The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness (W.E.B. Du Bois Institute (Series).)

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I was extremely impressed with Professor Soyinka's argument for reparations not only for Africa, but for all victims of enslavement, colonialism, and oppression. His style may be difficult, but for the able reader it is an excellent introduction to the conditions, both past and present, contributing to the current state of affairs throughout the African continent. It provides much food for thought on the question of just what is justice. Bob Marley's song "War" was constantly in my mind. It would be an honor to shake Professor Soyinka's hand.

Rating:
Summary: In defense of a great author
Review: Let me start by acknowledging that I haven't read this particular work. I'm merely expressing my ire at an ignoramus of a reviewer from Philadelphia, who suggested that Soyinka's nobel prize was not well deserved. While I'd be the first to acknowledge that Soyinka's writing can be difficult, I would suggest that this cretin start off with Soyinka's autobiographical corpus of "Ake: the years of childhood", "Isara" and "Ibadan: the pemkelemes years" then, maybe such powerful (if acerbic and polemical) works as "The Man Died," before attempting the more difficult critical works like "Myth, Literature and the African World" and by all accounts, the work under review.

I do not believe that such a powerful mind as Soyinka's, could write a lightweight tome and so while I haven't read "The Burden of Memory," I'm willing to stick my neck out and give it three stars if only because while Soyinka's mastery of language is beyond doubt, his quest for precision, sometimes, rather ironically, renders his writing a tad dense; which can be the only explanation for the bulk of complaints, levelled at this work, on this occassion.

Rating:
Summary: In defense of a great author
Review: Let me start by acknowledging that I haven't read this particular work. I'm merely expressing my ire at an ignoramus of a reviewer from Philadelphia, who suggested that Soyinka's nobel prize was not well deserved. While I'd be the first to acknowledge that Soyinka's writing can be difficult, I would suggest that this cretin start off with Soyinka's autobiographical corpus of "Ake: the years of childhood", "Isara" and "Ibadan: the pemkelemes years" then, maybe such powerful (if acerbic and polemical) works as "The Man Died," before attempting the more difficult critical works like "Myth, Literature and the African World" and by all accounts, the work under review.

I do not believe that such a powerful mind as Soyinka's, could write a lightweight tome and so while I haven't read "The Burden of Memory," I'm willing to stick my neck out and give it three stars if only because while Soyinka's mastery of language is beyond doubt, his quest for precision, sometimes, rather ironically, renders his writing a tad dense; which can be the only explanation for the bulk of complaints, levelled at this work, on this occassion.

Rating:
Summary: What has the world come to?
Review: NATURAL EQUITY - That which is founded in natural justice, in honesty and right, and which arises ex aequo et bono. It corresponds precisely with the definition of justice or natural law, which is a constant and perpetual will to give to every man what is his. This kind of equity embraces so wide a range, that human tribunals have never attempted to enforce it. Every code of laws has left many matters of natural justice or equity wholly unprovided for, from the difficulty of framing general rules to meet them, from the almost impossibility of enforcing them, and from the doubtful nature of the policy of attempting to give a legal sanction to duties of imperfect obligation, such as charity, gratitude, or kindness. -'Lectric Law Library

For all I know, Wole Soyinka may be a very fine playwright; I've never seen nor read one of his plays. But after reading this collection of three lectures--The 1997 W.E.B. Du Bois Institute Macmillan lectures at Harvard University--I can say that as a moral philosopher he leaves much to be desired. In the most important and topical lecture here--Reparations, Truth, and Reconciliation--he argues that South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission can not serve a redemptive function, nor can any such process, because:

Where there has been inequity, especially of a singularly brutalizing kind, of a kind that robs one side of its most fundamental attribute -- its humanity -- it seems only appropriate that some form of atonement be made, in order to exorcise that past. Reparations, we repeat, serve as a cogent critique of history and thus a potent restraint on its repetition.

This analysis leads him to call for some kind of unspecified universal reparations, which he suggests Western nations should voluntarily provide as a form of equity settlement for the damages that the West inflicted upon blacks generally and Africa specifically.

At the outset, let me just say that I am not completely hostile to the idea of reparations for American blacks descended from slaves. I find compelling the thesis of Thomas Sowell, the great black conservative intellectual, that the reasons for black underperformance in the American economy can in large part be traced back to the historical distinctness of their forced migration. He offers a wealth of evidence that as a general rule immigrant groups have succeeded in the U.S., regardless of race, creed, or color. Even black immigrant groups who have come voluntarily--i.e., Haitians--have done very well. Moreover, there is a consistent pattern to the success of all groups. The first generation, which is sort of a self-selected group of ambitious, highly motivated go-getters, works incredibly hard in less wellpaying fields, but is then able to send the second generation on to college and beyond. This second generation does as well as or better than the children of more established ethnic cohorts. Thus, a Hmong tribesman or an Ethiopian refugee may come to America and have to work three menial jobs to feed his family, but his children are doctors, lawyers and the like.

