Lying against Chief Obafemi Awolowo

One can not continue to ignore the perennial misrepresentation of Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s popular quote: „Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression“. The late statesman truly wrote in his 1947 book „Path to Nigerian Freedom“ that:

„If rapid political progress is to be made in Nigeria it is high time we were realistic in tackling its constitutional problems. Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians‘ in the same sense as there are ‘English‘, ‘Welsh‘ or ‘French‘ “(P. 47-48, italics mine).

As we can see from the above, Chief Awolowo was concerned about the constitutional problems of Nigeria. In the chapter that contains this quote, the chief clearly argued for a federal constitution. Contrary to the popular interpretation, he did not reject the idea of Nigeria as a country. The title of the chapter in question (Towards federal Union) makes it clear, that he was an advocate of a federal constitution and not a secessionist. Unfortunately, the popular quote is usually misrepresented as a call for the disintegration of Nigeria.

Secessionists, especially on social media, can hardly do without invoking the quote (Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression). This always raises the questions: did chief Awolowo write these lines to demand secession? Have these people ever read or checked the book they are qouting?

Scholars are also not left out of this. Bonny Ibhawoh, a historian, on page 163 of his award winning book „Imperialism and Human Rights“, cited the qoute for his claim that chief Awolowo: „ …even questioned the viability and desirability of a Nigerian nation.“ If this Nigerian is guilty of intellectual immorality, what can we expect from the so called Western experts on Africa. One of such experts is Professor Crawford Young, who also used this quote  in the November/December 1996 Issue of „Foreign Affairs“ to claim that chief Awolowo „expressed doubts about preserving Nigeria as one country“.

This propagation of falsehood, deliberate or not, has to stop now.

 

Abiola Oladimeji can be reached via am_oladimeji@yahoo.com or on Twitter via @am_oladimeji

The forgotten economic motives of missionisation.

Some of us especially in Africa lament the influence of christianity over other spheres of life outside the religious space. We would love to separate religion from other secular activities. History shows however, that christianity was not brought to Africa with only spiritual interest. Hence, this piece aims at highlighting the socio-economic interests behind missionary works and convertion. The piece has been divided into two parts. The first examines what propelled missionary activities, while the second part presents the factors that attracted the African converts to christianity.

Why missionaries came.

Commerce and missionary work  complemented one another. Without the Industrial Revolution, perhaps, missionary work might not have been possible. While industrialists provided funds for  missionary works, missionaries in turn secured raw materials and worked as merchants selling european manufactured products to Africans.

Apart from the belief, that spreading the Gospel is one of the conditions to make heaven, the emergence of  the upper and lower middle classes in Europe played a significant role in missionisation. The missionary works of the 19th century was largely carried out by these classes. For most of them, missionary work was a chance to travel overseas and increase their social status. The British historian Max Warren attached the upswing in missionary activities in Britain to the attempts of these new classes to emancipate themselves.

The humanitarian principles of these missionaries were also not devoid of some economic interests. Adam Smith had -towards the end of the 18th century- propounded his theory of free labour as opposed to slavery. He had argued that forced labour was an hinderance to productivity. Based on Smith’s premise, freemen would work better, because they would be motivated by their earnings. Thomas Fowell Buxton argued in his book ‘‘The African Slave Trade and its Remedy‘‘ that commercial interest was a motivation for the fight against slavery by the missionaries.

For David Livingstone too, commerce and christianity were two sides of a medallion. With his Commerce and Christianity Programme for Africa, Livingstone wanted to facilitate the exchange of manufactured products from Britain with cotton and other agricultural products needed by British industries. Samuel Wilberforce, the son of  the abolitionist William Wilberforce, was also a strong believer of  ‘‘ commerce and christinanity‘‘. For him, only christians could be prosperous, good traders and exporters. The traders made missionary work possible and the missionaries promoted commerce.

Why Africans got converted.

Africans had almost the same motivations as their European counterparts. Samuel Ajayi Crowther, who had been captured by the Muslim-Fulani slave raiders, was freed by the British Navy and taken to Sierra Leone. He was taken care of by the Church Missionary Society (CMS) and later became a missionary himself. Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar in a fit to modernise her kingdom invited missionaries to establish schools. The Mfengu people, who were clients to the Xhosas in South Africa had the chance of improving their social and economic conditions with convertion to christianity.

