The History of Africanization and the Africanization of History

The History of Africanization and the Africanization of History

Esperanza Brizuela-García

History in Africa, Volume 33, 2006, pp. 85-100 (Article)

Published by Cambridge University PressDOI: 10.1353/hia.2006.0007

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Lomonosov Moscow State University (27 Jan 2014 04:10 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hia/summary/v033/33.1brizuela-garcia.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hia/summary/v033/33.1brizuela-garcia.html

THE HISTORY OF AFRICANIZATIONAND THE AFRICANIZATION OF HISTORY

ESPERANZA BRIZUELA-GARCÍA

MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY

I

The idea of Africanization is arguably one of the most important andprevalent in African historiography and African studies. I first encoun-tered this notion some eight years ago when I started graduate school.With a background in Mexican and Latin American history, I found itnecessary to immerse myself in the historiography of Africa. It was in thisprocess that I encountered the idea of Africanization. It was not alwaysidentified in this manner, but it was clear that historians were, in one wayor another, articulating a concern about how “African” was African his-tory

The objective of this paper is to examine the history of Africanizationin African historiography. It departs from two basic premises. First, theissues that come with the idea of Africanization are more pronounced inthe field of African history. When compared to other fields, such as LatinAmerican history, this indigenizing of history is not given nearly so muchattention. Second, the idea that African history needs to be Africanizedhas been taken for granted, and has not been critically examined. Here Iwill contend that the historical conditions that have framed the emergenceand development of African historiography have made it necessary toemphasize the issue of Africanization. I will also argue that those condi-tions have changed in the past fifty years, and that the questions raised inthe quest to Africanize history should be redefined in view of the newchallenges for African history and of historiography at large.

In the comments that follow I will look at the idea of Africanization asit evolved in a very specific historiographical tradition. Africanist histori-ography, as I will refer to it, emanated during the 1960s when university

History in Africa 33 (2006), 85–100

THE HISTORY OF AFRICANIZATIONAND THE AFRICANIZATION OF HISTORY

ESPERANZA BRIZUELA-GARCÍA

MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY

I

The idea of Africanization is arguably one of the most important andprevalent in African historiography and African studies. I first encoun-tered this notion some eight years ago when I started graduate school.With a background in Mexican and Latin American history, I found itnecessary to immerse myself in the historiography of Africa. It was in thisprocess that I encountered the idea of Africanization. It was not alwaysidentified in this manner, but it was clear that historians were, in one wayor another, articulating a concern about how “African” was African his-tory

The objective of this paper is to examine the history of Africanizationin African historiography. It departs from two basic premises. First, theissues that come with the idea of Africanization are more pronounced inthe field of African history. When compared to other fields, such as LatinAmerican history, this indigenizing of history is not given nearly so muchattention. Second, the idea that African history needs to be Africanizedhas been taken for granted, and has not been critically examined. Here Iwill contend that the historical conditions that have framed the emergenceand development of African historiography have made it necessary toemphasize the issue of Africanization. I will also argue that those condi-tions have changed in the past fifty years, and that the questions raised inthe quest to Africanize history should be redefined in view of the newchallenges for African history and of historiography at large.

In the comments that follow I will look at the idea of Africanization asit evolved in a very specific historiographical tradition. Africanist histori-ography, as I will refer to it, emanated during the 1960s when university

History in Africa 33 (2006), 85–100

86 Esperanza Brizuela-García

colleges were created in Africa following the impulse of British decoloniza-tion and the further introduction of African history into the academicscene of American and British universities. It is important to make thispoint because there are other traditions of historical interpretation thatpertain to Africa. Not only are there important historiographies written inFrench, Portuguese, Russian, and Arabic, but within Anglophone acade-mia there are those that originated in the historically black colleges of theUnited States and within an Afrocentric tradition.1 All these have theirown forms of conceptualizing the issue of Africanization, and there is acertain level of cross-fertilization among them. However, for the purposesof this essay I will focus on the Africanist historiographical school as away of initiating a critical debate on the notion of Africanization.

II

Defining the idea of Africanization might seem relatively simple. It refersto the process by which knowledge about Africa is rendered as “moreAfrican,” to borrow the expression of Toyin Falola and Christian Jenningsin their recent Africanizing Knowledge: African Studies Across the Disci-plines.2 This seemingly simple definition, however, raises three questions.Why does African history need to be Africanized? How can Africanizationbe achieved? And how do we decide that one piece of African history is“more African” than another? Historians have debated different answersto these questions. In their introduction, for example, Falola and Jenningswrite:

There are a multitude of disconnected points at which African experiencesand contexts might inform our practice as scholars. At any point in theprocess of academic research, scholars may pause to contextualize aspectsof their work. For example, they might consider the selection of theirsources, their use of particular methods of research, their style of writing,or their own roles in the academic community and in relation to the localAfrican settings in which they carry out their work. Each of these compo-nents of academic practice is linked to its own set of assumptions, tradi-tions, expectations, and preferences. We suggest that it is by investigatingthese links that Africanists might take advantage of the opportunity tomake their scholarship “more African.”3

1E.g., Molefi K. Asante, The Afrocentric Idea (Philadelphia, 1998); Cecil Conteen Gray,Afrocentric Thought and Praxis: an Intellectual History (Trenton, NJ, 2001); AmaMazama, The Afrocentric Paradigm (Trenton, NJ, 2002).2Toyin Falola and Christian Jennings, “Introduction” in Africanizing Knowledge:African Studies across the Disciplines, ed. Toyin Falola and Christian Jennings (NewBrunswick, NJ, 2002), 1.3Ibid.


colleges were created in Africa following the impulse of British decoloniza-tion and the further introduction of African history into the academicscene of American and British universities. It is important to make thispoint because there are other traditions of historical interpretation thatpertain to Africa. Not only are there important historiographies written inFrench, Portuguese, Russian, and Arabic, but within Anglophone acade-mia there are those that originated in the historically black colleges of theUnited States and within an Afrocentric tradition.1 All these have theirown forms of conceptualizing the issue of Africanization, and there is acertain level of cross-fertilization among them. However, for the purposesof this essay I will focus on the Africanist historiographical school as away of initiating a critical debate on the notion of Africanization.

II

Defining the idea of Africanization might seem relatively simple. It refersto the process by which knowledge about Africa is rendered as “moreAfrican,” to borrow the expression of Toyin Falola and Christian Jenningsin their recent Africanizing Knowledge: African Studies Across the Disci-plines.2 This seemingly simple definition, however, raises three questions.Why does African history need to be Africanized? How can Africanizationbe achieved? And how do we decide that one piece of African history is“more African” than another? Historians have debated different answersto these questions. In their introduction, for example, Falola and Jenningswrite:

There are a multitude of disconnected points at which African experiencesand contexts might inform our practice as scholars. At any point in theprocess of academic research, scholars may pause to contextualize aspectsof their work. For example, they might consider the selection of theirsources, their use of particular methods of research, their style of writing,or their own roles in the academic community and in relation to the localAfrican settings in which they carry out their work. Each of these compo-nents of academic practice is linked to its own set of assumptions, tradi-tions, expectations, and preferences. We suggest that it is by investigatingthese links that Africanists might take advantage of the opportunity tomake their scholarship “more African.”3

1E.g., Molefi K. Asante, The Afrocentric Idea (Philadelphia, 1998); Cecil Conteen Gray,Afrocentric Thought and Praxis: an Intellectual History (Trenton, NJ, 2001); AmaMazama, The Afrocentric Paradigm (Trenton, NJ, 2002).2Toyin Falola and Christian Jennings, “Introduction” in Africanizing Knowledge:African Studies across the Disciplines, ed. Toyin Falola and Christian Jennings (NewBrunswick, NJ, 2002), 1.3Ibid.

