Translation As Culture in Postcolonial African Literature and Film In

Decolonizing Translation Practice as Culture in Postcolonial African Literature and Film

in Setswana Language

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

the College of Fine Arts of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Keith Phetlhe

May 2020

This dissertation titled

Decolonizing Translation Practice as Culture in Postcolonial African Literature and Film

in Setswana Language

KEITH PHETLHE

has been approved for

Interdisciplinary Arts

and the College of Fine Arts by

Andrea Frohne

Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts

Matthew R. Shaftel

Dean, College of Fine Arts 3

Abstract

PHETLHE, KEITH., Ph.D., May 2020, Interdisciplinary Arts.

Decolonizing Translation Practice as Culture in Postcolonial African Literature and Film in Setswana Language

Director of Dissertation: Andrea Frohne

The dissertation aims to engage a critical analysis of the cultural implications of translation practice in the context of postcolonial African literature and film in Setswana language. It argues for the integration of decolonial and culturally relevant translations in post-colonial African-language cultural productions. The dissertation shows that, through the application of decolonized methodological practices to translation, cultural meaning can be retained, and therefore, empower the relevance and global visibility of marginalized literatures. The study is cognizant of the fact that cultural translations constitute an essential aspect of growth and expansion of postcolonial literatures and films from Africa, especially for minority literary communities across the continent.

Furthermore, the dissertation makes an innovative contribution to the ongoing debates on postcolonial literatures and films produced in Africa, and more importantly, to decolonizing the study of translation as culture in Setswana literature and film.

The period of colonization in Africa was characterized not only with the impositions of the European literary cultures and canons on their colonies, but also with varied assumptive views on literary translation practice. For example, most literary translations only focused on the written word represented using the Latin alphabet, but 4

overlooked the possibilities of other translation practices implemented and widely used by the culturally displaced literary cultures. Some of these translation practices entailed the translation of oral tradition and its integration into both the written forms of literature and cinematic adaptations. Furthermore, the exercise of translation also involved the translation of the postcolonial canons, and its defining aesthetic features that account for a distinct style of the cultural productions considered in this study.

The study makes a critical observation that the colonial translation practice of

Setswana language reflected the following: First, uncritical acceptance and imposition of prescriptive traditional methods of translations that favored English literary culture and its aesthetic modalities. Second, the ideological bias toward prescriptive translational methods that originated in Europe although they offered a dismissive, reductionist, and uninformed view of postcolonial African cultural texts. Literature and film in postcolonial

Africa are examples that demonstrate the fact that translation practice is more than the transference of information from one language to another, but it is instead a cultural entity that exposes the existing dominant Eurocentric hegemonic and paternalist narratives about translation. Therefore, the dissertation establishes that, translation as a study and practice should be defined in the broadest possible sense, one that recognizes the role that it plays in giving a distinct style of literary and cinematic production in postcolonial African cultures.

Methodologically, the data analyzed are selected from the following existing translations of Setswana literatures: Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo, The Conscript, Things 5

Fall Apart, Praise Poems of Tswana Chiefs, A Grain of Wheat, When Rain Clouds

Gather. And from the following Setswana films—O Bone O Ja Sereto and Beauty. In addition, it examines translated manuscripts and the existing literature on translation practice in relation to Setswana literature. The dissertation raises critical questions that have not received satisfactory answers regarding translation practice in postcolonial

Setswana texts: How can translation methods in postcolonial African literature and film be decolonized in order to move forward with repatriating their cultural content? How does Setswana literature and film as examples reveal the complexities of the translation practice? What interventions can be deployed to improve future translations and address the negative implications of applying irrelevant translation methods? The questions contribute to understanding the complexities surrounding the translation question, and its decolonization in African literatures and films, and how such complexities are conceptualized and understood through postcolonial theory. The study will first explore the history of translated postcolonial African literature and film within a broader historical spectrum to show that the history of literary translation dates back to precolonial Africa, hence translation practice predates colonial era. Second, it considers how in the history of translation practice in Setswana literature and film, Setswana, as a literary language, portrays not only a history of mistranslations from the colonial anthropological and missionary translations, but also as a culture marked by remarkable literary resilience using diverse translation practices. 6

Dedication

For my mother, Kebonye Phetlhe, and my late grandmother Motsei Phetlhe.

Acknowledgments

The process of writing a dissertation is a collective activity that is impossible to complete without the committed assistance from various individuals. Therefore, I want to sincerely express my gratitude to those who helped me throughout this process. The

Setswana proverb—montsamaisa bosigo ke mo leboga boselê—provides a better context of my deep sense of gratitude. I wish to first thank my family for enduring five years of absence, when I was on a self-imposed academic exile, especially to you, my darling and sweetheart, Annah Diundu for the encouragement. Thank you for raising my kids Maya and Maru throughout this period. And to my mother, Edith Kebonye Phetlhe, for the encouragement and in helping to raise my children. I cannot thank Tiroentle Bafana Pheto enough, and Pula Press for granting me the permission to translate his novel Botlhodi Jwa

Nta ya Tlhogo into English. Thank you Rre Pheto for availing all the time and material I needed for my research. I would also like to thank distinguished members of my dissertation committee for their advice and grooming me into being a better researcher. I first thank the chair of my dissertation committee and director of my school Dr. Andrea

Frohne for detailed comments, advice, and constructive feedback. I also thank Dr. Erin

Schlumpf for supervising my dissertation proposal until it took shape, and for introducing me to film studies. And to Prof. Ghirmai Negash I thank you immensely for great mentorship and feedback since I joined graduate school at Ohio University. I also thank you for translating The Conscript into English, and for granting me the permission to 8

translate it into Setswana. To Prof. Vladmir Marchenkov I’m thankful for your advice and philosophical interventions, especially on matters relating to translation of mythology.

Among my colleagues and friends, I thank Dr. Lassane Ouedraogo for great friendship and academically stimulating conversations. I thank my brothers Dr. Mongi

Dlamini, Samuel Njai, Colin Lasu and Aggrey Willis. I also thank my cohort for doctoral studies Dennis Moot, Chao Zhou, and Lior Shragg for support. Pula! 9

Table of Contents Page

Abstract ...... 3 Dedication ...... 6 Acknowledgments...... 7 List of Tables ...... 12 List of Figures ...... 13 Introduction ...... 14 Prior Studies and Contribution ...... 27 Solomon Plaatje’s Translations of Setswana Literature ...... 32 Translations of Oral Literature ...... 40 Methodology ...... 48 Chapter Outline ...... 62 Conclusion ...... 66 Chapter 1: History of Translation in African Literature and Film ...... 69 Introduction ...... 69 Historical Background of Translation in Postcolonial Texts from Africa ...... 70 Precolonial Cultural Translations ...... 73 Colonial Literatures and Translation Practice...... 80 Postcolonial Literary Translations ...... 83 Orality in the History of Postcolonial Literary Translations ...... 86 Specific Cases of African Literatures and Films in Translation ...... 91 Examples from Literature: Translation in Creative Works (Historical Fictions) ...... 96 Translation in Criticisms of Selected Foundational Works ...... 104 Cultural Translations in Postcolonial African Films and Criticisms ...... 116 Ousmane Sembene’s use of Translation in Xala (1975) ...... 130 Gaston Kaboré as a Filmmaker and Cutural Translator ...... 134 Conclusion ...... 137 Chapter 2: History of Translation in Postcolonial Setswana Literature and Film ...... 142 Introduction ...... 142 Historical/Political Contexts of Literary Translations in Setswana Literatures...... 143 10

Literary Translations from the Precolonial Epoch ...... 148 Description of Setswana literature ...... 158 Setswana Script as the Basis of Early Literary Translations ...... 159 Translation of Cattle Earmarks and Color Terms in Setswana Literature ...... 165 Complexities of Translating Color in Setswana Literature...... 169 Translation in the Patterning of Signs and Symbols (Tlatlana/Weaved Baskets) .... 173 Critical Reception on Oral and Written Translations of Setswana Literature ...... 178 A Historical Overview of Postcolonial Setswana film in the Context of Translation ...... 185 Conclusion ...... 191 Chapter 3: Critical Analysis of Setswana Novels in Translation and Experimental Translations ...... 196 Introduction ...... 196 Theoretical Problems and Implications in Setswana Literary Translations...... 198 Translations in Setswana Literature; Bessie Head and Barulaganye Thedi ...... 207 Translational Similarities in Theme and Style ...... 213 Analysis of Monyaise’s Dilo Di Masoke with Achebe’s Things Fall Apart ...... 215 Monyaise’s Approach to Decolonizing Translation Methods ...... 226 Analysis of Moswelatebele and Gebreyesus Hailu’s The Conscript ...... 228 A Comparison of Setswana and English Translations ...... 232 Adressing Translation Challenges through Experimentation ...... 235 Analysis of Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo and Botlhodi: The Abomination...... 236 Conclusion ...... 256 Chapter 4: Critical Analysis of Verbal/Oral Arts and Botswana Films in Translation ...260 Introduction ...... 260 An Overview of Postcolonial Setswana Film, Verbal Arts and Translational Dynamics ...... 260 Setswana Verbal Arts in Translation ...... 267 Setswana Film as a Translational and Cultural Production ...... 286 Translation, Adaptation, and Contextualization of Setswana Idioms in O Bone o Ja Sereto (2012) ...... 288 Translation, Adaptation and Contextualization of Setswana Culture in Beauty (2013) ...... 295 11

Conclusion ...... 299 Conclusion ...... 303 References ...... 312 Filmography ...... 323 Appendix: A Note on Postcolonial Studies and Setswana Literatures in Translation .....324

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 A Comparative Analysis of Setswana Translation of Things Fall Apart ...... 224 Table 2 Schapera's English Translations of Setswana Oral Poetry ...... 269 Table 3 Schapera’s English Translations of Kgosi Isang in Praise Poems of Tswana Chiefs ...... 279 Table 4 Schapera’s Engish Translations of Kgosi Molefe in Praise Poems of Tswana Chiefs ...... 280 Table 5 Significant Setswana Postcolonial Literary Contributions by Botswana Writers ...... 336

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Different Ways of Cattle Earmarking Traitidition and its Use in Setswana Oral and Written Poetry...... 169 Figure 2. Cultural Semiotics in Botswana Weaved Baskets—Ditlatlana...... 175 Figure 3. Translational Meaning and Interpretation of Paterning in Setswana Weaved Baskets—Ditlatlana...... 176 Figure 4. Baretadilao by Moabi Kitchen...... 206 Figure 5. Brarulaganye Thedi—Setswana Translator...... 208 Figure 6. Bessie Head...... 209 Figure 7. Dilo di Masoke—Things Fall Apart in Setswana...... 217 Figure 8. Excerpt from Things Fall Apart in Setswana...... 218 Figure 9. D.P.S. Monyaise—Translator of Things Fall Apart into Setswana...... 221 Figure 10. Tiroentle Bafana Pheto—Author of Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo...... 245 Figure 11. Map of Botswana ...... 334

Introduction

As a writer who believes in the utilization of African ideas, African philosophy

and African folklore and imagery to the fullest extent possible, I am of the

opinion the only way to use them effectively is to translate them almost literally

from the African language native to the writer into whatever European language

he is using as a medium of expression. I have endeavored in my words to keep as

possible to the vernacular expression. For, from a word, a group of words, a

sentence and even a name in any African language, one can glean the social

norms, attitudes and values of a people. (Wali 435)

The opening excerpt by Obi Wali, a pioneering critic and promoter of African language literature, forces us to think more critically about the subject of translation, and its relevance to culture. This is because through translation, the cultural contexts of postcolonial African arts like literature and film can be diminished or restored depending on the approach used to translate; hence the need to decolonize translation practice and demystify how it has been conceptualized. Such thinking about translation is similarly embraced and encouraged by other noted critics in postcolonial writing such as Gayatri

Chakravorty Spivak who recognizes in her essay “The Politics of Translation” that “the politics of the translation of the culture of imperialism by the colonial subject has changed noticeably” (402). Translation has attracted much attention and debates in postcolonial scholarship, due to its complex relationship with the aspect of culture. And, as a result, many researchers interested in investigating how postcolonial cultural 15

productions translate are left with more questions than answers on how best translation should be approached. This is important because it allows for the implementation of the culturally relevant translation solutions that are not Eurocentric.

Appropriating Gayatri Spivak’s notion of “Translation as Culture” I understand translation as culture or translation as a cultural practice to amplify that translation always occurs in the context of culture. That is the central question of this thesis.

Translation is a phenomenon that is always tied to language (both written and oral texts); hence it is inconceivable to separate it from the aspect of culture. For example, as a postcolonial critic, Ngugi wa Thiong’o argues in Decolonizing the Mind “language has a dual function; it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture” (13).

Therefore, to imagine a translation practice that ignores the significance of linguistic and cultural aspects of a translated text is problematic. It leads to inaccurate conceptualizations and assumptive views about the culture of the source text. In its use as a conceptual term in this study, translation is defined broadly to entail a systematic migration of texts across languages, cultures, and epistemologies, which reflects ideologies and opens new platforms of thinking about cultural entities. Because translation practice in the context of this dissertation envisages the migration of cultural texts, it is a relevant tool to make the much needed decolonial interventions in African literatures. In point of fact, translation practice does not always imply translating from indigenous to colonial languages, which unnecessarily reinforces the power dynamics and binaries. As espoused in the study, it refers to an exploration of the possibilities in 16

translation practice between the African languages—such as translating from Setswana into Swahili or Venda. Furthermore, it relates to translating African Literatures in English

(ALE) into African languages as reparative translations because of the way they function to ‘repair’ the cultural loss associated with the hegemony of colonial linguistic suppression. Finally, it also means translating the texts written or expressed in African languages from their indigenous languages into languages that are widely spoken globally. Given this background, it is understandable why the dissertation revisits and explores several varieties of translations. These translations include the oral and written genres of literature, film, and the experimental interventions that open new possibilities of understanding how translation practice can be decolonized and conceptualized from a non-western perspective.1

This dissertation argues for the importance of culturally relevant translations as an essential aspect of the growth in the expansion of the postcolonial literatures and films from Africa. It engages a critical analysis of selected translated texts from African literatures and films. The dissertation analyzes selected Setswana novels, oral literature and films in the context of a translation practice and decolonization. I focus on Setswana cultural productions as an example among many African languages that have been influenced and transformed by translation practice in many ways. My research argues

1 To emphasize the importance and complexity of the subject of translation as culture, André Lefevere reminds us that a French poet and translator Etienne Dolet (1509-1546) “was burnt on the stake because his translation of Plato contained errors”(1992:27 qtd. in Ndana 7). This is one of the many examples that portrays translation as a challenging undertaking, which in some cases has resulted in the death, censorship, and rejection of translators due to its connectedness with the aspect of culture. 17

that, the understanding of translation in postcolonial literatures and films from Africa must be deconstructed and demystified, because they have relied on western conceptualizations about translation practice. The aims of demystifying the preconceived notions of translation is for purposes of inclusivity and to accommodate the non-western oral and written texts in translation. This post colonialist and decolonial attitude to literary translation practice is a way of opening new avenues for conceptualizing and contextualizing translations of cultures beyond the mainstream. For purposes of this research, I redefine and use the term mainstream to refer to majority cultures from the era of imperialism that dominated and imposed canons or standards of how literature and films must be produced on their colonies in Africa. For example, the influence of English literature and its cultural implications and dominance in African literary studies has resulted in the production of some texts that are biased towards western literary aesthetics. Although the English literary tradition was imposed on Africans as a standard during the colonial period, it was also dominated by male writers such as Shakespeare,

Wordsworth, Milton and others. Women writers were not represented as equal participants in the production of creative arts unlike in context of the African arts and literatures in precolonial Africa where women occupied roles as poets, storytellers, translators, and ululators. This exclusion based on gender patently influenced African writing to follow a similar model, which excluded women until the rise of postcolonial women writers such as Bessie Head who contributed immensely as a novelist. In

Setswana literature, P.T.M Marope established herself as one leading creative writer who 18

wrote exclusively in Setswana language in an area dominated by male writers. None of her works have been translated but they have been read as part of Setswana syllabi. It is interesting to write that Bessie Head is also read in Setswana as a translation from

English done by another woman translator Barulaganye Thedi, which shows that even in

Southern Africa there was some degree of resistance towards gender imbalance in literary spheres even after the Europeans had set the precedence of male dominated writing canons.

My dissertation incorporates a textual analytical study of existing translated works of literature and film to expose the descrepencies in translation practice and how they can be repatriated. I will be using selected works such as novels and local drama productions that do not necessarily fit into the western aesthetics of film production, yet they remain relevant to local communities in Botswana. For simplicity, by textual analysis means that my study will engage in a critical translational analysis of both the oral and written texts that have been affected by the translation process.

Postcolonial literatures and films from Africa constitute good examples of cultures that continue to translate independently on their own terms, yet they have for many years been subjected to marginalization by the dominant western mainstream cultures from a period of colonization that promoted the western cultural aesthetic.

Therefore, this work rejects some western theoretical assumptions about translation and argues that historically the way translation has been defined as a concept has been problematic in the sense that its definition precludes the translation of oral texts, which 19

are very important to the African arts. This exclusion, primarily motivated by the orthodoxy of western theories about translation has resulted in the production of problematic translations that are entirely focused on promoting the mainstream cultures of the established canons. As Lawrence Venuti observes, these theories impose the translation techniques that “domesticate” and “foreignize” the text of non-western cultures thereby ignoring the aesthetics of a translating culture by transforming it into a subculture or antithesis because of the cultural differences it brings (290-1). Venuti offers us an example that problematizes how failure to take into consideration other cultures is achieved using linguistic impositions aimed at changing the text from another culture to accommodate the western mainstream cultural sensibilities. The practice of changing another text by imposing the aesthetics of a distinct text is generally achieved through translation practice that assumes the superior positionality of western cultures as a way of legitimizing the non-western cultural texts. In his critical essay “Translation, Community,

Utopia” Venuti argues that,

by increasing the readability of the English text, such freedoms [endow] the

narrative with verisimilitude [or credibility], producing the illusion of

transparency that permitted the English-language reader to take the translation for

the foreign text. (484)

Venuti’s observation shows how translation can be used as a canonizing exercise that discredits and displaces other literary cultures. It is achieved through ignoring the aesthetic sensibilities of postcolonial cultural texts—like literatures and films in African 20

languages—as credible texts in their own right, hence the need for their domestication.

Therefore, it is important to revisit and investigate examples of literatures and films that underwent translation process from their indigeneous African languages into European languages such as English, and vice versa. This exercise of investigating literary texts allows us to determine if the translations were used to foreignize or assimilate texts into another cultural aesthetic form.

Since 1885, literatures and films from Africa have suffered neglect due to a complex dichotomy in cultural translation between postcolonial African cultural texts and the western texts especially after written forms of literature were introduced in some parts of Africa during a period of colonization. The misalliance of colonial Africa with the imperial West saw the colonizing European countries displacing and undermining the cultural capital of African creative cultural practices, and replacing them with the

Eurocentric aesthetic sensibilities of what constitutes good and standard literature or film.

Translation practice was used and continues to be used as a tool to ensure the continuation of this marginalization of African cultures along with religion and exploitation. For example, as I will show in the forthcoming chapters, in the context of

Setswana literature, colonial missionary translators intentionally mistranslated the cultural concepts and depicted them in a negative light. In other words, the sacredization of Setswana in the Bible translation was achieved through a continued negation and suppression of Setswana cultural aesthetics but emphasis on the superiority of western cultural beliefs and aesthetic traditions. Furthermore, the marginalization is reflected in 21

the way writers abandoned their storytelling codes and copied or imitated the English literary tradition despite the cost of cultural loss. Finally, even when social anthropologist

Isaac Schapera mistranslated Kgatla chiefs as apes in his translation of Setswana oral poetry in 1965, no critic has dismissed his submissions. Still, instead, Schapera was rewarded as an authority in Setswana cultures.

Critic of postcolonial literatures, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, in her essay “The

Politics of Translation” supports the idea of decolonizing cultural translations. In addition to analyzing translations of novels considered seminal in postcolonial African literature, I interweave Spivak’s assertions to emphasize the criticality of investigating translations in

Setswana literature and film that were modified using translation practice to make them appeal to the western sensibilities yet compromising Setswana cultural narratives. Spivak writes in a way that builds my understanding and conceptualization of translation as culture,

I remain interested in writers who are against the current, against the mainstream.

I remain convinced that the interesting literary text might be precisely the text

where you do not learn what the majority view of majority cultural representation

or self-representation of a nation state might be. The translator has to make

herself, in the case of the third world women writing, almost better equipped than

the translator who is dealing with the western European languages, because of the

fact that there is so much of the old colonial attitude, slightly displaced, at work in

the translation racket. (405) 22

Based on Spivak’s understanding of the responsibilities of postcolonial translators in defacing the ‘old colonial attitude,’ which in the contemporary times is enforced through canons and uncritical acceptance of traditional methods of translation, the following research questions are important to consider for my dissertation: How can we decolonize translation methods in postcolonial African literatures and films? How does Setswana literature and film (as a case study) reveal the complexities of translation as culture? Why is it important to study translation in relation to cultures of the postcolonial subjects?

What are some benefits of producing culturally relevant translations? What are the implications of domesticating the translated texts, rationalization and clarification of the cultural translations? What are some examples of culturally relevant translations, and what can we learn from them to improve the quality of future translations? In what ways have various critics responded to the translation question and why? What specific measures can be taken to decolonize translations that rely on imposing the mainstream understanding of translation? Why should the dearth of criticism of translation of the oral texts in postcolonial African cultural productions concern us today? What are the decolonial translation strategies and techniques that can be used when translating postcolonial African literatures and film?

The above mentioned questions are very important to negotiate new decolonial ideas of rethinking about the implications of translating culture in postcolonial literatures and films from Botswana and Africa as a whole. The dissertation proposes that one way to achieve decolonization in the translation practice is by establishing experimental 23

translations that imitate closely published translated works such as novels and films from

Africa whose cultural relevance is linked to the careful application of decolonized techniques in their approach to translation and therefore remain relevant for their audience.

This study makes an innovative contribution to the ongoing debates on postcolonial literatures and films produced in Africa, and additionally to the study of translation as culture in Setswana literature and film. Specifically, I focus on analyzing the following works as objects of my study:

1. Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958) and its translation from English into

Setswana by a prolific Setswana writer and translator, D.P.S Monyaise, titled Dilo

di Matsoke (1991). Achebe was an Igbo author from Nigeria writing in English,

and the translation of his work into Setswana implies a rewriting of Igbo literary

traditions in another African language.

2. Exiled South African author Bessie Head’s novel When Rain Clouds Gather

(1968), and its translation into Setswana titled Fa Maru a Pula a Kokoana (1991)

by Barulaganye Thedi, a Motswana translator. Bessie Head’s writing emulates

Achebe’s writing style in Things Fall Apart, which reiterates the translation of the

aesthetic style within the canon of postcolonial writing.

3. Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo (1987) by T.J. Pheto who is a Motswana novelist, its

translation from Setswana into English Botlhodi—The Abomination;A

Postcolonial Setswana Novel by the author of this dissertation. 24

4. Tigrinya writer from Eritrea Gebreyesus Hailu’s The Conscript (English

translation by Ghirmai Negash) and its experimental translation into Setswana by

the author of this dissertation.

5. British-South African social anthropologist Isaac Schapera’s Praise Poems of

Tswana Chiefs (1964), which are originally Setswana oral literature.

In addition to the listed works, I will conduct a detailed analysis of my own translations, by comparing them with other published works that have incorporated translations into

African novels successfully.

Film narratives in Botswana are similarly subjected to challenges of translation and representation as visual images. Hence, for film, I consider two local Setswana films by Botswana born filmmakers. The first film is O bone o Ja Sereto (2012) directed by

Joel Keitumele and Cathy D. The second film is Beauty (2013) directed by Fenny

Lekolwane. These films are analyzed in a way that critically examines and interrogates

Botswana’s oral, verbal and dramatic arts, and how they translated into film as a new medium. The films are contingent with Botswana’s rural and urban cultural contexts and compare well with films produced by other filmmakers in the continent of Africa such as

Idrissa Ouedreago, Ousmane Sembène and Gaston Kabore’s films. The films comment on themes relating to the postcolonial and post-independence political situation of

Botswana using folkloric aspects of Setswana culture such as proverbs and popular stories. For example, the title of the film, O Bone o Ja Sereto, comes from a proverbial expression in Setswana literature that is represented as visual images through film in a 25

way that appeals to the local aesthetic sensibilities. Proverbs such as ngwana o itsewe sereto ke mmagwe (Eng—a mother is one who knows her child’s totem or sereto) serve as the background source of the construction of this title in its applied use, however. My analysis compares these films with other films about Botswana that were produced by western filmmakers even though they are not the focus objects of my study. These films include Amma Asante A United Kingdom (2016) adapted from Susan Williams’s The

Color Bar: The Triumph of Seretse and his Nation (2006). In addition, I also consider

William Mc Call Smith’s novel and adapted television series The No.1 Ladies Detective

Agency (1998) that translate Botswana cultural narratives.

I concur with Kwame Anthony Appiah who has also responded to the complexity of the question of translation, culture, and postcoloniality in the African arts. In his critical essay titled “Thick Translation,” Appiah concludes that,

In the American academy, therefore, the translation of African texts seems to me

to need to be directed at least by such purposes as these: the urge to continue the

repudiation of racism (and, at the same time, through explorations of feminist

issues and women’s writing, of sexism); the need to extend the American

imagination, an imagination that regulates much of the world system

economically and politically beyond the narrow scope of the United States; the

desire to develop views of the world elsewhere that respect more deeply the

autonomy of the Other, views that are not generated solely by the legitimate but

local political needs of America’s multiple diasporas. (427-8) 26

Clearly, as a critic Appiah is aware of the theoretical problems of translations and has also identified the root cause for such problems as cultural. Also problematizing such biased motivations in translation practice, and problematic yet unchallenged solutions in translation in a similar fashion is Antoine Berman’s essay “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign” (translated into English by Venuti) where he postulates that,

to play with ‘equivalence’ is to attack the discourse of the foreign work. Of course

a proverb may have its equivalents in other languages, but these equivalents do

not translate it. To translate is not to search for equivalences. The desire to

replace ignores furthermore, the existence in us of a proverb consciousness […]

now it is evident that even if the meaning is identical replacing an idiom by its

‘equivalent’ is an ethnocentrism. (295)

It is interesting to note that Berman problematizes the use of equivalents when translating oral literatures seeing that practice as a form of cultural displacement, yet this has been uncritically accepted as a solution by many translators working on the African arts.

The dissertation is interested in the utilization of the decolonial methods of translation as a solution to address problems of the oral and written postcolonial cultural translations in film and literature. The chapters that follow provide an in-depth analysis and more specific examples that are evaluated in terms of their relationship with the notion of culture and translatability. I begin by considering prior studies and contributions, the methodology, four chapters that focus on specific objects of my study 27

that are drawn from literatures and films from Africa, and finally the conclusion, which also offers recommendations for future studies on the related field.

Prior Studies and Contribution

According to a critic Mukoma wa Ngugi who writes in The Rise of the African

Novel,

Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart has been translated into over 50 languages

making it the most translated African novel. But almost after 60 years it was

published, there is no authoritative translation into Igbo, Achebe’s mother tongue.

Things Fall Apart has been translated into 10 or so African languages, but

considering there are over 2000 languages in Africa that is still an infinitesimal

number. (1)

Mukoma’s assertion demonstrates the cultural challenges that continue to face the tradition of translating postcolonial African literature into other languages, particularly the African languages. Therefore, this dissertation contributes to the area of translation and postcolonial studies by dissecting the richness of translation possibilities in African literature. It redefines translation practice in a way that is coignizant of the fact that the conceptual term translation carries colonial cultural implications that should be reversed through decolonization. However, it is interesting to highlight that, Things Fall Apart is one of the few postcolonial African novels that have translated well into other African languages, such as Setswana. This because of how its Igbo oral tradition is translaterble to to languages such as Setswana, where translators like D.P.S Monyaise have used the 28

existing cultural narratives to empower the target text. The outcomes of such a decolonial practice do not reveal any desire to decontextualize Achebe’s tradition, but instead, they are empowered. According to Mukoma’s observation, the translations of other postcolonial African novels

considered seminal in the African literary tradition such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s

A Grain of Wheat, Bessie Head’s A Question of Power, and Wole Soyinka’s The

Interpreters fare much worse on this criteria of translation into the author’s

mother tongue and wider African languages. (1-2)

This analytical observation about translation practice of African literature in English made by Mukoma is fitting to raise questions about why translating postcolonial cultural texts appears to be a complex undertaking, while also thinking about the possible solutions as interventions. Mukoma’s understanding of translation aligns with the observations made by Michel Foucault whose postulation about translation practice helps us understand why the concept of literary translation has always been surrounded by more theoretical problems than feasible solutions. Foucault writes that,

It is quite necessary to admit that two kinds of translations exist; they do not have

the same function or the same nature. In one, something (meaning, aesthetic

value) must remain identical, and it is given passage into another language; these

translations are good when they go “from like to same” […] And then there are

translations that hurl one language against another […] taking the original text for

a projectile and treating the translating language like a target. Their task is not to 29

lead a meaning back to itself or anywhere else; but to use the translated language

to derail the translating language. (30)

Foucault understands that translation can be used as a weapon to suppress other languages of the cultures that are represented by the minority cultural groups. In the context of postcolonial African cultural productions, such cultures are represented by the postcolonial writing and film productions that have been discredited, marginalized and validated using western standards of aesthetic judgement. Similarly, Frederic Chaume argues in his “Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two Disciplines at Stake in Audio

Visual Translation” that

audiovisual texts encourage analysts to use various approaches to better

understand the relationship between the elements that make up the object of their

study, and the key textual and contextual issues that need examining when

transferring elements to another language and culture. (14)

Chaume’s essay emphasizes the importance of inclusivity in cultural translation practice.

This form of inclusivity in translation must emphasize the diversification and constant negotiation of methods of analyzing texts from other cultures without modifying or subjecting them to theoretical manipulations based on western theories. In point of fact, such prescriptive theories are designed to make the non-western texts read like they were subtexts that imitate the western canons. His argument about the translation of the audiovisual texts is relevant to rethink relevant techniques when dealing with translations of oral literatures into film adaptations in African settings. Unlike Foucault, he does not 30

only focus on pointing out the causes of translation problems, but he provides solutions to overcoming problems that arise when translating oral texts or audiovisual texts.

Chaume’s understanding is important for this discussion, which considers the two intertwined forms of translation: the oral and the written. Contexts of oral literature in

Africa co-exist with other forms of related arts that fit into audio and visual culture, hence why it is crucial to analyze orality and its related verbal and performative artforms when it is adapted to screen.

As a practice and criticism, translation has been an important aspect of African literatures such as Setswana literature since the precolonial era due to several reasons.

First, it is because of the co-existance of multiple indigenous languages spoken in

Botswana.2 Second, Setswana as an African language has a great heritage of orature, which compares to other cultures in the region such as in Namibia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and South Africa. Third, it is due to the influence and impact of colonialism in

Botswana’s cultures.

