Showing posts with label “Wise One”. Show all posts
Showing posts with label “Wise One”. Show all posts

Friday, 17 November 2017

On this very eve of ofe nsala day – Anambra region, southwest Biafra


Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe

Tomorrow, Saturday 18 November 2017: Stay home … Stay home … Stay home …

1. Stay home with your loved ones and keep away from the roads and streets now taken over by the Hausa-Fulani/islamist-led genocidist Nigeria military/Fulani militia adjunct. The génocidaires have effectively deployed a battle group throughout the Anambra region to continue its murderous mission in history, begun 200 years ago when it departed its Futa Djallon homeland in northwest Africa: terror, conquests, occupations, expropriations, decadence, genocide… They, not Europe, not the United States, not any extracontinental imperialism, constitute, currently, the principal retrograde agent of underdevelopment across the stretches of northcentral Africa.

2. Stay home with your loved ones and enjoy a scrumptious ofe nsala dinner. Writing recently in The National (20 September 2017), Dave McEwan Hill discusses the “strongly democratic … meritocracy … and sturdy self relian[t] Igbo … ambitious, imaginative and hard-working …” Hill is of course reflecting on the salient features that characterise Igbo national life, shaped by over 1000 years of history of republican democracy. In fact the planned Igbo boycott of tomorrow’s fraudulent Nigeria génocidaires’ run election in Anambra is acutely demonstrable of this attribute of Igbo democratic history.

3. Stay home with your loved ones tomorrow, Saturday 18 November – be wise, as usual, just as you stayed home on 30 May 2017 with such phenomenal political consequences advancing the march of the Biafra freedom movement.

4. The restoration of the independence of Biafra is unstoppable.
(John Coltrane Quartet, “Wise one” [personnel: Coltrane, tenor saxophone; McCoy Tyner, piano; Jimmy Garrison, bass; Elvin J ones, drums; recorded: Van Gelder Studio, Englewood, Cliff, NJ, US, 24 April 1964])
Twitter@HerbertEkweEkwe


Sunday, 9 April 2017

119th birthday of Paul Robeson

(Born 9 April 1898, Princeton, US)
RENOWNED ACTOR,  lawyer, distinguished alumnus of the historic 1920s-1930s Harlem Renaissance of African American history and freedom, internationalist, freedom exponent
(John Coltrane Quartet, “Wise One” [Coltrane, tenor saxophone; McCoy Tyner, piano; Jimmy Garrison, bass; Elvin Jones, drums; recorded: Van Gelder Studios, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US, 27 April 1964])
Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe



Friday, 19 August 2016

Dr Akanu Ibiam’s letter to Queen Elizabeth II: The world appears to have hardly changed in 50 years…

(Venerable: Dr Akanu Ibiam)
Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe

Forty-nine years ago to the day, in August 1967, the venerable Dr Akanu Ibiam, Christian missionary physician, erudite theologian and statesperson who had worked for 30 years in the Church of Scotland/Presbyterian Church rural medical programmes across central and east regions of Biafra, wrote a 20-paragraph historic letter to Queen Elizabeth II of England. 

In his letter, Dr Ibiam denounced, unreservedly, the central role being played by Britain in the Igbo genocide, the foundational genocide of post-(European)conquest Africa, which had then entered its second year of unremittingly ruthless slaughter. In protest to this role, Dr Ibiam renounced and returned to the British head of state the three insignias of knighthood (OBE, KBE, KCMG) that both she and her father, King George VI, had earlier conferred on the esteemed missionary physician for services to church and state.

Britain and Nigeria would ultimately murder 3.1 million Igbo people, 25 per cent of this nation’s population, by 12 January 1970 at the end of phase-III of the genocide. The genocide then moved on to phase-IV which has gone on to this day...

Testament vs that establishment consensus

As is evident in the last four main paragraphs of Dr Ibiam’s letter published below (paragraphs 14-17 in the original), this document could easily have been written by the great humanist to Queen Elizabeth last year, 2015, after the month of  March, when this same Britain, now under the political leadership of Prime Minister David Cameron, who was born 5 months after the 29 July 1966 launch of the genocide (coordinated then by No. 10 Downing Street resident Prime Minister Harold Wilson), installed Muhammadu Buhari, the notorious genocidist trooper of north/north central Biafra killing fields (July 1967-January 1970), as new head of Nigeria regime. No, Dr Ibiam could well have written this testament a few days ago! As the world duly knows, Buhari now drives this segment of phase-IV of the Igbo genocide as ruthlessly as he deems fit, murdering thousands of Igbo people in all regions of Biafra especially since October 2015, aware that, as before, he and Nigeria have the back of the British government to ensure, particularly, that Nigeria is shielded from international outrage and sanctions in its strategic goal to destroy Igbo people. Consequently, the British government is yet to condemn any of these murders nor confront its own involvement in the perpetration of the entire 50-year stretch of this most gruesome and devastating genocide of contemporary history. 

Quite gravely, there is a haunting half-a-century-old consensus shared by the critical clusters of the British establishment including the political “class”, academia, media, charities, human rights, even the church, to maintain a deafening silence as the British state uninterruptedly wages this Igbo genocide in alliance with its on the ground Hausa-Fulani north region islamist-led client state in Nigeria. The goal is pointedly to protect, in perpetuity, Britain’s perceived strategic and economic interests in this southwestcentral Africa region – 3500 miles away from Britain. The fact that this alliance appears to challenge some of the more predictable characterisation of the salient features of contemporary international politics is indicative of how much more resilient and enduring shared worldviews (for instance, in this case, to collaborate to wage a genocide on a third party, a mutually-targeted people, for complementary interests) from supposedly or seemingly contradictory state systems can be.

(Paragraphs 14-20 of Dr Ibiam’s letter to Queen Elizabeth II of England, August 1967)

(Queen Elizabeth II: recipient of Dr Ibiam’s August 1967 letter)

...

YOUR MAJESTY, the British officials in Nigeria are fully aware of all these. They know that we are injured and deeply grieved people and had been cruelly treated by our erstwhile fellow citizens of Federal Republic of Nigeria. The British officials not only knew the crux of the matter, but they also encouraged Northern Nigeria to carry out and execute their nefarious plan against us. They are angry with Biafra because Biafra categorically refused to remain as part of the Nigeria federation and political unit only to be trampled upon, discriminated against and hated, ruthlessly exploited and denied her rights and privileges, and slaughtered whenever it suited the whims and caprices of the favoured people of Northern Nigeria. To add insult to injury, Your Majesty’s Britannic Government, instead of being neutral in our quarrels or finding ways and means to mediate and bring peace to the two countries, has now taken it upon herself to supply military aid to Nigeria to help them defeat and subjugate Biafra.

It is simply staggering for a Christian country like Britain to help a Moslem country militarily to crush another Christian country like Biafra. This is just too much for me, Your Gracious Majesty, this act of unfriendliness and treachery by the British Government towards the people of Republic of Biafra who, as Eastern Nigerians, had so much regard for Britain and British people.

In the circumstance, Your Majesty, I no longer wish to wear the garb of the British Knighthood. British fair play, British justice, and the Englishman’s word of honour which Biafra loved so much and cherished have become meaningless to Biafrans in general and to me in particular. Christian Britain has shamelessly let down Christian Biafra.

I love the Republic of Biafra very dearly and pray that, by grace of God, she may remain and continue to grow and live and always act like a truly Christian country for all times.

I am, your Majesty

Yours Most Respectfully

(AKANU IBIAM)
(John Coltrane Quartet, “Wise one” [personnel: Coltrane, tenor saxophone; McCoy Tyner, piano; Jimmy Garrison, bass; Elvin Jones, drums; recorded: Van Gelder Studio, Englewood, Cliff, NJ, US, 24 April 1964)
Twitter@HerbertEkweEkwe

Saturday, 20 February 2016

A comment on Claudia Moscovici, “The siege of Leningrad: Genocide by starvation”, HYPOCRISA, 16 February 2015


Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe

TWENTY-SIX years later, beginning on 31 March 1967, genocidist Nigeria, very similar to Claudia Moscovici’s reviewed Germany’s strategy in Leningrad, the Soviet Union (http://176.223.121.197/content/siege-leningrad-genocide-starvation, accessed 17 February 2015), embarks on the comprehensive land, naval and aerial blockade of Biafra in phase-II of the Igbo genocide which it enforces through phase III (beginning 6 July 1967) till 12 January 1970 with devastating consequences in Africa’s most densely populated region outside the Nile Delta

Nigeria employs starvation as one of its critical weapons to prosecute the genocide, this foundational genocide of post-(European)conquest Africa formally launched earlier on 29 May 1966 (phase-I). Obafemi Awolowo (lawyer and senior advocate of the Nigerian bar), Nigeria’s chief genocidist “theorist”, deputy head of the prosecuting regime in Lagos and head of the powerful finance ministry publicly states, right from the outset, that starvation of the Igbo is a “legitimate instrument” of the campaign, a policy voiced openly and variously throughout the period by several other senior regime officials including, especially, Anthony Enaharo (head of information ministry), Allison Ayida (regime special advisor), and field commanders Benjamin Adekunle and Olusegun Obasanjo.

Adekunle-Obusonjoist amalgam

Benjamin Adekunle, one of the most notorious of the genocidist commanders in south Biafra, reminds the world of his regime’s starvation strategy in an August 1968 press conference which includes foreign correspondents: “I want to prevent even one I[g]bo having even one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves, and when our forces march into the centre of I[g]bo territory, we shoot at everything, even at things that don’t move” (The Economist, London, 24 August 1968).
 
(Adekunle: “I want to prevent even one I[g]bo having even one piece to eat ... We shoot at everything that moves in ... I[g]bo territory ... even at things that don’t move”)
IT IS ALSO in pursuit of this starvation strategy that Olusegun Obasanjo, who takes over this sector’s command from Adekunle later in 1968, orders his air force, in May 1969, to shoot down any Red Cross planes flying in urgently-needed relief supplies to the millions of surviving but encircled, blockaded and bombarded Igbo. Within a week of his infamous order, 5 June 1969, Obasanjo recalls, nostalgically, in his memoirs, unambiguously titled My Command (London: Heinemann, 1981), genocidist air force pilot Gbadomosi King “redeem[s] his promise”, as Obasanjo clinically asserts (Obasanjo, 1981: 79) – the “promiseGbadomosi King shoots down a clearly marked, incoming relief-bearing International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) DC-7 aircraft near Eket, south Biafra, with the loss of its 3-person crew.  Obasanjo’s perverse satisfaction over the aftermath of this crime is fiendish, grotesquely revolting. He writes: “The effect of [this] singular achievement of the Air Force especially on 3 Marine Commando Division [name of the death squad Obasanjo, who subsequently becomes head of Nigeria regime for 11 years, commands] was profound. It raised morale of all service personnel, especially of the Air Force detachment concerned and the troops they supported in [my] 3 Marine Commando Division” (79).
(Obusonjo: “The effect of [this] singular achievement of the Air Force [shooting down of  Red Cross relief aircraft] especially on 3 Marine Commando Division was profound. It raised morale of all service personnel...”)
Harold Wilson’s “... a half million dead Biafrans ...” 