The History of Africanization and the Africanization of History 87

These comments take for granted that African history and African studiesneed to be Africanized, even though the authors do not examine the vari-ous meanings of this notion. This is an example of how the notion ofAfricanization has been tacitly accepted, even though there has been littlediscussion about why it is necessary or what it means.

There are some fundamental questions at the core of the Africanizationissue. What is African history? What is the nature of this field? DefiningAfrican history, as a new field of historical research has been particularlyimportant for historians of Africa, given the historical context in whichAfricanist historiography emerged. Thus, even though these might soundlike philosophical questions, the best way to approach them is by lookingat the history of African history and follow the evolution of the African-ization question.

The Africanization question is rooted in the colonial experience ofAfrican societies and the then commonly-held view of Africa as a conti-nent without history. African history was first defined in reference, if notin opposition, to colonial history. In this context the distinction betweenAfrican and colonial history implied that the history of Africa was some-how different from the history of Europeans in Africa, as well as thatAfrican societies had experienced historical change that could be docu-mented by accepted historical methods. Thus the goal for Africanizationwas originally related to this attempt to assert the viability of a distinctAfrican history and to define the field in the context of decolonization andpolitical independence.

In this environment Africanizing meant two things. It was necessaryfirst to rid the writing of African history of the prejudices and limitationsimposed by traditional colonial and European history. In this regard themethods, questions, and sources used by historians in the writing ofAfrican history needed to be Africanized. Secondly, it was assumed thatmore of the personnel involved in the writing of African history and theinstitutions supporting this endeavor would be based in Africa, connectedto African societies and their everyday problems.4

These goals, however, have not been equally successful. The fact thatAfrican institutions have fallen on difficult times and have been unable totake a leading role in the production of African history, and that the maincenters for the development of the field continue to be in Europe and the

4The aspiration of increasing the numbers of African historians and strengthening histo-ry programs in Africa is a constant theme in the memoirs of historians from the 1950sand 1960s. See, e.g., Jan Vansina, Living with Africa (Madison, 1994); Roland Oliver,In the Realms of Gold: Pioneering in African History (London, 1997); J.D. Fage,“Reflections on the Genesis of Anglophone African History after World War II” HA20(1993), 15-26, and A.H.M. Kirk-Greene, ed., The Emergence of African History atBritish Universities: an Autobiographical Approach (Oxford, 1995).


These comments take for granted that African history and African studiesneed to be Africanized, even though the authors do not examine the vari-ous meanings of this notion. This is an example of how the notion ofAfricanization has been tacitly accepted, even though there has been littlediscussion about why it is necessary or what it means.

There are some fundamental questions at the core of the Africanizationissue. What is African history? What is the nature of this field? DefiningAfrican history, as a new field of historical research has been particularlyimportant for historians of Africa, given the historical context in whichAfricanist historiography emerged. Thus, even though these might soundlike philosophical questions, the best way to approach them is by lookingat the history of African history and follow the evolution of the African-ization question.

The Africanization question is rooted in the colonial experience ofAfrican societies and the then commonly-held view of Africa as a conti-nent without history. African history was first defined in reference, if notin opposition, to colonial history. In this context the distinction betweenAfrican and colonial history implied that the history of Africa was some-how different from the history of Europeans in Africa, as well as thatAfrican societies had experienced historical change that could be docu-mented by accepted historical methods. Thus the goal for Africanizationwas originally related to this attempt to assert the viability of a distinctAfrican history and to define the field in the context of decolonization andpolitical independence.

In this environment Africanizing meant two things. It was necessaryfirst to rid the writing of African history of the prejudices and limitationsimposed by traditional colonial and European history. In this regard themethods, questions, and sources used by historians in the writing ofAfrican history needed to be Africanized. Secondly, it was assumed thatmore of the personnel involved in the writing of African history and theinstitutions supporting this endeavor would be based in Africa, connectedto African societies and their everyday problems.4

These goals, however, have not been equally successful. The fact thatAfrican institutions have fallen on difficult times and have been unable totake a leading role in the production of African history, and that the maincenters for the development of the field continue to be in Europe and the

4The aspiration of increasing the numbers of African historians and strengthening histo-ry programs in Africa is a constant theme in the memoirs of historians from the 1950sand 1960s. See, e.g., Jan Vansina, Living with Africa (Madison, 1994); Roland Oliver,In the Realms of Gold: Pioneering in African History (London, 1997); J.D. Fage,“Reflections on the Genesis of Anglophone African History after World War II” HA20(1993), 15-26, and A.H.M. Kirk-Greene, ed., The Emergence of African History atBritish Universities: an Autobiographical Approach (Oxford, 1995).


United States, continues to haunt the enterprise of African historiographyand African studies. In fact, I would argue that the gradual erosion ofAfrica’s institutions has provided the justification for the continuingimportance of the Africanization issue. As Falola and Jennings again putit:

…scholars of Africa often lament the fact that the most prestigious sites ofproduction for African studies remain outside Africa itself. The best solutionto this problem, naturally, would be the flowering of institutions of higherlearning within Africa, drawing back to the continent not only the bestAfricanist scholars, but also the financial resources to fund research, topublish books and journals, and to sponsor institutes and conferences. Butgiven the circumstances of unequal wealth and political influence betweenAfrican nations and their western counterparts, we must concede that thisdevelopment will be a long time in coming.5

However, it is important to question whether the conditions of inequal-ity that characterize the production of African history are enough to justi-fy the continuing importance given to the notion of Africanization per se,or whether it is time for us to re-think this notion in the context of newand evolving challenges in historical writing.

Attempts to define the nature of African history started early in the his-tory of the field. In 1957, at the second Conference in African History andArchaeology, celebrated at the School of Oriental and African Studies, his-torians openly addressed the question of what is “African History” debat-ing about the objects of study of the field and some methodological frame-works for their research. Moreover, they tried to establish that Africanhistory was more than a mere appendage of colonial history. Roland Oliv-er remembers that

[t]here was an exceptionally lively session on the teaching of African Histo-ry, in which everyone, but especially the teachers from the African universi-ty colleges, insisted that, whether one was dealing with the evidence fromarchaeology or oral tradition or written documents, African History mustfrom now on be Africa centred. Doctoral students must be steered awayfrom topics concerned mainly with European activities or the policies ofthe colonial powers. Everything that had been done by colonial historiansmust be rethought in the light of the new criteria. Everything still to bedone must be relevant to the African consumer. Documentary researchmust be directed to local as well as metropolitan archives. Literary evi-dence, so largely directed by outsiders, must be tested from eyewitnesses

5Falola/Jennings, “Introduction,”1


United States, continues to haunt the enterprise of African historiographyand African studies. In fact, I would argue that the gradual erosion ofAfrica’s institutions has provided the justification for the continuingimportance of the Africanization issue. As Falola and Jennings again putit:

…scholars of Africa often lament the fact that the most prestigious sites ofproduction for African studies remain outside Africa itself. The best solutionto this problem, naturally, would be the flowering of institutions of higherlearning within Africa, drawing back to the continent not only the bestAfricanist scholars, but also the financial resources to fund research, topublish books and journals, and to sponsor institutes and conferences. Butgiven the circumstances of unequal wealth and political influence betweenAfrican nations and their western counterparts, we must concede that thisdevelopment will be a long time in coming.5

However, it is important to question whether the conditions of inequal-ity that characterize the production of African history are enough to justi-fy the continuing importance given to the notion of Africanization per se,or whether it is time for us to re-think this notion in the context of newand evolving challenges in historical writing.