During the precolonial era, Setswana literature was maintained as a communication system that existed mainly as oral literature, and at the time it was told, it was passed and documented by word of mouth across generations to allow for intergenerational communication. Eventually it evolved into written forms of literature

2 For a detailed discussion on the co-existence of Botswana languages, see Joseph Tsonope and Tore Janson’s Birth of a National Language (1991), and Batibo and Tsonope’s The State of Khoisan Languages in Botswana (2000). The rich linguistic background in Botswana is very important when discussing translation in between the African languages. 31

based on Latin alphabet after colonization of Botswana by Britain around the 1880s.

There is no written historical or archeological evidence that suggests Setswana had established its own orthography before colonialism, but it is clear that the people of

Botswana at the time had established a cultural system of communication, which used translations. For example, the interpretation of complex partterns in cultural artifacts and earmarking tradition that is also used in their literary traditions reiterates my argument.

Although there could be many reasons justifying this dynamic position that translation has assumed in developing Setswana literature, critics who study cultural contexts of translation in Setswana literature demonstrate that the coexistence of the local indigenous languages spoken in Botswana (including Setswana) influence each other. In addition, the impact of colonialism, which brought European languages such as English,

Afrikaans had a similar influence on Setswana because of the coexistence of these languages. Hence, Setswana has interacted with various languages at different levels.

Therefore, the subject of translation is almost inescapable when we discuss both the oral and the written aspects of Setswana literature. The translation question affects both the oral and written genres of Setswana language based on criticism from various researchers who hold contrasting views on the subject.3

Translation makes possible the criticism and the production of creative works in

Setswana literature. It is understood by critics such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Barulaganye

3 Some critics of Setswana literature such as Shole suggest the first translations to enter Setswana literature were the translations of the Bible into Setswana (51). On the other hand, theologist Musa Dube problematizes the idea of sacredization of Setswana through Bible translations (33-45). 32

Thedi, Susan Bassnet, and Gayatri Spivak as an attribute that entails more than rewriting a work of art in a different language, but it is also an intense creative process that is influenced by a culture. For example, translations that involve creative works of art such as fiction or poems, which are cultural productions such as film and literature, represent aesthetic imagination and ideologies of their cultural groups. This supports the view that translation involves a cultural reproduction, hence it is a complex undertaking particularly when translating postcolonial texts from African languages such as

Setswana. Obi Wali associates the challenges of translating African literature with the suppression of the African cultures by established colonial literatures when he writes that

“the problem has always been met by the technique of translating outstanding literary achievements into other languages, especially the more widespread and influential languages of the world” (283). Wali advocates that African writers must shift their focus away from uncritical acceptance of the forms and structures of the established western literary canons because they tend to cripple African creative productions by confining their literatures and films to the dictates of the western standards aimed at promoting

Eurocentric aesthetic thinking. Translation practice is used to achieve this form of censorship in the non-western cultural texts.

Solomon Plaatje’s Translations of Setswana Literature

One of the significant figures who draws our attention to translation problems in

Setswana literature for the first time is a Motswana novelist and translator Solomon

Plaatje’s translations of Setswana proverbs into English. These proverbs in their 33

translated and written form are fascinating yet they remain understudied by critics and researchers. For example, through their critical study as translations, the proverbs reveal much about the oral tradition in Setswana culture and the implications of representing it with the equivalents from a language such as English that is not mutually intelligible with

Setswana. Furthermore, their critical study unearths the implications of colonialism and lack of wide circulation in their translated medium. Plaatje was the first Motswana writer to establish himself as a translator and creative writer who wrote in Setswana language.

As a way of acknowledging the complex nature of translating a work into another language, Plaatje makes the following appeal to his readers in “Literature and Language

Theory and Practice in Setswana:” “[readers must] point out any errors (if any) in the translations, or wrong readings in the originals, or draw his attention to any European proverbs which would be better equivalents to the corresponding Setswana proverbs given in his book”(31). Clearly, Plaatje sees the use of English equivalents as a solution to some underlying problems in the translation of Setswana literature. However, this view is dismissed and problematized by Appiah who does not see the use of equivalents as an effective approach to translating culture (295). Plaatje is the first translator to admit and acknowledge that in the translation work that he has done, it was possible that there could have been some translation errors that emanate from the cultural differences between

Setswana and English. Such errors in translation alter and affect our understanding of a translated work and needed to be addressed effectively considering that at the time of his writing, Setswana texts were competing with problematic Bible translations pioneered by 34

Christian missionaries. For example, according to critics such as Musa Dube, the Bible translation project in Botswana dates back to 1829 and 1925 long before written

Setswana literature was published (36). Furthermore, in the History of Setswana Bible

(1989) Bible historians indicate that “Robert Moffat first translated the Gospel of Luke in

1829, completed the new testament in 1840 and the whole Bible in 1857” (Sandilands qtd. In Dube 36). Other Bible translations were published in 1908, 1957, 1970, and 1992

(37), which corresponds with a period of Setswana novels and translations way before the writing of the first Setswana novel Marothodi by L.Z. Sikwane (Mereeotlhe 10).4

Although the discussion provides a brief historical context of translated and written Setswana literature, the study is not a historical analysis of Setswana novel.

Critics such as Diphimotswe Mereeotlhe (1998), R.M. Malope (1983) and Rrenyane

Sesupo Dikole (2002) have already dealt with the complex subject on the nature of literary production in Setswana language, but their works do not discuss the literature in the context of translation and decolonization. For example, Mereeotlhe and Malope, who give an overview of novel writing in Setswana literature identify a period of the 1930s-

1960s as a period of creative literature in Setswana that was Christian oriented. They show that “Many literature books were translations of the Bible, Shakesperean plays by the missionaries and by Sol Plaatjie respectively”(8). Mereeotlhe further describes 1961-

1970 as a “period that marks an increase in the awareness of novel writing. Topics

4 The publication year of this novel is unknown, but it is suggested that its style was the “basically a narrator’s monologue on the topic of love” making it similar to some English novels that were introduced during the colonial times (Mereeotlhe 10). 35

covered during this period were biographical or historical, as well as showing the clash between traditional and western culture and Christianity”(8-9). Dikole further submits in a way which suggests that

the Setswana novel, as it is recognised today did not properly emerge until the

early 1940s and that since then it has not remained static in terms of form,

content, technique, value and social relevance. Instead it has undergone

tremendous thematic, formal and technical changes. (12)

Although Dikole’s work identifies and emphasizes the factors that led to the formation and transformation of Setswana novel, he fails to provide a broader conception of

Setswana novel in the context of translation. In addition, he does not identify translation as a factor in the history of transformation of Setswana novel. However, Setswana literary history emphasizes the way in which the western literary conventions have tended to operate on behalf of the mainstream cultural groups, and how norms of translation— including the translating of foreighn literary canons and their imposition into Setswana prose narratives—have worked in the interests of the European aesthetics. Hence, it is not uncommon that the dominant ideologies about translation of literature based on European canons co-exist with marginalized ideologies aimed at decolonizing translation practice in Southern Africa.

Another noted Setswana literary critic Shole Shole also demonstrates, although not critically, that culture influences translations of the creative productions by corroborating with a Czech translator Prochazka, when he writes that, 36

perhaps all literatures of our cultural area start with translations. This is true of

Setswana, as it is also of all African languages of the southern subcontinent. The

earliest forms of modern written literature in this language consisted of

translations. Loeto lwa ga Mokeresete, Robert Moffat’s translation of John

Bunyan’s Pilgrim's Progress was one of the earliest prose fictions in Setswana.

(51)

Shole stipulates that Southern African literatures developed through translation practice and he also underscored that some of the first works to be translated as written literature at the time were religious texts such as the Bible translation in Setswana. However, the position that Shole holds about the translation question assumes that translations can only be discussed within the frameworks of written literature. This existing and prevalent theoretical misconception, which associates translation with written texts only and not oral text must be deconstructed for its basic assumptions. First, it excludes the possibility of the conceptualitzation of the translation of oral texts that were an essential part of

African oral literature before the introduction of written literature that used the Latin alphabet. Second, it reaches conclusions about translation based on prescriptive western theories of translation. Therefore, it approaches the subject of translation from a very biased point of view, which associates translation with the abstraction of the written words. Shole adopts Prochazka’s view without challenging it despite the overwhelming amount of evidence of translations occurring across various oral and written genres of

Setswana oral literature. 37

Shole also establishes that missionaries and other translators were translating for various reasons and purposes, which influenced the adopted style and techniques. For example, British missionaries such as Robert Moffat produced translations aimed at converting the locals into Christianity whereas local translators such as Plaatje wanted to show the literary potential of Setswana language, and to facilitate cross-cultural learning through his translations of Shakespeare into Setswana language. According to Shole,

the two translated for different reasons. While Moffat needed material in the

language of his missionary charges, Plaatje wanted to share his experience of

Shakespeare with his people, as well as to prove that Setswana is a literary

medium capable of carrying what Shakespeare says in English. (51)

Other critics of Setswana literature in translation such as Ndana Ndana have supported and confirmed Shole’s view by positing that earlier translations conducted by Plaatje challenge the fact that “if Shakespeare was preserved as a symbol of Englishness and cultural sophistication, Plaatje shows the extent to which this complexity is socially and ideology constructed leading to infinite reconstructions and appropriations” (4). Ndana further illustrates that in Plaatje, “Shakespeare is referred to as Tshikinya-tšhaka, which resonates with one of the characters in the Setswana folklore” (10). Ndana concludes by suggesting that Plaatje’s translation style is exceptional in the sense that it showed signs of domesticating a text from an English culture into Setswana context as a way of making a revolutionary statement against the ‘imagined’ superiority of English language over

Setswana. He argues that, 38

Plaatje manages through his translations to transform Shakespeare from an

inaccessible symbol of Englishness to something that is closer to their indigenous

oral form. Plaatje’s translations reveal that Setswana is not simple either, in as

much as English, Shakespeare’s language poses some difficulties to native

Setswana speakers. (4)

Unlike other critics, who have problematized Plaatje’s translation style Ndana sees

Plaatje’s contribution as an important intervention that has the potential to promote the development of Setswana as a literary language. Ndana sees Plaatjie as the first revolutionary translator, and as a translator who shows that translations demonstrate that languages have a relationship that should not be taken for granted. Thus, through the readings of Ndana on Plaatje’s translation efforts, translation makes it possible for both

Setswana and English languages to co-exist as literary mediums. Hence, it is understandable why Ndana is more sympathetic to Plaatje’s role as a translator and why he dismisses those critics who are troubled by Plaatje’s ‘poor’ and ‘decontextualized’ translation aesthetics that resemble what critics like Obi Wali would rightly condemn as

“a mere appendage in the mainstream of European literature”(40). Furthermore, other critics such as Khekheni Makhudu suggest that Plaatje’s earlier translations reveal a lot about his identity. Makhudu adds that,

deep pride in [Plaatje’s] Setswana identity seems to have propelled a need to

highlight the ethnographic bonds Northern and Southern nations share. For

Plaatje, seeing overlaps and equivalences in the proverbs of European and the 39

Batswana peoples, firstly validates orality as the bedrock of modern literary

expression(149).

Sol Plaatje himself had raised a genuine concern pertaining to the minimal attention given to translation work done in Setswana literature. He is worried that,

not much attention has been given to literary translations in Setswana, either as

translations or works of art on their own, despite the role they have played. Even

among our reading sector, which consists mainly of students, these translations

suffer neglect. This may be due to the quality of the translations themselves, or,

as Prochazka puts it, due to the negative conception of the translation as ‘a

fundamentally unoriginal work’. This is rather unfortunate, because the mere fact

that translations have played a vital role in the beginnings of many a literature,

qualifies them for a respectable place in discussions about specific literatures.

Comparative criticism in particular cannot do without them. (Plaatje qtd. in Ndana

51)

Plaatje contends that the role that translation has played in the development of

Setswana literature should be overemphasized because of its historic significance to the genre. He calls for more intensified efforts to recognize the role played by cultural translations in transforming Setswana literary canons. Although Plaatje focuses more on the written forms of literary translations in the Setswana canon, it can be further argued that his analysis on the situation of translation can be used to understand translation in the context of oral works of literature and film. 40

Translations of Oral Literature

It is interesting to note that already there are some scholars who have at least commented on the subject of translation of oral literature in Setswana literature. For example, Pabalelo Mmila, who writes about translation in relation to Setswana oral narratives, reminds us that in

[1975] Curtis made a compilation of mainane [oral narratives], which she

collected from Mmankgodi and Manyana villages in South East Botswana. She

has translated these narratives [from Setswana] into English in order that they

may interest the present generation of our own culture, which is very good for

universal purposes in the studying of mainane in relation to other narratives from

different cultures of the world. The study, therefore, cares for a wider range of

readership. But translation, on the other hand, may pose problems especially in as

far as cultural concepts are concerned. [S]ome of these concepts may never find

equivalents in the English language. (78)

Mmila makes us aware of how written translations of Setswana oral literature are limited in the sense that they tend to eliminate Setswana cultural context, despite it being an important component of the oral literary aesthetic. She further notes the other advantages of having oral narratives in Setswana available as translations, such as its importance in the preservation and documentation of the oral narratives. However, Mmila’s understanding of translation should also be challenged as it barely discusses translations of the oral texts, but focuses more on the translation of their written form. Just like other 41

critics, Mmila envisages the textual translations and her study does not take into consideration the translation of the oral texts or other verbal arts. However, as a critic,

Mmila draws our attention to the fact that their use as written translations of Setswana oral literature in English presents them in a decontextualized fashion. Her work should be commended as it draws our attention to the implications of translation in Setswana literatures, and therefore, creates a platform for further studies on the subject. Mmila underscores the implications of translating culture in the Setswana oral narratives by making the following important observation,

When oral narratives become written literature one of the essential factors of oral

narration is lost (the audience), which as already discussed is often directly

involved in the actualization of the narration. This participation has [a] great

effect on the performance for these contributions create the social contexts in

which the actual narration takes place[...]In the written form the basic medium is

words which cannot be supplemented by verbal, visual or musical elements as is

the case in oral performance. This mode of preservation can partly account for the

shortness and oversimplified, summary like the state of mainane now, because in

their written form, some elements such as dialogue and song are omitted. (79)

Other critics such as Karen Haire and D.S. Matjila recognize similar challenges in the translation of the African oral narratives, and have argued for culturally responsive translations by emphasizing the importance of their cultural relevance in the learning environment. Matjila and Haire maintain that, 42

culturally-relevant texts and pedagogy validate learners’ lived experiences, which

in turn stimulate engagement and enhance self-confidence. Culturally restorative

texts and pedagogy redress the effects of racism that has resulted in stereotypical

misrepresentations of, and negative affect attaching to, African cultures and

peoples. (160)

Haire and Matjila adopt a postcolonial perspective, borrowing from Homi Bhabha’s assertion in The Location of Culture that,

the foreign element ‘destroys the original’s structures of reference and sense

communication as well’ not simply by negating it but by negotiating the

disjunction in which successive cultural temporalities are preserved in the work of

history and at the same time cancelled. (227f)

Bhabha’s view demonstrates that while translation can be used by the dominant cultural groups to validate or discredit the standard of a cultural text, in the process of this

‘validation’ it destroys the aesthetic value of the original work. In other times Bhabha would also argue that the mimic text would subvert the hegemony of its host.

Haire and Matjila focus on showing how translations into English often compromise the quality of the cultural images and symbols by rendering the original texts incomplete. They posit that

in terms of the selected Setswana narratives discussed in this study, one cannot

always translate certain Setswana words and phrases literally into English without

offending English sensibilities. The reader from a white English culture for 43

example, cannot stomach the idea of Mosidi licking [an] old woman’s festering

sores; though we may accommodate those sensibilities by using the word ‘wash’

instead of ‘lick’ in the English translation. (173) 5

Haire and Matjila understand the cultural differences of both Setswana and English, and they suggest a careful selection of words as a solution to accommodate the target language, which negates the story telling code in Setswana tradition.

This dissertation contributes to the ongoing scholarly debates on the subject of translation, and its complex relationship with Setswana oral and written literature. In addition, and more broadly, it contributes to the study of postcolonial African literature and film in the context of translation studies. By identifying some theoretical problems of translation from selected texts, the study calls for redefinition and re-contextualizing of the entire translation process in African literature and film with the goal of decolonizing translation practice. This is because historically, the uncritical application of Eurocentric methods of translation in African literatures—which either ‘others’ or presents the non- western texts as the antithesis—have become the accepted norm, yet they pose significant challenges and cultural implications to the source texts. Therefore, this work problematizes the entire translation aesthetic using postcolonial frameworks for its lack of attention to the cultural detail, particularly when it comes to Setswana cultural creative productions. Unlike other works that have been produced on translation and its

5 This is in reference to a well known Setswana folktale about the two little girls who escaped the wrath of dimo-the orge after washing and licking the wounds of a sickly old woman as a condition to help them escape. 44

relationship to the subject of African literature, much work done in this area remains largely descriptive and does not penetrate into studying specific literary languages, such as Setswana and other African languages. Moreover, a translational analysis that focuses on film and its relationship to the oral and performative arts in Africa is still at its embryonic stage. Just like in literature, film as a cultural production in the context of

Setswana culture uses translation to adapt the peformative and visual artistic aspects of

Setswana oral tradition into cinema. The local film productions in Botswana reiterate this relation of oral tradition with the birth of the exisiting Setswana films, which I revisit in the last chapter. Furthermore, Setswana narratives are continually translated into films by western filmmakers. However, despite the significant development on film production and translation, and subsequent adaptation of Setswana culture, more work still needs to be done. Therefore, this research aims to stimulate critical discourses on this area of study especially with regard to marginalized African languages such as Setswana. In a point of fact, these languages face a multiplicity of translational challenges—for instance, the implications of colonial cultural legacy, their association with oral tradition and distinct aesthetic forms, which may consist of intangible untranslatable cultural heritage.

In addition to the dearth of the discussion in this area of study, there is no existing critical translational analysis that challenges theoretical assumptions about translation that have been done in relation to Setswana literature even though translation is an important part of Setswana literature. I suggest that focusing on the analysis of the actual translations is one of the approaches that can help us fill in the gaps that earlier theorists 45

of translated African literature failed to identify. It is worth noting, however, that all the critics reviewed in the prior studies can only understand and conceptualize translation within the frameworks of the written texts only. In my view, this is a limited conceptualization considering that oral tradition constitutes the nucleus of the postcolonial African literary texts. However, it is noteworthy that there are a few exceptions from critics such as Haire, Matjila, and Mmila whose works recognizes the role of translation, and its functional value in the preservation and documentation of oral narratives in Setswana language. Through my conctribution, I seek to challenge the misleading view that translation only concerns the written texts. This line of argument is not only dismissive by assuming or implying the non existence of translations in the oral texts, but it also relies heavily on a limited understanding of translation that offers a

Eurocentric and problematic point of view.

There is enough scholarly evidence to prove that the history of translation in

Botswana dates back to the period before Setswana developed a written orthography.

Therefore, this work also demonstrates that translation predates the written word as its history dates to precolonial Botswana. Furthermore in challenging this view about translation and Setswana literature, I use Gayatri Spivak’s concept of catachresis, which she develops in her essay “Translation as Culture”. The conceptual term catachresis as used by Spivak reiterates that in the place of any exact translation out of the cultural context, a cultural translator has to choose a word to replace the word left in its space.

What Spivak theorizes about translation is that, when dealing with cultural translations, 46

there is no word that can completely replace another word (given its cultural meaning).

Therefore, she acknowledges that all translations are destined to fail and calls translators to fully understand the dynamics and complexties of translation before the can undertake a translation. In other context, the understanding of catachresis beyond Spivak’s conceptualization can describe a situation whereby a word or concept is used or applied outside its correct context of usage—a common practice in most translations of the

African literary and cinematic translations or adaptations. For example, as it relates to the misconceptions and preconceived notions about translation as a concept that only applies within the context of written literature whereas the reality is that translation practice is a basic characteristic common to all forms of literatures—the oral and the written develop through translations—and that various cultural groups participate in translation practice consciously or subconsciously. Therefore, on the concept of catachresis, Spivak underscores that,

translation in this general sense is not under the control of the subject who is

translating. Indeed the human subject is something that will have happened as this

shuttling translation, from inside to outside [. . .] The original translation thus

wrenches the sense of the English word translation outside of its making. One

look at the dictionary will tell you the word comes from a Latin past participle (of

transferre=to transfer). It is a done deal, precisely not a future anterior, something

that will have happened without our knowledge, particularly without our control,

the subject coming into being. (14) 47

Spivak shows the complexity but also the problematic history of translation as conceived by conventional theories; and, hence, the need to revisit the understanding and cultural context(s) of translation. I suggest that theoretical misconceptions about translation in the context of African literatures were influenced by a number of factors; first among which is the early exposure and influence to the written European literary traditions and canons.

A related second factor is the European critical traditions that view and describe transcreations based on the written word.

However, if we revisit Spivak’s postulation to hypothesize, it is understandable why the word translation has its equivalent in Setswana language ranola, (and other

African languages), which can be used to refer to both the oral and the written narratives.

Furthermore, Spivak’s view challenges us to amplify our understanding of translation within the contexts of ‘oral texts.’ The fact that Setswana language already has a word for translation proves that it was never a foreign concept to Setswana literary canons and philosophy, and in other African languages. Generally, words that denote concepts that are foreign to Setswana culture do not have Setswana translations or equivalents, which

Setswana compensates for through coining or nativization.6

In addition to redefining the concept of translation, this study makes some recommendations on how translation practice and criticism could be approached in the future in African language literatures and film. This step follows my observation that

6 For example, tlhoo-tomo>helicopter in this case describes using onomatopoeia the movement of the vehicle. In other cultural contexts, Setswana uses more nativized forms such as terekêrê>tractor. All the examples are a result of new technological developments that were previously foreighn to Setswana culture. 48

even though some of the critics identify with success some textual translation problems, they still fail to suggest alternatives and culturally responsive interventions. In this respect, my study understands translation as a process, and it understands that, language as a carrier of culture, is dynamic. Therefore, due to this dynamic nature of language, it should be approached in a way that is different from the traditional prescriptive and othordoxical methods of translation. These decolonial methods are designed to accommodate textual inclusivity in both the oral and written texts of the marginalized literatures. Therefore, the study proposes that some selected Setswana literary works that have been adapted into translations, must be revisited in order to develop them further into relevant cultural texts that reflect the traditions of Batswana culture. By so doing, we will be opening new possibilities for studying Setswana literature and film as important artistic and cultural mediums.

Methodology

My research is grounded on two principal analytical theories: postcolonial theory and translation studies theory. The dissertation explores the use of translation in the creative arts in the context of oral and written genres of Setswana literatures and film.

Furthermore, I propose that translation must be decolonized as a practice, especially when it is used as a vehicle for cultural productions such as literature and film. As expressed earlier, the notion of decolonizing translation as a methodology is an idea that is widely used and accepted in postcolonial studies. It simply refers to challenging and deconstructing the orthodoxy that has established translation as a practice based on the 49

assumptions of mainstream colonial influences. For example, the use of problematic translation techniques have often lead to mistranslations of idiomatic expressions found in African oral and written literature. A more specific example is by Setswana literary critic, D. S. Matjila who mistranslates the title of T.J Pheto’s Setswana novel Botlhodi

Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo (1984) into “The Miracle of a Head Louse” therefore making it lose its contextual or cultural meaning.7 The cultural meaning is not illuminated in this case as it would have been if Matjila could have just used “Botlhodi” for the title thus shortening the proverbial title, and leaving it untranslated. The translated version shows tendencies to appropriate and assimilate the proverb into a language that does not resonate with its cultural milieu. The idea of using the untranslated version would be beneficial in at least the following two ways: first, it would preserve the indigeneous form of the proverb and its cultural meaning. Second, Setswana language and folklore would be empowered by ensuring its linguistic potential to be intergrated into the semantic field of other languages even without translation.

Decolonizing translation methods involves espousing the notion of what Setswana literary theorist and translator called phetsolelo or repatriative translations, which are aimed at translating literary works written in English into Setswana. In explaining how

7 Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo is a Setswana proverbial expression which has oral origins. The novelist has used it as the title of his work. Through the use of this proverb, the author tells a story of a head louse’s conversation with a body louse. According to this narrative, “‘the head louse was ashamed of her black color. She asked for advice on how to change her color to red. The body louse advised its sibling to plunge into a tub of boiling water. The head louse plunged into boiling water, and died.’ In this story, Pheto is trying to teach people not to abandon their culture and tradition. People who throw away their customs are committing suicide, like the head louse”(Matjila 111). 50

this translational method, Shole writes that “it is the use of translation (phetolelo) to reclaim the African creative talent we have lost to European languages thanks to well known historical factors [such as colonialism]. That form of translation I term phetsolelo”

(Shole 2016 in Pooe 10). He further defines a form of translation called transcreations or

“Euro-African literature back into native African languages of the writer, story, setting and characters”(Shole 2016 in Pooe 37). I use this theoretical approach to translation with some modifications, in a systematic way of applying decolonial methods of rewriting

Setswana literature.

In the context of this study, I achieve the decolonized translations using the following approaches: first through the use of repatriative transcreations, which is achieved through translating works written in English into Setswana, or translating them into English without compromising the cultural adherence to the Setswana text. Second, by revisiting selected translated material in Setswana literature and evaluating or analyzing it in the context of translation. Third, by seeking to show that as translation is also viewed as ‘literary creativity,’ it can also be used as an intervention to undo the debilitating effects of colonial translations.

Senegalese filmmaker, Ousmane Sembène’s film Xala (1973) uses a similar model of not translating concepts with dense cultural meaning and significance. In

Sembene’s film, the decolonial practice is repatriative because the Wolof expression

“xala” (Eng. impotence) becomes much more meaningful in the storyline yet it has not been given its English equivalent, which is a way of making a strong statement about 51

Sembène’s oral tradition. There are many examples to draw from, but a few that I have used in this dissertation demonstrate what a decolonized model of translation requires.

Hence, I revisit some theoretical assumptions about translation practice that have been used to understand cultural implications of translation in Setswana literary standards. One way of achieving this objective of decolonizing methods of translation involves taking into consideration two important factors: first realizing that oral literature predates written literature in the African context, and yet there is a dearth of discussion on the translation of oral literature; and second, accepting that it still can be discussed meaningfully in relation to a vast number of cultural productions, which includes the written and verbal arts.

For the purposes of this research, decolonized translation is viewed as a specific methodology in translation studies. Translation has been used across different disciplines studying human cultures such as anthropology and sociology in addition to literary studies. For example, anthropologist Isaac Schapera’s ethnographic study Praise-Poems of Tswana Chiefs depends on translations to explore how Botswana has historically used poetry as part of its culture. Therefore, to emphasize the importance of poetry among the people of Botswana, Schapera observes that

Praise poems are a form of traditional literature common in all clusters of

Southern Bantu. They are composed not only about chiefs, headmen, famous

warriors, and other prominent tribesmen, but about ordinary commoners also,

including women; there are, praise-poems of tribes and subdivisions of tribes 52

(such as wards and lineages), of domestic animals (notably cattle), of wild

animals (including birds and insects), of trees and crops, of rivers, hills and other

scenic features, and of such inanimate objects such as divining bones. In modern

times some have even been composed about schools, railway trains, and bicycles.

(13)

Schapera’s findings show that Batswana have always used poetry as part of their culture.

This tradition has been sustained as it continues to be maintained by contemporary poets and griots in Botswana. It is also worth noting that this tradition adapts to new technological advancements of modern times such as film. Therefore, as a method, translation intervenes into and interprets existing narratives in its process of rewriting.

Moreover, it allows for documentation and access into other cultures that use a distinct language. For example, Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart is now documented and preserved in Setswana language, which makes it possible to be read in Setswana. Thus, indigeneous speakers of Setswana can use this translation to diversify their knowledge about the Igbo culture in Nigeria during the colonial period. It can also serve as a model text for creative writers who write in Setswana, and those who are interested in exploring the same themes that Achebe tackles.

This study evaluates various texts that were translated from English into

Setswana, and vice versa. I will be using these to survey and identify the implications of translations on literature and film from Botswana. My methodological approach assumes the following: 1) I analyze some already existing translations in both literature and film 53

by using method of selectivity to describe the importance of cultural contexts of the translated works. 2) I use my own translations—which categorize in this study as experimental translations—and compare them with existing translations, which I analyze using postcolonial and decolonial translation methodologies that are experimental. 3) For film, I make a critical analysis of local dramatic productions (films or cinematic translations) in Botswana, arguing how they show the relationship between oral literature and film. For the purposes of this research, these films are viewed as cultural texts that have translated and adapted into a new medium of film or cinema. For example, the culture of storytelling, which is widely practiced (mostly accompanied by oral and dramatic performances) translates into a new medium of film that uses visual images and motion pictures. Hence, translation in this sense is viewed as a fluid concept, which can have more than one meaning.

Due to this attribute of multiplicity in meaning when defining translation as culture, my understanding of translation challenges the exisiting and preconceived notions and conceptualizations about translation as based on written forms of literature.

In my view, that understanding is problematic because it limits translation as a cultural practice to one narrow definition. In doing so, such definition ignores that translation practice is broad and entails a holistic process of rewriting narratives and concepts in a language that is different from the source culture. For example, J. C. Catford’s definition of “translation as a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another, involving the replacement of source-language meanings with alternate-receptor language 54

meanings” advocates for translation methods of substitution and replacement of cultural meanings that resonate with the source language (Catford 1965). However, Catford’s method is challenged and amplified by other translation critics such as Ivir who maintain that “translation means translating cultures not languages”(Ivir 1987: 35 qtd. in Maria

Tymoczko 20). Tyzmoczko supports the view espoused by Ivir in her essay “Postcolonial

Writing and Literary Translation” by highlighting why it is important to be careful when translating the postcolonial cultural texts. She posits that “the culture or tradition of a postcolonial writer acts as a metatext, which is rewritten-explicitly and implicitly, as both background and foreground in the act of literary creation” (20-1). The idea of placing culture as an attribute that is at the periphery of any translation is discouraged by both

Ivir and Tymoczko. It is also very important to note that their work similarly focuses exclusively on the translation of postcolonial texts. To effectively utilize the translation methods suggested by Ivir and Tymoczko leads to the following two important observations: First, a work of translation does not portray tendencies of appropriating the oral and written components of another culture as these translations can be viewed as ethnographies. Second, by virtue of their focus on the cultures of the source language, the translations will ensure that they are not presented in a decontextualized fashion and prevent fatalistic assimilation and appropriation of another culture. For example, in

Botswana, the translations of exiled postcolonial South African novelist Bessie Head into

Setswana were found by critics to be performing much better compared to the dramatic 55

literary translations of Shakespeare because they resonated with the cultures of Botswana due to their ethnographic content relatable to Head’s audience in Botswana.

