| Subject: |
|
The Indonesian connection in African history: Not exactly an African dilemma |
| Name: |
|
Wim van Binsbergen |
| Date Posted: |
|
Mar 3, 05 - 10:22 AM |
| Email: |
|
binsbergen@fsw.leidenuniv.nl |
| Website: |
|
http://www.shikanda.net |
| Message: |
|
dear Robert-Dick Read
You are absolutely right in stressing the importance of Indonesia for Africa.
However, you are not right in suggesting that all Africanists have always overlooked this point.
It is rather that questions of long-range cultural history -- both intra-continental (i.e. within Africa) and inter-continental (i.e. between Africa and the wider world) -- tend to be completely outside the range of historians of Africa, especially during the last few decades of research.
The main reason for this is ideological: In post World War II thinking about Africa, the victim aspect (Africa as victim of European expansion, of slave trade, colonialism, postcolonialism, the World Bank, globalisation) has been stressed excessively, at the expense of other perspectives on Africa (cultural identity, pride, global contributions, local irresponsibilities and corruption, internecine warfare, etc.); now, while the North Atlantic region and its scholarly representatives are unable to undo history or restore the balance in any substantial way (even supposing the victim perspective to be essentially correct), there is one thing the North can do in compensation: it can vicariously try to reinforce African cultural pride, by endorsing some sort of 'Africa for the Africans' idea, according to which 'foreign stains' on African purity are denied or ignored, and all of Africa's rich and extremely heterogeneous culture is supposed to spring directly from African soil, without major intercultural influences.
Of course, such a perspective has the advantage of reversing the colonial and racialist stereotype according to which Africa, Africans, and Black people in general could only be at the passive, receiving end of cultural history, and according to which the great African contributions to global cultural history are denied or ignored.
However, it is utterly unrealistic to think of our continents as sealed black boxes, contained onto themselves. A continent is a recent, modern distinction and construction, and reflects the geopolitics of today and of the recent past.
An equivalent 'Europe for the Europeans' idea (although not totally absent in circles of Eurocentrist archaeologists and cultural historians -- cf. the Black Athena debate) would yet be utterly and clearly ridiculous: Europe's population largely derived from Asia and Africa, its main languages from Asia, as do its main religious and cultural forms, technologies, etc.
And just like Europe, Africa has both contributed to, and received from, the other continents, throughout the last handful of millennia. As for as Africa is concerned, those who are into long-range historical connections (like myself) have always realised and admitted the Indonesian connection. There is a considerable literature on this issue, to which I could direct you in a follow-up to this posting.
I have not been able to study your webpages very carefully, but what I saw looks familiar to me and does not in any way go against my own views of such connections.
For extensive empirical studies and theoretical arguments concerning Africa's integrated position in global cultural history, a perusal of my websites would be rather instructive.
I trust this answers your question and confirms the essential correctness of your position
with kindest regards
wim van binsbergen (professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands / African Studies Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com