Attempts to define the nature of African history started early in the his-tory of the field. In 1957, at the second Conference in African History andArchaeology, celebrated at the School of Oriental and African Studies, his-torians openly addressed the question of what is “African History” debat-ing about the objects of study of the field and some methodological frame-works for their research. Moreover, they tried to establish that Africanhistory was more than a mere appendage of colonial history. Roland Oliv-er remembers that

[t]here was an exceptionally lively session on the teaching of African Histo-ry, in which everyone, but especially the teachers from the African universi-ty colleges, insisted that, whether one was dealing with the evidence fromarchaeology or oral tradition or written documents, African History mustfrom now on be Africa centred. Doctoral students must be steered awayfrom topics concerned mainly with European activities or the policies ofthe colonial powers. Everything that had been done by colonial historiansmust be rethought in the light of the new criteria. Everything still to bedone must be relevant to the African consumer. Documentary researchmust be directed to local as well as metropolitan archives. Literary evi-dence, so largely directed by outsiders, must be tested from eyewitnesses

5Falola/Jennings, “Introduction,”1


or oral tradition. Most new research must be undertaken at least partiallyin African countries, and historians must, as their numbers grow, pay asmuch attention to evidence in African languages as anthropologists andsociologists had long been in the habit of doing.6

In these early debates we see that the nature of African history and theidea of Africanization start to be discussed in terms of two separatealthough closely-related issues. First, there is what I will call the problemof authenticity, which raises the question about the kinds of sources,methods, and practices that are appropriate for the study of African histo-ry. The second can be summarized by the notion of relevance, whichaddresses the subject of audiences and the ways in which African historyshould relate to the needs of African societies in the present.

Historians in the 1950s and 1960s decided that they could achieve bothauthenticity and relevance if they focused on documenting African agency.The priority of Africanist historiography was to investigate the experi-ences of Africans that could be studied through, preferably, Africansources. This led to a significant focus on notions such as “African initia-tive” and “African response.” Historians were anxious to emphasize therole of Africans as agents of their own history as opposed to mere sub-jects, which had largely been the case in interpretations of colonial andimperial historians.

The attention on African agency, however, was important not only forthe purposes of defining the objects of African history, but was also politi-cally motivated. Many saw in the African past the opportunity to provethat Africans had been successful masters of their own destiny and perfect-ly able to do it again. Historians saw their works as positive contributionsto the process of decolonization and as important building-blocks in thedevelopment of the many new African nations. Thus, by investigatingAfrican agency, historians defined the object of study of African historythat was distinct from that of colonial and imperial history, and they putthis new historiography to the service of Africa’s political and social devel-opment.7

III

Debates about the nature of African history continued and historiansaddressed the issue once again at a congress in Dar es Salaam in 1965.

6Oliver, In the Realms of Gold, 38.7J.F. Ade Ajayi, “The Place of African History and Culture in the Process of Nation-Building in Africa South of the Sahara,” Journal of Negro Education 30(1961), 206-13;A. Adu Boahen, “Clio and Nation-Building in Africa.” Inaugural Lecture Delivered atthe University of Ghana, Legon, 28 November, 1974 (Accra, 1975).


or oral tradition. Most new research must be undertaken at least partiallyin African countries, and historians must, as their numbers grow, pay asmuch attention to evidence in African languages as anthropologists andsociologists had long been in the habit of doing.6

In these early debates we see that the nature of African history and theidea of Africanization start to be discussed in terms of two separatealthough closely-related issues. First, there is what I will call the problemof authenticity, which raises the question about the kinds of sources,methods, and practices that are appropriate for the study of African histo-ry. The second can be summarized by the notion of relevance, whichaddresses the subject of audiences and the ways in which African historyshould relate to the needs of African societies in the present.

Historians in the 1950s and 1960s decided that they could achieve bothauthenticity and relevance if they focused on documenting African agency.The priority of Africanist historiography was to investigate the experi-ences of Africans that could be studied through, preferably, Africansources. This led to a significant focus on notions such as “African initia-tive” and “African response.” Historians were anxious to emphasize therole of Africans as agents of their own history as opposed to mere sub-jects, which had largely been the case in interpretations of colonial andimperial historians.

The attention on African agency, however, was important not only forthe purposes of defining the objects of African history, but was also politi-cally motivated. Many saw in the African past the opportunity to provethat Africans had been successful masters of their own destiny and perfect-ly able to do it again. Historians saw their works as positive contributionsto the process of decolonization and as important building-blocks in thedevelopment of the many new African nations. Thus, by investigatingAfrican agency, historians defined the object of study of African historythat was distinct from that of colonial and imperial history, and they putthis new historiography to the service of Africa’s political and social devel-opment.7

III

Debates about the nature of African history continued and historiansaddressed the issue once again at a congress in Dar es Salaam in 1965.

6Oliver, In the Realms of Gold, 38.7J.F. Ade Ajayi, “The Place of African History and Culture in the Process of Nation-Building in Africa South of the Sahara,” Journal of Negro Education 30(1961), 206-13;A. Adu Boahen, “Clio and Nation-Building in Africa.” Inaugural Lecture Delivered atthe University of Ghana, Legon, 28 November, 1974 (Accra, 1975).


There the discussion revolved around two main issues: the “the methodol-ogy and assumptions of African historiography” and “the themes whichwere emerging as particularly significant in the study of African history.”

It was assumed that there was no longer any need to proclaim the possibil-ity of African history. The need was rather to examine the directions whichresearch and writing of African history had taken, a stock-taking and re-assessment of approach, method and result. And there was in this too animplied intention to examine whether African history was sufficientlyAfrican; whether it had developed the methods and models appropriate toits own needs or had depended upon making use of methods and modelsdeveloped elsewhere; whether its main themes of discourse had risen outof the dynamics of African development or had been imposed because ofthe over-riding significance in the historiography of other continents.8

At this point historians agreed that an “authentic” African history couldbe achieved within the frameworks and methods provided by the disci-pline of history. However, what was urgently needed was the compilationof data and information that could enable historians to discover “theAfrican voice.”

Delegates generally felt, and perhaps rightly, that there was still greaterneed to insist upon the value of oral material and to stress the urgency ofarrangements for its collection that to discuss or challenge the uses madeof it when collected. Delegates shied away from the idea of an African his-toriography in the sense of a historiography that embodied “African” con-cepts of time or causation; it was asserted that there was an internationallyaccepted set of historical concepts which it was important for African his-tory to employ. Even the discussions on the adequacies or otherwise ofMarxist and Western interpretations of African history were not reallypushed home: no formidable challenge was made to Professor Oliver’sassertion that African historical studies in Europe and America were con-cerned with the same issues and approaching them from the same anglesas African historical studies in Africa.9

This statement would seem to announce an end to the question ofAfricanization since it demonstrates not only an agreement about thenature of African history, but also a certain degree of success in assertingits viability and importance, which had been the purpose in the first place.

8T.O. Ranger, “Introduction” in Emerging Themes of African History, ed. T.O. Ranger(Nairobi, 1968), ix-x.9Ibid., x-xi.


There the discussion revolved around two main issues: the “the methodol-ogy and assumptions of African historiography” and “the themes whichwere emerging as particularly significant in the study of African history.”

It was assumed that there was no longer any need to proclaim the possibil-ity of African history. The need was rather to examine the directions whichresearch and writing of African history had taken, a stock-taking and re-assessment of approach, method and result. And there was in this too animplied intention to examine whether African history was sufficientlyAfrican; whether it had developed the methods and models appropriate toits own needs or had depended upon making use of methods and modelsdeveloped elsewhere; whether its main themes of discourse had risen outof the dynamics of African development or had been imposed because ofthe over-riding significance in the historiography of other continents.8

At this point historians agreed that an “authentic” African history couldbe achieved within the frameworks and methods provided by the disci-pline of history. However, what was urgently needed was the compilationof data and information that could enable historians to discover “theAfrican voice.”

