The African Question: Why Africa?

This morning, Michael Buchi Ezeh, an African intellectual history scholar, posted the content below on his Facebook wall. I find both the post and the comments it has generated so far germane to the Africa discourse.

"The annoying question keeps coming up: "Why do you do African intellectual history? Is there an African Intellectual history? You Africans are just copycats, Can’t you stand on your own intellectual tradition?” I looked at her, at first with indignation … but then on a second thought I asked, "Oh thanks! Could you remind me your area of specialization?” 

I enjoyed your lecture (I didn’t enjoy it)? " She responded with benign indifference but with a touch of arrogance that she is a professor of Mayan Literature and Culture! 'Wonderful! I didn’t know any Mayans until I met you' I responded! She squandered my good 4 minutes, 32 seconds rambling about Mayan culture and peoples. When she finished I asked her of her historical experience as a “Mayan” within contemporary North American intellectual culture! 

She retorted that she was not a Mayan but a third generation Greek-American! My body jerked with revulsion, hatred and anger! 'So why and when did you become an expert on Mayan civilization?' I asked! Then she understood where I was going and left without a word! I remembered wondering why the organizers of the conference let her give the keynote. But now I know. She is an Ivy League Franchise. She is from Harvard. 

Now listen up for those who may be tempted in the future: 'Why am I an African Intellectual Historian?' – The victors write history! It is sad when you read African history where according to the historiography Africans are presented as savage, backward uncivilized races! The land of Childhood , primitive mentality , savage mentality, a heart of darkness … One must realize that these are Western sources and Western scholars are writing about these events. 

Indeed if you read these sources against the grain you see a different story. You will encounter a valiant people, great minds, great civilizations only that their attestation does not persevere while the Victors end up writing the History. But it is not an impartial history. History is rarely impartial. My eternal admiration for Howard Zinn – one honest historian: 'To think that history writing must recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in endless cycle of defeat. History ought to be creative if it is to anticipate possible future without denying the past; it should emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past … there is no such thing as impartial history. The problem with historical honesty is not outright lie; it is omission or de-emphasis of important data – the definition of importance is dependent on what constitutes one’s values.'"