Abstract



EUROCENTRIC THEORIES AS OBSTACLES TO INTER-CULTURAL HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE WEST AND AFRICA

By

Abdulmumini A. Oba((

INTRODUCTION

Eurocentrism is a product of the era when Europe was the leader of the West and was also the dominant power in the world. That age is gone for America now occupies that position. Eurocentrism describes an attitude which affirms Europe as the cradle of world civilization.[1] To Afrocentric scholars, Eurocentrism means “not only denial but appropriation of African’s rich intellectual and scientific legacy to mankind”.[2] Eurocentrism puts the European as superior to all other peoples and the best example for man.

The very concept of “West” is a product of Eurocentrism. Europe was “West” while the Arabian Peninsula is part of the Middle East and Asia was “Far East”. Africa was not part of this configuration for it was then the Dark Continent. Now that the centre of western civilization now lies in America, Europe is “east” of the US while Asia is “west”. But the old tags remain. Europe together with its subsequent extensions in the America, Canada, and Australia are still considered “West”. This is the sense in which ‘West’ is used in this paper.

In the last few centuries when the West slowly but decisively acquired technological ascendancy in the world, the West has continuously displayed an insatiable urge to dominate other peoples in the world. Africa and Africans have borne the brut of western adventurism. Colonialism succeeded slavery. Today, neo-colonialism (or its more recent expression, globalization) is finding expression in all aspects of the lives of Africans. The West has always found rational justification for imposing its will on others. The relationship between the West and Africa has mostly been that of domination justified by intellectual theories which place the West as superior and civilized and Africa as inferior, backwards and a non-entity. Without a proper understanding of the historical antecedents of intellectual relationship between the West and Africa, it will be difficult to really understand the context of the modern human rights debate between Africa and the West.

Eurocentric ideas have proved very resilience and still have far-reaching consequences. Eurocentric ideas form the basic theories upon which the West views or thinks of its relationship with the rest of the world. Consciously or unconsciously, the western discourse and interaction with Africa remains premised on Eurocentrism and this has become a major obstacle to mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence between the two.

This paper examines the various Eurocentric theories which were advanced in support of, or which provided the intellectual justification for western domination of Africa and Africans. The modern expressions of these theories are identified in the context of the human rights debate and the quest for universal human rights. The reaction of Africans to Eurocentrism is also examined.

I. EUROCENTRIC THEORIES

Eurocentric theories have taken many forms. Some of these are examined hereunder.

A. The ‘Non-Entity’ Theory and the ‘Absence’ Thesis

Western intellectuals at early stage of their contact with Africa affirmed that Africans are not equals of the Europeans. The ‘non-entity’ theory found its way into virtually all fields. We shall consider a few here.

With regard to law, it was fervently argued that Africans had no law.[3] This argument was predicated on the absence in pre-colonial Africa of what Europeans are used to as the usual and ‘indispensable’ paraphernalia of law what Driberg tagged the “symbols of legal authority”[4] – formal law courts with documented proceedings, law books, uniformed policemen, and prisons.[5] African scholars and other scholars have effectively disproved this.[6] Then, it was argued again that African law had no legal theory and no jurisprudence.[7] These assertions again are quite baseless.[8] It was wrongly argued again that African law does not make any distinction between civil matters and crimes.[9]

Again, it was argued that Africa had no history. Trevor-Roper declared pompously:

…perhaps in the future there will be an African history to teach. But at the present there is none…; there is only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness… and darkness is not a subject of history.[10]

Of course, Africa had history and there were Africans swimming and fishing on the Niger and the Nile before these rivers were ‘discovered’ and appropriated by Europeans. African history was documented in oral traditions, but to Eurocentric historians, whose conception of history takes all its facts from documentary sources, oral tradition was not considered ‘history’ but myths.[11] Due largely to the efforts of African historians, oral tradition though is not without its problems and limitations, is now an accepted source of reconstructing African past.[12]

This absence theses also found in philosophy where it was argued that there was no African philosophy and that “Africans are outside the mainstream of the world philosophical development”.[13] The efforts of European scholars such as Temples[14] and Griaule[15] established beyond doubt the existence of an African philosophy.[16] Other scholars have followed with systematic expositions of African philosophy.[17] Some have gone further to assert that western philosophy had its roots in Egypt.[18] Eurocentrism found its way into religion. It was also alleged that African traditional religion does not have any depiction of a Supreme Being.[19] This again, has been proved to be false.[20]

The ‘non-entity’ theory facilitated slavery and it was easier on the European Christian conscience to enslave a sub-human. The absence thesis is not a thing of the past. Terrence Rangers recently took it to another level with his “Invention theory”. Areji summarizes the theory:

According to this theory, all the so-called African ‘this’ and ‘that’ is an invention of the West. There is no authenticity and originality in African culture, Identity, Personality, Politics and Religion. All are inventions of the West because Africa has no authenticity. Even the name Africa was invented. Therefore any claim to originality is superfluous.[21]

Again, as we shall see later in this paper, the absence thesis has found a new expression in the contemporary human rights debate.

