In April of 1977, I was forced by persistent ill-health to return to my native country, Sierra Leone, for "native treatment." This may sound ridiculous to the reader, why I had to leave the United States where I could have received good medical treatment. Not that I found the American medical treatment less helpful, but I preferred "native treatment" because I felt it would be more efficacious to my health. Thus I have the conviction that the African people will never find a cure to the disease that is plaguing their continent until they become their own physician.

The ills of the continent are apparent in most of the African countries, and my experience of living in a village of about 20 people and three bamboo huts was an aweinspiring one. At Kadingbili, I saw the life of a people that have never been exposed to the western way of life. Death, disease, hunger, poverty, ignorance and superstition were visible everywhere; like those signs in South Africa that read, "Reserved for Whites Only." Here, the invisible signs read "Reserved for Africans Only." I lived in their midst, shared their hardships, their laughters and tears, their feeble hopes and doubtful frustrations, and their deplorable situation compelled me to reexamine myself, their character and situation. The people where not invalids, most of them were strong and able men; their land was rich and beautiful, but it seemed as if they had stopped existing. As I lay in my bamboo bed one night, the apparition that had haunted my mind throughout my convalescence became a real thing, naked to the eye: their minds had ceased functioning. This is the core of all our problems--the African has lost his sense of originality, his sense of direction, his ingenuity, his ability to organize, think and meet the challenge posed by internal and external forces. At that time I decided to find an answer to this question--is our continent really poor or has the African failed to face the internal and external forces that are a threat to his continent?

Before the advent of colonialism, the Africans had lived in tribal groups. The social structure was purely communalistic. The tribal headman or chief established the legitimacy of his authority either by birth or by his prowess in battle. All the other paid their loyalty to him. The chief in turn was answerable to a council of elders. Every individual was a part of the decision-making body. And a chief could easily be deposed either by a decision of the majority or by the elders, if they found him tyrannical--an event that is almost impossible in present day Africa.

Decisions that would affect the majority were widely discussed by all living within the framework of the tribe. This form of traditional authority developed to what we all know in Africa as Chieftaincy. Thus it is possible to see that although such an institution was still primitive, a close study will show that it was as democratic as any modern institution, but not without its pitfalls. The economy was subsistent and traditional authorities never had an effective and prosperous economy as our rational-legal authorities of our time. This primitive economic pattern has hardly changed in most of our rural areas in Africa, yet people still live a subsistent life.

The extended African family is another case in point that has also contributed to stagnating our economy. There are tribal wars, and conflicts that exist on to this day. At this time the natural resources of Africa were still buried in the soil. The tribes had not mastered their environments as yet to become acutely aware of rich mineral deposits. As a result the natural resources of Africa were still virgin forests. This was never a cohesive society but that of fragments.

Why then did the colonialists choose to come to Africa? The answer is best summed up by Albert Sarraut, French Colonial Secretary of State in 1923, who described the motive of colonialism at thus:

What is the use of painting the truth? At the start colonialization was not an act of civilization, nor was it a desire to civilize. It was an act of force motivated by interests. An episode in the vital competition which, form man to man, from group to group, has gone on ever increasing; the people who set out to seize colonies in distant lands were thinking primarily of themselves, and were working for their own profits, and conquering for their own power.

If the primary objective of the colonialists was to bring civilization and religion to Africa, then the wealth and dazzling beauty of Africa was too tempting for their feeble minds. Civilization was brutal and savage; the cross lost track of the guiding light, and the primary motive of their cause became a dream betrayed. Instead of civilizing men they kept them in cages of ignorance; instead of freeing their victims they enslaved them. The cross became the cross to crucify the Africans because he was a heathen. The African continent must have been a golden treasure to the colonialists. Africa had all the natural resources the colonialists needed--gold, iron ore, bauzite, diamonds, oil and many others; Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Portugal all needed a place in the sun, hence the partition of Africa. They created the worst frontiers or boundaries in Africa. Alien governments were established. The French sought to make the African and Frenchman by establishing a policy of assimilation and comprimise. The British whose only motive was that of exploitation introduced foreign companies that established monopolies. Slavery became a lucrative enterprise. Behind the facade of colonialism was the Christian religion. As colonialism prospered so did the trading companies and religion. But the prosperity of colonialism meant the death of the tribe, of a people, of traditions and customs. The colonial march never slowed its pace, and the two world wars that were fought provided only a slight pause.

The end of the Second World War opened the flood gates for nationalist movements in Africa. Students who had studied abroad, men like the late Kwame Nkrumah, the late I.T.A. Wallace Johnson, Namdi Azikiwe and many other began to fan the flames of nationalist movements in the continent. African newspapers re-echoed the words--liberty, freedom and equality. The right for self-determination became the watch word for the nationalists. Before the end of the 1960's, many countries had become independent, and to many Africans, it was the dawn of a new era. The legislative and executive councils were replaced by parliaments. Expect for southern African and some few countries, most of the leaders were African. Did the African independence mean the death of colonialism and imperialism? The rushing tide of colonialism and imperialism that overflooded the African soil brought immense devastation to the continent and the people. Men and women, young and old were swept away by the colonial flood. Some drowned and those Africans who survived the flood have still not recovered from the trauma. Sacred places were ruined and some annihilated for good. The strong men were castrated; clans divided. Tribes were broken and traditions butchered by the sword; and the children who survived the bayonets could hardly take to the ways of the old. How much did the African independence help to alleviate our suffering? Did the African independence revitalize the deteriorating situation left by the colonialists? The answer is no. The independent African leaders have failed just like the colonialists. They have betrayed their good intentions because they could not resist the tempting situation that Africa gave them. Most of the leaders were incompetent. Their governments were surrounded by blatant extravagance that did not benefit the man in the street.

