Category: Campus Life

The notion or postulation of the end of history as a dialectical process was first coined by the great 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Hegel. He believed that history follows progression through a constant dialectical struggle of ideas: between thesis and antithesis which form a synthesis which become a thesis for the next stage of dialectics with a newly created antithesis. It was later used by Karl Marx who believed that the direction of historical development was a purposeful one determined by the interplay of material forces, and would come to an end only with the achievement of communism.

In 1992, American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama published his very popular book, “The End of History and the Last Man.” The book is an expansion on his 1989 essay “The End of History?” published in the international affairs journal The National Interest. In the book, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government. He became an unlikely star of political science, dubbed the “court philosopher of global capitalism” by John Gray.

The “end of history” thesis has been repeated enough to acquire the ring of truth – though, as with other academic endeavours, it has also been challenged. Some critics have cited 9/11 as a major counterexample. Others have pointed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the Arab spring, the rise of the Islamic State and other global developments as proof that ideological contests remain.

But Fukuyama was careful to stress that he was not saying that nothing significant would happen anymore, or that there would be no countries left in the world that did not conform to the liberal democratic model. “At the end of history,” he wrote, “it is not necessary that all societies become successful liberal societies merely that they end their ideological pretensions of representing different and higher forms of human society.”

My intention today is to honour a man who gave the discipline of history in Nigeria and Africa “respect” and charted a course which African history has followed ever since. Emeritus Professor of history, Jacob Adeniyi Ajayi passed on last Sunday at the University College Hospital (UCH) Ibadan, Oyo State at the ripe age of 85.

Only a few months ago I wrote a three part series on the dearth of historical consciousness in Nigeria which was fallout from his 85th birthday celebration. Without fear of contradiction, I make bold to say the late Prof J.F Ade Ajayi was one of the best historian to come out of our shores.

I started the article with this quote from the eminent scholar: “The nation suffers with no sense of history. Its values remain superficial and ephemeral unless imbued with a deep sense of continuity and a perception of success and achievement that transcends acquisition of temporary power or transient wealth. Such a nation cannot achieve a sense of purpose or direction or stability, and without them the future is bleak.”

It was the late professor who in 1999 pointed out to former President Olusegun Obasanjo that the challenges he faced when he came to power are historical in nature. Recall that in the east, there was a visible resurgence of the Biafra cause championed by Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). In the West and North, The O’odua Peoples’ Congress (OPC) and the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) were pushing for an Oduduwa and Arewa republics respectively. There were also agitations for “self-determination” and “resource control” in other parts of the country.

In his wisdom, Ade Ajayi approached Obasanjo and pointed out that Nigerians suffer from lack of historical consciousness which was why the event of that time seemed “strange.” He advised the president to think seriously about reintroducing the teaching of history to primary and secondary schools’ in the country so as to always put things in proper perspective. It was reported that Obasanjo issued a presidential directive to that effect. But sadly that directive has not been acted upon to date.

The reason, according to Prof Akinjide Osuntokun; another distinguished emeritus professor of history is not farfetched. He said Ade Ajayi did everything in his power to return the learning of History to schools, unfortunately without success. It is not for lack of trying but perhaps because Nigeria is now dogged with the primitive acquisition of resources by members of the governing elite and their surrogates to the denigration of the larger good of society.

As we mourn this eminent scholar and historian of repute, few can doubt there is a need to insist on preserving the collective memory of the nation. We must encourage an objective pursuit of historical truth by looking back once in a while, especially when confronted with challenges. The present security challenge is a case in point. We should be bold to research how we lived in pre-colonial times, for instance. Was there a link between the groups the British eventually brought together to form Nigeria? How were they relating with each other? Do they have things in common? Do they have a history? Etc.

Among scholars of his age and beyond, Ajayi was particularly respected for the thoroughness of his researches and the fact that he gave character to the study of African history. As an early writer of Nigerian and African history, he brought considerable respect to what later came to be known as the ‘Ibadan School of History’ and African research. He was known for the arduous research and rigorous effort he put into his work.

The Ibadan School of History is a group of scholars interested in introducing African perspectives and historiography to African history and focusing on the internal historical forces and dynamics that shaped African lives. Ade Ajayi favours the use of historical continuity more often than focusing on events only as powerful agents of change that can move the basic foundations of cultures and mold them into new ones. Previous forms of history – especially colonial history – focuses largely on events that specifically excludes Africans from historical developments.

Ade Ajayi – following the trail of great scholars of same orientation and disposition like late Prof Kenneth Onwuka Dike – was able to change this perception. He employs a less passionate style in his works, especially in his early writings, utilising subtle criticism of controversial issues of the times. By extensive use of oral sources in some of his works – such as pre-20th century Yoruba history – he was able to weigh, balance and reconcile each and all of his sources, uncovering a pathway towards facts in the period which was scarce in written and non-prejudiced forms.

This position radically challenged and altered the postulation by the late British historian; Prof Hugh Trevor Roper who in 1963 said: “perhaps in the future there will be some African history to teach. But at present there is none, or very little: there is only the history of Europe in Africa. The rest is largely darkness and darkness is not a subject of history.” He added that African history is “the unedifying gyrations of barbarous tribes in picturesque but irrelevant corners of the globe.” These comments were broadened and captured in a later article which called Africa “unhistoric.” This spurred intense debate between historians, anthropologists, sociologists, in the emerging fields of postcolonial and cultural studies about the definition of “history” itself.

By extensive use of oral sources in some of his works he brought recognition to a source most western scholars term as being “unscientific.” oral tradition has thus become a veritable tool for historical reconstruction, particularly in places like Africa where written sources in the western mode were lacking. Ajayi also tries to be dispassionate in his writings, especially when writing about controversial or passionate subjects in African history.

His style of rigorous research presented new pathways in African historiography and augmented awareness among scholarly circles outside the continent to African methodologies and perceptions. By weighing sources both written and oral, he was able to find new issues of interest that formed the basis of British colonisation of Nigeria, balancing official British documentation of the event with additional material. Through his writings, African history gradually became “accepted” in the history profession.