|
Complementary Reflection,
African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
ON THE
TEACHING OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
IN
AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES
BY
MESEMBE ITA EDET, M.A.,
Lecturer, Department
of Philosophy
University of Calabar
Calabar – Nigeria
The
aim of this paper is to question
the approach to teaching Western Philosophy in African Universities. In the
light of the results of recent research efforts of African scholars
it has
become known that the
Philosophical postulations of
the like of Aristotle, Bentham,
Hegel and Nietzsche provided the logic that inspired and justified
colonization and slavery in
Africa. It has also been affirmed
that Aristotle, Locke, Kant,
Hume and Hegel were pure and
absolute racists; yet in teaching
their philosophies in African Universities we treat them with so much prestige and respect . The paper contends that in teaching
Western Philosophy in
African Universities the paucity
of political content is
obvious. Consequently, the paper calls for a radical overhaul of the whole epistemological paradigm underlying the current
educational system based on an
African centred curriculum anchored on a critique of Eurocentrism.
Key words: Colonisation,
slavery, racism, Western-Philosophy
Eurocentrism
Introduction
The following presentation is an
indictment or a reproach against the
teaching of Western Philosophy in African Universities . In another essay I made the
observation that philosophical studies in most African Universities are
essentially Western oriented. I
stated that,
…For four years
the students are saddled
right from their introductory classes with the
history of
Western philosophy beginning
with
Thales in
the ancient period up to the
major
characters of the
contemporary period of
Western
philosophy. In the latter years , as
they study the
traditional branches of Ethics
Metaphysics,
Epistemology and Political
Philosophy, we
witness so much overlapping
and repetition
among the courses,
and so
much emphasis
and attention is
paid to
exposition and
analysis of the so –called
“perennial
problems” of philosophy. Curriculum
remains to a
great extent traditional (Edet, 2002:13)
Further I pointed
out that,
there needs to
be a de-emphasis of the
history of Western
philosophy as currently
taught … students of philosophy…are treated
to an overdose of the metaphysics, epistemology,
ethics, political
philosophy, philosophy of history,
philosophy of religion, of Descartes,
Berkeley, Spinoza,
Locke, Hume,
Kant, Bentham, Hegel, Mill and other
Western
philosophers (Edet, 2002: 22)
Our
aim in this paper is to question the approach to teaching Western
philosophy in African
Universities. In the light of
the results of recent research efforts
of African scholars, it has become known that the
philosophical postulations of the
like of Aristotle, Jeremy
Bentham, George W. Hegel and
Friedrich Nietzsche provided the
logic that inspired and justified
colonization and slavery
in Africa. It has also been affirmed that Aristotle, John Locke,
Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Hegel, to mention but only a few were pure and absolute racists; yet in teaching their theories in African
Universities we treat them
with so much prestige
and respect and even the most internationally
renowned universities are
not known to
have taught philosophic
racism found in the
postulations of the philosophers just
mentioned.
The
question that arises here is, why did the
teaching of Western philosophy in African universities fail for so long
to address the concrete
experience of racial exploitation and
injustice especially slavery , colonialism , segregation and
the denial of
economic , social and political
equality to persons of African descent
in the light of philosophical racism which we find in
the postulations of
Aristotle, Locke, Kant, Hume, Bentham, Marx and Hegel.
M. B. Ramose posits that
the failure to address the concrete experience of
racism in the light
of philosophical racism attests
to the fact that for too long the
teaching of western
philosophy in Africa was decontextualised precisely because both
its inspiration and the questions it attempted
to answer were
not necessarily based upon
”the living experience of being
–an-African in Africa”. According
to Ramose,
…the
Western philosophers that the teaching
of
philosophy in Africa emulated always
drew
their questions
from the lived
experience of
their
time and place. Such questioning
included
the
upkeep and refinement of
an established
philosophical tradition. In this sense , western
philosophy
has always been contextual. But this
cannot be
said without reservation
about the
teaching of
Western philosophy in Africa
since it
was - and
still is - decontextualised to
the
extent that it systematically and
persistently
ignored and
excluded the experience of
being - an - African in Africa (Ramose, 2002;29)
I am in agreement with
Ramose. The most serious reproach one can level at the
manner of teaching
western philosophy in African
universities is its socio-political poverty . The discussions of our philosophy teachers reduce
socio-historical considerations to
abstractions as if philosophy were an
entity that floats above the societies which produce the philosophers . In
our opinion every philosophy either
conceals or reveals a political
idea even when it apparently
has notoriously little
political content,
especially if one looks at it from the point of view of a
concern with the African peoples. Thus we will identity examples
to show that modern Western
philosophy produced intellectual fabrications that were designed to justify slavery and colonization and that the prevalence
of racism in our time
is deeply rooted
in a philosophical
framework traceable in the history of Western philosophy
from the ancient , through the
enlightenment and right up to the
present.