Delegates generally felt, and perhaps rightly, that there was still greaterneed to insist upon the value of oral material and to stress the urgency ofarrangements for its collection that to discuss or challenge the uses madeof it when collected. Delegates shied away from the idea of an African his-toriography in the sense of a historiography that embodied “African” con-cepts of time or causation; it was asserted that there was an internationallyaccepted set of historical concepts which it was important for African his-tory to employ. Even the discussions on the adequacies or otherwise ofMarxist and Western interpretations of African history were not reallypushed home: no formidable challenge was made to Professor Oliver’sassertion that African historical studies in Europe and America were con-cerned with the same issues and approaching them from the same anglesas African historical studies in Africa.9

This statement would seem to announce an end to the question ofAfricanization since it demonstrates not only an agreement about thenature of African history, but also a certain degree of success in assertingits viability and importance, which had been the purpose in the first place.

8T.O. Ranger, “Introduction” in Emerging Themes of African History, ed. T.O. Ranger(Nairobi, 1968), ix-x.9Ibid., x-xi.


This was not the last word, however. The agreements reached during the1950s and 1960s would soon come under attack, bringing the questionsof Africanization, authenticity, and relevance back to center stage.

The social, economic, and political crises that affected Africa towardsthe end of the 1960s raised significant questions about the role of African-ist historiography in supporting nationalist regimes. This prompted strongcriticism against Nationalist historiography and re-opened the question ofwhat is African history. Some criticism was directed against the obviousideological commitments of nationalist historiography:

…our argument is that the new historiography has adopted the politicalphilosophy of current African nationalism, and has used it to transform thestudy of African history. That commitment inclines the school towardsrhetoric in defence of narrowly selected themes and interpretations, andthe stereotyping and total rejection of alternative views. We suggest alsothat the basic assumption regarding the continuity and impact of nationalmovements is questionable, and is asserted rather than demonstrated. Inshort, it is ideological history.10

The notion of African agency was also discussed. It soon became clearthat, once African history had been separated from colonial history, thedefinition of African agency was less easy to achieve, and that research onAfrican initiative or African response required a more complex under-standing of the rich web of relationships and processes that influencedAfrican experiences:

It is important to assert the significance of African agency but once thisassertion has been forcefully made, and especially once it has been widelyaccepted, its importance starts to diminish and its ambiguities to appear.Emphasis upon the African voice, upon African initiative in the singular isonly meaningful when it is opposed to a doctrine which denies any Africaninitiative at all… Sometimes there is so much fan-fare about the recoveryof the African voice that we tend to obscure one very important fact—thatthere are a Babel of African voices.11

The criticism raised by these authors reveals some of the problemsinherent in the notions of authenticity and relevance when used as guidingideas in the process of Africanization. It is difficult to argue that ‘true’

10Donald Denoon and Adam Kuper, “Nationalist Historians in Search of a Nation: the‘New Historiography’ in Dar Es Salaam” African Affairs 69(1970), 348.11T.O. Ranger, The Recovery of African Initiative in Tanzanian History (Dar es Salaam,1969), 11.


This was not the last word, however. The agreements reached during the1950s and 1960s would soon come under attack, bringing the questionsof Africanization, authenticity, and relevance back to center stage.

The social, economic, and political crises that affected Africa towardsthe end of the 1960s raised significant questions about the role of African-ist historiography in supporting nationalist regimes. This prompted strongcriticism against Nationalist historiography and re-opened the question ofwhat is African history. Some criticism was directed against the obviousideological commitments of nationalist historiography:

…our argument is that the new historiography has adopted the politicalphilosophy of current African nationalism, and has used it to transform thestudy of African history. That commitment inclines the school towardsrhetoric in defence of narrowly selected themes and interpretations, andthe stereotyping and total rejection of alternative views. We suggest alsothat the basic assumption regarding the continuity and impact of nationalmovements is questionable, and is asserted rather than demonstrated. Inshort, it is ideological history.10

The notion of African agency was also discussed. It soon became clearthat, once African history had been separated from colonial history, thedefinition of African agency was less easy to achieve, and that research onAfrican initiative or African response required a more complex under-standing of the rich web of relationships and processes that influencedAfrican experiences:

It is important to assert the significance of African agency but once thisassertion has been forcefully made, and especially once it has been widelyaccepted, its importance starts to diminish and its ambiguities to appear.Emphasis upon the African voice, upon African initiative in the singular isonly meaningful when it is opposed to a doctrine which denies any Africaninitiative at all… Sometimes there is so much fan-fare about the recoveryof the African voice that we tend to obscure one very important fact—thatthere are a Babel of African voices.11

The criticism raised by these authors reveals some of the problemsinherent in the notions of authenticity and relevance when used as guidingideas in the process of Africanization. It is difficult to argue that ‘true’

10Donald Denoon and Adam Kuper, “Nationalist Historians in Search of a Nation: the‘New Historiography’ in Dar Es Salaam” African Affairs 69(1970), 348.11T.O. Ranger, The Recovery of African Initiative in Tanzanian History (Dar es Salaam,1969), 11.


African history is defined only, or even largely, by its usefulness to Africansocieties, since these are not socially or culturally homogeneous and theirneeds and concerns are bound to be diverse. Thus, when talking about therelevance of African history, there is always the question of relevant towhom. A similar problem arises with the notion of authenticity as embod-ied in the search for African agency. As Ranger pointed out, African his-torical experiences are too rich and complex to be adequately summarizedin the sole notion of African agency. Moreover, once it has been acceptedas the defining principle of African historiography, its role as the goldstandard of authenticity seems redundant. Both goals, to create a histori-ography focused on the needs and aspirations of Africans, and centred inthe study of African experiences were a useful starting point in the contextof decolonization. However, as African historiography evolved it was timeto rethink the terms of the Africanization debate

The deteriorating situation in Africa, particularly the gradual erosion ofthe institutional resources available for the study of the African past,inevitably encouraged even more debates about Africanization. Growingconcerns about the diminishing role of African scholars and African uni-versities in the production of African history prompted questions aboutthe validity of African history produced in the West. Examples of thisgrowing concern can be found on the critique of Nationalist historiogra-phy raised by members of the New Dar School that replaced some pioneerhistorians at the University of Dar es Salaam in the 1970s. Influenced bythe existing theories on underdevelopment and Marxist ideas, historiansof this new school strongly criticized their predecessors’ work. In the opin-ion of A.J. Temu and Bonaventure Swai, not only had Nationalist histori-ography been theoretically impoverished and empiricist, but it had beenthe result of its commitments to a “bourgeoisie ideology,” resulting in ahistory that was not relevant to the African masses.12 About the “historio-graphical revolution” of the 1960s they said

The methodological intervention continues to be not only empiricist butalso superficial. Such has been termed “the esoteric version of history:” ahistory which, although purportedly written from below, remains historywritten from above. For this reason, this kind of history continues to bededicated to the study of ideological and organizational forms of institu-tions and movements rather than their social content, and has been

12Isaria N. Kimambo, Three Decades of Production of Historical Knowledge at Dar EsSalaam (Dar es Salaam, 1993); H. Slater, “Dar Es Salaam and the Post-Nationalist His-toriography of Africa” in African Historiographies: What History for Which Africa? ed.Bogumil Jewsiewicki and David S. Newbury (Beverly Hills, 1985), 246-60; A.J. Temuand Bonaventure Swai, Historians and Africanist History: A Critique: Post-ColonialHistoriography Examined (London, 1981).