I will be using decolonial methodology as a model of decolonizing the translation project for Setswana cultural productions as it relates to African literature and film in my experimental translations. Although translations of Setswana literature exist, their approach to translation was not aimed at decolonizing the translated texts, and therefore, I revisit some of these works in the forthcoming section with the objective of identifying the translational descrepencies that need to be retooled using decolonization. To achieve this, I compare selected published works in postcolonial African literature and film that have been celebrated as culturally responsive translations. By so doing, I will be drawing from other methods suggested by Maria Tymoczko, who advocates for the extensive use of footnotes or prefatory material especially when a translator is tasked with giving complex cultural meaning such as myth or idioms that cannot adequately translate through the use of the technique of literal translation. Still explicating on her methodology Tymoczko offers that,

the same [i.e the use of prefaces and footnotes] is true about information related to

historical events and historical figures, which is frequently made explicit in

postcolonial literature. It is probably for this reason that in Chapter 2 of A Grain

of Wheat Ngaugai (sic) gives a version of colonial history of Kenya, and he makes

the historical background explicit at other points as well where necessary for an

uninformed international audience. (26) 56

Tymoczko’s method as explained above demonstrates that literary translation is a rigorous activity, especially when it concerns cultural material of postcolonial societies whose development of narratives may have suffered cultural displacement due to mainstream colonial impositions. It is interesting that in terms of the writing aesthetics and style, Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s A Grain of Wheat mentioned above compares very well with T.J. Pheto’s Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo. For example, just like Ngugi’s approach,

Pheto takes time to explain the setting and cultures that readers may find unfamiliar.

By drawing from my personal experience of reading Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo in Setswana, it is apparent that the author was influenced by earlier novelists in postcolonial African writing such as Ngugi. Therefore, this example in particular reiterates that, these aesthetic similarities and parallels demonstrate not only the influence of the elite African novelists, but also the fact that translation of the newly invented form of postcolonial African writing that defied western literary traditions and canons of written literatures was put to practice.

Translation Catachresis

Gayathri Spivak’s concept of catachresis suggests that, the use of the conceptual term ‘translation’ is problematic especially when applied to nonwestern texts.

Consequently, it has been misused to some degree by practicing translation methodologists and critics to suppress how non-western literary cultures conceptualize translation practice. For purposes of clarity, the term catachresis refers to “the use of the wrong word for the context” and “the use of a word in a way that is not correct,” 57

(Meriam-Webster). Hence, this understanding becomes an interesting subject to both critics and translators of postcolonial oral and written texts whose aim is to promote cultural independence using translation practice. It is understandable, therefore, why

Spivak would argue that “the word translation loses its literal sense, it becomes a catachresis” thus deconstructing and broadening our scope of conceptualization of what translation entails in postcolonial frameworks (13). Spivak deconstructs the misconception about cultural translations, and calls for approaches that show some degree of sensitivity towards a culture when translating. Hence, my method to the objects of my study adopts Spivak’s idea of what translation constitutes. Spivak approaches translation in the context of culture by first redefining it as a problematic concept.

Furthermore, Spivak suggests models that are applicable in different cultural contexts, which implies the significance of pluralism in the translation practice of postcolonial writings.

Other critics such as Homi Bhabha also support methods that place emphasis on the importance of culture when dealing with translations. Bhabha contends that “culture reaches out to create symbolic textuality, to give the alienating aura of self-hood a promise of pleasure. Culture as a strategy of survival is both transnational and translational” (172). This view demonstrates that without cultural contexts, it is impossible to produce relevant translations, which make the whole translation exercise seem impossible. In addition Bhabha’s claim about culture being transnational emphasizes crossculturalism that exists when two literary cultures collide. For example, 58

when two literary traditions—oral and written—come into contact due to political factors such as colonization, they create a literature that has a blended identity whereby oral tradition is documented in a written form although it retains its basic characteristics.

My study utilizes a similar methodological approach suggested above, hence I redefine and use the concept of translation to understand the implications of translating culture in Setswana literature and cinema. The conceptual term ‘cultural production(s) in this research refer to translated literatures and films that are analyzed in this dissertation as objects of my study.

Literature and film as cultural productions are closely related interdisciplinary areas of study because they both explore similar themes, and their primary sense is to educate. In other words, like any artistic cultural production they have a pedagogical function. In the context of postcolonial African creative productions of literature and film, African novelists and filmmakers have persistently used literature and film to show resistance towards imperialism, and expose challenges facing postcolonial Africa. In the process of combating colonial narratives and rebuilding their own stories, postcolonial artists utilize the concept of translation profitably to capture and depict the cultural context—that reflects their African settings and culture as opposed to western narratives that often mistranslate, misread, and misinterpret African narratives—in positive light.

Hence, the use of literature and film for purposes of this study is only in the context of translation practice and how it implicates on the cultural narratives. The way translations have been used in African literatures and film differed depending on several factors. For 59

African postcolonial literary practioners and filmmakers, there was a need to fight back, and therefore, their engagement with translation practice was for purposes of repairing the damage created in the colonial narratives of Africans. On the contrary, the colonialists used translations for continuing the cultural legacy of Europe and in promoting the partenalistic narratives about Africa in the west.

Literature

In this dissertation, I engage a critical translational analysis of Chinua Achebe’s

Things Fall Apart (1958) and its Setswana translation Dilo di Masoke (1991) by

Monyaise. This work has been translated into many languages including Setswana. The

Setswana version of the novel exemplifies ways that the translator has decolonized the translation by picking a title that draws from Setswana oral tradition. It defies a direct translation of the title, and adopts one that will have a better aesthetic appeal as a translation in Setswana. In addition, I analyze the translations of Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya

Tlhogo (1985) by Tiroentle Bafana Pheto and The Conscript (2013) written in Tigrinya and translated into English by Ghirmai Negash. It was originally written in Tigrinya by

Gebreyesus Hailu and it has striking similarities with Setswana because it uses oral cultural narratives. Furthermore I apply the decolonial experimental methods of translations of these works into both Setswana and English. Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo has already been translated from Setswana into English as Botlhodi—The Abomination. It is accompanied by an explanatory subtext—"A Postcolonial Setswana Novel by T.J.

Pheto”—for readers who may be unfamiliar with Setswana literature. The approach 60

emulates closely other existing literary translations such as The Conscript, which has a

Setswana manuscript of translation, which I translated with the title Moswelatebele. The aim of the translation is to decolonize the translation techniques to make them relevant cultural productions as translations of both Setswana and English. Therefore, my approach to the translation compares these two texts with other novels that utilize culturally sensitive methods of translation.

These works explore themes of colonialism and the postcolonial state of affairs in

Africa. At the time of preparing the translated manuscripts as an experiment in translation, I established contact with the author and translator of the Setswana novel

(Botlhodi) and Tigrinya novella (The Conscript) for familiarity with the required cultural necessities that can be strategically applied to produce decolonized literary translations.

In addition, I have visited and accessed archives of translated material at the University of Botswana library and the Botswana collection at Ohio University Alden Library.

Film

To interweave my secondary area into my research, I analyze the following

Setswana films, which are local productions in Botswana: O Bone o ja Sereto, (English translation: Beware, You are Consuming a Totem) by Joel Keitumele, and Beauty by

Fenny Lekolwane. 8 These films reflect on the postcolonial/post independence condition

8 In Setswana culture, sereto means a “totem” and one is tabooed to consume an animal considered to be their totem. For example, the totem of the Balete ethnic group is a buffalo (nare) and as a cultural principle, the Balete people would abstain from eating buffalo meat. The film uses this idea to show a story that mocks the post independence situation of Botswana, which has shamefully led some people to consume their totems out of greed or detachment from one’s cultural ways. On the other hand, in the dramatic film Beauty, the 61

of Botswana in a way that emphasizes the dispossession and repossession of Setswana culture and language. These films are available and accessible on the internet via

Youtube. They blend the oral tradition of storytelling used in Botswana with film technology, which can be viewed as adaptation of oral tradition in the context of

Setswana into visual images. For example, in some cases the storyline of these films develops based on a proverb that is a part of oral literature in Botswana. Hence, they can be compared and contrasted with films about Botswana but produced from the west— whose translations of Botswana narratives emphasize binarisms, and therefore, lack a culturally balanced Setswana perspective—such as A United Kingdom (2016) by Amma

Asante. In addition, these local film productions, are used as evidence that oral literature blends well with the visual images. This view of translation of orality and its adaptability to cinema is one of the arguments conveyed in the dissertation. The films will be analyzed critically by highlighting significant themes and how these themes change with times. The study will also consider a translational analysis of their distinct aesthetic structure or defining characteristics, and how or why they defy the western film conventions. Finally, the dissertation considers their contextual relevance as cultural translations and adaptations within the society of Botswana. To achieve this, I will draw

filmmaker explores the Botswana’s current socioeconomic condition through the protagonist Beauty whose actions reveals live challenges people in Botswana face hence its relevance as a postcolonial film. All the films use humor extensively in their storyline which resonates with a typical Setswana storytelling deliberation. 62

comparisons with other films within and outside of Africa focusing exclusively on those that were produced by African filmmakers.

Chapter Outline

Chapter 1: History of Translation in Postcolonial African Literature and Film

Achebe, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Mbembe, and Fanon are considered and illuminated as some important contributions in this history. From film, I consider the works of ground breaking African filmmakers such as Ousmane Sembène and Gaston Kaboré along with some critical essays on cinematography in Africa using the works of Nwachuku Ukadike,

Manthia Diawara, Roy Armes and Kenneth Harrow. It further considers the critical contributions of postcolonial feminist critics in African cinema such as Shiela Petty and

Eileen Julien. The chapter explores different contributions in the form of critical essays 63

and productions on the study of film and literature from Africa that explore the complexity of the translation phenomena that has always been an important part of

African cultural productions, yet focus on this area still suffers negelet. Moreover, I will focus on exploring criticism on translation studies and practice in Africa to demonstrate the extent to which translation occupies a very important role in the history of criticism and production of literatures and films from Africa. In sum, this chapter provides a detailed background on the study of translation and its relationship with African literature and film.

Chapter 2: History of Translation in Postcolonial Setswana Literature and Film

The chapter introduces, defines, redefines, and acknowledges the role translation has played in Botswana cultural productions of literature and film. It continues the debate on the complex history of translation by narrowing the focus to the study of translation as culture in the literatures and films from Botswana. It shows specific examples of literatures and films that have been adapted into translations, and therefore existed as new mediums. For example, these include earlier translations in written Setswana literature and criticism from Solomon Plaatje, D.P.S Monyaise, Barulaganye Thedi, Isaac

Schapera, and others. In this chapter, the concept of translation is defined in a more narrowed focus that shows how translation occupies an important role in the growth and expansion of Setswana literature before and after colonialism. In its broader terms, translation is defined as an all-encompassing, overarching concept that accommodates many cultural translations beyond the written texts only but one that also extends to the 64

oral texts. In this section of my dissertation, I will challenge some theoretical postulations that exist about translation in the context of Setswana literature and film. For example, I use Setswana language as a case study to problematize how translation as a concept has always been defined in a very limited way just as it is the case in most cultural productions and criticisms from Africa. Setswana oral and written literature in the

‘modern’ or contemporary era for example have translated into new mediums of documentation and preservation.

Chapter 3: Critical Analysis of Setswana Novels in Translation and Experimental

Translations

This chapter focuses on the selected novels from Setswana literature that have been translated from Setswana into English and vice versa. I critically analyze these translations by identifying some theoretical issues and implications that arise when creative works done in Setswana translate into other languages and artistic mediums as adaptations. The works are analyzed using decolonial translation models that have been applied and suggested by leading critics of postcolonial literatures and translation studies such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Susan Bassnett and Lawrence Venuti. In addition, the chapter explores Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, and its Setswana translation Dilo di

Masoke which was translated by a noted novelist D.P.S Monyaise. I compare both the

English and Setswana texts by highlighting how through translations, these works compare and complement one another in a way that they portray similarities of thematic focus and style. Further, I consider texts such as Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo by 65

Tiroentle Bafana Pheto, and The Conscript which was translated by Ghirmai Negash into

English and originally written by Gebreyesus Hailu in 1927 as experimental translations, which I compare with some published translations that have successfully approached the translation practice in a decolonized fashion. These cultural translations are experimental because they are translations conducted by myself as a practicing translator of postcolonial African literatures with the objective of investigating the suitability and applicability of the suggested decolonial yet unorthodox translation methods that tend to domesticate and foreignize cultural texts such as rationalization, clarification and ennoblement. Therefore, this chapter dismisses the assumptions of translation canons that are primarily based on the mainstream western conceptualizations of translation, which use translation to marginalize non-western minority cultural or textual productions. The chapter explores and applies decolonial yet unorthodox methods of translation such as for example prefacing and contextualization. This approach is used to emphasize how literatures and films in Setswana develop through translation practice, yet this area remains understudied by researchers.

Chapter 4: Critical Analysis of Verbal/Oral Arts and Botswana Films in Translation

This section makes a critical analysis of local drama and film productions based on the premise that the principle of orality, which is an important part of literature in

Botswana has also translated into new mediums of documentation and preservation. For example, the film productions that I analyze are available on the internet and were produced by local film producers in Botswana. Just like the novels, the films are analyzed 66

in terms of language use, style and contextual or cultural relevance. I will analyze the originally oral cultures that have been documented through film. This section further responds to key questions that are central to my dissertation. For example, the question that over emphasizes the importance of understanding translation in relation to oral tradition, which is an aspect that draws from the visual and performing culture.

The conclusion summarizes the main ideas of the dissertation. In addition, it shows ways in which the dissertation contributes to postcolonial African literature and film and especially by focusing on examples from Setswana literature and film.

Therefore, it establishes itself as a pioneering work translation of postcolonial Setswana literature and film. Furthemore, the conclusion acknowledges the limitations of the study and highlights the likely challenges that this study may face. Finally, it makes critical recommendations on future studies about translation practice and the role that it has assumed in understanding film and literature in Africa.

Conclusion

As a scholarly contribution, the dissertation aims to respond to theoretical problems of translation in postcolonial African languages and literatures in Setswana language. The dissertation provides an in-depth critical and translational study of film and literature by drawing selected cultural texts from Setswana language. Additionally, it aims to highlight the cultural implications of translating Setswana literature and film from both the insider and outsider’s perspective. In doing so, it reiterates the need to revisit the 67

colonial translations—undertaken by missionaries and anthropologists—and make the much needed decolonial interventions using translation practice.

Translation is indeed a very interesting subject to the area of postcolonial African literatures and films, and this can be seen in the way its presence is located in the foundational philosophical tests. However, it is also alarming that these works, including

Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s acclaimed Decolonizing the Mind have not been translated into any of the African languages, including Gikuyu, Ngugi’s mother tongue, and other African languages such as Swahili and Setswana. Furthermore, this pioneering study makes a critical analysis of gendered in translations of women writers such as Bessie Head and the translation of her novel into Setswana. As I have already shown, the neglect continues to exist and persist, despite the fact that these foundational works are instrumental in the development of criticism of African literatures and films.

It is my hope that this study will open new dialogues on ways to integrate more translational studies and practices that are culturally responsive, which do not present a decontextualized image of Africa’s oral and written cultural productions. This study has also shown that theoretical problems of translation in postcolonial texts are very common yet they remain unresolved by literary critics and translation practitioners. Therefore, it is very important that literatures from less researched literary languages such as Setswana should be studied more critically as a way of mapping them into world literatures in their locally defined forms even as translations. The benefits of culturally responsive translations in African literatures and film make it possible to discuss theoretical 68

problems of translation in other African languages. For example, it opens new dialogues that can compare siSwati, Tigrinya, and, Akan works of literature and film due to the cultural differences represented by each of these languages. It also allows for a comparative analysis of African literature and film thereby contributing to and advancing the interdisciplinary scope of research in this area of study.

Chapter 1: History of Translation in African Literature and Film

Introduction

The chapter provides a historical overview of the pivotal role that translation has played in influencing the development of postcolonial African literatures and films from different regions in Africa such as in the South, West and, Eastern parts of Africa. In addition, it draws from existing examples like novels and films that associate translation with this historical development and transformation of the genres. The chapter further explores the implications of translation as a culture in postcolonial writing and production in Africa, by looking at how it has historically navigated into different forms of literatures and films about Africa. Furthermore, foundational academic texts contributing to the history of translation and its criticism in postcolonial Africa are considered as examples of translation. For example, the actual translations such as those from the works of Chinua Achebe, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Achille Mbembe, and Frantz Fanon are considered and highlighted as some important contributions and decolonial interventions in this complex history. In other words, these foundational postcolonial theoretical texts themselves are also products of cultural translations aimed at reversing the negative implications of the culturally displaced narratives.

From film studies, I consider the works of ground-breaking African filmmakers such as Ousmane Sembène, Gaston Kaboré, along with some critical essays on cinematography in Africa using the works of Nwachuku Ukadike, Manthia Diawara, Roy

Armes and, Kenneth Harrow. It further considers the critical contributions of postcolonial 70

feminist critics in African cinema such as Shiela Petty and Eileen Julien. These works are relevant because they are criticisms aimed at establishing a comprehensive understanding of film in Africa yet their content has not been translated into African languages. The chapter explores various contributions in the form of critical essays and productions on the study of film and literature from Africa, specifically those that enable us to survey the complexity of the translation phenomenon. Arguably, although most of these works have been historically known to constitute an important part of African cultural productions, and therefore studied widely, the focus on this area has shown tendencies to neglect their study in the context of translation. Moreover, I will focus on exploring criticism on translation studies and practice in Africa to demonstrate the extent to which translation occupies a vital role in the history of criticism and production of literatures and films from Africa. In sum, this chapter provides detailed historical background on the study of translation and its relationship with African literature and film.

Historical Background of Translation in Postcolonial Texts from Africa

The history of postcolonial literary translations in Africa is extensive as it encapsulates the oral and written genres, and the following three critical time frames define it. First, the pre-colonial period, which consists of works of literature that date way back to antiquity associated with complex writing systems and translation techniques.

However, for the most part, pre-colonial period is usually defined based on orality and not on the writing civilizations and translation practice. This view of orality and its limited conceptualization or theorization in a linear timeline is dismissed on the grounds 71

that although oral literature is often associated with the precolonial period, it is a genre that has equal validity to western literature in the way it continues to adapt into new forms. For example, the focus on the aspect of orality emanates from romanticized assumptions of pre-colonial cultures. Pre-colonial cultures are imagined by outsiders as entirely oral, even though historical evidence shows they have established complex writing systems, and that oral tradition continues to prevail as a defining feature in contemporary African writing. The cultural translations as both oral and written texts from this era navigate through the pre-colonial, colonial, and postcolonial historical moments. In their navigation, they reveal translation as an ancient cultural practice that is challenged by an interplay of power dynamics and ideological assumptions.

Second, the colonial period of cultural translations are characterized by the introduction of the canonic literary writings and aesthetics from Europe that were expressed through Latin alphabet as its basic orthography. This period is composed of two distinctive types of translations performed by African literary cultures, and that of colonial missionaries and anthropologists from Europe. The colonial period is often mistakingly associated with the introduction of literacy in African cultures, while the precolonial period is portrayed as a time of prehistoric nonliterate cultures that only acquired literacy after European colonial occupation. Third, the postcolonial period, which is defined by movements from colonial subjects that called for cultural independence from the colonial powers and in doing so engaged in producing creative works that challenge our modern conception of translation as a cultural practice. In each historical period, 72

translation practice was among the primary building blocks for cultural production for both the colonizer and the colonized who used translations for different reasons depending on context and time. In the colonizer’s part, translation projects displaced

African cultures through mistranslations and ideological biases. For the Africans in the colonial period, translations between African cultures enrich and empower each other’s cultural productions. For example, Setswana absorbs oral narratives and folktales from other African cultures through translations.

Cultural translations of African oral and written texts have been shaped by each historical trajectory differently. As a result this has led to very conspicuous debates and theoretically charged postulations that attempted to understand the role of culture in translation studies. Because each period brought specialized characteristics influenced by culture, the discussions on the subject of translation get more complicated, especially in postcolonial settings of African language literatures. Translation practice in all three periods reveals a complex interplay of oral and written cultural productions beyond the scope of current translation theory. Therefore, this research revisits each period to understand the role of translation in African literatures, and what they reveal about literature and film as cultural productions affected by translation. It is not feasible to discuss 'postcolonial literary translations' in the context of translation practice without looking into both the pre-colonial and colonial periods as historical references. The period of 'colonialism' is very important to understand the political background of the postcolonial literary histories of Africa, and therefore it is defined holistically to avoid 73

presenting an over-generalized argument and perspective about this period and its association with literary translations.

Precolonial Cultural Translations

The literary translations from the pre-colonial era emphasize that translation practice is not a new phenomenon in the history of Africa’s vast repository of oral and written works of literature. Therefore, as translation theorist Peter Newmark observe

“The first traces of translation date from 3000 BC [in Africa], during the Egyptian old

Kingdom in the area of the First Cataract, Elephantine, where inscriptions in two languages have been found” (3). Cultural translations in the literary history of Africa take us back to the ancient African writing civilizations such as Ge’ez script in Ethiopia and

Eritrea before the colonial encroachment, which employed distinct forms of writing and aesthetics. The assumptions are that most advanced societies have their own culturally specific forms of written communication (such as with Ajami in west Africa), which, even in the case of imported scripts or alphabets they have usually evolved over hundreds of years (Roy Armes 50). Translation practice is central to describe this evolution or importation of the literary cultures with written forms of communication. However, historical evidence shows that the complex indigenous writing systems from Africa predate the colonial era, but they also occupy a pivotal role in modern postcolonial writings as translations of creative cultural productions. For example, according to

Fallou Ngom, “translation of excerpts of ‘Ajami literature dealing with the life of Al-

Hajj‘Umar Taal date to 1797-1864”(100). Ngom further indicates that “the Fulani 74

Muslim reformers fought against ‘illiteracy’ but realizing the difficulty of teaching the

Arabic language to the subjected people, they used the Arabic script to transcribe vernacular languages”(101). In addition, historians often cite “ancient Egyptian labels written in hieroglyphic signs as being the world’s earliest examples of phonetic writing”

(Dreyer 1992, 293–99 qtd. Toyin Falola and Christian Jennings 13). These scripts and works of literature have survived for many years, and as part of their survival, they have been exposed to complex political and historical landscapes that account for their current shape as cultural translations. Most of them exist as transcriptions of vernacular languages because they transitioned from their oral sources into written texts for numerous reasons, including transnational interaction, religious assimilation, and colonial expansion. Transcriptions of these languages define their extensive literary corpus as they were transformed from oral sources into the written forms represented by colonial alphabets. This body of literature constitutes a large number of transcribed African narratives in the form of stories, riddles, songs, tongue-twisters, proverbs, which critic

Albert Gérad categorized as “belonging to the oral lore” (African Language Literatures

1981).

Precolonial cultural translations of African literature were also undertaken during the time of slavery, and because of this historical fact, it is argued that “African literature written in English dates back to the eighteenth century” (Paul Edwards vii). Olaudah

Equiano (or Gustavus Vassa), a Nigerian slave who bought his freedom in 1766 and started writing in English. The Interesting Narrative of Life of Olaudah Equiano was 75

published as a French translation in 1810 (Vincent Carreta xxvii). Critics of African literature postulate that “Equiano’s Travels conferred on written African literature in

English a legitimacy and a sense of grounding based on its relative antiquity” (Paul

Edwards viii), but they seldom regard Equiano’s narratives as a form of cultural translation. Equano’s literary writings later became very influencial to legendary postcolonial writers who translated it in terms of thematic focus, aesthetic form, and structure. Therefore, Paul Edwards notes some significant similarities and stylistic assimilation to reiterate the notion of how cultures translate. He posits that,

It is reassuring, and the same time is disturbing that Achebe, Ngugi, Soyinka, and

Armah all began where Equiano did: correcting the wrong impressions about

Africa: And they all share a common concern for the continent and have a

common theme . . . The theme may take many colors, the perspectives may even

be different but the substance, the core of the African experience remains the

same. (Equano’s Travels vii)

Slave narratives share a common written structure and stylistic features with several foundational texts of modern postcolonial writings in spite of being in different periods.

Based on Paul Edwards’ understanding, translation practice from the pre-colonial era done by the enslaved Africans, such as Equiano became an outstanding success to the extent that it influenced African writings in the postcolonial period and continues to influence contemporary postcolonial literatures. 76

Furthermore, it is essential to note that Equiano's work was not the “first work written by an African in English. The poems of Phyllis Wheatly appeared in 1773,

Ignatius Sancho’s collected letters in 1782, and Ottobah Cugoano’s Thoughts and

Sentiments on the Evil and Wicked Traffic of Slavery in 1787” (xv). These works, despite their early date, share some common features with most postcolonial writings today as they primarily focus on resistance and contested ways of revolutionalizing the African literatures, especially in cases where translations are concerned. Therefore, these cultural translations can help us examine how literatures written by enslaved people in the sixteenth century impacted the development of African literature in English. The oral and written narratives are currently studied and translated by critics, literary practitioners, and historians to warn about the danger of imposing the western analytical frames to African literatures, even when they are written in the European languages. Through a critical study of these translations, which include many other oral histories that have been recorded by historians at the time, there is a need for translators to scrutinize the western theories of translation and its approach to African literatures.

Scholars and practitioners of translation who associate literacy with European languages sometimes emphasize the importance of written translations but overlook the fact that their content is composed of texts that originate from a distinct writing system.

Consequently, the history of literary translations in postcolonial Africa is often associated with written literatures to the exclusion of the oral texts despite their significant contribution to the aesthetics and the philosophical basis of their creativity. These 77

literatures are written and produced in European languages, but they show resilience in the way they translate African ideas and cultural concepts, therefore making it possible to engage and interpret postcolonial cultural texts in more than one language. It is fitting to claim that “African literatures in European languages exist primarily in the mode of translations without originals . . . [postcolonial] African writers are necessarily translators in that the distinctions between the source and the target are constantly interlocked and interchanging (Olabode Ibironke 112, Lisa McNee 109). This analysis emphasizes the continuity of the translation as a cultural practice, and the value of oral translations as building blocks of the written works of literature. Therefore, without the survival of the oral literary aesthetics, the African postcolonial poetics would not be enriched as a heritage. It also highlights that postcolonial writers are also translators as their creative works often draw from the memory of marginalized oral histories, and therefore, they consistently translate by default from their cultural texts.

The pre-colonial literary translations demonstrate a co-existing relationship between the oral and the written cultures. Studying them in the context of translation can pose some conceptual challenges while at the same time revealing the unknown facts about the suppressed African literatures. First, their association with postcolonial period depict them as the works of literature of the formerly colonized subjects, hence studying their history in the context of translation requires a deeper understanding of the power dynamics, ideological underpinnings, and function or purpose. It also implies that the complexities of studying the dynamics of oral literature as translation entail “studying 78

documents that are not necessarily drawn from a written source text, as long as they involve transporting from one culture to another culture” (Dube 158). Hence, postcolonial cultural texts in translation reflect the cultural background and ideological positions of the writers and derive insight from oral traditions that have their origins in the precolonial period.

There is a tremendous linguistic and cultural archival evidence that can be used to support the claims that challenge the often-recurring assumption which associates translation practice with the colonial legacy in Africa to the exclusion of precolonial literary histories. For example, the shared structure of African oral narratives despite the vastness of their geographic locations and distinct geopolitical cultural entities indicate that translations have always been used effectively by Africans to communicate and transmit cultural messages amongst themselves since the so-called ‘prehistoric’ period when most African literatures were not written using the Latin alphabet. The use of cultural translations by African societies has also been highly selective in the way they insisted on translating the epistemologies of the cultures they represented. This translational phenomenon was favored to some extent by some shared cultural commonalties among the African cultures, which are not homogeneous and therefore making it easier for the production of literary translations within their writing systems.

Historical evidence further demonstrates that in African societies’ use of translations, the pre-colonial literary cultures invented novel techniques of dealing with oral and written texts thereby portraying the history of literary translation as a history of 79

inventions in terms of technique and aesthetics. In doing so, the engagement of these translations made some significant contributions to translation theory and practice, thereby redefining translation as culture and challenging views that associate translation practice with written texts only that were brought to African societies by Europeans.

They also exposed the limitations of colonial literary translations for their ideological bias and incongruity in translating African literary cultures.

Due to the subsequent displacement of the African literatures during the colonial period, their original written forms were lost in most cases with a few exceptions, such as in the case of Ge`ez and Ajami literatures. There is relative neglect of their critical study beyond ‘orality,’ and in the context of translation studies because of the following factors. Some of these literatures are not adequately preserved in institutions that can influence their critical study as cultural texts. These texts were usually exhibited in the museums as collectable cultural artifacts. In addition, because of many years of being subjected to colonial influences, “the limited number of individuals with the linguistic skills and cultural background required to translate them and lack of interest on the side of scholars because of prejudice” (Ngom 99) remains a challenge. In their history, the influence of the colonial languages has tempered with the embedded meanings of these cultural texts. Some meanings from the source cultures could be lost or altered due to assumptions in the process of colonial translation. 80

Colonial Literatures and Translation Practice

Colonialism as a historical reference in this study refers to the eiteength century period during which there was a conglomeration of events leading to the official colonization of Africa in 1884-5 after the Berlin Conference.9 This period is remarkable to postcolonial and translation studies scholarship as it compels critics to approach literary translation from the perspective of power dynamics and relations to understand the ideological positionality of translators and cultural interpretations. It is a period that opens a platform to juxtapose and compare the historic translations from other trajectories. Therefore, studying the ideological underpinnings of translated texts is foregrounded by an in-depth critical understanding of the influences of colonialism on translating texts from Africa and how the dominance of European languages minoritized the postcolonial cultural texts.

Most cultural translations during the colonial period were undertaken by anthropologists and missionaries who were deployed to study African cultures and spread

Christianity. Therefore, translated literature in this era is often in the form of the ethnographies, missionary travel narratives, and Biblical translations into the African languages. For example, the objective of colonial translations was to displace the oral cultural traditions with European literatures as a civilizing mission, and therefore, some of the texts associated with this period dismiss early African literary traditions and only

9 See Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s Decolonizing the Mind for an elaborate discussion on African colonialism where he argues that the “Berlin conference was obviously economic and political, but it was also cultural. Berlin in 1884 saw the division of Africa into the different languages of the European powers” (5). 81

offer a reductionist view of them. This was because of the way precolonial intellectual history of Africans expressed through the oral arts was disregarded and neglected by anthropologists studying African literary civilizations and missionaries translating religious literatures with ideological bias.10 However, oral literature still prevailed and was kept alive by shared cultural values among the African communities that could easily translate and penetrate other cultures. Colonial translations showed bias toward European ideologies throughout the history of African literature, and critics show that in some contexts, these translations were even consciously used to stiffen the gender disparities through language use. For example, feminist critic Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyèwùmí ’s essay “The

Translation of Cultures: Engendering Yoruba Language, Orature and World-Sense” argues that early anthropologists used translations for a denigrating course by promoting translations that privileged their world view and gender bias,

It is significant that even though [anthropologist] Johnson was conscious of

Yoruba non-gender-specificity, his reference to the Yoruba man in his example,

rather than a non-gender-specific Yoruba person, could be read as the privileging

of the male, as in Austin's usage of the English word “men.” (157)

Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyèwùmí highlights how colonial translations of English imposed a feature that did not exist within the Yoruba linguistic and cultural matrix to be consistent with

10 In French-speaking Africa the neglect of the intellectual history is rooted partly in the colonial mindset and the agenda of mission civilisatrice. Recognizing the existence of an African intellectual history was tantamount to purposefully undermining the very agenda that the colonial administration sought to achieve. The Africans had to be portrayed as intellectually challenged, with a history that began with the arrival of Europeans on the continent. (Fallou Ngom 99) 82

the Eurocentric ideologies and sensibilities. Therefore, these translations did not take into account the two aspects of the source culture, namely how the language system is structured and how the ideological informed conception and construction of gender.