Elsewhere in West Africa, missionaries built schools and provided western medical services. A lot of people were  attracted by the educational offers. Western medicine provided solutions to problems that indigenous religions could not solve. Women could increase their earning through learning new crafts from the missionaries.

In conclusion, the choice of christianity by European businesspeople as a means to access Africa and the role of christianity in colonization remind one of the role christianity plays in politics, at least in Nigeria. Although the former President of Nigeria did not get reelected despite playing this religious card, the influence of the clergy should however not be underestimated. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, David Cameron used this means to secure the votes of some Nigerian-British citizens in the last general election. Religion seems to always have extra to offer and thus attracts followers with the mixture of spiritual, economic and other secular interests. Without pretending to know the future, let us keep watching this interplay between religion and other aspects of life.

Abiola Oladimeji, @am_oladimeji

Crisis in Ukraine: why Russia is ‘right’. By Abiola Oladimeji

Most  reports about the ongoing  crisis in Ukraine have been largely pro West. Of course the Russians are transmitting a favourable version of the crisis. However, both parties have been avoiding the real bone of contention. This piece tries to analyse the crisis from the Realist point of view. Realism can simply be defined here for our purpose as the assumption that national interests are to be achieved through the exercise of power. There are competing power bases and it is about the survival of the fittest.

After World War II the Allied Forces wanted to keep the Germans down and the Russians out. Thus the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed. The Soviets responded with the Warsaw Pact. Rivalry over World Order, what we know as Cold War, dominated international politics until Michael Gorbachev, the then Soviet leader, implemented his famous Glasnost and Perestroika policies which eventually led to the end of the Soviet Union.  Since then, the West has been expanding its influence in Eastern Europe. Poland, Hungry and Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania did in 2004. Albania and Croatia followed suit in 2009. I was in no doubt that the West is really provoking Russia when the former German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Guido Westerwelle, was appearing at the Maidan Square in 2013. Appearing at the official spot for demonstrations against President Yanukovich, who was loyal to Russia, is a provocation.

Each country ‘definitely’ has the right to join any organisation. But things do not work that way in international politics (or at least according to realism). These countries belonged to the Russian axis of influence,  their membership of NATO might be interpreted as huge loss to Russia. Ukraine’s romance with NATO and the EU could be interpreted in the same light. We might ask the question at this point: are we still living in that old Machiavellian world?  Realism would provide us with YES. You do not invite rivals of your neighbour to your house, if your neighbour is stronger than you.  If you do, you will be torn apart and that is happening to Ukraine now.

Majorly Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, has been assigned the sole guilt for this crisis in the Western media. But the crisis has more undertones than the reports they broadcast. Putin is of course not without his excesses. The error (or even risk) of ignoring the geopolitical interests of Russia on the part of the West cannot be downplayed simply by  portraying Putin as a rogue. The ‘annexation’ of Crimea might be ‘illegal’ but national interests supersede legality  in Realism.

A little digression into the history of international politics would enhance our understanding of this ‘immoral’ Realism. The League of Nations watched Italy invade Ethiopia in 1935. World powers knew it was wrong for Italy to invade Ethiopia, but it was allowed because of other calculations. This episode has been interpreted as one of the weaknesses of the League of Nations, but it goes beyond the League of Nations, it has more to do with Realism. The United States violated the ‘sovereignty’ of Pakistan  in 2011 when the US killed Osama bin Laden. The Navy SEALs entered Pakistan without the country’s permission. This is wrong according to international law but US’s security interest supersedes any sovereignty. We might has well argue that the SEAL operation is different from annexation of Crimea, but they share similarities: national interest is superior.

Stepping out of Realism, the annexation of Crimea is morally condemnable. However, it is most unfortunate that morality plays a minor role in (inter)national politics.

Before the Second Biafra War.

This write-up is about the two Igbo (not all Igbos necessarily share these views) theories of superiority and conspiracy against them. I am Yoruba and Awolowo is my hero, but I will not try to defend him at all cost, he was not a perfect human being. In the same vein, I expect that we would all try to be objective. I will respond to some issues that some of our people have raised with my own analysis of Nigerian political history from the 1950’s till the End of the Nigerian Civil War. I also intend to remind people that politicians can manipulate the feelings of the masses, in which only the politicians profit at the end of the day.

