An African Computer Revisited: Theory of the Adaptation of the Speech and Mental Apparatus to the Spoken Language

This essay is extracted from the book "Africa's Lost Generations and other Essays" by Mukazo Mukazo Vunda. It can also be read in context @ pathediagne.blogspot.com

Daniel Erasmus' article "The Economy of Ideas #8: An African Computer" argues that technology follows a basic concept of the culture that a particular group has. To put the argument simply, the personal computer, in his view, is a reflection of western individualistic standards, while the laptop, predominantly produced and used in Japan, reflects a product of a culture preoccupied with space saving because of overpopulation.

Erasmus proposes that if Africa were to make its own computer technology, then it would be in line with the basic concept of African culture "Ubuntu". Out of Ubuntu, which means "being in terms of other people", a communal approach to life would be reflected in the technological productions of Africans. African computers would then be communal computers, used simultaneously by many for the benefit of the whole.

Rather than input devices designed for the use of an individual at a time (keyboard or mouse, etc.) African computers would work around to input devices that can accept many at a time. Rather than only the brain, eyes and fingers of the individual using the computer, an African computer may engage or possess the capacity to engage more of the body.

The last item sounds a lot like African dance, a creative process in its own right that, unlike that in other world cultures, engages more of the body. When Africans dance, more of their body goes into action than is the case in other world cultures. At its most creative, the legs, waist, arms, head, can move at differing tempos of the rhythm as each responds to different instruments in the musical piece, the whole of these movements relaying a coherent message, telling a story.

Erasmus is right, of course, but only in theory. In reality, there is a truth about the current African situation that makes what he says impossible to achieve, and it is restricted to the present.

I don't think Africans will ever be able to contribute anything novel and original to this culture, save maybe in individual instances of invention, unless they find out what it is about Africa’s present culture that is holding the creativity their ancestors displayed back, until they take measures to correct the problem. Only when the issue has been resolved will Africans bring forth creations the likes of which Erasmus describes. As things stand, the continent will lumber behind the individualistic western creative process, and will simply follow the new leader when this dominant culture is eclipsed.

What I say above will sound absurd to especially those who believe we have no connection to ancient civilisations, that our ancestors ran around naked. Only when you make them look around at common implements and other products we still use, that we inherited from our ancestors, that we use as we got them and have not improved upon or replaced with our own new inventions, does this make sense. And there are a lot of these around us that are typically African and were not copied from foreign cultures.

The uncreative African mentality of today is more or less a product of the debilitations affected on the group by the effects of cultural imperialism. During the process of colonizing the African, indigenous culture was suppressed in a process called cultural suffocation. The ultimate aim, obviously, was to supplant African with western culture completely, but this did not come to be. What resulted, however, was the creation of a homogenised culture and a very unimaginative African.

We see a similar process in what today is described as globalization, a phenomenon whose definition is realistically speaking a euphemism for globalizm. It is described as "the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around the world". Globalizm, on the other hand, is defined as "the destruction of local traditions and regional distinctions by an advanced capitalism boosted by wireless and internet communications, creating in their place a homogenized culture".

This is cultural imperialism.

The resultant cultural state of Africans on the continent was achieved by force sometimes, but mostly by promotion of the colonial power’s culture. What has not been noted about this process, whether it manifests as globalizm or mere cultural suffocation, is the truth local cultures are seldom completely eradicated. Rather, the target population is thrown into a situation where they transiently exist in a blended culture, unable to sufficiently understand any of the two. This is the world in which the African lives today, and has lived since this madness began.

Western culture is gaining ground over indigenous culture by precedence in official encounters. This means that, to a large extent, the basic concept of the culture that Africans have is becoming more and more repressed and confused as the modification takes place.

As long as this state lasts, Africans will never be able to be creative in a manner that reflects a cultural concept germane to their own culture or that which they adopted from Europeans, nor will they be creative in ways that matter to their lives, or those of others. The expression of Ubuntu, or even the individualistic western standard in technology, cannot be made in the context of a homogenised cultural existence.

Confounding matters is the fact, in my view, the African speech apparatus isn't adapted to the use of western tongues. As such, the African will not find in any western language an efficient means of expression and especially thought facilitation, which is one of the main functions of a language. This represents a major impediment to the advancement of the group.