B. Cultural Evolution and Social Darwinism

In the 19th Century, western anthropologists articulated the theory of social and cultural evolution to justify Western “superiority” over other peoples. According to this theory, every human community progresses on a linear manner on an evolutionary ladder which takes it from savagery to barbarism and finally to civilization.[22] It was argued that Europe was at the civilized peak while others were at the lower rungs of the ladder. This theory was the intellectual justification for colonialism. Colonialism, they said, was for the good of the colonized peoples as it provided a shortcut to civilization for these peoples who otherwise would not attain to civilization quicker. To them, colonial enterprise was no more than that Europe was merely trying to help Africa make a cultural evolution leap to civilization.

Similar to social evolution is the concept of Social Darwinism. Its proponents believe that the stronger, “superior” cultures will eventually displace the weaker, “inferior” in a “survival of the fittest” race.[23] They believe that the western culture being the most superior would ultimately become the universal culture of the world.

The theme of western superiority is being played over and over in the contemporary era. It is enough to discredit any idea or practice on the basis that it inconsistent with the western version.

C. Secularism

Secularism is the separation of the Church and the State. Initially, it was the banishing of religion into the private realm. This concept evolved with the socio-politico context of Europe. Today, secularism has also incorporated the loss of belief in God prevalent in the West and thus in a way, it is a neo-pagan ideology. According to Wooton:

To generations reared in a scientific age those [Christian] sanctions no longer have validity, unless for a tiny minority of convinced believers: to the rest the Christian story is a fairy story[24]

The option according to her to fill this moral and ethical vacuum is that the West must have “the courage to evolve and to propagate a secular morality”.[25] It is not surprising therefore that Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel laureate asserted that western civilization which started as “Western– Christian” has now become “Western – Pagan.[26]

The secular liberal democracy which is being fostered on the world is not acceptable to peoples who still retain a firm belief in God. This is more so in Africa, where people are deeply religious and inclined to spirituality. The lack of spiritual content in the western package is the reason for its unattractiveness to many Africans. Africans disagree with the West on many issues of sexual morality, family law, and exploitative capitalism.

D. Globalization

The major leaps in the area of technology made in recent times particularly in the areas of transportation and communication have virtually helped shrunk the world into a global village. However, only the West with its technological superiority over the rest of the world is able to take advantage of the resultant Globalization. In this context, many African and non-African scholars view Globalization with distrust and dismay. They argue that Globalization is merely a vehicle for domination and control of non-western peoples by western nations. According to Wilfred, the

… present day globalization is but a continuation of a long tradition of over five hundred years, the tradition of imperialism. Globalization is only the latest phase and expression of this uninterrupted history of domination and subjugation of peoples, nations, and cultures through the conquistadors and colonizers. It is a tradition of political, economic, and cultural domination of some nations over others.[27]

There is much to justify this statement. In terms of cultural exchange, there is none. There is only a one-way traffic with the West or more precisely America, bamboozling the rest with its cultural values. What threatens to emerge is a world culture modeled on the American culture. The American culture which glorifies pornography, sexual permissiveness, sexual perversions, unbridled capitalist and materialism, and violence is incompatible with African Culture and Morality

E. ‘The End of History’

The ‘end of history” is simply a premature celebration of the ultimate victory of the western political system in a globalized world. Fukuyama, who developed the theory, explains it thus:

I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government,” and as such constituted the “end of history.” That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions.[28]

Almost a decade and half later, Fukuyama clarifies his position:

This was the essence of the end of history: for any society that wanted to be modern, there was no alternative to a market economy and a democratic political system.[29]

Confronted with the global excess and domestic inadequacies of America, Fukuyama argued that “the End of History was never linked in my mind to a specifically American model of social or political organization” but to liberal democracy.[30] Confronted again with alternatives to liberal democracy such as Russia and China, and Islamic fundamentalism, he retorted:

Not everyone wanted to be modern, and not everyone could put in place the institutions and policies necessary to make democracy and capitalism work, but there was no systematic alternative approach that would yield better results.[31]

While Fukuyama has admitted that liberal democracy “has been tainted by the way the Bush administration used it to justify this War on Terrorism”,[32] and has continued to deny that his theory is a glorification of American political system, the End of History has continued to spur on persons like Rothkopf who believe that the American culture offers “the best model for the future”.[33]

Fukuyama’s position contrast with that of Huntington who postulated a clash of civilization thesis. Huntington taking a more realistic view of the world, sees a potential confrontation between western civilization on the one hand and Islamic and oriental civilizations on the other hand given the fundamental differences in the values of these civilizations.[34] Many have argued rightly that this confrontation or clash is not inevitable. It can be averted by respect for other cultures and a policy that promotes or recognizes multiculturalism.

II. EUROCENTRIC EXPRESSIONS IN HUMAN RIGHTS

Since the end of the Second World War, the world moved to the age of human rights. Human rights were conceived as being universal and applicable to all peoples and cultures without exception. The problem is that the content of these universal human rights are defined without reference to Africans. It is only the West that has the exclusive prerogative to define particular rights. Developments in human rights since the 1960s, have reflected the socio-cultural evolvement in the West. Human rights became exclusively the product of western experience. The West introduced new “human rights” particularly in sexual matters. For example, whereas sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex is considered an abomination and a taboo in most African communities, same sex marriages have become legal in many jurisdictions in the West.[35] Not only this, parties to such “marriages” are entitled to all the legal and social benefits due to parties to heterosexual marriages. Anyone who ‘discriminates’ against gays and lesbians even in private matters faces stiff legal sanctions.[36] Any opposition to these “developments” is condemned as ‘illiberality’.[37] Every person, every religion, and every nation must unquestioningly accept these positions.

