OF POETRY, PHILOSOPHY, IDEOLOGY – and Reservations

Yesterday afternoon, 7^th July, 2013, marked yet another milestone in the lives of the young men and women who subscribe to the Lantern Meet of Poets – a national (even global) society of adherents to poetic justice, in both its literal and metaphorical senses.

The purpose for this particular convention however, unlike the regular fortnightly Sunday afternoon sessions the Meet holds to critique each other’s poetic works; was to continue a series of consultative and consensus-building discussions being conducted, as the group readies itself to deliver yet another monumental late-year (scheduled for sometime in October) recital to the Ugandan art-appreciating public.

The discourse in question, which commenced towards 4pm and lasted close to three hours; covered a host of wide-ranging sociopolitical issues and involved the heated exchange of personal considered opinion, most of it very well-researched, but some a little more equivalent to numbing FM talk.

The formally assigned topic of discussion was to the likening of ‘’How culture may be a tool for social advancement, or the advancement of society.’’ This though, as in any truly intellectual debate undertaken by true intellectuals, wasn’t strictly adhered to.*

Now, before I proceed, I must categorically state that ALL Lanterns (as members of the Meet are rightly called) are by and large very informed, articulate and objective individuals. They mostly speak out of their minds, and hardly their hearts. And sometimes, one even wonders if this crop of terribly impressive young people is not a horde of extra-terrestrial intellectuals from dimensions without Earth’s mechanized thinking-atmosphere.

The discourse began, as was advised by, indisputably, our leading philosophé́́, Mr. Agaba Archibald, with an inspection into the etymological, lexical and sociological meanings of the key terms constituting the motion,  namely;  Society, Advancement and Culture – in that order.

The ensuing dialectic therefore is aimed at contributing, albeit minutely, to the body of wonderfully constructed arguments and resolutions arrived at with the closure of yesterday’s rendezvous, by expressing some of my personal reservations at some facets of the resolutions, and volunteering  alternative stances to a few others.

[In short, this avenue is affirmative action for me; for either being shouted down, out-argued or altogether silenced during the course of discussion yesterday :-) ]*

1. ADVANCEMENT (and Interpretation of the same):

Firstly – permit me draw attention to an issue concerning topic interpretation, for I feel no apt justice may be done to the subject if the interpretation rendered it is even remotely erroneous.

Well, would you consider this equation proper; 

Advancement of Society = Social Advancement?

If you do, I beg to respectfully differ, reasoning that the two concepts are far from synonymous, and actually constitute very disparate notions.

Whilst the former presupposes, as was mostly opined by the attendees, the conscious and intended forward motion of an entire society (or at least a broad mass of the society), together, toward a preset and mutually accepted objective; which objective may be social, political, economic, cultural or whatever other field the society may seek advance in.

The latter however, to me, connotes the advancement of that society, or any other group of persons living together (whether they have grown into a society yet, or not) in a direction that is particularly/mostly social. In other words, their advancement is specifically social (or in matters of social concern i.e. dance, art, language etc) even when their politics or economic aptitude is not necessarily advancing.

I hope I have volunteered a visible differentiation.

Then now, I move on to an attempt at presenting ideological, word-specific, and sundry-topic counter arguments.

           2.  SOCIETY:

Though with slight variations in wording, it was roundly agreed that society is an association of persons, deliberate and conscious, for the end of mutual benefit;

It was underscored that people only choose, and are able, to form society when they acknowledge their inter-dependence and thus the verity of the fact that their survival will depend on their coming together to form a society. As well as what type of society they ultimately form.

Another argument presupposed the absence of hostility, or inherent differentials, for a society to exist. And that; agreement, harmony, and ultimately the utopian concept of Unity (as best exemplified by the functionalism of the human/mammalian/animal body) are necessary prerequisites for any collective that aspires to be deemed a society.

Then contention reared her head, ugly or not, I don’t know, when the questions were asked …

i)                   Is modern-day Uganda a society, OR, Is there such a thing as a Ugandan identity and/or character?

The immediate and general response seems to have been a resounding, NO!

It was decried that our segmented traditions, our lack of unified character, our disparate linguistics, and ‘cultural’ divergence – all exacerbated by our being, like all other present-day African nation-states, the unfortunate bi-product of the historical process of mankind’s imperialist domination and exploitation of fellow man, which was licensed by the 1876 Berlin conference, that heralded African Scramble and Partition.

Opinions to the end of Uganda having some fledgling traits of a society, in short, that Uganda is a society-in- the-making; were both scoffed-at and dismissed as, at best, illusory and ludicrous.

ii)                 Is it necessary to for Uganda to aspire towards becoming a society, OR Would a Ugandan society be a desirable, let alone viable entity?

