africa

Mythical Origins Part II: Yoruba

History for Empathy1 Comment
Palace of the Oyo Olofin. The Oyo Empire used alternative versions of traditional Yoruba mythology to maintain power (Wikimedia Commons)

While the mythical origins of any people invariably affect how that people views the world, sometimes the myths that are central to a national, cultural, or ethnic identity and can be warped, distorted, or otherwise interpreted for explicit purpose of following a political agenda. In this iteration of the Mythical Origins series, as well as the next, we will examine examples of this phenomenon.

The Yoruba people are an ethnic group that originates from modern-day Nigeria, Togo, and Benin, which collectively comprise a cultural region known as Yorubaland. While modern day Yoruba often identify with their shared cultural label, there are a variety of sub-groups that the Yoruba people are made of. In fact, the name “Yoruba” was not used to describe the people collectively until the 19th century. So, like many myths that belong to a broader culture, the origin myth of Yoruba has variations within each of the group’s own subgroups that together create a generally unified narrative that can be told as one story.

The Yoruba kingdom is said to be founded in the city of Ile Ife (or simply, Ife). Some versions of the myth describe the first king, Oduduwa, as being born in the city of Ife itself, with all subsequent generations of humans spreading out into the world after. However, the more commonly accepted version has Oduduwa migrating from the city of Mecca, the holy city of Islam, into Ife, from which he started his empire. Regardless of which version of the myth is accepted, the myth centers around Oduduwa as the founder and first leader of the Yoruba people. Sometime after Oduduwa’s birth or arrival in Ife, he ruled the city as king. After his death, Oduduwa’s sons dispersed all throughout Yorubaland to found their own kingdoms. Using their lineage from Oduduwa as a justification of their rule, each of his sons are said to have founded his own dynasty.

While this origin of the Yoruba people may seem far more historically plausible than more supernatural myths, such as Japan’s, it’s validity has been just as difficult to prove, due to lack to historical evidence and consistency. The most immediate descendants of Oduduwa, alongside Oduduwa himself, were effectively worshipped as gods, so it is unclear whether or not they were real people who were divinized, or supernatural deities who were humanized in myth. As with every myth, historical validity seldom affects real-world impact; a claim to being a descendent of Oduduwa, however outlandish or even fabricated as it may be, was key to guaranteeing one’s right to rule in the eyes of the Yoruba people. As a result, Yoruba rulers have never hesitated to use a claimed relation to Oduduwa as a way to secure power, strengthen the identity of a Yoruba sub-kingdom, or otherwise ensure their social or political standing among other Yoruba.

One well-studied example of Yoruba mythology being used for political influence is found in the kingdom of Oyo, which despite its mysterious origins, became among the most powerful and respected Yoruba kingdoms of the 17th and 18th centuries. Most traditions assign Oranyan, founder of the Oyo Empire, to be the youngest of Oduduwa’s sons. This assignment may reflect a historically weaker standing of the Oyo Empire, as the descendants of the youngest son would naturally feel a sense of inferiority to those who descended from higher ranked branches of Oduduwa’s family tree. However, as the Oyo Empire gradually became more influential, alternative stories for Oranyan’s origin began to appear. Some alternative myths began to claim that Oranyan was actually Oduduwa’s most favored son, and bestowed upon him all of the lands of Yoruba, or even that Oranyan actually created Yorubaland itself. Indeed, these alternative myths were no accident; the Olofin, ruler of the Oyo, employed a group of historians in his own personal court, who were responsible for making these myths official and more widely accepted as truth in the eyes of the people. Gradually, this new mythical tradition became widely accepted, and it took deep, investigative work by modern historians to separate traditional Yoruba history from the one propagated by the groups in power.

From The heritage of Oduduwa: traditional history and political propaganda among the Yoruba, The Journal of African History, R.C.C. Law (1973):

This problem, that of reconciling the actual extent of Oyo power with the extent of the empire which the [Olafin] should have inherited from Oduduwa, seems to have generated a series of supplementary traditions, tracing the totally fictitious ‘decline’ of Oyo power from its alleged zenith under Oranyan.

As Africa began its dark era of European colonization, the importance of propaganda such those created by the Oyo kings faded from relevance as local monarchs were replaced by imperial governors. However, as the decolonization period began decades later, the use of propaganda, specifically those stemming from inflammatory (though perhaps entirely true) interpretations of history, began an effective tool in establishing nationalist identities in states once under European rule. These identities would eventually lead to conflicts such as the Rhodesian Bush War.

It is often said that history is written by the victors, and the success that the Oyo kings had in creating a more favorable version of history does little to disprove that claim. The alteration of Yoruba mythology demonstrates the importance of examining bias in historical documents, and the work historians do to use primary sources not as an objective account of events, but as a tool for finding the truth, whether or not the source directly supports that truth.

The Rhodesian Bush War: Causes and Legacy

History for Empathy1 Comment
Key officials agree to the terms of the Lancaster House Agreement, the peace agreement that would lead to the full independence of Zimbabwe (The Guardian)

By the midpoint of the 20th century, the old colonial empires of Europe were beginning to come apart. The aftermath of the Second World War had ushered in a new era of peace, and created a growing distaste towards imperialism and nationalism as a whole. The part of the world most affected by centuries of colonialism was the continent of Africa, which, with few exceptions, was at one point the territory of one European nation or another. Africa’s transition into its post-colonial era is one full of triumph and tragedy, and is a process that arguable continues to this day. Perhaps the best known story from post-colonial Africa is that of South Africa, whose peaceful transition from apartheid-ridden colonial state into a (somewhat) fair and equal democracy inspired much of the world. However, today’s story will revolve around its neighbor to the north, the former British colony of Rhodesia, and the country it is today known as: Zimbabwe.

Though the lands that eventually became Rhodesia/Zimbabwe were occupied by a variety of peoples, it was primarily ruled by the Ndebele Kingdom, a breakaway tribe from the Zulu people to the south. The Ndebele were founded by Mzilikazi, himself a Zulu general under the famed King Shaka Zulu. The Ndebele would soon grow very powerful, and by the time European’s arrive at their door, they ruled the many tribes of Zimbabwe under a tribute system, including the Shona people who were previously the dominant force in the region. The divisions between the Shona and the Ndebele would continue well after the latter came into power in the mid-19th century. In 1888, after several years of British presence in the area, the British South Africa Company (BSAC) under the cunning, imperialist, white supremacist tycoon Cecil Rhodes began its rule over Zimbabwe. Mzilikazi’s son and successor, King Lobengula, agreed to a deal with Rhodes that would concede mining rights to BSAC. Rhodes subsequently used the concession to obtain a royal charter from the British Crown, and solidify the region as a British colony. The new territory owned by BSAC was named Rhodesia, whose namesake was, not surprisingly, Cecil Rhodes himself. White settlers soon flooded into Rhodesia, while its native people, Shona and Ndebele alike, were forced onto “tribal trust areas”, which filled a similar role as North American Indian Reservations. Treated as second class citizens in their own homes, the tensions between black African and white British factions is a common theme in many former European colonies on the continent, and was certainly the case in Rhodesia.

In 1923, the colony, now called Southern Rhodesia to differentiate it from the newly created Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), officially became a self-governing colony of the British Empire, making the colony effectively independent as state, but still technically under British rule. Following the Second World War, the British government (in accordance with its decolonization policy) pressured Southern Rhodesia to end its minority rule of the country, and expand suffrage to its black African population. The colony was ruled entirely by its 80,000 whites, while its 2.5 million blacks still lived essentially as colonial assets. Not wanting to give up its control domination over the country, the white leadership of Rhodesia (switching back to its old name since Northern Rhodesia had already become Zambia) declared independence; a shocking move that was technically the first of its kind since the American Revolution. The new nation of Rhodesia, under Prime Minister Ian Smith, was now totally independent, though it did not receive any real international recognition. Rhodesia received harsh economic sanctions and condemnations not just from the British, but from the entire international community.

In 1964, shortly before Rhodesia’s Universal Declaration of Independence (UDI), the conflict now known as the Rhodesian Bush War began with a minor skirmish involving Rhodesian forces and one of the two emerging, Marxist, African nationalist groups. Formerly one entity, these two disparate parties were the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU; its military wing named ZIRPA), and its breakaway group the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU; its military wing named ZANLA). The generations-long division between the Ndebele and Shona peoples was key to the split, as the two ethnic groups controlled ZIRPA and ZANLA, respectively. Throughout the war, ZIRPA and ZANLA would occasionally fight each other to gain better regional control. Opposite both of these factions was the Rhodesian Security Forces, a well equipped, professional army that had considerable air power, its own SAS special forces unit, while consisting of both white and black units. ZIRPA and ZANLA, having both being expelled out the country and into Zambia, conducted the first phase of the war (1964-1972) through a number of battles through and along the Zambian border. The Rhodesians thoroughly defeated the rebels in this first phase, even becoming confident enough to release rebel leaders such as Robert Mugabe, who they deemed to no longer be a threat.

However, as the Rhodesians were celebrating their apparent victory, both the ZIRPA and the ZANLA weren’t just licking their wounds, but were also gearing up for the second phase. Due to the involvement of communist and non-communist factions, Cold War politics inevitably found their way into the conflict. United States covertly supported Rhodesia due to the Rhodesian Front’s strong anticommunist sentiments, while South Africa provided ground forces to fight alongside them. But more importantly, the ZIRPA was strongly backed by the Soviet Union, while the ZANLA received support from the People’s Republic of China. The advisors and resources provided by their strong allies allowed the insurgents a tremendous advantage coming into the second phase (1972-1979). ZANLA’s relocation to Mozambique also meant that the Rhodesians also needed to fight along the Mozambican as well as the Zambian, further worsening the situation for Ian Smith’s government. As South Africa pulled out the conflict, and more insurgents entered the country, the situation for Rhodesia became desperate, with the Rhodesian Security Forces even resorting to using deadly chemical and biological weapons. In soon became clear that white minority rule was no longer possible, and a gradual political transition was attempted, which led to the election of the first black prime minister and president of a newly named, but short-lived state, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But for the warring ZANU and ZAPU, it was still not enough, and fighting continued until the Lancaster House Agreement in December 1979. The agreement, brokered by the British government under the newly incumbent Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, granted Zimbabwe full and sovereign independence, while also allowing the belligerent ZANU and ZAPU parties to hold office. After a decade and a half of brutal conflict, Zimbabwe was finally an independent nation.

In 1980, ZANU leader Robert Mugabe was elected Prime Minster, and despite his popularity surrounding his anti-imperialist heroics, the election essentially began Mugabe’s 37 year rule as a brutal and corrupt despot. While the story of post-war Zimbabwe and Mugabe’s dictatorship is all too common among unstable African nations affected by colonialism, it is perhaps Rhodesia itself that has the most interesting legacy from the whole ordeal. Unlike South Africa, which peacefully transitioned from its white minority rule into a liberal democracy, the racist sentiments and overall brutality that caused its civil war still follow Rhodesia long after its dissolution. In the last few years, an odd nostalgia for Rhodesia has appeared it certain alt-right and white supremacist communities, especially in the United States. Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of the racially motivated 2015 Charleston church shooting, wrote his hateful, violent manifesto on a website called The Last Rhodesian, while a picture surfaced of him wearing a jacket with the Rhodesian Flag. Meanwhile, certain social media communities celebrate the existence of Rhodesia, with some claiming that Rhodesia was better off before its white rule was eliminated. As strange as Rhodesia’s modern legacy seems to be, there can be no doubt that European colonialism as whole, and the countless movements that resulted as a consequence of it have shaped the social fabric of the world in more ways than one.