Add to bookbag
Author: Philip Zachernuk
Title: "Orientalism" and West African intellectuals in the nineteenth century
Publication info: Ann Arbor, Michigan: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library

This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact for more information.

Source: "Orientalism" and West African intellectuals in the nineteenth century
Philip Zachernuk

Evanston, IL: Program of African Studies, Northwestern University
no. 6, pp. 4, 6, 7, 1993
Author Biography: Philip Zachernuk is in the Department of History, Concordia University.

"Orientalism" and West African Intellectuals in the Nineteenth Century


This paper presents some reflections-in-progress on my work in colonial West African intellectual history. In my search for a means by which to grasp the nature of the intellectual history of the group commonly known as the colonial western-educated elite, various models have come to hand. It was fashionable in the early 1960s—the heady days of triumphant African nationalism—to see the intelligentsia as the vanguard of modern Africa armed with the Western knowledge necessary to guide their "young nations" into the new world order. The rapid collapse of this dream helped inspire a quite contrary view. The intelligentsia were now spineless imitators of the Western bourgeoisie, able to rob Africa but not build it. They could act out the forms of modern life, but did not understand its substance. Intellectually, they were interesting mostly for their failures. [1]

More recent studies of the ideological and intellectual powers of imperialism promise a more interesting context in which to examine colonial intellectuals. This context emerges from Edward Said's Orientalism, and more recently from such books as Ronald Inden's Imagining India and V. Y. Mudimbe's The Invention of Africa. [2]

A central theme of these studies is that modern Western knowledge of the colonial (Oriental, Indian, or African) is an invention created to serve the intertwined purposes of Western political, economic, and cultural hegemony in the world. It is also a discourse designed "to construe the colonised as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin, in order to justify conquest and to establish systems of administration and instruction." [3] Said argues that Orientalist discourse works by opposition: the West defines itself against the Orient. In Said's wake the study of colonial discourse and the invention of the colonized "other" has flourished, suggesting patterns far from simple or monolithic. [4] For example, Homi K. Bhabha has played with such notions as ambivalence and mimicry; Abdul JanMohamed has argued that imperial ideas operate flexibly through the "economy of manichean allegory." [5] These complex elaborations might open new questions about the colonial response to European rule, but in themselves fail to ask some basic questions about the others' side of this discourse. Before exploring what difference various characterizations of Western colonial discourse might have for the power of colonial rule, we should ask some questions about how colonial subjects—especially colonial subjects schooled in the ways of the colonizers—receive these "Orientalist" images of themselves. [6]

There is some scattered attention to this question which I will take as a point of departure. Said represents one logical possibility with his suggestion that the hegemony of Orientalist thought over colonial minds was fairly complete, and that the regime of Orientalist ideas is in the end rather monolithic. [7]

Orientalist images, lodged within the minds of colonial subjects, sustain western imperial power. The colonial intelligentsia are not only seen as imitators of the West, but they are seen to have absorbed a world view—an image of themselves and of the West—which was a Western construction designed to render them subordinate. Ronald Iden, in a 1986 preview of his book, goes a bit further. He sees that colonial Indian intellectuals absorb the India invented by the British, but that they also use this invention for their own needs. He suggests in a tantalizing but brief paragraph that Gandhi's ideal of non-violence as the quintessential Indian response to imperial force was constructed from the essentially cowardly or passive Hindu character created by Orientalist scholarship. [8] He also suggests that Indian intellectuals found support for their anti-imperial ideas among Western thinkers somehow outside the mainstream imperialist culture, among a Western "loyal opposition." This alternate invention insisted "that India embodies a private realm of the imagination and the religious which modern, western man lacks but needs." Thus the Orientalists' India was not monolithic, but offered both "positivist" and "romantic" traditions which Indians might adapt for their own ends. [9] Ashis Nandy's intriguing essays in The Intimate Enemy have more to suggest on this. He sees that the Indian intelligentsia had both a Western and a non- Western opposite to play with, and that the West tried to create in India its own other. However, "The colonized Indians did not always try to correct or extend the Orientalists; in their own diffused way, they tried to create an alternative language of discourse." [10]

Nandy suggests that in India, at least, the colonial intelligentsia sought a certain autonomy in their battle with imperial discourse, that they sought to break through the Orientalist dichotomy of West and non-West to create their own modern Indian discourse. This possibility seems worth pursuing. Were the West African intelligentsia caught within Orientalist oppositional constructions? Or were they in a dialogue with it in which they had some chance to invent their own discourse and escape these binds?