Nigerian politics of the 1950’s and 60’s was dominated by tribalism: The three ethnic groups played the card, Larry Diamond captures this very well in his book Class, Ethnicity and Democracy in Nigeria. I know that some have accused only Awolowo of playing tribal politics, such people surely have their plans to single him out. They argue that he formed  Egbe Omo Oduduwa in 1945 and the Action Group was formed out of that organisation and to them he was a tribalist  because of this. They know or pretend to overlook the fact that the Igbo State Union was founded in 1934. In 1948, Azikiwe became the president of Igbo State Union. Thus, ethnic sentiments had entered the NCNC, the party he took over as leader in 1946. If Awo now formed Action Group in 1951, was he to be blamed for starting tribal politics in Nigeria? I leave that answer to objective minds.

When Michael Okpara ( an Ibo) and Ahmadu Bello  (an Northener) conspired to jail Awolowo, the Yorubas didn’t shout that some tribes hate their leader or their tribe. And it is also worthy to point out that Okpara had been threatening to secede from 1964 after the Federal Census and Fedaral Election that did not favour him ( I would not say it did not favour the Igbo people, because he was acting majorly in his own interest, he was only misusing the name of the people). Another fact in this phase of our history is that the rivalry for Federal power between three tribes ( Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo) had been reduced to a battle between Northern leaders and Igbo leaders (Again not necessarily the people, the politicians were the actors) as Awolowo was in jail and the man that was imposed on the West was unpopular and was a puppet of the Northern establishment. This rivalry between Northern and Eastern region influenced the perception of the January 15 1966 Coup. The Coup plotters were idealists who intended to execute a revolution, but the revolution failed: they could not implement their reforms and the victims of that Coup were mainly Hausa/Fulani and Yorubas. I do not believe it was an Igbo Coup, but it was difficult to prove that it was not. The man who took over government was Ironsi, an Ibo. And to make things worse, Igbos in the North celebrated the death of Northern leaders on the streets of Nothern Nigeria. I am not justifying the Massacre of the Igbo people in the North after Northern officers staged their own Counter Coup against the Igbo officers, but am saying those events are interconnected.

At this point, it was obvious that the Federal government was now sectional (it was pro North). Igbos were no more safe in the North, but it is reasonable that they fled the West too. The most important question at this point was that of sovereignty or security for Igbo people. With secession, Biafra would claim the oil reserve of Nigeria in the Delta (not Igboland). But, could Biafra defeat Nigeria without wasting the life of the masses just because Ojukwu, the Eastern military governor, and his war hawks were hell bent on capitalizing on the sentiments of Igbo people, who have been traumatised? It is reasonable that a lot of Igbos wanted to fight because they had been treated badly in the North. But could you win such a battle? The Yoruba adage says: you do not challenge those who killed your father if you do not possess superior weapons. Instead Ojukwu and his advisers chose risking the war. The Federal government was not also justified, Gowon had agreed on a confederacy in Aburi but only for him to renege. Some have even fabricated that it was Awolowo who influenced Gowon to renege, I challenge them to provide us with their source.

It is also worthy to raise the point that Awolowo went to Enugu to plead with Ojukwu not to secede. In the middle of the night he came back to Baba ( Baba is a Yoruba word which means ,,Elder’’ in this context) and told him ,, Baba!, ati lo’’ meaning: Elder! We have made our decision to secede, there is no going back. Awolowo now requested that Ojukwu should inform him 2 weeks earlier before he announce secession. This episode is narrated in the memoir of Wole Soyinka: You Must Set Forth at Dawn. Whether Awo was suppose to risk the lives of Yoruba people like Ojukwu did is clear to any reasonable person. I cite the encounter in Enugu only to compare it with some assertions that Awolowo promised Igbos to secede with them and he failed them, hence they see him as traitor. But did Ojukwu inform Awo 2 weeks earlier before secession? He didn’t, who is the traitor?  Some even try to fool others by saying that the decision to secede was unanimous. Ralph Uwechue, the Ambassador of Biafra to France until the end of 1968, states clearly in his book (Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War) that there was a schism in Biafra: those whose wanted secession by all means and those who placed the security of Igbo as the most important. The other group was always trying to convince Ojukwu not to secede. Two days after Ojukwu fled when Biafra had been conquered, Philip Effiong confessed that he had always told Ojukwu that negotiation for the security of Igbos was the best for Biafra. Ralph Uwechue declared that he left his job as Ambassador for Biafra, because he discovered that secession was Ojukwu’s main aim, securing lifes of Igbo was less important to him, he preferred showing the world how children were starving than to end the war. Security could be achieved through secession or negotiation, but the option of secession in this context is suicide in itself, Biafra was not prepared to fight Nigeria in a real War. I think such argument is just a waste of time and self deceit. Why should someone fail and still fail to reflect on why he failed or where he made a wrong decision.  Instead some have chosen to propound a baseless theory of creating scapegoats.