A. The Exclusion of the African from Human Rights

Africans have not always qualified as human beings worthy of benefiting from the protection offered by human rights. This is because Africans were not always considered ‘human’ and were therefore devoid of the “sacredness” that human rights were meant to protect. Africans were considered slightly higher than animals but less that human. Incidents like that of Saartjie Baartman the young Khoisan woman who in the 19th Century became a medical curiosity in Europe and was exhibited like an animal to a paying public for her stealtopygia-enlarged buttocks and her unusually elongated labia showed what Europeans of that time thought of Africans.[38]

Around this same time, slaves in America were considered to be outside the constitutional meaning of “citizens” and were also considered:

[a]s a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subjected to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.[39]

One should have expected that after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR)[40], all these would changed and that the definition and conception of ‘human’ in human rights would extend to Africans. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The experience of Africa with Europe since the rise of international human rights in the middle of last century has been less than pleasant. The French, in spite of the UDHR, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789 and their purported commitment to the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in human history in their colony in Algeria.[41] The French were particularly intolerant as colonial masters. They insisted on assimilation. The assimilated subject becomes a Frenchman in all respects. He has to leave all that is not ‘French’. When he does this that he is fully accepted as equals by Frenchmen. Otherwise, he remains a second class citizen. To the colonized subjects, the policy of assimilation on one hand shows a laudable grant of equality but at a huge cost, one must deny self. On the other hand, it shows intolerance on the part of the French, an inability to live with and accept otherness. The French defend ‘human’ in terms of being French culturally and rejected Arabic and African cultures as unfit for the appellation of human. Given this intellectual and mental framework, it is therefore not surprising that the French was assailed by any remorse or qualms of conscience in committing unspeakable tortures against Algerians who were only asking for independence.

The exclusion of Africans from the ambit of human rights because they were not considered to be human beings for this purpose went well into the middle and end of last century. This attitude was well-expressed by the racial discriminations which found its worst expression in the discrimination against blacks in the United States which came to a head in the 1960s and apartheid in South Africa which crumbled only the last decade. The impotency of Christianity in combating racial discrimination was particularly glaring with the existence of racially segregated churches. These experiences do not inspire in the African much confidence about international human rights law.

B. The Exclusion of Africa and African Values in the Construction of Human Rights

Modern international human rights law is traceable to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR).[42] This Declaration was made virtually with no African input.[43] Most of the countries in Africa were under colonialism at that time. The absence of African participation meant that African perspectives and values were not adequately articulated. The result is that the emergent document portrays essentially western values. It has been argued that Africans took part in the making of subsequent and important documents that state a consensus on human rights.[44] These include treaties relating to women and child rights. The answer to this is that the marginalisation of the African view due to a variety of reasons (some of which African countries are to be blamed) continued even after independence.[45] This was said in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC )[46] that:

The drafting of the CROC took place over a ten year period and during that time there was wide participation by states from all of the world’s regions. That is not to say, however, that all cultural traditions were equally represented throughout the process. In fact, a purely quantitative assessment of state participation in the Working Group shows that it was dominated by states from Western Europe allied with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. States from Africa, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Latin America were extremely poorly represented. The low levels of participation by non-Western states ‘did not go unnoticed’. In 1985 a group of NGOs submitted a statement to the Commission, raising strong concern over the lack of participation by developing states.[47]

The reasons for the poor participation of African states are many. Whereas the representatives of the developed world tended to be ‘experts and higher ranking diplomatic agents’, representatives of the developing world tended to be ‘lower ranking members of their permanent delegations to the United Nations’ who presumably lacked the authority, knowledge and expertise of their developed world colleagues.[48] Another reason is that non-western participants are usually westernized persons who do not have any legitimacy as representatives of their culture.[49]

Another important means of excluding African voices is the West’s manipulation of human rights discussion about Africa by determining the topics for research and discussion. Since African researchers are virtually dependent on grants from foreign donors and the United Nations agencies (which are also controlled by the same foreign countries), their researches tend to be donor-driven. Thus issues that are not really priorities in Africa and to Africans take the centre stage while important and crucial issues are relegated to the background. Steady rightly pointed out that in the context of gender rights:

External gender research priorities can also center around concerns with fertility regulation, female circumcision rather than to the global economic forces and liberalization policies that result in increasing malnutrition and poverty. Nor is enough attention being given to the dumping of guns, other lethal weapons, drugs, pornographic material and dirty technologies in Africa. Little interest is also shown in the illegal trafficking of young girls from Africa to Europe to be used as prostitutes and domestic servants under slave-like conditions. The destructive impact of debt, structural adjustment policies, unemployment, export-oriented industries, sex tourism and so forth often also overlooked.[50]

The exclusion of African voices extends to the academic world. Contemporary academic establishments in the West have tended to treat current international human rights norms as sacrosanct and non-negotiable. Many journal have official ‘policies’ and fixed vision of human rights (based on the western perspective) from which it is heresy to dissent. Opinions critical of African and other non-western practices are eagerly accepted and subject to less than the usual scrutiny while criticism of western human rights are stifled and technically excluded. The result is that in the West what ought to be a human rights dialogue has become a western monologue.

