|
OUT OF AMERICA
DENIED
A Critique of the book
Out of America
By E. Ablorh-Odjidja Perhaps, it is not by coincidence
that this book is titled "Out Of America", and it is
equally not by accident that I feel compelled to
critique it. The writer, Keith B. Richburg, is African
American and I am African. We both shared a common
ancestry until this book.
The book is based on Richburg's experience in Africa,
between 1991 and 1994, covering the war in Somalia and
Rwanda as a reporter for the Washington Post.
Richburg's account is riveting,
provocative and sad. Just as we think we have seen
enough carnage in Somalia, we turn a page to meet more
in Rwanda. The stories become more depressing even from
areas not touched by war. In the end, his travels in
Africa become an extraordinary journey of discovery for
him. He has come to Africa naive about what to expect,
and returns completely discontented, at least so he
says.
But for the theme of an African American rejecting his
ancestry, this book would have stirred modest commercial
interest. The stories of Somalia and Rwanda have already
gained worldwide press notoriety. And the cyclical
epidemics of disease and starvation on the continent
have long since become the public face of Africa, years
before the publication of this book, and unfortunately
may continue to be the case for years to come. The
difference, however, is that for the first time in
recent memory, and in bold print, an African American
turns his back on mother Africa!
The book "Out of America" is not about journalism. It is
about moral judgment. Richburg has seen Africa, and
walks away disenchanted: The slaughter of Africans by
Africans, the anarchy, the corruption, and the bizarre
tribal politics are all too much for him. "Thank God" he
concludes "that my nameless ancestor, brought across the
ocean in leg irons, made it out alive."
Richburg must be commended for the
brutal honesty of his appraisal. He also deserves an
award for the avoidance of the brotherly orthodoxy trap
that allows praise for all things African; saints,
dictators and miscreants and all.
True, his insight about the problem
in Africa, "what is happening in Africa isn't about
food.... it is about power and control in a country
where security has broken down" is good and on the mark.
His description of military thugs "who take power and
thwart the continent's fledging efforts to move towards
democracy" cannot be stated better.
Absolutely, there is something wrong
about governance in Africa. It must be condemned. And
Richburg has done that well. But must he reject his
ancestry too? Certainly not.
No matter how heavy the burden of life in Africa is
today, one must not allow that to give slavery respect.
Unfortunately, Richburg jumps over reason to do so.
The Africa of Richburg's experience
is one of turmoil, and the logic of turmoil is chaos. No
excuse intended here. But, not to recognize that the
continent has also been shaped by other influences, in
addition to those of her own, is to over extend the
arrant nature of some clowns on the continent.
Furthermore, to conclude, as he does, that slavery has
proven to be a redeeming factor, because of the mess in
Africa now, is despicable.
Why was Richburg asked by the Washington Post to go to
Africa? Obviously, he is a competent reporter. But at
the time of the offer he seemed very little prepared for
Africa.
For briefing and inspiration for the
trip, he had to travel to Thailand to seek out Kevin
Cooney, "a big, hard-drinking Irish American reporter
...who had spent several months working in the Reuter
office in Nairobi." -- almost like a character conjured
up from the movie "African Queen".
The Africanists, whose counsel Richburg sought, were
only acknowledged as an after- thought. The opinion of
his alma mater, the University of Michigan, "where
prominent black professors taught, including Dr. Ali
Mazrui, perhaps the best-known African scholar in the
West," was never invited. Obviously, Richburg's
preliminary preparation does not show much affection for
the subject Africa.
In Kenya, Nairobi, when Richburg meets Africa, his first
remark is to ask "What's that smell?" Other writers,
like Robert Klitzgaard who wrote "Tropical Gangsters"
about Equatorial Guinea, have been more circumspect,
though equally critical. The wonder is how Richburg can
miss all else on a first day in a strange land. The
exotic, the new, even the layout of the land from miles
up in the sky. For most writers, disenchantment sets in,
if at all, only after the new has faded. But it is not
to be for Richburg. He gets his right in the nose just
moments after arrival.
Richburg's competence as a writer is obvious. Easy
style. Strong narrative skills. However, his lack of
previous attachment to Africa, emotional or
intellectual, is also very evident.
It is not as if he is a Marcus Garvey or a Du Bois
before he sets foot in Africa. And on location at Goree,
the last port for departing slaves in the past, and
perhaps, the most haunting ground in the history of the
Diaspora, he finds himself emotionally sterile. What
then gives him the moral right to say, "Talk to me about
Africa and my black roots and my kinship with my African
brothers and I will throw it back in your face, and then
I'll rub your nose in the images of the rotting flesh."?
This outburst must raise some concern about motive. But
note that in America the sensational sells.
This book must have attraction for some readers. To
those who see Africa as the sinkhole of human existence,
where the exigencies of life have more primordial and
sinister meaning than any other place or time in human
history, the above outburst gives a lot of comfort. And
for this, regretfully, Africa must thank some of her
arrant sons and daughters, including Richburg.
Richburg's rejection of his ancestral land confirms in
the mind of the skeptic, the hopelessness of the black
man's cause. True, there is carnage in Africa. And,
there has been carnage in other areas of the world;
Bosnia, Belfast, Cambodia, Rosewood, Lebanon, Auschwitz
etc. But, is there another writer, from any part of the
world, who has rejected his ancestry in terms more
vehement than Richburg?
By the time Richburg finishes his tour, slavery has
gained a moral upgrade. "There but for the grace of God
go I," he says. Along with the institution of slavery,
he is ready to forgive the loss of life in the Second
World War, the pogrom against Jews in Germany, and the
explosion of the atomic bomb on Japan because of
"mankind's ability to make something good arise often in
the aftermath of the most horrible evil." But he has no
such charity for Africa. He will deny Africa the
capacity for self correction. He would strip Africa bare
of goodness and leave it as a place where the forces of
evil always triumph over those of good.
Richburg's conclusion is divisive. His us (African
American) versus them (African) interpretation of the
story of the slave trade does not factor in the sense of
our shared tragedy, our loss, and what should be our
resolve because of this tragic period in our history.
And this is wrong.
Collectively, Africans warred, and pillaged against each
other, collected prisoners, and, senselessly, allowed
many members of the continent to be taken out of Africa;
very ignorant about the cruelties that awaited these
sons and daughters.
Slavery was not selective, and not by
progeny either as to who went and who was left behind.
The fog of war or raid did not allow this luxury. That
Richburg is in America and Idi Amin remained in Africa
is sheer coincidence. Turn it around, and Idi Amin could
have been born in Detroit, worked in an automobile
factory as a Union leader, and perhaps, could have sired
Richburg.
The slave trade was the most horrific
aspect of our history. We must not be divided by it.
Never again.
For those who are ready to rebel against mother Africa
because of Richburg's ill advised conclusion, I offer
this African proverb: Chasing after a mad man in the
streets, butt naked, can only serve as a sufficient
commentary on one's own sanity.
For myself, I will read Earnest
Gaines' "A Lesson Before Dying" again. It will help as a
reminder of the obligation we owe each other, and also
to help shelter my psyche against this type of assault
on our common ancestry.
Source:
ThisWeekGhana.com
* *
* * *
Response
Maybe this sense of abandonment
expressed by E. Ablorh-Odjidja in his article, "OUT OF
AMERICA DENIED" is a good development in the stage of
African and African-American relations. The Africans are
beginning to get a sense of the feel that African
Americans throughout the diaspora had on the boat to the
Americas. So this might be a means for all of us to get
on the same psycho-dramatic page, beyond the naive
racial sentimentalism of the days of yore.
I am now reading a book containing
George S. Schuyler's two novellas (first serialized by
the Pittsburg Courier) with Ethiopia at the
center of the story. Schuyler was sent to the South as
a reporter in the 30s and even in darkest Mississippi
among the poorest and most ignorant of Negroes there was
a deep feeling for the survival of Ethiopia against the
Italian fascist onslaught.
And there were riots in Harlem and
pitched battles between African Americans and Italian
Americans in Jersey City with the conquest of Ethiopia
as the backdrop. So yes there were widespread pan-african
feelings among American Negroes long before most
Africans had any sense of the term or the feeling. As
you know, Pan-Africanism is a black western concept. So
I do not think that it will ever be extinguished.
The problem presently is that since
Africa, at least superficially, is free and there is so
much pomp and circumstance with regards to its leaders,
most African Americans do not know what to make of the
situation in Africa today. And too many of those who
come here isolate themselves in self-segregated
communities and in that they are often middle class in
their orientation they possess demeaning class attitudes
toward the masses of Negroes. And they too often set
themselves as competitors or an alternative to the
homegrown product.
So it is difficult now to kindle up
the spirit of racial solidarity that existed before the
mid-70s. As Africa has become more concrete and
specific, our feelings with regard to Africa have become
more and more abstract, e.g., Kwanzaa and
African-oriented festival-rituals staged by African
Americans. But maybe all these are necessary phases to
reach the practical respect and realistic and possible
truly loving relationships among Africans and African
Americans.
Though the Pan Africanism of
yesterday is to some extent to be applauded, it too had,
along with Garveyism, a paternalistic and missionary
aspect to it, which sort of looked down on the tribal
African as someone who needed to be taught how to be
civilized. That was the tragedy of Liberia, which
finally erupted into two decades of murderous civil war.
Such notions like the "Joseph Project" too are just a
minor phase. It is a good idea but maybe one ill-timed
for the situation here in America becomes more desperate
by the hour.
My suspicion there will be many
hurdles to overcome in a Ghana that is also struggling
with little or no ideological direction. It is looking
for investment in a struggling economy and they are
looking for help wherever they can get it, even American
Negroes.
But as you must know, unless you have
billions behind you, capital investments in an African
country will bring few immediate returns unless you are
willing to work hard at it and make real solid
relationships with the people themselves. Then there are
the laws there and the bribe-run bureaucracy. This
requires tolerance, patience, and vision.
I know very few U.S. blacks with
substantial capital who are willing to make such
commitments. Most are in the acquisitive modes of
luxurious living and impoverished Africa holds few
glamorous attractions. Such are the twists and turns of
history -- Rudy * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * *
posted 14 July 2006 |
