The Dark Legacy of the Bible in Africa.
I'm reading the book "The Construction of Nationhood" by Adrian Hastings. This week I'm reading about the influence of evangelism on the creation of ethnic identities in Africa. It's really interesting.
Before colonization, there were many places in Africa that did not have a written language. When language is no written, there are no standard rules and so the "language" varies considerably more than what we think of as languages. In Africa, an oral language would have many dialects and would vary from location to location. The economic and cultural situation did not necessitate a written language, so they didn't have one. But then came the missionaries, and how are they supposed to convert these people if they can't give them a Bible? So, these dedicated missionaries begin trying to learn the languages. They record the grammar structures, and create dictionaries. When they think they've got a grasp of it, they make a Bible. The only problem was that they were usually learning the language from a limited number of people and so when the final copy was written, the language might make sense in that specific area, but walk 30 minutes away and it's no longer useful. So, the missionaries would use the language as long as they could and when it no longer made sense, they'd start the whole process over again. But many of these languages were closely connected and the people who spoke them closely connected. By making their specific dialect a language, though, the missionaries inadvertently created an identity. Now two groups of people, who might belong to a similar identity, were now two separate groups.
"What's the big deal?" I hear you thinking. Well, language is something that is closely associated with national identity. Think about it. We're furious because there are so many people in the U.S. that don't speak English well if they speak it at all. The French are furious because American globalization is englishifying the French language.
Well, a very long time ago Europe went through a period of time where it published texts and oral languages gave way to written languages. However, it was a very long process. Centuries went by as different groups of people clustered towards French or Italian or whatever. In Africa, however, the process was rushed because the eternal souls of these people depended on it. So, rather than a slow evolution of eliminating dialects and flocking to a central tongue, missionaries recognized every single dialect. The result was an overabundance of languages, and therefore an overabundance of national and ethnic identities. One of the greatest complaints about Africa is that there are so many different kinds of people there, how can we possibly have them get along? Well, that's the fault of the missionaries and other groups like them who created identities from a sense of urgency and convenience rather than allowing Africa to develop identities and nations on its own.
Now, however, it's too late. These new identities are so ingrained into the way of life there that the old identities, loose as they were, no longer exist. The great challenge of Africa will be to shrug off the identities given to them by the missionaries and begin merging together with some of the other nation groups around them. Imagine, though, for a moment how difficult that is. Think if someone told you that you had to shrug off your American identity and try to become Mexican because some people messed up a few hundred years ago and made you separate when you shouldn't have been.
Madness.
Before colonization, there were many places in Africa that did not have a written language. When language is no written, there are no standard rules and so the "language" varies considerably more than what we think of as languages. In Africa, an oral language would have many dialects and would vary from location to location. The economic and cultural situation did not necessitate a written language, so they didn't have one. But then came the missionaries, and how are they supposed to convert these people if they can't give them a Bible? So, these dedicated missionaries begin trying to learn the languages. They record the grammar structures, and create dictionaries. When they think they've got a grasp of it, they make a Bible. The only problem was that they were usually learning the language from a limited number of people and so when the final copy was written, the language might make sense in that specific area, but walk 30 minutes away and it's no longer useful. So, the missionaries would use the language as long as they could and when it no longer made sense, they'd start the whole process over again. But many of these languages were closely connected and the people who spoke them closely connected. By making their specific dialect a language, though, the missionaries inadvertently created an identity. Now two groups of people, who might belong to a similar identity, were now two separate groups.
"What's the big deal?" I hear you thinking. Well, language is something that is closely associated with national identity. Think about it. We're furious because there are so many people in the U.S. that don't speak English well if they speak it at all. The French are furious because American globalization is englishifying the French language.
Well, a very long time ago Europe went through a period of time where it published texts and oral languages gave way to written languages. However, it was a very long process. Centuries went by as different groups of people clustered towards French or Italian or whatever. In Africa, however, the process was rushed because the eternal souls of these people depended on it. So, rather than a slow evolution of eliminating dialects and flocking to a central tongue, missionaries recognized every single dialect. The result was an overabundance of languages, and therefore an overabundance of national and ethnic identities. One of the greatest complaints about Africa is that there are so many different kinds of people there, how can we possibly have them get along? Well, that's the fault of the missionaries and other groups like them who created identities from a sense of urgency and convenience rather than allowing Africa to develop identities and nations on its own.
Now, however, it's too late. These new identities are so ingrained into the way of life there that the old identities, loose as they were, no longer exist. The great challenge of Africa will be to shrug off the identities given to them by the missionaries and begin merging together with some of the other nation groups around them. Imagine, though, for a moment how difficult that is. Think if someone told you that you had to shrug off your American identity and try to become Mexican because some people messed up a few hundred years ago and made you separate when you shouldn't have been.
Madness.
posted by Jesi E. at 4/19/2006 06:37:00 PM
2 Comments:
That damn Gutenburg. This is all his fault! (I KNOW that he's related to Bush!)
From a different viewpoint...the amount of capital invested in poor nations by colonial powers gave them a great deal of opportunity and advantage they would never have possessed otherwise, as well as instilling at least some basic capitalist principles in common ideology.
If colonial peoples would have embraced these principles following the removal of colonial sovereignty they might have been far better off.
No question there were inhuman (or perhaps quite human) travesties committed against these peoples not the least of which was slavery and disease. (though neither was outright)
Would Africa and the Middle East have emerged as world powers if colonialism had not spread to their shores? Would the West be as powerful?
The West has continued to improve since the dissolution of colonial mercantilism, while the Middle East and Africa have done poorly in comparison. Both have experienced a multi-millenia stagnation that they have not emerged from...colonialism or not. (albeit the muslim world did have a golden age, and exceptions do exist)
Post a Comment
<< Home