"Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe and
is touted as the first modern African novel - the one that started
African renaissance. Published in 1958 when colonialism was coming to an
end in Africa, the story is based in mid-19th century when the race for
Africa had begun with the missionaries proving more effective than the
mercenaries.
As is the case with colonial discourses, the book is about cultural arrogance, contestations, misunderstandings and their consequences. It is a story of the inadequately evolved "rudimentary souls" whom the white men had so charitably volunteered to civilize. Achebe's account of the Nigerian tribal life, customs, power dynamics, cultural sensitivities is less of a protest or resistance against the existing narrative; it is more of a retort and rebuke establishing the complexity of ethnosocial aspects of rural Nigerian life. It was an insider view that substantially and successfully challenged the "outsider accounts" of Africa, and with this book, Achebe won back one of the most fundamental rights for his people - the right to tell their own story.
Compared to other colonized cultures where the literary renaissance started with books in the vernacular languages (Gora for example), it is interesting that Achebe chose to tell the story in English. Achebe's native language was Igbo which was basically a mish-mash of multiple dialects and diction. Tribal languages do not follow the structure of more established languages. The contextualized vocabulary of these languages does the functional job of expressing local nuances, but it is a struggle to relay thoughts that are alien or agnostic to that culture. Do not mistake this for lack of evolution or complexity. On the contrary, the dogmatic retention of these complexities is what prevents the propagation and perpetuation of these languages. Languages that are easy to spread have had to cut the umbilical chord that tie them to the roots. Achebe’s intent was to reach a wider audience, many of whom were telling his people’s story without knowing enough about them.
Without being a linguistic chauvinist, it would be refreshing to have a similar attitude of respect if not awe for the vernacular languages. The more "evolved" languages can carry the content far and wide but are incompetent to absorb and disseminate the sentiments adequately (lost in translation).
In our context, English has displaced and relegated the Indian languages for sure. However the mainstream Indian languages have devastated localized languages much more. They have demonstrated a more disdainful attitude and either subsumed or stifled a number of smaller languages. For one Bhojpuri or Maithili that has withstood the onslaught, many others are marginalized, extinct or surviving as orphaned poor cousins.
As is the case with colonial discourses, the book is about cultural arrogance, contestations, misunderstandings and their consequences. It is a story of the inadequately evolved "rudimentary souls" whom the white men had so charitably volunteered to civilize. Achebe's account of the Nigerian tribal life, customs, power dynamics, cultural sensitivities is less of a protest or resistance against the existing narrative; it is more of a retort and rebuke establishing the complexity of ethnosocial aspects of rural Nigerian life. It was an insider view that substantially and successfully challenged the "outsider accounts" of Africa, and with this book, Achebe won back one of the most fundamental rights for his people - the right to tell their own story.
Compared to other colonized cultures where the literary renaissance started with books in the vernacular languages (Gora for example), it is interesting that Achebe chose to tell the story in English. Achebe's native language was Igbo which was basically a mish-mash of multiple dialects and diction. Tribal languages do not follow the structure of more established languages. The contextualized vocabulary of these languages does the functional job of expressing local nuances, but it is a struggle to relay thoughts that are alien or agnostic to that culture. Do not mistake this for lack of evolution or complexity. On the contrary, the dogmatic retention of these complexities is what prevents the propagation and perpetuation of these languages. Languages that are easy to spread have had to cut the umbilical chord that tie them to the roots. Achebe’s intent was to reach a wider audience, many of whom were telling his people’s story without knowing enough about them.
Without being a linguistic chauvinist, it would be refreshing to have a similar attitude of respect if not awe for the vernacular languages. The more "evolved" languages can carry the content far and wide but are incompetent to absorb and disseminate the sentiments adequately (lost in translation).
In our context, English has displaced and relegated the Indian languages for sure. However the mainstream Indian languages have devastated localized languages much more. They have demonstrated a more disdainful attitude and either subsumed or stifled a number of smaller languages. For one Bhojpuri or Maithili that has withstood the onslaught, many others are marginalized, extinct or surviving as orphaned poor cousins.
No comments:
Post a Comment