In the Wikipedia entry for Kwasi Kwarteng, there is a quote about Black Lives Matter attributed to him that caught my attention:
So within that time and geography there’s a huge amount of variety, different cultures and different time periods and getting a sensitivity to that is hugely important and I think a lot of the debate around Black Lives Matter and imperialism or colonialism has a very kind of cartoon-like view of what was happening over centuries across a quarter of the world
It reminded me of something that I was thought on a degree a decade or so ago: knowledge is situated. In other words, you need to look at the context in which a particular knowledge is produced, for example, the historical/time or the cultural settings. I am currently re-reading a book called “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad. No publisher will print such a book today due to the abundance of use of words like cannibal, savage and various permutations of the n word. The book reflects the time it was produced. Michel Foucault said discourses are linked to the social context in which they are produced.
I think Kwarteng was uncomfortable with taking events that happened a century ago and rephrasing in narratives and discourses of today, stripping the knowledge from the context (historical, geography and time) in which it was produced and using it for political purposes today. When you strip context away from events, you end up with a very incomplete picture.
I have been re-reading Adebayo Faleti’s Omo Olokun Esin (The Son of The King’s Horseman) in small chunks and this coincided with the comments of Uju Anja, a professor in an American university on the day the Queen Elizabeth II died. To read more about the story, please follow this link. It was not just Uju Anya’s reaction that caught my attention. Many Nigerians, Caribbeans and other Africans had queried why those who come from nations that were exploited by the British Empire were mourning the death of the Queen, who reigned during those times. This is not the place to discuss whether late Queen who reigned but did not rule could be held responsible for this.
There is no doubt the British Empire and other like it disrupted Africa. The scramble and partition of Africa during the Berlin conference laid the foundation for some of the problems in Africa today. Sitting down a few thousand miles away and partitioning a whole continent without any regards to the culture of the people there was always going to have lasting negative legacies.
Often when we tell the story of Imperialism/Colonialism, it is an incomplete story. It is incomplete because we don’t always discuss how we lived together as Africans before Imperialism/Colonialism arrived. I am a Yoruba from Nigeria and I am fortunate in two regards. I can read in the Yoruba language and several authors wrote about the Yoruba society as it was in the days when we ruled ourselves. Omo Olokun Esin by Adebayo Faleti is one of such books. What I discovered from some of these books make very uncomfortable reading.
In this post, I will just focus on an event that happened in the first chapter of Omo Olokun Esin. The main character in the book is Ajayi, the son of the King’s Horseman (Omo Olokun Esin). The King’s Horseman is a chieftaincy title. Historically, the current holder of the title had to take his own life when the King died. Wole Soyinka, the Nobel laureate wrote another well celebrated book on a particular holder of the title who refused to die. You can read more about the book here. In Omo Olokun Esin, it is the son of the King’s horseman, rather than the King’s Horseman who is the star of the show.
The setting was at a time when a Yoruba town called Oko, had hegemonic control over the other towns in Oke Ogun area of what used to be known as Ekun Osi of Oyo Kingdom. Ajayi, the King’s Horseman’s son was from another town/village called Otu. Princes of Oko can come to Otu and treat the people with impunity. When they come, they expected to feast sumptuously at the expense of the Otu people. Not only that, every year, the people of Otu chose men who would carry on their head tributes to the King of Oko. It seemed as if the domination had been taking place for generations and that was all they knew.
The setting of the first chapter where the incident happened was at Bere Farm. Bere was a plant that was considered better and more enduring at building thatched huts. The people of Otu and other towns had to cultivate Bere, harvest it and carry it in bales to Oko. The trip from Otu to Okoo can last days as it had to be done on foot.
On the specific day of interest, the sun was intolerable, it was so hot that despite the footwear, the heat was felt intensely on their feet. The labourers were very thirsty, but their taskmaster, Roti, who was a representative of the king of Oko was relentless as he drove them to hit their targets. Ajayi, who was labouring along with the others had been wondering why the Oko people dominated his own people. He decided to rebel and downed tools.
Either Roti did not want any confrontation with Ajayi or did not notice he stopped working. Eventually, it was brought to Roti’s attention, and he had no choice but to challenge Ajayi. In the ensuing altercation, Ajayi prevailed. Roti pronounced judgment and said, “You are in trouble, your family is in trouble, your extended family is in trouble”. On hearing that pronouncement, Ajayi’s siblings started to weep because the work that boys from all households in the town should do would now be done by Ajayi’s family.
When Ajayi’s father heard, he was angry and beat him up. When his mother got home and was told, Ajayi received extra beating. His whole family was nervous because of the consequence of this rebellion to the authority of the Oko King. Not only that, the chiefs and leaders of Otu were all nervous about the consequences. Oko’s domination of the Otu people was total and most of the citizens accepted that as normal. Only Ajayi thought this was wrong and hankered for change.
Colonialism/Imperialism cannot be justified, the legacies were damaging, and its impact are still felt today. Furthermore, Colonialism has racism embedded into it and the treatment of the slaves who were treated as property was worse than any form of domination that Otu people experienced from the Oko King.
Nevertheless, the people of Otu were dominated, their resources commandeered, and their labour appropriated for the benefit of the Oko King. This is also a form of colonialism/imperialism. The encounter between the Imperialists/Colonialists with African nations on one hand, and that between the Oko King and Otu people, reflects the mindset of “might is right” that prevailed at the time. Whether it was an encounter between communities or between nations, the stronger had its way. The experience of the weaker was oppression from the stronger. These encounters had more in common when you examine it closely.
If as a Nigerian I want to hold the Royal Family of today responsible for some of the events that happened 100 years ago, what will I do if an African Caribbean person wants to hold me responsible for what my ancestors did to them? This has actually happened to me twice in the last 25 years. In July 1997, we hailed a cab in Dallas. After some discussions with the driver, he realized we were from Nigeria. He accused us of selling his ancestors into slavery and dominating his ancestors in Africa. And as it turned out, some of the Nigerian cabbies, according to him, were colluding with White Americans to take business away from him. The second time was at a church event when somebody who was raised in England turned to me in a discussion, accusing my ancestors of selling her ancestors into slavery.
For me, let’s visit the past so we can learn from it and not make the same mistakes that were made then. We should not visit the past to divide societies of today. The past is muddled, messy and complicated.
oyebode.com 