More often than not, history is written to meet the immediate needs of its readers. Using the intellectually insecure middle-man, an elite chooses the work best meeting this need, and grants imprimatur. This was true during the time of Rashid Al-Harun or Charlemagne, and remains true in our day. Witness the “minority” push to “get our story” into the “national narrative.” The ability of history to serve a people’s needs is explicitly affirmed in this “push.”
Previously, the American national narrative focused on pilgrims, founding fathers, on northerners vs southerners, freed-slaves vs whites, and Eastern European immigrants vs Anglos. Today, a nationalist strain in non-white minority thought, demands the righteous victim narrative as part, and often as central, to that which is perceived as the “white” national narrative of US history. Similar efforts are found in the UK, France, and Holland.
Western negro nationalists and white narcissists are of particular interest in this respect. In their hands, the history of Africa is distorted to serve their immediate political needs in the West, by depriving Africa of any and all responsibility for its present conditions.
The narrative is astonishingly simplistic: Africa as a continent terminally raped and pillaged by White colonizers. Half a century since de-colonization, it cannot rise to its feet, as these feet have been felled in five hundred years of White oppression. Those who were exported from its shores, as slaves, share in this terminal condition, under the yolk of ongoing white racism.
As with all simplistic stories – this one derives from slight truths, half-truths, and outright errata. Its central goal is to appeal to an audience singularly responsive to guilt and easily silenced through fear. By singling out one group of humanity for the ills of another, it merely misattributes omnipotence to one, and passivity to the other. It’s a dualism Manicheans would have been proud of – something easily appreciated by Ahmadinejad, Reagan or Pol-Pot: Evil on the one hand, Good on the other – in Black and White.
From the perspective of the history of history, such narratives make history. The idea that a textbook expounding the story of one’s nation, could possibly not serve the interests of that nation, is as preposterous, as unacceptable. No matter how we look at it, we hold history hostage to our needs, and in turn, are hostage to it. We can do little, other than accept it. Accept the need of history to serve a people.
The present history of Africa, serves the needs of a very select, and limited group of people. Left-wing intellectuals of all races and ethnicities, looking to cash in on the shift in power between whites and non-whites, in Western white nations. Politically, their gains are immediate. They are rewarded with media attention, university posts, and government portfolios. With the right to pronounce what is right and wrong, and who speaks and who doesn’t. Its a kind of victory, which looks good in the short-term, but undermines social harmony in the long-term.
If history is to serve a the greatest good in the long-term, it cannot be held prisoner to self-serving racial panderers in the present. The history of Africa, must move beyond the stifling culture of left-wing victim narrative.