It is well known and, hopefully, understood that movies and other forms of mass media don’t typically portray reality as it is. For the purpose of entertainment often mixed with some ulterior motives, movies tend to be a romanticized version of the facts.
The stereotyped caricature image of prehistoric man, who is sometimes referred to as the “caveman,” can refer to a wide range of time periods which are at times intermingled and disregard technologies and other progressions of the periods. The movie “10,000 B.C.” is a prime example of how the “caveman” image has been misconstrued. Modern archeology can, however, correct the inaccuracies which occur in the said movie as well as other depictions of prehistoric man in mass media.
One of the first questions to arise concerning the movie “10,000 B.C.” deals with dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Where are they? DNA evidence suggests dogs diverged from wolves about 100,000 years ago (Haag, 28). In reference to Bonn-Oberkassel, a German burial site containing intermingled human and dog remains, they were domesticated at least 14,000 years ago which makes them the earliest known example of domestication by humans (www.mnh.si.edu).
Based on the archeological record, horses, however, were not yet domesticated. “10,000 B.C.” portrays invaders on horse back. The earliest unambiguous direct evidence for horse domestication is provided by the Sintashta chariot burials. They date to roughly 2,000 B.C. and were found on the south Ural Steppe. Some archeologists believe that horse domestication could have occurred as far back as 4,000 B.C. but the evidence is unclear. Either way, these dates fall short of the 10,000 B.C. mark.
The movie portrays giant, flightless predatory birds. These birds, Titanis walleri, did really exist, but, again, in a completely different time and place and Titanis walleri never co-existed with humans. During an MSNBC interview, Bruce McFadden, a paleontologist from the Florida Museum of Natural history stated, “We found that the Titanis fossils were 2 million years old and not 10,000 years old as had been suggested. This also shows the last known occurrence of Titanis in the fossil record and reflects its extinction.” The fossils referred to here were from North America and it is unlikely that, if they lived in Europe or Africa, the birds existed any time near 10,000 B.C. There did exist a much smaller carnivorous bird in parts of both North America and Europe named Gastornis. Gastornis was not only smaller than the birds depicted in “10,000 B.C.”, however. The youngest known Gastornis remains date to 45 million years ago and, thus, did not co-exist with humans either (Beauffetaut, 359).
Another prehistoric animal shown in the movie is commonly referred to as a saber-toothed tiger. When reflecting on the size of the animal depicted, it is obviously a reference to some type of Smilodon. Although the most recent known Smilodon fossils found do date to as late as 10,000 B.C., Smilodon remains are only found in the western hemisphere. There did exist in Africa and Eurasia another machairodontine cat, Homotherium, with a smaller body mass than that of the Smilodons. However, the youngest Homotherium fossils suggest the species died out in Africa about 1.5 million years ago and about 30,000 years ago in Eurasia for climatic reasons (Turner, 219-244).
.
Whether the movie takes place in Europe or Africa is debatable but in either case the mammoths depicted are completely unrealistic. If the movie takes place in sub-Saharan North Africa, which is the general assumption, one should be aware of the fact that there is no archaeological record of either Mammuthus primogenus or Mammut americanum populations in that area at any time and were basically extinct at the time in question. Mastodons, mammoth genetic cousins, may have roamed North America at the time, but were likely on the verge of extinction. The land was as dry as it is today which is an improbable landscape for woolly mammoths anyhow (Clark, 60-64).
As mentioned, the film depicts dessert landscape although desertification did not begin to occur in the north of Africa until about 2500 B.C. There are also scenes depicting tundra and steppe, which is unlikely considering the fact that the area endured little glacial impact (Clark, 57-59). At the end of the movie, the lead characters are given seeds to grow by what appears to be Africans. This doesn’t make much sense either because it is common knowledge that those plants would never survive in the icy cold mountains the main characters come from.
The Iron Age in Europe started at about 1,000 B.C. In “10,000 B.C.,” the humans in the movie are readily using iron in the forms of axes and swords, for example. One of the earliest examples of iron workings globally is iron beads worn in ancient Egypt around 4,000 B.C. and they were merely rubbed smooth like stones commonly were. Other than that, the oldest known iron artifact shaped by hammering is a dagger, also from Egypt of Hittite workmanship, circa 1350 B.C. (www.answers.com).