The mimetic and the decontextualized character of the teaching of
Western philosophy in Africa
and indeed, of the entire educational system, calls for a
radical overhaul of the whole
epistemological paradigm
underlying the current
educational system. As Ramose
very rightly admonishes,
To evade this
duty is to condone racism which is a form of
injustice . The injustice is
apparent in the recognition that
there is neither a moral basis
nor pedagogical justification for the western epistemological paradigm
to retain primacy and
dominance in decolonized Africa
(2002, 29).
Consequently,
we advocate an Africa-centred
curriculum based on a “critique of
Eurocentrism” as the leading thrust to reform philosophical education in African universities and
we give reasons
why the Africa- centred
curriculum is essential.
Western Philosophical Justifications of Colonialism
Colonialism has been described
as,
the indescribable crisis
disproportionately
suffered and endured by
the African peoples
in their tragic encounter with the European
world, from the
beginning of the fifteenth
century through the
end of the nineteenth
into the first half of the
twentieth. This is a
period marked by the
horror and violence of
the transatlantic slave trade, the imperial
occupation of most
parts of Africa and the
forced administrations
of its peoples and the
resilient and enduring
ideologies and practices
of European cultural
superiority (ethnocentrism)
and “racial” supremacy (racism) (Eze, 1998:213)
E. C. Eze opines that slave trade, conquest, occupation and
forced administration of peoples, in that order were all part of an
unfolding history of colonialism. As colonialism swept through most of Africa the invasion, subjugation and
exploitation of indigenous
Africans had to be given a theoretical and intellectual
justification by the intruders.
By the 18th and 19th centuries, the period of
the Industrial Revolution in Europe,
colonialism reached its peak. The
Industrial Revolution sparked off a
lot of social problems in Europe . It created
unemployment , poverty , disease, the
ugly aspects of the
factory system such as
child labour, poor conditions
in the mines, over crowding
in the cities , high birth
and death rates, inequality in education and other social
evils. There was therefore the
need to look outwards and
explore new lands and exploit their resources, open up
markets and procure cheap raw
materials obtained by the
exploitation of peasant
labour.
Thus began sporadic and
systematic maritime commercial
incursions into Africa by
European fortune seekers. These
commercial interests, individual as
well as institutional, were aimed
at the extraction and trading of gold, ivory and
other natural resources and
raw materials, but it quickly
expanded into the exportation of able
bodied Africans and their
children as slaves
to the Americas and other
parts of the world.
The degradation of man in these centuries stirred
the conscience of
social thinkers, and
it was in response to these objective realities that
different strands of
social and philosophical thought
emerged. Theories were
propounded to explain the cause of the
contradictions of the
era. The social theories of the Enlightenment, typically the social
contract theories of Rosseau and
Hobbes were rejected
as they were considered to have
outlived their usefulness and the
concepts of “liberty” “equality” and
“fraternity” which these social
contract theorists harped upon were considered mere metaphysical jargons. E. C. Eze
has noted that,
Significant aspects of
the philosophies
produced by Hume, Kant,
Hegel, and
Marx have been shown
to originate
In, and to be
intelligible only when
understood as , an
organic development
within larger socio-historical contexts of
European colonialism
and the ethnocentric
Idea: Europe is the model
of humanity , culture
and history in
itself (Eze, 1998;214).
We are going to consider
subsequently the racist elements in
the postulations of Hume , Kant and Locke but
it is my view that
the philosophical postulations
of Bentham, Hegel and Nietzshe amongst
others, provided useful justification for
European incursions into Africa.
