[Documents menu] Documents menu

Wonders of the African World

A dialog on Black Radical Congress list, November 1999

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:04:13 -0500
Message-Id: <199911152004.PAA25307@lists.tao.ca>
From: Ali A Mazrui <amazrui@binghamton.edu>
Subject: Re: [BRC-ALL] Wonders of the African World
Sender: worker-brc-all@lists.tao.ca To: brc-all@lists.tao.ca

[Moderator: this post is part of an ongoing internet debate occuring between Ali Mazrui and Henry Louis Gates, over the recent airing of the travelogue "Wonders of the African World" on PBS, which was originally a BBC production (and hosted by Gates). Professor Mazrui's original comments about the series can be found in the BRC-NEWS archive.]

Draft: November 11, 1999


Further Reflections on "Wonders of the African World" by Henry Louis Gates Jr.

By Ali A Mazrui <amazrui@binghamton.edu>

Director, Institute of Global Cultural Studies and Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities Binghamton University State University of New York at Binghamton, New York, USA

Andrew D. White Professor-at-Large Emeritus and Senior Scholar in Africana Studies Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

Albert Luthuli Professor-at-Large University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria

Ibn Khaldun Professor-at-Large School of Islamic and Social Sciences, Leesburg, Virginia, USA


To all those who have responded to my Preliminary Critique of Gates' AFRICAN WONDERS:

I have received an avalanche of responses since my "PRELIMINARY CRITIQUE OF GATES" went into the Internet. I am grateful for all your comments. Some ninety percent of the comments that I have received are angry, if not outraged, by Gates' television series.

In fairness to Skip Gates, he himself may be receiving many more positive responses from an entirely different constituency. I have no doubt there is a significant market for WONDERS OF THE AFRICAN WORLD, but probably not at many African Studies Centers in major U.S. universities. Africanist scholars seem to be overwhelmingly critical.

Edward Said, the brilliant Palestinian professor at Columbia University, made his mark when he published his book ORIENTALISM -- referring to the strange combination of cultural condescension, paternalistic possessiveness and ulterior selectivity shown by certain Western scholars towards non-Western societies in Asia, "the Middle East" and Africa. Indeed the concept of the Middle East -- which is so Eurocentric -- was itself born out of Orientalism.

The question which has been raised by Skip Gates' television series is whether it signifies the birth of BLACK ORIENTALISM. Are we witnessing the birth of a new Black paradigm which combines cultural condescension with paternalistic possessiveness and ulterior selectivity? The condescension in Gates' television series might have been at its worst in Ethiopia and over the Ark of the Covenant. The paternalistic possessiveness was in Great Zimbabwe and in the wonders of the manuscripts in Timbuktu. The selectivity not only knocked out virtually the whole of North Africa; it also knocked out Nigeria, Africa's most populous country. Nigeria as the center of the three of the largest and most historically dynamic cultures in Africa -- the Yoruba, the Hausa and Igbo -- never qualified as one of the "WONDERS OF THE AFRICAN WORLD", in spite of Skip Gates' close relationship with Wole Soyinka, Black Africa's only Nobel Laureate for Literature. Gates' selectivity also got the white man off the hook for the Atlantic slave trade!

Did Gates boycott Nigeria in his TV series because dictator Sani Abacha was in power? Then why did Gates film in Sudan which had a regime widely regarded as more repressive? At any rate Sudan's policies had killed many more people than Abacha's in Nigeria. Gates' refusal to include Nigeria in his TV series was a colossal lapse in credibility and in judgement!

What has BLACK ORIENTALISM got to do with circumcision ceremonies and rites of passage?

One or two sisters who wrote to me were worried by my remark that Gates was playing to "the Western feminist gallery' when in a casual sentence he went too far in condemning female genital surgery. Some Western feminists are aware that some of the greatest defenders of female circumcision in Africa are WOMEN themselves. We must all convince each other that this particular tradition must end. I personally have publicly spoken against it in Africa itself where it matters. See, for example, my highly publicized lecture on "The Black Woman" given for THE GUARDIAN newspaper in Nigeria on July 4, 1991, and published among other places in RESEARCH IN AFRICAN LITERATURES (The Ohio State University, Columbus, Vol.24, No.1, Spring 1993).

But cultural reform requires persuasion, education and example. Cheap rhetoric and denunciations are not very helpful.

What has BLACK ORIENTALISM got to do with linguistic authenticity?

My Egyptian and Lebanese respondents in the United States have drawn my attention to the fact that Skip Gates may have been taken for a ride by his interpreter of Arabic when Gates was interviewing a Nubian woman whom Skip refers to as "Ozayya Suleiman" (judging by Skip's pronunciation). The person who praised the Aswan Dam and the relocation of the Nubians was not Ozayya Suleiman speaking in Arabic, but the interpreter in English putting pro-Government words into Ozayya Suleiman's mouth. It was the interpreter who was trying to please the intelligence officer of the government!! Apparently Gates did a grave injustice to the older Nubian woman by assuming she was the one who was trying to please the Government's representative. This interpretation has been given to me by my Egyptian and Lebanese respondents. I have to double-check it further in person.

Where does religion fit into BLACK ORIENTALISM? A couple of respondents asked if my TV series THE AFRICANS: A TRIPLE HERITAGE (1986) had not had a pro-Islamic agenda. I shall always be grateful to Skip Gates for allowing me in the 1990s to challenge Wole Soyinka when he made the same charge in Gates' magazine TRANSITION. Please consult the magazine's issues Nos.54 of 1991 and 57 of 1992. Soyinka and I thrashed that question in full.

Although the phrase "triple heritage" is mine, the interpretation of Africa as a confluence of three cultures was partly Kwame Nkrumah's. It was Kwame Nkrumah, founder President of Ghana, who saw Africa as an interplay of indigenous culture, ISLAM and what Nkrumah called Euro-Christian civilization. Before Nkrumah, Edward Blyden in the nineteenth century had published his book, CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM AND THE NEGRO RACE. My TV series was standing on the shoulders of those Pan African giants.

Where does RACE fit into BLACK ORIENTALISM? We must not drift into the fallacy of regarding Skip Gates' point of view as THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE. Skip himself is such an individualist that he would be horrified by such a conclusion. Even more horrified would be African-American Pan-Africanists and Afrocentrists. Almost none of them regard Gates' voice as their voice. On the contrary, Skip has denounced them in the columns of THE NEW YORK TIMES deliberately against the pictorial background of the Star of David, (God knows why!). I have talked to some very angry anti-Gates African Americans recently. His attack on African-American nationalists and Pan-Africanists was later widely publicized and circulated by a Jewish organization.

Skip Gates has always been very gracious to me personally. He even consulted me on the chapter about the Waswahili for his BOOK, though he did not consult me in any capacity about the television series. For the single chapter he accepted some of my criticisms and rejected others. Did he accept minor editorial criticisms and reject major ones? The truth lies somewhere in-between.

I am a member of the OAU Group of Eminent Persons on Reparations for Black Enslavement. I and eleven others were "sworn-in" before the Presidents of Africa at a summit meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in Dakar, Senegal, in 1992. As an OAU Group of Eminent Persons on such a momentous topic, we are supposed to explore the modalities and strategies of campaigning for reparations from the Western world for the enslavement and destitution of the Black people. Our Chair in the Group was the late Chief Moshood Abiola of Nigeria.

Now Skip Gates' television series virtually tells the world that the West has no case to answer. Africans sold each other. Presumably if there are to be any reparations in the trans-Atlantic slave-trade, it would have to be from Africans to Africans. Skip Gates succeeded in getting an African to say that without the role of Africans in facilitating it, there would have been no trans-Atlantic slave trade at all.

To my astonishment when watching "Wonders of the African World", I heard a Ghanaian tourist guide at a slave fort (Elmina) tell African-American tourists that they were sold into slavery by Africans. Is this the policy of the Ghanaian government to tell tourists that it was not the white man but the Black man who was responsible for the Atlantic slave system? If not, why is not the guide sacked? He was saying to African Americans "We Ghanaians sold you!"

The Ghanaians I have spoken to since Gates' television series are convinced that the Ghanaian guide at the slave fort was given an "inducement" to blame the slave trade on Africans! Who is behind this rewriting of the history of the slave-trade? I am sure Gates was as surprised as I was when he heard such frankness from a Ghanaian tourist-guide.

