Sierra Leone: Are the Preconditions of War Returning?

[phildwyer]

The dictator who ruled Central African Republic Jean-Baddel Bokassa was rummoured to have practiced cannibalism. Its more of a power thing, you eat your enemies body, espeically his liver you can absorb his strength & "life energy".

Idi Amin ate his archbishop.

 

[Andy the Don]

Idi Amin ate his archbishop.

And the church thought they were hard done by when Henry II got rid of his "turbulent" priest Thomas O'Beckett..

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino you have a point, of course, on the image of Africa in Western eyes. But African wars have in recent years been particularly nasty in terms of civilian suffering, not because of skin colour but because of a nasty and unique confluence of tribal affiliations, colonial heritage, abject poverty, corruption and a very high proportin of young people / children in the population. You're picking up racist overtones where I don't.

No one is picking up anything. I am merely saying that these stories of cannibalism contribute to the ongoing myth of Africans as "savages". I could list several other conflicts that have been equal in savagery to those in Africa.

 

[Idris2002]

The dictator who ruled Central African Republic Jean-Baddel Bokassa was rummoured to have practiced cannibalism. Its more of a power thing, you eat your enemies body, espeically his liver you can absorb his strength & "life energy".

You see this is what I'm afraid of. That people view this through the lens provided by nineteenth century images of Africa. Or do you have other info concerning the nature of cannibalism, Andy? (NB, not having a go at you or shouting 'rascist' by the way).

 

[phildwyer]

No one is picking up anything. I am merely saying that these stories of cannibalism contribute to the ongoing myth of Africans as "savages".

So we should ignore the existence of cannibalism in Africa (which is by no means limited to wartime) just because some fools might give it a racist interpretation?

 

[likesfish]

I'm not saying the rest of the world is nice the russians in chenchenya have some fairly savage behaviour pulling a brits "mercenery" apart between two tanks as an example.
just africa seems to be home to the worst of mankind at the mo fucked over by colonisation then the cold war and now left to rot

 

[nino_savatte]

So we should ignore the existence of cannibalism in Africa (which is by no means limited to wartime) just because some fools might give it a racist interpretation?

I think I should *ignore* you and so should everyone else.

 

[nino_savatte]

just africa seems to be home to the worst of mankind

Thanks for that rather curious sentiment.

 

[slaar]

No one is picking up anything. I am merely saying that these stories of cannibalism contribute to the ongoing myth of Africans as "savages". I could list several other conflicts that have been equal in savagery to those in Africa.

You clearly are picking up racism in likefish's posts:

You still appear to accept the view that any war in Africa is worse than elsewhere simply because the protagonists happen to be black. It is for this reason that your view is little different to those Victorian missionaries who came back with tales of horror.

That aside, it may well be true that stories like those in the Sierra Leone TRC report contribute to ignorant people's views of Africa as "savage" but what do you think the consequences of that should be in terms of reporting?

For instance, presumably highlighting actual human rights abuses should not be dependent on whether or not stupid people derive spurious conclusions? The kinds of things that happened in this and other African conflicts are I believe worse than any I have heard of in terms of personal, face-to-face killing, torture and mutiliation. I'm not drawing any conclusions from the events, but there's a danger of covering them up if we run scared of contributing to myths about Africa.

Idris - Those kinds of views (on gaining strength by eating an enemies' body parts for example) seem to have been prevalent in significant sections of the SL combatant forces, as were views on magical amulets and humans shape-shifting into animals. In peacetime, just last month a front page headline in one of the major papers announced that shape-shifting dogs controlled by witches had attacked and killed (with rabies) three people in Freetown.

These are views that were held by people in Europe until not very long ago, so it's not unique to Africa, but it is at some level a function of wealth, education and knowledge as well as a much more complex product of historical and social processes, as Marian Ferme points out in "The Underneath of Things: Violence, History and the Everyday in Sierra Leone".

They're worth talking about, not brushing under the carpet. The danger is, of course, imposing Western predujices like evangelical christianity in replacement but it's something to be watched, not ignored.

 

[Idris2002]

I concur (is that a book or a journal paper, btw, I wouldn't mind reading it). However, when discussing it, we should have an eye on how these things are received by the mediatised public of the so-called 'developed world'.

Btw, I was meaning to ask you, further up the thread you said something about some of those regional 'paramount chiefs' being elected. How many of them are elected? What's the difference between those elected and those appointed from the centre? Do the elected ones still have the power to confiscate land? You spoke of kinship as a factor - does this mean essentially the power of older men at the top of kinship groups?

 

[Idris2002]

I'm not saying the rest of the world is nice the russians in chenchenya have some fairly savage behaviour pulling a brits "mercenery" apart between two tanks as an example.
just africa seems to be home to the worst of mankind at the mo fucked over by colonisation then the cold war and now left to rot

I usually ask the following question when I'm having a go at people, but this time I don't mean it that way: what was the author and title of the last book on Africa you read?

I'm asking that, because I think you'd be better off if you looked beyond your emotional reaction to the underlying causes of crisis and war in Africa - some of which were outlined by Slaar further up the thread.

 

[nino_savatte]

You clearly are picking up racism in likefish's posts:

That aside, it may well be true that stories like those in the Sierra Leone TRC report contribute to ignorant people's views of Africa as "savage" but what do you think the consequences of that should be in terms of reporting?

For instance, presumably highlighting actual human rights abuses should not be dependent on whether or not stupid people derive spurious conclusions? The kinds of things that happened in this and other African conflicts are I believe worse than any I have heard of in terms of personal, face-to-face killing, torture and mutiliation. I'm not drawing any conclusions from the events, but there's a danger of covering them up if we run scared of contributing to myths about Africa.

Idris - Those kinds of views (on gaining strength by eating an enemies' body parts for example) seem to have been prevalent in significant sections of the SL combatant forces, as were views on magical amulets and humans shape-shifting into animals. In peacetime, just last month a front page headline in one of the major papers announced that shape-shifting dogs controlled by witches had attacked and killed (with rabies) three people in Freetown.

These are views that were held by people in Europe until not very long ago, so it's not unique to Africa, but it is at some level a function of wealth, education and knowledge as well as a much more complex product of historical and social processes, as Marian Ferme points out in "The Underneath of Things: Violence, History and the Everyday in Sierra Leone".

They're worth talking about, not brushing under the carpet. The danger is, of course, imposing Western predujices like evangelical christianity in replacement but it's something to be watched, not ignored.

No, slaar, I am picking up an ignorance that is based on a knowledge of the Other in likefish's post. This is what I am challenging.

You make the mistake in thinking that the construction of myths about Africa have come to an end - they have not. But you point to reportage of African conflicts and say - in not so many words - "how else can they report these things"? All I am saying is that cannibalism is no as widespread as people say it is. Yet, this myth about widepsread African cannibalism persists and it is reinforced by reportage.

Do you honestly think we should operate a form of sliding scale with regards to conflicts? What about the many human rights abuses that took place in Latin America?

As for Idi Amin eating his archbishop's liver, afaik that story is apocryphal.

 

[slaar]

Fair enough nino, although I certainly don't assume that myth-making is a thing of the past with regards to Africa, quite the reverse.

Not quite sure what you mean by a sliding scale of conflict, but to my knowledge none of the Latin American internal conflicts and repression involved deliberate and sustained campaigns of amputation of thousands of innocent civilians, or forced cannibalism. I think human rights abuses should be precisely reported, and I do think that being beaten is less bad than having your hand chopped off for example, wherever it happens. I appreciate that reporting this could feed into myths about Africa, but it did happen and brushing things under the carpet equally is not an acceptable response.

Idris - It's a book, and a very good one from my perspective, although I'm not an anthropologist. Will do some digging on the paramount chief issue, but control over land is still there, very much so, and the power issues with regards to old men, similarly. All the dynamic things in this country are being done by the youth, it is just a question of whether the power transition wil happen peacefully this time or not.

The major new opposition party is registering today which is a good sign, although only a very first step.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fair enough nino, although I certainly don't assume that myth-making is a thing of the past with regards to Africa, quite the reverse.

Not quite sure what you mean by a sliding scale of conflict, but to my knowledge none of the Latin American internal conflicts and repression involved deliberate and sustained campaigns of amputation of thousands of innocent civilians, or forced cannibalism. I think human rights abuses should be precisely reported, and I do think that being beaten is less bad than having your hand chopped off for example, wherever it happens. I appreciate that reporting this could feed into myths about Africa, but it did happen and brushing things under the carpet equally is not an acceptable response.

Idris - It's a book, and a very good one from my perspective, although I'm not an anthropologist. Will do some digging on the paramount chief issue, but control over land is still there, very much so, and the power issues with regards to old men, similarly. All the dynamic things in this country are being done by the youth, it is just a question of whether the power transition wil happen peacefully this time or not.

The major new opposition party is registering today which is a good sign, although only a very first step.

In which case your knowledge of the conflicts in Latin America needs to be improved. Let's just say that rape, torture and mutilations were commonplace - especially in countries like Guatemala and El Salvador. You, of course, understand that Pinochet used dogs to rape women prisoners. Or is this less brutal than what took place in Africa?

This is what I mean by sliding scales: you seem to think that because of the Otherness of Africa, that the conflicts there are more brutal and more savage than anywhere else in the world (well likesfish seems to subscribe to that philosophy). I am telling you that that is not true. War is brutal, regardless of where it is waged in the world.

No one is brushing anything under the carpet but cannibalism is not a common feature of wider African culture- that is a myth.

 

[slaar]

I have no wish to enter into some kind of parade of the grotesque, but I do not believe the atrocities in Latin America match those in Africa. Rape, torture and mutilation are sadly common in many wars. But if I need to read more on Latin America, I think you need to read more on the DRC and West African wars. The TRC report is good place to start.

Absolute anarchy, which is what the Sierra Leone war for example turned into is very different to state-sponsored violence of the Central or South American variety. You didn't get 12 year old kids in pink wigs called things like "General Motherfucker", or "Queen Chop Hands" manning roadblocks off their face on drugs and palm wine in South America. You didn't have common rituals of forced cannibalism as an initiation rite. You didn't have systematic campaigns of forcing children to rape and kill their own family members, not as isolated incidents but as commonplace. This is all documented. It is not racism, it is a function of the degradation of African society by centuries of pillage, colonialism and tribalism.

As for cannibalism being widespread in African society in peacetime or not, I really don't know, and I haven't made any judgement at all on that.

 

[likesfish]

last book I read on africa struggle for africa big book on the colonisation of africa.
very depressing

 

[nino_savatte]

I have no wish to enter into some kind of parade of the grotesque, but I do not believe the atrocities in Latin America match those in Africa. Rape, torture and mutilation are sadly common in many wars. But if I need to read more on Latin America, I think you need to read more on the DRC and West African wars. The TRC report is good place to start.

Absolute anarchy, which is what the Sierra Leone war for example turned into is very different to state-sponsored violence of the Central or South American variety. You didn't get 12 year old kids in pink wigs called things like "General Motherfucker", or "Queen Chop Hands" manning roadblocks off their face on drugs and palm wine in South America. You didn't have common rituals of forced cannibalism as an initiation rite. You didn't have systematic campaigns of forcing children to rape and kill their own family members, not as isolated incidents but as commonplace. This is all documented. It is not racism, it is a function of the degradation of African society by centuries of pillage, colonialism and tribalism.

As for cannibalism being widespread in African society in peacetime or not, I really don't know, and I haven't made any judgement at all on that.

You still haven't managed to extricate yourself from the obvious "Africans are savages" thesis. While, no doubt, these things happened; you still play the white imperialist tune.

Your last paragraph at least makes the grudging admission that cannibalism is not widespread. However such tales of cannibalism lodge themselves in the minds of the ignorant who find themsleves in awe of the "Dark Continent".

Btw, I have already done my reading on Africa. You didn't think I'd come here with only half the facts, did you?

 

[slaar]

Your ability to put words into other people's mouths is impressive. You're arguing that wars in Africa are comparable to those elsewhere at the moment. I'm arguing they're not, because Africa is so poor, has a population which has outstripped its ability to feed itself and has been brutalised since the dawn of modern times. Quite how that comes out as a "white imperialist" tune is anyone's guess, unless I were arguing that the west is the solution, which I have not.

I have also studied Latin American political and social history, so I'm not ignorant of conditions elsewhere either.

 

[nino_savatte]

Your ability to put words into other people's mouths is impressive. You're arguing that wars in Africa are comparable to those elsewhere at the moment. I'm arguing they're not, because Africa is so poor, has a population which has outstripped its ability to feed itself and has been brutalised since the dawn of modern times. Quite how that comes out as a "white imperialist" tune is anyone's guess, unless I were arguing that the west is the solution, which I have not.

I have also studied Latin American political and social history, so I'm not ignorant of conditions elsewhere either.

I am not putting words into anyone's mouth. But I noticed that I've rattled you a little. I guess I've touched a raw nerve - non?

You claimed earlier not to know much about Latin America and in your last paragraph you have backpeddled.

 

[Idris2002]

Nino, I'm detecting a wee bit of aggression in your posts on this thread which I don't think is really helpful or appropriate.

I do agree that Latin American and African wars are comparable - not identical, sure, but comparable all the same.

I think the real point of comparison is the 'formations of violence' - the ways in which violence arises out of particular cultural inheritances (in these two cases shaped by different, but similar, forms of colonialism) and which then, in conidtions of violent conflict, acts to restructure and reshape the consciousnesses of those who experience violence (as either victim or perpetrator, or both).

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino, I'm detecting a wee bit of aggression in your posts on this thread which I don't think is really helpful or appropriate.

I do agree that Latin American and African wars are comparable - not identical, sure, but comparable all the same.

I think the real point of comparison is the 'formations of violence' - the ways in which violence arises out of particular cultural inheritances (in these two cases shaped by different, but similar, forms of colonialism) and which then, in conidtions of violent conflict, acts to restructure and reshape the consciousnesses of those who experience violence (as either victim or perpetrator, or both).

Sorry but I am not being aggressive and I often find, that when folk disagree with what I am saying, they will resort to accusing me of aggression.

Likesfish has already made some rather ignorant remarks and slaar has decided that he would much rather accuse me of "putting words into his mouth" than actually thinking about the representations being made here by the media. He practically suggested, earlier on, that cannibalism was rather more widespread that it actually was. I challenged that view, he didn't like it.

Reporting events is one thing but to perpetuate awful myths about Africa is something quite different imv.

 

[Idris2002]

OK, you be the bad cop, I'll be the good cop.

 

[nino_savatte]

OK, you be the bad cop, I'll be the good cop.

Cool.

 

[slaar]

slaar has decided that he would much rather accuse me of "putting words into his mouth" than actually thinking about the representations being made here by the media. He practically suggested, earlier on, that cannibalism was rather more widespread that it actually was. I challenged that view, he didn't like it.

Reporting events is one thing but to perpetuate awful myths about Africa is something quite different imv.

Fine, I think I'm on the reporting side of the line, you think I'm not. That wasn't too difficult.

But I think you are being unnecessarily upfront on this thread, which reflects underlying prejudices just as much as mine reflect on my posts. I never admitted to knowing little about Latin America, simply saying that I was not aware of campaigns of mass amputation or forced cannibalism in recent Latin American history. If you can prove me wrong then provide some facts as I have, don't resort to ad hominems. Likewise with the cannibalism issue, I am not and have never suggested it is widespread in peacetime. I said that it was widespread in the Sierra Leone civil war, as the TRC report makes clear.

Idris - In terms of underlying dynamics I agree completely.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fine, I think I'm on the reporting side of the line, you think I'm not. That wasn't too difficult.

But I think you are being unnecessarily upfront on this thread, which reflects underlying prejudices just as much as mine reflect on my posts. I never admitted to knowing little about Latin America, simply saying that I was not aware of campaigns of mass amputation or forced cannibalism in recent Latin American history. If you can prove me wrong then provide some facts as I have, don't resort to ad hominems. Likewise with the cannibalism issue, I am not and have never suggested it is widespread in peacetime. I said that it was widespread in the Sierra Leone civil war, as the TRC report makes clear.

Idris - In terms of underlying dynamics I agree completely.

It's easy to accuse me of aggression or belligerance because you don't like the message. Similarly black people in this country and the US were accused of the same thing when standing up for their rights.

I'm really not sure why you are getting so defensive. I merely stated that these stories of cannibalism have helped to perpetuate the stereotype of the average black African as a bloodthirsty savage. This obviously does not square well with the view given to us by Gladstonians; a view that is still in circulation today.

 

[slaar]

Not defensive, merely stating my POV. Not sure there's a huge space between our thinking in any case.

I'm just more interested in the sorts of things Idris has mentioned, how colonial legacies work differently across different contexts. Idris that book I mentioned goes extremely deep into the Mende (southern tribal group here) culture and history on precisely that topic.

 

[sihhi]

I never admitted to knowing little about Latin America, simply saying that I was not aware of campaigns of mass amputation or forced cannibalism in recent Latin American history. If you can prove me wrong then provide some facts as I have, don't resort to ad hominems. Likewise with the cannibalism issue, I am not and have never suggested it is widespread in peacetime. I said that it was widespread in the Sierra Leone civil war, as the TRC report makes clear.

Idris - In terms of underlying dynamics I agree completely.

Guatemala-- in particular under the military regime of Rios Montt August 1982-1983.

To these assumptions, military strategists added the ladino tendency to interpret all indigenous political mobilization—which had been on the rise since the 1960s—as the product of outside manipulation.

The military’s scorched-earth campaign, therefore, was designed to brutally cut off the indigenous population from the insurgency and break down the communal structures which analysts identified as seedbeds of guerrilla support. This explains the singularly savage nature of the Guatemalan counterinsurgency: In the majority of massacres, the CEH reports
evidence of multiple ferocious acts that preceded, accompanied, and followed the killing of the victims. The assassination of children, often killed by beating them against the wall or by throwing them alive into graves to be later crushed by the bodies of dead adults; amputation of limbs; impaling victims; pouring gasoline on people and burning them alive; extraction of organs; removal of fetuses from pregnant women.… The military destroyed ceremonial sites, sacred places, and cultural symbols.

Maya were identified as the enemy and killed as Maya, even if the motivation was to beat the insurgency.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/305724in.html

http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/chap4.html.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_Guatemala.html

etc

 

[likesfish]

still think rwandanda got to be up there with the top of mankinds nastyest sides.
I know the seeds were sewn by the french and economics but butchering your neighbours with machetes
usually the mass murder was left to soldiers not using the genral population to do the grim buisness of genocide

 

[nino_savatte]

Not defensive, merely stating my POV. Not sure there's a huge space between our thinking in any case.

I'm just more interested in the sorts of things Idris has mentioned, how colonial legacies work differently across different contexts. Idris that book I mentioned goes extremely deep into the Mende (southern tribal group here) culture and history on precisely that topic.

The image/myth of the black African as a "savage" came from colonisation of Africa. I never once said that it didn't.

 

[slaar]

Sihii I stand corrected. The two contexts are clearly even closer than I had thought. The pattern of colonialism has been going on for centuries, I don't expect the Viking raiders of northern England were much better, but it's high time it stopped, really.