Other examples of colonial mistranslations include the Biblical translations from

European languages into African languages. Critics have since intervened and argued how those translations designated African cultures as dangerous and obsolete due to the cultural differences they carried. Setswana is one of the languages that experienced this form of censorship and marginalization through the Bible translations. To emphasize this, critic Musa Dube shares an excruciating experience that problematizes the literary translations of Setswana Bible as carried out by colonial missionaries,

I found out that where the Canaanite woman said, ‘My daughter is severly

possesed by demons’, in Mt. 15.22, it was translated ‘morwadiake o chenwa thata

ke badimo’. That is, ‘my daughter is sevely possesed by the high ones or

Ancestors. The word Badimo literaly means the ‘High Ones’ or ‘Ancestral Spirits’

in Setswana cultures. Badimo are sacred personalities who are attributed divine

status and sacred roles. In my shock, I turned to other passages in Matthew to

confirm my disbelief. I found the story of Jesus and the demoniac of Gadarene

(Mt. 8.28-34). There I found our sacred Badimo in front of another divine being:

they trembled and begged Jesus to leave them alone, to spare them or to cast them

out to the pigs’. (40) 83

Dube’s example, reiterates how in the history of literary translations in African literatures colonial translations are characterized by unreasonable ideological bias designed to conveniently disregard the African cultures while portraying the European cultures as superior. The history of the Bible translations in the context of Setswana Bible provides the basis for this argument, and to emphasize the need to critically engage with such translations with the aim of reiterating the need for decolonizing the translation practice.

Translations from this period of colonization—and neocolonization era—undermined the value of the African cultures but they still remain relevant tools because they make it possible for critics and translators to study translation from a comparativist approach.

Therefore, these are the reasons I discuss them briefly as part of the historical survey with emphasis on identifying why they must be exposed in order to rethink new decolonial translation approaches. These early colonial translations, influence the postcolonial cultural productions and theory that are also similarly affected by the translation process.

Postcolonial Literary Translations

In some translation contexts of African literature, more specific terms that allude to historic literary movements of Negritude and Commonwealth literatures are deployed to redefine the complexities of locating the postcolonial literary trajectories.11 Most of

11 The objectives of these movements as articulated by literary critic Hans Bertens were “cultural self- definition and political self determination. The desire for cultural independence is one of the moving forces behind the literatures that in the 1960s and 1970s spring up in their former colonies. [Various artists such as poets and novelists] created novels and poems that responded to, and reflect, their immediate cultural environment. . .regional or ethnic literatures were retroactively created”(194). 84

the literary productions from this period are written mainly in European languages, and not in the African languages, except for a few instances of translations into African languages. However, these texts portray tendencies to translate oral cultural texts and incorporate them into their narrative structure to explore an extensive postcolonial thematic focus even though they are written in European languages as Europhone literatures. The translated oral texts define both the pre-colonial and colonial periods, and because of this mutative attribute, they present some conceptual challenges when analyzed as cultural translations. Critic of African cinema Kenneth Harrow reminds us in his 1999 publication of the conceptual challenges associated with literary movements such as that of negritude and expounds why other postcolonial critics dismissed them.

Harrow argues that,

Negritude, born in the 1930s, was the dominant literary movement of the 1940s,

and remained so until the appearance of the anticolonial literature of the 1950s.

Initially the concerns of the Negritude writers involved the affirmation of the

positive values for Black people. By the 1950s, concerns over racial pride was

supplanted by the demand for political rights and then for independence. (xii)

As Harrow implies, the cultural translations of the negritude period had a reactionary approach and were focused more on demystifying black cultures for the westerners, but offered nothing beyond that. Postcolonial writings that were to follow after, are much bolder, more resilient and unapologetic in their attitude. Their extensive use of translation practice goes beyond European literary tradition but have also contributed to theory and 85

novel ways of approaching translation practice. For example, some of the new ways is the decolonization of knowledge and translating the African epistemologies as the center.

Despite the monumental and historic contributions of the postcolonial literary translations in film and literature, creative cultural productions in African languages remain marginalized by western theories because theories are often used to assimilate or appropriate the texts. Their criticism is primarily done in non-African languages even though they are relevant to the study of these literatures. It is fitting therefore that, prominent translation scholars in African literatures such as Paul Bandia continue to engage in research that theorizes how orality of the postcolonial cultural literatures should be translated and preserved in their written forms. Beyond the commonalities in the translation of structure and form of oral narratives, the methods and techniques that

African societies have used to preserve oral narratives as part of the intangible cultural heritage also portray some remarkable commonalities. These cultural translations were often achieved through unconventional and diverse methods of creativity, performance, and improvisation which contemporary scholarship in translation studies often identify them as alternative forms of adaptations classified as transcreations and transmutations.

Basically, this refers to translated cultural texts that are coherent in recognizing the importance of cultural creativity that defies the imposition of orthodoxical methodologies in the translation of cultural productions of postcolonial literary societies.

These historical developments that define the history of translation in postcolonial

African literature can thus be viewed as a history of the theoretical ideas and 86

conceptualizations about how translation question and marginalized literary cultures should be approached and understood. In this regard, as part of this complex trajectory some scholars of translation argued in a way that suggests that westernized understanding of translation was fallacious and narrow in focus if compared with inventions of translations that were used by the precolonial African oral and written cultures.

Categorically, the history of literary translations of postcolonial cultural productions is very complicated, and it covers the dilemma of attending to the complexities of translating both the oral and written cultural aspects without offending the cultural sensibilities of the source languages. It also requires that we look into the translation practices of precolonial Africa and see how they are debated and represented as written forms by postcolonial writers and critics. Most of precolonial texts emanate from oral or verbal cultures, and therefore, translation methods that ignore their cultural context has been historically known to represent them in a decontextualized fashion which renders them irrelevant to the African audience.

Orality in the History of Postcolonial Literary Translations

Cultural translation practices predate the written word in most postcolonial cultural contexts from Africa. This is because historical evidence shows that the origins of translation practice date back to pre-colonial Africa, before the Roman or Latin alphabet was imposed as a conventional writing system for African cultural productions in the eighteenth century. Therefore, both the oral and written aspects of literature in

Africa have not been studied satisfactorily in the context of translation, especially where 87

they are produced in the indigenous African languages from their respective cultures and regions. Due to this scant studies, and at times heavy untranslated theoretical presence of philosophical contributions to literature, researchers and practitioners of translation focus more on the written cultural texts and neglect the study of oral translations. This exclusion has resulted in increased conceptual problems within the history of literary translations in postcolonial African literatures. First, translators and scholars who have shown interest in how oral literature translate are only preoccupied in representing it in the written form (orthography) and they do not attend to the complex translation dynamics beyond the written culture. Secondly, translation of oral literatures is usually undertaken in target languages that have wider readership such as English and French

(and other European languages) and focus less on the marginalized and less researched

African language literatures. This is achieved through the incorporation of assimilation and appropriation techniques of translation that have the potential to further marginalize

African cultural innuendos embedded in the translated text. They overlook the approach that Peter Newmark in his Approaches to Translation (1981) suggests that “a translator must have extralinguistic knowledge before he or she can assess the quality of the text and before deciding to interpret and then translate it” (5).

The last but not the least historical fact is summed up by Paul Bandia who suggests that “[in the history of production of] African Europhone literature by African born-authors, they [translate orally expressed] values, ideas, traditions and attitudes originating in African contexts through a European language”(2). Therefore, this 88

occurrence makes the study of translation in the context of postcolonial Africa’s films and literatures a much more interesting focus riddled with some complexities and possibilities for further studies. It is unsurprising that research that has attempted to understand the history of translation in literatures from Africa often attributes it to missionary activity that aimed to convert followers into Christianity. Therefore, the translation of the Bible was principal and executed through a conscious mistranslation of some cultural concepts celebrated as part of the creative artistic expressions by colonial subjects in their communities. To achieve the objectives of the mistranslations, several traditional translation theories and prescriptive techniques originating in the west were used to translate religious literature such as the Bible into many African languages. For example, this is explained by why most Bible translations in African languages seldom use the translated equivalents of the proverbial idiomatic and metaphoric expressions from the African oral tradition as compared to modern postcolonial writings. The use of

African oral narratives is very rare in the Biblical translations even though postcolonial translators have demonstrated that their use in the translated texts enrich the texts by making them culturally relevant. To date, no study has sought to find out how specific

African languages, such as Setswana or Swahili have historically influenced the production of translation theory and challenged how it has been conceptualized through the study of oral works of literature. This absence of research emphasizes the view that the African languages are still marginalized when it comes to acknowledging their roles 89

in transforming translation theory despite the immense contributions from writers who work in these languages.

In response to the politics surrounding postcolonial literary translation practice, critics such as Paul Bandia intervene to suggest new ways of contextualizing the history of translating oral literature into its written form without necessarily compromising the culture. Although Bandia offers a comprehensive account on the translation of orature, his concern is on navigating the shift of translations from their oral to written forms, and barely touches on translating within African languages. His study also contributes to translation scholarship that is primarily interested in transcribing oral texts into their written translated forms in their vernacular and not on the complexities of translatability in orature. He writes in his critical essay “Orality and Translation” that,

Anthropologists and historians conceptualize orality as the medium of expression

and discourse of non-literate cultures, while colonialists and Christian

missionaries explored orality as a means to understanding so-called primitive or

heathen societies for purposes of proselytism and civilization. (125)

Bandia’s observation reveals the following two important and conspicuous findings: how the association of oral cultures with lack of education by western modernity has affected our conceptualizations of orality as a cultural factor in the translation process.

Furthermore, he also shows that orality was merely tolerated by missionaries only because they wanted to ‘improve’ the backward cultures of the primitives with western civilizations, otherwise oral literatures were not regarded as a valuable or priority in 90

translation practice because the concern was in proselytizing and not in establishing a well-grounded understanding of the indigenous literary cultures in their own terms. This can be seen by how more translations that followed insisted on closely imitating the western canon in order for them to qualify as good acceptable literatures. Relating this thought to the translation question, Bandia shows that in the history of translating orality, translations were undertaken for wrong reasons that consistently supported the predominantly reductionist view of African literatures. For example, the primary objective was to alienate African cultures from their literary civilizations by portraying them as ‘primitive,’ ‘unwritten’ and ‘exotic’ and therefore requiring to be legitimized through their subsequent replacement with translations that did not offend the western sensibilities and canons. In other words, Bandia proves that in the historical context of translation and orality, even the disciplines that were designed to study human cultures such as anthropology and those that were expected to objectively record the accurate historical facts have failed to achieve that when it comes to the question of translation.

Despite these inaccurate representations, the challenges facing the translation of orature into written forms in postcolonial Africa transformed the area of literary translation studies into a fertile area of study for exploring how translation affects the marginalized cultural groups and minority linguistic cultures. It saw an expansion in the growth of research interest that aims at studying literary productions and other artistic forms of cultural productions in the context of translation. This expansion goes beyond the postcolonial historical epoch as oral literature continues to occupy a central role in 91

African literatures in English. It is during the postcolonial historical time period that we saw for the first time critics challenging how translation has been practiced and defined.

It is also a period marked by increased production of Europhone literatures, which some scholars have argued to be concrete examples of translations in the sense that they translate African ideas into European languages (Ettobi 2015, Bandia 2015, Wali 1965,

Achebe 1975). Sharing his views on this complex literary history, Bandia argues that “the intersection between postcolonial studies and translation studies has rested primarily on literature, which has had the double effect of expanding the purview of literary criticism and translation criticism” (“Postcolonial Literatures and Translation” 266). Bandia also offers that “although postcolonial studies often include the colonial era, postcolonial translation studies has dealt mainly with pre and post-independence literatures” (266). By drawing from specific texts as examples, we can see how the postcolonial literary translations shift between the distinct historical moments in a way that relive the translations from the ancient times in the postcolonial period.

Specific Cases of African Literatures and Films in Translation

Notwithstanding the complexities that define the history of literary translations, a close study of the postcolonial written and oral texts demonstrates that translation has contributed significantly to the current form and structure of the postcolonial African films and literatures. This was made possible by the centrality of oral and written cultures as building blocks of the ancient translations (precolonolonial) that were met with various forms of marginalization due to colonial encroachment. The amount of marginalization 92

deployed by colonialists encouraged and privileged the colonial cultures, and ignored the history of Africa’s oral and written textualities and the material culture despite their importance and functionality in their societies. They dismissed the value of understanding the dynamics of oral translations in the cultural systems of the African societies and expected them to translate Europhonic canons into African literatures while in the process minoritizing them through the ambivalent translation practices. However, postcolonial writers in Africa showed a considerable degree of resistance as their ability to translate non-written forms of literatures into written forms led to a call for a paradigm shift that revolutionized African literatures. These literary revolutions are linked to some crucial moments in the history of the African literature such as the 1962 Makerere Conference, the Negritude, and the Commonwealth literary movements.12 Regarding this near-extinct historical underpinnings surrounding the translation question, Bandia acquainted us with the history of oral translation practices in precolonial Africa in the following manner:

Elena Di Giovanni and Uoldelul Chelati Dirar discuss orality and translation in

the Horn of Africa, an area that is rich in oral history, and its role in translation in

precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial times. The historical importance of this

region outweighs its sparse representation in translation studies on Africa. (126)

12 For a detailed discussion on this subject, See Hans Bertens’s discussion on the significant movements in the literary history of African texts from colonial period. Bertens also focuses on the significance of these movements and their justifications. His essay “Postcolonial Criticism and Theory” reiterarates that “in the course of the 1980s Commonwealth [after defacing the Negritude movement of the 1930s] became part of the then emerging and now vast field of literary, cultural, political, and historical enquiry that we call postcolonial studies. [Its focus was on] the cultural displacements—and its consequences for personal and communal identities—from a non-Eurocentric perspective. It studies the process and the effects of cultural displacement and the ways in which the displaced have culturally defended themselves”(20). 93

Bandia is in conversation with other translation scholars, such as Diovanni and Dirar, who argued that translation has had a pivotal role in shaping oral histories and cultures in places like Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa. The latter draw from specific cases to highlight the importance of oral histories in the creative works of literature, and they are defined on the basis of the translation practice that is sensitive to the target cultures. I want to dwell more on their articulation of the oral histories of translation in the Horn of Africa and examples from other regions in Africa that help us better understand the historical dichotomies surrounding literary and cinema arts in the context of translation.

A close study of cultural texts in other African languages such as Setswana spoken in Southern Africa can also be used to prove this historical fact. However, even though African languages share this common historical background when it comes to translation as a cultural practice, I want to emphasize that each language portrays unique properties in the way it was translated into other languages. For example, the history of translation in Setswana language (and arguably other Bantu languages) does not refer to the role of the indigenous Setswana written script, which was marginalized and perhaps diminished as a legitimate orthography by the Latin alphabet adapted to represent written

Setswana texts. On the contrary, languages from the Horn of Africa are studied based on their established orthography unlike most African languages that were presumed to be without their own written systems. This factor has contributed significantly to the growth 94

of their literary repository and translations into other languages. Literary historians Di

Giovanni and Dirar corroborated this view when they suggested that,

The Horn has always been characterized by the presence of a written language for

intra and intercultural communication [because] it had established a complex

network of interactions with other African, Asian and European languages for

almost two millennia, with Sabaean, Ge’ez and Amharic in turn constituting the

status of the most powerful written languages”. (177)

If viewed from the perspective of postcolonial literary history, this linguistic interaction implies several positive things and also corroborates the underlying argument of the vitality of culture in the translation practice. It benefits the production and translation of literatures from The Horn of Africa in their languages, which makes them versatile

African languages that can be used to empower other languages in the continent. In other words, the translations from the written literatures of The Horn of Africa make it possible for increased cultural translations among the African languages and other global languages. These languages also use translation to debunk the power dynamics in the translation practice that have for many years favored the European languages, while at the same time overlooking the vitality of the translation practice in the African languages.

Therefore, translation practice from this part of Africa does empower marginalized literatures, but also revolutionalizes existing perceptions of cultural translations and theory. 95

In their paper “Reviewing Directionality in Writing and Translation: Notes for a

History of Translation in the Horn of Africa,” Di Giovanni and Dirar drew some specific examples that show evidence and vitality of the translation of the ancient literary texts.

Their paper further showed how translation practice then was shaped in many ways by several factors such as linguistic dualism and hierarchical relationships between the local languages. Di Giovanni and Chelati Dirar further assert that,

Scholars agree that Ge’ez developed as a literary language from between the fifth

and seventh centuries AD and connect this with introduction of Christianity into

the region, which occurred in the fourth century. Thus, the development of Ge’ez

language and literature can also be seen as the result of intense translation

processes, mainly effected for religious purposes. (177)

This argument emphasizes the historical importance of literary translation in the development of Ge`ez as a literary language that has influenced writings in other languages. In other words, without the complex translation processes, the existence of

Ge’ez as a language or a tool for cultural expression would not have been a possibility.

The linguistic interaction of this language was made possible by the manipulation of the translation processes and as a result Ge’ez has not only developed as a literary language of a specific cultural entity, but has also influenced the translation techniques and made significant contributions to the contemporary debates on translation theory and philosophy. Allessando Bausi corroborates this claim by revealing how cultural 96

translation is beneficial to the epistemological expansion of Ge`ez when he underscores that,

The translation of Ge`ez into various literary works from Greek and Arabic, for

example, is attested from the fourth century BC. Needless to say, translation of

the Bible into Ge’ez constitutes the bulk of these activities, offering many

elements for linguistic as well as theological debate. It is also worth noting that

these translation processes involved many books which are not part of the Biblical

tradition in Western Christianity and that, to date, the oldest sources for many

crucial documents on the history of Western and Eastern Christianity are mainly

available in Ge’ez translations. (Bausi 2008)

The case of Ge’ez as a literary language that has invested in the translation practice reveals that culturally relevant translations empower and expand exploitation of the literary possibilities of a language. Translation is one of those possibilities as cultures and ideologies always shape it to remain contextually relevant. The following section evaluates specific examples of literary translations case by case by considering some historic literary readings such as historical fictional works and criticisms in postcolonial

African literatures.

Examples from Literature: Translation in Creative Works (Historical Fictions)

Among major achievements in the establishment of groundbreaking postcolonial cultural translation in African literature is Things Fall Apart (1958) by Nigerian novelist

Chinua Achebe from English into other languages. It is a model for what can or should be 97

followed closely for any future literary translations in the domain of postcolonial African literatures and films. As both a creative writer and a translator who draws heavily from a well of oral narratives, Achebe demonstrates in many ways the centrality of his Igbo poetics and culture which he translates with ease to other African languages such as

Setswana. Achebe dismisses the ‘universal’ principle of writing a novel based on the

European style and aesthetics and adopts a style that resonates with his culture and ideology as a postcolonial novelist. As a translation, Things Fall Apart reveals a historical perspective and cultural consciousness of the author because of how it translates the nonwestern epistemologies and gives them urgency throughout the novel.

Literary critic Simon Gikandi sums up Achebe’s achievements in his work when he asserts that,

Achebe's Things Fall Apart informed by an important theory of writing which

tries to mediate the politics of the novel as a form of commentary on the

emergence and transformation of nationalism which constitutes the African

writer’s epistemological context. Achebe’s esthetic has been overdetermined by

the changing discourse on representation and national identity in colonial and

post-colonial Africa. His anxious quest for a post-colonial esthetic is predicated

on the belief that narrative can enable the writer to express an alternative order of

things opposed to realities imprisoned by imperialism and western domination.

(29) 98

Gikandi highlights two major principles that describe Achebe’s work as a cultural translation. These include the author’s sensitivity to the epistemological context, which is very essential to give us an appreciation of the ideological background of Achebe as a postcolonial African novelist. Then, Achebe’s translation from orality to written text decolonizes the text by emphasizing the centrality of his Igbo culture, which he achieves by retaining aspects of oral literature and blending them into the plot. Another critical aspect that Gikandi draws to our attention is the way that the novelist changes the discourse by adopting a narrative style that gives the novel its identity as an example of national literature. By so doing, the author rewrites his oral tradition and makes it very visible that his objective as a novelist cum translator defines the exceptionality of postcolonial creative productions. The novel, therefore, becomes a relevant tool that,

“questions the Eurocentric perspectives of translation studies [in the process reiterating that in postcolonial contexts of literature] every translation implies a conflict between dominating and dominated cultures and languages” (Arduini & Nergaard 10-11). Things

Fall Apart translates the author’s cultural expressions specifically those in the oral tradition, to explore the themes of imperialism and colonialism in a way that presents

Achebe as a writer with command of his Igbo culture who writes in English.

Achebe’s work is a remarkable and successful contribution to the history of postcolonial literary translations, hence why it remains to be one of the few widely translated postcolonial African novels. Achebe translates with prowess and alacrity several cultural aspects from his Igbo tradition in Nigeria, which I will revisit in Chapter 99

3 as a part of the translational analysis in the Setswana text. He also adopts a culture of story-telling code that resonates with oral narratives such as folktales from most African cultures. By so doing, Achebe translates orality and presents it in the written form elaborated by the extensive use of proverbs and idiomatic expressions translated into

English from their oral sources. Achebe makes an unprecedented statement of how orality is an important factor in the history of postcolonial literatures through his ability to elevate artforms that were marginalized and subdued by colonial translations. The dominance of orature in Things Fall Apart as an example of a postcolonial cultural text helps us understand as researchers and translators the fluidity of the concept of translation, and how an array of historic moments in African literatures shape it. In

Things Fall Apart, Achebe proves his ability to translate his cultural values which is corroborated by Hans Bertens’ observation that

even if African writers use English, they often let the rhythms and idioms of their

own language be heard because the defamiliarization that results from such a

practice automatically draws our attention to the non-English linguistic and

cultural context of their work. (195)

This style of writing is not only adopted by Achebe, but it is utilized consistently by various postcolonial African novelists as a translation strategy to expose readers to the cultural backgrounds and aesthetics marginalized since the period of colonization.

Through the extensive use of the rhythms and idiomatic expression in their translated form, several factors about the power dynamics are revealed and contested by Achebe as 100

a novelist (including other writers). As a result, translation becomes an essential practice in the history of postcolonial writing because of the way it is applied in this context to correct the representations in the earlier mistranslations and reveal that relevant cultural translations can be used to emphasize the literary sophistication of the African oral literatures. In addition, these works when translated into languages that are used widely globally reveal that the novelists share a common concern about the situation of African literatures, and therefore, they continually embark on producing works that have similar and shared themes.

Gebreyesus Hailu’s The Conscript: A Novel of Libya’s Anti-colonial War (1927 published in 1950, translated from Tigrinya into English in 2013 by Ghirmai Negash) is an example of an emerging literary cultural translation in the literary history that illustrates the importance of the role of culture in translation. Originally written in

Tigrinya, it translates poetry and proverbs as part of its narrative to elevate the themes that are designed to remind readers the detrimental implications of Italian colonialism in

Eritrea. It can thus be argued that through this translation Hailu has in principle

“majoritized a previously minoritized literature: minoritized by a political history of brutal proportions and intensity” (Cantalupo 12). This novel incorporates poetry into its narrative structure as a way of translating and integrating the culture of oral poetry into the written literature. It has been translated into Setswana and currently exists as a manuscript, which validates the argument posed earlier about the vitality of translations within the African languages. Therefore, it can be viewed as an example of a cultural text 101

that enriches Setswana language as a target language because of how it easily resonates with the Setswana poetics. I revisit this work in the forthcoming chapter when I discuss the vitality of experimental translations within a decontextualized methodology by showing how The Conscript as a cultural text can be used to shape and improve current methods usually deployed when translating postcolonial literatures.

Clearly, The Conscript is another example of a cultural translation emerging in the postcolonial African literary history that emphasizes the role of culture in translation and how translations are actual adaptations that revitalize literature. It translates poetry and proverbs as part of its narrative to elevate the themes that remind readers of the detrimental implications of Italian colonialism in Eritrea. The proverbs, poetry and symbolic imagery incorporated into its narrative reiterate the author’s strategy to rewrite and adapt a novella as a foreign genre into an Eritrean context. The English translation by

Ghirmai Negash makes visible some cultural aspects of the original text in Tigrinya in a way that decolonizes the narrative and reflects the ideological position of the translator as a postcolonial critic who is very selective with the novel that he translates from his native

Tigrinya into English. It reveals the limitations of the European translation theory to deal adequately with the complexities of translating postcolonial Eritrean literature into other languages.13 The translation offers ideas on how to achieve a successful decolonized

13 Literary critic Charles Cantalupo in his essay“Literature, Power, Translation, and Eritrea” view the translation of The Conscript into English as an examplery text “that will rewrite African literary history of the twentieth century [. . .] The Conscript is undoubtedly great, but its translation is earthshaking. In translation it provides an example of how literature can most reveal its power” (13). 102

translation, which I have attempted to follow closely when translating The Conscript from English into Setswana. In chapter three, I will analyze the Setswana version of the novella in more detail, highlighting some major comparisons with the English translation.

This correspondence between the two literary translations shows how specific examples of successful literary translations can be used to shape the current methods deployed when dealing with postcolonial cultural translations.

A Grain of Wheat (1967) by Ngugi wa Thiong’o is among the exemplary postcolonial novels that translate complex cultural ideas and themes of Kenya under

British colonialism. Ngugi incorporates proverbial expressions with complex meanings and achieves that through intertextuality. He intertextualizes from oral tradition and other texts that are read widely such as the Bible, but with a different approach and perspective that aims at showing consciousness towards his Gikuyu heritage. For example, the title that Ngugi adopts for his work derives from the Biblical scripture ,which he interprets with the postcolonial perspective and uses character development to reinterpret the contents of the religious literature to make them relevant to his community. Some proverbs in A Grain of Wheat are untranslated and explained within the context of the narrative without necessarily giving the literal meaning and making the narrative oversimplified and plain to the reader.14

14 Ngugi writes through the voice of the one of the characters Kihika who “reminds his audience a great Swahili proverb: kikulacho kimo nguoni mwako” (A Grain of Wheat 15). The literal meaning of this proverb is ‘whatever eats you is within your clothes’ or ‘that which eats you is within you’. It is used in this context to reveal the themes of betrayal and jealousy that influence Kihika to “disappear into the forest later to be followed by a handful of young men” (15) to become MauMau revolutionaries. Readers are invited by 103

Compared with other postcolonial novels, A Grain of Wheat portrays similarities in the way it elevates the role of orality in the narrative, and gives an idea of methods that should be followed when translating African literatures. This novel has attracted the attention of critics and translators because of the manner in which it pays attention to the notion of translation as culture. It shares some similarities with other postcolonial novels in terms of thematic ideas, the use of images and symbolism that resonate with the author’s cultural background. The style and thematic focus that Ngugi uses has been adopted by other postcolonial writers writing in African languages and in distinct cultural contexts. This is viewed as one of the ways through which postcolonial texts translate into other languages and forms. Ngugi’s writing style influences other postcolonial novelists such as Phasawane Mpe’s Welcome to Our Hillbrow (1970, republished 2004), which presents itself as an example of a postcolonial cultural translation in the way it translates Sepedi proverbs from South Africa into English without tempering their contextual meaning and aesthetic appeal. Mpe shows his prowess not only as a creative writer, but as a skilled translator who invigorates the plot of the novel similar to Ngugi using the proverbs and idiomatic expressions as an important aspect of his work. For example, in the novel Phaswane Mpe translates the following proverb: motho ke sera seo fela se rego ge se rakeletswe se latlhe marumo a tlhabane, ka leleme (translated into

English as A human being is a beast that when cornered throws away weapons and fights

Ngugi’s prowess to translate the significance of this proverb into his narrative even though they may not be speakers of Swahili. 104

with the tongue). The Sepedi translation into English keeps the metaphors and idioms in his culture without necessarily appropriating or assimilating them to culturally distinct aesthetic sensibilties. The notion of ‘fighting with the tongue’ is also an expression that exists in the Setswana linguistic and cultural matrix, which makes Mpe’s novel easy to translate into other languages such as Setswana. Translation of the creative texts in the

African literatures has made its mark as an effective tool that can be followed to translate most of the postcolonial writings, but another challenge is that it is not being sufficiently used to produce criticism and theory despite the existence of a large body of critical and philosophical texts that are regularly used to understand these cultural texts especially in film and literature. Therefore, the following section discusses criticism and the possibilities of its translation into African languages.

Translation in Criticisms of Selected Foundational Works

In addition to creative works of literature that are affected by translation practices, other translated texts are used in the critical analysis of the postcolonial African literatures and films. However, most of these texts are used in their untranslated forms to generate criticism and as the philosophical base of films and literatures. Therefore, they are applied to both genres to formulate criticism that privileges critical discussions of cultural difference instead of analyzing the cultural texts based on western criticism.

Because of their extensive use of translation and how they are continually used successfully since the inception of postcolonial theory, these foundational texts are considered in this dissertation as an important part of cultural texts that are important to 105

engage a close reading of the African literatures and films. However, despite their extensive use in the reading of these texts, most of them have not been translated into

African languages which pose a challenge to the works written in the African languages.

Hence, translation of criticism is an area that needs the attention of both scholars and translators who work in the area of the African literatures, and that can be realized by approaching the translation practice with decolonial methods.

The cultural translations of criticism in African languages using decolonial methodologies are yet to be achieved in the area of African literature because they reiterate the role of African literatures in generating critical theory and epistemologies, especially given that critical theory in African languages is very scarce. Therefore, in the history of postcolonial African literatures written in African languages, cultural texts are analyzed based on western criticism or postcolonial theory that is written in non-African languages. The contributions are written largely by postcolonial writers in African literature who use their cultural background and experience as an intervention to challenge the ‘universality’ of the western criticism and to demonstrate alternative forms of approaching the translated postcolonial texts in indigenous African languages. As

Bertens writes about the necessity of these cultural translations as criticisms, critics are cognizant of “taking another culture seriously [and therefore] not taking for granted that its literature shares Eurocentric preconceptions and systems of value”(199). These criticisms exist as alternatives to the commonly used models of criticism when dealing with the postcolonial African films and literatures. I will follow by discussing these 106

distinct forms of postcolonial criticisms especially in their use as cultural translations that empower creative productions such as film and literature.