The movie also has some Egyptian/Atlantis stuff going on (for lack of a better term). There are pyramids, huge temples and a Sphinx. Archaeological records indicate that the mega-building period in Egypt occurred around the same time that Stonehenge was built and is estimated to be circa 2,500 B.C., after the unification of the Upper and Lower Kingdoms provided the man power and resources for such a project. Although radiocarbon dating has been problematic in Egypt, 2,500 B.C. is an estimate based on king’s lists and the Egyptian civil calendar. Along with these depictions is a river, assumed to be the Nile. However, there is no sign of vegetation, only sand. The Nile River would be lush and green, probably with palms. Based on soil analysis and knowledge of unusually strong rains in central Sahara contributing to local runoff from Sudanese tributaries, it is assumed that the area actually suffered violent floods from 15,500 B.C. until about 9,000 B.C (Koch, 26-33).
An obvious fault of the movie lies in the English language being spoken. Of course, one might expect that from a movie for practical purposes, but it is an inaccuracy nonetheless. Even Old English, a conglomerate of North Western European Germanic languages, which replaced Celtic, was spoken from about 450 A.D. to 1000 A.D. after Anglo-Saxon migrations to the British Isles (Arnold, 44), proven through Y chromosome haplogroup analysis. Anglo-Saxon migrations are also hinted at in literature such as Beowulf (ca. 1000 A.D.) and the writings of Gildas (ca. 540 A.D.) and Bede (731 A.D.). The language transformed even further after the Norman invasion of 1066, which is documented through written language as well (Arnold, 45). Place names derived from Proto-Germanic languages first appear in England circa 500 A.D. Thus there is ultimately no evidence whatsoever that the English language was spoken whatsoever 12,000 years ago (Arnold, 44-63).
“10,000 B.C.” is far from being the only image of a misconstrued version of prehistoric man, however. The comic strip Alley Oop was created in 1932 by V.T Hamlin. The main character (perhaps Neanderthal?) rides a pet dinosaur. There has never been any archeological or paleontological records dating human remains and dinosaur remains contemporaneously. He lives in a place called Moo and fights with villagers from Lem. These are apparent references to the fabled lost continents of Mu and Lemuria which was a popular theory at the advent of the comic and later discredited with modern knowledge of plate tectonics.
Another comic strip example of prehistoric man is Tor, created by Joe Kubert and debuting in 1953. The story of Tor is said to take place a million years ago. As mentioned earlier, the earliest example of animal domestication known involves dogs about 14,000 years ago, yet Tor has some version of a domesticated monkey on his shoulder. Another interesting topic worth noting, and is by no means exclusive to Tor’s world of a million years ago is that of prehistoric clothing. In the comic strip people wear loin cloths and the garments pertaining to women always cover their breasts which is probably more of a tribute to Western morals than to archaeological data. Genetic analysis of body lice suggest the species probably originated about 107,000 years ago and may have coincided with the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago into cooler areas. Because humans have very little body hair, lice need clothing to survive (Kittler, 1414-1417).
The idea of prehistoric man living in caves is not completely unrealistic, although over exaggerated. Of course, our ancestors did not live in ranch style houses of rock as seen in The Flintstones, however. People have lived in caves throughout most of human history. This was not always the case, however. Aside from the obvious examples of well preserved cave paintings (i.e. the cave of Lascaux in France), this is evidenced in the simple fact that some people still do live in caves. As of 2005, an estimated 40 million people in Yanan, China lived in caves. Keep in mind that the locals both have access to and utilize modern technology such as refrigerators and television. They claim that one benefit of cave dwellings is that the shelters are naturally cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Another major factor in the decision by so many to choose a cave to live in pertains to the difficulty in manipulating the hard mountainous soils of the region (Yu, www.thingsasian.com). For most living creatures, the decision to create some sort of settlement is most often based on convenience whether it is due to the issues of geography, safety or resources.
Thus, it is true that prehistoric man could have, and probably would have, thought a cave to be a legitimate structure for habitation. The oldest known human habitats, however, are not of stone. It is possible that huts of dirt, wood, leaves, grass or a combination of materials could have been built as early as 500,000 years ago. A site in Chichibu, Japan, dates to a time contemporary with Homo erectus who was capable of building a relatively sturdy structure. The site consists of ten post holes believed to be the remains of huts which are accompanied by a variety of stone tools.
