Rewriting narratives of the past: A decolonial analysis of clothing, cleanliness and personal hygiene in 19th-century Togoland.

Abstract

Accounts of colonized peoples have mainly been recorded and written by colonizer groups, and frequently, in languages different from those in which the experiences took place and were lived. These accounts have typically presented distorted views of many formerly colonized peoples because their authors either misunderstood the phenomena they observed or elected to do so for their own purposes. This may have occurred because of the influence of the authors’ personal circumstances, their beliefs and values, their membership in certain groups or the target audiences of their intended works. Because of this, accounts of formerly colonized groups must be deconstructed and reconstructed based on the culture and language through which the experiences were lived. This study does so by attempting to deconstruct and reconstruct the work of Jakob Spieth, a Norddeutsche Missionsgesellschaft (NMG) missionary to the Ewe people of present-day Ghana, during the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. The study employs Fairclough’s approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine how Spieth discursively constructed the colonial difference and the Ewe colonial subject during that period. This approach identifies how Spieth wrote from a position of power to describe the social practices of clothing, care of clothing, bathing, and personal hygiene among the Ewes of Ho as predominantly negative and inferior to Euro-Christian standards. To obtain a more accurate understanding of these practices, this research conducted semi-structured interviews with Ewe and Ho cultural and language experts to better understand these Ewe cultural practices during the colonial period. An analysis of the interviews reveals that the people of Ho had complex cultural practices around clothing, care of clothing, bathing, and personal hygiene, which were influenced by a cosmology that considered both the physical (practical, medicinal, and aesthetic) and spiritual functions of these practices in everyday life. Consequently, this study went beyond a mere description of the social practices of the people of Ho during the colonial era by attempting to provide a fuller exposition on the practices from the people’s ‘world-sense’. Finally, the research demonstrated the agentic nature of the nineteenth-century people of Ho by showing how they were able to make choices that benefitted them, even in the context of the colonial encounter. Through this research, the voices of formerly colonized peoples will hopefully be heard by those who attempted to misrepresent them in the past. Nutsotso tso dukɔ kewɛ dzi dutanyigbadzinɔlawɛ ɖu kpɔ ŋu ɖee fia be nutsotsoɔwɛ tso ameteɖoanyilawo gbɔ. Gawu la, nutsotsoɔwɛ le gbe bubu kewɛ to vovo tso ekewɛ me nuteƒekpɔkpɔɔwo kple agbenɔnɔɔwɛ dzɔ le la. Nutsotso kewɛ to vovo sã tso ame kewɛ dzi woɖu tsã la ŋu elabe eŋlɔlawɛ mese nu ke teƒe wokpɔ la gɔme o loo alo woɖoe be yewoaŋlɔ nutsotsoɔwɛ ɖe wo ŋutɔ ƒe taɖodzinuwɛ ta. Ɖewohĩ, nuɔ yiewɛ dzɔ kple susu be nutsotsoŋlɔlawɛ nate ŋu aɖe yɔwɛ ŋutɔ ƒe nɔnɔme (nuteƒekpɔkpɔ), woƒe dzixɔse kple nuvãwɛ, woƒe habɔbɔ aɖewɛ menɔnɔ alo ame kewɛ minya wole be woaxlẽ woƒe dɔwo la ta. Ɖe eke taa, ehiã be woagbugbɔ adzro nutsotso kewɛ woŋlɔ tso ame kewɛ dzi woɖu (woteɖeanyi) va yi kpɔ la me, agbugbɔe atu ɖe dekɔnu kple gbegbɔgblɔ kewɛwo me wodzɔ le la nu. Nugɔmekuku ke te kpɔ wɔ dɔ ke to eboɖeɖe kple ŋkuléle ɖe aƒetɔ Jakob Spieth ke nye Norddeutsche Missionsgesellschaft (NMG) Mawunyadɔgbedela ƒe nutsotso tso Eʋeɛwɛ ŋu la ŋu gbugbɔ tui. Aƒetɔ Jakob Spieth nɔ Eʋeɛwɛ dome le Ghana le ƒe alɔfa blaasieke kple blaeve lɔƒo. Nugɔmekuku ke zã Fairclaugh wo aɖaŋu tso Critical Discourse Analysis me kɔ lé ŋku ɖe mɔnu kewɛ nu Spieth wo numedzodzro to vovo tso tsã ƒe numekuku le Eʋeɛwɛ ŋu le ɣeyiɣi miewɛ me la gbɔ. Emɔ ke de dzesi le yi Spieth zã eƒe ŋusẽkpɔkpɔɖeamedzi (ŋusẽ ƒe ɖoƒe) kɔ ɖɔ Ehoɔwɛ le woƒe hadomegbenɔnɔ ku ɖe nudodowɛ, nudodoɔwɛ ƒe dzadzɛnɔnɔ, tsilele kple belelé na ame ɖokui la ŋu; Efiae be ame kewɛ ƒe agbenɔnɔmɔnuwɛ menyo o loo alo wole gblɔ̃e eye womesɔ ɖe yevuwɛ alo kristotɔwɛ ƒe dzidzɛdzɛnu o. Be nugɔmekukuɔ naɖe nyateƒeɛ ɖe go la, wozã dzeɖoɖo/gbebiabia ke mezɔ ɖe ɖoɖo nu tutuutu o la kɔ xɔ gbe tso ame kewɛ nya nu ku ɖe Eʋeɛgbe, Ehoɔwɛ ƒe dekɔnu kple gbeŋutinunyalawo gbɔ kple susu be gɔmesese deto nava ku ɖe dekɔnu wɔna kewɛ yi dzi le teteɖeanyi ɣeyiɣi mawo me. Gbebiameɛwɛ medzodzro ɖee fia be Ehoɔwo ƒe dekɔnu kewɛe ku ɖe nudodowo, beléle na woƒe nudodowo, tsilenyawo kple dzadzenyenye ŋu godoo la de to, eye woku ɖe woƒe dzixɔse le ŋutilã (nuwɔna, atikewɔwɔ kple atsyɔ̃ɖoɖo) kple gbɔgbɔme siaa ŋuti le gbe siaa gbe ƒe agbenɔnɔ me. Ɖe susu ke ta la, numekuku ke menye Ehoaɔwɛ ƒe hadomegbenɔnɔ le ɣemaɣi me ɖeɖe ko wòɖɔ o, ke boŋ edze agbagba ɖe nyame tsitotsito ku ɖe ameɛwɛ ŋutɔ ƒe nukpɔkpɔ le “xexeame ƒe gɔmesese” nu. Mlɔetɔe la, nugɔmekuku Ehoɔwɛ ƒe ɖokuisinɔnɔ to ale yi woawo ŋutɔ wowɔ woƒe tiatia kewoe ɖe vi na wo le ɣeyiɣi mawo me. To nugɔmekuku ke me la, woase ame yiwɛ dzi woɖu le blema la ƒe gbe, wòade dzi, bena ne ame kewɛ te kpɔ be yeawotsyɔ woƒe mo anyi la nasee.