As I have already argued, the philosophical texts which are often used as foundational texts by postcolonial critics of African literature and films are actual translations, and the fact that they are used widely reiterates their relevance to the critical study of African literatures. For example, Aime Cesaire’s A Discourse in Colonialism

(1950) and Frantz Fanon’s two critical books The Wretched of the Earth (1963) and

Black Skins, White Masks (1967) were translated from French into European languages spoken in Africa such as English and they have remained very valuable tools to understand the postcolonial African literatures. Unfortunately, despite their obvious and visible importance in the African literatures and films, their translations into African languages remains scanty. Other critical texts such as Ngugi Thiong’o’s Decolonizing the

Mind (1986), and Moving the Center: The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms (1993) do not exist in the African languages despite their call for linguistic decolonization and cultural independence in postcolonial Africa. These examples illustrate that as a cultural practice translation has a very long but complex history with cultural productions from Africa because of the way they are often intertexualized by various critics, writers and filmmakers. It is through studying these historical landscapes of translations that we engage ideas pertaining to the direction that translation practice and theory must take as a way of understanding the role of cultural translations in African literatures. 107

Although there is the strong presence and the visibility of translation of creative works in the European languages, more work needs to be done when it comes to the translation of the philosophical texts into the African languages. This is important because translating these criticisms contributes to critical theory in the African languages.

As a point of fact, availability and accessibilty of criticism in African languages can help readers to expand ways of thinking about the text. I argue that through a robust application of decolonial methods to the experimental translations which view the translation practice as a continued and dynamic process that adapts to changes could be one of the ways of opening new platforms of criticism in the African languages.

However, the association of translation with oral texts from Africa, which is often dismissed by some critics, makes it one of the reasons why oral and literary texts from

Africa have survived for many years, to a point where they are now read in their written form and viewed as cinematic productions. This evolution of oral texts explains why in the history of cultural translations, creative fiction and non-fiction works seem to be faring well compared to criticisms, which are discussed categorically in the following sections.

The Wretched of the Earth (1961) by Frantz Fanon is one of the existing examples of criticisms that have been translated from French into English (and other languages), and it remains the most cited and intextualized work in postcolonial African literatures. It is utilized extensively as part of the analysis of creative works, and because of this attribute, it is a translation that sympathizes with the cultures of marginalized and 108

minoritized literatures if compared with other critical texts that reflect the mainstream

European criticism. Therefore it assumes and establishes its positionality as a cultural translation that empowers postcolonial creative productions especially in the area of criticism which remains marginalized by western canons of criticism. For example, the

Commonwealth literary studies advocated for the adoption of the Marxist approach but the emergence of critical translations such as The Wretched of the Earth provided justified grounds for dismissing the application of western theory in African literatures, arguing that western theory was irrelevant to conceptualize African cultures. The emphasis on class in Marxist Commonwealth studies has been a valuable contribution, but in its focus on class Marxism, too, was not much interested in the specific cultural context from which a literary text emerged (Bertens 199). The view that a cultural production must intertwine with the political and cultural context and reality is proven when translated texts such as Fanon’s work becomes a cross-cultural mediator in the sense that its application in African literature and film is extensive. However, even though The Wretched of the Earth has been successful as a translation for use in critiquing postcolonial African literatures and films, it has not been translated into most

African languages including those that have a wider readership such as Swahili. Although this neglect by translators poses significant challenges to the critical study of African language literatures, it also opens platforms for the translations of The Wretched of the

Earth and other critical texts to be conducted in a way that emphasizes the application of relevant methodologies in translation practice. This approach is contrary to the current 109

practice which imposes the assimilationist translation techniques that portray tendencies of undermining the value of cultural heritage and while upholding colonial influences. It is interesting that the contributions of Fanon and others can be seen in a similar light considering that the English translation of his work from Frech such as Toward the

African Revolution (1964) and A Dying Colonialism by Haakon Chevalier (1967) similarly influence modern postcolonial writings and film productions. Because these are translations of the foundational texts, they are continually used to provide the philosophical basis of most of the existing texts in literary and cinematic productions.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s Decolonizing the Mind (1981) is also an urgent call of decolonizing African literatures through translation practice, although he does not explicate nor prescribe the methodology. It is an exemplary philosophical text that constitutes an integral part of the history of literary criticism for postcolonial African literatures and films. As a novelist, critic and translator, Ngugi sees translation practice as a solution to boost the expansion of minoritized literatures, especially those written in the

African languages. For example, Ngugi posits that “the future of the African novel is dependent on a willing writer (ready to invest time and talent in African languages); a willing translator (ready to invest time and talent in the art of translating from one

African language to another) (85). Ngugi’s view puts emphasis on the complementary role of writing—as a way of contributing the production of creative literatures and their criticism—and translation practice—which make it possible for the accessibility of written literatures in many languages. Therefore, according to Ngugi, these two aspects 110

of literary creation through writing and translation should always go together. He views creative translations in postcolonial African literatures as a ground-breaking mission, which suggests that if translation practice is approached with right methods, it evolves into new methods of telling stories rich with cultural heritage and contextual relevance. In reiterating his submission, Ngugi further argues that

it is only the writer who is best placed to break through the vicious circle and

create fiction in African languages. The writer of fiction can be and must be a

pathfinder.” (85)

Other critics in both film and literature support Ngugi’s advocacy and contribution to the criticism and translation of his works into his native language of

Gikuyu. They view his pioneering efforts as beneficial to the emergence of national literatures in African languages. By translating his work into English and Kiswahili and encouraging translations into other Kenyan languages, Ngugi is today working toward the creation of a national culture in which indigenous languages play a full part (Roy Armes

31). 15 Although his theoretical work has not been translated into any African languages, it is a relevant tool for generating criticism of the postcolonial writings and productions, especially in the areas of the literary and theatrical arts. It is, therefore, noteworthy that

15 There are several translations of Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s fictional works and no translations of his critical essays into African languages. For example, his well known play Ngaaheka Ndeeda (1977) which he co- authored with Ngugi wa Mirii has an English translation I Will Marry When I Want. It has also been translated into Tigrinya (2000) by Alemseged Tesfai. Works that have been translated include Mũrogi wa Kagogo (Wizard of the Crow translated into English in 2004) and Matigari ma Njiruungi, 1986 (Matigari, translated into English by Wangui wa Goro, 1989).

111

Ngugi is in conversation with other postcolonial critics such as Obi Wali and David Diop who have suggested that the future of the emerging identities of the written African literatures after colonial era will be dependent on culturally relevant cultural translations:

The African creator [or translator] deprived of the use of his language and cut off

from his people, might turn out to be the only representative of a literary trend of

the conquering nation. His works, having become a perfect illustration of the

assimilationist policy through imagination and style, will doubtless rouse the

warm applause of a certain group of critics. In fact, these praises will go mostly to

colonialism which when it can no longer keep its subjects in slavery, transforms

them into docile intellectuals patterned after Western literary fashions which

besides is another form of bastardization. (25)

The assertion emphasizes several important factors relevant to translation studies of postcolonial literatures that discourages the unchallenged translation of western aesthetics into the African literatures. The grounds of their dismissal are justified because translation of western aesthetics in the history of African literature is associated with negative implications because it often results in the production of cultural texts that are mere representations relevant only to the western audiences and not necessarily to the

African reading audience. In other words, decolonizing the translation practice or the entire exercise of creativity is a very practical exercise that can relief these creative works from further marginalization and exploitation in the form of assimilation and appropriation of the texts. Ngugi’s Decolonizing the Mind is, therefore, an important 112

contribution to suggesting alternative ways that can be used to produce critical texts that analyze the creative productions from a culturally relevant perspective. In addition to this philosophical text, Ngugi has written several publications such as Moving the Center:

The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms (1992) that are relevant for empowering criticism in the African literatures. However, lack of translation of these works from English into

African languages poses a challenge of production of critical theory in the African languages. Decolonial translation methods are highlighted as the way forward to expand the scope of criticism in postcolonial African literatures especially those that are from minority languages.

Cameroonian critic and theorist Achille Mbembe is among the postcolonial theorists whose critical works make a significant contribution to criticism and theory relevant to understand postcolonial African literatures and films. Currently, Mbembe’s works are read as translations from French into English and they have assumed their positionality in critiquing power relations and debating the postcolonial issues that are of interest to postcolonial novelists and filmmakers. This intervention by Mbembe is essential because of the way it enriches criticism, and therefore, benefits the so called

Anglophone and Francophone African literatures in terms of the expansion of criticism.

Mbembe makes available the relevant tools for understanding and interpreting literary and film texts from a postcolonial perspective and relevant cultural context. Mbembe offers insights on a wide range of topics that are of interest to translation studies on power, colonialism, African epistemologies, which redefines criticism and the translation 113

practice in postcolonial contexts. I want to highlight Mbembe’s A Critique of Black

Reason (2017) translated from French into English by Laurent Dubois as one of the postcolonial philosophical texts that is relevant to analyze many cultural texts in African literatures and films instead of continuing the tradition of deploying western mainstream critical theories to understand the African literatures assuming that they are universal.

Consistent with the postcolonial ideology Mbembe rightly reminds us that, “power is simultaneously present in different worlds, under different modalities”(133). Translation practice is one of those modalities through which the power dynamics are negotiated and contested in postcolonial writings. His translator, Laurent Dubois, confirms the understanding that translators reflect and are influenced by cultural ideologies and this view is revealed in a critical introduction he writes in Mbembe’s work. Dubois makes the following pertinent observations that establish him as a ‘culturally sensitive and informed’ postcolonial translator. He writes that

to understand the category of Blackness, one must understand the history of the

modern world, its forms of conquest and exploitation, the manifold responses to

its system of oppression, the forms of resistance and voicing, the totality and its

fragments. But the only way to make sense of that broader history is to begin from

the category itself, from its power to condense and crystallize these broader

processes. (iv)

From the perspective of a translator, Dubois shows that even when translating criticism, aspects of culture and history are essential for the translated product to be relevant in 114

analyzing creative works of fiction, non-fiction, and films from Africa. His attention to these contextual underpinnings makes his translation an empowering tool because of the way it diffuses the philosophical breadth of the original text and explores its political realities by suggesting that translation as a whole can be utilized as a form of resistance and response for combating ideological misconceptions. Through this perspective,

Laurent Dubois reiterates the fact that cultural translation practice has the potential to attract both negative and positive implications which must be understood by the translator before translationg a work. Based on the interview that Dubois conducted, he is consistent in arguing that it is the responsibility of a translator to interpret cultural meanings in the context of history and culture to avoid misinterpretation. The interview also emphasizes the necessity for translators to work closely with the original author to help with a better grasp of concepts and familiarization of the cultural background of the original work. Therefore, in sharing his experience on overcoming the potential challenges, Dubois articulates several factors that are important for translators to take into consideration. He talks about the importance of phrasing and extensive revising of the sentences, especially when translating symbolism and complicated terms. For example,

Dubois underscores how some expressions such as “black reason” which Mbembe also uses cannot be successfully translated into English without first conceptualizing

‘blackness’ as a broad category and contextually as a contested term which a culturally aware and an objective translator cannot afford to deemphasize (Intro). Dubois writes that it was very impotant for him as a translator to avoid the instabilities of giving a 115

translation that captures negative connotations, and therefore, as a solution to this challenge he approached the use of the terms with sensitivity and selectivity by interpreting it within the context of negritude. In his interview, he explains how he thought about the possibilities of leaving the conceptual term black in its untranslated form and providing more context to capture the best sense of the loaded term. Although he offers these ideas as rectifications to overcoming the challenges of translating a postcolonial philosophical work, he also makes it clear about the limitations of a translated work. Therefore, the Dubuis interview gives us an idea of the likely challenges and how they can be overcome for a successful and empowering translated narrative, which does not propagate misinterpretation. He achieves that because he intervenes as not just a translator but a postcolonial critic who deals with a translation of a philosophical work that aims to dismiss and correct the misconstrued western consciousness of blackness.16 His approach and effort differ quite extensively with the translations mentioned earlier that were carried by missionaries and anthropologists whose work did not share a postcolonial ideology but insisted on the supremacy of their translations and idiologies, even though they reflected cultural and linguistic biases of the colonial consciousness. The translation question is not only limited to literary creative productions and criticism, but it also navigates its positionality in the postcolonial

African film as an example of cultural production. Therefore, because of the

16 For a more comprehensive account of Laurent Dubois and Achille Mbembe’s interview see 'Critique of Black Reason': Achille Mbembe, Laurent Dubois, & Tsitsi Jaji. Youtube, uploaded by Scholars and Publics, April 14 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ8Vf70qVAg&t=1650s. 116

interdisciplinary approach of this study, the remaining sections focus on surveying the history of postcolonial African films in the context of translation.

Cultural Translations in Postcolonial African Films and Criticisms

The history of translation practice in the context of filmmaking in postcolonial

Africa is broad and conspicuous, because it is defined based on historical moments of precolonial, colonial, and the postcolonial; and by how it capitalizes on the translation of cultures. Therefore, if studied in the context of translation, it reveals some differences in terms of the approach and motivation in the way filmmakers have approached and integrated the translation practice in their cinematic productions. Through a study of these different approaches to translation question in postcolonial African filmmaking, we are in a position to analyze the particularities each period brings to determine whether filmmakers in their use of translations colonized or decolonized the postcolonial film texts. In addition, African filmmakers utilize cultural translations similar to ways postcolonial writers do and this can be deduced from their ability to transfer cultural ideas from their source texts and adapt them into film as the medium of expression. The obvious crucial distinction between novelists and filmmakers is how they use cultural translations to tell their stories as opposed to filmmakers who use cultural translations to show their stories. However, translation practice is key to both genres, and it is continually used to develop the cultural narratives into creative and artistic productions that reinforce the value of African traditions. 117

Postcolonial literature and film in the African context are both historical subjects that are affected and shaped by the translation of colonial cultural legacy because the origins of the novel and film date back to the colonial period and they continue to develop through the pre-colonial and postcolonial experience. However, the study of

African cinema as cultural production in the context of translation remains a neglected area of focus by critics despite the existing similarities drawn from comparing adaptations of novels into film. There is a limited example of African novels that are translated and adapted into film, but a few cases that exist help us understand the notion of how vast and dynamic translation practice in the African context is. Examples of such film translations or adaptations are very crucial because they can be compared with those western films about Africa that portray tendencies to misrepresent cultural narratives of

African experience aimed to expose and correct biases and ways that African cinema is being marginalized by the west. In addition, adaptations of visual culture and dramatic literatures in African cultural contexts transform African film into a translatable cultural entity that has been used to challenge the preconceived assumptions and conceptualizations about translation phenomena and its positionality in African cinema.

The translation of oral and visual tradition and the use of African languages as primary languages with accompanying subtitles is a primary defining characteristic in some selected films considered in this chapter. For example, films such as Yam Daabo

(1986) by a Burkinabe filmmaker Idrissa Ouedraogo capitalize on the use of African languages and show settings that immerse viewers into the local cultures, which make 118

them relevant productions that translate their local contexts. On the contrary, films such as Neria (1993) by a Zimbabwean feminist filmmaker and novelist Tsitsi Damgarembga use English language but in a way that successfully translates the cultural traditions of

Zimbabwe into cinema. It is also interesting to note that Neria has a Swahili translation, which makes it one of the relevant examples of cultural adaptations coming from

Zimbabwe. Based on these two examples, we can see that the study of postcolonial

African films as cultural production in the context of translation studies deals with comparable translation issues with literature. Therefore, it is fitting to consider what critics have argued and what filmmakers have produced as part of the complex historical survey of postcolonial African films.

Critics of postcolonial African film have argued convincingly that the west influences postcolonial African cinema because of the adopted colonial structure of filmmaking techniques which are continually translated by filmmakers to produce images that resemble their cultural identities. This can be seen by analyzing the art of African cinema especially the way translation practice has historically been approached by both filmmakers as adapters and critics write extensively on the subject of postcolonial

African films. However, although there is a large body of critical works that attempt to understand African cinema of the post-colonial period, criticism of films in the context of translation as an important aspect of cultural reproductions remains negleted by scholars with a few exceptions from those who emphasize experimentation in the creative works.

However, film critics such as Eileen Julien recognize the translation factors associated 119

with the evolution and subsequent transformation of literary and cinematic arts in Africa when she observes that “conditions for the production of literature, cinema, and visual arts by Africans continues to evolve rapidly in the era of intense globalization and are today quite different from those of yesterday, the period of decolonizing nationalism”

(17). Julien further writes in a way that suggests how translation can be utilized as a solution to the ‘changing conditions’ of cultural productions in Africa,

It has become clear that no text—literary, cinematic, or graphic—produced at the

height of decolonization or in this moment of fierce globalization, whether on the

continent or beyond it, can ever be adequately understood with reference to sheer

formal qualities and “content” and to the neglect of contexts of production and

reception, whether around the continent or around the world. We must also put

literary, film, and visual arts by Africans in dialogue with the work of artists from

Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Such comparative study will require more—not

less—“local” knowledge of these multiple places and will recognize both African

specificities and Africa’s presence in the world. (25-6)

One of the challenges emanating from western influences in the African film pertains to the lack of film criticism in the African languages for films about Africa.

Therefore, the current study makes an intervention by advocating for deployment of translation practice aimed at decolonizing translation of film narratives as a way of making their criticisms relevant to their local cultural contexts, and translatable to global contexts. Roy Armes succinctly underscores that “though now widely distributed 120

throughout the world, the cinema is the product of only a limited number of Western countries at a particular recent point in their historical development.”(35). This challenge is linked to the the absence of translators who are equipped to translate cultural narratives in a way that shows sensitivity to their traditional aesthetics.

Interestingly, the interventions from postcolonial African filmmakers are in response to recognizing the fact that they understand both the implications and challenges of using film as an imported form of communication. Therefore, they continually suggest ways of using cultural translations effectively with revised methodologies that transcode and transfer content that captures the correct images of Africa and not necessarily the reductionist ones. Burkinabe filmmaker Gaston Kabore does not only argue in support of cultural productions that prioritize African images, but goes further to warn about the implications of heavy reliance on the western films about Africa (Armes xiv). In addition,

Kabore does not only share his sentiments, he has also contributed films which basically put his position into practice which makes him a filmmaker who is concerned about translating the cultural images into film as an imported medium of communication.

Kabore offers that

If Africans remain mere consumers of cinema and television images conceived

and produced by others, they will become second-rate citizens of the world and be

forced to accept a destiny which will not take into account their history, their

basic aspirations and even less their values, their imaginary and their vision of the 121

world. If Africa does not acquire the capacity to forge its own gaze, so as to

confront its own image, it will lose its point of view and its self-awareness. (2006)

Although Kabore’s statement does not make specific reference to the use of translation practice as a tool to implement an attempt to forge cultural images, his conviction on what should be done is shared by most translators of postcolonial African cinema. He recognizes the fact that cultures have distinct world views and dismisses the idea of uncritically accepting western cinematic representations about Africa which are largely achieved through the use of mistranslations. The postcolonial African filmmaker has a huge responsibility of identifing these appropriated and assimilated cinematic narratives and use their local productions to counter those that are primarily designed to impose the western gaze. Therefore, Kabore’s implicit view is one major step in achieving images in

African film is to first and foremost recognize importance of the participation of Africans in translating their images as opposed to accepting the impositions that currently exist as cultural mistranslations that have had a history of negative implication for African cinema. This notion has also been favored by other critics who show awarness in the challenges that face the cultural productions under translation from Africa.17 Other critics have however not placed emphasis on the lingusitic limitations but on knowledge and

17 Other critics have written extensively placing emphasis on the importance of the translator’s familiarity with the language and culture. Newmark notes that, “Languages spoken in different environments will have different world views. They are therefore likely to create serious translation problems between them. This means that a translator must have extra linguistic knowledge before he can access the quality of the text and before deciding to interpret and then translate it (1981). 122

mastery of epistemologies that are native to a specific cultural or cultural groups that have mutual inclusivity.18

Historically, cultural translation practice in postcolonial African filmmaking reveals two complex dichotomies manifested as cultural translations aimed at decolonizing the film texts, and ones that do the opposite by colonizing the film texts.

Postcolonial critics extensively study both categories of these films, and in their interrogations, they continually problematize some aspects of filmmaking that fail to translate the cultures in the African contexts satisfactorily. The criticisms and exclusive interviews also highlight the African filmmakers as profound cultural translators as opposed to some western filmmakers who are historically known to offer a reductionist view of the African cultural contexts. However, although these criticisms are very commendable contributions to the African language cinema, most of them are yet to be translated into many African languages for them to be relevant to their cultural communities.

During the decolonization era, the films that effectively translate the African verbal and visual aesthetics achieved their objective of decolonization by resisting

18 Translation critic Orde Brown who does not associate the production of good translations with the possible limitations that exist in the European languages when it comes to the question of translation but his view is centered on the inherent aspects of culture that Gaston Kabore raises. Brown holds the view that, “It is comparatively easy to translate any ordinary English speech into say French, since the ideas expressed are probably equally familiar to the minds of both nations. When, however, it is a case of dealing with people to whom European modes of thought and methods of life are alien and unfamiliar, the difficulty is enormously increased[…] the phrases and words which refer to ideas and concepts entirely alien to the African’s mind, and which can only be explained to him with great difficulty and patience. Such are more abstract conceptions of religion: while certain philosophic and scientific problems present an equal problem (132).

123

colonial impositions and calling for cultural emancipation and prolific African filmmakers represent this category. This domain of filmmaking is represented by African filmmakers who work in the African languages and, interestingly, prolific filmmakers have come out of this historical dimension with films that utilize translations. In literature, this era is represented by prolific African writers such as Ngugi wa Thing’o (A

Grain of Wheat) and Ayi Kwei Armah (The Beautyful Ones are not Yet Born).

Specifically, the celebrated filmmakers who will be discussed in the current study such as

Ousmane Sembène from Senegal and Gaston Kaboré from Burkina Faso have engaged in productions that utilize the translation of African cultural aesthetics to make critical statements about the experience of the marginalized cultures. The extensive use of

African languages and centrality of African cultures characterize this category of films which makes them easily accessible as translations in other African languages especially those that are mutually intelligible. Furthermore, in the contexts where they use colonial languages, they still elevate their cultures in the way they emphasize their aesthetics.

Colonial films, on the other hand, tend to depict linguistic bias when translating

African cultures into film, therefore they are characterized by inaccurate and misleading translations of dystopic representations. This category of films is represented by decontextualized productions of mistranslated narratives about Africa from western filmmakers whose films have markets and audience in the west. As cultural adaptations, they can be compared to the literary translations conducted by colonial missionaries and anthropologists in the sense that their objective is to project a stereotypical view of Africa 124

to be relevant to the western audiences. Their objective is not to facilitate cultural communication through proper translation methods that postcolonial African filmmakers have successfully established to present narratives that empower the narratives of the non-western cultures. The colonial films differ in terms of content with the historic film adaptations produced by postcolonial African filmmakers because they offer cultural readings that expose the assumptions and misconceptions perpetuated by the

‘mainstream’ filmmaking companies that capitalize on the conscious mistranslation of cultural narratives of the African set to maximize sales in the west. Therefore, this demonstrates that in some cases the causes of the mistranslations are market-driven and therefore spectatorship can also influence the quality of translations. In most cases the

African cultural narratives are designed by western filmmakers based on the western subjectivities of the African cultures. Film critics who work on historical representations of blacks in mainstream American media such as Marquita Marie Gammage and Justin

Gammage have rightly observerved that this dates back to mid nineteenth century when western filmmaking practices were conviniently designed to negatively depict African cultures still practiced by African American communities. This was seen through the hypercriticism of African cultural values in the minstrel shows that reinformed streotypes about cutures that were thought to be inferior. Both Gammage and Gammage study specific films and write that

Following the minstrel show, the White dominated media industry developed

Black characters to depict the streotyped assumptions of African Americans in 125

American society . . . while centralizing a European cultural analysis of African-

American life. Therefore, Black media productions must be careful not to

inadvertently participate in the promotion of white supremacy and Black

inferiority by situating a black life within white cultural norms and practices. (88-

90)

The fact that film came as an European invention in Africa as critics have entailed that the exercise of filming African narratives involved translating them into a distinct system of communication. Therefore, because this exercise involved a rewriting of the narratives of a cultural group it subjected postcolonial African cinema to the colonial influences and challenges.19 However, these influences already found a fertile culture of the verbal, visual, and performing arts that constitute an essential part of the techniques of the African cinema. Cultural awareness was vital for filmmakers to ensure that they translated such images very well from the perspective of the local cultures and not based on their biases. Ethnographic films were designed mainly for the consumption of western audiences and therefore reflected the approach that was used by anthropologists who were translating to inform the audience of the west and not necessarily the African societies.

19 See “Anglophone African Production” where Manthia Diawara writes that “most of the pioneers who introduced film production to Africa argued that they had a duty to civilize Africans. They believed that distributing commercial films would harmfully introduce Africans to harmful means of persuasion. Such films were held held to be technically too sophisticated for African minds and also damaging because they depicted negative aspects of European and North American lives”(1). 126

In some historical contexts, no effort was made to engage cultural translations, especially in cases where “voice-over narration” was employed as a production technique to speak on behalf of the featured marginalized cultural groups that were thought to be primitive and backward, which in the process rendered them voiceless.

Manthia Diawara argues that even though there were efforts to support local cimena such as the establishment of the Bantu Cinema Experiment in South Africa in 1935, the motives were questionable because “they wanted to turn back film history and develop a type of cinema for Africans because they considered the African mind too primitive to follow the sophisticated narrative techniques of the mainstream cinema”(4). This curious ideology assumed that the African cultures were limited as translated cultural material and adaptations of the narratives into the film genre. However, the rigorous interventions of African filmmakers challenged this view while at the same time redefining the structure and representation of the African cinema in their own terms.

There were also some assumptions about films produced in the African languages and such notions dismissed the extensive use of indigenous languages in films as a responsive translational phenomenon since they were viewed as languages of the illiterate cultures. For example, film critic Roy Armes subtly reiterates this assumption but also clarifies to his credit how the use of translations in African cinema plays a role in globalizing films from Africa when he underscores that

Film dialogue in the native tongue can be followed easily by even an illiterate (if

limited) African public, while, at the same time, subtitles can make the ﬁlm 127

accessible to a Western audience (with the local language adding that touch of

‘otherness’ so prized on the art house circuit). This is one reason why the vast

majority of ﬁlms from both north and south of the Sahara use local variants of

Arabic and regional or national languages, even if – to obtain vital foreign aid or

co-production ﬁnance – the ﬁlm has had conveniently to be scripted and

dialogued in French. (7)

Armes suggests the importance of the use of cultural translations in the form of subtitles for films that use African languages as their primary language, but his approach is biased as it is concerned only with engaging these translations for accessibility to the western audience and does not say anything about the African audiences. He does not suggest the use of subtitles that translate cultural content into other African languages to improve the dissemination of the films which are designed to empower the cultural narratives that have a rich background of translation practice as a form of cultural communication. This view demonstrates the prevalent challenges that are apparent in postcolonial films and criticism such as the fact that European languages are still used predominantly while

African languages are neglected despite being spoken by the masses. In addition to the history of assumptions and misconceptions that associate African languages with

‘illiterate’ audiences and ‘translated subtitles’ for the ‘literate’ western audiences, most of the film criticisms are available in non-African languages, and therefore pose a challenge of misrepresenting the cultural narratives. A feasibility study on literary translation and creative writing in west Africa by Georgina Collins concludes that, 128

creative practices of literary translation and creative writing are an essential

means of fostering understanding across linguistic fault lines which remain a

powerful legacy of European imperial expansion in sub-Saharan Africa.

Moreover, these fault lines have political, social, economic, and cultural

consequences for development. (2)

Clearly, the root cource of the linguistic fault lines that Collins identifies are due to the inability of the westerners to translate African cultural narratives and adapt them into visual images in a meaningful way. The approches to the translation practice that have been used contrasts with those that those of the colonial past in their aims that rely on the decontextualization of the African narrative at the expense of cultural peripherization. As a result, the outcomes of the translated narratives are reduced to romanctised ethnographies that reflect the filmmaker’s assumptions and attitude and not necessarily the reality of cultural traditions and environment. An expert in black cinema, Sheila

Petty, writes in her book Contact Zones: Memory, Origin, and Discources in Black

Diasporic Cinema (2008) in a way that suggest how complex the debate of translating cinematic narrives of black cinema—with varied aesthetic systems and narratives—is now challenged by another reality of globalizing cultural spaces. Petty draws our attention to the polycentric nature of black diasporic experiences, which are often negatively potrayed through film narratives as conflicted and not complementary (5).

Pettry’s contribution is interrogated in the context of this dissertation to interrogate the notion of translation question further by rethinking effective ways that translation 129

practice through its decolonial approach does not ignore the vitality and diversity of the narratives that define African film. It shows that “due to the legacies of slavery and the desire to recconent with an African origion” the approaches to translation would require a culturally balanced approach that seeks to understand the extent to which translation question is further challenged by “innovative array of identities, voices, and cultural influences, each interrogating the notion of identities within hostile contexts”(6). For example, her study of Daughters of the Dust links translation as a key factor in the portrayal of African based spirituality in black diasporan cinema. Petty reiterates how

“ancestral connection to African origin is maintained despite the disjunctive effects of slavery and cultural translation in a foreign environment”(90). Hence, the notion of translation is only limited to postcolonial African films, but it can be explored further through studies in the context of black diasporan cinema which similarly challenge the western cinematic codes.

Therefore, it is crucial that these films get translated into African languages for them to be relevant to their communities, especially in contexts where these films were produced to benefit the African audiences. As part of my historical survey of translation in postcolonial African cinema, I will discuss in the remaining sections of the chapter some critical contributions from other filmmakers focusing primarily on two specific cases from Senegal and Burkina Faso by exploring the works of Ousmane Sembene and

Gaston Kabore in the context of translation. 130

Ousmane Sembene’s use of Translation in Xala (1975)

Ousmane Sembène’s Xala (1975) is one of the remarkable films in the history of postcolonial African cinema because of the way it translates the cultural heritage and then adapts it to the visual images that resonate with the context of the Senegalese audience. In other words, Sembene’s ability to translate oral tradition without disregarding culture produces positive outcomes in the sense that the film is thematically relevant to his audience who are already familiar with the cultural material, ideas, and concepts revealed in the film. Furthermore, this extrapolation of the cultural content similarly appeals to viewers who may be unfamiliar with the cultural narrative because as the filmmaker

Sembene makes film as a cultural production relevant by tackling a time-bound theme that alludes to the colonial period. Ousmane Sembène explores his storyline through the concept of xala, or “temporary sexual impotence” in the Senegalese patriachal context, which he meaningfully translates into the visual images thereby keeping his culture while at the same time making an important commentary about French colonialism in Senegal and how it has thrown the political elite into sexual impotence in a metaphorical sense.

The concept of xala translated by Sembène through the film narrative is far from being a coincidental occurrence because Sembène as a Senegalese filmmaker is aware of the cultural significance of this expression and the cultural contexts of patriachy and masculinity that justify its use.

Xala translates the oral arts that have a communal function among the Senegalese cultural groups and the film achieves this through expanding the oral narrative into a 131

complex narrative plot and redefines its use to explore the implications of French colonialism in Senegal. In doing so, he reiterates what critics have observed that “the direct importation into Africa of methods, theories, ideas and psychoanalytical assumptions developed in the first world and applied to African cinema is not without epistemological problems” (Tomaselli, Shepperson and Eke 45). In other words,

Sembène recognizes the implications of failure to forge or blend his cultural narrative into the film and uses translation carefully to translate and expand the story without relying heavily on the western conceptualizations. In translating aspects of his oral heritage and adapting them to film as a medium, Sembène does more than simply developing the oral narrative into the visual images but as a way of exploiting the translation practice to make a combative statement about the value, agency and vitality of the African epistemologies to his filmmaking practice. Ousmane Sembène explores his storyline through concept of xala which he meaningfully translates into the visual images thereby keeping his culture while at the same time making a commentary on French colonialism in Senegal and how it has thrown the political elite into impotence.

The concept of xala, as translated by Sembène in the film, is clearly not just a mere coincidence or a random selection because as a culturally sound postcolonial translator and filmmaker he is familiar with the cultural significance of this expression and the cultural contexts that justify its use. This skill builds into his profile not only as a prolific postcolonial filmmaker but also as an artist who knows the importance of translation as a cultural communication between the cultures and specifically in the 132

context of Xala. The message is directed to both the colonizer and the colonized which is a common characteristic in most postcolonial cultural productions. In addition,

Sembene’s ability to translate an ancient tradition into a postcolonial theme that resonates with contemporary times emphasizes how dynamic oral literatures are, adaptable even to the times of change. Translation practice portrays orality as forms of literatures that change and adapt to new sociopolitical contexts which challenge an often reductionist view about them.

As a postcolonial filmmaker, Sèmbene’s translation of orature challenges some misleading assumptions about oral arts and oral literature in general which have been viewed through the westen lens as ancient traditions without any significance in contemporary historical events. Through Xala Sembène shows that within the context of the African cultures there is a strong relationship between the oral and the visual arts and these components of culture are dynamic and not necessarily static entities that do not adapt to change. Furthermore, in using oral literature as the basis of his production, the film reiterates the interdisciplinary connection between literature and film in the context of the postcolonial cultural productions. For example, Xala is currently read as a translation in French and English adaptations of a novel and play. The French edition was published in 1973 and later translated into English in 1976, which makes it an effective translation because of how it assimilates themes explored in earlier texts such as Chinua

Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. The film further intertexualizes the foundational works of critics such as Franz Fanon in addition to the extensive use of Wolof as the primary 133

language. It is also interesting to note that as part of his production, Sembène does not feel the pressure to translate the concept of xala in an oversimplified manner which suggests his dismissal of oversimplification of concepts from the African texts when they are translated into the European languages.

There are several things that Sembène achieves through Xala as a postcolonial cultural translation, and in concluding this part of the discussion I highlight three primary ones. First the translation reminds us of the urgency and the value of oral literature which as I have already argued have suffered gross marginalization since the colonial period to the present day. The language used in the transmission of oral literature in this context is the local indigeneous Wolof, hence the difference between the two categories of the creative arts within a cultural community and the language they use to convey cultural messages should be emphasized. Therefore, this work can be viewed as a form of intervention in calling African filmmakers to embark on the relevant use of the translation practice, to undo the negative implications of the former Eurocentric translation in cultural texts. Second, the fact that his film draws from the oral culture which dates to the pre-colonial times demonstrates the extent to which the oral literatures have survived for many years. This is because they are translatable and adaptable to new mediums of documentation. Third, the translation challenges the limitations of western film theory and aesthetics in understanding various narratives that define the displaced cultures. Reiterating this view, critics Tomaselli, Shepperson and Eke offer that

“European methods and theories often cannot account for ways in which African forms 134

of expression have intergrated with other forms, or for indigeneous ways of knowing and making sense and interpreting films” (50). This assertion is put to practice by Sembène whose film is centered on the use of the Senegalese epistemology and making it relevant to various cultural contexts where there is a possibility for the film to be translated into other languages especially from the African contexts where the concept may be relatable to most audiences. In terms of analysis, Xala demonstartes the linguistic interactions between the French and Wolof speakers while at the same time conveying an important message about the aftermarth of French colonization on the political elite after Senegal got her independece. For example, Gaston Kaborè’s films follow a similar model of translating the Burkinabe culture and capturing the local settings and concepts while at the same time capitalizing on disserminating the culturally relevant epitemologies to his audience.

Gaston Kaboré as a Filmmaker and Cutural Translator

Gaston Kaboré’s films demonstrate how the translation occupies a central role in the history of postcolonial African cinema because of its use of the African languages, and that they exist as translations of English and French. These translations are available in the form of the subtitles, and analysis of these texts reveals that the languages used by the actors carry with them some essential cultural values highlighting the importance of local language and oral narratives. A critic of postcolonial African cinema, Kenneth

Harrow, rightly asserts that “studies of African films in the African languages such as

Kaboré’s Wend Kuuni (1982) have a strong impact on how we think of African centered 135

aesthetics and visions of cinema, history, and tradition” (x). Gaston Kaboré corroborates this view when he writes in an extensive interview that “Wend Kuuni is not a film that aims to show aspects of Africa in an ethnographic manner, but truly one that utilizes all of the social, cultural, and environmental materials available to frame Wendi Kuuni’s story and the story of a peasant community” (113). Kaboré is aware of the implications of the ethnographic films in mistranslating aspects of culture in the African arts, which is why he puts emphasis in elevating the use of oral arts, and adapts the oral storytelling technique as the oral approach to his films.20 This view establishes African cinema as a form of translation in the sense that it translates some complex cultural innuendos and heritage that make the films to be relevant to their social contexts. In Kabore’s films, there is an effort to decolonize the gaze of the viewers because in addition to using

African languages, the setting depicted is not that of a vulnerable Africa in dystopian terms as it is often the case when dealing with films produced about Africa from the western perspective.

Kenneth Harrow classifies Wend Kuuni among the “films that have had a strong impact on how we think of African centered aesthetics and visions of cinema, history and tradition”(Intro). This view is shared by another film critic, Marie Magdalene Chirol,

20 See Nwachuku Frank Ukadike’s Black African Cinema which is a collection of interviews conducted with several African filmmakers. Gaston Kabore’s interview historicizes African cinema and offers a comprehensive perspective of the author regarding ways of incorporating the African aesthetics into his films. This is viewed as an excellent example of filmmaking as it is the practice that is adopted and imitated by other African filmmakers who produce their films in African languages. The films from Botswana that I will analyze Chapter 4 provide an example of how the filmmakers manage to expand some oral narratives widely used in the Setswana tradition into an elaborate storyline. 136

who provides us with a plot summary and a detailed analysis of the film that corroborates

Harrow’s views,

Wend Kuuni’s first shot depicts the enterior of the hut with a kneeling mother over

her half asleep son. We learn then, through the intrusion of the one of the village

men that this young woman is being forced to remarry because of the extended

absence of her spouse. The mother thereupon unveils to her son plans to escape.

The following sequence shows the child in the bush taken by a merchant who

shortly afterwards entrusts him to the care of a family in a distant family.

Sheltered, then adopted this young boy who come from nowhere and who

moreover has become mute, will bear the name of “Wend Kuuni” signifying the

gift of God. The movie then returns to Wend Kuuni’s daily life among the

members of his new family and as well as within his new village. We

subsequently discover, through the introduction of this gift of God, the traditional

world of a small village of Burkina Faso. (115-16)

Postcolonial films from Africa have historically challenged the translation of the western aesthetics into African cinema mainly because the background of these films are rooted in their cultural heritages. For example, in an exclusive interview with Nwachuku

Ukadike, Gaston Kabore remarks that “when I made Wend Kuuni, [he] didn’t have any model of filmmaking in [his] head. [He] simply wanted to tell a story as [he] felt it, and as believed it was best to attain its objective, so it could touch my audiences on the levels of their minds, bodies and sensibilities” (111). Kabore emphasizes an audience driven 137

and culturally aware production that experimentalizes based on the interpretation of his

Burkinabe traditions. In doing so, Kaboré challenges the uncritical adherence to the

European canon and demonstrates the importance of cinema that reflects the cultural values of a people and he achieves that by manipulating the translation practice from a decolonized perspective to empower his community with culturally relevant images. The interview further reveals that as a filmmaker Kaboré dismisses local productions that are foreignized and therefore finds it urgent to intervene by translating the cinematic material into the local language of Moreé. As a result, as a filmmaker who translates, at times even complex scientific concepts and presenting them as short films, Kaboré covers an extensive thematic scope compared to other filmmakers of his time because his educational short films remind the Burkinabe society of traditional techniques of grain conservation and the value of pan-Africanism in decolonization.

Conclusion

The chapter has extensively discussed how cultural translations have historically become an essential aspect of the postcolonial African cultural productions in the history of African literature and film. It succinctly highlights the contributions of various writers and postcolonial critics who use translation practice in decolonizing literary and film practice in postcolonial Africa. Cultural translations, though seldom acknowledged by critics and postcolonial artists are attributed to the growth and dissemination of African literatures and films. A historical survey of how cultural translations are continually shaped by historical moments beginning with the precolonial period to the postcolonial 138

has shown that despite a continuum of challenges that African literatures have faced, translation as a form of adaptation has always been one of the ways that safeguarded the survival of cultural productions in Africa. In addition, the chapter has shown that despite the challenges that are associated mainly with a period of colonization, cultural translations from the precolonial epoch show resistance and are currently deployed by postcolonial writers as practical tools to decolonize translation methods in African literatures and films. These translations are important because in addition to serving as concrete building blocks of the marginalized literatures and in combating the cultural suppression and displacement, they also make it possible to draw comparisons with the exisiting colonial mistranslations with their ideological bias and reductionist view of

Africa. They show that the earlier translations conducted by missionaries and anthropologists from the colonial era were not interested in African cultures, but they were primarily undertaken with the objective of emphasizing the superiority of the

European cultures and languages. The pre-colonial texts and how they approached the translation practice also offer new conceptualizations on the subject of translation studies because they highlight that translations that do not take into consideration the cultural contexts pose some severe challenges to understanding the postcolonial African texts. A study of these texts shows that translation practice was not introduced by the missionaries and anthropologists as it is commonly perceived, but historic evidence shows that many years prior to the arrival of the missionaries Africans had already established a sophisticated culture of translation which was widely used among their cultural 139

communities. In addition, the early slave narratives which were translated into other languages also constitute some undisputed examples of early translations to enter the history of African literature. Based on comparisons of the translations which have been performance with various objectives, there are several conceptual issues that are exposed something which is necessary for negotiating ways of correcting the mistranslations that were planted by some earlier translators in both the literary and film texts.

The importance of culturally relevant translations as an essential aspect of the growth and the expansion of the postcolonial literatures and film in Africa is paramount and can be achieved by looking at the past to understand how Africans in the precolonial era dealt with translation practice. Focusing on studying and analyzing examples of ancient writings such as the Ajami literatures and other literatures that are based on the indigenous alphabets is one of the crucial ways to achieve decolonizing translation methods in the postcolonial African literatures and films as one way of demystifying translation practice and its methods. Furthermore, the translated texts that come from both the pre-colonial and colonial era also allow for writers and filmmakers to make some comparisons and highlight how historically translations have been known to either colonize or decolonize the African texts which makes it very pertinent for us to engage a thorough study of translations in the context of the displaced literary cultures. Doing so has many benefits as it allows us to challenge the mainstream conceptualizations of translation practice while thinking about ways of encouraging more relevant and effective cultural translations from within African languages and films. In this regard, the works of 140

most postcolonial writers such as Ngugi wa Thiong'o and Chinua Achebe have proven to be exemplary models to be followed by most writers who work in the African languages.

The chapter has also revealed a growing concern that while there is clear evidence that some African languages are doing well in the production of creative cultural productions, their criticisms are still written and discussed in European languages. As a result, this tempers with the production of theory in the African languages and a continuation and adoption of the western ideologies to the African texts. Therefore, there is still so much work to be done to translate the criticisms into African languages or producing them in the original languages to stimulate their growth of criticism in the

African languages. Production of criticism in African languages remains an underdeveloped area, and it can be achieved by engaging the translation practice that shows sensitivity toward the cultures represented and the application of relevant methodologies. Translation practice is a cultural means of expression and communication, which has a long history of intextualizing from the traditional systems of media native to African cultures. However, for the creative works to function and be relevant to their contexts, it is paramount that the languages that they translate into are selective with their methods of translation for the literary translations to be relevant to their cultural contexts.

This chapter focused primarily on a larger body of postcolonial African literatures and films. It shows how African filmmakers and novelists as producers of cultural productions negotiate their roles as cultural translators who continually demystify the 141

translation practice as a contestation of their cultural identity. The study of translation practice in African literature is therefore vast in its scope, especially when it applies to the individual ethnic and national African literatures. Therefore, to narrow down the focus, the following chapter similarly explores the history of translation by focusing in postcolonial Setswana literature and film.

142

Chapter 2: History of Translation in Postcolonial Setswana Literature and Film

Translations are never produced [. . .] untainted by power, time or even the

vagaries of culture. Rather, translations are made to respond to the demands of

various groups within that culture […] A culture then assigns different functions

to translations of different texts, and that “function” of translation has very little to

do with the transfer of information which is often claimed to be its one and only

raison d'être. (Bassnett & Trivedi 7-8)

Introduction

The chapter introduces, defines, redefines and, acknowledges the role translation has played in Botswana cultural productions, specifically the genres of literature and film.

It continues the ongoing debate on the complex history of translation by narrowing the focus to the study of translation as it relates to culture in the literature and films from postcolonial Botswana.21 This category constitutes works written and produced in

Botswana by local creative writers and filmmakers. I focus on how some specific works done by these writers translate aspects of Setswana culture, especially when their works are translated from Setswana into other languages and vice vesa.

The first section of the chapter focuses on Setswana literature in translation. The second section focuses on Setswana film in the context of translation. In each case,

21 In this dissertation, the term postcolonial Botswana refers to the time after 1966 when Botswana aquired independence from the British colonialism which had been in place since the Berlin conference in 1885. However, not all literature or film production in post indepence Botswana are not necessarily decolonial because decolonization is a long term process. 143

specific examples drawn from both the literary and film texts as case studies to illustrate different ways in which translation affects postcolonial Setswana literature and film as an intertwined area of study. Both film and written literature in Botswana have a shared complex historical background of colonial influences, especially when it comes to the language and translation question. Before I attend to each category, a brief description of the historical and political contexts of translation in Setswana literature follows.

Historical/Political Contexts of Literary Translations in Setswana Literatures

Setswana literature possesses an extensive corpus of translated cultural productions in the form of the oral and written literary traditions which have existed since the pre-colonial epoch. Oral tradition constitutes an essential part of Setswana literature expressed through various art forms like visual arts, oral poetry, storytelling, proverbial expressions, and translations which makes it adaptable to written forms and other forms of media. As part of oral tradition, the usage of cultural translations is a common practice among most cultural groups in Botswana, and it applies to both the written and oral forms within a vast historical spectrum starting from precolonial to the postcolonial trajectory.

For example, contemporary filmmakers in Botswana now capitalize on the use of oral traditions to produce films that offer themes that are relevant to local contexts.

Through the extensive use of oral narratives in the contemporary Setswana film there is a translation of culture and evidence that oral texts also translate in the same way written texts do which makes them two cultural entities that complement each other.

Similarly, local songwriters and novelists in Botswana rely on traditional literature as a 144

central part of their creative productions which emphasizes the idea that Setswana literature heavily draws from the depository of oral tradition. The works of the two novelists from Botswana offer an excellent example of how oral tradition continues to translate into and transform the identity of the contemporary and emerging creative literary works by local postcolonial novelists. For example, postcolonial feminist writer

Pricilla Mmantsetsa Marope's Ngwana o Anywa Mmagwe A Sule (1987) adopts a proverb as the title of her Setswana novel which deals with contemporary themes. This proverb holds a more profound cultural meaning about how, commonly, a child always expects much from their mother in spite of her poverty or that a child always expects their mother to help them meet their needs. Another postcolonial writer, Tiroentle Bafana Pheto adopts a proverbial and mythical narrative as the title of his novel, Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo

(1985). Similarly, Pheto uses oral tradition in the form of a folktale and deconstructs its ideas, translating them into a compelling thematic statement and detailed social commentary. Both Marope and Pheto as novelists working in their indigeneous language highlight the relevance of oral tradition in postcolonial literary contexts of Setswana literature. They explore complex politically charged themes of colonialism and implications of migrant labor on women by tapping into and translating the depository of

Setswana oral tradition.

The extensive usage of the proverbs by these novelists emphasizes how crucial oral tradition is to the history of written Setswana literature to the extent that without incorporating it through translation and intertextuality as culturally relevant techniques, 145

the written form of literature ceases to exist. Dialectically, recognizing the importance of oral tradition and incorporating it into the text enriches the substance of written literature and redefines the notion of cultural translation as a necessity that gives Setswana literature a new identity and perspective. In other words, the integration of oral literary tradition into written Setswana literature achieves a distinct identity through translation as a cultural practice and a system of communication that empowers the text as opposed to assimilating or appropriating it based on foreign aesthetics. I engage an in-depth critical analysis in the subsequent chapter, which offers a translational analysis of creative works case by case. However, a few examples given in this particular context provides an idea of how, throughout history, Setswana literature translates its aesthetic modalities depending on the historical and cultural context and thereby reveals how dynamic translation practice is.

Translation practice in Setswana language predates the written canonical Latin- based alphabet which has been historically used to write and translate Setswana texts since the inception of the first written Setswana novel. In The Rise of the African Novel,

Mukoma wa Ngugi sums up the vastness of the history of Southern African literatures such as Setswana and how literary translation practice had always occupied a special role in the following by asserting that “Long before Achebe and his generation of African writers, there was an established literature originally written in English, or in African languages and then translated in English, in South[-ern] Africa” (103). Mukoma rightly argues that often when we discuss postcolonial literary history works of literature from 146

Southern Africa are neglected by critics despite their significant contributions into a larger domain of African literature as creative works and cultural translations. This hindsight also applies to Setswana writings and productions, which have always escaped the attention of researchers in the domain of postcolonial and translation studies.

Setswana literary history entails writings that fall into the categories of creative works

(novels and films) and translations from African languages into English or vice versa. In addition, it is literature that has suffered further marginalization due to the influence of

English literature and linguistic hegemony. The following specific examples of creative works coming out of this historical dichotomy is noteworthy, and it is consistent with the objectives of the current study:

Thomas Mfolo, who was later to be known for the epic novel Chaka (written in

1909, but only published in 1931) was the author of the first novel in Sesotho,

Moeti oa Bochabela (1907) translated into English as Traveller to the East in

1934. R. R. R. Dlomo wrote in both English and isiZulu An African Tragedy

being first published in 1928 and Unomalanga kaNdengezi in 1934. Samuel

Mqhayi's isiXhosa book, Ityala Lamawele (The Lawsuit of the Twins) was

published in 1912. A. C. Jordan's Ingqumbo yeminyanya (1940) was translated as

The Wrath of the Ancestors in 1964 [translated into Setswana by McLarty Auntie

Isaacs as Kgalefo ya Badimo]. And outside of writers writing in African

languages, there were those writing in English such as Sol Plaatje (Mhudi 1930).

These writers are not usually discussed within an African literary tradition, or 147

read as having templates of writing in African languages and translation that the

Makerere writers could have followed. (104)

Mukoma rightly argues that the literatures and translations from Southern Africa, with

Setswana included, have been historically marginalized even in postcolonial scholarship despite their contribution to the historical purview of the African postcolonial literatures.

Furthermore, he asserts that these texts qualify as exemplary cultural texts to postcolonial writings, which can be explored further as literary translations. This study shares

Mukoma’s view by its focus on the evaluation of the underlying historical landscapes and political dynamics of cultural translations surrounding the literary arts in the Setswana canon.

A study of postcolonial Setswana literature in cultural contexts of translation is a complex undertaking due to embedded cultural implications that make the translation question a complex but necessary focus. Unsurprisingly, it has attracted the critical attention of translators and critics who attempted to incorporate translation technique into

Setswana literature at different historical periods. The critical study of these literary translations illustrates that depending on time and motivations, translators varied in terms of approach and conceptualization of methodology, and so did the outcomes of their translations. On the other hand, translation critics represented by distinct disciplinary backgrounds offered their varying views on these literary translations even though more work still needs to be done in this area. To reveal how cultural translations have navigated their positionality in the domains of Setswana literature, I follow by engaging a 148

critical discussion of this vast historical landscape of the pre-colonial, colonial, and the postcolonial literatures.

Literary Translations from the Precolonial Epoch

The historical scope of Setswana language literature during the pre-colonial epoch is very broad, and its description encompasses oral and written translations. For example, a volume of translated oral narratives such as folktales, riddles, conundrums, and other verbal arts are shared and transferred cross-culturally among different ethnic groups in

Botswana. These translations have led to ambivalent historical and anthropological conceptualizations and findings, all aimed at understanding the characteristics of cultural productions associated with this trajectory. However, debates emanating from this category often neglect or undermine the role that cultural translations played in Setswana literature during precolonial time, especially where oral literature is concerned. Part of the reason for this neglect lies in the fact that literary productions and the visual arts from this period used Setswana script and alphabet as the basis or foundation of their creativity and not based on Latin alphabet writing system imposed during the British colonial occupation. However, this script which provided the textual base was gradually lost and replaced by the Latin orthography of Setswana even though oral tradition shows that it still occupies an important role and function in traditional forms of Setswana literature.

For example, it is used predominantly as an important reference in the Setswana praise poems and most oral narratives. Because of its association with the distant past of the

Setswana cultural communities this form of scripts which serves as the textual base has 149

proved to be a challenge to most translators who are unfamiliar with Setswana traditions.

Therefore, most critics often inaccurately start historicizing and conceptualizing about the precolonial period from the era of colonialism as the watershed and a period that marks the introduction of written literature in Setswana and literary translations.22 In doing so, they assume that before colonial encroachment the Setswana cultural communities of the time had not developed a writing system and suggests that their traditions were entirely oral, which is not only inaccurate but extremely misleading. However, in a historical survey of most postcolonial writings, Setswana language intertexualized the oral texts

(orature) that draw from some old traditional inscriptions that are a part of Setswana culture. These writings show a profound skill in translating ‘orature’ or the ‘verbal arts’ into another form of writing or alphabet. By so doing, these literatures demonstrate that

“intertextuality of a novel functions as a translation from one sign system to another. . . it creates new meaning” (Eco 69).

This is true about the Setswana literature which engages a threefold perspective to the translation process. It starts with the Setswana script, which is the foundation of the

22 For example, in Culture and Customs of Botswana, James Denbow and Phenyo Thebe who recorded a brief history of Setswana literature acknowledge the role that translations played in the history of the development of Setswana literature. However their postulation also reveals bias as they associate the first translations with the missionary period. They argue that “the written word in the Tswana language also has a long history that goes back to the first translations of the Old and New Testaments by Robert Moffat and his son-in-law David Livingstone published between 1830 and 1857. Moffat brought his own printing press with him to his mission station at Kuruman in what became the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and on it he published scripture lessons in Tswana as well as his early translations of the gospels. In 1857, he also published Tswana translations of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, a hymnbook, and a Tswana dictionary. By the end of the nineteenth century, mission publishers were widely distributing Bible tracts and stories in the Tswana language” (56-7). 150

oral and the verbal arts in the Setswana language. Then it translates into Setswana orthography and uses Latin alphabet that critics often associate with literacy to the maginalization of local epistemologies. Finally, it is easily translatable into other languages, especially those that are mutually intelligible with Setswana. This emphasizes how the ancient written texts have remained a moving force as the foundation of the cultural translations yet surprisingly they have remained understudied and marginalized by critics who share a narrow understanding of literature and translation in the contexts of

Setswana language.

The problematic conclusion that written literature in Botswana was introduced by western civilization primarily comes from the dominant translated works done by some

European missionaries and anthropologists who developed an interest in studying

Setswana literature and culture, and it has gone a long way to influence historical work on this subject. However, this problematic view that associates a period of colonization with written literatures and literacy is shared by some African historians, and it has gone unchallenged for many years despite its inaccuracies.23 Hence, the situation of Setswana

23 For example, educator Lily Mafela notes that “The current Botswana history syllabus still retains strong traces of its colonial origins. The colonial history syllabus was part of a broader colonial education agenda. Western education amongst Batswana education began with informal literacy training focusing on the rudiments of reading and writing, to address the basic requirements of missionary bodies. It was gradually expanded to fully-fledged colonial subject-differentiated curricula. Each subject played a specific ideological role in the colonial milieu. In the case of history, the syllabus and content were defined by the prevailing political discourse, which placed imperial history at the core of the history syllabus and generally sidelined local indigenous histories” (67).

151

literature as it currently exists faces some conceptual challenges and methodological problems, especially where cultural translations are concerned. It fits the description by

Ugandan poet and critic Okot'p Bitek's observation that

many European influences are present in African writing and in the criticism of

African writing. Sadly, the written literature of the African nations [Botswana

literatures included] has been clearly separated in many people's minds from the

oral literary heritage that is present in every African community. (1)

Although Okot'p Bitek writes about the negative implications of European influences as they affect the field of African Literature in general terms, his assertions are relevant to describe the current situation of Setswana literature. This situation exists because

Setswana literature always negotiates its identity by capitalizing on the translation of the oral heritage into written forms while also emphasizing the centrality of the culture of storytelling which exists in the context of other forms of art. However, the European influences remain apparent because the cultural translations exist not in written form only, but also in the way Setswana literature adopts a novel as a foreign genre. This is viewed as a translation phenomenon that emphasizes the translation of an aesthetic form that is associated with a dominating culture. For example, the works of a prolific

Setswana novelist and translator D.P.S. Monyaise are described in the following way by a critic of Setswana literature James Moilwa who admires Monyaise’s literary potential to translate and incorporate Setswana storytelling rhetoric into a novel form: 152

In terms of Setswana literature, Monyaise’s works are a milestone. They

constitute a quantitative leap in the development of a Tswana novel and literature

as a whole. His novels mark a stage in the Setswana novel tradition well above the

preceding stages. In quality his novels are miles away from those of his

predecessors that even some of his successors still write after the pattern of those

of his predecessors. His level has not yet been surpassed, instead, we have a crop

of young budding novelists who have committed themselves to emulating his

style- some successfully and others unsuccessfully e.g. Lebethe, and Mmileng. To

date, he is a colossus that bestrides the tradition of the Tswana novel. He has

thoroughly disturbed the tradition by adding something radically new to it, both in

form and content. (62)

Monyaise’s approach to writing Setswana novel is clearly remarkable and demonstrates an elaborate effort as he has to translate the formal aspects of a novel into a language of a different cultural background. Although Monyaise clearly translates and incorporates a canon that comes from a different cultural context, he is very careful in ensuring that he does not compromise his Setswana cultural heritage in his translation. His contribution to the history of written Setswana literature is viewed as a revolutionary undertaking by critics such as Moilwa considering that at the time of his writing problems of translating

European and African languages existed. For example, some assumptions that it was harder to translate European concepts and genres into African languages was untenable were challenged by writers such as Monyaise who was keen to dismiss the idea of using 153

the European yardstick to evaluate Setswana literature. He successfully uses his skill as a translator and a creative writer to demystify the socially constructed views about the assumptive opinions on lack of literary vitality of the African languages such as Setswana language.

This phenomenon challenges our understanding of how literary translations as cultural entities should be approached, defined, and conceptualized in a way that does not marginalize culture as part of the history of Setswana literature. It is a literature that is historically known to translate and adapt the aspects of the foreign genres such as the form and structure of the English novel including other aspects of its literature that other translators have found very challenging to rerwrite in other languages. For instance, some

Batswana poets of the late 1940s and 1960s translated the poetry style and form of

English literature and incorporated it into Setswana poetry, and their translations portrayed bias and heavy reliance on the English genre. The first two major Setswana poetry anthologies Masalela a Puo (1968) and Boswa Jwa Puo (1949) by M.S. Kitchen,

N.H. Kitchin and J.M. Lekgetho use the European mode and style of writing poetry and overlooks the vitality of Setswana poetics and aesthetics. Therefore, Okot p’Bitek’s assertion about the influence of the colonial canons holds because some works of

Setswana literature portray the European influences as they show tendencies to translate the western cultural aesthetic and rewrite them in the Setswana language even though they are writing for a Setswana speaking audience. 154

In addition to how Setswana literature translates into a foreign genre, its criticism

(where it is available) is done on the basis of western theory and methods of interpretation in English language which yields negative implications. For example, there is no theory being written in Setswana language at the moment even though there are some critical works of translations of literatures. The criticisms remain untranslated into

Setswana which makes them irrelevant and inaccessible to Setswana readership and limits the production of theory in Setswana language. Despite the challenges facing the translation practice in written Setswana literature, its historical development has been praised by missionary critics and translators such as A. Sandilands who sees this transposition as a cultural shift of Setswana translations and a a remarkable “evolution of

Setswana [literature and] poetry due to permanent contact with European influences”(3-

4). However postcolonial translation theorists dismiss this view by “questioning the

Eurocentric perspectives of translation studies [arguing that] every translation implies a conflict between dominating and dominated cultures and languages . . . it highlights power relations and ideological positions of translators”(Gentzler 2001, Arduini and

Nergaard 2012). Furthermore, Sandilands’s view favors Anglicization of Setswana poetry through translation and therefore deliberately ignores “the role of translation in the processes of cultural domination and subordination, colonization and decolonization and the hybridization and creolization of cultures and languages” (Majola 101, qtd. in Dube

158). All these factors have become an important part of the historical development of the oral and written postcolonial Setswana literature and film in translation. 155

Setswana literature as a language enriched with oral literary heritage is often described in vague and inaccurate terms as ‘intangible and untranslatable cultural heritage’ which insinuates that translation practice and literary civilizations did not exist in pre-colonial Southern Africa until the arrival of missionaries, and that, some aspects of indigenous literature from Botswana cannot be meaningfully translated into English. This misconstrued view assumes that the presumed ‘lack of’ literary translations and translators at the time justified the cultural displacement of literary systems that harmonized Setswana ethnic communities. Critics of translated literatures such as Karega

Mutahi validates this problematic approach by positing with much evidence that

to date many western scholars have assumed that the problem of translation

between European and African languages is a one-way affair. The popular

assumption is that it is harder to translate European concepts into African

languages than the other way round. (131)

Furthermore, it sympathizes with translations that denigrated Setswana literature by offering texts that were reductionist and portraying Setswana cultures as dangerous and barbaric. Pearl Seloma’s seminal and critical work on Setswana oral poetry transcribed and translated into the written form exposes this dismissive view about Setswana literary cultures shared by westerners who attempted to study it. According to Seloma, “the westerners and some westernized Africans dismissed ‘unwritten poetry’ as primitive, illogical and monotonously repetitive as a result of being handed down directly or indirectly by word of mouth from one generation to another” (2). It is not comprehensible 156

without extra linguistic knowledge and does not accede to the western aesthetics and ideology as translations. Furthering her argument, she asserts that “oral poetry in most cases was strictly tied to illiterate people in the eyes of the westerners. Those holding such views forgot that such performers were educated in their own cultures and traditions; hence they were able to produce their own poetry” (2).

The increased number of missionary and anthropological work in Botswana at the time performed translations that brought ideologies aimed at suppressing and ‘silencing’ the local traditions and literatures while benefiting the cultural advancement of Europe.