Jeremy Bentham was one of the most famous exponents of Utilitarianism. The Utilitarians conceived of their philosophical work as an attempt to lay
down an objective principle for determining
when a given action was right
or wrong. They called this maxim the principle of utility. The principle states: an
action is right in so far
as it tends to produce the greatest
happiness for the greatest number . Bentham interpreted this principle as a form of
hedonism by identifying
happiness with pleasure.
Interpreted in this way, the principle
states that an action is right
if it is productive
of the greatest amount
of pleasure for the
greatest number , otherwise it
is wrong . The essence
of utilitarianism as a
philosophy though is that it
lays stress upon the effects
which an action has. If an action produces an excess of
beneficial effects over harmful ones for a greater number, then
it is right, otherwise it
is not . The minor pains
or suffering that might
result are insignificant and
should be ignored.
The import
of Utilitarianism is that seeking
the greatest happiness for the greatest number
implies ignoring the rights
of minorities. For example, the majority might
derive happiness or pleasure from enslaving the minority. With this kind of justification the
transatlantic slave trade was
rationalized. In the
thinking of the colonizers
the exploitation and
subjugation of the Africans was minor and inconsequential as long as the
Europeans, who considered themselves
as the majority achieved the “greatest happiness for
the greatest number”.
If the trade and practices of transatlantic slavery were carefully philosophically constructed on the
principle of ensuring the
“greatest happiness for the
greatest number”, the practice of colonialism was
parallely predicated on a
metaphysical denial of the historicity of African existence.
Nowhere is this line
of modern European
thought as evident
as in Hegel’s twin treatise; Lectures
on Philosophy of History and
Lectures on the Philosophy of Right.
We will rely on the
summarization of these two works by E.
C. Eze presented in his essay Modern Western Philosophy and African Colonialism in African Philosophy: An Anthology edited
by Eze himself.
In the Philosophy of History,
Hegel eliminates Africa (south of the
sahara) from the stream of history . He positions Africa outside of History , as the absolute, non historical beginning
of the unfolding of spirit .
Accordingly, Africans are depicted
as incapable of rational
thought or ethical conduct. They therefore have no
laws, religion, and political order.
Africa, in human terms, is, for Hegel a
wasteland filled with “lawlessness” “fetishism” and “cannibalism” - waiting for
European soldiers and missionaries to conquer it and impose “order” and “morality”.
Within a few pages of Philosophy
of History, Hegel uses the following terms to describe African peoples:
“barbarism and savagery”, “barbarous”, “ferocity”, “barbarity”, “primitive”,
“animality” “animal man” “terrible hordes”, “savagery and lawlessness”, “the
most terrible manifestation of human
nature”, “wild confusion” and “unhistorical, undeveloped Spirit”.
For Hegel, the African deserved
to be enslaved. Besides, slavery to
Europeans, Hegel argued, benefited the
African, as it provided him/her with
moral “education”. Accordingly,
colonialism was also a benefit to
Africa because Europe inseminated it
with its reason, ethic, culture, and
mores and thereby historicized it.
In the Philosophy of Right,
Hegel provides a detailed exposition of the theoretical structures that
at once directly justify and
explain colonialism - as the inevitable logic of the
unfolding of Spirit in (world) history.
In the Philosophy of Right,
Hegel further explains why and how the
modern capitalist organization of state and economy in Europe
necessarily leads to
imperialism and colonialism.
According to Hegel, the imperial
and colonial expansion of Europe is
the necessary and
logical outlet for
resolving the problem of poverty inherent in capitalism.