The British government under Prime Minister Harold Wilson is Nigeria’s strategic ally in this campaign – militarily, politically, diplomatically. Britain had since been riled by the Igbo vanguard role, begun in the 1930s, to terminate its conquest and occupation of Nigeria (one of the very prized lands of the British conquest of Africa). By supporting the genocide, Britain seeks to “punish” the Igbo for the latter’s historic role in the liberation of Nigeria. During the course of the 1968/69 gruesomely catastrophic apogee of the campaign when thousands of Igbo are dying daily from starvation, disease and enhanced land and aerial bombardment of survivors in ever-shrinking territory encapsulated by the siege, Harold Wilson is totally unfazed when he informs C. Clyde Ferguson, the US state department special coordinator for relief to Biafra, that he, Harold Wilson, “would accept a half million dead Biafrans if that was what it took” Nigeria to destroy the Igbo resistance to the genocide (Roger MorrisUncertain Greatness: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy [London and New York: Quartet Books, 1977]: 122). 

For the record, Wilson’s “a half a million dead Biafrans” represents 4.2 per cent of the Igbo population at this time; by the time that this third phase of the genocide comes to an end, 6-9 months after Wilson’s wish-declaration, 25 per cent of this nation’s population or 3.1 million Igbo people are murdered by the genocidists. Undoubtedly, the Nigerian toady “boys”  have handsomely obliged their “massa” Harold Wilson’s wish...
 (Wilson: “would accept a half million dead Biafrans if that was what it took...”)
IT MUST be stressed that Harold Wilson’s “[W]ould accept a half a million dead Biafrans”-wish is not a declaration made by some dictator, some leader of a loony party, a fascist party or anything of that ilk; on the contrary, this is a declaration made by an elected politician, a politician in an advanced western representative democracy, the leader of the British Labour party, one of Europes leading social democratic parties. “[W]ould accept a half million dead Biafrans if that was what it took”-declaration is made by the prime minister of Britain; not the prime minister of some “peripheral”, seemingly inconsequential country but the prime minister of a “centre” state and power that was part of the victorious alliance that defeated a fascist global amalgam in a global war that ended barely 23 years earlier. This is a prime minister of a “centre” state and power (sixth to occupy this exalted position since the end of the war) that was one of the key countries that worked on the panel that drafted the historic 1948 United Nations “Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide” – in the wake of the 1930s-1940s deplorable perpetration of the Jewish genocide and other genocides in Europe. 6 million Jews were murdered then by Germany. It is to ensure that no human beings are ever subjected to what the Jews and others went through in central Europe and elsewhere that this genocide convention is rated as one of the key international documents of the new age. Britain is a signatory to the convention. Surely, Harold Wilson’s “[W]ould accept a half million dead Biafrans if that was what it took”-declaration cannot fit into the hallowed pages of the UN “Convention on the prevention of the Crime of Genocide”.

“[L]etting the little buggers starve out”, Defoliant

FINALLY, a senior British foreign office official, who echoes Harold Wilson’s disposition to the Igbo slaughter, is no less chilling in their own characterisation of Britain’s strategic goal. Describing the British response to the concerted international humanitarian effort to dispatch urgently needed relief material to the blockaded and bombarded Igbo, this official notes that the British government position is designed to “show conspicuous zeal in relief while in fact letting the little buggers starve out” (Morris: 122). In a courageous and admirable public admission he makes in 1970, Colonel Robert Scott breaks ranks with his employer, the British diplomatic mission in Lagos where he works as military advisor, to acknowledge, gravely, that as the Nigerian genocidists unleash their Adekunleist campaigns across Igbo cities, towns and villages, they are the “best defoliant agent known” (Sunday Telegraph, London, 11 January 1970).
(John Coltrane Quartet, “Wise One” [Coltrane, tenor saxophone; McCoy Tyner, piano; Jimmy Garrison, bass; Elvin Jones, drums; recorded: Van Gelder Studios, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US, 27 April 1964])
Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe

Monday, 30 November 2015

This mission of Biafra

The future for Biafra couldn’t be more reassuring. Biafrans really have their work cut out. Their mission is not to begin to construct a state that is merely post-genocide or post post-conquest/post post-“colonial” state – in other words, cancelling out here and there, in some mechanical venture, that which was Nigeria, arguably “Berlin-state” Africa’s most notorious state.  Instead, Biafra is a realisation, a profound reclamation of that which makes us all human and part of humanity

Babies and children-survivors’ leadership

Biafrans have an opportunity to begin to build a new civilisation where human life, fundamentally, is sacrosanct. This salient feature cannot be overstressed. Nigeria has been, for the Igbo, a haematophagous quagmire throughout its history. In June 1945 and May 1953, right there under the very watch of the British occupation, the Hausa-Fulani north region allies of the conquest, opposed to the Igbo-led African restoration-of-independence campaign,  carried out carefully planned pogroms against Igbo migrant populations in Jos and Kano, respectively. Hundreds of Igbo were murdered in these outrages. The occupation charged no one for these crimes and the pogroms became dress-rehearsals for the the May 1966-January 1970 genocide.

It should be stressed that those who lead the current phase of resistance to the Igbo genocide, launched by Nigeria and ally Britain on 29 May 1966, were the babies and children-survivors of the July 1967-January 1970 refugee death camps of Biafra who have now come of age. A total of 3.1 million Igbo people, overwhelmingly children/younger people and older members of the population, were murdered in the genocide.

Biafra is an inclusive state where women and men live as co-operators and co-creators in fundamentally transforming their society. This is a state that accepts and accords full rights to all its people. This is a state where people enjoy the rights to differ and to dream dreams and dream different sets of dreams as they choose.