I have a theory to support the notion that the speech and mental apparatus adapts to the spoken language.

In adaptation, a biological entity increases its viability by taking note of favorable alterations that can be made to the creature at large to cope with new circumstances. This information is communicated to the genes responsible for the growth of the part in question and such change is gradually affected by the alteration of the instruction for such growth.

Because such change is mere genetic message in the progenitor, it is only affected and perfected in those that come after, and eventually becomes a permanent feature of the species.

Adaptation is a function of survival. It is as such basic for animals, a process without which survival would not be possible.

Adaptation can not be restricted to reactions to nature, but to the culture as well. Animals are known to develop physical traits that are only used in interactions with members of the same species, some for status, others to attract mates, and so on. Some bird species develop elaborate designs on their feathers that they use to attract mates, and so on. In the case of man, such change can also be caused by culture. The constituent parts of the culture, which we could call components for the sake of simplicity, are adapted to individually, according to the function and length of exposure to them. Since most cultural components could not be considered as having real substance, but mere form, they tend to change over time, given enough external influence or simple internal evolution, and can have little to no effect on the general make up of the being once the changes from one form to another happen too rapidly to be adapted to.

Cultural components that are constantly with man, especially those that are indispensable to his survival and require the use of some body parts to partake in, can cause changes to the physical constitution of man. Such cultural components include language.

We have gained knowledge from observations made of the animal world that they utilize a basic form of communication using various sounds, that can be considered a rudimentary language. We know that we are animals at base, and that there was a time in the past when our communication was as rudimentary. This was a very long time ago.

We have changed a lot since then as a result of adaptation. Changes to our appearance were affected in accordance with each new found direction. We are aware human history spans epochs of development, from precursors of modern man to the present, from the Stone Age, to the Bronze Age, till the modern age. We can be sure language has been with man for the duration of this development. Modern language alone has been with man long enough to cause both mental and physical changes to the creature.

Such change will take place despite the fact language, like most other cultural components, is constantly undergoing alterations. It is growing as it gains more words, improving as the superfluous is removed, getting more complex as new forms of expression are added. This process will continue whether or not the group gets infusions from other cultures that cause change to the course this development would otherwise have taken.

Such change will happen with or without external, alien interruptions that alter the language completely, whether language development follows defined lines and rules set and determined by the structure of the language itself, or by factors that are cultural in nature.

This change takes precedence because, without the benefit of the functions of language, the number of things we can do in nature would be less. Our viability as a species would be adversely affected. In fact, no species can survive as well without utilising the function of communication of language alone. To do so would result in a dramatic reduction in numbers, and most probably cause the species to evolve into another.

It is now known, by way of studies, that animal sounds give much more information than previously thought. A hen with its hatchlings will use different sounds to warn the young of danger, the king of threat and the direction it is coming from, the availability of food, and so on. Predators such as lions will use distinct sounds that give commands cubs obey. They can be commanded to flee if there is danger, to hide until the lioness has returned from hunting, and so on.

In the animal world, communication can replace the eyes where opaque objects obscure sight, and it can shorten distance when physical movement would be too slow.

All animals possess the senses that we do and, in many cases they are much more powerful and quick on the ground compared to us. Despite the many advantages they may have over us, the number of things we can do with more than mere rudimentary communication are more. We are more powerful than they are because of the use of a much more advanced form of communication

It can subsequently be asserted that, like sight and the basic senses, communication using sounds is also a tool of survival, evolved as such by creatures large and small. There are physical structures in place in the design of the creature for its utilization. The use of communication in animals, or language in humans, then, is encoded into the very genes and, unlike human beings who are born without language, animals come hard wired with the capacity to comprehend commands their kind make.

The use of communication in the animal world has had an impact on the design of every species that takes advantage of it. Elephants are known to produce very low frequency sounds that can travel much further than higher frequencies, as such be able to communicate at longer distances. The capacity to make such sounds requires the development of special apparatus, and this is evolved along the way. Similar developments apply where human history is concerned, the only difference with the animal world being the addition of the mental factor, or the mind, to such development.