When the capitalist division of
labour and trade that was
meant to satisfy the “system of wants” of a civil
society generates at the same
time a class of
paupers and disenfranchised segments of the
population , there are, for
Hegel, only two ways
of resolving the
contradiction. The first
option is welfare, while the second is more jobs. The
consequences of both
options, however, violate what Hegel considered the basic tenets of the civil society. Welfare deprives the individual (the poor) of initiative
and self –respect and independence, while the second – the creation of more
jobs -
according to Hegel , would cause over-production of goods and services in proportion to available market. This
is how Hegel presents the scenario:
When the masses begin to
decline into poverty,
(a)
the burden of
maintaining them at their
ordinary
standards of living might be
directly
laid on the wealthiest class (higher taxes, for
example) or they might receive the means of
livelihood directly from other public sources of
wealth … in
either case, however, the needy
would receive subsistence directly, not by means
of their work,
and this would violate the
principle of civil
society and the feeling
of individual independence
and self –respect …
(b)
As an alternative, they might be given
subsistence indirectly through being given
work, i.e. opportunity
to work. In this event
the volume
of production would
be increased,
but the evil
consists precisely in
an excess of
production and in the lack of a proportionate
number of
consumers… It hence becomes
apparent that
despite an excess of wealth civil
society is not rich
enough, i.e. its own resources are
insufficient to check excessive poverty and
the creation of a penurious rabble (Hegel, 1967: 150)
In
order, therefore, to resolve the
problem of the poverty of
the “penurious rabble” which results from the unequal distribution of wealth inherent to
modern European capitalist
societies , the solution Hegel
recommends, is the generation of wealth
for Europe from outside of Europe, through
expansion. Poverty and the need for
market, Hegel says,
drives
it (the capitalistically “mature” European
society)
to push beyond its own limits and seek
markets
and so its necessary means of
subsistence,
in
other lands which are either deficient in the goods
it
over produced or else generally
backward in industry,
(Hegel;
1974: pp. 282-283).
Colonial
and capitalist expansions are therefore a logical necessity for the
realization of the
obviously universal European Idea and
by labeling the non-European territories and people
as “backward” in “industry” they
become legitimate prey for colonial
and colonialist activities . According to Hegel,
All great peoples …
press onward to the sea
because the sea affords
the means for the
colonizing activity –
sporadic or systematic –to which
the
mature civil society is driven
and by
which it supplies to part of its population
a
return to life on the family basis
in a new
land and so also supplies itself
with a new
demand
and field for its industry (Hegel; 1974
283)
Eze
observes that in this articulation of
Europe’s rush for wealth and for territory in other lands, Hegel does not raise any ethical questions or moral
consideration. There was no need to bother about the moral dimension
since the African was sub-human:
the African lacked reason and
therefore moral and ethical
content. This philosophically
articulated “natural” status of the African automatically precludes
the possibility that the
relationship between Europe and
Africa, the European and the African, the colonizer and the colonized, may be governed
or regulated by any sort of law or ethics (Eze, 1998: 216).
Hegel
states in the Philosophy of Right that,
“The civilized nation (Europe)
is conscious that the rights of the barbarians ( Africans for
example)
are unequal to its own and treats their autonomy as only a formality”
(Hegel, 1967; 219).
The arrogant egoism of the European
colonialists derived further
impetus from the
philosophical postulations of
Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche
posits that there are two kinds of morality, namely,
the slave - morality
and the master –morality. The slave-
morality is the morality taught
by Christianity. It is the
morality that preaches love, meekness, humility, kindness, self denial , sympathy, etc. All these are considered
as virtues by the slave – morality . It
encourages weakness of
character, and fears the
strong and powerful. It sees weakness as a virtue and
strength of character as a vice.
The slave – morality wants to
bring all men to the same
level through absolute and universal
moral laws applicable to all men. It prevents people from developing
into strong and powerful men, for
it fears such people
as dangerous and “evil”. Thus the slave – morality is an obstacle to human development.
Nietzsche consequently severely attacks Christianity which
preaches such a morality .
Christianity is only fit for
the ignoble species of men, for it is a religion that
stifles intellectual
pursuit and destroys the best part of man. Christianity
does all kinds of
deplorable things to man’s
spirit in the name of God whose commands and prohibitions it claims to hand down to men. Hence
Nietzsche declared “God is dead”. God’s
death, says Nietzsche, has set man
free. The death of
God is man’s liberation as man is now free from God’s oppressive commands and prohibitions which are
obstacles to human development . The slave –morality can now
give way to the master - morality.
The master -morality is the
morality of the strong and
the powerful who have liberated themselves from divine
commands and prohibitions,
and have rejected the slave
-morality. In this morality , pride , great passions , strength ,
instinct for war, desire for conquest, , revenge, ambition , adventure,
voluptuousness, egoism, self seeking,
etc are all virtues . War, self – assertion and violence are marks of the noble spirit
which should be
encouraged , whereas peace,
patience, meekness, etc are marks of weakness of character. The master –
morality is a morality of power, of ruthlessness, of struggle, of valour, of strength and
ambition.