Thus, instead of a cross-cultural dialogue that would demand internal and external critiques of all cultures, there is one-way traffic that demands that Africa and other non-western peoples shift their cultural preferences to conform to western versions of human rights without the West shifting an inch from its own culturally-entrenched positions.

C. The Appropriation of Human Rights by the West

Human rights rather than seen as a collective and universal phenomenon present in various expressions and to various extents in all cultures, is toted as a western construct. Scholars from the West now openly gloat over the supposed western superiority and mastery of the human race. They have repeatedly declared that the concept of human rights is a western construct. To them, the notion of human rights was hitherto unknown in non-western communities and cultures.[51]

The parameters used in human rights as formulated by the West do not simply make any sense in some African communities such as the Yoruba. What emerges for a critical analysis of the Yoruba of southwestern Nigeria is that within the group, gender status and gender roles are neither clear-cut nor a basis for discrimination.[52]

For example when considering women participation in the public sphere, the West tends to count the number of women in public offices. A higher proportion of woman in public offices to them shows gender ‘equality’. The fallacy in this is that these women officials are in office in their personal individual capacities and not as representatives of women. Thus their interest in women issues is dictated by their personal preferences. In Nigeria, this thinking has lead to the influx of women into political offices. While this will be seen as a good development from the western perspective, it is not from the African perspective. In the first place these women are in political offices as individuals and not as representatives of women. Secondly, even if the western perspective, many of these woman are not there on their personal merits but as stooges and appendages of men. This is because many of them owe their offices to their personal connections as wives, mistresses and daughters of power brokers.[53] Whereas in traditional Africa, women participation in the decision-making process is ensured in many communities by effective representation of women by women who and there as representatives of women and who speak for women. For example, among the Yoruba, the Iyalode is the representative of women in the King’s council.[54] She must be consulted in all matters relating to women but she only forms an opinion after she has consulted with other women leaders who too must have consulted other women. The result was that the view of the Iyalode is the view of the women in the town. Another example among the Yoruba relates to the wife’s inheritance. Yoruba customary law is widely condemned by feminists and human rights activist on the ground that the wife does not inherit from the husband. This however does not give a true account of the position since it omits to mention that the husband too does not inherit from the wife.[55] The position among the Yoruba is based in the principle that inheritance follows the blood. Only those related by blood can inherit from each other. Only the children of the spouses can inherit from them. Where there are no children, the inheritance passes to the siblings of the spouses respectively. Another illusion is that of ‘widow inheritance’. It is frequently said that when a Yoruba man dies, his wife forms part of the property to be inherited. Whereas, the leviratic marriage so improperly and inappropriately described is an arrangement that keeps the wife in the extended family. There is usually no forced marriage here although in many cases, some form of pressure or persuasion is used. It is erroneously believed that the women are the only person disadvantaged here. Sometimes, and in many cases, the man needs to be persuaded to take up the responsibility.

D. Cultural Imperialism

Another direction which modern human rights have taken is the total condemnation and rejection of values that emanate from non-western cultures when such values do not conform to western values. ‘Human rights’ is now the justification for the cultural imperialism whereby the West under the guise of human rights imposes its values on other cultures and compels them to accept these values. The Western approach is predicated on the belief that only the West knows what is good for other peoples and all of mankind. Other peoples are deemed ignoramuses who cannot think for themselves. The idea is that all non-western cultures must conform to the western human rights standards.

The problem with the West is that it uses its cultural specifics as universals for all peoples. In pristine Eurocentrism, ‘man’ meant Europeans or Caucasians. This accounts for its inability to accept and accommodate non-western cultures. Within every culture, there are specifics expressions of universal concepts. For example, every culture has what its calls house, clothes and so on. If one defines house which is a universal concept as igloo which is a culture specific expression of house, then, all other peoples apart from the Eskimo do not live in houses.

With Eurocentrism translating all the culture specifics of Europe in all aspects of life as universals, it is easy to see why these Europeans did not see Africa as being or having anything. To think like this is Eurocentric, to attempt to enforce this is cultural imperialism. Schiller defines “cultural imperialism” as:

The sum of the process by which a society is brought into the modern world system, and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even to promote, the values and structures of the dominant center of the system.[56]

Cultural imperialism could also be defined as the presentation of culture-specific ideas and lifestyles of a foreign culture as universals applicable to all cultures and the forcible imposition of these on an unwilling but dominated people.

Cultural imperialism has now become apparent in human rights. African values are often roundly and vehemently condemned by the West, whereas similar practices in the West are glorified and presented as universally applicable values. Examples here include the African “woman to woman marriages” vis-à-vis western lesbian relationships,[57] and female circumcision which is condemned as female genital mutilation as against the myriads of non-therapeutic genital ‘cuttings’ and surgeries widely advertised and done in the West.[58] Solzhenistyn aptly described this attitude when he said:

The mistake of the West…is that everyone measures other civilizations by the degree to which they approximate Western civilization. If they do not approximate it, they are hopeless, dumb, reactionary and don’t have to be taken into account. This viewpoint is dangerous.[59]

E. “Margin of Appreciation” in the European Convention

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[60] is the main document for the protection of human rights at European regional level. The Convention’s preamble recognizes “the need for a common understanding and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.[61] The Convention declares its intention to secure for “everyone within the jurisdiction of member states, the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention”.[62] The Convention aspires to universalism but it was really unable to do away with Eurocentricism.