The "Orientalist" themes in colonial discourse on Africa deserve more extended study than I can offer here, but the basic qualities are clear enough. [11] Especially in the high colonial period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it shares with Orientalism proper the claim of being able to know the "truth" about Africa. Whatever specific framework of explanation is applied, European—not African—knowledge has the answer. Therefore Europe has the right to rule. [12] It also reduces Africa to an "essence," a habit of mind which Ronald Inden places near the heart of Orientalist writing. For India this essence centres on Hinduism and caste; for Arabs it centres on such qualities as femininity. Africa's key qualities (not always different from other Others) include the savage, natural, tribal, primitive, and backward. Africans are childlike: without moral conscience, but docile and trainable. [13] Africans live communally, without individual genius. Africa is, notoriously, a land without history, or at least without a history of its own making. The colonial-era Hamitic Hypothesis is the epitome of this historical model: all notable moments of progress are traced to external influences. [14]

This innately primitive Africa—dark, simple and undeveloped—is of course an Africa well-suited to, indeed desperate for, European "tutelage."

It is clear, as Said would have it, that much of this imagery was absorbed by the West African intelligentsia in the nineteenth century. Edward Blyden, in his earlier writings, construes the "Anglo-Saxon" and the "Negro" historically as "opposites," in the relation of natural rulers and natural servants. [15] He accepts that Africa was a land of "heathenism and barbarism," to which Christian civilization promised to bring "beauty and order." [16]

For Africanus Horton, West Africans had no sense of history: "successive events once out of sight are lost; they pass away like spectres in a phantasmagoria." [17] In his ethnography of the Yoruba, Samuel Johnson not only reduces some groups to "special characteristics" of their own, he also does this in ways found in European writing. The Ijebus were bloodthirsty, the Owus passionately violent, the Egbas exhibited "remarkable docility and simplicity of manners." [18] More fundamentally, of course, these writers accept the European colonial mission as legitimate: Africa did need civilizing through European inspiration. Thus much evidence reinforces Said's characterization, and, again, this West African acceptance of Orientalist ideas deserves more extended treatment to develop its fundamental importance in colonial West African intellectual history. But is this enough? Were the West African intelligentsia simply victims of an imperial ideological power play?

Closer study leads me to want to qualify these insights. In Orientalist practice according to Said, "The Orient" was Europe's "silent Other." There was "no question of an exchange between Islam's views and an outsider's: no dialogue, no discussion, no mutual recognition." [19] For the western-educated intelligentsia in West Africa, however, there clearly was dialogue. Not only do African writers cite European writers, as we would expect, but Europeans also cite Africans as voices of the true Africa. Imperial agents such as Richard Burton and T.J. Hutchinson cite Bishop Crowther in their accounts of the Yoruba. [20] Mary Kingsley (in whose memory the Royal African Society was founded in 1901 with Blyden invited as a vice-president) noted her debt and the valuation of Africa that she shared with Blyden and John Mensah Sarbah. [21] In his Nigerian Studies, R.E. Dennett acknowledged many Nigerian writers. [22] In the later colonial period, members of the Fabian Colonial Bureau would actively solicit information and opinions from their Nigerian members. [23]

These were not, of course, exchanges among equals. Further, they were more possible in West Africa because, in a peasant-based export economy without European settlers, educated Africans played a medial role. But these exchanges nevertheless suggest that the West African intelligentsia did not always suffer the fate of otherness designed for colonized subjects; they were not always silenced. Africans appropriated European Orientalist knowledge of Africa to appropriate the power over Africa that came with it. Europeans seem to have sometimes sought African authorization to confirm or help construct their "truth." In any case, they were not simply related as opposites, as unapproachable others, but in a more complex and ambivalent way which has many implications for the colonized reception of colonial discourse. [24]

What about the insight that the response to colonial discourse simply involved appropriating its elements for other ends? On first sight the accounts of early West African history by Blyden, Samuel Johnson and others might seem to confirm this notion. The imperialists claimed that all history came from invasions, beginning with Hamites and ending with colonial rule. The West Africans took over this structure—civilization had indeed come to Africa from without—but with two revisions. First they claimed an identity with the early civilizing forces. Johnson argued that the Yoruba had themselves been the invaders. Blyden argued that civilization had been carried to both West Africa and Europe by black Africans in the Middle East. [25]

In both cases, Africans appear as historical agents rather than victims. Second, they challenge the premise that civilization was external to West Africa. The imperialist Hamitic Hypothesis subordinates the principle of evolution to that of diffusion: Africa did not evolve itself, but only changed under the influence of more evolved outsiders. The Hamitic Hypotheses of Blyden and Johnson combine notions of diffusion, degeneration and evolution in a distinctive fashion. Diffusion establishes a link with classical history (and for Johnson, a specifically Christian history); degeneration (an historical process tied to biblical ethnography) explains why West Africans had lost some of their classical civilization. But both also argue that, degeneration notwithstanding, West Africans had evolved on their own inside West Africa. [26]

If this is an appropriation of colonial ideas it is hard to see any simple correlation. Johnson and Blyden pull European ideas about the African past—and the past in general—apart, and rebuild them to better suit their needs as colonial West Africans. The Africa created here was not desperate for European tutelage; it stood to benefit from external forces, but was also changeable from the inside, through African agency. This Africa promised a large role for groups such as the western-educated but African intelligentsia.

The idea that the intelligentsia can simply ally with the oppositional inventions within the West is also insightful but limited. The laudable essences in Johnson's account of the Yoruba drew on missionary and philanthropic writing. [27] Horton's rejection of racial distinctions drew heavily on European writing of similar intent. [28] Most notably, Blyden's thesis that the African was essentially different from the European, and that the "African personality" should be allowed to progress along its own distinct lines, explicitly seeks authority from the similar ideas of Mary Kingsley and other European writers (as Negritude writers would later with Frobenius and others). In a context when Europeans widely accepted innate racial differences, Kingsley—in the manner of Inden's romantics—was one of the first to esteem these differences: Africa's putative pristine beauty, natural social order and deeply embedded spiritualism contrasted favourably to the bland, purposeless but troubled culture of industrial Europe. She also argued that these special African qualities should be preserved rather than vainly eroded by civilizing missionaries, that the African race must "advance ... in its own line of development." [29]

Blyden had already argued that the European and Negro "races are not moving in the same groove, with an immeasurable distance between them, but on parallel lines." [30] He cited Kingsley's affirmation of this as "the harbinger of a great future for Africa." [31] In African Life and Customs, one of his fast works, Blyden describes a Merrie Africa by repeated contrapuntal reference to a troubled and dreary Europe. Poised against the ennui of industrial urban Europe with its loss of faith and concomitant social ills, the real African is "man in his perfect state," in tune with nature and the essentials of religion. [32] He is neither analytical nor technologically advanced, but a child in a "tropical garden of Eden," [33] with insights into social harmony enervated Europe would do well to adopt.

But despite this common sentiment, these two schools of thought serve two quite different communities along divergent tracks. Although Kingsley agreed that western educated Africans were the essential ambassadors to make the point about African difference to Europe, she did not view such men as either potentially numerous or "real" Africans. [34] The "African who turns into a Europeanised man is the exception that proves the rule," [35]—Blyden was treated as just such a rare exception [36]—and the rule was that Africans should remain as Others. The "African problem" for her was to know Africa so as to preserve and exploit it. This was still the job of ethnographer, who, in "the fastnesses of the forest, [must] sit and gossip at village fires, [and] become the confidential friend of witch doctors and old ladies." [37] Kingsley's line of argument became the underpinning of Indirect Rule.

For Blyden and his followers, such as J.E. Casely Hayford of the National Congress of British West Africa, the "African problem" was not so much naming Africa's established difference, as seeking Africa's progress. Western-educated Africans were not just the ambassadors explaining Africa's distinctness to the world, they were the vanguard of the effort to grasp the essence of Africa, and to fashion a viable combination of the African and the modern. Blyden did not finally define the "African personality"; it would "take the form which the genius of the race shall prescribe" after study of both Africa and the West. [38]

As Mojola Agbebi said in 1892, "The genius of Africa must unravel its own enigma." [39] Kingsley's ethnographer (and colonial anthropology) wanted to uncover a static Africa; Blyden set out the much more dynamic project of discovering Africa, or, as Mudimbe says, of re-inventing it. [40] The gap between Kingsley and Blyden is made clear in the resistance staged by the Nigerian intelligentsia to Indirect Rule policies after World War I. For Governors Lugard and Clifford, the intelligentsia had no business speaking for the "real" Africa; but the National Congress and its supporters argued that they should exactly because they were both western educated and "sons of the soil." [41] Africans were not just communal, but also individual geniuses with "selective and assimilative faculties" reaching for a "nobler and more ideal civilisation." [42]

Despite an apparent alliance, then, Kingsley's image of Africa remained an image of an Other, a more or less timeless essence against which the colonizers could define themselves. [43] Blyden's image, like his historical framework, resisted being reduced to an essential Other, and insisted that knowing Africa was an historical project in which the educated African was the central, thinking, player. This position was not offered by Western allies, but created in spite of them.

These tentative reflections on the literature concerning colonial discourse or "Orientalist" inventions suggest avenues for further exploration of colonial intellectual life. The West African intelligentsia certainly did accept much of the European construction of Africa. Many of their ideas allied with what Inden has called the loyal opposition, working within the oppositional binds of colonial discourse to respond to imperial denigration. But as Nandy's insight concerning India suggests, the intellectual history of the Nigerian colonial intelligentsia cannot be written simply in these terms. The colonial intelligentsia held an innovative dialogue with European thought; they were not simply victims of colonial discourse, trapped as silent Others. Perhaps because they shared some of the colonizers' mission, they also had a hand in making this discourse. But they also recognized their self-interest within the colonial system—to promote the role of African agency in modern Africa. Taking some of the opportunities offered by the diversity within colonial discourse, they constructed a distinctive account of their history and themselves which was not always caught within simple oppositional binds. If the Europeans invented an Africa suited to their imperial ambitions, it seems the Africans also invented one suited to their colonial situation.

This premise of the limited autonomy of the West African colonial intelligentsia within colonial discourse opens many questions. Most fundamentally, how deeply did the imperial discourse reach in the colonial world? Could the West Africans not only rewrite but perhaps transcend Orientalist constructions, especially in later historical periods when the content of Euro pean discourse changed? How many of the features of colonial discourse in the West described by recent critics operated in the other location? Finally, do we need to rethink the categories of colonial master and colonized subject to appreciate the full play of intellectual relations at work in the colonial situation?

1. Frantz Fanon set the groundwork for this approach, for example The Wretched of the Earth, trans. C. Farrington (Grove, New York, 1968); E. A. Ayandele has applied some of it to Nigeria, in The Educated Elite in the Nigerian Society (Ibadan University Press, Ibadan, 1974). See also Basil Davidson, The Black Man's Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State (Times Books, N.Y., 1992), Chap 1.

2. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (Vintage, New York, 1978); Ronald Inden, Imagining India (Blackwell, Oxford, 1990); V. Y. Mudimbe, The Invention of Africa: Gnosis, Philosophy, and the Order of Knowledge (Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis; James Currey, London, 1988). For a scope of the historical literature on inventions, see Mark Bassin, "Inventing Siberia," American Historical Review 96, 3(June, 1991), pp. 764n-765n.

3. Homi K. Bhabha, "The Other Question," Screen 24, 6 (November-December 1983), p. 23.

4. See Robert Young, White Mythologies: Writing History and the West (Routledge, New York, 1990); Benita Parry, "Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse," Oxford Literary Review 9, 1-2(1987), pp. 27-58. That imperial thinking was not simple is not a new insight. See, e.g., A.P. Thornton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies, 2nd ed. (London, Macmillan, 1985); Bernard Porter, Critics of Empire: British Radical Attitudes to Colonialism in Africa, 1895-1915 (Macmillan, London, 1968).

5. Homi K. Bhabha, "Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree Outside Delhi, May 1817," Critical Inquiry 12 (Autumn 1985), pp. 144-65; Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man: the Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse," October 28 (Spring, 1984), pp. 125-33; Abdul R. JanMohamed, "The Economy of Manichean Allegory: the Function of Racial Difference in Colonialist Literature," Critical Inquiry 12 (Autumn 1985), pp. 59-87.

6. One might follow Mudimbe's lead and call this European mode of knowing "Africanism." (Invention, p. 9) For the present, as I attempt connections, the incongruous notion of "African Orientalism" will serve. It is interesting to note that this focus on the West's Orientalist constructions continues a certain Orientalist habit of mind: this is a problem for the Western scholar to fix. The historical efforts of colonial minds to deal with Orientalism are just not as important. See, eg., the focus of R.H. Minear, "Orientalism and the Study of Japan," Journal of Asian Studies 39, 3(May, 1980), pp. 507-517.

7. Said, Orientalism, pp. 322-25. Several critics have noted that Said says little about effects on the colonized. Ernest J. Wilson III, "Orientalism: a Black Perspective," Journal of Palestine Studies 10, 2(Winter, 1981), p. 64. Lata Mani and Ruth Frankenberg note his failure to appreciate the dialogue between "master" and "subject." "The Challenge of Orientalism," Economy and Society, 14, 2(May, 1985), pp. 176-7.

8. Ronald Inden, "Orientalist Constructions of India," Modern Asian Studies 20, 3(1986), pp. 408, 410.

9. ibid, pp. 442, 432.

10. Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism (Delhi, O. U. P., 1983), p. xvii. For a recent interesting but faulted study of Indian-British dialogue within the Theosophy movement, see W. Travis Haines III, "On the Origins of the Indian National Congress: A Case Study of Cross-Cultural Synthesis," Journal of World History 4, 1(Spring, 1993), pp. 69-98.

11. Mudimbe sets out some of the oppositions at work in the colonial "invention" of Africa, in Invention, p. 50. Mudimbe says much about both the European invention and the African response, but with a focus on Francophone writing in the late and post-colonial periods.

12. See T. Asad, ed., Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (Ithaca Press, London, 1973); James Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority," in Clifford, The Predicament of Culture (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1988).

13. Some illustrative texts for West Africa are Harry H. Johnston, The Opening up of Africa (Thornton Butterworth, London, 1911); Richard Burton, Abeokuta and the Camaroons Mountains (Tinsley Bros., London, 1863); A.B. Ellis, The Land of Fetish [1883] (rpt. Negro University Press, Westport, 1970). The elements of the African image in general can be gleaned from various treatments, eg. Philip D. Curtin, The Image of Africa (University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1964); Dorothy Hammond and Alta Jablow, The Myth of Africa, 2nd ed. (Library of Social Sciences, New York, 1977); Penelope Hetherington, British Paternalism and Africa, 1920-1940 (Cass, London, 1978).

14. See Edith R. Sanders, "The Hamitic Hypothesis; its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective," JAH X, 4(1969), 521-32; also P.S. Zachernuk, "The Struggle for History in Colonial Nigeria: African Intellectuals and the Re-Casting of the Hamitic Hypothesis, c. 1860-1960" (Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association, Seattle WA, 1992).

15. E. W. Blyden, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, 2nd ed. (W. B. Whittingham, London, 1888), p. 139.

16. Edward W. Blyden, Liberia: Past Present and Future (M'gill and Witherow, Washington City, 1869), pp. 15, 21.

17. J. Africanus Horton, West African Countries and Peoples, British and Native [1868] (rpt. Kraus, Nendeln/Lichtenstein, 1970), p. 4.

18. Samuel Johnson, The History of the Yorubas From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the British Protectorate, ed. by Obadish Johnson [1921] (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966), pp. xxii, 19, 206. Compare Captain Arthur T. Jones' comments, in J.F.A. Ajayi and Robert Smith, Yoruba Warfare in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1964), p. 133; Thomas J. Bowen, Adventures and Missionary Labours in Several Countries in the Interior of Africa from 1848 to 1856 [1857] 2nd ed. (Cass, London, 1968), p. 144. See P.S. Zachernuk, "Johnson and the Victorian Image of the Yoruba," in Toyin Falola, ed. Samuel Johnson (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, forthcoming).

19. Edward Said, "Orientalism Reconsidered," Race and Class 27, 2(1985), pp. 4-5, 7-8.

20. See for example, Richard F. Burton, (comp.), Wit and Wisdom from West Africa [1865] (rpt. New American Library, New York, 1969), p. 214; Burton, Abeokuta, I, p. 229n; also Thomas J. Hutchinson, Impressions of West Africa (Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, London, 1858), pp. 264, 269.

21. See her August 1900 letter to The New Africa (Monrovia), rpt. in Kingsley, West African Studies, 2nd ed. (Macmillan, London, 1901), pp. xvi-xix.