Awolowo knew why he joined the government of Gowon, but that does not make him the problem of Ibos, if they had done their homework very well before secession like Ojukwu claimed: No power in black Africa would be able to touch Ibos once they secede. I have said earlier, Awolowo was a human being, not perfect, but I would not fail to recognize his brilliance. His brilliance won that war to a large extent for the Federal side. If that is why some people hate him, it is understandable, but he was not the one who risked the war for his personal gains. A study of the personality of Ojukwu would help in understanding why he made those decisions. Some people have also raised some funny accusations against Awo, but the man answered those questions, here is the link to the interview in Abeokuta, where he addressed the issues of Starvation, the 20 pound policy and other baseless accusations against this man in the process of looking for a scapegoat http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/newsflash/exclusive-chief-obafemi-awolowo-on-biafra-in-his-own-words.html

I was always shocked each time I listened to some people say things like: Igbos are the best in everything, other Nigerians hate them because they always achieve more than other tribes. In the 1950’s one Dr. Sylvester Anieke, an Ibo, who trained in Canada as a medical doctor, claimed to have obtained a PhD in Medicine and got job at the University of Ibadan. Anyway, the story leaked that he had no PhD and he was forced to resign. Years after, another Igbo ,Nnamdi Azikwe, forced him on the University of Ibadan as Chairman of the Governing Council. This misconduct is well documented in Wole Soyinka’s memoir: Ibadan, the Penkelemesi years.  This saga does not allow one to actually believe the Igbo theory of supremacy or is it that some actually try to prove this theory at all cost? But it is no more a surprise to me since I read the write-up of Dr. Johannes Harnischfeger ( a German who lived in Igboland). He describes the discourse going on in Igboland about the theory of supremacy of the Igbo race and the purported conspiracy theory against them . How they believe they are Jews through the theory of the lost tribes of Israel. They believe they are God’s own people and others around them are pagans and inferior. This write-up is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how some jingoists argue and here is the link to this write- up http://www.afrikanistik-online.de/archiv/2011/3042. Scholars have claimed that Yorubas too are part of the lost tribe of Israel, but nobody is interested in this myth in Yorubaland, here is another article by emeritus Professor Dierk Lange trying to connect Yorubas with Israel http://dierklange.com/pdf/LOST_TRIBES_OF_ISRAEL.pdf.

The Igbo people have the right to believe whatever they want, but the perception about themselves will definitely shape how they see others. An objective reflection would help a lot. Thinking that the way you cook your own food in your own culture or tribe is the best and others are inferior is the height of jingoism and it is very dangerous. They should remember that when their elites lead them to war again, only the masses would fight just like it happened in Biafra: Ojukwu had enough to eat. One would even think he would commit suicide when Biafra lost the war, no , he fled. Children, who did not urge Ojukwu to declare secession, suffered and were wasted. We should not repeat this ugly scene and desist from these baseless theories. I want to state clearly here that, not all Igbos believe in these conspiracy theories . I have good right minded Igbos as friends and we are still friends.

Of Africa II

Western Philosophy of the 18^th and 19^th century concluded that Negroes belonged to a different race, one that is inherently inferior. Thinkers argued that Negroes had no civilization, no system of governance, no religion, in short they were barbarians. This assertion was not only false but also one of the forerunners to colonization. The ostensible argument was the white man’s burden. The burden to civilise the barbarians, but it was a mission to exploit.

But why are we revisiting this old episode? The colonizers conducted what they called transfer of power and what Africans understand as Independence, but the myth of inferiority that had permeated both Western and African society has been deconstructed only in academic circles. The vast majority of Caucasians and Africans still believe this horrible myth. Hence, it is important that we revisit the debate.

Immanuel Kant, in my opinion, was not ignorant of the past of the Negroes when he claimed they were an inferior race that one could only train to become servants for the Europeans by flogging them mercilessly. Frederick Hegel was also affected by that disease that infected Europeans right from the beginning of their hegemony over the rest of the world. That disease is called Eurocentrism, and it perceives(ed) the world only from the European perspective. I believe they were quite aware of the black roots of western civilization. Yes! the black roots of Greek civilization.