Essay

Biafra is a state dedicated to furthering and nurturing the resilience of its people and to enabling them pursue their highest creative endeavours. This state continuously strives to remove all limitations in the paths of its people and committed to making life better and better and better. 

This is a state that primes its people to flourish.  Already, 50 years since the first murders of the genocide were committed in north Nigeria on 29 May 1966, the Biafrans have written an extraordinary essay on human survival and fortitude, a beacon of the tenacity of the spirit of human overcoming of the most desperate, unimaginable brutish forces.

This long drawn out catastrophe that was Britain’s Nigeria hotchpotch is over and truly Africans do stand poised on the eve of a new beginning.
(John Coltrane Quartet, “Wise One” [Coltrane, tenor saxophone; McCoy Tyner, piano; Jimmy Garrison, bass; Elvin Jones, drums; recorded: Van Gelder Studios, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US, 27 April 1964])
Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe



Sunday, 5 October 2014

Does Arrow of God anticipate the Igbo genocide?*


Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe

QUITE EARLY in the new year, this 2014, I began to prepare for a paper on the role or involvement of Africa and Africans in the war of 1914-1918 or, alternatively, the Great War or the First World War. 2014 is the 100th anniversary of this war. The paper has since been published under the title, “The concatenation of the African role in the 1914-1918 war or World War I” (http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-concatenation-of-african-role-in.html, accessed 23 September 2014). Instructively, my research for the paper had led me to Chinua Achebe’s A Man of the People, by way of that memorable conversation on African history and future between Cheikh Anta Diop and Carlos Moore, published 20 years ago in the journal Présence Africaine. I will return to the Diop-Moore conversation shortly.

2014 is also the year of Arrow of God. This is why we are gathered here today at University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. 2014 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Chinua Achebe’s tome. I had to reread it for the jubilee commemoration. And as I had earlier on reread A Man of the People, Achebe’s fourth novel, for the purposes of my 1914-1918 war paper, I suddenly found my follow-up Achebe reread of the season was Arrow of God, novel no. 3 – in other words, perhaps not aware of the trend and its consequence or consequences, I had been involved in alternating the sequencing of the epochs of the groundings of the two texts by appearing to reread Arrow of God backwards! The result is fascinating, as I will show. The discovery has been quite profound.

Prophet?

TO RECALL, Chinua Achebe publishes A Man of the People in early January 1966. This is a few days before the military coup d’état that overthrows the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa civilian government which the supposedly outgoing British occupation-governor James Robertson had imposed on the country in 1959, following a fractious election that the British rigged in favour of its north regional sociopolitical clients (Harold Smith, “Harold Smith’s Tribute Page”, http://haroldsmithmemorial.wordpress.com/harold-smith-fought-our-battle/, accessed 27 September 2014). The latter would, in turn, safeguard those vast expropriatory interests of Britain’s in the country subsequently (Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, “Elections in Africa – the voter, the court, the outcome”, http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/elections-in-africa-voter-court-outcome.htmlaccessed 29 June 2014). 

A striking feature in the resolution of the grave crisis of this state that Achebe wrestles with in A Man of the People is its degeneration into a military coup and rampaging violence (“But the Army obliged us by staging a coup at that point and locking up every member of the Government” – Achebe, A Man of the People, 1966: 165), an extraordinary predictive insight, if ever there was one, that confronts the reader, considering the gruesome trajectory of politics in Nigeria, in 1966, the year this same state launches the Igbo genocide, the foundational genocide of post(European)conquest Africa, in which 3.1 million Igbo or one-quarter of this nation’s population, are murdered during the course of 44 subsequent devastating months. Indeed on the receipt of an advance copy of A Man of the People, poet and playwright John Pepper Clarke-Bekederemo observes, “Chinua, I know you are a prophet. Everything in this book has happened except a military coup” (emphasis in the original). Ken Post, a British academic working in west Africa at the time, recalls: “Chinua Achebe proved to be a better prophet than any of the political scientists”. Once again, “Prophet”! Is Chinua Achebe, the Father of African Literature, also a prophet?

Arrow of God, Achebe’s most complex novel, his “richest, most mysterious … one of the finest works of fiction in English written in this century”, according to Robert Wren (Robert Wren, Achebe’s World, 1990: 75), remains an inexhaustible farmland for bounty harvests. Fresh readings and re-readings of the novel bring forth ever more yields. This also applies to the examination/re-examination of the literature across the spectrum of distinguished critics of the novel. It is striking, right from the outset, that the certainties of Igbo national independence witnessed in the age of Things Fall Apart have now clearly dissipated as Ezeulu charts the paths and terms of the consequential relationship between him and Ulu, the god that he serves, and the key centres of bourgeoning European-conquest power in Umuaro and neighbouring Igbo states. Pointedly, Ezeulu instructs son Oduche to attend the mission school as his “eyes and ears” (Chinua Achebe, The African Trilogy, 1988: 365) in this power dispensation. But Oduche is much more important here than just a tactical tool in Ezeulu’s defence arsenal as this paper demonstrates.

Oeuvre

AS IN THE other texts of the Achebean oeuvre, including A Man of the People, which has been aptly illustrative, Arrow of God presents a highly imaginative and anticipatory power of Achebe’s insight to the turbulent trajectory of post-(European)conquest African history and politics. The paper will explore how this insight anticipates the catastrophe of the Igbo genocide. Thus, the Igbo double jeopardy of foreign conquest and occupation and genocide appears to sum up Achebe’s mission.

