need to comment just leave the quote, already addressed in previous posts:
"A trip to Biafra is accompanied by a soul that never experienced conditions like anxiety, but surpasses it: it arises from the conflict between the horror and doubt. But as the horror belongs to the sphere of almost irrational feelings and doubt instead of the almost cold operations of reason, so you can say that the conflict is more distressing that, dark and existential , and is reduced to the two primary elements, reason and feeling, on which the very nature of man.
The horror in the Biafra trial from day one, when you move from one refugee camp to another, almost without noticing, and the mind seems to dissolve into pure recording of phenomena.
composite is a feeling, whirling and multiform: first horror visual, immediate, direct, and elementary, I would add, animal. This is the violence of what we see, in fact, that man ceases to be such an instant, with features that are peculiar of oggettivazio-tion, insight and opinion, and makes a leap to say so ' back millennia, to its distant origins and low. Then when, little by little, the fog that shrouds the mind clears, that horror horror becomes the first human too 'direct, but already somewhat mediated by experiences, memories, personal data, in fact many of those filters that make up the individual character. Then horror history, as mediated and perhaps most painful of all because in it we are forced to recognize the failure, the decline and perhaps the absence of those same aspirations, thus aiming to imitate when not identify with the divine, We believe that accompany, or even create, the different cultures and the subsequent history of mankind. And finally, horror once immediate and direct, more physical, but metaphysical certainty that arises from our individual existence of evil on earth. These many forms of terror are equally and with equal force as many forms of doubt. So why does and puts those questions that just raises the story.
Whose fault is it? Why is this product? What lies behind so much show of death? What tools and forces capable of halting it? And what, finally, the responsibility not only political and collective, but individual, personal, involving everyone in this tragedy?
It is natural that, being alone with themselves and witnesses of a pain so vast, the answers to those questions and doubts that are raised only to be personal. Therefore, at this point, I will say what they were my doubts, no doubts, my suspicions and suspects, my emotions, but not the conclusions.
My main doubt is born of a brief reflection on the boundaries of black Africa. Those artificial boundaries, drawn on paper by European colonialism, and not by indigenous sovereign, independent and previously existing, within which the same colonialism acted as a master, creating a single report and inhuman exploitation and slavery, can be considered real? Real, that is coincident with a real internal unity of the countries that represent them, ethnic unity, religious, cultural, linguistic? I answered: no, can not be regarded as real in Africa Black do not live together but are struggling within it many pseudo-geographical units, hundreds and hundreds of different ethnic groups, custodians of cultures and religions that are lost in prehistoric times, tribes speaking languages \u200b\u200bunintelligible to each other and whose one and only means of communication is the language of the settler. But we can say that black Africa, which is so divided and disunited, now has a historical unity as a continent that no other continent in the world has never been a tragedy, yet the glory of owning: This unit, this story is the common pain of slavery.
But if freedom is obtained struggling with the strength that comes from their common pain and common slavery, does not coincide in its actual practice, in its geography, its politics, with the artificial conventions established by colonialism that the newly independent African countries have adopted, which take value in its history that the pain and struggle? On the other hand, how to allow black Africa, when they get freedom, breaks up into a chaos of local and militaristic neo-colonialism, almost always operated from the outside, once again from Europe itself, ruled by a minority middle class, more exploitative and cynical of the old masters?
These questions, these questions apply to the iterative-Biafra. But if you add more quotas.
The leader of Biafra, Colonel Ojukwu, sombre figure, as has been defined, clear and not saccharine, he is truly innocent and a victim of the same hardness as the six thousand Nigerian children die each day it is, in turn, cynically co-responsible? To what extent is legitimate totalitarian intransigence on all points, when death has reached such proportions? The extent to which the secession of Biafra is spontaneous, and conscious and popular, established by the motion and centripetal autodifensivo of a people and to what extent may suspect that this secession, in this small country whose geography coincides with regions throughout the oil-rich Nigeria, slot into private interests, local and foreign? And again, as no evidence to suspect more strongly that the interests of political power disguised paternalism or ideology, but criminal, act behind the intransigence of the Federal Government of Nigeria? Why this government is infinitely more powerful than men and arms not only shows once again his good faith and does not allow an upgrade to the shortest route and natural, the river Niger, of mass, and perhaps decisive to the urgent food and medicines? Why shoot planes of Caritas Internationalis, the only ones so far who have defied the rules and conventions, the only ones that bring relief to Biafra? These and others are the questions I asked myself, in isolation reeling from the feeling horror and the reason for doubt. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment