Follow Us on Google
In the thick of the gushing global tributes and media deification of Elizabeth II, queen of England, following her passage on Thursday, September 8, 2022, a poignant film, Invasion 1897, was showing on one of the cable television channels of DSTV.
The film had no bearing whatsoever, to the death of the British monarch. It had no direct link or reference to Queen Elizabeth II either. Indeed, the film was set in an era before the departed monarch was born. All the same, Invasion 1897 had everything to do with Queen Elizabeth II’s very essence, the heritage she upheld with so much pride and the values she guarded with all her whole being throughout her long reign and long life
Invasion 1897, Lancelot Imasuen’s historical film, leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth, especially for Africans and more so for Nigerians. It is even more melancholic for anyone with any link or bond with Benin Kingdom. The film is acutely provocative. The 2014 film, distributed by Netflix, is a traumatizing story of the greed-propelled invasion of the Benin Kingdom by the British, who spared no viciousness or horror to achieve their ultimate goal. The disdain and depravity of the invaders towards innocent and ill-prepared Africans who woke up to be confronted by such unimaginable calamity, remain, even to this day, very distressing. But that was(?) the way the British rolled. All over the face of the earth.
Every contempt in the words of the plunderers, every grimace on their faces and every command they gave simply aimed to degrade and obliterate a hitherto proud people and culture thriving in their God-given space. Africans did not meet the British at some common ground with any patrimony to share. They were in their land minding their business and British invaders brought devastation to them. The lot of Africa in relation to contact with Britain has largely remained that of a people who found themselves at the receiving end of a prolonged plundering expedition, executed over time by a motley mix of bandits and bureaucrats, all on Her Majesty’s service.
The days following the death of Her Majesty seemed a most uncomfortable time for Invasion 1897 to be showing. The world was, after all, in the midst of extolling her and identifying with the British monarchy. Sentiment and romanticism become such moments.
If it was by sheer coincidence that Invasion 1897 was on a cable television channel in Africa at such a very critical time in the global focus on the life, times and legacy of Elizabeth II, queen of Britain, then the gods must have done it again. The film must have been aired for a purpose the gods did not want smothered.
There is no denying the fact though that Elizabeth II was a charming monarch. Her dignified, quaint visage, her matriarchal bearing and that aura of antiquity that Britain had cultivated and successful hoisted on her monarch made Elizabeth II a relic nobody could easily trample upon. The older she grew, the more adorable she appeared, something of a fascinating obsolete entity clutching to relevance in a world that has moved on from what she represented.
But there is history to contend with. And Queen Elizabeth II, her crown, her life, her forebearers and her country, have a lot about them that she will need to live several charmed lives dozen times over to re-make. It was not only the ancient history, a part of which Invasion 1897 dwelt upon. Her own place in modern history is not wrapped in honour and gold, beyond the ceremonial.
When, therefore, Professor Uju Anya of Carnegie Mellon University in the United States of America, in a strongly worded statement, had nothing but denunciation for the departed Elizabeth II, her throne and all that she personified, she was coming from an experience and a background.
Even for the legendary rapaciousness of the British that has manifested itself to the end of the earth over the ages, those who have borne direct pain from the treachery and machinations of Her Majesty’s government and agents will have no difficulty understanding Prof. Uju Anya. If through acts of sheer greed and cold-calculating political manipulation, Elizabeth II and her government condoned and indeed promoted the wanton death of millions of innocent people in distant land of Biafra without cause, it will be extremely unhuman to expect a direct victim of such fate to be singing “God save the queen”. For Uju Anya and for million others, it was well within the influence of Elizabeth II to save lives during the Biafran war. But she joined the fray, obviously for profit.
The criticism of Prof. Uju Anya in some quarters is, in the main, that she did not swallow her pains and play to the gallery, waving flowers and wishing the queen a peaceful repose. Africa and indeed, the world is full of such hypocrisy. Those who dare to be true to themselves feel freer.
From South Africa, the activist, CIC Malema’s reaction to the death of the British monarch was no less independent. In Malema’s words, “We have nothing to do with the Queen (of England)…we do not mourn the death of a colonizer…those who killed our people”.
Worse still, he said, “she was wearing proudly stolen gold on her head”. It will be wrong to dismiss or condemn Malema for his views, not when facts are on his side, as they are on the side of Prof. Uju Anya in her pains.
Being politically correct is a choice. As is often found, those who elect to be so often toe the line either for lack of strength of character or for expectation of some form of compensation. Those who follow their mind do not deserve condemnation.
As for Britain, it surely can find ample expression of friendliness and sympathy from the government of its former colony, Nigeria, which decided to fly its flag at hast mast in honour of its former sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. That is fair. The fact though, as someone sardonically noted over the weekend, is that the Nigerian flag has, in more ways than one, actually been fluttering and flying near half-mast for a while, even before Queen Elizabeth II died. So, why not?