African history is defined only, or even largely, by its usefulness to Africansocieties, since these are not socially or culturally homogeneous and theirneeds and concerns are bound to be diverse. Thus, when talking about therelevance of African history, there is always the question of relevant towhom. A similar problem arises with the notion of authenticity as embod-ied in the search for African agency. As Ranger pointed out, African his-torical experiences are too rich and complex to be adequately summarizedin the sole notion of African agency. Moreover, once it has been acceptedas the defining principle of African historiography, its role as the goldstandard of authenticity seems redundant. Both goals, to create a histori-ography focused on the needs and aspirations of Africans, and centred inthe study of African experiences were a useful starting point in the contextof decolonization. However, as African historiography evolved it was timeto rethink the terms of the Africanization debate

The deteriorating situation in Africa, particularly the gradual erosion ofthe institutional resources available for the study of the African past,inevitably encouraged even more debates about Africanization. Growingconcerns about the diminishing role of African scholars and African uni-versities in the production of African history prompted questions aboutthe validity of African history produced in the West. Examples of thisgrowing concern can be found on the critique of Nationalist historiogra-phy raised by members of the New Dar School that replaced some pioneerhistorians at the University of Dar es Salaam in the 1970s. Influenced bythe existing theories on underdevelopment and Marxist ideas, historiansof this new school strongly criticized their predecessors’ work. In the opin-ion of A.J. Temu and Bonaventure Swai, not only had Nationalist histori-ography been theoretically impoverished and empiricist, but it had beenthe result of its commitments to a “bourgeoisie ideology,” resulting in ahistory that was not relevant to the African masses.12 About the “historio-graphical revolution” of the 1960s they said

The methodological intervention continues to be not only empiricist butalso superficial. Such has been termed “the esoteric version of history:” ahistory which, although purportedly written from below, remains historywritten from above. For this reason, this kind of history continues to bededicated to the study of ideological and organizational forms of institu-tions and movements rather than their social content, and has been

12Isaria N. Kimambo, Three Decades of Production of Historical Knowledge at Dar EsSalaam (Dar es Salaam, 1993); H. Slater, “Dar Es Salaam and the Post-Nationalist His-toriography of Africa” in African Historiographies: What History for Which Africa? ed.Bogumil Jewsiewicki and David S. Newbury (Beverly Hills, 1985), 246-60; A.J. Temuand Bonaventure Swai, Historians and Africanist History: A Critique: Post-ColonialHistoriography Examined (London, 1981).


“miniaturized in this way into pedantic detailed studies lacking any generalperspective.” Thus it is “capable of rousing only a very limited interest.”13

The criticism of the New Dar School gave new emphasis to the notionof relevance. In their attempt to define the nature of African history, theyargued that new approaches should emphasize the experiences of the dis-posed classes of Africa in order to aid in their empowerment. In this casethe authenticity of African history seems to depend on the study of partic-ular subjects and the achievement of certain social and political objectives.It is interesting to note that the fact that the Marxist methodology thatinfluenced this critique was not of African origin did not seem to be anobstacle in the writing of “authentic” African history.

However, questions about what methodologies were acceptable in thestudy of African history would soon re-emerge. In 1976 Terence Rangerrevisited the issue, presenting an assessment of the field and his sugges-tions for the future. Ranger spoke of two weaknesses in the work of histo-rians that had resulted in “flabbiness.” First, there had been a need for“culture-heroes” due to the pressures of developing a methodology. Sec-ond, the mistakes of African historians had been “created by the fact thatwe were catering for interests that were too easily satisfied and too littledemanding.”14 Thus, the challenge came now from the emergence of newaudiences that were allegedly more difficult to please:

The first is the audience constituted by historians of Europe, America, andthe rest of the world, and the challenge which they present is that they stillrequire to be shown good reasons why they should be interested in Africanhistory at all. The second is the audience constituted by younger studentsand intellectuals within Africa and the challenge which they present is thatthey find the present African historiographical interpretations “useless” tothem and demand something more pertinent.15

The issue of relevance continued to be a central concern in Ranger’sdefinition of African history. However, on this occasion he raised again aquestion that had seemingly been settled years ago: can historians applythe epistemological values that have been used to write the history of theWestern world to the study of African history? If they do, can they stillproduce a history that is meaningful and relevant to African communities?Ranger’s reflections on this matter are evidence of the re-emergence of the

13Ibid., 3.14T.O. Ranger, “Towards a Usable Past” in African Studies since 1945, ed. C. Fyfe(Edinburgh, 1976), 18.15Ibid., 22.


“miniaturized in this way into pedantic detailed studies lacking any generalperspective.” Thus it is “capable of rousing only a very limited interest.”13

The criticism of the New Dar School gave new emphasis to the notionof relevance. In their attempt to define the nature of African history, theyargued that new approaches should emphasize the experiences of the dis-posed classes of Africa in order to aid in their empowerment. In this casethe authenticity of African history seems to depend on the study of partic-ular subjects and the achievement of certain social and political objectives.It is interesting to note that the fact that the Marxist methodology thatinfluenced this critique was not of African origin did not seem to be anobstacle in the writing of “authentic” African history.

However, questions about what methodologies were acceptable in thestudy of African history would soon re-emerge. In 1976 Terence Rangerrevisited the issue, presenting an assessment of the field and his sugges-tions for the future. Ranger spoke of two weaknesses in the work of histo-rians that had resulted in “flabbiness.” First, there had been a need for“culture-heroes” due to the pressures of developing a methodology. Sec-ond, the mistakes of African historians had been “created by the fact thatwe were catering for interests that were too easily satisfied and too littledemanding.”14 Thus, the challenge came now from the emergence of newaudiences that were allegedly more difficult to please:

The first is the audience constituted by historians of Europe, America, andthe rest of the world, and the challenge which they present is that they stillrequire to be shown good reasons why they should be interested in Africanhistory at all. The second is the audience constituted by younger studentsand intellectuals within Africa and the challenge which they present is thatthey find the present African historiographical interpretations “useless” tothem and demand something more pertinent.15

The issue of relevance continued to be a central concern in Ranger’sdefinition of African history. However, on this occasion he raised again aquestion that had seemingly been settled years ago: can historians applythe epistemological values that have been used to write the history of theWestern world to the study of African history? If they do, can they stillproduce a history that is meaningful and relevant to African communities?Ranger’s reflections on this matter are evidence of the re-emergence of the

13Ibid., 3.14T.O. Ranger, “Towards a Usable Past” in African Studies since 1945, ed. C. Fyfe(Edinburgh, 1976), 18.15Ibid., 22.


question of whether the discipline of history, as it is practiced throughoutthe world, offers the right concepts and methods for the study of Africanhistory.

Many discussions about Africanization have focused on this problem.Caroline Neale analyzed the historiographical production of the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s. As the title suggests, she was concerned with the notionof an “independent history of Africa.” In her opinion both Nationalist—as she referred to the historiography of the 1960s—and Marxist historiog-raphy were unable to produce this kind of history. She argued that bothtrends had been informed by the evolutionist assumptions that character-ized Western historiography. Talking about both Nationalist and Marxistapproaches to African history she argued that

[b]oth are characterized by a view of history which is evolutionary, unilin-eal and unidirectional, and assumes a progressive option to be available.Whether nationalist or Marxist, this is a cultural view, not a universal truth,and in this respect Marxism continues the domination of Western ideasover African history. The models of both schools of thought are Westernones, their adoption by African academics notwithstanding.16

Other scholars have echoed Neale’s criticism. One example is BogumilJewsiewicki’s analysis of the radical historiography of the 1970s, in whichhe attempted to reconstruct the epistemological principles that under-pinned nineteenth-century historiography. He argued that radical histori-ography, just as Nationalist/Africanist history before it, had been foundedon such principles and thus had been unable to produce a truly relevanthistory of Africa. For Jewsiewicki, the objective of African history was thetransformation of the African social and political reality.17 He went on toassert that “[t]he evolutionist perspective on time and its linear conceptionremains the single most important structural obstacle for the productionof powerful myths that are useful in the production of national and class-consciousness.”18

Both Neale and Jewsiewicki assert the role of African historiography asa potential—and potent—agent of social and political change in Africa.To that extent they retain the idea of relevance in their definition ofAfrican history. Their critiques, however, focus on the ways in which trueAfrican history could be achieved—through the development of interpre-

16Caroline Neale, Writing “Independent” History: African Historiography, 1960-1980(Westport CT, 1985), 19.17Bogumil Jewsiewicki, “African Historical Studies Academic Knowledge as ‘UsablePast’ and Radical Scholarship” African Studies Review 32(1989), 4-5.18Ibid., 30.


question of whether the discipline of history, as it is practiced throughoutthe world, offers the right concepts and methods for the study of Africanhistory.

