Research, rage and reality!

Researching Malawi in particular and Africa in general is a reminder of how dark and cruel life was in Africa before the colonial period which began in earnest in the 16th century.

The first record of exploration in Africa is attributed to a Moroccan, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Battuta  (1303-1365), who traveled through Africa, across the Middle East, and into parts of the Far East. He was a Muslim and he set off on a Hajj (a pilgrimage to the holy town of Mecca) from Tangier, Africa, in 1325. His journey lasted for nearly 30 years, covering over 75,000 miles (120,700 km) and travelling both on sea and land.

The Portugese were the first to explore Africa in an official, as opposed to individual sense, and following an intitial landing on the West African coast in the late 1400's, they began colonising in the early 1500's. The British were not far behind and neither were other Europeans.

The African 'pie' was being devoured quickly and in the late 19th century the European powers divided it amongst themselves in an arbitrary and arrogant act of power. It was of course the way it was done and the way it had always been done through millenia; by Europeans, Africans, Asians and all alike. The Europeans did not invent colonisation and were in fact themselves, the result of it.

All peoples in times past, colonised.  Those who hold close the injuries of their colonised past today, are the result of older colonisations of others. There is even a suggestion that Australian Aborigines, while resident on the land for probably 40,000 years, dispossessed others before claiming it as their own. And if the experts are right and we all originated in Africa anyway, then the only truly indigenous people might be some Africans! But I digress.

It is easy in these times to condemn the wrongs of the colonial era, and there is no doubt that colonisation is wrong by today's standards, but to forget that within the curse of colonisation there were gifts. For all its faults colonisation did bring an end to some of the most bloody practices of Africa, such as kings summarily executing dozens, if not hundreds of people, on a whim, by cutting them into tiny pieces, while keeping them alive as long as possible or burning them alive.

Wholesale slaughter and day to day cruelty and supertitious ignorance were part and parcel of life in Africa in the past and sadly, in some places, in more recent times and still today.

And while the 'slavery flag' is often waved to berate the muzungu's of the past, the reality is that murderous, vicious, cruel slavery was a part of African life long before the Arabs arrived to turn it into a profitable business and the Europeans took over to corporatize it. And it was, of course, the 'barbaric' foreigners who eventually brought an end to slavery in general although no-one denies that various forms of slavery still exist in the world, including Africa.

While condemning colonisation, within the enlightened hindsight of the modern age,  I do believe it is important to retain perspective of just what it meant, in the best and worst of ways. Living in India and researching that country and its history and culture first brought that home. The British were there for hundreds of years and should not have been in a moral sense, but, while they also had their bloodthirsty moments, they did, as happened in Africa, work to lower the levels of injustice, cruelty and barbarism.

It was the British who banned suttee, the burning of wives with their husband's corpse and who gave the history of India back to the Indians by transcribing the ancient Sanskrit texts so that ordinary Indians could read them. It was the British who created the great cities of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, to name just a few, which have since been renamed but which did not exist before the British built them and who worked to save some of India's greatest monuments and ancient buildings. And it was the British who criss-crossed India with rail lines; a life blood for the Indian continent then and now.

The British and European missionaries worked hard in both India and Africa to change the way women were treated; misogyny being at its worst in both places. They had some success, not enough, but better than nothing. Along with equality for women as a goal, they also offered education and skills training.

India's religions, both Hinduism and Islam, were well established and relatively organised when the missionaries and the British arrived, but this was not the case of Africa. While there was and is a lot of commonality of belief, there was no organised general religious structure.

Everything was in the hands of the mercurial local spirits, who, if not honoured in exactly the right way would punish with death, illness, poor harvest, injury, fire, floods or any convenient catastrophe or simple misery.... there was no escape. Christianity on the other hand, while preaching everlasting hell, was comparatively forgiving. There was always the chance for deathbed salvation. The Christian God, compared to Africa's trickster spirits, was pretty reasonable.

So, the price may have been religion, and I and many others would not deny that can be a high price, but in many instances it was a price worth paying. Particularly in Africa where traditional beliefs were often so limiting and frightening. Christianity may invoke a 'fear of God' at the time of death but a lot of African belief was a daily litany of fear with spirits every present, watching, judging and ready to take revenge.

So, without being an apologist for colonisation, it is a reminder, as with all things that within the curse will be a gift; and vice versa. But back to the stories of Malawi in partricular and Africa in general.

I have been reading V.S. Naipaul's book while having my morning coffee but some of the gruesome details are just not suited to such a moment. It is a fascinating book but not a relaxing one. Not that I expected it to be. Blood and guts is the general theme although I am not halfway through the book as yet. Kings killing all of their brothers, dozens of them, usually by burning; or slaughtering half their harem for the hell of it is hard going in a book. And yet to look at the horrors of Africa in recent times it is hard to see much difference.

Perhaps the violence which has been Africa and in some places still is, has been so much a part of life for so long that people are still learning to live in other ways. It can help to explain the readiness of Africans to embrace religions, particularly those of the fundamentalist kind which offer simple answers and certain salvation.  There is a lot of fear in Africa and a lot of rage.