But even if some Africans were collaborators in the slave trade, why is Gates presenting the story as if the victims were only the Diaspora Africans (exported) while Africans in the ancestral continent were ALL villains? IS BLACK ORIENTALISM racially masochistic?

What about the families of the captured Africans who did not see their loved ones come back home? What about the Africans who were victimised by slave-raiders but were never exported? What about African resistance to slavery? What about the Africans who were not involved in the slave trade at all either as victims or as villains? Why is Skip Gates presenting us with a simplistic picture of continental Africans (villains) selling their brothers and sisters (Diaspora African victims) -- and provoking what he regards as the curse on Africa for selling its children? In reality only a small minority of the inhabitants of Africa could have sold and exported fellow Africans. So why is Africa as a whole presented in such stark evil ways? Why does Henry Louis Gates Jr. virtually let the white man off the hook on the Atlantic slave trade apart from a throw-away sentence? What is going on? What is the agenda? I hope the idea of Black Orientalism is not to sabotage all claims for reparations for Black enslavement.

What has BLACK ORIENTALISM got to do with the Jewish experience? It partly depends upon the style of the Black Orientalist. In history Jews suffered as slaves, benefitted as slavers, and were also among the abolitionists and liberators.

Some of you have expressed surprise that I included a reference to Jewish capital in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. There were several reasons. Gates has sometimes used Jewish symbols in his attacks on Pan-Africanists and Afrocentrists. Secondly, Gates has used a significant part of this television series to expose ARAB participation in the slave trade. Why not complete the Semitic picture and refer to JEWISH participation in the trade? Thirdly, I regarded it as odd that in a television odyssey in Africa Gates should remember to wear what some regarded as a "Jewish shirt" (or at least a shirt with Hebrew written on it) but never once wear an African shirt as his own informal attire! After all, many African Americans wear such shirts right here in the United States routinely. (Gates was ceremonially dressed in Sudan and in Kente regalia for a Ghanaian occasion, but he managed a few snide remarks and jokes in the process.)

Jews were a minority of the Western financiers of the slave-trade. Jews did not invent Western capitalism. They were sucked into it.

But Gates deliberately tries to irritate by juxtaposition. Gates goes out of his way to tell us that in 1970 he came to Africa for the first time through Israel. Was that supposed to be a metaphor? He proceeds to tell us that Tanzania was a culture-shock in discomfort (after Israel?). The juxtaposition of Israel with the discomforts of Tanzania was startling and unnecessary. Skip Gates did not have to tell us that he had a bad "home-coming" to Africa after passing through Israel - a place of happier "home-coming" for returning Jews. What card was Skip playing? A compliment to Israel? Or an insult to "Black Zionists" wanting to return to Africa?

However, I do sympathise with the respondent who insisted that it was not JEWISH capital in Europe which was used in the slave trade. It was just CAPITAL. Similarly, it was not Arab and Asante slavers who sold Africans -- it was just SLAVERS! Perhaps we should dis-ethnicize evil when we can. In any case, most Jews were probably against the slave trade all along.

Some of my friends think that because I did a television series of my own, I should have remained silent on the series by Skip Gates. But I was an African long before I did a television series for the BBC and the PBS. I am responding to Skip Gates' TV series first and foremost as an African. But secondarily, I am responding to it as a senior and elder Africanist. Skip is a friend. But he knows he and I have huge differences. If he feels he has a right to criticise Africa and abuse the Swahili people and still love Africa, I feel I have a right to criticize Skip Gates and still count him as a friend!!!

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:54:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199911181354.IAA09062@lists.tao.ca>
From: Molefi Kete Asante <asante@vm.temple.edu>
Subject: Re: [BRC-ALL] Wonders of the African World
Reply-To: brc-all@lists.tao.caTo: brc-all@lists.tao.ca

[Moderator: additional critique of Gates' "Wonders of the African World" by Professor Molefi Asante]

"The Wonders of Africa"

By Molefi Kete Asante <asante@vm.temple.edu>

The beautiful African coastline in Ghana is studded with the haunted vestiges of slave fortresses built by European nations over a period of four hundred years. It is not unlike the history of the European Slave Trade in other parts of West Africa, from Mauritania to Angola, where more than six hundred slave ports were constructed by Europeans to support the rape of Africa. If one listens closely to Henry Louis Gates the entire project of slavery would not have occurred if it had not been for African involvement. Blaming the victim for the predicament of enslavement is neither historically correct nor morally valid.

