On Writing African History: Schools of Thought and their (Mis)Representation

There are many different opinions  on how to write African history 

properly. One US-American historian, J.E. Philips, recently opined his 

views quite dogmatically. In an article published in 2005 he compared 

the writing of African history in three countries – Japan, France, and 

the US. His comparison follows  three premises: Firstly, UShistoriography of Africa is the most progressive. Secondly, Japanese 

history writing on Africa, in contrast, is characterized by ignorance, 

falsity, and bad faith. Thirdly,  Philips holds responsible for this 

allegedly bad state of the discipline in Japan the influence of the – 

allegedly anti-historical – French social anthropologists Georges 

Balandier and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Obviously, Philips` treatment of 

the distinct national schools of thought is polemical in style. What is 

worse, however, is the lack of expertise on the very topics he deals 

with. Ignorance is displayed by Philips throughout his article. The 

present contribution sets out to substantiate these points, for there is 

more to say in favour of French and Japanese ways of writing African 

history than the impertinent allegations of Philips forebode.

On Writing African History: Schools of Thought and their (Mis)Representation Click Here for article