They All Fall Down Allie Griffiths BHP Final Paper Topic #1 Fall 2012 Note: Endnotes can

be found on page 9

When a man says yes his chi1 says yes also (Achebe 27). This proverb stands as a pillar of the Ibo traditional philosophy and greatly colors the tribes world-view, as portrayed in Chinua Achebes Things Fall Apart. This implicit question of will-power and the boundless strength of the individual spirit is challenged as Imperial Britain stretches its tentacles into the Ibo homelandNigeria. In light of the other conquests of the British Empire and those of the other European imperial powers, we as readers are prompted to question the role that chi and personal will actually play in tales of imperialist incursion. Did the Ibo stand a chance against Mother Britain and her capital, technology, and experience on the worlds stage? When one examines the discrepancies between British and Ibo socio-economics, its difficult not to think that the conquest of Nigeria illustrates a degree of Marxian inevitability. Now it seems the question should be what happens when a mans chi says no? In Things Fall Apart, Achebes protagonist, Okonkwo, mirrors the tragic heroes of ancient Greece. Full of hubris and rigidity, Okonkwo pits himself against the British imperial machine. While his personal flaws certainly contribute to his emotional decay, we also see the ill effects of colonialism on the colonized as Okonkwo falls apart. As the stresses of adjusting to the presence of British emissaries in Iboland mount, Okonkwo snaps; hes proven before that he acts upon impulse and places his needs before those of others, but the incursion exacerbates these flaws and drives him to madness. Having already faced exile and having lost a son to the British cause, Okonkwo lashes out in a village meeting and kills an approaching British messenger. This impulsive manifestation of frustration and fear drives Okonkwo to the brink and leads him to hang himself. Even though we as readers have the benefit of hind-sight and are therefore sympathetic to Okonkwos plight, we see as the novel closes that there are in fact varying views

of Okonkwos death. The differing perspectives hit at the thematic heart of imperialism: the discrepancy illustrates the tragedy of ignorance and conquest. In this novel, the British symbolize this ignorance and the related arrogance of imperialism. By the late 19th century (when this novel is set), Great Britain had long been established as a behemoth on the worlds stage. In terms of imperialism, Britain was the nation that set the bar for all other European powers that sought to gain foot-holds in foreign lands. By the time nations like Germany and France finally got in on the imperialist game, Great Britain had mastered the art of colonization; it had a play-book full of ruthless and seemingly foolproof stunts that would eventually lead to the downfall of numerous African and Asian cultures. How was a country that geographically accounts for less than a third of Nigerias size able to forge an Empire upon which the sun never set? The answer proves quite Marxian. The simple answer to this complex question is that Britain had far more capital with far more value in the world than any of the societies which it conquered; as Marx might say, the British controlled far more of the worlds means of production than its future colonies did. In a broad sense, the British represent a global bourgeoisie and, in this case, the Ibo are the oppressed proletariat. The bourgeois Brits had nearly unlimited access and control of the most advanced and substantial means of production of the 19th century (e.g. steam power, mechanized productionindustrial power). Because it had amassed such great wealth via its other colonies in the Americas (through mercantilist trade of cotton, molasses, rum, etc.), Britain also had the ability to invest in the most state-of-the-art technologies of the Imperialist Epoch. The British Empire had the best equipment, the best ships, the best weapons, the best emissaries because it could afford them. The British world-view during this time was very much based upon its conquests and the wealth and power that derived thereof. We see this capital-fuelled mind-set in
3

full bloom as the British missionaries arrive in the Ibo town of Umuofia. The most striking (and disgusting) example of this ethno-centric perspective is exhibited by the British District Commissioner in the final scene of the novel. As the men of Umuofia discuss how best to handle Okonkwos death and the cultural indignity that surrounds it, the Commissioner reflects on his plan to write a book about his time in Nigeria; he decides that a reasonable paragraph must be devoted to the story of Okonkwos death so as to keep his readers intrigued (Achebe 209). In my estimation, based on what I have read of other British imperialists of that era (e.g. Kipling and his White Mans Burden), I believe the Commissioners reasonable paragraph might read as follows: In my dealings with the native peoples of the lower Niger, I have found them to exclusively be of a savage race that appears incapable of reasonable thought. They think not like you or me, as we are civilized and possess the capacity to make sound decisions void of animal passion. Unlike us, everything these savages do is guided purely by passion and in many cases, primitive blood-lust. When I began penning this particular section of my book, I found myself recalling one event in particular that led me to many of my conclusions regarding this race of barbarians. As District Commissioner, I traveled between the many villages of the lower Niger, meting out justice, following the procedures of the righteous judicial tradition of the British Empire, so as to expose the savages to intellectualism and proper thinking. In one village in particular, I was called upon to settle a dispute between Her Majestys missionaries (and their mindless converts) and the supposed leaders of the tribe. I found the case particularly boring and saw to it that the natives were punished for their ignorance and impertinence. Being accustomed to the usual behaviors of our civilized compatriotseven the lowliest of themI assumed that my ruling would end the matter and the savages would learn how to behave. I was
4

