ago and today, the book contains a passionate plea for greater respect for the different African cultures and languages and contends that a lack of such respect is one of the main factors impeding Africa’s development today.
The book looks back at the past 130 years of African history. The period between 1885 and 1950 was the period of colonization. The period between 1950 and 2015 was a period of decolonization and independence. The book tries to answer the question why the progress in many parts of Africa has been relatively slow.
Starting point is ‘the curse of 1885‘: the Berlin Conference, where Africa was carved up without any African involvement. The book shows how Africa has always had to deal with ‘second-hand’ European ideologies and how Europe has introduced different words in dealing with its own people, different from what is being used for Africans. The longread examines these ideas and demonstrates their effects on Africa.
It shows how even today, when talking about African cultures, outdated and partly racists concepts are used. It introduces a more modern definition of culture and discusses the Hofstede model of describing cultures using various dimensions. The book calls for a study of African cultures using these modern theories. It points to the importance of nurturing languages and linguistic diversity – something which is happening in Europe, much more than in Africa.
The author points out how traditional anthropology and ethnolinguistics present a fragmented picture of African cultures. It calls for an African approach to social science that makes use of modern theories of culture and intercultural communication and that looks in an unbiased way at where the differences are between the peoples of Africa and where the commonalities lie.
The book examines the origins and the content of the idea of the Right to Self-Determination and points out that in the decolonization process, that right was not respected. The author examines some of the reasons why things happened this way. He points to differences in the discourse about Africa and about Europe. In Europe, different ethnic groups are named as ‘peoples’ – whereas in Africa, such groups are called ‘tribes’ – an inherently racist form of reasoning that classifies Africans as being more primitive than Europeans.
Geopolitical and (racist) cultural ideas combined with ideas on African socialism, together form a potent but toxic cocktail, leading to the current consensus that sees ethnically more or less homogeneous nation states as necessary and good in Europe and in many other parts of the world – but not in Africa. A central thesis of the book is that this is one important explanation for Africa’s lack of progress, explaining to a large extent the nepotism and corruption so prevalent in Africa to this day.
The longread goes on discuss a few of the absurdities of African reality today, focusing on Nigeria, the Gambia, Botswana and the Hutu-Tutsi ethnic disaster. This latter is contrasted with the discourse about Croats and Serbs in Europe.
In order to overcome the ‘curse of 1885’, the author calls for:
-A study of African culture using modern theory of culture and intercultural communication;
-A study of African languages from an African perspective, looking not only at differences but also at commonalities and at possibilities for convergence, at any rate leading to a renaissance of African languages;
-A Panafricanist perspective that does not gloss over differences but that respects and cherishes them, seeking to heal the wounds that were inflicted by the curse of 1885 and that is grounded in an appreciation of the uniqueness of all of Africa’s many peoples.
For some of Africa’s failed states, such as the Central African Republic, there seems to be no other option than to start to question the traditional borders. For some other countries, it might be possible to work towards models that would allow for increased regional autonomy. This requires a progressive type of nationalism, one that is not xenophobic, but that does not deny the fact that people are rooted in their own language and culture.