I have chosen Emmanuel Ngara’s study of Arrow of God in his Stylistic Criticism and the African Novel (1982) as an important text to employ to discuss Achebe’s crucial mission. Ironically, Ngara’s clearly stated conclusions in his work couldn’t be more appropriate in mapping out the parameters of Achebe’s project. Ngara is very unhappy with Arrow of God. He writes: “… Arrow of God is not a book that fascinates and engages the reader as soon as he picks it up to read” (Ngara, 1982: 79). He elaborates in four paragraphs and it is important to quote him at some length:
The narrator is the author himself who tells the story in the third person, giving himself the privilege of entering the characters’ minds and recording their innermost thoughts. The narrator is addressing both an African and a western English-speaking audience. He is very successful in his use of African idioms in an English novel – non-Igbo speakers are able to follow the story and to understand the Igbo proverbs and expressions used in the novel. There are, however, some minor shortcomings in the language. Achebe uses many Igbo terms such as chi, obi, ogene. These are not translated and the reader is expected to understand them in the context in which they are used. In some instances, however, these untranslated terms are somewhat obscure, the reader can only have a vague idea of what they stand for, and this tends to slow down his reading speed as he attempts to puzzle out what they mean … Arrow of God is too culture-bound and sociologically oriented. The emphasis on the multifarious aspects of Igbo society tends to distract the reader and to hamper the smooth flow of events … Yet another source of difficulty is the novel’s complexity of theme and plot and the large number of characters involved. Achebe tries to contain the whole cultural fabric of Igbo society and the various forces threatening it in one volume. This necessitates bringing in too many characters to whom the reader must be introduced before he can clearly see who is playing what role in the conflict. Also, many contradictions are involved… (79) 
SPECTACULARLY, Ngara lays out the constituent features of the history and geography  that have given rise to the conjunctural crisis, even existential (on this possibility, Ezeulu couldn’t be clearer when he refers to the symbolism of the sound of the tolling of the church bell, that overarching ideological signifier of the occupation regime, as the “song of extermination” [Achebe, 1988: 362]) that the Igbo are going through that gives rise to the artist’s, the novelist’s, Achebe’s stated mission – in the first place. One then wonders what problem the critic/scholar has in their own response to this pressing endeavour. Isn’t the scholar’s trade to labour, labour and labour and, at times without much success, try to understand life, and its complexities, society and the universe? When has this task ever been easy or easier? The scholar can’t afford to despair over the complexity of the challenge at stake; definitely he or she mustn’t give up; they must continue to labour; they must persist. Even Ezeulu, the half-person, half-spirit, the “Known and at the same time … Unknowable” (455), attests to the complexities of  understanding and responding to the challenges of the times when he beckons his people: “But you cannot know the Thing which beats the drum to which Ezeulu dances … [W]e have reached the very end of things … This is what our sages meant when they said that a man who has nowhere else to put his hand for support puts it on his knee” (455-457).

In the conversation between Cheikh Anta Diop and Carlos Moore that I referred to earlier, Diop asks the pertinent question of the age: “Who can deny that of all peoples, Africans have been the greatest victims of aggression, racism and oppression? The consequences can be seen today in the state of underdevelopment and technical backwardness of African societies” (Carlos Moore, “Conversations with Cheikh Anta Diop”, 1993: 418). The apogee of this devastation of a heritage for each and every African nation or people, without exception, is what Diop describes, to use his very words, “loss of national sovereignty” (Moore: 381; emphasis in the original). In Arrow of God, Chinua Achebe is examining not only the invasion of Igboland by a European state (this deleterious “loss of national sovereignty”) but the multitudinous layers and range of Igbo response to this unprecedented catastrophe which is ongoing, not over by any means. Thus, Ezeulu, the chief priest of Ulu, uses stark epidemiological referencing to describe this grave emergency facing his people: “A disease that has never been seen before cannot be cured with everyday herbs … [O]ur fathers have told us that it may even happen to an unfortunate generation that they are pushed beyond the end of things, and their back is broken and hung over a fire” (Achebe, 1988: 456-457). Yet in another breadth, the priest’s characterisation is bluntly existential as we have just indicated: “extermination” (362).
(John Coltrane Quartet, “Wise One” [personnel: Coltrane, tenor saxophone; McCoy Tyner, piano; Jimmy Garrison, bass; Elvin Jones, drums; recorded: Van Gelder Studios, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US, 27 April 1964])
Abame or genocide or Abame

KOLE OMOTOSO has argued that, unlike the Yoruba who view the British invasion of their country as a “mere episode, a catalytic episode only” (Kole Omotoso, Achebe or Soyinka?, 1996: 17), the Igbo see the British invasion of Igboland as a confrontation with a “strange Difference, an Other, a Contradiction, an encounter that can only be negative in terms of the effects on Igbo culture and its ways” (Omotoso: 11). Umuofia, as we observe in Things Fall Apart, surely appreciates the startling implications of this archetypal “clash of civilisations” that Omotoso depicts. The Okonkwo-Obierika studied deliberations on the horrific massacre of the people of Abame by an ever-expanding British invading military force and the impact of the event on Umuofia’s national sovereignty is pointedly evident. Indeed, the continuing independence of Umuofia is threatened by this invasion. This gives rise to calls by Okonkwo for a steadfast defence of their homeland by its people, despite the military superiority and the ruthlessness of the enemy it faces as historian Obierika is keen to stress: “Have you not heard how the white man wiped out Abame?” (Achebe: 144). He adds, ominously, “They would go to Umuru and bring the soldiers, and we [Umuofia] would be like Abame” (Achebe: 144). Obierika and apparently the majority of the leadership of Umuofia want to avoid the Abameisation of their own country by the British. Even though he does not state it clearly in his studied philosophical ruminations in Arrow of God, it is implicit that one of the reasons, a very important consideration definitely, for Ezeulu’s decision to send son Oduche to the conquest  mission school is to preempt the Abame débâcle in Umuaro. For Okonkwo, though, the obvious overwhelming military odds against Umuofia notwithstanding, the country must defend its sovereignty resolutely: “We must fight these men and drive them from our land” (Achebe: 144). 