The Convention’s preamble states that the human rights agenda itself is simply as one of the ways of bringing about a “greater unity” between the member states.[63] It also decribed members states as “like-minded” European countries who “have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and rule of law”.[64] Eurocentricism finds practical expression in the derogatory clauses contained in many of the rights under the Convention. These rights are subject to limitations provided by “law” as may be “necessary in a democratic society”.[65] The European Court has repeatedly held that this “margin of appreciation” is determined by the practices of each member state.[66] In Leyla Sahin v Turkey[67] the European Court while upholding a ban on the Islamic headscarf (hijab) imposed on university students by the Turkish government explained thus:

… in view of the diversity of the approaches taken by national authorities on the issue. It is not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society … and the meaning or impact of the public expression of a religious belief will differ according to time and context…. Rules in this sphere will consequently vary from one country to another according to national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order… Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations should take must inevitably be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it will depend on the domestic context concerned …

This margin of appreciation goes hand in hand with a European supervision embracing both the law and the decisions applying it. The Court’s task is to determine whether the measures taken at national level were justified in principle and proportionate.[68]

The ‘margin of appreciation’ approach enables member states of the European Union to display an appearance of protecting rights on a universal basis while in reality it allows each member state preserves its own level of Eurocentricity.[69]

III. AFRICAN REACTIONS

Africans have reacted to Eurocentricity in many ways. There is the African who believes the European vision of himself and who does all to adjust himself to fit this vision. Such Africans belong to those Blyden, “plays …. the part of the slave, ape or puppet”.[70] There are others who rebel against Eurocentricity and western domination. This approach was manifested in the concept of Pan-Africanism which found expression in many diverse forms. Two of these – Negritude and Afrocentricity will be discussed here. In contemporary times, these ideas form the inspiration for those who are now trying to reclaim the human rights values in traditional African culture. This is also discussed hereunder.

The idea of Negritude developed by Leopold Senghor, and Aime Caesar.[71] N is the affirmation of positive aspects of African identity and values, and it is also a rejection of the unacceptable features of colonialism in Africa.[72] Negritude stresses the unity of black people and the unity of all mankind.[73] Significantly, the main demand of the third Conference held in London and Lisbon was that “black folk be treated as men”.[74]

Afrocentricity is the African intellectual reaction to Eurocentricity. It began where Africans started gaining access to the mainstream of western education. Areji defines Afrocentricity as

“a concept by Afro-American scholars and indigenous African intelligentsia to describe the intellectual and social movement aimed at studying, interpreting, and analyzing world history form the African perspective as well as providing a cultural and theoretical definition of African identity”.[75]

Afrocentricity tries to

demonstrate the primacy and authenticity of traditional African civilizations as well as the African origins of mankind and her civilization of which the European civilization is its most advanced form.[76]

Afrocentric scholars assert that Africa or more specifically was the cradle of the human civilization from which the Greek and therefore the western civilization took its knowledge.[77] This assertion continues to be highly contested by both African and western scholars.[78] Other scholars take a middle course. They say that the Greeks were not mere passive receivers of knowledge but that the tremendously improved on what they got from Egypt.[79] To this extent they argue, the Greeks should be credited with having made original contribution to knowledge.

African attempts to rehabilitate Africa intellectually are not based on nostalgia alone. Many are trying to extract and analyze the human rights concepts inherent or present in traditional African cultures.[80] They are highlighting these values and their relevant to modern human rights. Focus has been on the African concept of brotherhood of man and group solidarity which contrasts vividly with the western individual-centered human rights system, and the primacy of socio-economic rights (“the fill belly thesis”) over political rights. A major move in this direction is the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.[81] The treaty adopted in 1981, enunciated human rights from the African perspective.[82] The main differences between it and previous international human rights documents include the balancing of rights and duties, recognition of group rights, and protection of African values and morality.[83] However, subsequent treaties such as the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa[84] and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child[85] have departed largely from this pattern by taking on a more westernized perspective of human rights.[86]

CONCLUSION

These dark antecedents place a great obstacle in the way of a genuine inter-cultural dialogue between Africa and the West.

Against this background, it is doubtful whether the West is ready to accept the Africa as equals. This is complicated by the end of history theory which celebrates the Western achievement in the areas of democracy, rule of law and human rights as the ultimate man can attain. All these Eurocentric theories make the West the future of mankind - therefore, no dialogue was necessary – only enslavement, colonialism and now, compulsion.

Eurocentrism have distorted the perception of Africa and Africans in the West. In the past, African scholars expended a lot of efforts to disprove these false assertions. Even now, some African scholars are still pre-occupied with the debate within subjects as diverse as law, history, philosophy, religion, and political science. Unfortunately, this distorted understanding still to a large extent, shape the western perception and understanding of Africa.

-----------------------

(( Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. E-mail: obailorin@

[1] A. C. Areji, “Eurocentricity, Afrocentricity, and Globalization” UCHE Vol. 11, 2005, 55

[2] T. U. Nwala, “On African Philosophy” (Text of a Lecture delivered under the auspices of the University of Oxford African Society, April 27, 1993) quoted and cited in ibid, p.55. See further discussions on this in the section on Afrocentricity infra.