Nietzsche’s starting point lies
in his concept of the
nature of reality as a whole. For
Nietzsche, ultimate reality consists of
a perpetually striving will – a will to
power. This force permeates the
universe and is responsible
for every manifestation of striving
and vitality, endurance,
vigour and initiative. The urge to
preserve one’s self , Nietzsche thought
, is only incidental to nature’s overall thrust of
energy that aims
at increased power.
Nietzsche writes “a living
thing seeks above all to discharge
its strength. Life itself is will to power , self preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results thereof”
(Nietzsche, 1927; 186). What
Nietzsche means here is
that this will to power is the dominant force coursing through
all living organisms
including human beings. Human
beings are thus free
to employ any methods available
for the expression and
acquisition of this fundamental power. The
individual should feel no qualms of conscience at using deceit , cruelty, lies, or
violence since the
drive for the enlargment of
the self is the basic truth of our being.
In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche writes “exploitation does not
belong to a depraved or
imperfect and primitive society ;
it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary
organic function; It is the
consequence of the intrinsic will to
power “ (Nietzsche, 1969; 252).
Here Nietzsche advocates an uninhibited exercise
of power. Infact, for Nietzsche,
whatever is life - enhancing or
increases the fullness of our being is thereby
justified, because we are linking into the most
elemental force of existence.
As a corollary to this
doctrine advocating the
uninhibited exercise of power, Nietzsche recognizes the fact that a vigorous and
perhaps brutal competition will
result. And he welcomes
this atmosphere because
it would be a tonic
to the development of the
individual, stimulating excitement and
creative energy . For Nietzsche, we breathe best in a thunder storm. Not only will an exhilarating environment
be produced but
Nietzsche could foresee that
humanity would become divided into the successful and the unsuccessful through the
winnowing force of competition.
As each person strove to expand his own power, the lines of
self –interest would converge and the outcome of that
clash would be the creation of
superior and inferior classes, the shepherds and the sheep. The
two groups would not be separated by social or
economic factors or by disfunctions of birth but by the degree
to which they posses the will to self assertion.
The Superior people,
(Nietzsche called them “masters”) would consist of
those who have the courage
to take charge of their
lives and ignore the
interests of other people for the
sake of maximizing
their own being. They would overcome
the dictates of
conscience, which only
reflect conventional morality
and perform actions that spring from their personal code of
plenitude and power. They
would act for themselves
and let others defend themselves with the force of their will, giving no
quarter, asking none. Their
harshness and aggression
would be what they
expect to encounter and their
victory would justify their higher status because
it demonstrates the superiority of the will.
The inferior people,
(Nietzsche called them “slaves”) on the
other hand, would be those who lack the strength to develop themselves at someone
else’s expense and feel obliged
to follow social rules.
They are the people who
honour values such as
pity, consideration and
compassion because their
will is flaccid and
weak. For Nietzsche, values such as these are really nothing
more than rationalizations masking
a basic cowardice. The slaves are making a virtue of necessity, championing the self –denying tendencies they find most
comfortable. To sacrifice for others
gives them a sense of
being needed and of belonging, makes them
feel virtuous and admirable. Instead of taking
risks they cringe in fear of
being hurt and settle
for the safety of kindness to others , meekness , deference and
humility, They are the ones who glorify
service over self
and feel morally self –satisfied
when infact they have
abdicated authority over their lives and denied the
primal will to power.
Consequently, for Nietzsche , there are
these two levels of
humanity : the masters and the slaves. Consequently, two different ethics
must be acknowledged. It
would be a mistake to have a
general morality that
ignores this distinction
and proclaims an absolute
set of principles for everyone . Nietzsche wrote
“moral systems must be
compelled first of all
to bow before the
gradations of rank; their
presumption must be
driven home to
their conscience until they
thoroughly understand at last that it is immoral to say that
what is right
for one is proper for another”
(Porter, 1988. 53). Hence Nietzsche ‘s distinction between
“master morality” and “ “slave morality”
In Nietzsche’s scheme different
rules apply for master-
morality and for slave
-morality. The masters should be hard
and domineering; the slaves , deferential and ingratiating, the slaves lack originality, resist all change
and follow their leaders
obsequiously. Above all, the masters have the right to pursue
their power whereas the
slaves have surrendered
that right through
their cowardice and
frailty, they are subjugated to
the ambition of the masters .