The problem that black America has uniquely had to face (Native Americans are a different, though not dissimilar case) is that they had no such first generation to provide the impetus for a drive towards the middle class. Instead, the entire population of ex-slaves was merely turned out and told to get by as well as they could. Then the white population did everything in it's power to make sure that they could not succeed. We can obviously never know if Abraham Lincoln would have been able to handle the Reconstruction period differently, recall that he envisioned giving blacks their own country in Central America, but we do know that a singular opportunity was squandered in the War's aftermath. Imagine how much different the history of America in general and black America in particular might have been, had we truly provided all freed slaves with forty acres and a mule and moved them North and West, where they might have escaped from the worst manifestations of white resentment.

In light of the opportunity, indeed the obligation, that was missed, it would seem that some form of reparations might not be out of the question. However, a Reparations Bill should: spell out quite specifically that it is a one time deal meant to address a distinct wrong, that it is being done, not because the current generation of Americans owes any debt in particular, but as an act of charity because we can very specifically identify a harm and a class of victims; should include an end to all affirmative action programs; should only be made available to blacks who are descended from slaves; and should be structured in such a way that aid can only be used for home purchases or education. I would consider such an undertaking to be a pure act of charity, one that would be fine if the people decided to do it on our own, but which would be illegal, unconstitutional and morally repellent if Court ordered.

Mr. Soyinka on the other hand, believes that as a matter of Equity the West owes Reparations to all blacks. His case is stunningly weak. He needs three things to convince his jury of readers: a harm, a wrongdoer and a victim. First, as to harm, it is really difficult for me to believe that if an impartial observer looked at the condition of black Africans in the 15th Century and the condition of blacks throughout the world now in the 21st Century, that he would perceive their contact with the West to have been a net negative. The impact of Western learning, industry, medicine, political institutions, and so forth have surely had a sufficiently beneficial impact to at least equal, if not outweigh, the negative impacts of slavery, colonization and Apartheid. Indeed, by any standard, a "reasonable man" would have to say that blacks who are currently residing in the West have a higher standard of living, not merely than they would have had the West never found Africa, but than blacks who reside in the free and black ruled nations of Africa. As a matter of fact, in many of those nations the populace was probably better off prior to independence than they are now. These facts make it difficult to argue that there is a genuine "harm" to be redressed. (see also Orrin's review of Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe)

Second, as to the wrongdoers, though we lament the truly horrific thing that was done to black Africans, their enslavement, and though we must never forget the truth that, for all it's humanistic rhetoric and ideals, our Western Civilization perpetrated this evil, we must also recognize that it was Western Civilization which was responsible for ending the horror. We must recognize that the generations which committed these acts should not be judged by our modern standards and that, in any case, they are long gone. In short, there are no wrongdoers to be punished.

Finally, as to the victims, forget for a moment the impossibility of sorting out how much each person of African descent was harmed and how much compensation each is entitled to. Forget the issue of to what degree some Africans participated in and benefited by the enslavement of others. Forget the issue of how African leaders since the end of the Imperialism period have governed their own nations and treated their own peoples. Forget all of these red flag issues and emotion laden diversions; the more important question for Black Africa and for it's intellectual leaders like Mr. Soyinka is: Does this obsessive focus on the past help to create a brighter future for Africa? Although it is a truism, the future is not about the past. In making the case for monetary damages, the author alludes to Holocaust survivors and their quest for reparations and for restoration of lost bank accounts. There's no need to rehash the issue of actual victims and actual wrongdoers, the more significant fact that he's missed is that European Jews did not sit around waiting for these damages to be paid. They seized the moment, fled to better lives in America and established their own nation in Israel. They moved forward and are a stronger, better people for it.

The course that Mr. Soyinka counsels, backward looking, grudge nursing, scab picking, entitlement claiming, as it is, must surely be a recipe for continued stagnation and even decline in Africa. The cold hard truth is that the West will send aid to Africa, not for reasons of guilt or of obligation or of cosmic moral justice, but for that most basic, most Western, of all reasons : because Africans represent a huge underutilized customer base for Western business. It is the height of folly for the best minds of Africa to waste their time on such a notion as Western reparations to Africa. It's over. You have your freedom. You run your own countries. Your destiny is once again in your own hands. Enough of looking without for the answers to your problems; look within; to do otherwise is to remain dependent on the West.

