Name of Author:

Course:

Name of Tutor:

Date of submission:

Views about African History: A Response to Roper and Hegel’s Claims of Absence of History in Africa

Generally, the last two centuries have had numerous mythologies and stereotypes get expressed about Africa. Besides numerous common beliefs about backwardness, inadvertent danger, poverty, technological retrogression, and extreme presence of the wild, perhaps, the most outstanding of these is the view with which European and other historians looked upon Africa. The common stance in the 18^th and early 19^th century was that Africa had no history. If anything, the history of Africa was yet to develop and was in itself covered with total darkness. Thus the view of Roper that “The rest is darkness, and darkness is not the subject of history” and the preceding one by Hegel, “What we properly understand by Africa, is the Unhistorical, Undeveloped Spirit, still involved in the conditions of mere nature”.

In sum, Africa was characteristically presented by various authors as having unsurpassed extents of illiteracy, absence of administrational and governmental structures, full of chaos and characterised by extreme presence of uncivilized cultures. Yet, as indicated by Oliver and Anthony, this view was overally and perceptually wrong in large scales (12, 14). There are numerous factors to consider while reviewing this point. To begin with, the supposition that the only history existing in Africa at some point was that of missionaries and Europeans visiting the continent was totally outrageous (Breitborde 164). It should be noted that these visitors met Africans upon their visits. Although there were no records of history, the mere presence of Africans indicated they had been historically present, thus, their history did not begin with the visit of the foreigners, but rather, it is the foreigners who did not have accounts of African history then.

As contested by Boyd, it is notable that the prehistory of Africa expresses fundamental revelations that help in disambiguating such claims. Recording the list of historians and historical writings in an encyclopaedia, he outlines that even then, there were various writings about African history. To be specific, he mentions that various Muslim historians, and Roman explorers and historians had made various accounts of the history that was existent in Africa before the 17^th or even 16^th century (10).

At this point, it is considerable to review the methodologies applied by various historians to discredit the possible existence of history in Africa. In the reviews of considerations made by Roper and other historians, various factors must be lucidly existent in a society to indicate the presence of history in such a society. One and among the most prominent of such considerations entails the evidential documentation of various occurrences in the society. These include various movements towards development and various changes acquired over time. Such evidence must indicate progression and factual advancement in various aspects (Gaugue 28).

Agreeably, there is an extent to which this perception affected Africa and considerations in its history. While it may be true that there was scarcity of documented evidence of African history, this argument is undermined by various factors and considerations; the greatest of them being strictness in the parameters upon which existence of history gets evaluated. Thus, it is possible that other elements in societal culture can also indicate the presence of historical existence (Mackenzie 166). Among such are elements of oral tradition, societal literature, and cultural ways of life. Although not open to the European historians, these elements were outstandingly existent in Africa. Furthermore, Archaeological history, in Africa has a lot to tell about life in the continent as early as the first to the tenth centuries.

In the listings presented by Oliver and Anthony (2001), there is a lot of evidential existence of African history. Part of this is monumental and mainly archaeological while the other is contained on oral traditions and cultural establishments. To begin with, Egypt is viewed as a central source of history on Africa. In Egypt, lighter skinned Semitic persons had settled long before the arrival of any white and way ahead of the time of Hegel and Roper. An outstanding monumental existence pointing to old dynasties cannot be overlooked. Among these are the   Pyramids of Giza, which are mainly three, represent three different historical kings, and are probably more than 5000 years old. Besides these, different temples and artefacts’ within them in Egypt indicate the historical presence of religion and way of life.

These include the Temple of Luxor and Karnak Temple Complex among many others. Other than the temples and pyramids in Egypt, Ethiopia is predominantly characterized by the presence of churches that date to thousands of years old. A look at the southern part of Africa, gives no less claims about the evidence of history in Africa. The walls of the eleventh century kingdom of Zimbabwe still stand as bare proof of a way of life in the region. Further to the north Western parts of Africa, the histories of Timbuktu, Gao, and Mali prevail extraordinarily above any claim that would seek to discredit them. Thus, it would be right to claim that beliefs about nonexistence of History in Africa were outstandingly driven by lack of information and prejudice. In many cases, there was the idea of absence of civilization in Africa as portrayed by the sentiments of Hegel. Yet, it is worth noting that no culture was history presented as standardization of civilization. To this extent, many African authors on the subject argue that there was then no need to make any culture much similar and like another to be considered civilized. Thus, they dismiss the claims of Africa being uncivilized (Gaugue 27).

In the reviews provided by Gauge, there is currently a rich existence of evidence of African cultural history indicating political provisions, and recollections of various events endowed in various museums across Africa (Gaugue 26-31). This view is echoed by Mackenzie who despite presenting the presence of missionaries in Africa goes ahead to indicate that their presence was not actually the beginning of African history. Ultimately, the article by Breitborde concerning modern myths in Africa and how these have interacted with various global encounters in both the pre-colonial and post-colonial periods also points to the direction that the history of Africa started long ago and existed for millennia before it actually got documented and presented in written formats (1).

In sum, it is worth acknowledging that the claims by Hegel and Roper, initiated a lot of research, publications and responses to various aspects on African history. Although little history of Africa was recorded over the spans of time they considered, their way of consideration was solely based on documented evidence which was not available in Africa then. However, Africa had history, and that history as has lately revealed itself, can be told through culture, oral tradition, archaeological and monumental pasts.

Works Cited

Boyd, Kelly. Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing. London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999. Print.

Breitborde, L. B. “Modern Myths to Global Encounters: Belonging and the Dynamics of Change in Post-Colonial Africa.” African Studies Review 52.1 (2009): 163-165.

Gaugue, Anne. “Myths, Censorship and the Representation of Precolonial History in the Museums of Tropical Africa.” Museum International 53.3 (2001): 26-31.

Mackenzie, John M. “David Livingstone – Prophet or Patron Saint of Imperialism in Africa: Myths and Misconceptions.” Scottish Geographical Journal 129.3/4 (2013): 277-291.

Oliver, Roland A, and Anthony Atmore. Medieval Africa, 1250 – 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001. Print.