We are what we are, or what we were made to be, and we must accept it!

The boundaries drawn up to the effect of lumping up African people against their will, and dividing up formally united societies into the custody of different governments, were not our fault.

However, it is our responsibility, as a modern generation of Ugandan citizens to make this ‘thing’ (for lack of a better word – is it a Country?  State?  Nation?)  we have come to learn is called Uganda, work!

This opinion was accepted halfheartedly, begrudgingly and even bitterly. I could sense the helplessness and dilemma surging through our minds – the irony that we were seated in that circle of chairs – each of us native to a different ethnic enclave of Uganda, representing the diversity there exists herein – yet torn between conceding to the possibility of our respective kinsfolk embracing each other and forging a functional society from the currently chaotic Ugandan milieu.

Anyway, it wasn’t our fault!

Instead, the opinion was that we must blame the British for making it possible for us to seat at such a civil platform as we did yesterday, discussing Greek philosophy, Egyptian high-knowledge or Hindu Krishna-consciousness; as opposed to being family fathers and mothers (judging by our average age: twenty-some) in traditional African tribal mud and wattle dwellings, each having about five kids and worrying about the seasons and which goat to sacrifice so the gods may favor us with rains.

No - it was decided that we must point an accusing finger at them for taking us out of our Adam’s suits (or cattle & goat hides & bark-cloth at best) and placing clothing them in denim, linen and silk. Or allowing the tough calluses to disappear from our previously unshod feet, by fixing Timberland™ boots and old-school moccasins onto our feet;

Quote me not wrongly, I do not even begin to dispute the evils of colonialism, black enslavement and their attendant economic systems.

But yes, that is all they were, economic systems!

They grew, as Mr. Archibald ably pointed out, into highly entrenched and sophisticated mechanisms of oppression, with codified laws being developed to support their sustenance and perpetuity. But that doesn’t preclude the essence of their having been, albeit grossly warped, economic inter-relations between the vanquishing and vanquished peoples.

I contend that it would help our cause as Africans striving to rediscover our lost identity;  for us to out-grow the rendering of slavery and colonialism onto the canvas of subjectivity, by claiming that the ‘white’ race is inherently evil and predisposed to the domination of fellow men, whom they consider innately subservient.

For by doing so, we do not much differ from the American Negro, Elijah Muhammad and his Nation of Islam, who even went as far as fabricating a religious cultism around this supposition. Apart of course from igniting a temporary excitement in the hearts of an indigent Negro-population, their cause didn’t go far. We risk running into a similar fate, unless we switch goal-posts.

On the contrary, colonialism and the subsequent enslavement of the natives of Africa, Asia, and the Americas must be viewed as what it rightly is – an economic endeavor on the part of the colonizing powers.

More powerful civilizations always assault and attempt to conquer weaker ones – in order to exploit their resources; human and otherwise. Racial supremacy comes in much, much later – if at all!

The Babylonians conquered (colonized) and enslaved several of their neighbors during the heyday of their civilization. Most of the conquered states belonged to the same race as the Babylonians.

The Romans sought to conquer every society in their knowledge and/or sight, irrespective of its racial composition, as long as it was weaker. And slavery then was mostly imposed upon those societies that resisted (white, black or yellow), while those that co-operated were given some form of autonomy and their residents Roman Citizenship.

This is why, perhaps one of the greatest Roman Emperors, Septimus Severus (A.D. 193-211) was an African born in Tripolitania.

Also, Aureleus Augustinus, better known to history as St. Augustine, the leading Christian philosopher of his day and Bishop of Hippo from A.D 360-430, was also from Roman Africa.

Colonialism is fundamentally an economic action - the response to either an existing resource scarcity, or the need to forestall one by impounding and hoarding resources from outside your territory. It is not, as is fallaciously construed, the outward expression of an inherent racial narcissism or ethnic chauvinism.

If anything, most of our own smaller and more primitive tribal societies south of the Sahara, were not entirely homogeneous, and by the time their miniature attempts at civilization were hijacked by the white invaders, there had been several alliances formed, broken and mended as these nationalities fought for control over land, water bodies, and other amenities they thought imperative to their survival.

Buganda and Bunyoro, for instance had been struggling for supremacy in the region as they incessantly waged war on each other. Also, Ankole and Toro seceded or gained independence from the larger Bunyoro-Kitara Empire.

I am sure several other examples exist across the continent and/or the globe.

In other words, during the modern phase of colonialism; white-men (Europeans) colonized black men (African), yellow men (Asians) and red-men (Americans).

However, for centuries past, white men have been colonizing fellow white men (Romans over Vikings, Visigoths etc), and yellow men have colonized fellow yellow men (Japan over China), and black men have colonized fellow black men.