[3] See the overview and refutations of these arguments in Idowu William, “Against the Skeptical Argument and the Absence Thesis: African Jurisprudence and the Challenge of Positivist Historiography” JPSL Vol. 6, July 1, 2006, 34 - 49.

[4] J. H. Driberg, “The African Conception of Law” Journal of the African Society, Vol. 34 Supplement, July 1955, 230 at pp. 237 – 238.

[5] See the overview and refutations of the various western definitions of law in T. O. Elias, The Nature of African Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956) pp. 37 – 55.

[6] See the overview and refutations of the various western definitions of law in T. O. Elias, The Nature of African Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956) pp. 37 – 55. See also C. K. Meek, Law and Authority in a Nigerian Tribe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937, A. L. Goodhart, “The Importance of a Definition of Law” Journal of African Society Vol. 3 No. 3, July 1955, 106, Driberg, op cit, A. N. Allott, Essays in African Law (London: Butterworths, 1960) p. 67, and A. T. Oyewo, Issues in African Judicial Process (Ibadan: Jator Publishing Co, 1999) pp. 3 - 7.

[7] J. F. Holleman, Issues in African Law (The Hague: mouton and Co., 1974) 12.

[8] Williams, op cit.

[9] See the refutation of this allegation in Elias, op cit, pp. 110 – 129.

[10] Hugh Trevor-Roper, Rise of Christian Europe (London: Thames and Hudson, 1964) 9.

[11] A. E. Afigbo, “Fact and Myth in Nigerian Historiography” Nigeria Magazine Nos. 122 – 123 Festac Edition, 1977, 81 at pp. 94 – 95.

[12] B. W. Andah and A. I. Okpoko, “Oral Traditions and West African Cultural History: A New Direction” West African Journal of Archaeology (Special Issue on Perspectives on West African’s Past) Vol. 9, 1979, 201 – 224.

[13] Areji, op cit, p. 55.

[14] P. Tempel, Bantu Philosophy (Paris: Presence Africaine, 1959).

[15] M. Griaule, Conversations with Ogotemmeli (London: Oxford University Press, 1948).

[16] Areji, op cit, p. 59.

[17] See the review and discussions in V. Y. Mudimbe, The Invention of Africa (London: James Currey, 1988) chapter five, pp. 135 – 186

[18] See further discussions in the section on Afrocentricity, infra.

[19] See the overview of these arguments in J. Omosade Awolalu, Yoruba Beliefs and Sacrificial Rites (Harlow, Essex: Longman Group Ltd., 1979) pp. 3 – 19.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Quoted in Areji, op cit, p. 57.

[22] The leading proponents of this theory are Tylor and Morgan, see: Edward Tylor, Primitive Culture Vol. 2, (1958 [1871]), pp. 26 – 27 and Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, (1877) pp. 3 and 7 and the review of the theory in Roger M. Kessing and Felix M. Kessing, New Perspectives In Cultural Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971) pp. 377 – 381.

[23] Quoted in Julia Galeota, “Cultural Imperialism: An American Tradition” The Humanist May/June 2004, 22 available at .

[24]Barbara Wooton, Crime and the Criminal Law (London: Stevens and Sons, 1981) p. 23.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Paul Gray, “Russian Prophet In Exile” Interview in TIME, July 22, 1989, p. 58.

[27] Quoted in Abdulfattah Ibn Raji, Globalization: The Muslim’ Response (Lagos: Al-Mustaghfirun Research Institute, 2007) p. 4 citing M. O. Maduagwu, “The Phenomenon of Globalization and the African Perspective” in M. O. Maduagwu and V. C. Onu (eds.), Globalization and National Development in Nigeria (Nigeria: Fulbright Alumni Association of Nigeria, 2003) p. 51.

[28] Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (Penguin, 1992), full text reproduction of the introduction available at .

[29] Francis Fukuyama, “The Clash of Cultures and American Hegemony” (A Presentation to the American Political Science Association, September 1, 2006 ) available at .

[30] Fukuyama, “The Clash of Cultures and American Hegemony”, op cit.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Interview in Matthew Philips, “Francis Fukuyama: Back to the End of History” NEWSWEEK September 29, 2008, text available at .

[33] Galeota, op cit, p. 24.

[34] See Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilization?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, 2993 and Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilization and The Remaking of World Order” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).

[35] Abdulmumini A. Oba, “Same Sex Marriages: Human Rights, Cultural Relativism or What?” (Unpublished paper on file with the author).

[36] In many jurisdictions in the West, hate crime laws are involved to punish anyone who discriminates against lesbians and gays. For example America and Canada: Robert Knight and Lindsey Douthit, “Hate Crime' Laws Threaten Religious Freedom” at  , J. Brady Brammer, “Religious Groups and the Gay Rights Movement: Recognizing Common Ground” Brigham Young University Law Review 2006, 995 at pp. 995 - 996, Concerned Women for America, “The Federal Hate Crimes Bill: Federalizing Criminal Law While Threatening Civil Liberties”, at papers/index.htm and Concerned Women for America, “'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom”, at (all assessed 14 June 2007).