The master -morality
is the morality of the man who
has taken the place of God as
the legislator of moral laws; the
man who has rejected
the values of
the slave -morality and has
carried out a
“trans valuation of values”. The ideal man, for Nietzsche , the
man who embodies the
master -morality , is the
“superman”. The “superman “
is beyond good and
evil, he creates his own
values , he has liberated
himself from belief in God and has
rejected slave- morality.
It is clear from the foregoing that Nietzsche’s
doctrines also embodied those justifications which give a philosophical basis to the activities of the colonialists in
Africa. The Western colonialists worked towards the
realization of the “superman” ideal. Their thinking
was that they had realized
themselves and had evolved
to the peak and
could determine what is right or wrong. Colonization was thus
seen as the expression of the
Western will to power.
The West considered themselves as
the masters, the Africans as the
slaves.
By the end of
the 19th century
,Africa was completely subdued and
partitioned by the West. Such
philosophies of Bentham (Utilitarianism), Hegel and Nietzsche
provided the logic that inspired and justified
colonization and slavery
in Africa. These philosophies
and ideologies supported
the partition of the
non-European worlds. the exploitation of the territorial
resources of the conquered ; the political domination of these
societies and the control of
the thought processes in the new countries through imperialism.
The prestige and respect
philosophy teachers in African
universities accord these thinkers in my view , compounds their evil
considering that their intellectual fabrications were deliberately designed to justify
racial exploitation and injustice, especially slavery, colonialism, segregation and the denial of economic , social and political
equality to persons
of African descent. It goes to
show that there is
a problem in teaching
Western philosophy in African
universities as the
curriculum of philosophy in African
universities remains based
upon European philosophy and
suffers paucity of political
content, especially when one
looks at it from the
point of view
of unraveling implications, meaning and consequences for
the African peoples.
If we consider the prevalence
of racism in our time we will again see that Hume, Locke and
Kant all of whom philosophy teachers in
African universities treat with
respect and prestige made
no small contribution to
providing philosophical bases for
modern racism , as we shall see presently.
Western Philosophical Bases of Modern Racism
The World Book Encyclopedia (Volume
16) defines racism as
:”the belief that members
of one or more races
are inferior to members of other races “. The Encyclopedia explains that
“usually, this attitude
also involves the
belief that one’s
own race is superior to other races”. Further the
Encyclopedia states,
People
who believe in or practice
racism are
called racists . They claim
that members of
their own
race are mentally, physically, morally,
or
culturally
superior to those of other races.
Because
racists assume they are superior,
they
believe they deserve special rights and
privileges
(WBE, 1979; 60).
Following from this clarification of the concept of
“racism”, it can be stated unequivocally that George Hegel, David Hume, John Locke and
Immanuel Kant were pure and absolute “racists” or held a racist attitude
as we shall see when we consider some
of their statements. Groups as well as individuals,
differ. But there is
no scientific evidence to
support claims of
superiority or inferiority
for these differences. Social
scientists emphasize that no
two groups have exactly
the same environment. As a
result many group differences are largely the result of different
environments. Scientists have
long disagreed over the relative importance of
heredity and environment
in determining these
differences. But racism continues to be widespread and has caused major problems, even though no scientific
proof supports racist claims.
Claims
of racial superiority and
inferiority have been used to
justify discrimination, segregation, colonialism, slavery and
even genocide . Thus racism is
immoral and the racist evil. Why then do teachers of philosophy in Africa
continue to teach the theories of Hume and
the others out of context when
these theories provided the philosophical framework which
justifies the prevalence
of racism in our
time and its attendant evils?.