of course disgusted then to hear that one of these so-called leaders later decapitated one of my men. I suppose I should have known better than to expect civilized behavior from these monkeys, but how could I have suspected the extent of the barbarism in their cruel hearts? Soon after this murder of my courier, I was called to visit the perpetrator and incarcerate him thereafter. Upon arriving at his hut, my soldiers and I found him hanging from a treethe beast. Incapable of reason and too simple to understand the laws of our gracious God, this poor brute killed himself. I cannot say that I mourn his death, but rather that I grieve for my people and bemoan the great task ahead of us, should we continue our noble endeavors to civilize these savages of the Lower Niger. The blatant arrogance found in this paragraph and in many of the British characters in the novel is, to me, a large cause of the animosity that imperialists faced as they thrust their beliefs and practices upon their unassuming victims. Perhaps if the British had been more conciliatory and more willing to acknowledge the value of the cultures they encountered, colonization could have been less traumatic and fewer cultures would have fallen apart. On the proverbial opposite side of the coin, the Ibo symbolize the tragedy of imperialism and the damaging effects of conquest on a cultures collective psyche. Unlike the British, the Ibo viewed the world through a very familial and narrow lens; for instance, if Okonkwos death were to be recounted by a fellow tribesman like Obierika, the tale would come off very differently to the reader. Rather than arrogance and a sense of superiority, Obierikas narrative would surely exhibit grief at the loss of a beloved brother to the trickery and usurpation of the white man. Despite Okonkwos flaws (that the Commissioner might blame on his race or supposed inferiority), Obierika would still see the tragedy in his death and would understand its implications for the tribes future. Obierika, in providing a foil to the District Commissioner,
5

represents the purity and wisdom of the Ibo culture and creates a thought-provoking irony that is central to Achebes theme. Also unlike the British, the people of Umuofia were self-sufficient and therefore absent from the worlds stagethey had no means to globalize, nor any reason to do so. As the oppressed class, or the quasi-proletariat, in this scenario, the Ibo did not have access to the technology or resources that Great Britain did. Why? Again, the answer lies with Marx. Without a form of capital that translated beyond the borders of Umuofia, the Ibo had no way to gain any kind of economic prowess as a society; individuals like Okonkwo may have had the opportunity to become Ibo-bourgeois, but as a society, there was virtually no way for the Ibo to compete on a global scale. Without capital that has value to other peoples, the Ibo did not have the means to travel and explore and learn, like the British did. Only by doing the leg work did Britain come to desire foreign resources: if they hadnt known that King Cotton could be grown in the SouthEastern region of North America, they wouldnt have cared enough to create a colony there. Because the Ibo had no capital with which to enable themselves to explore, they had a very limited knowledge of the workings of the world in comparison to the British Empire. In addition to a lack of global knowledge, the Ibo also lacked access to modern Western technology. Again, without useful capital, the Ibo had no bargaining chip on the worlds stage and therefore no way to obtain the state-of-the-art technology that swept across Europe during the 19th century. This lack of capital and all the disadvantages that accompany it made the Ibo a perfect target for the British. Because Ibo culture was so different from their own, the British knew that they could exploit the discrepancy in perspective so as to place themselves in a superior, bourgeois position and thereby sweep Nigeria out from under the feet of the Ibo.

These technological and economic differences between these vastly different cultures conquered the Ibo in the end. In terms of technology, the influence of this cog in the imperialist machine is virtually immeasurable. Without technology, the British wouldnt have even known about Nigerias existence and certainly wouldnt have been able to overthrow the culture of an entire people. Just as the rapier and the primitive rifle allowed a band of 168 Spaniards to conquer tens of thousands of Inca, industrial technology allowed the British to mesmerize and topple Ibo society (Diamond 68). Economics go hand in hand with technology and thus it comes as no surprise that economic differences between the British and the Ibo also led to the ultimate defeat of Umuofia. The British had a very industrial, mechanized economy that thrived on manufacturing. The Ibo, on the other hand, had a self-sufficient economy that in many ways parallels the cottage industry that was phased out of European culture in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx highlights the fall of the cottage industry to industrial power as an illustration of his view of historical inevitability; in holding with this view and by drawing a parallel between Ibo economics and the cottage industry, it becomes very apparent that the Ibo stood very little chance against the British machine, purely in terms of economicslet alone the plethora of other discrepancies (Jacobus 364). I do not believe that Marxian inevitability can explain all historical quandaries, but I do feel that in terms of the economics of the situation, the fall of the Ibo was, to some degree, inescapable. Studying imperialism and its effects on our modern world is in many ways a philosophical sand-trap. This topic asks us to explore our own knowledge and beliefs regarding race, culture, ethnocentrism, economic philosophy, etc. and thereby challenges us in a way that few other historical isms can. But what, if any, is the point of all this studying and
7

philosophizing and questioning? What do we as readers get out of reading things like Achebe, Marx, or Diamond? I think Thomas Friedman best sums up this reason in his lecture pertaining to the flattening of the world in the modern era. Friedman holds that our world is globalizing at a near-exponential rate and that those who lack knowledge and respect for other cultures will be left behind (Friedman MIT Lecture). So wheres the connection? What do Okonkwo or the District Commissioner have to do with my professional future? The bottom line is that if we mold ourselves after Okonkwo and cannot allow ourselves to bend, or if we foster the arrogant ethnocentrism of the District Commissioner, will we be shut out of a world that is focusing on cross-cultural communities every single day. We all must remember the tragedy that occurs when ignorance tinges cultural interactions and must work together to ensure that things do not fall apart.

Word Count: 2,216

Endnotes chi1: an Ibo word meaning personal god (Achebe Glossary).

Works Cited Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Random House, Inc., 1959. Print. Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1999. Print. Friedman, Thomas. The World is Flat. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA. May 2005. Lecture. Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. Print.

10