"The Wonders of Africa" television series sponsored by the BBC and the PBS and hosted by Professor Gates is one more attempt to rewrite the history of slavery. Despite the magnificence of the African landscape and the vitality of its modern cities, Gates finds opportunity almost at every turn to reduce the history of Africa to petty warfare and the history of the enslavement of millions of Africans to African culpability. If Gates were a white traveler in Africa commenting as he did on African society, making jokes about dignitaries, and sowing seeds of divisions between African people, the NAACP, NABSE, and a host of civil rights leaders would have considered this production an insult and an assault on African people. However, because he is black we must call it a travesty. This travesty will set back the intellectual discourse on the African enslavement for fifty years if the narrative is not corrected to show that you cannot reduce the centuries of the Asante Empire, the Dahomey and Yoruba kingdoms to slave raiding.

Nowhere in "The Wonders of Africa" do we get the theme of African resistance to the enslavement when in fact Africans fought, if you take European accounts, more than three hundred battles with European slave raiders and occupiers both in the interior and along the coast of Africa.

There are several disturbing themes that flow from Gates' core argument about slavery that must be confronted head-on. To allow these themes to go unchallenged would set an unacceptable scholarly precedent where misinformation, because it is distributed by the media, passes for truth. I will discuss each theme separately.

First, Gates argues that continental Africans are responsible for enslavement of Africans in the Americas and Caribbean. He marshals opinions from ordinary Africans about African involvement. What is true is that some Africans were collaborators with the Europeans much like some Africans were collaborators with whites in South Africa. However, we do not blame apartheid on South African blacks and Gates would not claim that because some Jews assisted the Germans that Jews were responsible for the holocaust. Slavery was initiated and maintained by Europeans; Africans were always on the fringes of this monumental catastrophe. Indeed, in any situation where people are seeking to liberate themselves you will have those who side with the oppressor. It is not just a historical reality it is a current fact.

Secondly, Gates seeks to trivialize the traditional rituals and practices of Africa. He makes snide remarks about African practices of state, medicine, and ornamentation. He would not dare remark on English royal traditions in the same vein. The disrespect shown to the traditional leaders of Africa left an indelible impression of arrogance and haughtiness, perhaps the results of a post-modern disparagement of culture and customs.

Thirdly, "The Wonders of Africa" reinforces the stereotypes first created by the European travelers going down the Niger River in their pith helmets that Africa is backward, inadequate, scary, and not a place any African American would want to be. His vehicle breaks down and it is a major production. I have lived in Africa, traveled to the continent more than fifty times and this is not a common experience of African Americans traveling in Africa. Why was this event not edited out of the video since it is not a remarkable fact except if you want to leave an impression of African inefficiency?

How was this project sold to the white producers? Were they told that the video would show how Africans were responsible for our own predicament? The themes covered in the series rest on some disturbing sub-texts, such as, the undermining of a pan-African sentiment, the reinforcement of negative stereotypes, the separation of ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa, the attack on the Swahili language and the undermining of the movement for African reparations. I see this series as a clear assault on the African and African American narrative of liberation. Much like Keith Richburg's Out of America, Gates' "The Wonders of Africa" is more about his own story than about Africa.

This is seen in an almost obscene assertion of American superiority and the beauty of being Harvard while not once speaking to an African scholar at one of the elite universities on the continent. This is not a benign travelogue despite Gates' flippant commentaries; it is a documentary which mocks African culture, distorts African history, reinforces stereotypes, and imports American racist interpretations to African situations. This is a truly Eurocentric enterprise. To say the least, I am sorely disappointed because I believe had he wanted to do better, Henry Louis Gates could have, and the thought that he did not want to do better haunts me and does great injury to Africa.