Language influences the mentality of the people who use it and, like the example of the elephant, also structures the apparatus used for the production of speech sounds. For example, if speech sounds develop in a language that require an altered use of vocal cords to voice, if, as time goes by, there is an advantage added to making the sound, then future development of these organs, including in this the tendency to see the making of the sound as an advantage, will be prioritized.

Physical changes will be made that make it easy to make the sound as well as mental changes that induce the need to make the sound. In other words, the physical body and mind of the users of a particular language are influenced by it in development, given that this usage is sufficiently prolonged.

It is known that in Africa civilizations have existed for thousands of years where the same language was passed on from generation to generation. The most documented of these, that is apt for use in this case, is ancient Egypt. Incidentally, it has been ascertained that the language used in the Egyptian civilization was tonal, which is also what most African languages are. It is unquestionable then that this group, including direct descendants of Egyptians living in our day, has evolved a physical and mental apparatus more suited to the use of tonal languages. This language could very well have become the most efficient and effective means of producing African genius as a result of the people who depended on it for survival adapting fully to it.

As I made clear already, adaptation is a function of survival, an innate tendency. If we keep this in mind, then we would realize the error of assuming that a mind can adapt to the language used to its own detriment.

The African, in my view, doesn't find efficient means of self expression using the western languages that have been forced on the continent because there has not been sufficient time to adapt to them. This is not to imply that Africans cannot learn to use western languages as well as westerners, but that they will always do better when they use those tongues their anatomy is best adapted to.

Mind you, the fact Africans under perform when they use western languages is easy to ascertain when you have gained proficiency in their use, which tends to give the impression that Africans (black people) are less intelligent on average than whites.

Knowing what I know, seeing things the way I do, I don't think it is a reflection of intelligence at all. I am inclined to refer to it as the paradoxical mental make up of the African. For example, he is very good at music, can become a virtuoso at various instruments even when born blind. Rhythm runs in the blood of Africans. Making music by playing musical instruments with excellence, as well as understanding and responding to rhythm is also connected to the part of the brain known as the logical faculty, just like language is. That's the part that does the logical deductions. That's the part that calculates. That's the part that speaks volumes about the intelligence of an individual. And it is clearly highly evolved in Africans. But then observe in the western context when Africans appear at talk shows with western counterparts who may be equally educated, or when they are interviewed on other occasions that, on average they struggle more than the latter to express themselves. On average, Africans are less articulate than their white counterparts. This happens whether a western language is their mother tongue or not. This happens despite the known fact Africans have been using language for as long, if not longer than westerners when certain evidence from the past is taken into consideration.

I have read many a western professional in the field come up with arguments to explain this phenomenon. Some blame nurture. They hold responsible the role played by insufficiently schooled parents, and upbringing in communities that have a paucity of people who are well spoken. Naturally, such surroundings give less linguistic (as well as intellectual) skills to the developing children compared to those where such factors aren't predominant. A different camp of thinkers consists the ubiquitous group prone to point the finger of blame at nature and argue it is a matter of evolution.

The first explanation makes more sense than the second that would only be true if Africans have never made advanced civilizations in the past, and if George G.M. James, author of the book "Stolen Legacy", and Cheikh Anta Diop, the "Father of African History", are anything to go by, then it is in fact black people that the world has to thank for civilisation. It only fails to explain why Africans can apply their logical faculties as well as any other race to everything the part of the brain is designed to handle, except western language.

The rationalization I set out before is the better explanation. To me, the African’s mental apparatus is simply not as adapted to western tongues as it is to Africa’s tonal languages, and they can be considered congenial to it. This doesn't mean that the African cannot do as well as westerners using western languages. He can, but only if sufficient effort is put into the language acquisition and learning process.

But then, considering the cultural context of Africans on the continent, such a task becomes humanly impossible. Thus, the status quo will last, and the African will fail to find in western tongues an efficient means of thought,expression and communication. The biggest stumbling block to African development, which is an inability to utilize the functions of language in full, will forever be the continent’s bane.

One other thing we need to understand about this situation is the fact Western languages are quite new compared to tonal languages that saw Africans through thousands of years of various stable civilizations on the continent itself. One look at the development of English in the last two thousand years makes this point very clear. When the growth of this language is followed through, and the realization made that this "young" language can create, cope and support a sophisticated culture, the increased mental potential for blacks resulting from the use of more mature tonal languages in the present cannot be doubted.