Many discussions about Africanization have focused on this problem.Caroline Neale analyzed the historiographical production of the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s. As the title suggests, she was concerned with the notionof an “independent history of Africa.” In her opinion both Nationalist—as she referred to the historiography of the 1960s—and Marxist historiog-raphy were unable to produce this kind of history. She argued that bothtrends had been informed by the evolutionist assumptions that character-ized Western historiography. Talking about both Nationalist and Marxistapproaches to African history she argued that

[b]oth are characterized by a view of history which is evolutionary, unilin-eal and unidirectional, and assumes a progressive option to be available.Whether nationalist or Marxist, this is a cultural view, not a universal truth,and in this respect Marxism continues the domination of Western ideasover African history. The models of both schools of thought are Westernones, their adoption by African academics notwithstanding.16

Other scholars have echoed Neale’s criticism. One example is BogumilJewsiewicki’s analysis of the radical historiography of the 1970s, in whichhe attempted to reconstruct the epistemological principles that under-pinned nineteenth-century historiography. He argued that radical histori-ography, just as Nationalist/Africanist history before it, had been foundedon such principles and thus had been unable to produce a truly relevanthistory of Africa. For Jewsiewicki, the objective of African history was thetransformation of the African social and political reality.17 He went on toassert that “[t]he evolutionist perspective on time and its linear conceptionremains the single most important structural obstacle for the productionof powerful myths that are useful in the production of national and class-consciousness.”18

Both Neale and Jewsiewicki assert the role of African historiography asa potential—and potent—agent of social and political change in Africa.To that extent they retain the idea of relevance in their definition ofAfrican history. Their critiques, however, focus on the ways in which trueAfrican history could be achieved—through the development of interpre-

16Caroline Neale, Writing “Independent” History: African Historiography, 1960-1980(Westport CT, 1985), 19.17Bogumil Jewsiewicki, “African Historical Studies Academic Knowledge as ‘UsablePast’ and Radical Scholarship” African Studies Review 32(1989), 4-5.18Ibid., 30.


tative frameworks adequate to understand African realities. These cri-tiques suggest that writing true African history requires more than just theuse of African sources or a focus on particular topics. They argue for aradical transformation of the way in which historians conceptualize his-torical change, time, and causation. They advocate an epistemologicalshift that privileges African ways of thinking over the concepts and meth-ods traditionally used in Western historiography.

Ralph Austen contributed to this debate by looking at the issue of anautonomous African history. According to Austen, autonomy had beenunderstood by historians “… first as against the preceding colonialist his-toriography on Africa, secondly as based upon African forms of socialorganization and indigenous documentation, and finally as pointingtowards appropriation and adaptation of Western culture in the buildingof modern African nations.”19

In view of the continuing conditions of economic dependence in Africa,Austen concludes that it is important to keep asserting a certain autonomyin the writing of African history, thus re-establishing the connectionbetween the authenticity and the relevance of African history. He con-cludes that a more nuanced definition of autonomy/authenticity needs tobe presented and argues that

[t]he goal is not to claim autonomy for Africa in realms where dependencyand development crisis clearly must be recognized but rather to recognizethat autonomy of experience, identity and self-expression which links theglories of past independence, the miseries of domination and poverty, andthe hopes for a more fully autonomous future.20

IV

These examples demonstrate that the issues of authenticity and relevancehave been important concepts in the discussion about the nature of Africahistory. These terms were first articulated in the 1950s and 1960s, whenthere was a need to distinguish African history from colonial history, andwhen historians had to define the objects of study and methods of the newfield. However, and despite the fact that African history has been success-fully defined and established as a valid field of historical research, thequestion of Africanization continues to appear in discussions about histo-

19R. Austen, “Africanist Historiography and Its Critics: Can There Be an AutonomousAfrican History?” in African Historiography: Essays in Honour of Jacob Ade Ajayi, ed.Toyin Falola (Harlow, 1993), 204.20Ibid.


tative frameworks adequate to understand African realities. These cri-tiques suggest that writing true African history requires more than just theuse of African sources or a focus on particular topics. They argue for aradical transformation of the way in which historians conceptualize his-torical change, time, and causation. They advocate an epistemologicalshift that privileges African ways of thinking over the concepts and meth-ods traditionally used in Western historiography.

Ralph Austen contributed to this debate by looking at the issue of anautonomous African history. According to Austen, autonomy had beenunderstood by historians “… first as against the preceding colonialist his-toriography on Africa, secondly as based upon African forms of socialorganization and indigenous documentation, and finally as pointingtowards appropriation and adaptation of Western culture in the buildingof modern African nations.”19

In view of the continuing conditions of economic dependence in Africa,Austen concludes that it is important to keep asserting a certain autonomyin the writing of African history, thus re-establishing the connectionbetween the authenticity and the relevance of African history. He con-cludes that a more nuanced definition of autonomy/authenticity needs tobe presented and argues that

[t]he goal is not to claim autonomy for Africa in realms where dependencyand development crisis clearly must be recognized but rather to recognizethat autonomy of experience, identity and self-expression which links theglories of past independence, the miseries of domination and poverty, andthe hopes for a more fully autonomous future.20

IV

These examples demonstrate that the issues of authenticity and relevancehave been important concepts in the discussion about the nature of Africahistory. These terms were first articulated in the 1950s and 1960s, whenthere was a need to distinguish African history from colonial history, andwhen historians had to define the objects of study and methods of the newfield. However, and despite the fact that African history has been success-fully defined and established as a valid field of historical research, thequestion of Africanization continues to appear in discussions about histo-

19R. Austen, “Africanist Historiography and Its Critics: Can There Be an AutonomousAfrican History?” in African Historiography: Essays in Honour of Jacob Ade Ajayi, ed.Toyin Falola (Harlow, 1993), 204.20Ibid.


riography, while the notions of authenticity and relevance continue to playa significant role in the ways in which historians think African historyneeds to be further Africanized.

The historical circumstances in which historians of Africa operatenowadays are very different from those that pioneer historians faced fiftyyears ago. Much has been achieved in the way of making sure that Africanhistory focuses on the experiences of African societies in a methodologi-cally sound and politically responsible way. However, some challengesremain. The fact that African history is mostly written outside Africa doesrepresent a significant impediment to the development of the field, andrequires that historians continue to insure that the conditions of inequalityand marginalization do not have an adverse effect in the kinds of historythey produce, and that those histories embody certain level of connectionto the lives of modern African societies. Having said that, it is also impor-tant that we, as historians recognize new challenges to the development ofour scholarship, and those come not from Africa, but from our member-ship in what is becoming a global academic community.

V

The last fifty years, when the Africanization question has been so presentamong our concerns about African history, can be characterized as a peri-od of introspection and self-discovery. However, as a field of studyapproaching maturity and full of dynamism it is time for historians ofAfrica to evaluate their concerns in the context of a broader historiogra-phy. The issues of authenticity and relevance may seem part of the debateabout Africanization, but in many ways they represent questions aboutwhat is history and how it should be practiced at a time when historicalresearch has expanded to virtually all areas of the world. Recognizing this,will require that we redefine the ways in which the questions aboutauthenticity and relevance are framed.

As we have seen, the issue of methodological authenticity has oftenbeen presented as an opposition between Western and African methodolo-gies. Criticism against Western methods emphasizes the fact that theseapproaches did not take into account African experiences and are notarticulated in African languages. If these are the main points of con-tention, one could argue that any approach that originated from the expe-rience of African societies and/or was articulated in African languageswould be acceptable as a method of historical research. Unfortunately, weknow that fulfilling those demands would not be enough to produce avalid and useful methodology, even though it might be sufficient to pro-duce one that was considered authentic and African enough. We could


riography, while the notions of authenticity and relevance continue to playa significant role in the ways in which historians think African historyneeds to be further Africanized.