Okonkwo’s forthright response to Obierika’s reticence about how to respond to the impending British invasion of Umuofia shows clearly that years of enforced exile in the Mbanta country have not in any way diminished the hero’s patriotic instincts and distinctions. Even though Okonkwo subsequently commits suicide after killing the envoy sent by the British to disrupt the crucial Umuofia leadership assembly on the unfolding emergency in addition to his conviction that Umuofia is unwilling to deploy its forces to resist the impending attack on the country, I have argued, elsewhere (see Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, “The Achebean Restoration”, 2013: 698), that Okonkwo’s suicide and its aftermath symbolise the sowing of the regenerative seeds of freedom for the restoration of Igbo national sovereignty.

As a result, this trope of freedom/national sovereignty transmutes to the post-Umuofia-Arrow of God epoch, evident, most assuredly if not defiantly, when Ezeulu turns down the occupation’s plans to induct him in the operationalising structure of the conquest regime. Again implicitly, perhaps, Ezeulu does not feel that the conquest’s mission is complete or definitive. He still hopes that his people’s independence would survive. This is why the priest informs occupation administrator Clarke, via the latter’s interpreter: “Tell the white man that Ezeulu will not be anybody’s chief, except Ulu” (Achebe: 498). Equally, the trope of Abame-murdering/wipe out transmutes to this new epoch. In the Anglo-Igbo confrontation in Umuaro and the contiguous states, the Abame massacre features, most hauntingly, in the narrative. In the wake of the Umuaro-Okperi war which Ezeulu opposes, describing it as an “unjust war” (Achebe: 334), Umuaro reluctantly accepts the terms of the British military intervention because, to quote the narrative voice in Arrow of God, “[t]he story of what these [British] soldiers did in Abame was still told with fear, and so Umuaro made no effort to resist but laid down their arms” (Achebe: 347). In fact, Ezeulu himself focuses on Abame broadly in a key address to his people in which he reflects on growing African involvement in the murderous forces the conqueror regime is mobilising in these massacres, a principal sphere of this tragedy. He poses three questions which clearly have “pan-Africanist” implications: “Have you not heard that when two brothers fight a stranger reaps the harvest? How many white men went in the party that destroyed Abame? Do you know? Five” (Achebe: 455), clearly an Achebean acknowledgement of that key component of the trajectory of the conquest of Africa and continuing post-conquest violence and murders so dramatically captured by historian Chancellor Williams in his The Destruction of Black Civilization (1987: 218):
Now the shadows lengthened. The Europeans had also been busily building up and training strong African armies. Africans trained to hate, kill and conquer Africans. Blood of Africans was to sprinkle and further darken the pages of their history … Indeed, Africa was conquered for the Europeans by the Africans [themselves], and thereafter kept under [conquest] control by African police and African soldiers. Very little European blood was ever spilled.
SO, ages before the Blydens and the Equinaos and the Garveys, and the DuBoises and the Nkrumahs and the Makonnens would begin to theorise and offer progressive, liberatory perspectives on “pan-Africanism”, the enemies of Africa had already unleashed “pan-African-‘Goodcountry’-assemblages” of terror on Africa and Africans to despoil and conquer Africa. In effect, contrary to the usual, quite often understandable romantic presumptions, “pan-Africanism”, as a construct, does not appear or occur discernibly or intelligibly “ready-made”. On the contrary, every feature of this construct for progressive projects or outcomes in the African World has to be worked for actively, painstakingly and continuously sustained.

Abame upheavals to 29 May 1966-12 January 1970

TO CONCLUDE, the Abame massacre and those Umuofia and Umuaro debates and deliberations on its aftermath crucially map the spectrum of milestones that would define the trajectory of the British 100 years of war against the Igbo and the variegated frames of Igbo resistance to it that parallel the very stretch of British occupation of Nigeria: the 1880s-1914 Ekumeku wars and resistance in Anioma, west of the Oshimiri River; the 1901-1902 war against the Aru in northeastcentral Igboland; the 1929 Ogu umu nwanyi Igbo/Women’s War in Aba/Igbo eastcentral region; the 1945 pogrom of Igbo immigrant population in Jos, central Nigeria, organised by Hausa-Fulani/north region clients/allies of the occupation; the 1949 shootings of coal miners in the Enuugwu colliery in northcentral Igboland; the 1953 pogrom of Igbo immigrant population in Kano, north Nigeria, organised by Hausa-Fulani/north region clients/allies of the occupation. The 1945 and 1953 pogroms are indeed the “dress rehearsals” of the genocide that is launched on Sunday 29 May 1966. Abame, eventually, culminates, catastrophically, in the 1966-1970 Igbo genocide when 3.1 million Igbo, a quarter of the nation’s population are murdered. This is the foundational genocide of post-(European)conquest Africa, effectively inaugurating the age of pestilence which, by and large, characterises contemporary Africa. Soon after, the killing fields from Igboland expands almost inexorably across Africa as the following haunting reminders of slaughter, during the age, illustrate: further genocides in Rwanda, the Sudan, and Zaïre/Democratic Republic of Congo, and wars in Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, southern Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Libya. Twelve million were killed in these 13 countries. Added to the 3.1 million Igbo dead, Africa has had a gruesome tally of 15.1 million people murdered by its genocide states and in other conflicts in the past 44 years.

