By Archibald Agaba
Everything in life belongs somewhere on a scale. We have been led to believe that this scale is a quantitative scale but it is also a qualitative one. Even when “qualitative analysis” is used it is often abused because the true qualities are distorted.
Take the Aryan model as an example of a model that we get things like the cast system, the great plain of being and what we call today racism. What this model seeks to present is that the quality of humanity varies from population group to population group and that this quality is manifested in the colour of the skin i.e. the darker the skin the lower the quality, the lighter the skin the higher the quality.
The short coming of this out look is its apparent failure to account for the substance/nature of things. When making comparisons it is of critical importance that the items being compared are of similar nature, otherwise what is the point of comparing the properties of oranges and fish to determine which one is a better fruit?
I believe that at the heart of all this lies the issue of definitions and the meanings of the words used to define said qualities. Words tend to take on a new meaning when the origins and derivations are known or revisited. Take the word to create or the act of creating. In all seriousness, it is not possible to say that what men do and what prim-creator or God (if you prefer) does are both acts of “creating”. One brings forth out of nothingness and the other simply manipulates what already is. It therefore follows or at least it should, that the created should induce in us as much reverence as the creator does and the manipulated less so. Unfortunately we often find that the reverse is true. We give more credence to the artifices of man than to the creations of the creator.
The nature of man vs mankind
Lets look at the nature of man and mankind in the context of the Aryan model. This model is what establishes the “post modern” world of humanity being divided into classes based on skin tone or presence and absence of melanin. In more resent years it has gradually refined itself into what is called capitalism and melanin has been replaced with “capital” a not so subtle euphemism for money.
The true nature of man and mankind is that they are inherently different. And the word inherent is very deliberately used, because the differences are inherited. Modern scientific evidence has led investigators to come to a finale and unequivocal conclusion that there are at least two different kinds of hominids presently living on this planet; the man; homo sapience and the mankind; the hybrid of homo sapience s and Neanderthals, the Neanderthals having gone extinct. It has also been roundly accepted that the sub-Saharan African another not so subtle euphemism for dark skinned or melanated people or the “true nigro” are man and everybody else is man-kind.
This would not be of any interest if it were not for the fact that the traits, genetics and I’d wager the behaviour of both creatures has been shown to have marked differences. The latter is more aggressive, given to violence, and lacks the empathy of the former. It therefore is no great leap to suggest that the systems they’d originate would be different.
The nature of relationships and what accrues (capitalism and ubuntu)
Case in point is the fundamental difference in how relationships in society are organised. The key issues of interest here would be centralised vs defused systems and things vs people orientation. The best popular phrases to use to differentiate the two mindsets would be; “all for one and one for all” vs everyone for himself and god for us all”, and its no surprise given the men who authored them.
Capitalism as a system does two things; one is to centralise all decisions and the other is to reduce everything to a unit of consumption –not even production as it purports. It is obvious that nature is based more on production that it is on consumption otherwise it would have consumed itself into nothingness. Consumption however is a necessity for production, the efficiency of the natural system being that it produces abundantly more than it consumes.
Ubuntu on the other hand is not a creation of a brilliant mind, but rather a realisation from millennia of observation. Ubuntu simply states that there is enough to go around and there will always be. What will destroy us is more likely to be how we relate with one another than the endless list of fears we are told are awaiting us in the cosmos, like the sun burning out of fuel; in so many billion years we are told. From a human perspective, what does that number even mean? It is the here and now the counts, so lets make the most of it, lets live for each other’s sake/benefit ubuntu says. This conviction elevates man to being one with the cosmos, not just in it, but a part of it. Not just a powerless observer and victim but an integral and significant part of it. What we feel, think and do matters, not just from the human perspective but from the cosmic one as well. It also defuses from the centre, making everyone a centre emphasising the need for each one to be recognise that they are creating the world around them.
The nature of the created vs the manipulated
We could go on with these ideas but let me wrap up with the main consideration I would like to share. As we take our journey into the new millennium, we finding ourselves as society increasingly questioning the values and value systems of the past few millennia, especially in as far as dominant western schools of thought are concerned. In resent years, a lot has been said about the supposed clash of civilisations. A notion I find bewildering given that the clashes are really within the so called Abrahamic religions and their world views.
There is nothing civilised about clashes or contested world views, religious, scientific or otherwise. A truly civilised society knows that there are only two realities as it were; the created and the manipulated/artifices; the former being that which issues forth form the prim-creator, the latter being manmade and eventually mankind’s interpretation of man’s observations. Clearly the unchanging is the former, so everything imaginable has to be done to insure that the latter which is by nature of its origin changing, conforms to the former.
An example of this is the interpretation is of soil vs land; Soil being the physical reality upon which we exist, the up to five inches of this substance that sustains life as we know it. Its quality dictates the nature of plant life it grows which in turn determines the nature of animal life it holds. Land being the political reality of living on the soil; political in this case taken to mean the mechanism by which the definition and allocation of the soil is managed. It would include things like stewardship (ownership) and culture (identity and interests) which evolve from living on a specific kind of soil and land for an extended period of time. It is all a matter of perspective.