The Senegalese historian and polymath, Cheikh Anta Diop, argued convincingly in his seminal work ‘’African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality’’ that the Pharaohs who built the Pyramids were Negroes. Accompanied by Theophile Obenga to the 1974 UNESCO symposium in Cairo, they posited further that Wolof, a language spoken in Senegal, is related to Ancient Egyptian language, the language of the Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Because of raising such a controversial point, only Europeans have the right to theorize and establish ‘’fact’’, Diop was labelled a racialist and an Afrocentric. His argument are too watertight to be refuted, hence they looked for minor points to rubbish his claims. The word ‘’race’’ is highly controversial. Contemporary scholars have censored the word, they claim there is only one race, which is the human race. But one must understand the zeitgeist of the era in which Anta Diop and W.E.B Dubois lived. There were ‘’scientific proofs’’ to justify that there were races and the Negro race was at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder. That Diop argued that the Negroes  were a different race does not nullify his claim that the earliest Pharaohs were Negroes. But the arrogant western scholars would not accept Diop’s argument.

If Diop was afrocentric, was Martin Bernal the British Historian also afrocentric? Bernal pushed the debate forward in his three-volume work ‘’Black Athena’’ by exposing the African roots of Greek civilization, the heritage of what we call western civilization today. But we should ask ourselves again how is the African origin of civilization relevant to contemporary Africans? I believe it has a psychological effect. It can stop the inherent feeling of being inferior to an average European. Till today, some Africans still believe that Caucasians are specially created beings to whom they are inferior. This believe is tempting that one might think it is valid if we compare the level of western technology with what contemporary Africans are doing. I think the contemporary Caucasians are not out of space, they are human beings of the same race as Negroes, but they have maintained their tradition and at the same time learnt from other cultures. Gun powder and paper came to the West from China. But for the Africans, it is the opposite. They have agreed that their own cosmology of the world is evil. The artistic inspiration that they can derive from Ogun, the Yoruba god of creativity and war, has been demonised. The western tradition they struggle to adopt is not working for them, because they have destroyed their own roots.

I have not argued that African culture is superior nor that Africans should reject western idea. I only propose that Africans should go back to the root, but not restrict themselves to those cosmologies, because all human beings are only trying to understand the world, no single society understands the world in its entirety. Western civilization is a blend of afro and semitic influences with that of the ancients Greeks. If my proposition can be accepted, the result would be something like what we call Afro-beat. The musical instruments used in making this beat are not purely African nor European, they are what we can call intercultural ensemble. That beat is quite unique and can compete with any other genre of music in the world. The artistic ability of artists of Ife, the ancestral home of the Yorubas, to cast cooper in the 12^th Century, a fit that Greek and Chinese artistes didn’t achieve, is still in each and every one of us. Each society must pass through a rough part. The democracy, social benefits and human rights being enjoyed in some European countries today are products of struggles. The Frenchs had their revolution, the Germans had their own. American fought wars for Independence. The monarchs in Europe in the 18^th and 19^th century are rulers that we can compare to current African leaders. They are not in power to serve the nation but to enjoy their lives. We must deconstruct that belief that Africa is cursed and Europe is blessed. The level of corruption in Italy is mind-boggling , Romania and Bulgaria are poor. Hence, Europe is not blessed nor cursed, people is certain countries have only decided to make life better for themselves. Those who allow themselves to be kicked around are bearing the brunt of their choice today, Ukraine is an example. Western philosophy is a product of western culture and it cannot proffer solutions to all African problems. If I sound too odd, the question of the existence of witches is an example. Westerners would simply think that Africans are only obsessed with superstitions, but those who have experienced or felt the existence of these forces would agree with me that we need African philosophy, because we have some problems that are specific to that continent. Our culture, I mean our traditional religion, belief system, world view and most importantly language, is our power house. If we are going to discover another planet different from the one we occupy now, we are going to need our culture. Different cultures see the world differently and that is why they come up with different innovations which they can share with one another. If we neglect our own, the secrets of the world that are hidden in our culture would be lost forever while at the same time, we won’t beat the Caucasian at his game. I only hope the renaissance would come soon.

By Abiola Oladimeji

NOTE: A version of this piece appeared earlier in another blog.

Of Africa.