The stereotypical prehistoric man tends to be quite ignorant to his surroundings and may repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It is true that cranial sizes slowly increased over the 4 million years of human existence. However, basic observations and analysis of one’s surroundings is a simple concept displayed by lower order animals as well as upper order life forms. Through evolution, humans are designed to abandon any instinctive behavior in favor a more beneficial one. Things like curiosity, cooperation and inventiveness (some of the driving forces behind survival) are instinctual and cannot be changed by education. However, the self-discipline it takes to modify an instinct gives humans the ability to be trained through experience (Calvin).
Mass media is not designed for the dissemination of knowledge. Rather, it is more useful for disseminating novel ideas for the purposes of entertainment. This is the sad case of the “caveman.” He is seen as barbaric, incompetent, dim witted, and fantastical. With science, however, it is possible to honor the true image of our ancestors and respect them for their innovations and adaptability.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Berlin Conference and Rwanda, observations
Late in 1884, several major European powers held a conference to discuss the future of Africa, “the dark continent.” Most of the interior of Africa had not been seen by European explorers yet. Nonetheless, these Western nations, including France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Great Britain and the United States (fourteen nations total), sat down with their host, Chancellor Otto Von Bismark of Germany, to carve Africa into spheres of European influence in response to the “scramble for Africa.” Concerned with European trade and industry interests and attempting to keep good relations between European powers, the Berlin Conference essentially gave parts of Africa to parts of Europe. This decision, which unfortunately did not incorporate Africans in the process, has had far reaching effects on Africa.
Before the Conference, Europe’s involvement within Africa was limited to coastal regions where they established some settlements. Great Britain, Portugal and France had the largest involvement in Africa. Europe was becoming industrialized, with Great Britain possibly being the very first industrialized nation. Thus Europe was in need of resources such as cotton, rubber and tea which were not available domestically and came from Asia or the Americas. Africa, although its resources were barely known to Europe as of yet, seemed to offer an alternate supply.
There were other interests Europe had in Africa as well. Many people in Europe believed that Africans were uncivilized, unintelligent and un-Christian in their ways. Somewhere along the line, the idea was propagated as an obligation. Europeans, including explorers, scientists and missionaries, believed that it was their Christian duty to “civilize” the continent of Africa. This idea is called the “white man’s burden.”
Europeans had begun exploring Africa before the Conference, and some nations had claimed spheres of influence over certain regions. Colonization was not officially initiated, however, until the Conference.
Colonialism was part of the transition from exploitation in Africa based on an agricultural Western economy to exploitation based on an industrial one. When the Berlin Conference took place, Spain was not sufficiently industrialized and, therefore, could not compete in the changing economy. Hence, more industrious nations took the forefront. Germany, Portugal, France and Great Britain were competing for resources and cheap labor to support their ongoing industrialization. The race between these four powers resulted in the Berlin Conference.
During the Conference, certain terms were agreed upon before the division of Africa. These terms were designed to prevent tension between the powers involved in the Conference. The first term was that the colonizing nation must prove that they can effectively control an area. Free European trade and access to the Congo and Niger River basins was agreed upon next. Any nation involved was also required to campaign against the slave trade in their territory and allow Christians of all sects the ability to establish missionaries in the territories.
The Berlin Conference did manage to prevent wars amongst European nations. However, the Conference was designed to benefit Europe in disregard of the African people. The traditional rule of nations changed under European control, as did education and religion. Colonial rule in Africa forced Western culture, priorities, economics, religion, politics and world views on to the indigenous people. African people were segregated, discriminated against and exploited economically. European colonies in Africa were small dictatorships who were at the mercy of their imperialist, oppressive rulers.
The colonial division of Africa did not end with the Conference in 1885. In 1914, Egypt was the last to be annexed when it was taken over by Great Britain. Only Ethiopia and Liberia remained outside of colonial rule. In 1936, however, Ethiopia was finally dominated by Italy who had attempted to establish colonial rule several times before. Liberia eventually became a victim of American economic imperialism but remained outside of official colonial rule.
