Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Southern African News

Writing the Struggle – Our 

condemned cultures

   
In the past weeks, this column has dealt with the issue of culture used as a tool to destroy or enhance a people’s freedom.
Chinua Achebe aptly described African cultures as being at a crossroads while Amilca Cabral went to great length to illustrate how the oppressors made sure that the oppressed have no culture, which simply translates to identity.
Cabral argues that culture when summed up creates history and that once a people’s culture is destroyed, there won’t be any history to talk about.
In the case of Africa, the oppressors destroyed the continent’s history by making the oppressed believe that their cultures are either evil or backward.
This is exactly why Chaka is not seen as a conqueror but a ruthless tribesman who wantonly killed and drove out other tribes. Compare Chaka with Napoleon who is described as Napoleon the Great.
And when our children are taught history lessons, they will admire Napoleon more than they would do Chaka because of how each conqueror is treated in cultural and historical terms.
Today, our women die to be thin because, according to Western culture, beauty is in being slim. African cultures elsewhere admire big women.
This week, another great son of Africa, Frantz Fanon takes another dimension to how culture contributes to a whole person and how the destruction of such equally leads to lost generations.
In his speech delivered at the Congress of Black African Writers in 1959 and included as a chapter in his book, “Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon states that colonial domination “disrupts in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people”.
The speech titled, ‘Reciprocal Bases of National Culture and the Fight for Freedom’, Fanon further says that most oppressed people easily allow their cultures to die because they negate “national reality by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts … by expropriation and by the systematic enslaving of men and women”.
“Every effort is made to bring the colonised person to admit the inferiority of his culture which has been transformed into instinctive patterns of behaviour, to recognise the unreality of his 'nation', and, in the last extreme, the confused and imperfect character of his own biological structure,” Fanon writes.
Consider this: Your grandfather dies and when his spirit returns, Christianity declares it an evil spirit but Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead after three days yet is seen as having overcome death.
It’s neither here nor there that your grandfather comes back in spirit and that Jesus Christ is said to have risen in his physical form – the bottom line is both died and came back.
According to Fanon, the laughing stock among the oppressed peoples are those within the intellectual group who “throws himself in frenzied fashion into the frantic acquisition of the culture of the occupying power and takes every opportunity of unfavourably criticising his own national culture, or else takes refuge in setting out and substantiating the claims of that culture in a way that is passionate but rapidly becomes unproductive”.
“The common nature of these two reactions lies in the fact that they both lead to impossible contradictions. Whether a turncoat or a substantialist, the native is ineffectual precisely because the analysis of the colonial situation is not carried out on strict lines.
“The colonial situation calls a halt to national culture in almost every field. Within the framework of colonial domination there is not and there will never be such phenomena as new cultural departures or changes in the national culture.
“Here and there valiant attempts are sometimes made to reanimate the cultural dynamic and to give fresh impulses to its themes, its forms and its tonalities,” Fanon points out.
Just like Cabral, Fanon also says when the oppressor condemns a culture and a people keep on it, this action is viewed as resistance to domination.
During the war of liberation for Zimbabwe, for example, the guerrillas believed that the spirit of Nehanda Nyakasikana and Sekuru Kaguvi – the doyens of the first Chimurenga – always led them.
This belief came from what Nehanda is said to have prophesied shortly before she was executed. It’s said Nehanda said her bones would one day come alive to fight back.
This cultural aspect – the belief in the power of dead – was seen by the oppressors as a threat. It was for this very reason that mbira as both an instrument and music were banned in Rhodesia.
It’s not only in Zimbabwe where the spirit of the dead was called upon as a pillar of strength but in South Africa too where the deaths of Robert Sobukwe as well as many others was exhorted in times of great need.
So in order to destroy the spirit of rebellion, the oppressor makes sure that the cultural aspect of it which gives people a common phenomenon dies first.
And we have allowed this to happen in Africa. But culture does not die completely because when a people fight back to regain their freedom, they still dig deeper into their core beliefs.
• Next week, we will see what happens when people scour their conscience for the remnants of culture for self actualisation.
at No comments:

Southern African News

Writing the Struggle – Culture 

defines a people’s history

   
Amilca Cabral’s speech points at what Chinua Achebe said about Africa being at a cultural crossroads largely because there is a denial by most people on the continent of their beliefs and norms.
Cabral argues that by denying these tenets of culture, the African also denies his history because ‘culture is the vigorous manifestation on the ideological or idealist plane of the physical and historical reality of the society’.
In simple terms, he says once a people discards their culture, they also end up with no history because history is a sum total of cultural activities of a people.
Generally, a people, which adopts or adapts to a foreign culture, allows itself to be easily dominated and abused.
He writes: “Culture is simultaneously the fruit of a people’s history and a determinant of history, by the positive or negative influence which it exerts on the evolution of relationships between man and his environment, among men or groups of men within a society, as well as among different societies.”
Furthermore, he says: “Ignorance of this fact may explain the failure of several attempts at foreign domination ‑ as well as the failure of some international liberation movements.”
According to Cabral, foreign domination is impossible without “the negation of the historical process of the dominated people by means of violently usurping the free operation of the process of development of the productive forces”, which means the relationship between “man and nature, between man and his environment. Relationships and type of relationships among the individual or collective components of a society”.
“To speak of these is to speak of history, but it is also to speak of culture,” Cabral further argues. “Whatever may be the ideological or idealistic characteristics of cultural expression, culture is an essential element of the history of a people.
“Culture is, perhaps, the product of this history just as the flower is the product of a plant. Like history, or because it is history, culture has as its material base the level of the productive forces and the mode of production.
“Culture plunges its roots into the physical reality of the environmental humus in which it develops, and it reflects the organic nature of the society, which may be more or less influenced by external factors.
“History allows us to know the nature and extent of the imbalance and conflicts (economic, political and social) which characterise the evolution of a society; culture allows us to know the dynamic syntheses which have been developed and established by social conscience to resolve these conflicts at each stage of its evolution, in the search for survival and progress,” he explained.
Background this to some scenarios in Africa today and you will find that leaders who stick to their cultural beliefs are regarded as backward.
One case in point is the gay issue which has caused so much suffering yet in African culture such practice is not encouraged.
Most constitutions, which do not recognise gay rights, are considered unfriendly while leaders who speak against homosexuality have borne the brunt of bad labelling.
It’s even worse when any African country that does not recognise gay rights is punished by having whatever funding withdrawn. Malawi suffered for arresting a gay couple using an old legislation enacted by the British during the colonial period. Today, we have several civic organisations and leaders who advocate for the legalisation of homosexuality in defiance of the African culture. And this is just one way African culture is being subdued and in the process history is distorted.
Another fine example is how people dress. Very few countries on the continent can boastfully show pride in national dress. The majority have adopted Western mode of dress, which, in most cases, is being abused.
So while we may pride ourselves for fighting to be free, in essence Africa still has a long struggle to make its people love themselves and keep those positive elements of their culture alive. By so doing, they will also keep history alive.
Cabral argues: “A reconversion of minds ‑ of mental set ‑ is thus indispensable to the true integration of people into the liberation movement. Such reconversion ‑ re-Africanisation, in our case ‑ may take place before the struggle, but it is completed only during the course of the struggle, through daily contact with the popular masses in the communion of sacrifice required by the struggle.”
at No comments:

Southern African News

Writing the Struggle – Endorsing 

corruption in Africa

   
Africa’s struggle today is and should be against corruption if, at all, the continent is to create a sustainable environment for progress and success. But the situation on the ground today, just as it was then when CHINUA ACHEBE wrote his book ‘No Longer at Ease’ in 1960, does not look any promising. We have, writes WONDER GUCHU, endorsed corruption in all its forms

Nigeria got its independence in 1960, the same year Chinua Achebe wrote his second book ‘No Longer at Ease’, which some people say is a sequel to ‘Things Fall Apart’.
Of the three books in the trilogy that marks Achebe’s earliest works, ‘No Longer at Ease’, tackles the birth of corruption involving a young educated man, Obi.
Typically of African tradition, Obi’s village community raises money to send him to England for studies so that when he returns, he would help them.
Obi goes and returns home but his expectations as an educated Nigerian who has been abroad are higher than what he finds on the ground.
His people, led by the Umuofia Progressive Union, have much trust in him believing that his work as a civil servant would enable him to repay the community which would in return, enable them to send more young people to school.
But civil servants are among the least paid and Obi finds himself under these circumstances.
Still his community expects him to do what everybody else is doing – engage in corrupt activities to repay the debt and uplift his people.
This, however, is not Obi’s plan of raising money. His educational background does not allow him to be corrupt. This was the first difference between his community and Obi.
Determined to remain straightforward, Obi manages to pay-off the community debt, send his brother to school as well as look after his parents.
But it was not long after Obi finds out that what his society expects of him cannot be sustained by the civil service money. The burden of paying off the debt and looking after his family weighs him down heavily.
The first temptation for a bribe comes from Mr Mark who asks Obi to organise for his sister, Elsie, to appear before the Scholarship Board. When he turns this down, Mr Mark’s sister Elsie offers sex for her to be allowed to appear before the Scholarship Board. Again Obi turns her down.
This does not mean that Obi had no use for the money. He had just bought a ring for his girlfriend Clara and then his mother had fallen ill. Then his bank was after an outstanding loan he took to insure his car.
Although he does not want Clara’s help of £50, Obi has no choice but to take money, which, as fate would have it, gets stolen when thieves break into his car while they are clubbing.
To top it all, Obi’s family is not happy with Clara who comes from a family of Osu – a lower Nigerian caste. As if that was not trouble enough, Clara falls pregnant. They agree on abortion and Obi has to borrow money for this. Then the abortion does not go well – Clara has an infection. That means more money yet the pocket is dry.
One would sympathise with Obi and justify his action. But fact is, he lived for the people. He wanted them to see how different and educated he was. In the process, he lived beyond his means.
This is one of the causes of corruption – living beyond one’s means. In this narrative, Achebe illustrates how the educated young people fall into traps when they are supposed to lead by example.
He is also illustrating that corruption is pushed by our societies, which expect their children to live large just to show that they have an education.
In a way, this is how corruption is endorsed, accepted and promoted.
at No comments:

Southern African News

Writing the Struggle – When the 

lid falls, hell breaks loose

   
The struggle narrative in Nuruddin Farah’s third book in the ‘Blood in the Sun’ trilogy, ‘Secrets’, is both individual and collective.
The individual narrative is the simple story of Kalaman, who is trying his best to live as decent as he could. He runs a translation and letter writing company in Mogadishu and is just another guy down the street.
Inwardly, Kalaman suffers psychologically because of secrets which his family habours and hides. On his own, Kalaman also has a secret – his childhood sweetheart, Sholoongo, who happens on his door one day when he thought that that part of his past had died.
Sholoongo is not only back but she has come to find a man fit to be the father of her children. Her first stop is Kalaman.
But the secrets Kalaman wants to uncover are about his family. He, therefore, sniffs around for bits and pieces from his parents as well as the maid.
In the end, Kalaman manages to get the truth although the narrative does not say what it was that he finds except that the discovery did not cure him of his psychological problems which make him a confused wreck that has no idea whether he was going or coming.
Sholoongo emerges just when the militias are congregating in Mogadishu ahead of Siad Barre’s fall.
This was in early 90s just at the time when the Somali civil war, which saw the ouster of the General, erupted.
The state of Somalia is visible in Kalaman’s narrative.
General Siad Barre had secrets – he had to lie in order to be accepted for training in the police force.
After the coup that saw him assume power, General Siad Barre’s regime had a lot of clandestine activities among them the summary executions of opponents done in the dead of the night.
The regime identified clanism as one of the threats to Somalia’s stability and banned such practices.
But the practice did not die. It proliferated secretly until 1990 when warlords joined hands and combined forces against Siad Barre’s regime.
When Siad Barre took up office, the regime pursued a mixture of Islam and Socialism – a religious belief and ideology that are not in any way related.
In so doing, the regime dabbled in confusion which, in the end, saw it failing despite some progress made in forging unity among the people.
Although there was nationalisation of banks, industries, and other businesses as well as the establishment of co-operative farms where voluntary labour was utilised, corruption emerged as the regime’s biggest enemy.
It was this confusion which saw Somalia drowning in civil strife and becoming one of Africa’s poorest countries.
The narratives – Kalaman and Somalia’s – come to a head at the same time – 1991. Kalaman’s discovery causes disturbances while Somalia sees the fall of Siad Barre.
For both Kalaman and his country, nothing was the same any more.
Although Somalis have a new president now, the situation is yet to normalise. One part of the country is enjoying relative peace while the other is at war.
“The reason why the strife has not ended is because it has no clan base. There are open and closed secrets even in Somali society. There is the open secret that the civil war in Somalia is about a conflict between various groups. (But) there is a hidden agenda … power…” Farah says.

at No comments:

Southern African News


Writing the Struggle – Giving to 

dominate


   
Africa has always been held hostage by small gifts it receives from ‘well-wishers’ and donors. Such gifts have rendered the continent dependent on the West. Most often, such gifts do not just come but have strings attached, writes WONDER GUCHU as he looks into Nurrudin Farah’s book ‘Gifts’, the second offering in his trilogy Blood in the Sun
Published in Britain in 1993, ‘Gifts’ reads like nurse Duniya’s simple story about her daily struggle to make ends meet.
As a young girl in the village, Duniya’s father gives her over to a blind rich man, Zubair, who gives her twins but soon becomes a widow and moves into Mogadishu.
There she meets and marries an alcoholic journalist who also comes from a rich family. It was a short-lived union but one that also brings about a child.
Then she meets Bosaaso, a wealthy American-educated economist and they fall in love but again Duniya is not one to depend on a man. She casts away her head scarf and teaches herself how to drive and swim.
She takes her children aside and forbids them from receiving gifts from their fathers’ families because she is aware that ‘no giving innocent’.
Her children come up with the term ‘corpse food’ referring to gifts from their fathers’ families.
It is this term ‘corpse food’ which rings true about the state of Somalia that has been reduced to a corpse, as a result of the civil war. In a way, Duniya’s children seem to chillingly refer to Somalia as dependent on various donors.
Duniya’s life mirrors collusion between donors, local chiefs and multi-nationals to loot the ‘corpse’ Somalia in form of pay-back for loans.
Farah, who spent some time living in the Gambia in the early 70s, says he learnt about the “debilitating and dehumanising impact of food aid” then.
Apart from benefiting from pay-backs, those who give to Africa also help boost their industries back home. In terms of grain, the farmer in the USA or Europe gets a boost because their products are bought.
For the recipient country, such aid can only suppress the effort by local farmers to provide for their nation and earn a living for themselves.
“A gift, which can also be interpreted as aid, is in a sense a type of poison,” says Farah in one interview. “It destroys the receiver.It is the same story in Somalia.
What’s worse,” he says, “much of the aid in Somalia is controlled by a ‘mafia’ that has little contact with the people who are supposed to be its beneficiaries.”
There has always to be some strings attached to the gifts and in the case of the British in Somalia, their interest is the untapped oil reserves while Kenya benefits from the civil war by hosting aid agencies operating in the civil war-torn country.
In the novel, Farah notes: “We give hoping to receive something corresponding to what we’ve offered… We give (to) express our affection and compassion towards the recipients… We give as members of a group, to confirm our loyalty to it… We give to meet the demand of a contract… We give and may consider this act as part of our penance… We give in order to feel superior to those whose receiving hands are placed below ours… We give to corrupt… We give to dominate…”
at No comments:

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

Southern African News



Writing the Struggle – A Pan-

Africanism According to Jomo 

Kenyatta II


 
  
This is the second and last part of a fable told by the late Kenyan founding president, Jomo Kenyatta, when he explained what Pan-Africanism should be and must be. Kenyatta was one of the founding figures of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) the predecessor to the African Union.
In the first part of the fable, Kenyatta talked about the friendship between elephant and man and how the former took over the latter’s hut after being allowed to shelter his trunk.
Lion, being the king of the jungle, intervened by putting together a commission to resolve the issue between elephant and man.
The commission was headed by elephant that called friends whom he knew would stand by him.
Elephant gave evidence first and was, as expected believed by his friends even before the man was called in.
When the man was giving his evidence, the animals on the commission interjected asking him to stick to relevant issues.
“My good man, please confine yourself to relevant issues. We have already heard the circumstances from various unbiased sources.
“All we wish you to tell us is whether the undeveloped space in your hut was occupied by anyone else before Mr Elephant assumed his position?”
“No, but . . .” the man tried to explain before the commission declared it had heard all the information needed.
Elephant then invited the members of the commission to his house for a meal before a verdict was reached.
“In our opinion, this dispute has arisen through a regrettable misunderstanding due to the backwardness of your ideas. We consider that Mr Elephant has fulfilled his sacred duty of protecting your interests.
“As it is clearly for your good that the space should be put to its most economic use and as you yourself have not yet reached the stage of expansion which would enable you to fill it, we consider it necessary to arrange a compromise to suit both parties.
“Mr Elephant shall continue his occupation of your hut but we give you permission to look for a site where you can build another hut more suited to your needs, and we will see that you are well protected,” the commission concluded.
Scared and unsure of what his fate would be if he argued, the man moved away and put up another structure.
A few days after finishing building the new hut, rhinoceros romped in threatening man with harm if he refused to evacuate and make space for him.
Once again, a commission was appointed and again the same verdict was arrived at: Move and make space for the invader.
This went on until all the members of the commission had huts grabbed from man.
It was at this time when the man decided to put in place protective measures so that no animal would take advantage of him.
“Ng’enda thi ndeagaga motegi (There is nothing that treads on earth that cannot be trapped),” the man declared.
He waited until all the huts taken away from him were old and collapsing before he moved a short distance away where he put up a very big structure.
Elephant invaded the hut first; then came rhinoceros followed by leopard, buffalo, lion, and fox.
When the animals found themselves occupying one hut, arguments ensued and serious fights broke out among them.
While the animals were fighting among themselves, the man set the hut on fire killing all the bullies.
“Peace is costly, but it’s worth the expense,” the man said as he enjoyed life without any threats and uncertainties.
A simple interpretation of the fable shows that the man is the African and the hut is Africa while the animals are the colonialists who invaded every corner of the continent as dictated by the 1884 Scramble for Africa, which is the commission.
Every colonialist used violence to scare, torment, exterminate, destroy and control the African who in most cases was a docile believer and follower.
It was only when Africans got tired that they declared enough is enough and fought back with everything within their reach.
In short, Kenyatta was saying that Africans should emancipate themselves; that they should stop believing in the west because none of them has the needs and the aspirations of Africa at heart apart from exploitation.
For this to happen, African unity is critical.