Let
us consider Hume’s racism which is
very explicit. In one of
Hume’s essays, On National Character, an essay that is
hardly ever mentioned to African
students of philosophy by their teachers, Hume remarked,
I
am apt to suspect the negroes and in general
all
the other species of men (for there are four or
five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the
whites. There never was a civilized
nation of any other complexion than white, nor
even any individual eminent
either in action or speculation . No ingenious manufacturers
amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient
GERMANS, the present TARTARS,
have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government
or some other particular. Such
a uniform and constant difference could not happen in so
many countries and
ages , if nature had not
made an original distinction
betwixt these breeds of men. Not
to mention colonies, there are
NEGROE slaves dispersed all
over Europe, of which none
ever discovered any
symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people,
without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every
profession. In JAMAICA
indeed they talk
of one negroe as a
man of
parts and learning ; but tis likely he is
admired for very
slender accomplishments, like a
parrot , who speaks a
few words plainly
(Quoted in Ramose, 2002; 13-14).
Ramose’s sharp criticism of Hume’s statement above is apt
and well considered. He
observes that,
Although Hume
refers to “ages”, a pretension
to knowledge of history
and, “our colonies” yet another claim of
knowledge of the colonies , it
is apparent that such imagined knowledge exposes Hume’s ignorance
of history and the reality prevailing
in the colonies (Ramose, 2002,
14).
Ramose again rightly concludes that “ Hume’s racism is therefore
based upon his idiosyncracy than upon objectivity” (Ramose,
2002; 14).
With regard to John Locke his
theory of essence
and substance has been interpreted
as providing some further
basis or justification for modern racism. In Locke’s
theory he distinguishes between
primary and secondary qualities. Primary
qualities are those
qualities which are
really in things and
inseparable from things. The
secondary qualities on the other
hand, are those qualities
which are not
really in things but are
only powers in things with
which they impress themselves on our
senses and thereby produce simple ideas
in us.
H.
M. Bracken has pointed out,
and in my view, the
argument is well reasoned out , that:
Locke, I contend, is
a pivotal figure in the development
of modern racism in that he provides
a model which permits us to
count skin colour as a
nominally essential property of men.
This comes about because in the course of his formulation of theories of essence
and substance it emerges that
the essential properties of men are computed like
those of gold. What appears to
be a simple system of classification based on tallies
of observed properties in fact facilitates counting
colour , sex, language religion
or IQ as “essential”. Indeed,
there is no mechanism within
the Lockean model to rule out
counting skin colour
as the “essential” property of
men (Bracken, 1978-79; 243-244).
If we cannot claim categorically that Locke was thoroughly a racist, we can maintain that the tenor
of his thought was
such that he
cannot be exempted
from being the
holder of a racist attitude.
Kant’s
racism is discernible, according to
the exposition of C. Neugebauer, where Kant
identifies four races in a
racial pecking -order . According to Kant, the “whites”
are on top, followed by the “yellow” and the “negro” and at the bottom the American or “red race” The
pecking –order is defined by
a decrease in mental and
general ability (Neugebauer, 1991; 58- 63).
Following this
exposition any attempt to defend Kant of the allegation of racism leads one into a self contradiction.
Racism
is a
form of prejudice. Many
people tend to consider their own
appearance and behaviour
as normal and
therefore desirable. They may
distrust or fear people who look or act differently. When differences are obvious – such as in skin colour , shape of eyes, or religious worship – the distrust
becomes greater. Such attitudes can lead to the belief that
people who look or
act differently are
inferior. Many people do not
bother to look for the
same qualities in other races that they admire
in their own. Also they do
not recognize the different
but equally good
qualities that members
of other races posses.
Clearly, Hume, Locke and
Kant exhibit this prejudice.
The Africa-Centred Philosophical Education
We have stated that the
decontextualised character of the teaching
of Western philosophy in Africa,
and, indeed of the entire
educational system , calls for a
radical overhaul of the
whole epistemological paradigm underlying the
current educational system . For
philosophical education, we
propose or advocate an African centred
curriculum of philosophical education based essentially on a
“critique of Eurocentrism”. Philosophy teachers
in Africa must teach Western
Philosophy with the
purpose of unraveling
the political content
which underpins many
of the theories. As we maintained , every philosophy either
conceals or reveals a political idea even if on the face
of it
the political content is
not explicit.