Until after World War I, Rwanda was under the control of colonial Germany. Before German rule, Hutu and Tutsi people lived amongst one another, intermarrying, speaking the same language, practicing the same religion, using the same land and tracing their ancestors to a common people. Colonialism played a large part in changing this way of life and Rwanda is merely one example of how the Berlin Conference and colonialism still effect Africa today.
According to a European myth, Hutu were decendents of Bantu people and are “black Africans” while the Tutsi were decendents of a variety of Nilotic peoples. In the mind of German explorers Tutsi people appeared taller, lighter and more aristocratic which made them more suitable candidates for “civilization” than the Hutu. Also, Tutsi were mainly herders as opposed to the Hutu who were agriculturalists. Cattle was a valuable asset in the eyes of Europe and seemed to denote wealth which reinforced their ideas about the Tutsi.
After World War I, Germany was forced to resign its colonial territories and Belgium took control of Rwanda. The country was severly polarized by this time due to the unfair priveledge allotted the Tutsi under colonial rule. Tutsi received leadership positions and became the security and beurocratic wings of the colonial government while the Hutu were treated like slaves.
One of the first actions Belgium took after acquiring Rwanda was send armies of missionaries into the area. With the missionaries came scientists who weighed brains and measured noses to further propagate racial myths. The analysis done by the Belgian scientists insisted that the Hutu were coarse and bestial while the Tutsi were nobler by nature. The Catholic Church backed Belgium in reconstructing Rwanda along racial lines. By the 1930s a Belgian census produced identity cards for the people of Rwanda. In turn, the Catholic Church established schools that exclusively taught Tutsis and indoctrinated the students with the notion of racial superiority.
When the idea of Rwandan independence arose, the Belgians switched sides, however. Suddenly there were masses of Belgian priest preaching Hutu “empowerment” and “equality” in preparation for independence. Empowerment and equality basically translated to power and retribution and the European divide and conquer tactics worked again.
Strategies and practices like what happened in Rwanda were common practice under colonial rule in Africa. In the case of Rwanda, the divide created by Europeans between the Tutsi and Hutu eventually resulted in Tutsis being massacred by Hutu in the early 1990s.
It is clear that this was a result of the open wounds left from the division placed between the integrated Tutsi and Hutu societies by Rwanda’s colonial rulers, explorers, and scientists born of the Berlin Conference. The Tutsi/Hutu society of pre-colonial Rwanda had been ripped apart and the thus created factions then set against one another. Had the Berlin Conference not occurred, had Germany never ruled, had the explorers never set foot in Rwanda, if there was no state called Rwanda, what type of relationship could the Tutsi and Hutu have with each other today? Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what could have happened had the state of Rwanda not been carved out during the Berlin Conference of 1884.
Before the Conference, Europe’s involvement within Africa was limited to coastal regions where they established some settlements. Great Britain, Portugal and France had the largest involvement in Africa. Europe was becoming industrialized, with Great Britain possibly being the very first industrialized nation. Thus Europe was in need of resources such as cotton, rubber and tea which were not available domestically and came from Asia or the Americas. Africa, although its resources were barely known to Europe as of yet, seemed to offer an alternate supply.
There were other interests Europe had in Africa as well. Many people in Europe believed that Africans were uncivilized, unintelligent and un-Christian in their ways. Somewhere along the line, the idea was propagated as an obligation. Europeans, including explorers, scientists and missionaries, believed that it was their Christian duty to “civilize” the continent of Africa. This idea is called the “white man’s burden.”
Europeans had begun exploring Africa before the Conference, and some nations had claimed spheres of influence over certain regions. Colonization was not officially initiated, however, until the Conference.
Colonialism was part of the transition from exploitation in Africa based on an agricultural Western economy to exploitation based on an industrial one. When the Berlin Conference took place, Spain was not sufficiently industrialized and, therefore, could not compete in the changing economy. Hence, more industrious nations took the forefront. Germany, Portugal, France and Great Britain were competing for resources and cheap labor to support their ongoing industrialization. The race between these four powers resulted in the Berlin Conference.
During the Conference, certain terms were agreed upon before the division of Africa. These terms were designed to prevent tension between the powers involved in the Conference. The first term was that the colonizing nation must prove that they can effectively control an area. Free European trade and access to the Congo and Niger River basins was agreed upon next. Any nation involved was also required to campaign against the slave trade in their territory and allow Christians of all sects the ability to establish missionaries in the territories.