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:15:53 -0500
Message-Id: <199911230115.UAA14857@lists.tao.ca>
From: J Tolbert <tolbert@prodigy.net>
Subject: [BRC-NEWS] Henry Louis Gates Is No Alex Haley
Sender: worker-brc-news@lists.tao.ca
To: brc-news@lists.tao.ca

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Is No Alex Haley

By J. Tolbert, Jr. <tolbert@prodigy.net>
The Digital Drum, November 1999

Although I have studied beyond my history degree, I'll defer to other black scholars when it comes to analyzing the history of Africa. However, I know enough about good old-fashioned "buck-dancing" to comment on the recent public television series "Wonders of the African World," a documentary detailing the travels, in Africa, of Harvard scholar Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.. Even before this program aired, the promotions made you think that we were about to experience the second coming of "Roots!" Well, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is no Alex Haley.

Gates is perhaps the epitome of the term "public intellectual." He is the major media's darling on all things African because his Eurocentric perspective is comfortably understood by white audiences. Never is this more evident than in "Wonders of the African World." In a radio interview that aired before the program, Gates, in an almost gleeful manner, stated that Africans enslaved other Africans. The aloofness of his tone revealed a severe detachment from African people-as if he were descended from a better "class." In the television program, Gates not only overly narrated his accusations, but he directly confronted Africans he met on his sojourn as if they were still engaging in the trade! He indirectly confronted his audience and his African hosts with his consistent wearing of a HARVARD tee shirt. A traveler's minimalism, maybe, but more importantly, the HARVARD tee shirt served to identify Gates as a black ambassador of Eurocentrism and white supremacy.

It may shock some of us to know that Gates' charges do have historical merit. Of course there were a few Africans who contributed to the enslavement. After all, the existence of a few black "Benedict Arnolds" among our people is nothing new. However, Gates' overemphasis on this fact gives wider credence to the arguments of white supremacists who deceitfully charge African Americans with "reverse racism" when they (white supremacists) are confronted over issues involving racial discrimination. Therefore, Gates' "Wonders of the African World" is not a story of one man's quest for identity, as the "Roots" television series attempted to establish. Rather, the program must be viewed as a sonnet of white supremacist affirmation. There was no need for Gates to appear intellectual about it. He should have just come out and said, "Boss, you is right to keep black folks down because their ancestors were solely responsible for slavery. And Boss, don't even consider their calls for reparations. Don't even humor their concerns about economic injustice and human degradation because after all, they enslaved each other! They are the savages you said they were Boss!"

For all the intellectual buck dancing found in "Wonders of the African World," you will never convince me that Africans are more responsible than the white supremacists who created and maintained a vast political, social, and economic infrastructure built on slave labor and oppression. The bottom line is that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and his "Wonders of the African World," were not made to educate blacks or whites about Africa, but to absolve whites of their guilt over the historical sins of their ancestors and their present day racist behavior.

Copyright (c) 1999 J. Tolbert, Jr. All Rights Reserved.

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:50:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199911230550.AAA19171@lists.tao.ca>
From: Martin Duodu <xgw30@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: [BRC-ALL] Wonders of the African World
Sender: worker-brc-all@lists.tao.ca
Reply-To: brc-all@lists.tao.ca
To: brc-all@lists.tao.ca


The trouble with Gates is not that he's a fool, but that probably he's too smart by half.

Western "scholars" have for a long time sought to apportion blame for the slave trade on Africans. It was Africans who caught one another and sold them to the Europeans, they claim. And because they have dominated the history publishing industry, their word has been absorbed by many of us who have studied history. To challenge this notion would take enormous courage and perhaps even a bit of foolhardiness. For a Western academic -- with the undoubted ambition of a Gates --to challenge this frontally, would be unusual. So, the orthodoxies absorbed from the White historians get put in the mouths of Black people.

Only, in the case of Gates, it is disseminated through such a powerful medium as television, where emphasis and even tone matter a great deal. And the Whites, who rightly claim the credit for eventually organising the "abolition" of the slave trade, can salve their conscience (such as it is) with that.