The military governments that replaced countries were thrown into civil wars; some were badly mismanaged by incompetent and ruthless military governments. This is the worst period Africa has ever experienced. One wonders whether the wheels of destruction will ever come to a halt.

I have briefly tried to present without any prejudice an adjective picture of how the situation was from pre-colonial to the post-independence era. The question that remains to be answered is what has made Africa a poor continent. Many have glorified the African past, that is, pre-colonial Africa; many have found little to admire an some are very apathetic to the past. However rich our customs or cultures were, they also left us a legacy of many problems. The major problem is that of tribal groups. Although this problem became accentuated by the colonialists, it had its roots in pre-colonial societies in Africa. With a common tribe, or less tribal groups and tribal languages, the problem for unification could have been much easier. Another problem is the lack in individual efforts or motivation to succeed within a collective group. This is a result of the poor communalistic life that posed no opportunity for the individuals to transcend community life. We still face this problem in our rural areas in Africa, where a group could be content to live and share their poverty. This has contributed to making the individual lazy and impotent. Another great inherited fault that still exists in many Africans is that of readily accepting a situation as a predestined one. The mystery of the pre-colonial African was that he had never questioned anything that was inexplicable. For example, the failure of any crop would be ascribed to the gods, demons or devils. Such idiosyncratic attitudes and superstitions nonsense still direct the action of many Africans. As a result of this, productivity was crippled and poverty preserved. There are many flaws to be found in the old system that have contributed to the poverty of the continent.

But the devastation brought by colonialism is immense and apparent. The tribal groups were further divided. Boundaries were carved out of their own selfish ends. The colonialists institutionalized an exploitative system under the guise of teaching the African. Big business was monopolized which deprived the indigenous African from participating. Slavery destroyed families and brought untold misery--a loss that will never be restored. Religion, although it exposed some of the ghastly wounds inflicted upon the native African by colonialism, did little to stimulate the mind of the African to think, to be creative, and to realize the not everything comes from God. Man has to build his own hut if the needs a place to sleep. The colonial educational system has proven to be erroneous and ridiculous. Most of our universities built in colonial days were designed to train a civil service but not educate men that would come to grips with the African problem. Thus colonial institutions became a means of ex-exploitation, and religion a mere imploration of words.

How much poverty independence did bring meant little to the African people because they see it as a system that has only replaced colonialism. After independence, most of our nationalists or revolutionary Ivaders became reactionary. Independence became a means to their ends. The decolonization of Africa is replaced by neocolonialization. Although the countries remained independent by name, the economies of all the countries is still controlled and regulated by the colonialist masters. Our political parties have no well-defined programs. Most of our leaders have become thoughtless and unwholesome. Our politicians are more of salesmen than statesmen. Much wealth accumulates in the hands of a few while a majority of the people decay with misery and poverty. The intellectual elite that was vocal, vital and critical of corrupt governments has chosen to either join the corruption, flee the country or suffer in silence. The army which should protect the interest of the people has become fickle-minded and equally as corrupt as the governments they seek to perpetrate. A new method of corruption, practised by many African governments, is that of the "unopposed-system." This system denies the African the franchise and deprived all other political parties of the right to contest general elections. This system enables all members of the ruling party to retain their former seats in parliament. Governments of this type will never represent and protect the interest of the people because they are not elected by the people.

The body of African intellectuals is too selfish to think of the oppressed African people, who do not have the intellectual training of the intellectuals. Unlike the African peasants, these "butterfly" intellectuals live in two worlds--the African and the Western world. They have the skills, the qualifications and educational training to live in these two worlds. If they find Africa almost impossible, they will definitely make it in the western world. Some of these intellectuals see the African question as unsolvable, but they have never reached for the impossible, reminiscent of the words of a German sociologist, Max Weber, who asserts that:

Man would not have attained the possible unless time and again, he had reached out for the impossible.

Alienation is not the key to our problem. We all have to deal with the African problem as it affects no other but Africans.

Unlike the "butterfly" intellectual, the oppressed African peasant sees Africa as his only world-his birth place and his grave yard. He is therefor the only force that will effect a genuine African independence.

By and large, the poverty of the continent lies not in her 'poor' natural resources but in her people and the African character. Until we are ready to face the challenges, strangers will ever remain to exploit our continent. According to an old African proverb: the natives who defecate in their river must not blame strangers who fish in it for its pollution. Until we know the value of Africa, our continent will always remain an enigma to us.

Nabie Yayah Swaray is a sophomore and has lived in Sierra Leone all of his life. He has written several plays about West Africa, two of which will be produced this spring.