The Berlin Conference did manage to prevent wars amongst European nations. However, the Conference was designed to benefit Europe in disregard of the African people. The traditional rule of nations changed under European control, as did education and religion. Colonial rule in Africa forced Western culture, priorities, economics, religion, politics and world views on to the indigenous people. African people were segregated, discriminated against and exploited economically. European colonies in Africa were small dictatorships who were at the mercy of their imperialist, oppressive rulers.
The colonial division of Africa did not end with the Conference in 1885. In 1914, Egypt was the last to be annexed when it was taken over by Great Britain. Only Ethiopia and Liberia remained outside of colonial rule. In 1936, however, Ethiopia was finally dominated by Italy who had attempted to establish colonial rule several times before. Liberia eventually became a victim of American economic imperialism but remained outside of official colonial rule.
Until after World War I, Rwanda was under the control of colonial Germany. Before German rule, Hutu and Tutsi people lived amongst one another, intermarrying, speaking the same language, practicing the same religion, using the same land and tracing their ancestors to a common people. Colonialism played a large part in changing this way of life and Rwanda is merely one example of how the Berlin Conference and colonialism still effect Africa today.
According to a European myth, Hutu were decendents of Bantu people and are “black Africans” while the Tutsi were decendents of a variety of Nilotic peoples. In the mind of German explorers Tutsi people appeared taller, lighter and more aristocratic which made them more suitable candidates for “civilization” than the Hutu. Also, Tutsi were mainly herders as opposed to the Hutu who were agriculturalists. Cattle was a valuable asset in the eyes of Europe and seemed to denote wealth which reinforced their ideas about the Tutsi.
After World War I, Germany was forced to resign its colonial territories and Belgium took control of Rwanda. The country was severly polarized by this time due to the unfair priveledge allotted the Tutsi under colonial rule. Tutsi received leadership positions and became the security and beurocratic wings of the colonial government while the Hutu were treated like slaves.
One of the first actions Belgium took after acquiring Rwanda was send armies of missionaries into the area. With the missionaries came scientists who weighed brains and measured noses to further propagate racial myths. The analysis done by the Belgian scientists insisted that the Hutu were coarse and bestial while the Tutsi were nobler by nature. The Catholic Church backed Belgium in reconstructing Rwanda along racial lines. By the 1930s a Belgian census produced identity cards for the people of Rwanda. In turn, the Catholic Church established schools that exclusively taught Tutsis and indoctrinated the students with the notion of racial superiority.
When the idea of Rwandan independence arose, the Belgians switched sides, however. Suddenly there were masses of Belgian priest preaching Hutu “empowerment” and “equality” in preparation for independence. Empowerment and equality basically translated to power and retribution and the European divide and conquer tactics worked again.
Strategies and practices like what happened in Rwanda were common practice under colonial rule in Africa. In the case of Rwanda, the divide created by Europeans between the Tutsi and Hutu eventually resulted in Tutsis being massacred by Hutu in the early 1990s.
It is clear that this was a result of the open wounds left from the division placed between the integrated Tutsi and Hutu societies by Rwanda’s colonial rulers, explorers, and scientists born of the Berlin Conference. The Tutsi/Hutu society of pre-colonial Rwanda had been ripped apart and the thus created factions then set against one another. Had the Berlin Conference not occurred, had Germany never ruled, had the explorers never set foot in Rwanda, if there was no state called Rwanda, what type of relationship could the Tutsi and Hutu have with each other today? Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what could have happened had the state of Rwanda not been carved out during the Berlin Conference of 1884.
Some Thoughts on Ghana, (just a few)
Both the history and the current state of African politics and economics are drenched in complexities. Where Africa stands relative to modern capitalist world economic powers leaves the continent in a position of dependency and open to exploitation. After fifty years of political independence, many regions remain unstable, impoverished, and unable to either compete with global powers or become self sustaining.
Although many great thinkers have brought forth various ideas about where African politics and economics should head, there are three perspectives which will be discussed here. These hypotheses were, quite obviously, founded on the events and issues corresponding to Africa during the era in which they were conceived. Although the ideas can conflict, the reader should keep in mind that each theory is backed by passion, logic, and an earnest desire to invest in the resurrection of the Mother Land and her children.