It is no more news that stories of war, hunger, poverty and underdevelopment shape the image of Africa. Many believe (Africans too) that the continent has never contributed to world civilization and that she still has nothing to contribute. In today’s world order, the West appears as  the saviour of this continent, which is definitely not the case. This essay aims to achieve two goals: to restore the necessary confidence in Africans and to provide friends of the continent with another perspective to fully understand her situation. In the same vein, the essay does not intend to put the blames for the woes of Africa on other continents, but stating that the West has played/is playing a significant role in the disorder in Africa.

We all know that bad governance is the main ( I have even argued that it is the only problem of Africa) problem of Africa. But how did Africa get into this situation? Did Africa have good leaders? Harold Smith, a formal British colonial officer  in Nigeria, has revealed in an interview (New African Issue 440 : How Britain Undermined Democracy in Africa) how Britain taught and rigged politicians from the Northern part of Nigeria into power before Nigeria’s independence in 1960. Britain feared the Southerners and preferred the Northerners, who would serve British interests. The former were simply too brilliant. Harold Smith referred to one of the political parties in Nigeria in the 1950s and 60s as a great party too much for African standard. But such parties posed threat to British interests. Britain wanted a weak Nigeria in order to perpetrate Neo-Colonialism in Africa. That is obviously the birth of rigging incompetent politicians into office. Harold Smith’s confession has always been suppressed, his autobiography, in which he reveals the undemocratic acts of Britain, has been rejected for publication. That should not amaze anyone, because books always terrorise those who want to suppress the truth. If Nigeria appears to be an isolated case, what about the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of Congo? In February 2002,the Belgian government admitted to a moral responsibility in the death of this great leader. Britain and the United States were also part of this conspiracy against this Pan-Africanist. This marks the beginning of disorder in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We should not forget the case of Thomas Sankara. He got into trouble with France immediately he started working towards transforming Burkina Faso from an enclave of France to a great country . If Western powers had left these great leaders, it is most probable that Africa would not have been in this position today. Instead, puppets were installed and things started to fall apart. Africa has not recovered from this quagmire till today. Does any western politician even have the moral ground to blame the current rogues in power across Africa?

Diamonds in the Congo, Algeria and crude oil in Nigeria are few among the resources that are in abundance in Africa. Corruption has been institutionalised in most African countries and most Africans thus live in poverty, despite the wealth of these countries. Switzerland is the safe haven, where these corrupt leaders keep the wealth of Africans and as long as these leaders do not offend the West, the booty is safe.

When western media report about wars in Africa, they only show us the western soldiers on ‘’peace keeping’’, they seem to forget the substantial role that weapons from the West play in these wars. I attended a seminar on German security policy abroad. The story was still the same: war, war and war. Then I asked a question. Africans do not manufacture weapons, but how do weapons come to Africa? Is weapon control not a better security policy other than sending soldiers on peace keeping? As expected, I got a very diplomatic answer: we are still looking into how to control weapons from getting into wrong hands. Weapon industries are providing jobs in the West, pay taxes for the government and their products must be sold. Who cares if that leads to the destruction of others. Without foreign weapons, Africa would be more stabilised. I am not arguing that foreigners mastermind wars in Africa, but the role that their weapons play is very significant, yet they claim innocence, whereas they are actually helping in managing the problem that they benefit from.

In terms of contribution to civilization, Africa surely has a lot to contribute, if only the ‘’superior’’ cultures would desist from their claim to superiority . Imperialists portrayed African culture as inferior, whereas they stole a lot of artefacts. They demonized the traditional religion. However, the Ifa Corpus of the Yoruba people is a very good example of what Africa has to contribute to the development of the world. Professor Olu Longe in his Inaugural Lecture at the University of Ibadan in 1983 argued that the innovations that were introduced into computer science in 1963 had been in Ifa divination, an oracle,  for more than 1000 years. I would want to point out that the title of this essay, Of Africa, is actually the name of a book by the Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka. He discusses the continent at length and it is a book I would recommend to Africans and friends of Africa. He argues in this book that Africa has more to offer, if the continent is allowed to. He narrated a scenario in which an African sustained a spinal injury. Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles among other specialized hospitals could not help his situation.  He found solution only in a clinic managed by a Ghanaian doctor who trained in the West.Bbut he got treated with leaves from the bush in Ghana. This points out again, that Africa has enough in her culture to contribute to world civilization. The story of Africa is certainly that of paradox. I hope this discourse would provoke reflections on what is wrong with the continent.

By Abiola Oladimeji

NOTE: A version of this piece appeared earlier in another blog.

Fela: Two sides of a coin.