The historical circumstances in which historians of Africa operatenowadays are very different from those that pioneer historians faced fiftyyears ago. Much has been achieved in the way of making sure that Africanhistory focuses on the experiences of African societies in a methodologi-cally sound and politically responsible way. However, some challengesremain. The fact that African history is mostly written outside Africa doesrepresent a significant impediment to the development of the field, andrequires that historians continue to insure that the conditions of inequalityand marginalization do not have an adverse effect in the kinds of historythey produce, and that those histories embody certain level of connectionto the lives of modern African societies. Having said that, it is also impor-tant that we, as historians recognize new challenges to the development ofour scholarship, and those come not from Africa, but from our member-ship in what is becoming a global academic community.

V

The last fifty years, when the Africanization question has been so presentamong our concerns about African history, can be characterized as a peri-od of introspection and self-discovery. However, as a field of studyapproaching maturity and full of dynamism it is time for historians ofAfrica to evaluate their concerns in the context of a broader historiogra-phy. The issues of authenticity and relevance may seem part of the debateabout Africanization, but in many ways they represent questions aboutwhat is history and how it should be practiced at a time when historicalresearch has expanded to virtually all areas of the world. Recognizing this,will require that we redefine the ways in which the questions aboutauthenticity and relevance are framed.

As we have seen, the issue of methodological authenticity has oftenbeen presented as an opposition between Western and African methodolo-gies. Criticism against Western methods emphasizes the fact that theseapproaches did not take into account African experiences and are notarticulated in African languages. If these are the main points of con-tention, one could argue that any approach that originated from the expe-rience of African societies and/or was articulated in African languageswould be acceptable as a method of historical research. Unfortunately, weknow that fulfilling those demands would not be enough to produce avalid and useful methodology, even though it might be sufficient to pro-duce one that was considered authentic and African enough. We could


agree that an acceptable approach would have to be first and foremostempirically sound, logically consistent, and to some extent, subject to thecritical scrutiny of the historical community as a whole.

In this regard, Falola and Jennings are right to point out that “[t]heprocess of Africanization cannot be one of simply privileging an Africanpoint of view at the expense of a critical analysis and comparativeresearch.” They also remind us that scholars need to recognize that therecovery of the African demands accountability: [f]or if any of us are toclaim that we present a more authentic portrayal of Africa in our researchand publications, then, scholarly accountability requires that we must alsomake space for skeptical criticism of our claims.”21

The development and adoption of historical approaches for the studyof African history should not be guided by an antithetical oppositionbetween Western and African epistemologies, but by an informed and syn-thetic dialogue among them. The use of some concepts originated in theWest does not mean that we will be imposing “‘universal’ categorieswhich ultimately represent only the Western culture from which they orig-inate.”22 It would be useful to remember the words of Anthony Appiah:“[i]t is characteristic of those who pose as antiuniversalists to use the termuniversalism as if it meant pseudouniversalism, and the fact is that theircomplaint is not with universalism at all. What they truly object to–andwho would not?—as Eurocentric hegemony posing as universalism.”23

Thus the development of more authentic methodologies does not necessar-ily imply total rejection of Western concepts and ideas, but a recognitionof their historical and epistemological limitations and constructive engage-ment with them.

This kind of debate would allow ideas and questions that have emergedin the study of Africa to influence a redefinition of the approaches andconcepts used and discussed in historiography in general. This may resultin the development of new methodologies that take into account a broaderrange of human experience, and thus may suggest innovative and creativeresearch areas not just for historians of Africa but for history as a whole.This has taken place to some degree, particularly with the increasingacceptance of oral materials as valid sources of research. However, giventhe richness of African historiography, historians of Africa can still maketremendous contributions to the debates on the development of new his-torical concepts and methodologies.

21Falola/Jennings, “Introduction,” 2.22Austen, “Africanist Historiography,” 213.23Kwame Anthony Appiah, In My Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture(London, 1992), 58.


agree that an acceptable approach would have to be first and foremostempirically sound, logically consistent, and to some extent, subject to thecritical scrutiny of the historical community as a whole.

In this regard, Falola and Jennings are right to point out that “[t]heprocess of Africanization cannot be one of simply privileging an Africanpoint of view at the expense of a critical analysis and comparativeresearch.” They also remind us that scholars need to recognize that therecovery of the African demands accountability: [f]or if any of us are toclaim that we present a more authentic portrayal of Africa in our researchand publications, then, scholarly accountability requires that we must alsomake space for skeptical criticism of our claims.”21

The development and adoption of historical approaches for the studyof African history should not be guided by an antithetical oppositionbetween Western and African epistemologies, but by an informed and syn-thetic dialogue among them. The use of some concepts originated in theWest does not mean that we will be imposing “‘universal’ categorieswhich ultimately represent only the Western culture from which they orig-inate.”22 It would be useful to remember the words of Anthony Appiah:“[i]t is characteristic of those who pose as antiuniversalists to use the termuniversalism as if it meant pseudouniversalism, and the fact is that theircomplaint is not with universalism at all. What they truly object to–andwho would not?—as Eurocentric hegemony posing as universalism.”23

Thus the development of more authentic methodologies does not necessar-ily imply total rejection of Western concepts and ideas, but a recognitionof their historical and epistemological limitations and constructive engage-ment with them.

This kind of debate would allow ideas and questions that have emergedin the study of Africa to influence a redefinition of the approaches andconcepts used and discussed in historiography in general. This may resultin the development of new methodologies that take into account a broaderrange of human experience, and thus may suggest innovative and creativeresearch areas not just for historians of Africa but for history as a whole.This has taken place to some degree, particularly with the increasingacceptance of oral materials as valid sources of research. However, giventhe richness of African historiography, historians of Africa can still maketremendous contributions to the debates on the development of new his-torical concepts and methodologies.

21Falola/Jennings, “Introduction,” 2.22Austen, “Africanist Historiography,” 213.23Kwame Anthony Appiah, In My Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture(London, 1992), 58.


So far, the discussion has focused too much on the Africanization ofknowledge as a way to improve knowledge about Africa. Here I wouldargue that is precisely the Africanization of western approaches that cancontribute to the reconfiguration of traditional forms of scholarship. Seenfrom this perspective, the issue of authenticity should not be a question ofdefining African history, but of redefining history at large.

Our search for authenticity should advocate reconceptualizing our epis-temological values to incorporate the questions raised by societiesthroughout the world. From this point of view, a more authentic study ofAfrica will include critical methods of analysis that incorporate and adaptconcepts from Africa and other societies as they are able to uncover corequestions of the human experience as they manifest themselves in Africa.

VI

The question of relevance requires a similar re-evaluation. In the examplesdiscussed here, relevance was understood in terms of economic and politi-cal development. The argument was that African scholarship did not takeinto account the problems and needs of African communities; thus theproducts of their work were irrelevant and unable to have any effect onimproving African conditions. I argue, however, that this is a problematicway of looking at the issue of relevance.

There have been significant discussions of the ways in which Africanhistory and historians of Africa might have a more effective impact on thepolitical, social, and economic development of the communities we study.There is no doubt that scholars should show some level of commitmentand engagement with the problems that African communities face on aneveryday basis. The level and nature of their involvement, however, is upfor debate. Some argue that historians themselves should become involvedin political activism.24 Ohers say that scholarship should focus on study-ing the origins of African developmental problems.25

Whichever option historians choose, the fact remains that validatingscholarship because of its ideological or political commitments is a dan-gerous road to take. This raises a perennial question for the historian: howmuch weight should the present have on our choices and approaches tothe past? It is clear that we can only study the past from the perspective of

24See, e.g., the recent discussion in H-Africa, on “The Responsibilities of African Schol-ars.” August, 2005. www.h-net.org/~africa/25See for example Isaac Olawale Albert, “Data Collection and the Interpretation of theSocial History of Africa” in Writing African History, ed. John Edward Phillips(Rochester, 2005), 287-307; Mahmood Mamdani and Mamadou Diouf, eds., AcademicFreedom in Africa (Dakar, 1994).