[37] Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, “Gay Rights and Right to a Family: Conflicts Between Liberal and Illiberal Belief Systems”, Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 23, 2001, pp. 73 – 95.

[38] “Welcome Home, Baartman” Punch Saturday, April 27, 2002, p. 47 (story was culled from TIME). See also Sander L. Gilman, Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality, in LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY ART, MEDICINE, AND LITERATURE" "RACE, "WRITING, AND DIFFERENCE 223 – 261 (H. L. Gates Jr. ed., 1986).

[39] Dred Scot v Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691 and 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 at 404 (1857).

[40] Adopted on 10 December 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III). UN Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948). Article 18 of the Declaration provides for freedom of religion.

[41] See the review in Joseph Slaughter, “A Question of Narration: The Voice in International Human Rights Law” Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 19 No. 2, 1997, 406 – 430.

[42] Cited supra.

[43] Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, “Human Rights in the World: Socio-Political Conditions and Scriptural Imperatives” Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol. 3, 1990, 13 at p. 15. Significantly, other cultural blocks such as Arabs and the peoples of the Far East have the same complain about the UDHR see Abdullahi An-Naim, “Problems of Cultural Legitimacy for Human Rights: in Abdullahi Ahmed An’Na’im and Francis M. Deng (eds.), Human Rights in Africa: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Washington D.C.: The Brooking Institution, 1990) 331 at p. 350. There were frantic efforts in some quarters to give cultural legitimacy to the UHDR by highlighting what they describe as the contributions of non-western states in the Making of the UDHR: Philip Alston, The Universal Declaration at 35: Western and Passe or Alive and Universal” International Commission of Jurists Review Vol. 31, 1983, 60 at p. 61, Susan Waltz, “Universalizing Human Rights: The Role of Small States in the Construction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 23, 2001, pp. 44 – 72, Susan Waltz, “Reclaiming and Rebuilding the History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” Third World Quarterly Vol. 23 No. 3, 2002, pp. 437 – 448 and Susan Waltz, “Universal Human Rights: The Contribution of Muslim States” Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 26, 2004, pp. 799 - 844.

[44] M. J. Perry, “Are Human Rights Universal? The Relativist Challenge and Related Matters” Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 19 No. 3, 1997, 461 at pp. 485.

[45] See Abdulmumini A. Oba, “An Overview of the United Nations and African Union Human Rights Treaties Relating to Women and Children” in Conference Proceedings of the National National Conference on the Rights of Women and Children under the Sharia (Zaria: SACOMBUC for Centre for Islamic Legal Studies, ABU, Zaria, 2008) 23 at pp. 61 - 67.

[46] Adopted 20 November 1989 came into force on 2 September 1990, G. A. res. 44/25, 44 UN GOAR, Supp. (No. 49) and UN Doc. A/44/49, at p. 166, reprinted in 28 ILM 1448 (1989)

[47] Sonia Harris-Short, “Listening to ‘The Other’? The Convention on the Rights of the Child” Melbourne Journal of International Law 2001, 13 at p. 11 citing Lawrence LeBlanc, The Convention on the Rights of the Child: United Nations Law Making on Human Rights (1995) 25 at pp. 25 – 37.

[48] Harris-Short, op cit, p. 17.

[49] Oba, “An Overview of the United Nations and African Union Human Rights Treaties Relating to Women and Children”, op cit, p. 65.

[50] Filomina Chioma Steady, “An Investigative Framework for Gender Research in Africa in the New Millennium” (Paper presented at the African Gender Research in the New Millennium: Perspectives, Directions and Challenge, organised by CODESRIA at Cairo, 8–10 April 2002) 6 available at assessed 20 April 2006. see also Oba, “Female Circumcision as Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism?”, op cit, pp. 35 -36.

[51] Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytical Critique of Non-Western Conceptions of Human Rights”, American Political Science Review Vol. 76, 1982, pp. 303 – 316 compare, R. Panikkar, “Is the Notion of Human Rights a Western Concept?”, Diogenes Vol. 120, 1982, pp. 75 – 102.

[52] See generally Oyeronke Oyewumi, The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses (University of Minnesota Press, 1997) and Oyeronke Oyewumi, “Conceptualizing Gender: The Eurocentric Foundation of Feminist Concepts and the Challenge of African Epistemologies” available at .

[53] See the criticism of this development in Oyeronke Oyewumi, “Gender and Politics: A Not-So-Simple Correlation” JENDA: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies Issue 7, 2005, 1 at p. 3.

[54] A. K. Ajisafe, The Laws and Customs of the Yoruba People (Lagos: Kash and Mare Bookshop, 1946) p. 48 and N. A. Fadipe, The Sociology of the Yoruba (Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press, 1970) p. 253.

[55] For example, Mosunmola Imasogie, “Customary Law and Women’s Right to Inheritance in Nigeria”, full text available at and Oluyemisi Bamgbose, “Translating Traditional Concepts into Legislation and Practice: The Nigerian Women in Focus” International Journal of African and African American Studies Vol. 7 No. 1, 2005, 62 at p. 67.

[56] Quoted in Galeota, op cit, p. 22.

[57] See further Oba, “Same Sex Marriages: Human Rights, Cultural Relativism or What?”, op cit.