Instead of Ezeulu’s often complex philosophical ruminations which also focus, specifically, on the possibilities of the tragic Igbo Abame-upheavals during his own times in this prevailing age of Arrow of God, let us end by elaborating more empirically on the lived Igbo Abame-upheavals of 29 May 1966-12 January 1970 because this is precisely the outcome the philosopher-priest has sought to prevent in Umuaro and what Obierika, hitherto, had saved Umuofia from. If we recall those poignant words from Ezeulu to Umuaro, cited earlier, “[O]ur fathers have told us that it may even happen to an unfortunate generation that they are pushed beyond the end of things, and their back is broken and hung over a fire” (Achebe: 457), it suddenly dawns on us that these appear to constitute a pre-dated epitaph for the 3.1 million murdered Igbo in a generation just once or twice removed. As we can see, Chinua Achebe’s predictive insights, here in Arrow of God, are shatteringly breathtaking… Undoubtedly, the Nigeria genocide state, beginning on 29 May 1966, becomes some haematophagous monster let loose on the Igbo and Igboland, slaughtering away to the hilt … And just in case anyone doubts the endgame of this mission, three shrilling, chilling proclamations, scripted with unmistakeable Stheno-precepts of obliterating intent from one of the Gorgons stalking the land, punctuate the scene as the following shows:

1. The ghoulish anthem of the genocide, broadcast uninterruptedly on state-owned Kaduna radio (shortwave transmission) and television and with editorial comments on the theme, regularly published in both state-owned New Nigerian (daily) newspaper and (Hausa) weekly Gaskiya Ta fi Kwabo during the period, has these lyrics in Hausa:

Mu je mu kashe nyamiri
Mu kashe maza su da yan maza su
Mu chi mata su da yan mata su
Mu kwashe kaya su 
(English translation: Let’s go kill the damned Igbo/Kill off their men and boys/Rape their wives and daughters/Cart off their property)

2. Benjamin Adekunle, one of the most notorious of the genocidist commanders in south Igboland, makes the following statement to the media, including foreign representatives, in an August 1968 press conference: “I want to prevent even one I[g]bo having even one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves, and when our forces march into the centre of I[g]bo territory, we shoot at everything, even at things that don’t move” (The Economist [London], 24 August 1968).

3. Harold Wilson, prime minister of Britain, the key “centre”-world power that crucially supports the Igbo genocide militarily, diplomatically and politically right from conceptualisation to actualisation, is totally unfazed when he informs Clyde Ferguson (United States State Department special coordinator for relief to Biafra) that he, Harold Wilson, “would accept half a million dead Biafrans if that was what it took” the Nigeria genocidists to destroy the Igbo resistance to the genocide (Roger Morris, Uncertain Greatness: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy, 1977: 122). For the record, Wilson’s “a half a million dead Biafrans” represented 4.2 per cent of the Igbo population then; by the time that that phase of the genocide came to an end, 6-9 months after Wilson’s wish-declaration, 25 per cent of this nation’s population or 3.1 million Igbo people had been murdered by the genocidists. Harold Wilson’s “[W]ould accept a half a million dead Biafrans”-wish is not a declaration made by some dictator, some leader of a loony party, a fascist party or anything of that ilk; on the contrary, this is a declaration made by an elected politician, a politician in an advanced western democracy – the leader of the British Labour party, a party that prides itself for having attracted leading thinkers to its ranks in the post-World War II era. “[W]ould accept a half million dead Biafrans if that was what it took”-declaration is made by the prime minister of Britain; not the prime minister of some “peripheral”, inconsequential country but the prime minister of a “centre” state and power that was part of the victorious alliance that defeated a fascist global amalgam in a global war that ended barely 23 years earlier. This is a prime minister of a “centre” state and power, the sixth to occupy this exalted position since the end of the war, that was one of the key countries that worked on the panel that drafted the historic 1948 United Nations “Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide”, in the wake of the 1930s/1940s deplorable perpetration of the Jewish genocide in Europe. 6 million Jews were murdered then by Nazi Germany. It is to ensure that no human beings are ever subjected to what the Jews went through in central Europe and elsewhere that this genocide convention is rated as one of the key international documents of the new age. Britain is a signatory to the convention. A senior British Foreign Office official, who echoes Harold Wilson’s disposition to the Igbo slaughter, is no less chilling in their own characterisation of Britain’s strategic goal. Describing the British response to the concerted international humanitarian effort to dispatch urgently needed relief material to the blockaded Igbo, this official notes that the British government position is designed to “show conspicuous zeal in relief while in fact letting the little buggers starve out” (Morris: 122). In a courageous and admirable public admission made in 1970, Colonel Robert Scott broke ranks with his employer, the British diplomatic mission in Lagos where he worked as military advisor, to acknowledge, gravely, that as the Nigerian genocidists unleashed their Adekunleist campaigns across Igbo towns and villages, they were the “best defoliant agent known” (Sunday Telegraph, London, 11 January 1970).

4. In May 1969, Olusegun Obasanjo, who had recently taken over the command of the Benjamin Adekunle-death squad, orders his air force to shoot down any Red Cross planes flying in urgently-needed relief supplies to the millions of surviving but encircled, blockaded and bombarded Igbo. Within a week of his infamous order, 5 June 1969, Obasanjo recalls, nostalgically, in his memoirs, unambiguously titled My Command (1981), genocidist air force pilot Gbadomosi King “redeem[s] his promise”, as Obasanjo puts it (Obasanjo, 1981: 79). Gbadomosi King shoots down a clearly marked, incoming relief-bearing International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) DC-7 aircraft near Eket, south Biafra, with the loss of its 3-person crew.  Obasanjo’s perverse satisfaction over the aftermath of this crime is fiendish, grotesquely revolting. He writes: “The effect of [this] singular achievement of the Air Force especially on 3 Marine Commando Division [name of the death squad Obasanjo, who subsequently becomes head of  Nigeria regime for 11 years, commands] was profound. It raised morale of all service personnel, especially of the Air Force detachment concerned and the troops they supported in [my] 3 Marine Commando Division” (79). The consequence of this act of terror across the world is, of course, the expression of revulsion. What does Obasanjo do in response? This is hugely revelatory. Olusegun Obasanjo appeals to Harold Wilson, the British prime minister, as Obasanjo, himself, scripts in his My Command (165), to  “sort out” the raging international outcry generated by the destruction of the ICRC aircraft. For the Nigerian génocidaires, the fact that, at the end, they have Britain’s back is critical in their pursuit of this gruesome campaign.