Missionaries of colonial times were inevitably colonizing agents. They were self- consciously acting out a new vision of global history, setting up new frontiers of

European consciousness, and naming new forms of humanity to be entered onto its map of the civilized mankind (Dube 44). This was seen in the way they suppressed the local literatures and the way they were dismissive of the native cultures and a critical study of translations withi postcolonial orientation reveal this historical reality.

In colonial translations, the use of uncertain terms to describe Setswana as a literary culture collapses the possibilities of the timeframes of literary translations undertaken during pre-colonial Botswana. It further replaces them with a time-bound and narrow conceptualization of translation practice that begins at the period of colonization.

This type of conceptualizing favors western literary civilizations at the expense of depicting Setswana oral traditions as exotic and undynamic and therefore suggests its 157

‘timelessness’ or ‘ahistoricalness’ should be emphasized instead of its unique aesthetics.24 Bassnet and Trivedi corroborate this view when they argue that

translations are never produced [. . .] untainted by power, time, or even the

vagaries of culture. Rather translations are made to respond to the demands of

various groups within that culture [. . .] A culture then assigns different functions

to translations of different texts, and that ‘function’ has very little to do with the

transfer of information which is often claimed to be its one and only raison d’etre.

(7-8)

Contrary to how Setswana literature is misunderstood and misinterpreted by critics, it is important to note that historically translators in the Setswana literary tradition during the pre-colonial period (and even in contemporary times) included elders, griots, poets, storytellers and at times even commoners. However, the translation practice in this cultural set up changed as the missionary education associated translation with literacy based on the Latin alphabet while overlooking its aesthetic makeup. Hence those who could not read and write in the colonial writing system were marginalized and limited from continuing their roles as cultural translators.

24 Western education in Botswana was introduced around 1847 by David Livingstone, a missionary of the London Missionary society. This education replaced “traditional” or “heathen” pre-colonial education (Parsons in Crowder, 1984, p. 22). The churches financed education and were therefore in full control of the curriculum and its content. The curriculum consisted of Christian scriptures. A translation of the New Testament into Setswana came into being in 1840. The translation for the rest of the Bible was completed by 1857. Robert Moffat, a leader of the missionaries, provided the first translation of Setswana into the Roman alphabet and translated the Bible into written Setswana. In 1860, a school was established at Shoshong (then the Bangwato capital) where children were taught reading, writing, arithmetic and scripture in Setswana. The main emphasis was to instill in the students obedience and discipline. (Annah Molosiwa 8) 158

Description of Setswana literature

Traditional literature among the Batswana is communal and therefore it does not discriminate on the basis of class which invalidates a view that some oral traditions cannot translate meaningfully because every member of the community translated the literature depending on their experience of the culture in their immediate environment.

Even in modern times in Botswana, it is a common practice to consult with the elders to explain the meanings of proverbs, idioms, legends, poems, and other aesthetic references common to Setswana storytelling code as they are used in written contexts but may have been forgotten over time.25 Setswana oral and written literature, therefore, amplifies and challenges the general conception and understanding of translation as culture and in doing so corroborates what critics have said in terms of its description and what literary and cinematic translations in Botswana prove to be true.

Furthermore, the literary history of Setswana translations emphasizes oral and written works of literature as a reflection of culture and society’s epistemological ideas and values as they are translated into more complex forms shaped by historical

25Setswana mythology comprising of stories, proverbs, and idiomatic expressions translates as a context incorporated into most postcolonial writings. For example, some of the stories that continually translate into new modalities include the story of Matsieng, whom Setswana oral tradition portrays as a one-legged giant who emerged when the earth was still soft and wet leaving footprints on the surface of the earth. Matsieng Footprints is a heritage site in Southern Botswana and “versions of this mythical narrative [translated] and recorded by travelers, missionaries and Tswana oral traditions and genealogies relate how they spread from creation sites southwards into South Africa as far back as AD 1200” (Ryst, Lombard and, Biemond 1). In addition, Pheto also writes about the Cave of Kobokwe, reminding us of its significance. He also blends proverbs and stories that require mastery of Setswana culture to translate (101, 146).

159

developments. Hence, I follow by showing how the historic interactions with the colonial powers resulted in a loss of Setswana script and its semiotics which was the basis of its literature and visual cultures. Creative writers and other artists in Botswana have used and manipulated this script as the basis of the written literary tradition many years before the European encroachment. It has been used extensively in Setswana narratives especially in the poetry as symbolism and imagery that resonates with the culture of its people and because of its complex aesthetics it poses some challenges to translators who lack familiarity with Setswana culture. As part of the historical survey, I also revisit the findings and conclusions of various critics and what they have argued about cultural translations as an essential part of oral literary tradition among the Batswana as a cultural group.

Setswana Script as the Basis of Early Literary Translations

Oral history shows that Setswana script, defined in this study as the indigenous orthographic system of the Tswana is not rooted on Latin based system of the alphabet, was widely used to express and share cultural ideas as an essential part of a complex communication system during pre-colonial Botswana. The script is a significant and basic characteristic of the Setswana verbal and visual arts and other related art forms that coexist with oral literature in Botswana. Its consistent and continued use by praise poets and postcolonial writers as part of the literature suggests how it was read, interpreted and translated by local communities as an elaborate writing system. It consists of over seventy cultural signs and symbols that are translatable into Setswana poetry and other 160

visual or verbal arts. However, the colonial anthropologists and missionaries who could not read nor perceive Setswana alphabet or the system of signs and symbols dismissed it as an irrelevant writing system although they transcribed its content from the oral sources. The translations that resulted from these efforts were vague in terms of content because they did not adequately capture the cultural meaning and contexts. They were based on an outsider’s interpretation of the Setswana literary cultures.

Therefore, the colonial translators imposed linguistic hierarchies that underestimated the value of the writing cultures of the Tswana cultural groups and in the process displacing and denigrating their written traditions through translation. These ramifications and historical developments led to the replacement of the original Setswana script with the Latin alphabet which was not part of Botswana's literary culture and civilizational development. For the most part, academic research on translation focuses on the written forms of Setswana literature based on the Latin alphabet and refer to oral literature in very uncertain terms that demonstrate a serious lack of understanding and conceptualization of the complex historical dichotomies it represents. Hence, historians associate literacy in Botswana with the arrival of British missionaries and colonial education and neglect to study literacy extensively as local literary cultures perceived it during the pre-colonial period before British colonial encroachment. This conglomeration of developments are revealed through a critical study of translation practice as an important part of the history of postcolonial Setswana literature. 161

Traditional Setswana literatures, characterized by sophisticated semiotics, was perceived to be backward because the colonial missionaries, anthropologists and historians who attempted to study the indigenous script failed to understand how to interpret and translate it within the context of Setswana culture as a communication system in their artistry. They overlooked its achievements in generating epistemological literary civilizations of Batswana in the following three categories:

First, its contribution to the expansion of the literature that has a communal function and therefore required to be understood in its own terms and not necessarily based on the tenets of colonial ideologies of literature and methods of translation. As argued earlier, the history of Setswana literature is very broad and is estimated by historians to date to 1200 AD (Breutz 1952, Chapman 1971) which means it predates colonial times. However, historical work on Setswana literature still faces some challenges because it is written by privileged western-educated scholars who align with western theories and theorists. Consequently, academic work that attempts to historicize

Setswana literature remains dented in the sense that it uses the colonial period as the premise and its research has been touched on by anthropologists and historians and not literary historians who are specialists in the area. Therefore, there as some discrepancies on the documentation of the history of Setswana literature especially in the area of cultural translation practice and how it navigates its positionality within both the oral and the written aspects. 162

Second, in its contribution to the translation of local cultural epistemologies into other media beyond written forms of literature such as film and plays. Setswana literature assumes distinct identities that utilize its script to adapt to new forms of artistic expression such as films and plays. These films and plays portray a set of peculiar but translatable characteristics relevant to Setswana cultural context. In addition, the films produced by local filmmakers and plays written by local playwrights with a deep command of Setswana language and cultural sensitivity or awareness. In the forthcoming section of the chapter, I discuss extensively the contributions made in Setswana cinema.

However, there is a good record of seminal plays such as Motswasele by L.D. Raditladi,

Diphosophoso (1980) by S.T. Plaatje which is a translation of William Shakespeare’s

Comedy of Errors. These are examples of cultural translations that can be analyzed further. Debrah Sheddon’s critical essay “Shakespeare’s Orality: Solomon Plaatje’s

Setswana Translations” hints that

in 1917, Plaatje himself began the first translations of Shakespeare into an African

language. He translated five plays into his mothertongue [Setswana]: Julius

Caesar, The Comedy of Errors, The Merchant of Venice, Othello, and Much Ado

About Nothing. Only two of his translations were published and only

Diphosphoso (1930), his translation of The Comedy of Errors, in his life time. Of

the rest, only fragments survive. (80)

These cultural translations revolutionize Setswana literature and prevent it from eminent acculturation and extinction and therefore are commended contributions because of the 163

way they ruminate the distinct identity of the minoritized literature. They also map

Setswana language as one of the leading African languages to challenge the practice of translation in written literature by advancing the idea that translations should capture the culture for them to be relevant to their audiences. This was very important for Plaatje who at the time of undertaking these works of translations the dominance of English language in Setswana threatened the development of Setswana as a literary language. As a result of Plaatje’s pioneering efforts in translating and assimilating Setswana cultural traditions into English literature with or without much success, a path was opened for many other translators and novelists who admired Plaatje’s skill and prowess in carrying out translations that benefited the expansion of Setswana literature.

Third, in terms of how its approach to the translation question challenges the conception of defining postcolonial Setswana literature based on the mainstream cultures from the west. Setswana literature and its translation of the cultural script exposes the

Western approach which views literature and translation practice from limited conception and resources by offering an extensive compass exlusively defined based on its context and heritage. It includes poetry, dance, oral tradition and performance and has successfully translated these aspects into both the colonial and postcolonial history and continues to adapt to the contemporary period that blends some distinctive features into its makeup. Therefore, even though it is possible to accrue aspects of Setswana literature to the historic past, it is interesting to note that most postcolonial writings bring them to life as translations and criticisms. 164

The current study intervenes as one of the only few existing critical analysis of postcolonial Setswana literatures in translation by showing concrete examples on this misunderstood yet often appropriated and assimilated history of literary translation in

Botswana. These appropriations and assimilations imposed using translation techniques that privilege western view of literature reveal inherent western desires that Setswana literature (or African literature) remain ahistorical, exotic, and “authentic” thereby continuing the colonial legacy where the study of literature is concerned.

The following examples of Setswana script discussed below contextualize them as cultural translations because of the way they have remained an integral part of postcolonial written Setswana literature and film and therefore advocates that they should be studied comprehensively in their own terms and not based on philosophical ideologies that are foreign to them. Furthermore, the indigenous scripts challenge the view that is often entertained by historians that Batswana did not produce their written literary traditions but suggests that instead they wrote, read, and translated their writings within their organized communities. This understanding depicts and redefines the conception of literary history in Setswana as a complex system of signs and symbols requiring a holistic cultural interpretation and knowledge and not ambivalent historical and anthropological conclusions that are portrayed in most translated works. 165

Translation of Cattle Earmarks and Color Terms in Setswana Literature

Cattle Earmarks, Setswana Literature, and Translation

The use of cattle earmarks as referents in Setswana oral poetry illustrates perception, interpretation, and translation of the cultural signs and symbols that define

Setswana alphabet or script. Furthermore, cattle earmarking tradition is an ancient practice amongst the Batswana, and its translation and integration into aspects of its traditional literature suggest that it is a complex communication system that was widely used successfully within the local contexts. Its practical use continues to be relevant in contemporary written postcolonial Setswana literature where is continually adapted and translated into the narratives as part of the literary aesthetic. For example, its use in oral

Setswana poetry enriches it with vocabulary that has been described by researchers and translators (Lestrade 1937, Smith 1834-36 in Schapera 1965) as difficult, having archaic words and expressions. This is because western critics lack the symbolic (history) and imaginary (desire); so they focus on what they see and hear (aural)—and their perception allows them to disregard the reality of postcolonialism and its fractured reflections.

However, this conclusion about Setswana literature as ‘difficult and obsolete’ was subjective and limited only to describe the experience of colonial anthropologists whose goals were to write and translate for the western audience without necessarily seeking to understand the complexities of Setswana culture. Therefore, their conclusions reflect assumptions that emanates from a lack of understanding of Setswana culture. The reading of cattle earmarks among the Batswana and its use as a literary tradition and visual 166

culture shows that “the role that cattle play in Botswana society is evident in language use because proverbs, advertisements, and political slogans are loaded with images and themes about cattle . . . [they] define the cultural, traditional, social and economic lives of

Batswana” (Alimi and Bagwasi 204-205). The use of the cattle earmarks to enrich the vocabulary in Setswana oral poetry and as a prominent component of the aesthetic structure is made possible by the culturally responsive translation methods that interpret expressions borrowed from the cattle culture and use them as part of traditional literature.

A Setswana poetics scholar Pearl Seloma writes that “the oral artist exploits what is in his cultural milieu to create unforgettable images during a performance” to emphasize that oral literature requires an artist to read and interpret their immediate cultural environment

(10). Therefore, when we discuss orality in relation to Setswana literature and translation, it is important to emphasize how its philosophical base is tied to written cultural texts that were neglected in historical research. Attempts to translate its vocabulary associated with the symbols that have cultural significance among the Tswana have been met with misreadings and mistranslations—of textual assimilation and appropriation—by translators from the colonial era.

The following image shows examples of earmarks and their Setswana names in their untranslated form. It is followed by a brief description of how it is used in traditional Setswana poetry and other cultural aesthetics. The translations of the depicted earmaks by Isaac Schapera in Praise Poems of Tswana Chiefs lack a deep understanding of the earmarking as a symbolic cultural aesthetic within the Setswana traditions. The 167

reason for this translational descrepency is that in their translated form, they tend to oversimplify or appropriate the cultural meaning in the target language. The cattle earmarks in their use as cultural expressions in oral poetry can be only interpreted within the semiotics of Setswana symbols and images—my observations are that attempts to translate them digress the meaning as examplified in Schapera’s translations. Therefore, I concluded that because these untranslaterble cultural symbols and images do not have pertinent English equivalents, using them in their original untranslated form would have been a solution in many ways: first it would eliminate the posibility of producing translations that offend the cultural meaning of the poem thereby empowering Setswana oral tradition. Second, it demonstates the sophistication and authenticity of the aesthetic composition of Setswana verbal arts. In Setswana culture, these ‘earmarks’ are symbolic in the way they have inherent cultural meaning used to define the Setswana aesthetic composition. For example kwena translates to crocrodile—a revered animal among the

Bakwena. Another example hints about the patterning in a duiker (motlhala wa kgama), which is also a totem of the Bangwato ethnic group. The symbolism further draws from common agricultural practices of the Batswana, such as growing of corn and sorghum hitherto represented by seako. These underlying features reiterate that Setswana cultural aesthetics differ from Western cultural aesthetics, which rely heavily on formal structure such as meter and rhyme and ignore other non linguistic features. Therefore, lack of focus on adequately translating these features of Setswana poses some serious theoretical 168

problems. The next chapter will focus on a critical translational analysis by drawing from specific cases where mistranslations impact the cultural meaning negatively.

Figure 1

Different ways of cattle earmaking tradition used in the Setswana oral and written poetry. Otlogetswe, Thapelo. Tlhalosi ya Medi ya Setswana. Gaborone, Botswana, Medi

Publishers, 2013.

169

Complexities of Translating Color in Setswana Literature

In addition to the interpretation of the earmarks in Setswana literature, the

Setswana language consists of a sophisticated way of describing colors of cattle by designating specific color terms using elaborate references. Translating color as a significant aspect of the aesthetics in Setswana literature attracts similar challenges especially for translators who lack familiarity with Setswana culture. This is due to a multiplicity of reasons but primarily because the referents do not have English equivalents or translations, but they have specific names within the context of Setswana culture where they are extensively used as part of literary symbolism and imagery.

Second, color in Setswana context can be used to denote various things and therefore if it is not translated in a manner that is consistent the cultural corpus it creates amniguities that obscure meaning. However, the English language, tends to appropriate and assimilate meaning when translating the color terms in Setswana literature. because it does not share the cultural or conceptual base of Setswana literary tradition, which is a characteristic of paramount importance common in Setswana literature.

A study conducted by linguists Thapelo Otlogetswe and Bagwasi argued how two color terms ntsho and tshweu “display cultural and linguistic meanings than those given in Setswana dictionaries and certain translations”(1). Although this study does claim to make a critical literary assesment of the changing contexts of color in Setswana, their findings are important to this study to reiterate my thesis on the complexities of 170

translating color as a cultural image in Setswana oral and written literature. Otlogetswe and Bagwasi report that,

The analysis of ntsho and tshweu illustrates the way the two colour terms have

expanded and forged new connections in the language to represent Batswana

sentiments, associations, emotional history and common traditions and beliefs.

While tshweu is generally believed to carry positive connotations this paper has

discovered that in some limited contexts it can also carry negative ones. Ntsho has

also been found to celebrate positive qualities, suggesting that these two words

are not antonymic in all contexts. . . in some contexts ntsho and tshweu are used

metaphorically as in pelo e tshweu (white heart or contentment) or leso le lentsho

(black death). (11)

They also observe these color references in terms of their use in Setswana literature and how their cultural meaning differs depending on cultural context especially in poetry but they do not analyze them in the context of translation. These are some observations that most colonial translators in the history of translating Setswana English failed to decipher, which led to disastorous mistranslations. Otlogetswe and Bagwasi explicate that,

In many Setswana poems and traditional Setswana songs, mmamoleane [cattle

egret] is referred descriptively as nonyane e tshweu mmamoleane. The descriptive

reference celebrates or praises the beauty of the bird. . . a chief is celebrated as ‘a

black crocodile of the ponds’ and in a poet praises an individual as ‘a black 171

crocodile of Modiana of Tau’. Seretse [is praised] as ‘a black fish that lies in

between oceans’. In [another poem], an individual is reported as praising himself

as ‘a black bull’. The heroism and bravado in these expressions is enhanced by

the use of ntsho with poo (bull) and kwena (crocodile) which are big and strong

animals. President Seretse Khama is referred to as a black fish in reference to a

black person with an overseas education. (8-11)

The appropriations and assimilations inherent in the English translations of these cultural texts exist because of the following factors: first, this was due to a lack of familiarity with the cultures of Botswana by most foreign translators who attempted to translate Setswana oral literature based on western canons. The translations were not carried out by Batswana who had an appreciation and respect of Setswana culture. This category of translators included missionaries and anthropologists such as A. Sandiladis, who translated the Bible into Setswana in 1957 and launched it in 1970 (Dube 37), Isaac

Schapera who produced several publications including The Praise Poems of Tswana

Chiefs (1965), that have been used and cited extensively by researchers. Second, their objective and ideological positions as translators working in the Setswana language were to pave a way for cultural indoctrination and displacement because Setswana oral tradition was considered to be a barbaric cultural practice. This can be seen in the way some of these translators deliberately mistranslated and oversimplified some expressions that were central to Setswana culture for the benefit of the western readership. In terms of methodology, while some translators such as Schapera and Sandiladis may have worked 172

with the ‘literate Tswana’ people in carrying out these translations, their experiences are not recorded at all. The introductory notes to most of the translated texts only details experiences of the missionaries or anthropologists and does not say anything specific about the contributions of the local literary translators who spoke Setswana as a native language. I will expound on this aspect in the last chapter with a detailed translational analysis of verbal arts in the context of Setswana film. This aspect of Setswana history is often neglected by those who study the historical contexts of Setswana literature which is dominated by speculative philosophy of history than a critical philosophy of history.

The implications for these appropriations in cultural translations pose a threat to the conceptualization of the Setswana literature as it decontextualizes and relegates it to the periphery and prevents the possible advancement of the literature. Therefore, as the indigenous script is the basis of the written texts of a literary cultural community, it requires a deep understanding and interpretation of cattle color terms and earmarks, which only a person with considerable, intensive, and ethnographical knowledge is able to translate and understand Setswana script meaningfully. However, anthropologists and missionaries did not have a full grasp of this intuitive knowledge that for the early literary traditions of Botswana, and therefore they replaced it with translations that appropriated the meaning and then rejected it as a too complex communication system for their understanding. They did not have enough exposure and appreciation to the culture to understand the local knowledge, and, on the other upper north of Africa, the Egyptian 173

hyroglyphics (which has equivalents of the Latin alphabet) was well preserved and survived perhaps due to the Egyptian civilization.

Translation in the Patterning of Signs and Symbols (Tlatlana/Weaved Baskets)

In addition to the translation of cattle earmarks and interpretations of color terms, the patterns in cultural artifacts such as weaved baskets or tlatlana in Setswana also reveal complex writing culture that predates the introduction of the Latin alphabet to represent written Setswana literature. The formation of patterns in the traditional weaved baskets do not only show a rare skill of craft-making, but also as a way in which the

Tswana interpreted their immediate environment through the use of complex system of signs and symbols. For example, each pattern formation in tlatlana as a cultural artifact does not exist in isolation because it often translates into an oral narrative or a story that qualifies its existence and social context. Setswana culture is documented and preserved as a cultural knowledge by translating it into a system of complex patterns that have a symbolic significance with a contextual meaning and in ways comparable with other forms of writing. The following illustrations of tlatlana provide an interpretation of the cultural meaning in the written form as they were used in Setswana literature and other cultural groups such as among the Bayeyi and Bambuskushu in the nothern part of

Botswana where basket weaving is a common practice.

174

Figure 2

Setswana Cuiltural Semiotics in Botswana Weaved Baskets (Ditlatlana). Source:Klee,

Paul. Botswana Craft: Botswana Basketry Information, https://botswanacraft.com/botswana-baskets. Accessed Nov 2018.

175

Figure 3

Translational Meaning and Interpretation of Patterns in Setswana Weaved Baskets/

Ditlatlana. Source: Klee, Paul. Botswana Craft: Botswana Basketry Information, https://botswanacraft.com/botswana-baskets. Accessed Nov 2018

Figure 2 and 3 Pictures of traditional baskets called 'tlatlana' (pl. ditlatlana) showing the complex communication system that has been in existence before colonial occupation.This system of writing is not based on Latin alphabet which is currently being used as Setswana orthography. Source (Botswana Craft, 2018). It is constituted of a complex patterning that draws from the immediate environment such as for example 176

showing the movement or shapes of wild animals as birds, snakes and giraffes all of which are used as subjects in Setswana narratives in poetry and folktales. All the aspects shown in the images constitute indigenous knowledge of Setswana culture and therefore are not easily translatable to languages that do not have mutual intelligibility.

The designs offer cultural insights about the significance of patterns found in traditional baskets, which translate to their uses as subjects in Setswana oral narratives. In other words, each tlatlana shown above brings to life a cultural narrative that is shared communally as part of the storytelling visual arts among the Batswana. Some of these stories are adapted into other forms of media, thereby redefining and broadening the notion of translation as culture in Setswana literature.

The above examples constitute the basis of written forms of literature and their critical study demonstrates that there was no rational and justified basis for concluding that Setswana written orthography did not exist. This othorgraphy and its translation persevered into modern forms of writing challenges this preconceived notion that there was no written language previously. In addition, these cultural texts remain understudied as writing forms in their own right only mainly in the context of literature and translation studies, even though some researchers have attempted to study them in other contexts such as in folklore studies, or as cultural artifacts for exhibitions. In doing so, they are studied or interpreted without their cultural context. Verbal and visual arts show that they are complex forms of communication that have their own semiotics that Europeans could not decipher that have somehow managed to translate and shape the description of 177

aspects of Setswana literature. In folklore studies, some aspects of traditional crafts that use the traditional system of communication remain largely understudied but exhibited in the museums as cultural crafts even though they are used as references in most of the literary texts and other arts practiced among the Tswana groups. They are not viewed as the alternative forms of writings that the Batswana used as the basis of their writing system before the British colonial encroachment which lead to the imposition and translation of the Latin alphabet into Setswana literature.

The current study, therefore, intervenes by highlighting the importance of studying these objects as forms of writings as part of the history of cultural translations because of the way they constitute an important part of traditional literature in Botswana.

Historian Neil Parsons reminds us that in the

1850s a Scottish gentleman called Roualeyn Gordon Cumming famous for his

lion hunting as far north as Shoshong, conducted a traveling museum around

Britain. The displays included painted dioramas of hunting scenes, as well as

Tswana arts and crafts. Spectators stood within the curve of the gigantic screens

and imagined themselves transported to Africa. (3)

They are not viewed as the alternative forms of writings that the Batswana used as the basis of their writing system before the colonial encroachment. The importance of studying these objects as forms of writings in their own right, and as part of the history of cultural translations should be emphasized because they constitute an important part of traditional literature in Botswana. 178

Critical Reception on Oral and Written Translations of Setswana Literature

Critics, anthropologists, and historians have attempted to study postcolonial

Setswana literature, but not in the context of translation, even though some works have been translated from English into Setswana and vice-versa. The objectives and motivations of translating Setswana literature have always varied depending on the following two circumstances. First, who the translator was at a given time, and when the actual work of translation was carried out. As a result, there are translations from different perspectives with different considerations existing in the Setswana literature across the genres of literature and film. These different translations can be studied comparatively to negotiate ways of utilizing translation practice effectively and put solutions in cases where the performed translations overlooked the value and the significance of Setswana culture thereby leading to mistranslations. Based on a few criticisms that exist on translated Setswana literature, there are some interesting conclusions and discussions about translation practice and its influence in Setswana literature which can contribute to the arguments of the current study on translation and culture.

Apart from the creative productions of literary translations in the Setswana language, there are a few criticisms that attempt to describe some earlier translations specifically concerning the works of Solomon Plaatje who translated Shakespeare from

English into Setswana. Various critics praise Plaatje's contributions as one of the cultural translations that have made Shakespeare accessible in the mother tongue languages. In 179

this regard, Setswana is mentioned by Israel Gollanz among other few languages and along the dead languages of antiquity as an only African language classified as “the

Bechuana dialect” (viii). In this case, Plaatje’s translations are compared with other colonial contributors as examples that attempted to ‘unseat’ the English hegemony, although Gollanz inaccurately identifies Setswana as a 'dialect' and not an independent language as he did with all other languages. Other critics who carefully studied Plaatje's works suggest that his efforts of translating Shakespeare primarily aimed at deconstructing the myth that Setswana cultural concepts were not easily translatable to

English because English was perceived to be a superior language:

Through Shakespeare, Plaatje adopted the strategy of preserving the threatened

forms of life of his people by exploring and displaying their 'equivalents' in the

supposedly superior languages of the colonizers...Shakespeare seemed to him to

be an ideal vehicle...a text to be mobilized in his struggle to display and preserve

the richness of Setswana as language and culture . . . The translation of

Shakespeare into Setswana, which involved finding an equivalence of poetic

expression in both the target language and its forms of life, could achieve two

things: it could show, against the racist prejudices of those who claimed

Shakespeare as their own, that whatever could be expressed in Shakespeare's text

and language could be equaled by the power and subtlety of Setswana.

(Schalkwyk & Lapula 2000) 180

Based on a careful evaluation of Plaatje’s translations and other creative works such as his well known novel Mhudi (1930), it is clear that he was an artist who was keen to deploy and experiment new methods in carrying out his translation. For example, although Mhudi is written in English, it consists of unique features such as Setswana names for both the title and his characters. We see him employing similar strategies when he translates Shakespearean literature. This has earned him a prominent position among earlier writers and translators who work in Setswana and other languages beyond Africa.

For example, Kahn, who compares Plaatjie’s elloquence with other literary translators of

Gaelic and Irish argues that

Plaatje, Hyde, and Tin each displays a respectful engagement with Shakespeare in

the project of preserving and/or reinventing his own culture. [T]hey make

Shapespeare their own, or make their own Shakespeare, employing him in a

reaguard action on behalf of their own cultures in contradiction to the

Shakespeare who signifies England, empire and Anglo-Saxon superiority for the

British Academy. Plaatje feels free to “play around with Shakespeare” so that his

relationship with Shakespeare serves not the English speaking tradition but rather

his own tradition placed in danger of extinction precisely because of British

imperialism. (Coppelia Kahn 473-8 qtd. in Deborah Sheddon 79)

Even when compared with other translations, Plaatje’s efforts to take a step further to localizing or domesticating Shakesperean literature through translation practice. He reveals that the aspect of orality in Shakespeare through his works makes him a well- 181

rounded translator who demonstrates the role of translation in African language literatures. Ndana Ndana corroborates the view espoused by Kahn about Plaatje's literary translations when he reiterates that “If Shakespeare was perceived as the symbol of

Englishness and cultural sophistication, Plaatje shows the extent to which this complexity is socially and ideologically constructed, leading to infinite re-constructions and appropriations”(4). In other words, studying cultural translations from a critical perspective reveals the underlying social and ideological constructs that were largely used to further marginalize African language literatures.

Critics praise Plaatje for his combative efforts to translate Shakespeare from

English into Setswana. They viewed his translations as a form of literary decolonization because his culture centered-approach aimed at decolonizing the Shakesperean text and making it relevant for Setswana readers. His methodology was clear and revolutionary in perspective because the primary objective in undertaking these translations was to demystify the English linguistic and cultural hegemony that had suppressed languages spoken by most colonial subjects. However, the twentieth-century literary production in

Setswana language through translation by creative artists such as Plaatje and others keen to transform and circulate Shakespeare in accordance with their cultural and oral traditions.

Another critic of translated Setswana literature, specifically religious literature such as the bible, is Musa Dube who approaches translation practice using postcolonial theory as a tool for conceptualizing. Dube’s criticism corroborates the earlier argument 182

that translation practice in the history of Setswana religious literature has been primarily used to colonize Setswana texts at the expense of denigrating Setswana culture. Dube shows the chronology of Setswana bible translations before giving them a critical assessment and a postcolonial evaluation.26 I am interested in the conclusions that Dube makes as they align with the concerns of the current study. Her study problematizes

Setswana Bible in translations and dismisses them as “cultural bombs” conveniently planted in colonial texts aimed at misrepresenting Setswana culture. As Tiffin and

Lawson points out, these mistransation are designed through an array of mistranslations designed to force colonial subjects to internalize their own subjection (4). Therefore,

“sacredization” of Setswana through bible translation assumed that cultural traditions of the Batswana had to be rationaized and domisticated to help in internalizing colonialism.

Dube allocates a spectific section in her critical essay titled “The Setswana Bible and the

Colonization of the Setswana language” to argue that the mistranslation of concepts such as badimo and ngaka “portrayed Setswana perspectives as evil powers in order to promote the Christian and the English world view” (42). She concluded that the translators of the time “reduced Setswana to an instrument of imperial knowledge

[because] their translations seized the symbols that are central institutions of Setswana

26 On the histroy of Bible translation in Setswana, see Dube’s study which lists the Setswana Bible translations beginning with “A.J. Wookey’s Bible of 1908, which was an upgraded version of Robert Moffart’s Bible of 1857 that remained the most popular version amongst the Batswana. The recent 1992 Morolong Bible, which was produced by a group of Batswana. The second one was Sandilands’s Setswana New Testament, which was launched in 1957 and was completed in 1970. The Sandilands version was accomplished through a number of Setswana scholars such as Moabi Kitchen” (37). 183

culture and equated them to the evil powers”(43). Dube is concerned about how Setswana bible translations portray Setswana language, and she proposes that delicate attention to the historical and cultural contexts are required to produce meaningful translations as cultural productions.