22. Including Bishops James Johnson and Phillips, Reverend Lijadu, Dr. Obadiah Johnson, J. O. George, and Henry Carr. R. E. Dennett, Nigerian Studies (Macmillan, London, 1910), pp. vii-viii. Carr corrected the book's proofs.

23. See, for example, Okoi Arikpo's correspondence with the Fabians through the mid-1950s, (Fabian Colonial Papers [FCP], Rhodes House, Oxford, 82/2 ff. 129-131 and 84/4 ff. 39-50); and Bureau attempts to establish contacts with Asuquo Nyon in 1951 (FCP 6/2 ff. 89-90); Arthur Prest in 1953 (FCP 84/4 f. 38); and Mbonu Ojike in 1954 (FCP 84/4 ff. 62-64).

24. Critics of colonial discourse make much of the inimical premises of functional anthropology: that it created an African other in consonance with the needs of colonial government. But for the intelligentsia, this anthropology was also directed at another, at the illiterate African in the bush, and not at them. The impact of functional anthropology on the colonial intelligentsia would again be ambivalent: it both empowered them with a special knowledge of Africa, and threatened to limit the significance of this Africa in the modern world.

25. Johnson, History, pp. 3-14; for Blyden see especially his "The Negro in Ancient History," Methodist Quarterly Review [New York] 51 (January, 1869), pp. 71-93. For a later and more elaborate version of this idea, found in much of the African diaspora, see Theophilus E. Samuel Scholes, Glimpses of the Ages or the "Superior" and "Inferior" races, so-called, Discussed in the Light of Science and History (John Long, London, 1905), I, pp. 312-45.

26. Blyden, African Life and Customs [1908] (rpt. African Publication Society, London, 1969), e.g., pp. 10, 33, 39; Johnson, History, eg., pp. 30, 79, 110, 154. For more extensive arguments about these two Hamitic Hypotheses, see Zachernuk, "Struggle for History"; and "Johnson."

27. E.g. Mary A. S. Barber, Oshielle; or, Village Life in the Yoruba Country (James Nisbet, London, 1857), p. viii; Charlotte Tucker, Abbeokuta; or, Sunrise Within the Tropics, 3rd ed. (London, James Nisbet, 1853), p. 27.

28. Christopher Fyfe, Africanus Horton, 1835-1883. West African Scientist and Patriot (O.U.P., New York, 1972), pp. 57-64.

29. Kingsley, West African Studies, p. xviii.

30. Blyden, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, p. 317.

31. Blyden, West Africa Before Europe (C. M. Phillips, London, 1905), p. 130.

32. E. W. Blyden, African Life and Customs [1908] (rpt. African Publication Society, London, 1969), pp. 9-10.

33. Blyden, West Africa Before Europe, p. 27.

34. Kingsley, West African Studies, p. 323.

35. Mary Kingsley, "Life in West Africa," in British Africa [anon. editor] (Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner, London, 1901; rpt. Negro Universities Press, New York, 1969), p. 377.

36. See the 1901 commentary on Blyden by West Africa, and the response in Sierra Leone Weekly News, reprinted in Edith Holden, Blyden of Liberia (Vantage, New York, 1966), pp. 745-46.

37. Kingsley, "Life in West Africa," pp. 379-80.

38. Blyden, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race, p. 82.

39. Mojola Agbebi, in Sierra Leone Weekly News, 5 March 1892, quoted in E.A. Ayandele, African Historical Studies (Cass, London, 1979), p. 123.

40. Mudimbe, Invention, p. 124.

41. National Congress of British West Africa, letter to Secretary of State Milner, 31 January 1921, in Herbert Macaulay Papers [University of Ibadan], 18/3; Gabriel I.C. Eluwa, "The Colonial Office and the Emergence of the National Congress of British West Africa" (unpub. Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1967), pp. 123-32.

42. Lagos Weekly Record, 14 April 1917, rpt. in Samuel A. Coker, Lecture: The Rights of Africans to Organize and Establish Indigenous Churches ... (n.p., Lagos, [1917]), p. 5.

43. As Inden notes, although the positivist and romantic branches of Indology "appear to be strongly opposed, they often combine together. Both have a similar interest in sustaining the Otherness of India." "Orientalist Constructions," p. 442.

passages |