So far, the discussion has focused too much on the Africanization ofknowledge as a way to improve knowledge about Africa. Here I wouldargue that is precisely the Africanization of western approaches that cancontribute to the reconfiguration of traditional forms of scholarship. Seenfrom this perspective, the issue of authenticity should not be a question ofdefining African history, but of redefining history at large.

Our search for authenticity should advocate reconceptualizing our epis-temological values to incorporate the questions raised by societiesthroughout the world. From this point of view, a more authentic study ofAfrica will include critical methods of analysis that incorporate and adaptconcepts from Africa and other societies as they are able to uncover corequestions of the human experience as they manifest themselves in Africa.

VI

The question of relevance requires a similar re-evaluation. In the examplesdiscussed here, relevance was understood in terms of economic and politi-cal development. The argument was that African scholarship did not takeinto account the problems and needs of African communities; thus theproducts of their work were irrelevant and unable to have any effect onimproving African conditions. I argue, however, that this is a problematicway of looking at the issue of relevance.

There have been significant discussions of the ways in which Africanhistory and historians of Africa might have a more effective impact on thepolitical, social, and economic development of the communities we study.There is no doubt that scholars should show some level of commitmentand engagement with the problems that African communities face on aneveryday basis. The level and nature of their involvement, however, is upfor debate. Some argue that historians themselves should become involvedin political activism.24 Ohers say that scholarship should focus on study-ing the origins of African developmental problems.25

Whichever option historians choose, the fact remains that validatingscholarship because of its ideological or political commitments is a dan-gerous road to take. This raises a perennial question for the historian: howmuch weight should the present have on our choices and approaches tothe past? It is clear that we can only study the past from the perspective of

24See, e.g., the recent discussion in H-Africa, on “The Responsibilities of African Schol-ars.” August, 2005. www.h-net.org/~africa/25See for example Isaac Olawale Albert, “Data Collection and the Interpretation of theSocial History of Africa” in Writing African History, ed. John Edward Phillips(Rochester, 2005), 287-307; Mahmood Mamdani and Mamadou Diouf, eds., AcademicFreedom in Africa (Dakar, 1994).


the present, and that explaining our realities should be a function of his-torical research. However, it is difficult to argue that historical interpreta-tions should be evaluated in terms of their “usefulness.” Nor is it alwayseasy to determine the impact that certain bodies of scholarship may haveon specific communities, and even harder to decide who is to judge suchimpact? What is relevant for some groups may be less so to others. Whatis relevant in the present will surely be not so relevant in the future.

Furthermore, attempts to make history part of social and politicalagendas have raised significant criticism in the past. The best example isprecisely the Africanist historians of the nationalist era, who were so keento support the nationalist projects of their time that much of their outlookwas clouded. There is no doubt that producing a past whose usefulness ismeasured by vested interests may be a way of defining a more Africanscholarship, but not necessarily a better scholarship.

This is not to say that our study of the past should not bear some con-nection to our questions about the present. But it is important to reflectand keep in mind the problems and limitations inherent in the notion ofrelevance. In my view there is a different way of looking at relevance thatbrings us back to more traditional and modest goals of historical research.Michael Stanford argues that the main objective of historiography is tointerpret the meaning of historical events, and he talks about meaningboth in the sense of significance and in the sense of “making sense” of thepast.26 This role of historical writing may point us towards a more hum-ble, but maybe more useful, understanding of relevance. African historymight be considered more relevant if it allows for Africans, as well asother peoples, to find meaning in the African past. In other words, if itprovides works that can reveal how significant that past has been, not justfor Africans, but also for the world in general, and that help us makesense of African experiences in the context of a more holistic human histo-ry.

This understanding of the notion of relevance takes into account thatpeople throughout the world may find African historical experiences illu-minating and enriching. From this perspective we should aim at producingan African history that makes it relevant to as many people in the world,by promoting understandings of the past that stimulate self-discoveryamong different societies throughout the globe. Understanding authentici-ty and relevance in these ways could bring the question of Africanizationcloser to the concerns of other historians who are interested in the devel-opment of more “truly universal” and inclusive methodologies. This

26Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History (Malden MA, 1998),16.


the present, and that explaining our realities should be a function of his-torical research. However, it is difficult to argue that historical interpreta-tions should be evaluated in terms of their “usefulness.” Nor is it alwayseasy to determine the impact that certain bodies of scholarship may haveon specific communities, and even harder to decide who is to judge suchimpact? What is relevant for some groups may be less so to others. Whatis relevant in the present will surely be not so relevant in the future.

Furthermore, attempts to make history part of social and politicalagendas have raised significant criticism in the past. The best example isprecisely the Africanist historians of the nationalist era, who were so keento support the nationalist projects of their time that much of their outlookwas clouded. There is no doubt that producing a past whose usefulness ismeasured by vested interests may be a way of defining a more Africanscholarship, but not necessarily a better scholarship.

This is not to say that our study of the past should not bear some con-nection to our questions about the present. But it is important to reflectand keep in mind the problems and limitations inherent in the notion ofrelevance. In my view there is a different way of looking at relevance thatbrings us back to more traditional and modest goals of historical research.Michael Stanford argues that the main objective of historiography is tointerpret the meaning of historical events, and he talks about meaningboth in the sense of significance and in the sense of “making sense” of thepast.26 This role of historical writing may point us towards a more hum-ble, but maybe more useful, understanding of relevance. African historymight be considered more relevant if it allows for Africans, as well asother peoples, to find meaning in the African past. In other words, if itprovides works that can reveal how significant that past has been, not justfor Africans, but also for the world in general, and that help us makesense of African experiences in the context of a more holistic human histo-ry.

This understanding of the notion of relevance takes into account thatpeople throughout the world may find African historical experiences illu-minating and enriching. From this perspective we should aim at producingan African history that makes it relevant to as many people in the world,by promoting understandings of the past that stimulate self-discoveryamong different societies throughout the globe. Understanding authentici-ty and relevance in these ways could bring the question of Africanizationcloser to the concerns of other historians who are interested in the devel-opment of more “truly universal” and inclusive methodologies. This

26Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History (Malden MA, 1998),16.


approach will take the discussion about the definition of African historybeyond the need to oppose colonialism and Eurocentrism and will openthe possibility of constructing viable alternatives.

Looking at Africanization as it was framed on the eve of the decolo-nization era presents the issues of authenticity and relevance as uniquelyAfricanist problems. However, if we look at them as problems that reflectthe search for more universal and inclusive methodologies on the part ofhistorians of this century, we can see that the goals of Africanizationshould be seen as the goals of historians in general. Given the challengesposed to our discipline during the last half-century it is worth askingwhether the question should be not how to Africanize history, but simplyhow to produce a better history for Africa.


approach will take the discussion about the definition of African historybeyond the need to oppose colonialism and Eurocentrism and will openthe possibility of constructing viable alternatives.

Looking at Africanization as it was framed on the eve of the decolo-nization era presents the issues of authenticity and relevance as uniquelyAfricanist problems. However, if we look at them as problems that reflectthe search for more universal and inclusive methodologies on the part ofhistorians of this century, we can see that the goals of Africanizationshould be seen as the goals of historians in general. Given the challengesposed to our discipline during the last half-century it is worth askingwhether the question should be not how to Africanize history, but simplyhow to produce a better history for Africa.

The History of Africanization and the Africanization of History

Documents

Transcript of The History of Africanization and the Africanization of History