at No comments:

Monday, 4 April 2016

South African News

politics

Jacob Zuma has captured the ANC

Zuma has not just cowed our institutions of democracy but has compromised the ANC, the party of Mandela and Oliver Tambo

Justice Malala
04 April 2016
THE main question about President Jacob Zuma‘s tenure since 2009 has not been how far or how high he would take us as a nation.
It was not about how he would build on the work of former presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. We knew that he would not even come close to their standards.
The main question about the Zuma presidency has been how much damage he will have inflicted on the ANC and South Africa by the time he leaves.
The farcical events that unfolded from 7pm on Friday, when he failed to take responsibility for his actions, tell us exactly how much damage Zuma has wrought, and opens up a frightening window onto just how much damage he is still capable of inflicting in the time he has left in office.
Considering that he has possibly a full three years in the Union Buildings, the damage could be huge.
Zuma will have destroyed the country and its economy by 2019, when he is forced by the constitution to step down at the end of his second term.
A man who has been found by a full bench of the Constitutional Court to have failed to uphold his oath of office is in charge of your country.
So why has the ANC not kicked him out? Friday‘s events tell us why. Zuma has not just cowed our institutions of democracy but has managed to go deep into the heart of power: He has compromised the ANC, the party of Mandela and Oliver Tambo, to ensure that he is untouchable.
He knows that, when all is said and done, only the ANC has the power to remove him from office.
A cunning political player, he has stuffed the party‘s top six leadership, the national working committee and the national executive committee with spineless cronies who are beholden to him.
When these lickspittles have to choose between the country and Zuma, between their own once glorious movement and the man from Nkandla, between the constitution of the republic and him, their choice is clear: Zuma.
That is why you had ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe saying on Friday things he did not believe. He had no choice. His party has been hijacked by the man he helped put in power.
Since he first took the oath of office, in 2009, Zuma has been doing everything in his power to bring our institutions of democracy and accountability to heel.
He started with the swift, illegal and brutal disbanding of the Scorpions crime-fighting unit and its replacement with the Hawks, a body that now investigates the likes of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and is headed by a Zuma lackey who lied under oath.
That was followed by myriad other moves to ensure that no one can hold Zuma accountable.
When his own spy chiefs warned against his relationship with the Guptas, Zuma fired them all and installed a series of spineless yes-men to the intelligence agencies and the State Security Ministry.
Despite attempts to destroy the public protector and capture the judiciary, he has largely failed to capture all the people and all the institutions.
The Constitutional Court‘s judgment on Thursday was one of the most wonderful endorsements of our constitution and democracy.
It will go down in history, together with the dignified and brave actions of Madonsela over the past five years, as one of the proudest moments of our 22-year-old democracy.
But this is precious little compared to where we could be. Zuma has sold our democracy to the Gupta family by giving them sway in cabinet appointments and state-owned enterprises.
He has destroyed the capabilities of our security agencies by appointing cronies to top jobs.
He has poisoned the political environment and is wrecking the economy.
So why is he in power? It is because his greatest coup has been to capture the ANC.
There is no doubt that, on Friday, Mantashe and Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa — the chairman of the body that wrote the constitution — asked him to resign.
He probably laughed at them because he knew that he has packed all the ANC bodies that can recall him with his own cronies.
He knows that, of all the bodies that he has attempted to steal, it is the ANC that he had to lock down. He has.
Now, when the chips are down, he sleeps well at night knowing that he has three years in office to loot and wreck as he has been doing.
If Zuma does not go, by the time he leaves in 2019, the ANC will be a shadow of its former self.
South Africa will be the same.
After all, as the man has said, it is Zuma and his family first, the ANC second and the country last. That is what Friday‘s events told us in stark terms.
This article first appeared in The Times
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)