A thought : Africa, powers

Some thoughts about Africa, mainly subsaharan following a blog post by Roger Mitchell

and notably these comments (abridged) 

"Hi again Roger,
I hope you don’t mind me picking your brains.
(i) Is it significant that all the countries that border the Sahara – north & south – are ex-French colonies?
(ii) Is it significant that these countries are, not just the poorest in Africa, but in the world?
(iii) Is significant that Algeria is rich in Gas and Oil; Niger has the world’s largest Uranium reserves – which by the way powers France’s nuclear plants; Mali is Africa’s third biggest gold producer; and so on, and so on…?
(iv) We talk about the spirit of something, that which energises it, controls and influences it.  ...
 ...What if one of the greatest hindrances to peace/ shalom in Africa is poverty, the power and the spirit of poverty?  ... Covenants made long ago and constantly being energised by spilt blood, occult practices and unrighteous treaty or contract.... Africa is so much older than its colonial history, the truth of it so much more ancient. ... Maybe then we might know and understand, and then be able to act effectively.
I don’t know much really, but I do see a dawn, a long slow morning crepuscular, one that will captivate everyone with its beauty. I long to see Africa arise to the full light of day in all its God-given glory..."



May I join in this discussion. I also live in France. I’m making some huge generalisations which I would qualify a bit when it comes to the details.  Following the points made in the blog comments :

(i) When it came to colonisation it seems to me that France got the left overs. Britain ‘got’ India, West Africa, North America, and so on; the Dutch – South Africa; Spain and Portugal got South America, etc ie a lot of the rich pickings at the time.

(ii) Anyone living near the Sahara is living in difficult climatic conditions, amongst the harshest in the world and getting worse as the Sahel grows. North Africa has the fact that it borders the Mediterranean going for it so at least it is significant for trade etc 

(iii) The gas,oil and uranium are relatively recent factors that have made it worth while ‘having’ these countries after all. Of course the gold is a much older story and makes up for the climate a little bit.

(iv) I agree absolutely about what your shy friend (see original blog post by Roger Mitchell comments) says about the dominant spirits. In Africa just like in Europe there seems to be a perpetuation of certain patterns. In Africa there has been a historical pattern, just as in pre reformation Europe, of gutter poor peasants and a few extremely rich. There are still some very very very rich Africans in comparison with their compatriots. That is their pattern of government, to bleed the country as much as they can as long as they can stay in power. (Remember this is gross generalisations) This is the pattern followed by many European monarchs in Europe too. It’s a very very deeply rooted habit – like who could get the money and labour to build Stonehenge for example without exerting “a little pressure” shall we say ? When Europeans went to Africa they had largely stopped doing it so much to fellow Europeans and went and did it to Africans instead. And look what we did to China – French and Brits together – groan
Continuing about the dominant spirits I heard a fascinating account by a historian of Ghanain descent who has looked into the history of Ghana in West Africa. Apart from many wonderful things, he also found that there was already a history of slave taking long before the Brits got there. The Northern tribe used slaves from other neighbouring tribes to work the gold mines. When the Brits arrived the Northerners then sold these same neighbours to the Brits who then sold them on. Eventually the Brits found it cheaper to go and fetch the slaves themselves. I use this west african example to say that I think we must be very careful about generalisations based on Live Aid images which then permeate public attitudes, a fact that you’re very aware of. 

My personal opinion is now that “Africans” may or may not need us. Maybe we’re more of a nuisance than a blessing sometimes, not cos we perpetuate colonial attitudes, but cos they do. However I believe that the next wave of revival in the world will come from Africans from Africa reaching out. I think we desperately need their intercession and their willingness to share the gospel. I also think that people will be willing to respond to them without the strings attached cynicism that we give to westerners talking freely about just about anything. 

I think we need to be very very careful about replicating the spiritual and powers that we have at work too. There’s nothing very clever about how our markets are going about things and so called democracy, which isn’t really, and can just become a tool for buying support as opposed to earning it. For example I think the system of village elders and negotiation is much stronger than the dribs and drabs of democracy we have here . But overall the key not the question of whether we have serial leaders or keep the same ones, it’s partly how to help them leave power without losing face – a house of elders and seniors (as opposed to a house of land owners or lords) could be a very useful addition to the democracy we export – ditto in the church. It’s so much easier to leave any sort of leadership if you know you will still have some sort of status and respect afterwards.

The key seems to me to pray that we will have the courage to think beyond our boxes and, as you suggest, kenarchy (or the same thing but with a less clunky name – inventors are rarely good at choosing the best name that the public can attach to) has to be a key. Church structure patterns can often mirror those in society, and every where we need to have the courage to live and organise ourselves in radical, alternative ways (without giving in to anarchy on the other extreme). If we don’t give people a structure to copy they’ll go and reproduce what they’re used to.

Thank you for your work promoting love and goodwill, what ever we call it.


Just another comment on the continuity of powers front - We need to remember that one of the next biggest colonising powers after the Romans is Islam. Mohammed was himself an excellent or at least successful warlord chieftan, and his two aids then successors also gifted warriors and strategists. "Christian" powers required over 300 years before they took up arms, and then it was on the back of the Roman empire and under their direction. Islam was imposed by the sword from the word go. There is nothing incongruous about Islam, when it goes back to it's roots in it's most fundamentalist form, being warlike. The 'peace' which comes from it therefore has more in common with the Pax Romana - you get peace if you give in. Of course not all Muslims want to live like that now, far, far from it. The conquered ones didn't necessarily want to live like that then either. Let's not just see the "terrorists" as hole in a corner crazys. They follow in a tradition of fearless, brave warriors. If they were from our culture we'd be proud of them. I don't agree with what they do, but I don't agree with how we decide who are heros and who are deadloss loonys either. We went much the same way about conquering Africa too after all.