The
Africa-centred curriculum of
philosophical studies which
we propose is a reaction
against the Western
philosophical project of historical
and cultural genocide against African peoples. The Western account of
African reality, culture and
history has been grossly
inaccurate, deliberately distorted
and scandalously malicious,
supported by the intellectual fabrications of the Western philosophers we have discussed.
Several reasons can be adduced for
why the Africa-centred curriculum is essential. The first and
most important reason is to
restore the truth to the curriculum. The falsification of
the role of
Africa in world history
and civilization results
not only in a
deformation of African history but
the history of the world ,
especially since Africa has
played such a
decisive part in
the events that comprise world history. The correction
of this mutilation is surely
in the interest of humanity, if
the truth is at all relevant to human development.
A
second reason is the necessity of developing
a framework for cultural equality in this age of
globalization . Elsewhere I pointed
out that,
… globalization
must help to show that
the people are different
and Africans must insist
on mutual recognition and parity. As we globalize we must develop a framework for
cultural equality. We must
recognize though that cultures are not static and weak. Cultures are
dynamic, and so foreign element can be adapted and incorporated into
indigenous cultures. But again we must
be critical of what we receive. We can
adapt, incorporate, but still resist
cultural hegemony and cultural
domination. Whether America or the
nations of the West like it or not, we must ensure a multi-cultural world in
the face of globalization (Edet, 2003 ; 37)
Today
the multicultural world is
exploding as long suppressed cultures
are now demanding dignity and
power in the world arena and the road to multicultural equality and
respect cannot even begin until
Africa is restored to its proper
historical and cultural position.
Finally, another reason for the necessity of the African centered curriculum is the fact that
any culture (especially one which has been
suppressed) needs its own apparatus for its restoration, maintenance
and development. The main reason Western culture has been dominant is because Europeans have
controlled political, economic and
social power including educational policy for the last several centuries.
Conclusion
Africa-centred curriculum of philosophical studies must be based essentially on a critique of Eurocentrism. The teaching
of Western philosophy in African
universities must not ignore the political
dimensions of Western philosophical theories. For the efforts of Aristotle, Bentham, Hegel,
Nietzsche, Locke, Hume, Kant and the rest in providing the philosophical
framework that propelled slavery ,
colonialism and racial
exploitation, oppression
and subjugation one
wonders whether they are deserving
of the prestige and respect with which
teachers of philosophy in
African Universities, treat their
theories. The
Africa-centred curriculum
urges a radical overhaul of the entire
epistemological paradigm
underlying the current approach to teaching philosophy
in African Universities. At this
point it is pertinent to re-echo
Ramose ; “… there is neither a
moral basis nor pedagogical justification for the western epistemological paradigm to retain primacy and
dominance in decolonized Africa” (Ramos, 2002; 29)
REFERENCES
Bracken, H. M. 1978-79. Philosophy and Racism,
Philosophia, volume
8:150-163
Edet , M. I. 2002. How
to Teach Philosophy to make it
relevant to
Nigerian
Students, Sophia ; An African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 5, No. 1 September; 1-26.
Edet
M. I. 2003, Globalization , Internationalization or Americanization?:
Implications for language
and culture. A paper presented
at the 2003 Conference of the Association for the promotion of Nigeria languages and culture, Owerri;
November, 23-27; pp19
Eze, E. C.
1998, African Philosophy: An
Anthology. Blackswell
Publishers Ltd. Oxford. 420 pp.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1967,
The Philosophy of History. trans. J. Sibree.
Dover Publications, New York. 251pp.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1974 The Philosophy of Right. trans. by T. M. Knox.
Clarendon
Press, Oxford. 316 pp.
Neugebauer, C. 1991, Hegel and Kant: A refutation of their
Racism,
Quest, volume
V. No. 1 June, 50-66
Neitzsche, F 1927, The Philosophy of Nietzsche. ed.
William Huntington
Wright. The Modern Library, New York. 437 pp.
Neitzsche, F 1969, Beyond Good and Evil. trans.
By Oscar Levy.
George Allen & Unwin. London.
315 pp.
Ramose, M. B., 2002 African Philosophy Through
Ubuntu. Mond Books,
Harare, Zimbabwe 158pp
World Book Encyclopedia 1979. Volume 16.
World Book- Child craft
International, Inc. Chicago, 546 pp