The list is long. AND IT IS, fundamentally, ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS/ RESOURCES.

3. Culture and other stuff that fits within the bubble:

Why therefore do our people, from their ethnic view-points, think they are so different? Think their origins are so disparate? Think that we were destined to lead isolated or independent existences as Basoga, Batooro, Bagisu or Langi?

Is it not telling of our historical unity when we find a plethora of words that cut across tribal dialects and ethnic language-barricades? 

Would it be absurd to suppose that perhaps – even certainly – that colonialism, stripped of its exploitative and subjugating qualities (which, as we have seen, were fundamentally economic), fast-tracked Africa towards her destiny i.e. some form or other of continental/ racial Unity, with a federated society, large in both geographical and ethnic expanse.

Does a society – to be rightly a society i.e. functional, harmonious and progressive – have to be homogeneous with regard to what I’d call ‘cultural trivialities?’

Is it not possible for there to be cultural diversity – with respect to norms, values, dialects etc – and yet there exists Unity in society? Like the anatomical-analogy given by Mr. Labanga, does the eye have to be identical to the arm for them to co-exist on the same body in unity?

I don’t think for instance, that the presence of circumcision as an aspect of culture in Bugisu, and its absence in Ankole should be ground for saying that the Bagisu and Banyankole are incompatible, and cannot live harmoniously and progressively in this ‘thing we call Uganda.’

This is a mind-set that should change.

The Bagisu are not necessarily different from the Basoga, nor the Karimoj’ong from the Hima, for that matter.

We all belong to each other and, I am sure if we go back far enough in history, we’ll discover that our roots are shared; our great-great-great-granddaddy is one, and that one of his sons probably called a person omuntu, while his other son called them umuntu.

Perhaps they allowed such variation, which probably widened in the course of many years, to stay for the good cause of adding color to their lives. Then they even changed their names and their descendants’ group-identity to Nkore, Acholi, Lendu or Gikuyu for the same good cause.

But then – out of relative ignorance, what have contemporary generations used these tenets of diversity for?  Genocide. Nepotism. Civil War. Power struggle.

Indeed, our great-great –great-granddaddy must be turning, distraught, in his unmarked grave.

*If anything, all humanity has one ancestor (thought to have lived somewhere over the lake in present-day Tanzania), and that should be ground enough for the realization of one country called earth, made up of human beings/citizens.!

Don’t all your father’s children have his DNA, belong to each other, and call each other brother, sister?  Aren’t they all entitled to an equitable inheritance of his assets?  Me likes to think – YES!

But then, that global dialectic is for another day.

Let us concentrate on more ‘indigenous’ issues for today.

It worries therefore, me when I hear my peers, especially those I look to for mentorship, fall short of stating categorically that Africa’s progress can only be directed towards reversion to the so-called nation states that existed in pre-colonial society.

Surely, can we agree that the only viable society Africa can make of herself is at ethnic/tribal level i.e. Buganda alone, Bunyoro alone, Teso alone, Acholi alone etc …?

Are these more viable than a united East Africa, West Africa, or ultimately, a United States of Africa? 

Isn’t the existence of Uganda, Guinea or Botswana a positive preliminary step towards the DESIRABLE & NECESSARY unification of our people (by that, I mean blacks south of the Sahara, in addition to black immigrants from the Diaspora)?

Though Europe is yet to federate politically, it is true that the broad national groupings on that continent i.e. England, France, Italy or Spain, are not purely homogeneous. The common languages they speak are the result of many years of comparison and harmonization of the various dialects that their several tribes/ethnicities speak or once spoke. 

For instance; England is comprised of the Vikings among other groups, who speak variant dialects of English  ... in the same way that Uganda is comprised of the Baganda and Banyoro, who speak different dialects of the Bantu language.

Is it not true that, far from the pretext of ethnic and thus cultural incompatibility, bad governance permeated by capitalist ideology, is the root cause for the putative non-viability of Uganda, and other modern African states?

Again, I pose the same question I ventured yesterday, isn’t Botswana an African success story? How grossly different are its circumstances from those of Uganda, or any other independent modern African country for that matter?

Tell me – HOW?

In conclusion, allow me, without much reluctance, say that Uganda was neither created by the Berlin Conference, nor by the forceful sustenance of those borders by post-independence governments against the will of her people. 

Rather, Uganda, and other bordered African nation-states, have been discovered by history - both internally and externally- in the African peoples' necessary and proper aspiration to grow into a meaningful civilization i.e. a politically federated African Union.

And in this aspiration - every scent in the African garden has a role to play; every flavor of tribe, ethnicity and their respective cultural peculiarities must be 'ingrediented' into the steaming pot-stew as we and our children seek to forge a strong, harmonious and prosperous African NATION - or I  dare say, society.