JUST IN CASE it isn’t quite obvious, Chinua Achebe publishes a sequel to Arrow of God 48 years later. Here in London.  It celebrated its second publication anniversary last week. The sequel is appropriately called, There was a Country.            

*Paper presented at the Arrow of God at 50 symposium, Centre for African Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London/Igbo Conference (symposium conveners: Dr Kwadwo Osei-Nyame Jnr and Dr Louisa Uchum Egbunike), Saturday 4 October 2014. 

Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe is visiting professor in the graduate programme of constitutional law at Universidade de Fortaleza and specialist on the state and on genocide and wars in Africa in the post-1966 epoch – beginning with the Igbo genocide, 29 May 1966-present day, the foundational and most gruesome genocide of post-(European)conquest Africa, carried out by Nigeria and its suzerain state, Britain. 3.1 million Igbo or 25 per cent of the Igbo population were murdered by the co-genocidists during phases I-III of the genocide, 29 May 1966-12 January 1970, and an additional tally of tens of thousands of Igbo have been murdered by the co-genocidists in phase-IV of the genocide, 13 January 1970-present day.

Select Bibliography

Achebe, Chinua. A Man of the People. London: Heinemann, 1966.

Achebe, Chinua. Morning Yet on Creation Day. London, Heinemann Education Books, 1975.

Achebe, Chinua. The Trouble with Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimensions, 1983.

Achebe, Chinua. Hopes and Impediments. Oxford: Heinemann, 1988.

Achebe, Chinua. The African Trilogy. London: Pan Books, 1988.

Achebe, Chinua. Home and Exile. Oxford: Oxford University, 2000.

Achebe, Chinua. There was a Country. London: Penguin, 2012.

Afigbo, AE. The Warrant Chiefs. Harlow: Longman, 1972.

Afigbo, AE. Ropes of Sand. Oxford: Oxford University, 1981.

Ekwe-Ekwe, Herbert. “Elections in Africa – the voter, the court, the outcome”. PENSAR-Revisita de Ciêcias Jurídicas, Vol. 18, Número 3, 2013, pp. 804-836, http://www.unifor.br/images/pdfs/Pensar/v18n3_artigo6.pdf, accessed 16 September 2014.

Ekwe-Ekwe,  Herbert. “The concatenation of African role in the war of 1914-1918 or World War I”. Rethinking Africa, 29 August 2014, http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=the+concatenation, accessed 23 September 2014.

Ekwe-Ekwe, Herbert. “The Achebean Restoration”. Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6, 2013, pp. 698-709.

Ekwe-Ekwe, Herbert. African Literature in Defence of History: An essay on Chinua Achebe. Reading and Dakar: African Renaissance, 2001.

Ekwe-Ekwe, Herbert. Readings from Reading: Essays on African Politics, Genocide, Literature. Reading and Dakar: African Renaissance, 2011.

Emenyonu, Ernest. The Rise of the Igbo NovelIbadan: Oxford University, 1978.

Gikandi, Simon. Reading Chinua Achebe. London: James Currey, 1991.

Innes, CL. Chinua Achebe. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990.

Ihekweazu, Edith, ed. Eagle on Iroko. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books, 1991.

JanMohamed, Abdul. Manichean Aesthetics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1983.

Larson, Charles. The Emergence of African Literature, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1978.

Moore, Carlos. “Conversation with Cheikh Anta Diop”. Présence Africaine, Nos 3/4, 1993.

Morris, Roger. Uncertain Greatness: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy. London: HarperCollins, 1977.

Mudimbe, Valentine. “Reading There was a Country”. Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6, 2013, pp. 671-682.

Ngara, Emmanuel. Stylistic Criticism and the African NovelLondon: Heinemann Educational Books, 1982.

Ngara, Emmanuel. Art and Ideology in the African Novel. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1985.

Nwoga, Donatus. The Supreme God as Stranger in Igbo Religious Thought. Ekwereazu: Hawk, 1984.

Obiechina, Emmanuel. Culture, Tradition and Soceity in the West African Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975.

Omotoso, Kole. Achebe or Soyinka?. London: Hans Zell, 1996

Palmer, Eustace. The Growth of the African Novel. London: Heinemann, 1979.
  
Priebe, Richard. Myth, Realism and the West African Writer. Trenton: African World, 1988.

Ravenscroft, Arthur. Chinua Achebe. Harlow: Longmans, Green,  1969.

Shatto, Gakwandi. The Novel and the Contemporary Experience in AfricaLondon: Heinemann Educational Books, 1977.

Smith, Harold. “Harold Smith’s Tribute Page”.  http://haroldsmithmemorial.wordpress.com/harold-smith-fought-our-battle/, accessed 27 September 2014

Sunday Telegraph. London, 11 January 1970.
  
Williams, Chancellor. The Destruction of Black Civilization. Chicago: Third World, 1987.

Wren, Robert. Achebe’s World. Harlow: Longman, 1990.

Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe