“There is nothing to fear from someone who shouts.”
P140
The whites take over without too much ado, they simply move in and change the narrative of the region.
“There is no story that is not true”
P141
Stories become true depending upon who and how many believe them to be true. “The WMD” during the run up to the Iraqi war for example. The willingness of the villagers to listen to the stories of the missionaries, because throughout the book the people tell stories to each other to explain and reinforce custom and beliefs: the construction of social reality through story telling.
‘“Your buttocks understands our language,’ said someone light-heartdly and the crowd laughed.
“What did he say?” the white man asked his interpreter.’ P145
The blind arrogance of the white culture to not listen even when the villagers are talking. The story of the oppressed does not concern the oppressor.
“But stories were already gaining ground that the white man had not only brought a religion but also a government. It was said that they had built a place of judgment in Umuofia to protect the followers of their religion. It was even said that they had hanged one man who killed a missionary.”
“Although such stories were now often told they looked like fairy-tales. . .”155
The villagers begin to hear what was happening in other villages, but refuse to believe the stories, dismissed as fairy tales. To “foolish” to be true, even with the earlier statement that all stories are true. This was their downfall to not pay attention to the stories that were rampant, to discount tales that did not fit into their social constructs as childish, or womanish.
“The heathen speak nothing but falsehood. Only the word of our god is true” 157
“The story had arisen among the Christians themselves” 158
Nice contrast of ideas: The whites deny that the villagers can have any truth, yet the Christians are the origin of the false story that one of the people killed a “god” without consequence, thus trying to prove the superiority of Christianity over the nativist religion.
They had built a court where the District Commissioner judged cases in ignorance. P174
The difference between the “trial” of the village elders, where they heard the stories of each side and made a judgment based on what was right rather than the “law.” Justice in the village was not blind, but took in to account the people involved. The trial of Okonkwo and the others, by contrast, was a blatant use of power to control the narrative. There was no attempt to hear the villager’s story in any context other than the context of the oppressor.
“Does the white man understand our custom about land?”
“How can he when he does not even speak our tongue?” 176
Not only a different language, but the “way of knowing,” of understanding the meaning of the world around them: a discourse community.
“from the very beginning religion and education went hand and hand “182
to control the story line, or what people believe to be the storyline/cause and effect of their lives, the religion/faith of the people and the education of the people must be controlled in a coordinated fashion. Not that there is a conspiracy to control, but religion and education are very efficient “judges of normality” (Foucault) or reinforcers/editors of the community narrative.
“those who believed such stories were unworthy of the lord’s table” 185
Again, if you believe something “other” than the norm then you are not worthy of full participation in society’s goods. Makes me think of James Gee and his Discourse (big D) communities where in order to acquire the “goods” of whatever group you are in you must be fluent in the discourse of the community. Also who determines what discourse is appropriate is determined by power structures/relationships within those communities. The current “value” of education/college vs. business and making money is an example, the way the talk is being framed, as if it should be debated at all puts the western idea of “liberal” education, or the education of free (liberty/liberal) men at risk. Learn to do something that is of value to business, so you can become a commodity.
“We cannot leave the matter in his hands because he does not understand our customs, just as we do not understand his. We say he is foolish because he does not know our ways, and perhaps he says we are foolish because we do not know his. Let him go away.” 191
“The story of this man who had killed a messenger and hanged himself would make interesting reading. One could almost write a whole chapter on him. Perhaps not a whole chapter but a reasonable paragraph, at any rate. There was so much else to include, and one must be firm in cutting out details. He had already chosen the title of the book, after much thought: the pacification of the primitive tribes of the lower Niger” 209
The last few sentences of the book: perfect. The life of Okonkwo and his world reduced to a paragraph in the omnivorous narrative of the west. Cut out the details because they open up a space for a counter narrative, too messy and confusing.
Final thought: I can see why this book is often taught in tandem with "Heart of Darkness" and "The Poisonwood Bible." Lots of questions about who is in charge of the narrative, oppressor and oppressed, civilization vs. "primitive" culture.
The Horror. Exterminate them all!