Imagine Che Guevara and Bob Marley rolled into one person and you get a sense of Nigerian musician and activist Fela Kuti – Harald Sun.

Sent to the United Kingdom in the 50s to study medicine, Fela Anikulapo Kuti chose to study music  at the Trinity College of Music. He was definitely a non-conformist. Fela spoke against bad governance and infringement of human rights. This made him the man of the people.  To the ruling elite and the clergy, he was certainly an irresponsible fella. In his song ’’suffering and smiling’’, Fela denounced what he perceived as exploitation of the masses by religious leaders. This assertion is in my opinion valid. Thus, he was generally disliked by many Christians and Muslims. Fela, in his song ’’Beast of no Nation’’ criticized the composition of the UN Security Council. Each member of the Security Council has a veto- power that is ’’is equal to 92 or more’’ votes of non-permanent members.

In ,,Look and laugh’’ and ’’Army Arrangement’’ he accused Olusegun Obasanjo of corruption and aiding bad leaders to power, while he was a military head of state. Fela, aka Abami-Eda (an Enigma), depicts the contract awarding system of the Nigerian government and the non-realization of awarded projects. Fela faulted the judicial system too. He says,

go to court, na big big English. … Case of 1809 na him dem go bring to judge the case of 1980.

To him, language usage in courts was grandiloquent. He mocked the judicial tradition of using precedent in adjudication as archaic.

Due to his anti-elitist stance, Fela, alias Omo-Iya-aje (Son-of-a-Witch) chose Pidgin English to convey his songs. He wanted the man on the street to understand his music.

To be critical, I think Fela was too afrocentric about certain issues. He supported any anti-imperialist African leader, good or bad. The nepotistic, corrupt and brutal Idi Amin of Uganda was one of Fela’s heroes. He was apparently carried away by the struggle against imperialism, he ignored criticizing African despot so long they shared his anti-imperialist views.

Abami Eda experienced racism, in its ugliest form when he studied in the UK. This might perhaps help to understand his afrocentric views. I celebrate virtuously Fela’s activism and deep appreciation of African cultural values. I subscribe to his emphasis on  the African origin of ancient civilization and the use of traditional medicine.

Fela could be so strange and unpredictable that he pulled out of a deal with Motown, an American Record Company.  Fela announced to his fans that he cancelled the deal because the name ‘’Motown’’ sounds like  ‘’mo ta oun’’ in Yoruba language. ’’Mo ta oun’’ would mean ‘’ I sold my voice’’ in the Yoruba language. To him, the word “Faculty” bred cultism on Nigerian campuses. I would not have believed these utterances if I had not read about them in a book ’’Afrobeat! Fela and the Imagined Continent’’ written by Prof. Sola Olorunyomi, a fan and Fela expert. We also know from Wole Soyinka’s Memoir ‘’You must set forth at Dawn’’ that Fela believed that he was a reincarnated Egyptian God.  Whether Fela was an Egyptian God or not, he has been deified by his fans according to the Yoruba belief. A line from Lagbaja’s tribute to Fela buttresses this point: ’’Abami ti di Orisa’’. This means that the enigma has become a deity.

Abami Eda was certainly a hero, celebrated till today. This piece is written in the spirit of the ongoing annual Felabration to celebrate his life and works. As we felabrate, there is a lesson to learn. Neither Foreign nor internal oppressors should be speared. Some Afrocentrists feel that Europeans have no right to criticise anomalies in African society, I disagree with that. If the criticism is factual , ridiculous updates on social media in defence of what Niyi Osundare has described as newsance (nuisance) is unnecessary. Videos of hungry children in Western media are not fabricated. We need not be annoyed they are shown. Many in Africa need help. I am aware of the argument that such videos are meant to portray Africa in bad light or used as justification for further interventions in Africa. However, many Africans still benefit from the awareness created by these media reports. The love for African culture becomes problematic the moment one decides to deny the lapses in African societies just because it is non-Africans who are pointing out those ugly sides. Afrocentrism can never be a response to Eurocentrism or any other ethnocentrism, they all distort reality. We should rather put the VIPs ’’Vagabonds in Power’’ (like Fela would call the bad African leaders) on their toes. If you still don’t know Fela, the words of Harald Sun might help: Imagine Che Guevara and Bob Marley rolled into one person and you get a sense of Nigerian musician and activist Fela Kuti.

NOTE: An ”edited” version of this article appeared earlier in another blog.