West Africa Review (2000)
ISSN: 1525-4488
CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES: AFRICANIST AND AFROCENTRIC REACTIONS
|
West Africa Review (2000) ISSN: 1525-4488 CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES: AFRICANIST AND AFROCENTRIC REACTIONS |
|
Jonathan T. Reynolds, Michael Burks, Karen Cudjoe, and Michael Washington.
Edited by Jonathan T. Reynolds
In the weeks and days before the premier of Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of the African World," the advent of the series was a frequent topic of conversation among the four members of the Northern Kentucky University History faculty who tended to pay attention to such things. Mirroring, no doubt, discussions taking place in the halls and near coffee machines of many other departments around the country, we speculated on the content of the program. Each expressed optimism of one sort or another that the series would serve to help improve popular images of Africa and would prove a useful tool for teaching our students about Africa. Once the series had finished though, our optimism had largely faded into disappointment. Mirroring listserv threads around the globe, we discussed what we saw as the failings of "Wonders of the African World." Unlike the populations of most listservs, which are amalgams of scholars who have self-selected for discussion with colleagues who have relatively similar ideological and methodological perspectives, we came to "Wonders" from a variety of scholarly backgrounds and perspectives, despite our common interest in things African. Dr. Washington holds an Ed.D., with a specialty in African- American education, Dr. Reynolds is an assistant professor of African History. While both have sympathies for Afrocentrism, they were trained in a method of history which stresses objectivity and the keeping of emotional distance from one's subject. Michael Burks and Karen Cudjoe are graduate students teaching part-time in the department and self- proclaimed "Afrocentrists" who make little or no apology for presenting material from an African perspective or for identifying emotionally with African history. The following text consists of comments made during discussions and from short commentaries prepared by each of the four department members to facilitate this article. Many of the points were energetically argued and disputed, the details of which we will spare the reader. Rather, it is hoped that this extreme condensation of our discussions will not merely offer a variety of perspectives on Gates' series, but will, more importantly, tell us something of how our reactions to the program are shaped by our methodologies and ideological paradigms. We hope that these diverse views, in turn, will help us all to better understand the great variety of perspectives to be found among those who study and teach Africa.
Our discussions of "Wonders of the African World" were far ranging. Nonetheless, through much of our informal debates and in our more formal written comments, four key themes arose again and again. These were: the relationship of "Wonders of the African World" to Afrocentrism; the nature of African identity; the issue of the Slave Trade; and the impact of the program on the popular image of Africa in the United States.
All members of our foursome found "Wonders of the African World" to be at odds with the Afrocentric appraisal of African History. Yet, we were divided as to exactly how and why we thought Gates was opposed to the Afrocentric perspective. Much of our discussion here focused on the first episode of the series: "Black Kingdoms of the Nile." Central to this discussion was the issue of exactly what makes an African. By stressing the "blackness" of the Nubians and other inhabitants of the upper Nile, Reynolds felt that Gates was leaving some Egyptians out of the African picture. "Some of us have spent years trying to get students to think of Egypt as a state which bridged the North/Sub-Saharan Africa divide and which breaks down our images of Ancient Egyptians as either white or black," said Reynolds, "but now here we are focusing on the Nubians because we are sure that they were black." Quite to the contrary, Burke felt that Gates was giving lighter-skinned Egyptians too much credit. "Gates should recognize that the Arabs are invaders of the African continent. He should focus on the links between Nubian and Ethiopian Civilization." Cudjoe felt it important to stress that "The most dynamic structures and notable accomplishments of Ancient Egypt had been accomplished long before huge foreign populations arrived."
Exactly what motivated Gates presentation of the "Black Kingdoms of the Nile?" "He is out to steal the thunder from the Afrocentrists," said Washington. "Gates recognizes that blacks had been Pharoahs, but legitimizes himself to a wider audience by making less exaggerated claims. Yet, by bringing to the public the story of ancient Nubia, he is trying to demonstrate the inability of the Afrocentric movement as a viable vehicle for bringing to light Africa's real history." Reynolds agreed, and suggested that "Gates may be trying to innoculate younger Americans, particularly African-Americans, against what he sees as the toxic meme of Afrocentrism." Cudjoe and Burks took a more aggressive approach to Gate's presentation of ancient Nubia and Egypt, suggesting that Gates is either simply ignorant of Afrocentric research, or has been duped by Eurocentric historians. "Alternative explanations of African History are in abundance," said Cudjoe. "It is unfortunate that Dr. Gates chose to ignore these sources." "Gates has been hoodwinked by Eurocentrism, therefore his scholarship is not recognized by Afrocentric scholars," argued Burks. Reynolds stressed that even relatively "conservative" (non-Afrocentric) Africanists such as himself had myriad qualms regarding the series. Burks and Cudjoe took this as evidence of just how Eurocentric Gates was. "He couldn't even look at Ethiopian kings without comparing them to the Knights of the Round Table!" said Burks.
Another key theme of our discussions was Gate's perspective on African Identity, particularly as it related to images of religious and racial identity. While Gates gave "equal time" to Christianity, Islam, and traditional African Religions, his appraisal did not seem altogether unbiased. "He was quick to dismiss traditional religions or to play up their "'exotic' nature," said Reynolds "Islam and Christianity were equated with literacy and large-scale architecture, yet when he discussed complex societies such as Ancient Zimbabwe, he made no mention of the traditional religions which underpinned them." Burks took a stronger position. "Gates should have asked African Muslims why they have neglected their ancient religious traditions in favor of the culture and traditions of the invaders. Gates showed Timbuktu as a center of learning, why didn't he speak of the preceding Ancient Egyptian university system?"
Such comments led us to the issue of African racial identity. Not surprisingly, our comments largely reflected our tendency to stress either the similarities or the differences between African ethnicities. Reynolds stated "It strikes me that Gates was trying very hard to convince his audience that Africans, unlike Americans, don't necessarily see themselves in terms of race. As an African-American, he was stressing that his own racial identity is not necessarily shared by people who Americans see as black Africans have many levels of identity." "Yet," said Washington, "Gates was quick to call everybody "Brother." Burks stated, "The series let people see the diverse cultures of Africa, but Gates did not mention that there are many historical and cultural links between different cultures; he showed all the `wonders' and cultures as if they were in isolation. Africans have a lot in common."
It is not terribly surprising that Gates' discussion of African complicity in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was a central focus of our discussions, since this issue often polarizes scholars along political and even racial lines. Of particular importance was the degree to which evidence of African complacency in the trade might imply a lessening of Western guilt. Questions of why some Africans may have cooperated (willingly or unwillingly) with European slave traders were also discussed.
Washington and Reynolds accepted the reality of African involvement, but took exception to the way Gates presented it. "This is one of the most hotly contested aspects of African History," said Reynolds, "white Americans in particular use African complicity in the trade to excuse themselves from guilt." "Oh yes," said Washington, "white audiences could heave a sigh of relief over the fact that Blacks sold their own people into slavery, and Black Audiences were intended to be humbled after blaming whitey all these centuries for the atrocities of slave trading" "This feeds back to the issue of identity," said Reynolds, "it is interesting that Gates stresses African ethnic diversity until he gets to the point of slavery... and then he is stuck with the "Africans sold Africans" dilemma. This is exactly the point where he needs examine ethnicity and identity." "Further," said Washington, "Gates fails to distinguish between the nature of enslavement in Africa and that in the New World." "Indeed," agreed Cudjoe, "They were two very different things."
Cudjoe and Burks took exception to the very idea of willing African involvement in the slave trade, citing that Gates' perspective seemed to place the onus of the Atlantic trade more on the heads of Africans than on Europeans. "This is a victim-blaming approach," said Cudjoe, who prefers the term "slave raid" to "slave trade." "Gates claims that without African involvement there would have been no slave trade, but the same could be said if there had been no European demand for slaves. Further, Europeans took advantage of African hospitality to build forts which they used to force Africans to trade in slaves. Many Africans who took part in the slave trade did it because they had no choice, not just to make a buck." She further questioned why Gates did not examine those African leaders who fought against slavery, and cited the (much debated) example of Queen Nzinga. Further, both Cudjoe and Burks questioned that African states could have gained any wealth from the trade. Citing Walter Rodney, Cudjoe argued that economic development necessitates controlling labor, not selling it off. "All this is typical of Gates' approach to slavery," said Burks, "as a consultant on Amistad he played down the horror of the Middle Passage. An Afrocentric scholar would have showed it as much much worse."
For all concerned, "Wonders of the African World" was a mixed bag of images. There were indeed some positive factors to be found in the series. "One cannot argue that a lot of the cinematography was very nice, it certainly helped show that not all of Africa is either a jungle or a desert, and it was good to see more people than animals," said Reynolds. "African people in America have always been sensitive to how Africa is portrayed on TV," said Burks, "and at least here we didn't see savages running around naked while boiling whites in pots. Hopefully this had some positive impact on some of America's stereotypes about Africa." Reynolds stressed that he felt Gates' perspective was novel in that it was the first series to specifically examine African-American images of Africa. "One of the difficulties with doing African History," said Reynolds, "is that everybody has a pretty substantial investment in how they want Africa to be portrayed, and this is one of the first attempts to critically examine African-American images of Africa." Burks and Cudjoe were quick to challenge this assumption, and argued that Gates' perspectives were not representative of those held by other African-Americans. For Washington, the images of Africa and Africans were, on the balance, negative. Gates may have emphasized many positive elements in African History, but once the series had discussed negative aspects of African history and culture, such as slavery and female circumcision, he felt that "the audience could remain reassured of Africa's savagery. Why is African circumcision bad and Jewish or modern American circumcision ok? More so, you could just as easily use the two for comparison rather than contrast." Cudjoe was even more blunt, "I thought the series was poison. I hope it never airs again."
So, what did we learn from our in-house discussions of "Wonders of the African World" aside, of course, that academics are a hard lot to please? Perhaps the most basic lesson was simply that "all history is political," and that each of us was deeply invested in a particular approach to the past. Hardly a groundbreaking discovery. More important, though, was that for whatever its flaws, or perhaps because of its flaws, Gates' series encouraged discussion that helped span the divide between Africanist and Afrocentric approaches to Africa. This is no minor achievement, since a very uneasy relationship exists between the two perspectives on African History. Bridges are more frequently burned than crossed. Africanists, either by birth or method, seek a scholarly objectivity which places them outside of African identity, while Afrocentric scholars seek to present an insider's perspective which more overtly embraces an African identity. Reynolds, and to a lesser extent for Washington, were trained to see the Africans as "them." For Cudjoe and Burks, they are "us." Yet, despite our ideological, methodological, racial and even generational differences, we were able to engage one another in a spirited debate that involved some of the most important controversies in African History. Nobody seemed to change their minds on significant issues. But no matter how stubborn we may be as individuals, there is little doubt that we came to a better understanding of why we all think about Africa the way we do. In that respect, at least, the field is a wee bit better off.
© Copyright 2000 Africa Resource Center
Citation Format
Reynolds, Jonathan T.. (2000). CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES: AFRICANIST AND AFROCENTRIC REACTIONS. West Africa Review: 1 , 2. [iuicode: http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?101.1.2.18].