Rating:
Summary: Mildly interesting at best
Review: There is no doubt that Wole Soyinka is a good writer - his Nobel prize was justly deserved and not a case of affirmative action as another reviewer insultingly suggested. However, someone encountering Soyinka for the first time in this book would not be tempted to try reading his more famous writings: this book is, to be frank, not well written. Based on three lectures Soyinka gave at Harvard University in 1997, Soyinka touches upon the very topical reparations controversy in the first essay, praises the Senegalese writer Leopold Senghor in the second and spends the last examining African poets' attempts to deal with the legacies of colonialism and racism.

Through all three lectures Soyinka employs a very dense style, one that might have worked well when speaking for an academic audience at Harvard but one that does not translate well onto the written page. Phrases like 'slaves into the twentieth-first century, mouthing the mangy mandates of mendacity, ineptitude, corruption and sadism' sound impressive but are merely a means for Soyinka to play around with words when he could be spending his time seriously addressing very important issues like reparations. When he does get down to business, he writes that 'reparations would involve the acceptance by Western nations of a moral obligation to repatriate the post-colonial loot salted away in their vaults, in real estate and business holdings' but never goes into detail exactly what this would involve. What is more disturbing is his frequent references to the U.S., which reveal his real ignorance about American life: examples include his belief that David Duke could have been elected President in 1992 and that the Ku Klux Klan held or holds a 'tentacular hold over power structures across the United States.' If he knows so little about the country where he is giving his lectures (and also holds a job as a Professor at Emory University), should we trust him to do a good job at addressing the international debate on reparations?

I didn't give this book one star for the fact that Soyinka's second and third lectures are reasonably coherent and do a good job of tracing the literary history behind Negritude. (For instance, he discusses the reasons why American black writers were in closer contact with Francophone blacks rather than their Anglophone brothers.) Yet even here he does not attempt to present any kind of thesis, but is merely contented with quoting various poems and doing some quick literary analysis.

Readers with an interest in discovering why Soyinka won the Nobel Prize should thus turn elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: Mildly interesting at best
Review: There is no doubt that Wole Soyinka is a good writer - his Nobel prize was justly deserved and not a case of affirmative action as another reviewer insultingly suggested. However, someone encountering Soyinka for the first time in this book would not be tempted to try reading his more famous writings: this book is, to be frank, not well written. Based on three lectures Soyinka gave at Harvard University in 1997, Soyinka touches upon the very topical reparations controversy in the first essay, praises the Senegalese writer Leopold Senghor in the second and spends the last examining African poets' attempts to deal with the legacies of colonialism and racism.

Through all three lectures Soyinka employs a very dense style, one that might have worked well when speaking for an academic audience at Harvard but one that does not translate well onto the written page. Phrases like 'slaves into the twentieth-first century, mouthing the mangy mandates of mendacity, ineptitude, corruption and sadism' sound impressive but are merely a means for Soyinka to play around with words when he could be spending his time seriously addressing very important issues like reparations. When he does get down to business, he writes that 'reparations would involve the acceptance by Western nations of a moral obligation to repatriate the post-colonial loot salted away in their vaults, in real estate and business holdings' but never goes into detail exactly what this would involve. What is more disturbing is his frequent references to the U.S., which reveal his real ignorance about American life: examples include his belief that David Duke could have been elected President in 1992 and that the Ku Klux Klan held or holds a 'tentacular hold over power structures across the United States.' If he knows so little about the country where he is giving his lectures (and also holds a job as a Professor at Emory University), should we trust him to do a good job at addressing the international debate on reparations?

I didn't give this book one star for the fact that Soyinka's second and third lectures are reasonably coherent and do a good job of tracing the literary history behind Negritude. (For instance, he discusses the reasons why American black writers were in closer contact with Francophone blacks rather than their Anglophone brothers.) Yet even here he does not attempt to present any kind of thesis, but is merely contented with quoting various poems and doing some quick literary analysis.

Readers with an interest in discovering why Soyinka won the Nobel Prize should thus turn elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: Soyinka is more than "The Burden of Memory..."
Review: Wole Soyinka's mastery of the English language, as I have had occasion to say on another forum, borders on the supernatural. And perhaps therein lies the man's flaw--but that is a matter I will get to in a minute.

"The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness," you must understand, is "in the obligatory [Soyinka] fashion," a compilation of oral lectures the learned professor gave at Harvard. You must understand too, that the writing is basically academic, and suited more to an oral lecture. And because we speak of Soyinka, the writing is characteristically difficult.

So then, his lectures-turn-books (including, of course, "The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness") are not the best of works with which to appraise Soyinka's genius. For a true appreciation of Soyinka's literary prowess, you must read his plays and novels.

The flaw, of which I spoke earlier, is captured in the question a friend once posed to me (not Soyinka): "Is not the purpose of language to communicate?" Without a full-fledged dictionary, and the will to re-read whole paragraphs, one would struggle to keep up with Soyinka's writing.

In all, whether one likes it or not, the man is a literary giant, period!