Naipaul's book is well named for there is much of the mask in Africa and there are many masques, from which he takes his title. There is no doubt that people are welcoming, generous and polite but that is the way most people are in most parts of the world.

I just feel that within ex-colonial cultures, particularly in the third world, there is more at work.There is also, as in India, a lot of resentment of muzungu, or foreigners, hidden behind the smiles. I don't think it matters where you are and I have lived in Angola, Zambia, South Africa and here, there are old angers sourced in the colonial era which are projected onto all foreigners.

As an Australian I have some understanding of this. We have had something of an edgy and competitive relationship with our old colonial master, the Brits, although it has eased a lot in recent decades. I suspect the reason that we did not also have the anger as one sometimes finds in India and often finds in Africa, is because, we knew that life in Australia was far better than life in Britain - in other words, we were one-up (if not more) on our former colonial masters. It is easier to forget if you are content with your life.

For Indians and Africans, living as they do in Third World not First World countries, and wishing to be other; believing in their own worth (as they should) if not their own superiority, it must be harder to forget the wrongs of the past. After all, as long as the finger can be pointed to the past then there are excuses for why things are not as good as they should be. All blame can be handed over to the past and the former colonisers rather than taking responsibility for one's Self.

LEFT: Traditional African healer

And local belief also plays a part. In Zambia, which is not far from here and probably linked in terms of tradition and belief, if not tribe,  there is a belief that 'good fortune' or 'good luck' means one is associated with evil. This does not stop people trying to make money or better themselves but it must complicate things with friends and family when they do well.

No doubt such a belief also increases the anger with foreigners who, because of their wealth, comparatively, have clearly had great good fortune and must therefore be even more evil. Africa is still a very superstitious place and while christianity may be the 'dress' that many nations display, the hidden 'underwear' is that of African belief, myth and tradition.

It is not that there is a problem with that, but it is worth remembering that what you 'see' in places like Africa is not necessarily what you 'get.' No doubt this paradox is as confusing at times for those who live it as it is for those who observe it.

In both India and Africa, at the time of handover, certainly where the British were colonial masters, countries were in much better shape than they are now. When Zambia gained independence for instance it had an economy better than Singapore and the towns of the Copper Belt were some of the loveliest to be found anywhere in Africa, if not the world. Not so today on any count.

It is human nature to want to blame someone and Africans are no different. India has done better than many African countries but that is because India had a long history of education which only improved under colonial rule. It is education which allows people and nations to grow and prosper. It is the lack of education which holds so many African nations back today.

I think one other difference with India also was the fact that when independence came, the colonial masters left. A few Anglo-Indians, the result of some four hundred years of inter-marriage, a practice encouraged by the East India company who first arrived in India in the early 1600's, remained. When the British government took over from the East India Company such inter-marriage was discouraged. So, while of reasonable size, the Anglo-Indians made up a tiny percentage of India's huge population at the time of independence. When the British left there was little to remind Indians that they had been colonised for nearly four hundred years.

Not so in Africa, here they stayed as a constant, no doubt shameful and irritating reminder, of colonial power. More to the point, while there was some inter-marriage, the colonists who stayed were, in the main, very European; very non-African, at least in looks. Many white Africans descend from families which arrived hundreds of years ago; long before Australia was first settled. Africa is their home as much as Australia is mine. The difference is that because of their history and because of their colour they remain other.

In Africa, anyone who is white is a reminder of a colonial past which rankles. To be colonised means to be overpowered; to be weaker. To feel inferior. And never more so than in Africa, or India for that matter, where bigoted religious teachings, in Islam and Hinduism as well as Christianity, created environments where Africans were considered to be inferior, if not less than human, and were treated as such.

There is no doubt that the 'white masters' in Africa and India treated the indigenous people appallingly as they did in other colonising enterprises in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand but, there is also no doubt that within all of those indigenous societies and cultures there was an equally appalling history of subjugation, prejudice and cruelty.

However, being treated badly by one of your own is not the same as being treated badly by someone who is 'other,' alien and clearly superior in terms of material development. To be overpowered by such a powerful enemy must be humiliating for anyone who takes pride in their own culture and society. The colonised have to hold to a belief in their own value while recognising their own weaknesses.

It is the nature of things that an inferiority complex will be compensated by a superiority complex, although both of these may, and frequently do,  function at an unconscious level. It is only when we are conscious of such beliefs and feelings that we can work with them rather than have them work us. In much of Africa, this inner conflict remains very much unconscious.

And that is why, behind the smiles, one often feels the anger. Not that any of it is particular to Africans or Indians for that matter. Australian Aborigines, American Indians, New Zealand Maoris, Tibetans, Palestinians, Chechens.... any colonised or occupied peoples... all grapple with this inner conflict. And why would they not? Even Australians still care more about beating the Poms at cricket than beating anyone else. Despite having a quality of life which ranks as one of the best in the world, we still have not quite gotten over our colonial past, nor brought to resolution the inferiority/superiority complex which colonisation breeds.

And perhaps, again, in that way the psyche balances itself unconsciously, there is greater resentment in cultures which are the most courteous.

Africa as always teaches me as much about myself and my culture as it teaches me about itself. Living in a foreign culture we can see ourselves more clearly reflected. The image is not always welcome but it is always fascinating.