The Flaws and Shortcomings of African Historiography

5021 Words11 Pages

The Flaws and Shortcomings of African Historiography

History is formed through a combination of personal experiences, psychological state, personal objectives, relation with the interviewer, position in society and many other factors that cannot be scientifically monitored and accounted for. Thus, no historian has been able to filter through the many layers they need to in order to arrive at an accurate account of history. What “personal narratives” and “life histories” provide are numerous examples of the complexities and ambiguities that accompany any reconstruction of African history. Each account of history does not offer a different perspective from which one may view a particular event or time, simply because no two accounts have the same concept of location or time. Western and African romanticism has lead many historians to create and adapt scientific methodologies in order to penetrate the combination of personal objectives, interview limitations, and psychological intricacies that were present in each life history.

Whether it is a matter of age, race, psychological state, or personal (or group) objective, the subjects oftentimes function in differing paradigms, which leads to significant inconsistencies between the transmittance and recording of any particular history. Texts such as Belinda Bozzoli’s, Women of Phokeng, Marjorie Mbilinyi’s article entitled “I’d Have Been a Man,” and several articles in White, Cohen and Miescher’s, African Words, African Voices, to put forth the claim that the information historians collect from “life histories” cannot be generalized in any way to correctly represent a society or group of people.

Each author claims to recognize his/her biases and shortcomings, then goes on to say...

... middle of paper ...

...ts that possibly affect the accuracy of any historical inquiry does not make the result any more accurate. Historians shift to recording “life stories” of previously overlooked populations did not get them closer to real African history. What historians did by sharing these stories was negate the traditional European historical view of Africans as simpleminded, docile and reactionary people. If it were formally stated that African Historians were trying to dispel the images of Africans and unethical, uncivilized, and dumb brutes, I would be the first to congratulate and reward them. But as long as historians attempt to reconstruct the true/real Africa, I shall continue to argue it is a futile attempt with no means to gaining any more accurate or valid evidence or testimony that will reveal any objective truth about Africa before, during and even after colonial rule.

Open Document