During the first wave of African independence, Ghana was an example of statism being used in an effort to expedite modernization. Kweme Nkrumah may have intended on transforming Ghana into a trend setter in the eyes of the west. His economic plans for the country included varied agriculture and industry working symbiotically. In The Origins of Modern African Thought, Robert William July states “Productivity had to be increased significantly and changed from subsistence farming to a commodity cultivation carefully designed to provide adequate food for a steadily rising population while supplying local industry with raw materials and producing cash crops which could pay for necessary imports”(July 2004, 470). His method for application was to centralize economic power and planning which included establishing one party-rule of the state. It should be noted, however, that a one party state may have been an effort to create a sense of nationalism and unity within Ghana as well.
Under British colonial rule, Ghana exported cocoa to a degree that verged on excluding crop diversification. To combat this problem, Nkrumah directed attention towards other potential exports such as rubber, coffee, palm products and tobacco. Diversifying Ghana’s exports could potentially protect against price fluctuations felt by international markets (July 2004, 470). Nkrumah’s plans seemingly relied on a little of everything, taking a somewhat “post-modern view… that Africa uses whatever works” (Hudson 2009). In this case, at the birth of African independence, Ghana was attempting to diversify its assets and compete in a modern economic paradigm.
The goals appear honest and sincere, but many problems were to arise with the attempt to modernize and the use of statism. The centralization of the government brought about the socialization of the agricultural system and, thus, diminished wages for farmers who began migrating to urban areas. The government took control of the cocoa industry which was sold on the international market at inflated prices while the cocoa farmers saw less and less of their earnings. Also, larger cities contained government run centralized facilities such as universities, hospitals and other such “modern” services. Urban centers had high unemployment rates and the farmers struggled.
Ghana’s attempt at industrialization was somewhat blunderous. A canning plant intended to can about 7,000 tons of mangoes per year was built and the cost was well over budget. Shortly thereafter, it was found that barely any wild mango trees grew in the region and that it would take years for new trees to bear fruit. Another example was the government’s attempt at creating a shoe industry. The shoe plants were located at a great distance from the cattle industry, making the necessary leather and tanning facilities nearly inaccessible (Koney 2006). Simply put, Ghana was experiencing urbanization without industrialization.
The International Monetary Fund invested in Nkrumah’s plans. In 1973, however, the IMF began asking for early reimbursement of the loans made towards the failed projects in Ghana (Hudson 2/10/09). Ghana remained underdeveloped and dependent on the West. As Mazrui said, “100 years of African colonial rule demands structural revolution to make right 500 years of systematic exploitation” (Mazrui 1986). Africa needed to be reinvested in by those that stole from the continent and reaped the benefits of such thievery. Included in this idea is debt relief for cases such as that of Ghana.
Many people believe that the only way for Africa to survive is to compete in a neo-liberal economic paradigm. It seemed as though Ghana made an attempt which only created a sustained dependency on the West and further exploitation from global investors. Africa began to try out new leadership styles. Examples include Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under Mugabe’s rule and Mandela’s South Africa (Hudson 2/12/09). Mugabe is an example of highly corrupted statism, as with Ghana, where the power wielding elite benefit at the expense of the masses. This type of exploitation is usually initiated under the cover of forming a national identity.
Centralized political and economic planning can be cause for hope as well, however. When centralized, an economy could potentially be more closely guided in the desired direction. As mentioned in the case of Ghana, although a failure in practice, statism may help expedite a nation’s leap into the 20th century after hundreds of years of systematic exploitation. Different types of systems, both economic and political, were toyed with to move towards the “structural revolution” Mazrui demands (Hudson 2009).
Surely there are those who are enamored with the idea of Sankofa, returning to an era before Africa was defiled by the West. It is true that before European influence Africa contained many rich kingdoms, economic systems and trade routes that had been well established for hundreds of years in some cases. Perhaps Africans can return to this era in some metaphorical sense, but the sheer fact of the matter is that there has been too much damage done to allow for the necessary unification and direction of the entire continent towards the application of Sankofa. The poverty and conflicts within Africa (which I would term the results of European intrusion) make the return home seem impossible.
Although many great thinkers have brought forth various ideas about where African politics and economics should head, there are three perspectives which will be discussed here. These hypotheses were, quite obviously, founded on the events and issues corresponding to Africa during the era in which they were conceived. Although the ideas can conflict, the reader should keep in mind that each theory is backed by passion, logic, and an earnest desire to invest in the resurrection of the Mother Land and her children.
During the first wave of African independence, Ghana was an example of statism being used in an effort to expedite modernization. Kweme Nkrumah may have intended on transforming Ghana into a trend setter in the eyes of the west. His economic plans for the country included varied agriculture and industry working symbiotically. In The Origins of Modern African Thought, Robert William July states “Productivity had to be increased significantly and changed from subsistence farming to a commodity cultivation carefully designed to provide adequate food for a steadily rising population while supplying local industry with raw materials and producing cash crops which could pay for necessary imports”(July 2004, 470). His method for application was to centralize economic power and planning which included establishing one party-rule of the state. It should be noted, however, that a one party state may have been an effort to create a sense of nationalism and unity within Ghana as well.
Under British colonial rule, Ghana exported cocoa to a degree that verged on excluding crop diversification. To combat this problem, Nkrumah directed attention towards other potential exports such as rubber, coffee, palm products and tobacco. Diversifying Ghana’s exports could potentially protect against price fluctuations felt by international markets (July 2004, 470). Nkrumah’s plans seemingly relied on a little of everything, taking a somewhat “post-modern view… that Africa uses whatever works” (Hudson 2009). In this case, at the birth of African independence, Ghana was attempting to diversify its assets and compete in a modern economic paradigm.
The goals appear honest and sincere, but many problems were to arise with the attempt to modernize and the use of statism. The centralization of the government brought about the socialization of the agricultural system and, thus, diminished wages for farmers who began migrating to urban areas. The government took control of the cocoa industry which was sold on the international market at inflated prices while the cocoa farmers saw less and less of their earnings. Also, larger cities contained government run centralized facilities such as universities, hospitals and other such “modern” services. Urban centers had high unemployment rates and the farmers struggled.
Ghana’s attempt at industrialization was somewhat blunderous. A canning plant intended to can about 7,000 tons of mangoes per year was built and the cost was well over budget. Shortly thereafter, it was found that barely any wild mango trees grew in the region and that it would take years for new trees to bear fruit. Another example was the government’s attempt at creating a shoe industry. The shoe plants were located at a great distance from the cattle industry, making the necessary leather and tanning facilities nearly inaccessible (Koney 2006). Simply put, Ghana was experiencing urbanization without industrialization.
The International Monetary Fund invested in Nkrumah’s plans. In 1973, however, the IMF began asking for early reimbursement of the loans made towards the failed projects in Ghana (Hudson 2/10/09). Ghana remained underdeveloped and dependent on the West. As Mazrui said, “100 years of African colonial rule demands structural revolution to make right 500 years of systematic exploitation” (Mazrui 1986). Africa needed to be reinvested in by those that stole from the continent and reaped the benefits of such thievery. Included in this idea is debt relief for cases such as that of Ghana.
Many people believe that the only way for Africa to survive is to compete in a neo-liberal economic paradigm. It seemed as though Ghana made an attempt which only created a sustained dependency on the West and further exploitation from global investors. Africa began to try out new leadership styles. Examples include Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under Mugabe’s rule and Mandela’s South Africa (Hudson 2/12/09). Mugabe is an example of highly corrupted statism, as with Ghana, where the power wielding elite benefit at the expense of the masses. This type of exploitation is usually initiated under the cover of forming a national identity.
Centralized political and economic planning can be cause for hope as well, however. When centralized, an economy could potentially be more closely guided in the desired direction. As mentioned in the case of Ghana, although a failure in practice, statism may help expedite a nation’s leap into the 20th century after hundreds of years of systematic exploitation. Different types of systems, both economic and political, were toyed with to move towards the “structural revolution” Mazrui demands (Hudson 2009).
Surely there are those who are enamored with the idea of Sankofa, returning to an era before Africa was defiled by the West. It is true that before European influence Africa contained many rich kingdoms, economic systems and trade routes that had been well established for hundreds of years in some cases. Perhaps Africans can return to this era in some metaphorical sense, but the sheer fact of the matter is that there has been too much damage done to allow for the necessary unification and direction of the entire continent towards the application of Sankofa. The poverty and conflicts within Africa (which I would term the results of European intrusion) make the return home seem impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)