![]() |
free hit counter RSS Feeds |
August 04, 2003Should Colonial Borders Be Maintained?A Reaction To Ground Rules This question really applies to nearly every part of the globe, not just Africa. In Western society, we have a worldview that is heavily influenced by landmarks that occurred only in the Western experience: the Magna Carta, The Treaty of Westphalia, the struggle between the Catholics and Protestants, etc. We have certain assumptions about nation states based on these events. And these events came about after something like three centuries of near constant warfare that raged all across Europe. It seems clear, to me at least, that the loyalty to nation-states and adherence to national borders is the result of lessons learned; that Westerners committed to the concept in self-defense, because the alternative was bloody warfare. Africa has different experiences, a different history, and that has resulted in different assumptions. They haven’t had the same forces pulling in different directions. They haven’t had the centuries of continental warfare. To the best of my knowledge, warfare is usually local, inter-tribal, and the concept of wars of conquest between nations is a rather recent occurrence. It does seem to be the case, however, that all current leaders and most people in Africa accept the current set of national borders, and it makes sense that the longer they remain in their present form, the more the idea becomes entrenched in the minds of the citizens. I’m certainly not trying to say that anyone should attempt to redraw any borders on the basis of ethnicity or other characteristic. But I also do not see any overwhelming objective imperative to maintain the borders as they are. It might be necessary to help stabilize the nations as they are, allow regions to split off as they wish, then encourage the re-formation of new nation-states based on the now-tested confluence of interests. This isn’t really a well-researched opinion. I know that some regions of Nigeria already tried to split off, and weren’t allowed, and most people seemed to agree that it was better that they didn’t split off. I accept that the problems of Burundi and Rwanda wouldn’t be resolved by just letting the Tutsi’s split off into a smaller nation. But I would be interested in hearing why I’m wrong to think this way; the process of educating me on this issue might help others learn more about the problems and circumstances faced by the various tribes/nations/people of Africa.
Comments
In the case of Nigeria, the southeastern portion sought independence from an enourmous state that was corrupt and dictatorial, as well as culturally and ethnically different. To say that it was "prevented" from seceding is a rather mild way of putting it: the independence movement was put down with slaughter and brutality. The same resentments remain, but there is also an added one: many in the southeast feel that the leadership of the independence movement just made things worse by failing to grasp when they were beaten, and pointlessly prolonged the agony. But that does not mean that it was "good" that the southeast's bid for independence failed. They remain stuck in a huge, corrupt country that has been ruled by a succession of military thugs and half-hearted attempts at constitutionalism. How an independent state of Biafra would have fared is unkowable. It could have been much better, the same, or much worse. Eritrea's secession from Ethiopia was accomplished by many years of warfare. but it has come to be accepted "de facto". Inherent in the concept of democratic government is the right of any administrative subdivision to secede by vote. Unfortunately, no existing government acknowledges this right. Canada comes close to it, in that most Canadians agree that the people of Quebec have the right to vote themselves out of our Confederation if they choose to, even though it would be resented ---- but there is actually no formal legal acknowledgement of this, only a tradition of civility. There are few examples of it actually happening. Norway's peaceful secession from Sweden in 1905, to the eventual advantage of both areas, is one of the few cases. There are many cases in the world where secession is urgently needed: In Tibet, Communist imperialism, racism and genocide make Tibet's secession imperative, as it is equally imperative for the people of China to overthrow the parasitic aristocracy that rules them. Several regions in the Indonesian Empire would clearly be better off if they could successfully split off in the way that East Timor did. In Africa, there are some significant regional secession movements, but in most cases people would be perfectly happy to preserve existing boundaries, no matter how arbitrarily they came into being, if they could live free of tyranny within them. The most important issue is clearly that of freedom. When Africa is finally rid of the obscene degradation of dictatorship, and the indirect imperialism that props it up, it can then turn to issues of regionalism and boundaries. Without a democratic context, these can't be settled without violence and suffering. Posted by: Phil Paine at August 5, 2003 12:41 AMNative American Decolonizing Pedagogical Praxis Deidra Suwanee Dees
Components of the language arts curriculum are being submitted which demonstrate the literary deconstruction of colonization in the postcolonial era. The comprehensive curriculum addresses pedagogical praxis relating to indigenous languages, history, religions, cultures and education.
when I was a child when I became a woman now that I’m a mother,
in sunday school you
I saw you on tv from my skull how easily you held the trowel, building dead bones the your exploits
dispersed, detached where is my tribe? scattered, severed, suit and tie,
your grandmothers were owned by white people
clean toilets,
but now we do it for free 16 Lines there’s lots of space and it’s quiet in the house, Muscogee traditions have long faded to the back images of Indians dancing with the chief following privilege of the master with all of her heart
no daddy when she was twelve, school kids laughed when they found out… but we’ve 16 Lines you invaded my space with anti-climatic explosion, your concern for the Jews in the great holocaust when muscogees ruled, we all had enough to eat, absent of trees, land and all that belonged to me, 16 Lines White Slave Owner called my name Mr. Slave Owner, it’s painfully late White Indian Killer called my name Mr. Indian Killer, it’s too late 17 Lines muscogee culture survives laceration, we still dance the way the sacred strong like the adopting weapons of our enemy no longer white— like the Rapa Nui of Easter Island we learn
they celebrate sitting alone
come close to me Mr. Columbus, let me whisper, 38 Lines while you were sleeping while you were presiding while you were dictating while you were sipping while you were writing while you were experimenting while you were sleeping while you were speaking while you were dying now, Mr. Thomas Jefferson,
—smell of my body grease decomposing dishes stack the nightmare of the 82 Lines borrowing a beast of the colonizer I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to ride a fast horse I want to give my horse rest I'm looking for a friend of mine Deidre Whiteman she attends Haskal Universty in Kansas. It is ridiculous that only one percent of our population is Native American!!. I enjoyed your poetry, but realize that understanding is limited in our power-based society. So, if you ever visit Haskal tell Deidra I said hello. cathy stowe Posted by: cathy at February 16, 2004 06:46 PMI am here thinking and wondering that if one answers NO to this question, do they recognize that actually the current judges at the UN level are usually from the same colonial territories or same colonial schooling? Ironically, even those countries seeking to undo former colonial borders indeed seek-after their former colonialists (e.g. Angola or Cabinda calling on the Portugese or Ethiopia and Eritrea going to The Hague)...does this mean a renewed endorsement or blind-agitation or in fact selling themselves back to the wolves or colonial order? Amazingly, after each rulling the parties seem to be "satisfied" at least those directly involved from the aggrieved territories, be it the SPLA v. Khartoum, Congo V. Uganda and Tz or Nigeria v. Cameroon, et al... Posted by: doreen lwanga at March 8, 2004 02:50 PM |