A GENERAL HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO AFRICA, PAST AND PRESENT
Basil Risbridger Davidson (1914-2010) was a British journalist and historian. He wrote in the Preface to the 1990 revised edition of this 1966 book, “When Nelson Mandela stepped free from his defeated jailers on 11 February 1990… an immense public… gave him their welcome and support… Mandela’s release was… a moment of affirmation in the record of Africa’s history, which has long been one of subjection to foreign powers… it was a moment to recall that the facts of Africa’s own history have always been… an entirely convincing denial of the mythologies of modern racism….
“What follows here is a general introduction to this world of knowledge about Africa’s record in the past, and about the background of the Africa we see today. It seeks to portray the basic themes that have shaped and informed the self-development of black peoples, and to body forth the essential unities of thought and experience that underlie the rich diversities of this vast continent’s cultural and social processes since ancient times.”
In the first chapter, he observes, “historical advances have swept away some old myths and established some new truths. The seductively agreeable belief so dear to nineteenth century Europe that all in Africa was savage chaos before the coming of the Europeans may linger here and there, but not among historians concerned with Africa… [or] among those who have looked at the evidence… Africa is now seen to possess a history which demands as serious an approach as that of any other continent.” (Pg. 3)
He explains, “human stocks in Africa have evolved from or alongside hominid types which had existed in Africa for an immense period of time, and … this evolution continued down the centuries until it eventually promoted civilizations of the highest value. These human stocks… We may be content to call all of them Africans, and the more so because recent analysis of blood groups has gone far to suggest that nearly all shared … the same remote ancestors… the once familiar attribution of the term ‘white’ to North African stocks (as of the term ‘black’ to other African stocks) is really little more than another mystification of the racist sort. All such categorizations should be dismissed. Consider only the strange case of the ‘Hamitic Hypothesis,’ another myth dear to the epoch of imperialism… it was preached that any signs of past progress among Africans must have been the fruit of outside intrusion… more exactly of ‘white’ intrusion from Europe… The ‘Hamitic Hypothesis’ was great nonsense. No serious Africanist believes in it or even the mere existence, then or since, of any people or culture definable as Hamitic.” (Pg. 12)
He notes, “If it now seems perfectly clear that the vast majority of pre-dynastic Egyptians were of continental African stock, and even of central-western Saharan origins, there is likewise serous dispute among the authorities even as to whether the hypothetical ‘dynastic race’ associated with the foundation of Pharaonic Egypt had come from outside Africa. These early populations undoubtedly included the descendants of incoming migrants from the Near East. But to argue from this that the vast majority of the inhabitants of old Egypt, not being ‘Negro,’ were therefore not African is as little tenable as to argue the same about the Berbers and the Ethiopians, whom nobody has yet proposed to erase from the list of African peoples. The old racist categories of ‘white’ or ‘black’ can indeed make no sense in this or perhaps any other connection… Whatever their pigmentation or physical appearance, the Egyptians of Pharaonic times were an intimate part of African history.” (Pg. 26)
He states, “Like the religions of Africa, the arts of Africa are not the crude imaginings of primitive men. On the contrary, they are the embodiment and statement of old and intricate speculations and traditions about the nature of the world and man’s possible place in the world. They are the literature, the holy books, the poetry of African belief.” (Pg. 65)
He acknowledges, “Iron Age Africa was clearly not a paradise. Yet to isolate its darker side as evidence of unusual cruelty or natural human inferiority would be even more misleading than to suppose that the European Middle Ages knew only racks and thumbscrews. If anything, the comparison between Africa and Europe is likely to be in Africa’s favor. Throughout the medieval period most African forms of government were undoubtedly more representative than their European contemporaries. Most African wars were less costly in life and property. And most African ruling groups were less predatory.” (Pg. 145)
He clarifies, “There is no doubt that this use of tied or wageless labor increased though for the most part only in the Muslim areas of the Western Sudan, after the fifteenth century… Muslim kings… accumulated wealth through wider use of slave labor… Yet these ‘wageless workers’… were seldom or never mere chattels, persons without rights or hope of emancipation. They might be bought or sold… Yet their condition was different from that of the African chattel slaves who would labor in the Americas… On the contrary, they were integral members of their community…These systems, then, were not ‘slave-based economies’ such as had existed in parts of Europe or Asia.” (Pg. 209)
He points out, “conventional historians… were at times the willing or unconscious victims of an extreme form of what may be called the ‘imperialist delusion’: the self-deception so powerfully at work among European peoples in justifying the colonial invasions and enclosures. This self-deception taught that Africa must be ‘saved from itself’ by the European imposition of control… None of this is to say that pre-colonial Africa was a kind of utopia, or that African peoples were not in need of new ideas or new structures of social and economic life. What it does me is that much of the accepted historiography of the southern regions… has to be read with a prudent skepticism as the product of special pleading by those who have wished to defend… this process of dispossession to which most of southern Africa’s peoples have been subject. It is only in recent years that historians in South Africa … have begun to question the accepted views of ‘white history.’” (Pg. 261-263)
He explains, “Nobody need doubt that by 1900 the greater part of Africa most urgently required a renovation in terms of industrial science, mechanical production and social relationships. But it was not the colonial system that provided or every could provide this renovation. Potent to destroy, the bearers of the white man’s burden proved helpless to rebuild… All that was achieved, in general, was a deepening of that very large crisis of change and transformation which much of Africa had already entered before the invaders came on the scene. The invaders… proved unable to resolve it. Nor, for the most part, did they try to resolve it.” (Pg. 317)
He says, “The years since [Kwame] Nkrumah [in Ghana] had convincingly demonstrated this harsh and difficult truth: various permutations of the ‘Western model’ had been tried, but they had not worked; and nothing stable had emerged since Nkrumah’s overthrow in 1966 by ‘Western-oriented’ army officers. Meanwhile the ‘Eastern model’… had produced no viable alternatives. Co-operatives had failed. State enterprises had done no better.” (Pg. 362)
This book will be of great interest to those studying African history.