Many were, of course, shocked at the undue emphasis Gates gave to the African complicity in slavery, for you only have to look at certain realities of the trade to realise that while there WAS African participation in it, and while this participation was of some importance, it was secondary to the European element:

QUOTE: "Africa and Europe were jointly involved. Yet it is also true that Europe dominated the connection, vastly enlarged the slave trade, and continually turned it to European advantage and to African loss." UNQUOTE

Who wrote this? Some biased African historian? No. It is from: THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE by BASIL DAVIDSON. Little, Brown and Co. (ISBN 0-316-17438-6).

Did Gates read this book before he went on TV? Did Gates also consider (1) the fact that if you create a market, someone will supply it? As an African-American, he must be aware that the crack cocaine that is killing the youth in America's Black ghettos is often supplied by dealers who are themselves Black. They must know crack is bad for their societies, but they love the money better than they love their people. So they deal. Now, Who supplies THEM? White drug barons with connections to Colombia. (Even the CIA has been accused of being involved in supplying; a notion made credible by its connections with Noriega and the Contras.)

Extrapolate: Europe created the market for slaves needed to work in North America and the Caribbean. And the market got supplied by Europeans and their African agents/mercenary armies. The responsibility therefore lies squarely on Europe because -- and this must be said a thousand times -- without a market there cannot be supply -- of anything.

But that aside -- and even more important -- in determining who was responsible, let us look at the sheer mechanics of the trade. It was the Europeans who designed the DEATH BOATS in which the slaves were shipped. According to Basil DAVIDSON, the average space per person was one square foot. Imagine being chained to one square foot for a voyage of 10 weeks or more; doing "everything" there. Why were the DEATH BOATS constructed this way? To maximise profits for the Europeans from their human cargo, of course. Africans taught them that, Mr Gates?

That a Black man who knows about this can even begin to compare its seriousness to the African "complicity" element is truly sad.

Secondly, it was also the Europeans who designed and MANUFACTURED the branding irons; the neck-hold irons; the shackles for the feet and the legs and the arms... There weere no iron-mongering factories in Africa at the time, for God's sake, Mr Gates.

As to how it all began, please read this account of how the very first Africans were captured by the Portuguese, and judge for yourself how the pattern was initially set, to continue for 400 years:

QUOTE: "In the year 1441... there sailed from Portugal, a little ship under the command of one Antam Goncalves...the youthful Goncalves conceived the idea of pleasing his royal master, Prince Henry of Portugal, by capturing some inhabitants of this unknown southern land....they saw a naked man following a camel, with two assegais in his hand... though he was only one, and saw that the others were many, this African ... began to defend himself as best he could, showing a bolder front than his strength warranted. But Affonso Goterres wounded him with a javelin....The Portuguese took him prisoner, and then as they were going on their way, they saw a Black Mooress come along, and so they seized her too...[later] the taking of prisoners for information led to kidnapping for profit...the Portuguese caravels, sometimes four, sometimes more, were wont to come armed to the Gulf of Arguim, and descending on the land at night, would assail the fisher villages and so ravage the land... Thus, they took these [Berbers and Africans] both men and women, and carried them to Portugal for sale... 'when trade was good here', Pereira could report of the estuary of the Senegal river, 'as many as four hundred slaves could be had in this river.... when the trade of the country was well ordered, it yielded 3,500 slaves, and more, many tusks of ivory, gold, fine cotton cloths and much other merchandise... UNQUOTE (Ibid.).

This was to go on for over 400 years, refined, reorganised, but essentially the same -- the most cruel, wicked, barbaric, and inhuman trade ever invented -- by the Whiteman.

I am desperately ashamed that some Africans could be fooled or cajoled or paid or forced into taking part in it. But I am not so stupid as to believe that the Africans did it out of their evil nature, rather than obey the same economic laws that fooled so many of them into putting their fertile lands under the cultivation of cocoa and other cash crops that they do not eat themselves, and which have saddled their economies with unreliable, fluctuating earnings, ever since.

Martin Duodu

[Cross-posting or publishing messages that appear on BRC-ALL to a non-BRC medium is prohibited (except for articles, announcements, and press releases), without EXPLICIT permission from the message author]

BRC-ALL: Black Radical Congress - General Discussion/Debate
Subscribe: Email "subscribe brc-all" to <majordomo@tao.ca>