[58] Abdulmumini A. Oba, “Female Circumcision as Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism?” Global Jurist Vol. 8, Iss. 3 (Frontiers) 2008, Article 8. Available at: .

[59] Solzhensityn’s response in an interview in Paul Gray, Russia’s Prophet in Exile, TIME, July 22, 1989, 54 at 58.

[60] Signed on 4 November, 1950, entered to force on 3 September, 1953, 213 UNTS 221 and ETS 5.

[61] Ibid, preamble.

[62] Ibid, art. 1.

[63] Ibid, preamble.

[64] Ibid, preamble.

[65] See examples: right to privacy and family life (art. 8), freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (art. 9), freedom of expression (art. 10), and freedom of assembly and freedom of association (art. 11).

[66] Dahlab v Switzerland Decision of 15 February 2001, Application No. 42393/98, 2001-V. ECHR 447, Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 73, ECHR 2003-IX, and Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, ECHR 2004 § 67;

[67] Judgment of 10 November 2005, Application No. 4474/98 (Grand Chamber) affirming Sahin v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 8 (Chamber).

[68] Ibid, paras. 109 – 110.

[69] See criticisms of Layla’s case in T. Jeremy Gunn. Fearful Symbols: The Islamic Headscarf and the European Court of Human Rights paper posted at , Njal Hostmaelingen, Hijab in Strasbourg: Clear conclusions, unclear reasoning paper posted at , Tore Lindholm, Comments on the Case of Leyla ^[pic]ahin v. Turkey: Political and Public Morality Aspects paper posted at , and Christian Moe, Refah Revisited: Strasbourg s Construction of Islam at: < strasbourgconference.oreyla Şahin v. Turkey: Political and Public Morality Aspects paper posted at , and Christian Moe, Refah Revisited: Strasbourg’s Construction of Islam at: < ; “Analysis and Review”; “Papers and Scholarly Documents>”

[70] Quoted in Ibrahim Suleiman, “The Shari’ah and the 1979 Constitution” in Syed Khalid Rashid (ed.), Islamic Law in Nigeria (Application and Teaching) (Lagos: Islamic Publications Bureau, 1988) 52 at p. 63 citing Black Superman, p. 289..

[71] Mazi Ray Ofoebgu, “’African Personality’, African Socialism’, and ‘African Democracy’ as Pan-African Concepts” Tarikh (Pan-Afrcianism) Vol. 6 No. 3, (undated c. 1980), 60 at p. 61.

[72] Ibid, pp. 61 – 62.

[73] Colin Legum, “Pan-Africanism and Nationalism” in J. C. Anene and G. Brown (ed.), Africa in the Nineteenth and Twentieths Centuries (New York: Humanities Press, 1972) 528 at p.532.

[74] Quoted ibid, p. 530.

[75] Areji, op cit, p. 58.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Leading Afrocentric scholarship include George G. M. James, The Stolen Legacy (San Franscico: Julian Richardson Associates, 1988), I. C. Onyewuenyi, The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in Afrocentrism (Nsukka: University of Nigeria Press, 1993), Molefi Kete Asante, Afrocentricity (Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press, revised edition, 1988), Molefi Kete Asante, Kemet, Afrocentricity, and Knowledge (Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press, 1990), Molefi Kete Asante, The Afrocentric Idea (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998), and Philip Emeagwali, “Black History: Stolen, Lost or Strayed” at .

[78] See criticisms of Afrocentricity in Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History (New York: Basic Books, 1996), Stephen Howe, Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes (London: Verso, 1998), Clarence E. Walker, We Can't Go Home Again: An Argument about Afrocentrism (London: Oxford University Press, 2000), and Grover Furr, “Fallacies of Afrocentrism” at .

[79] For example Agbakoba, op cit, pp. 64 – 65.

[80] These include I. G. Shivji, The Concept of Human Rights in Africa (London: CODESRIA, 1989), Oyeronke Oyewumi, The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses (University of Minnesota Press, 1997), Claude Ake, “The African Context of Human Rights” African Today Vol. 34 Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 5 - 12, John Bewaji, “Human Rights: A Philosophical Analysis of Yoruba Conceptions” Cambrian Law Review Vol. 37, 2006, 49 – 72, and A. A. Oba, “Broaching the Limits to Gender Equality in Nigeria: Augustine Nwafor Mojekwu v Mrs. Theresa Iwuchukwu” Indian Journal of International Law Vol. 47, No. 2, April – June, 2007, pp. 289 – 297.

[81] Adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev. 5 reprinted in (1982) 21 International Legal Materials 58.

[82] Makau Wa Mutua, “The Banjul Charter and African Cultural Fingerprint: An Evaluation of the Language of Duties” 6 Revue Afrcaine des Droits de l’Homme (1996-7) pp. 16 – 48

[83] See A. A. Oba, “The Contributions of the African Charter to Modern Human Rights Thought” The Jurist (University of Ilorin), Vol. 4, 1998, pp. 123 – 131

[84] Adopted 11 July 2003, came into force on 25 November 2005: (accessed on 12 April 2006). Full text of the Protocol is available at accessed on 19 Apr 2006>.

[85] Adopted July 1990 OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990), entered into force Nov. 29, 1999.

[86] See Oba, “An Overview of the United Nations and African Union Human Rights Treaties Relating to Women and Children”, op cit, pp. 61 – 72.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download