Dube is persitant in tackling the implications Christian missionaries such as

Robert Moffat ignoring cultural background when translating Setswana cultural concepts.

She underscores that translating some Setswana cultural concepts were the most chalenging cultural projects that not only exposes Moffat’s lack of understanding of

Setswana tradition but also his questionable ideology. For example, Robert Moffat’s ethnography Missionary Labours and Scenes in Southern Africa (1842) consists of a series of mistranslations such as those that equated ngaka (the indigeneous doctor and healer amongst Tswana people, and moroka (rainmaker) to sorcerers (Dube 157).

Regarding this particular mistranslations of the concept of ngaka which missionaries saw as an obstacle and barrier to achieving their mission, Dube rightly concludes that “such a translation did not even pretend to be faithful to its source culture, rather it was driven by its agenda, seeking to overcome the ‘barriers.’ This cultural transformation is a violent act of rewriting the Other from a Christian and Western worldview”(66). Like other critics who have studied translation in the context of Setswana, Dube's observations are remarkable although her work is written in English and does not have a translated version in Setswana as a language of interest. In addition, her study of the missionary translations and their role in obscuring Setswana cultural traditions elaboratively identifies problems 184

of translation but does not provide some solutions. Although Dube's intervention does not offer specific solutions that apply decolonial and experimental translation methods, it successfully identifies critical areas of focus to evaluate and deconstruct when approaching Setswana translations. It should be emphasized that Dube intervenes as a theorist of Biblical translations and not necessarily an active translator. Therefore, her interventions predominantly reflect her specialization as a theologian.

Studying criticism of Setswana translated literature through postcolonial lense is critical because it reveals the complexities of power dynamics in the translation practice.

Translated Setswana literature is produced through a multiplicity of cultural factors that account for the direction and its outcome of its translation. Furthermore, some of the complexities help demystify how the translation practice of postcolonial literary textual identities is continually redefined when pieces of translations with distinct objectives and agendas are compared. As a result, the complexities force us to rethink the solutions of decolonizing the translations methods to empower the cultural texts or narratives that were suppressed and minoritized through translation practice during colonial period.

Setswana texts also reveal the complexity of translation practice as a phenomenon that goes beyond the rewriting a language from its source language to a target language as it is often the case with the approach to translation in the area of linguistics. If a translation is viewed through a postcolonial lens for the literatures that have suffered years of marginalization, we can see that critics have had various responses that can be used to influence the shape of the future productions of these literatures in the way 185

translation is to position them in the space of the global literatures. Based on the criticisms that were revisited for purposes of this study, Setswana literature has experienced several translations approached with distinct methodologies depending on the objectives. In addition, critics have responded to these works of translations even though criticisms have not been translated into Setswana which makes it an avenue that can be explored by researchers interested in Setswana literatures. Beyond written literatures, it is interesting to underscore that translation practice in Setswana literature also permeates to Setswana film as the art of Setswana cinema tends to be capitalizing on the exploitation of Setswana cultural narratives.

A Historical Overview of Postcolonial Setswana film in the Context of Translation

Film and written literature in Setswana share a complex historical background of colonial influences, especially when it comes to the language and translation question.

This is because film productions in Botswana were mainly made by foreigners and many of the films that exist expose “ideas that westerners have had when dealing with

Botswana and its people over the past hundred years” (Parsons 24). It isonly until in the recent times that the local filmmakers started revolutionalizing Setswana film by translating and incorporating aspects of their culture as part of cinema. Before that,

Parsons's study classifies films during this period as “feature films and documentaries, ethnographic and wildlife films, and newsreel clips since 1906-07” (1). However, historical work hints that some films were produced in the Setswana language although these works are much fewer compared to the number of films produced in English. 186

Therefore, there are very few studies that have been undertaken in the field of Botswana film particularly with respect to Setswana film. There is no study that critically investigates how Setswana film has utilized the translation practice as a cultural communication. To date, Neil Parsons’s critical historiography remains one of the major studies undertaken in film studies in Botswana. Parsons situates Botswana film within a broad historical landscape and his historical study describes the content, themes, and structures of the films but does not write extensively about the film as a cultural translation. Although Parsons’ comprehensive study focuses primarily on the films about

Botswana in English he offers some critical observations that I find very important for the current study. He also acknowledges the early contributions of the local filmmakers in

Botswana. As Parsons notes,

The honor of being the first local filmmaker in Botswana is believed to be Kgosi

Molefi Pilane of the Bakgatla at Mochudi in the late 1930s. He picked up the

cinema habit in Johannesburg, as well as liking for township music and gave

popular slide and film shows for paying audiences in the Mochudi church hall

much to the disgust of his Dutch Reformed missionaries. Molefi possessed and

used a small movie camera, but his films appear not to have survived. (6)

Although there is no existing record of Kgosi Molefhi’s films, his pioneering role as the first Motswana filmmaker during this time is very exciting to film studies in Setswana, as it portrays him as a dynamic King who competed with the forces of colonialism when film in Botswana was largely produced by Whites. It can thus be argued that if his works 187

had survived, the 1930s would be the historical epoch associated with the birth of

Setswana film that translated cultural images into cinema from an insider’s point of view.

In addition, there is no historical evidence that explains why his films did not survive but what is known is that his productions were not welcome and therefore rejected by the missionaries who were already using films to expand their ministry. Therefore, on the basis of these facts that highlight Molefhi’s role as the first local filmmaker in Botswana, we can arrive at the following critical conclusions. First, early Setswana films defied

Christianity because their primary focus was on translating the aspects of Setswana culture at a time when negative western images portrayed Botswana as the antithesis of the west with a mythical ahistorical life informed by the imaginations of the western filmmakers.

Setswana film in the 1930s challenged and corrected previous mistranslations by missionaries and anthropologists. For example, cultural concepts such as badimo that were mistranslated by missionaries as demons or devils, and ngaka mistranslated as moloi to suggest traditional doctors and herbalists were witches. However, through the insider’s perspective, it is obvious that traditional herbalists were not baloi or witches/wizards as the missionary translations had claimed. In point of fact, such miscontrued translation practice fed into the streotypical imagination of Africa as the heart of darkness where indigeneous beliefs were considered as a form of witchcraft. As a critic of biblical translation, Musa Dube argues these mistranslations “designate[d] the Setswana cultures as a “dangerous, devil and death zone’, to be avoided at all costs. The translation invites 188

us, the Batswana biblical readers, to distance ourselves from Badimo, the demons, and to identify ourselves with Jesus, a Christian divine power”(41).27 Second, considering that

Molefi was a King and therefore a popular community leader among his people, the

Bakgatla, it is possible that there were other ordinary Batswana who produced films that did not survive due to colonial politics or lack of availability of resources for film production. And lastly, that films produced by the locals at the time especially those that celebrated Setswana cultures were not supported and discouraged while the area of film production in Setswana remained marginalized and dominated by colonial film producers who priviledged the translation of western cultural aesthetics. Parsons takes us back to this period of colonial translations and adaptations when he writes in a way that suggests the content or the thematic focus of the films.

In his assertion, he also makes us aware that in the history of Setswana film production in Botswana, there were other languages in addition to English that were competing with the Setswana language. As Parsons pointed out,

27 In Setswana poetics and mythology, the cultural conceptual term badimo amongst the Batswana is associated with positivity and it is at times translated as Gods. Musa Dube in her essay “Consuming a Cultural Bomb” explains that “the word Badimo literally means the ’High Ones’ or ’Ancestral Spirits’ in Setswana cultures. Badimo are sacred personalities who are mediators between God and the living in Setswana cultures. They consist of dead members of the society and very old members of the family who are attributed divine status and sacred roles. Badimo holds the welfare of their survivors at heart, both at individual and community level. They bless the living and make sure that they are well provided for and successful in their plans. They also punish those who neglect their social responsibilities and taboos, by removing their protective eye and leaving the concerned individual or society open to the attack of evil forces. In addition, the institution of Badimo serves as the center of social memories or history of society. For an oral people, the role of Badimo as an institution of social memories cannot be overemphasized. Badimo are the thread which connects the present society and families with their past and directs them to the future, for here the people of the past are kept alive and actively involved in the events of contemporary society” (39). 189

Six feature films were made on the Kalahari in the period 1966-80, all by South

companies benefiting from South African government subsidies. Two films were

in Afrikaans; one film was the first feature film made in Setswana•—titled Ngaka

(1976). As part of its adaption of apartheid policies to black urbanization and

pseudo-independence for the Bantustans, the South African government set up a

cinema network of 16mm sound projectors playing in township halls. (12)

Parsons’s claim shows that Setswana film contended with other linguistic forces beyond the English language such as Afrikaans. Therefore, the problems of translation in the history of Setswana film are beyond English to include other colonial languages such as

Afrikaans.

The first Setswana films were produced after Botswana attained independence in

1966. However, unlike the previous cinematic productions that were in English, they used Setswana language extensively and drew from Setswana oral tradition. This approach offered a distict cultural perspective of the film set which utilized cultural material extensively. In doing so, they were translating and incorporating a film as a foreign genre to express cultural ideas from Setswana settings. The films in this category show a drastic transition from a period of ethnographic and wildlife documentary films that represented Botswana cultural narratives as translated anthropological films for the west. The emergence of this new genre of Setswana film came with a set of new features and characteristics not only linguistically but also in terms of the genre and cultural background of the filmmakers. Unlike the films that came before, they used Setswana for 190

the narrative and adopted English as the translated subtitles of the films. In addition, they are characterized by the arrival of the other filmmakers breaking the monopoly of the western filmmakers that had been in existence since the inception of the film in

Botswana. For example, Armes notes that “the one South African feature film to become an international success was The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980), made by one of South

Africa’s leading directors, Jamie (Jacobus Johannes) Uys” (26). This film is problematic on the basis of failing to translate Botswana culture and also in terms of the providing specificity of geographic location. Regarding this film Roy Armes writes that

the film masquerades as a Botswanan production, but the ‘Botswana’ where the

bushmen lead their idyllic life in no way resembles the real landlocked republic of

the same name. Significantly, the film could not have been set in South Africa,

since there the pass laws restricting the movement of blacks would have rendered

its plot impossible. (27)

There are other adapted films such as The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency by William

McCall Smith that have been similarly problematized by critics for failure to translate cultural codes of Setswana context with the aim of maximizing the profits in the west.

Regarding this work in particular, critic Clare Counihan in her critical essay “Detecting

Outside History in the No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency” dismisses McCall Smith for decontexualizing Botswana history by imposing the conventions of ethnographic realism

(which only gives the representation of the real) and a foreign genre of crime fiction (1).

Couniham suggests that this decontexualization in the film is recognized by exotification, 191

romanticization, linguistic mimicry and other issues that show that the film is devoid of a culturally sensitive orientation. Although there was a change of focus on the side of the filmmakers in terms of the film genre and perspective, the transformation did not offer any newly revised translations of the Botswana cultural narratives. This is because the filmmakers continued to translate and enforce the stereotypes about the cultures of

Botswana by failing to take the culture into consideration when translating and adapting the narratives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Setswana postcolonial literature and film in translation have a very long history comparable to literatures and films from other parts of Africa. They have been similarly subjected to the colonial impositions and assumptions through translation practice. Scholarly works on translation concerning the early literary translation practice in Setswana often refer to the missionary bible translations, and overlook many contributions made by local writers through their artistic practice many years before the

British colonial occupation . Yet cultural translations have long existed and were used effectively among the Tswana communities and the neighboring cultural groups to transmit ideas and shared values.

This chapter dismissed the association of translation practice with European literary civilizations in the contexts of Setswana literatures. It also underlined the cultural implications of using the Latin alphabet in writing, translating, and representing Setswana language orthographically. The chapter argued that this practice overlooked the complex 192

writing styles that were culturally perceived among the Tswana ethnic groups for many years before the arrival of the western anthropologists and missionaries. In their efforts to translate Setswana into the written form, translational discrepancies reflected allegiance to European cultural aesthetics and the ideological bias. This led to problematic translations that must be revisited by both literary and translation practitioners working in

Setswana language. The chapter has argued with textual evidence that this history of translation in Setswana is very complex because it constitutes various types of translations conducted at different epochs by translators with distinct cultural backgrounds. The first category that discussed translation practice from a period before

Setswana was represented orthographically using the Latin alphabet when the translation practice was primarily a transfer of cultural narratives from oral sources and as part of the verbal arts. In addition to the translation of oral lore in context of Setswana language, this chapter has also argued that the people of Botswana utilized their writing system commensurate with what was in their immediate environment and cultural practices. A detailed discussion of cattle color terms, earmarks, and patterning of the traditionally weaved baskets are provided the basis for the argument that these were indeed cultural texts incorporated into the various genres of Setswana literature as part of their aesthetics.

However, because of their association with oral literature, these texts were not considered translatable by missionaries and anthropologists and they were often dismissed and depicted in negative light. This practice was very common in religious translations designed to lure many converts into Christianity. Therefore, the translation practice for 193

these works did not see the urgency to invest in respecting the cultural traditions— artistic, creative, and cultural productions— of the people they sought to convert. In addition, these forms of literatures have been mistranslated in the works that have been used across the years to understand Setswana literature despite their inaccuracies. The translation of Setswana was also among the weapons that the missionaries used to misrepresent and marginalize Setswana poetics while imposing and enforcing the western cultural aesthetics. The chapter has further underscored that translation practice in

Setswana literature has been approached primarily based on the written texts while in the process, the oral texts were neglected. Hence, it is crucial that scholars of translation, translation and literary practitioners revisit the methods of translation that can be applied effectively to stimulate the growth of postcolonial Setswana narratives that are affected and shaped by the history of translation practice. This chapter proposed that to achieve the quest of decolonizing the translation methods in postcolonial Setswana literatures and films, translation prractitiones and critics must first recognize that translation practice should be studied within the context of orature and Setswana script. This is in contrary to the current practice that emphazises written Setswana literature as the standard form of literature. Second, the available translations and criticisms offer hindsight on the ways to improving cultural translation practices using new approaches aimed at not only empowering the creative aspects of Setswana literature, but also rethinking ways of using translations to develop literary theory in the language. While it can be appreciated that the existing criticisms of Setswana literary translations offer important readings of the 194

translated works, the challenge that persists, however, is that these works remain largely descriptive. Furthermore, these works were written in English from the corridoors of

English Departments and have not been translated into Setswana language even though they claim interests in the development of the language. Therefore, to decolonize translation methods in Setswana, a paradigm shift is vital especially regarding the translation practice as it is currently associated with the written texts and the assumption that the European missionaries were the first to introduce translations into Setswana literatures. A close study of the history of this literature has shown that Setswana literature has an extensive translation corpus that dates back to the precolonial period, which can be further developed similar to the way the Ajami literatures are currently being developed.

Setswana literature and film as cultural translations reveal a multiplicity of complexities of translation in the way they show how translation practice has been used to suppress and marginalize Setswana cultural narratives. Translation practice can, however, be used to repair the effects of colonial mistranslations when it is done through the application of decolonial methods that carefully study and reverse the implications of translation in Setswana literature from a broad historical spectrum. This is particularly what makes it important to study translation in relationship to cultures of the postcolonial subjects before the translations are performed on these creative cultural productions.

Doing so has many benefits: it yields the production of culturally relevant translations in

African literatures and films, which can improve the accessibility of these literatures and 195

their criticisms in the African languages. However, lack of translation centers staffed with culturally sound translators, and lack of public depositories of literary translations remain a major challenge in the implementation of the decolonial translation project. In addition, due to the westernization and European linguistic hegemony in African countries such as

Botswana, more challenges that facing the African-language literatures tend to surface.

Although the chapter primary focused on Setswana literatures and films, Ajami literatures are comparable in terms of neglect or dearth of discussion. This fits Fallou Ngom’s observation concerning the challenges facing Ajami literatures in West African literary traditions in translation. Ngom concluded that literature faces the challenge “of limited number of individuals with the linguistic skills and cultural background [required to analyze and translate African-language literatures such as Setswana literatures], and a lack of interest on the side of scholars” (99). In addition, the translation department in

Botswana primarily focuses on the translation of government and judicial documents and not the translation, transcription of creative cultural productions such as literatures and films. The next chapter focuses on an extensive translational analysis of some selected texts from Setswana literature specifically the exisiting novels and other literatures that were translated into Setswana from English. In addition, the chapter considers experimental translation methods as part of the translational critical analysis and a method of decolonizing translation practice of the Setswana texts.

196

Chapter 3: Critical Analysis of Setswana Novels in Translation and Experimental

Translations

When African writers and scholars started doing their own translations, they saw

it as their primary duty to dress African oral literature in a European language in

such a way as to bring the poetic quality, the charm, of the original.

Unfortunately, some of them tried to be so “fashionable” that in the end their

translations sounded just as un-African as the ones the Europeans did.

(Isidore Okpewho 294)

Many Europeans who studied African oral literature and culture from the mid

nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century were laboring under a prejudice as well as

a misconception. Often, this is reflected in the cavalier ways in which they

translated the pieces of oral literature or sought to give them respectability which,

it was thought, they lacked. (Isidore Okpewho 294)

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the selected novels from Setswana literature that were translated from Setswana into English, and vice versa. I critically analyze these translations by identifying some theoretical issues and implications that arise when creative works in Setswana translate into other languages and other mediums as adaptations. The works will be analyzed using decolonial translation methods that have been applied, and suggested by leading critics of postcolonial literatures and translation studies—such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Susan Bassnett and Lawrence Venuti. In addition, 197

the chapter explores Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart and its Setswana translation

Dilo di Masoke, which was translated by a noted Motswana novelist D.P.S Monyaise. I compare both the English and Setswana texts by highlighting how, through translations, these works compare and complement one another in a way that they portray similarities of thematic focus and style. Furthermore, I consider the folowing two novels as experimental translations: Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo by Tiroentle Bafana Pheto, and

The Conscript, which was translated by Ghirmai Negash from Tigrinya into English. It was originally written in Tigrinya by Gebreyesus Hailu in 1927. I compare the experimental translations with selected published translations that have successfully approached the translation process in a decolonized fashion. Experimental translations were conducted by the author with the objective of investigating the suitability and applicability of the suggested ways of decolonizing orthodox translation methods—such as rationalization, clarification, and ennoblement—that often domesticate and foreignize postcolonial cultural texts. Therefore, this chapter dismisses the assumptions of translation canons that are primarily based on the mainstream conceptualization of translation as a practice that concerns written literatures only. I show why this assumptive view is limited and problematic in the way it marginalizes minority cultural or textual productions with oral traditions. The chapter explores, and applies decolonial and unorthodox methods of translation—namely prefacing, contextualization—to demonstrate how Setswana literatures and films develop through translations, yet this area remains understudied by researchers. 198

Theoretical Problems and Implications in Setswana Literary Translations

Setswana literature, like most African language literatures, reveal many theoretical or conceptual complexities when translated into other languages, especially the English language. These complexities are due to several factors, but primarily to the following two that highlight in the chapter by applying them to both the existing translations, and those that are experimental. First, the theoretical issues surface because

Setswana is not mutually intelligible with the English language, although there are some translations that have attempted to resolve this complexity by emphasizing the centrality of Setswana culture in a work of translation instead of displacing it, as has always been the case with the colonial literary translations. Second, Setswana literature has suffered marginalization from the exposure to colonial literature, which subverted Setswana literary culture, especially its oral tradition. In addition, the overlooking of its study by critics and translators who imposed western ideologies and techniques into its form resulted in further marginalization. The case of the ruptured development of Setswana literature, therefore, is comparable to other literatures from other parts of Africa that experienced marginalization after the colonial occupation. For example, Ghirmai Negash writes that “Tigrinya literature has remained neglected in literary studies due to colonialism, and partly due to lack of interest of literary scholarship and its practitioners”

(10). This argument applies to the literary landscapes of postcolonial Setswana written literature, which was similarly affected by British colonialism, and censored by the imposition of colonial alphabet and the displacement of Setswana alphabet. In addition, 199

lack of literary practice and scholarship in Setswana language faces developmental challenges even in the context of translation.

Similar theoretical issues and challenges have also been outlined by Fallou Ngom who extensively studied and translated Ajami literatures, and found that there was a degree of negligence in the interpretation of the Ajami scripts, which led to their supression and further marginalization as local literatures. Ngom’s study explores a significant number of problems of transliteration for Ajami writing in Wolofal spoken in

Senegal, and in other West African languages beyond linguistics as a scientific study but in the context of culture and colonial power dynamics (99-120; 1-10). Setswana literature compares with Ajami literatures, which are written in Arabic script, because its written form emanates from transcriptions and translation of the Latin based alphabet, and not its original writing system. The phenomenon poses some challenges which are explored case by case from a few selected texts that have been translated in the context of Setswana literature. Based on a close examination of these cultural texts, it is clear that in the process of translating Setswana, the embodied cultural symbols and conceptions used as building blocks of Setswana poetics and epistemologies were ignored due to reductionist assumptions that favoured the western literary dialectic. As a result, most Setswana texts in translation require revision through decolonial methods of translation aimed at recontextualizing culture in Setswana narratives as a way of making them relevant in their social contexts, and to restore their identity as part of global literatures. This is because “narratives presented in the truth of their language and authenticity become texts 200

of real peoples and not merely the results of theoretical manipulations” (Mudimbe 182).

The truth of this statement has been proven by the work of many postcolonial novelists who also assume roles as cultural translators. Ngugi wa Thiong’o is among those novelists and his works reflect the necessity of a literary work to capture its indigeneous cultural traditions as part of the indispensable esthetic in African narrative. According to critic Simon Gikandi, Ngugi also sees translation as a factor that involves the translation of the aesthetic conventions and literary canons of postcolonial historical fiction, which

Setswana novelists studied in this dissertation seem to replicate. Suggesting Ngugi’s decolonial translation method practice, Gikandi writes that

Ngugi’s primary concern is not the production of a new kind of fiction, a fiction

over determined by the Gikuyu language; rather, he seems obsessed by the

problems which arise when he tries to convert his native tongue into an agency of

fictionalization according to generic conventions of the novel developed in

Europe. [As a cultural translator and novelist] his approach does not revolve

around his mastery of European-derived conventions of fiction, but around the

way in which his text builds on exisiting Gikuyu prose traditions. (164)

The translational approach suggested above is applied to experimental translations of

Setswana literature, while also embaking on a cross examination of the existing cultural translations to determine some theoretical issues that arise when Setswana is translated to other languages. Specifically, some translation practices that often lead to theoretical problems are associated with the extensive yet uncritical utilization of common 201

techniques when translating African languages. These translation techniques—which include ennoblement, rationalization, and classification—are all aimed at assimilating or appropriating a cultural text through foreignization of its content. In most cultural translations, this foreignization is often achieved by the exploitation of the translation practice in a cultural text to ensure it is presented to a targeted reading audience in an overly simplified manner. Typically, the oversimplification (which devalues the literary vitality of Setswana texts) of the cultural text reflects a mastery of scientific linguistic techniques commonly used in literary translation practice. Furthermore, it emphasizes a replication of Europhone literary tradition and its criticism, while ignoring the cultural background of the source text.

Postcolonial translation critics and methodologists such as Maria Tymzockzo recognize the importance of exploiting ways of integrating culture into a literary work, and this method has been adopted in Setswana literary translations using an experimental approach. According to Tymzocko, a deep understanding of extralinguistic knowledge, and selectivity in translating an African language work of literature requires a translator to be cognizant of the fact that achieving ‘perfect homology’ is impossible between translation and source text (Tymoczko 22, Bassnet 1991, Jakobson 1959). Tymzockzo further proposes a methodology that applies to written Setswana texts that I revisited as objects of my study, but her approach further extends to describe how the aspect of orality is integrated into literary translations, 202

It is tempting to identify the greater range of paratextual commentary permitted to

the translator as another difference between literary translation and postcolonial

writing. In the form of introductions, critical essays, glossaries, maps, and the

like, the translator can embed the translated text in a shell that explains necessary

cultural and literary background for the receiving audience, and that acts as a

running commentary on the translated work. Thus, the translator can manipulate

more than textual level simultaneously, in order to encode and explain the source

text. This, too, is a distinction that may be more seeming than real between these

two types of intercultural writing. Particularly in contemporary literary works

aimed at intercultural audiences, it is not uncommon to find maps, glossaries,

appendicies with historical information, or introductions describing the cultural

context of the work, while experimental formal techniques and multilayered

textual stratergies may even permit the use of embedded texts, footnotes and other

constituting more than one textual level. Authors also frequently provide

introductions and postscripts, write critical essays commenting on their own texts,

or facilitate authorized commentaries on their work. (22)

The highlighted assertions are important for postcolonial cultural translators who work in their native languages, particularly in the context of Africa. The methods are continually applied in the currently exisiting Setswana language literary translations. It emphasizes the fact that translations of literatures from the marginalized cultures require a more serious effort aimed at ensuring that a work of translation achieves its intended objectives 203

without necessarily compromising the cultural content that is central to the translated work. Therefore, to ensure the success of the Setswana translations, translators need to engage other decolonial methodologies—such as decoding and expermenting—that may account for any ambiguities emanating from cultural limitations a translator may have.

This is one of the ways of decolonizing the methods of translations in literary languages such as Setswana that have been subjected to various forms of marginalization, through mistranslations and misreadings of Setswana texts. Having mentioned that, my approach to the translation of the Setswana literature is accompanied by a detailed introduction, which I provided as a way of preparing and sensitizing readers with some important historical and cultural issues that define African literature. However, this phenomenon is not uncommon to Setswana literature in translation because there are some existing cultural texts accompanied by prefaces and introductions as a way of familiarizing the readers with the complexities of adapting cultural narratives.

An example that I want to use is that of Barulaganye Thedi Mudongo, who translates Bessie Head’s postcolonial novel from English into Setswana, and writes an extended reflective essay detailing her experiences and explaining what helped her keep the Setswana culture in the translation. I will examine and analyze some thoughts from her critical essay, “Fa Maru a Pula a Kokoana: Translating Bessie Head’s When Rain

Clouds Gather into Setswana,” and the texts as part of my revised approach to decolonizing translation methods in Setswana literature. 204

There are other texts in Setswana literature, that were prefaced by some missionary translators that I do not view as exemplary because they priviledged the

European canons instead of advocating for the centrality of Setswana culture in the written literature. Such translators were particularly preoccupied with how best some

Setswana writers can translate the western canon into Setswana literature. For example, missionary and translator A. Sandilands made a disturbing commentary in 1949 that suggested that Setswana poetry had to adapt European literary aesthetics or modes such as the use of meter in order to be legitimate. Sandilands argued that,

It does seem to the writer that, if Setswana poetry is to master new ground of

thought and life, it must develop new forms. The traditional leboko is an

extremely limited medium, and cannot be impressed very far in such new service.

Its course has run. So I gladly commend the work of these authors to all who use

or study the Setswana language, in the belief that it will yield pleasure, interest

and information; and in the hope that it will stimulate other Batswana writers to

undertake the hard disciplines of thought and study, and of living the good life,

which must go to the creation of all true and lasting literature. (4)

Clearly, Sandilands’ understanding of ‘good’ Setswana literature is the one that emulates the English canon by translating its features to elevate it to the status of “true and lasting literature”. His position curiously reinforces the imposition of the foreign literary aesthetic, but is dismissive of the creative potential and vitality of Setswana poetry and its 205

aesthetics. 28 Several years after writing this commentary, Sandilands pioneered a

Setswana Bible translation that was widely read even though it denigrated Setswana culture by labeling Setswana mythology and cultural concepts as dangerous and barbaric.

The following image demonstrates an ideal Setswana poem which attempts to use meter as envisioned by Sandilands.

28 This reminds us of one the existing prejudices about African literature as articulated by Isidore Okpewho in his African Oral Literature, “Burton reported one of the old prejudices about African oral literature prevalent in his time: poetry there is none. . . There is no meter, no rhyme, nothing that interests or soothes the feelings, or arrests the passions—the result of this was that some European collectors , in their translation of songs that they encountered in African communities, tried to force them into schemes of versification that made music to European ears but were characteristically un-African”(294). 206

Figure. 4

Moabi Kitchen. Masalela a Puo. Pula Press, Gaborone, Botswana, 1968.

Bareta-dilao shows a Setswana poem that attempts to impose meter and rhyming pattern as it is used in the English canon: ABAB, ABAB, ABAB, ABAB, ABAB. Sandilands viewed this form of uncritical translation and adaptation of European modes and canon 207

into Setswana literature as a way of elevating Setswana literature, and ignored the translation of the Setswana aethetics. Sandilands controversially concluded that Setswana poetry that follows this cultural aesthetic is developing in the right direction, and portrays good and desirable tendencies.

Translations in Setswana Literature; Bessie Head and Barulaganye Thedi

Bessie Head and Barulaganye Thedi provide a unique postcolonial perspective to translation practice as they both write from within the context of Setswana culture. Both

Head and Thedi make significant contributions as women writers working in a male dominated literary tradition of written literature since colonial period.29 While Bessie

Head writes in English, her work reflects a deep understanding of Setswana culture, which smoothens the work of any translator who is familiar with the cultural background that the author shares. The Setswana translation, although it is in an abridged form and is read as a prescribed literature book for Setswana subject in Botswana secondary schools, it reflects a strong commitment on the side of the translator in ensuring that Bessie Head is not interpreted in a decontextualized fashion. This translational strategy is fundamental because Thedi translates Bessie Head from English into Setswana language, thereby transforming and rewriting some of the thoughts Bessie Head may have had in Setswana

29 Although the contributions of both Bessie Head and Barulaganye Thedi as woman writers and translators are commendable, it must be clarified that written Setswana literature that uses the Latin alphabet was dominated by initially male writes following the male dominance in the colonial literary production that existed at the time. However, in the context of Setswana traditional literature, literature has always been a communical activity that did not discriminate based on whether an individual knows how to read/perceive Latin based form of writing. Therefore, due to the communinal nature of the literature, it did not discriminate based on one’s gender but instead allocated roles to those who were a part of the culture. 208

but having presented them using English language. As a novelist who writes in the context of Botswana, Bessie Head’s text makes it easy because of the way it uses

Setswana names and phrases, and at times employing expressions with proverbial meanings within the context of Setswana language.

Figure 5

Barulaganye Thedi Archives

209

Figure 6

Bessie Head

In translating Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo from Setswana into English, and The

Conscript into Setswana I closely examined and studied the source texts and explored how some postcolonial African novelists and translators have generally dealt with addressing theoretical issues and implications of translation on culture. Barulaganye

Thedi was among the other novelists and translators such as Achebe and Ngugi. Some techniques deployed as interventions by these literary and translation practitioners include a careful use of prefacing and contextualization as a way of keeping the cultural 210

aesthetics in the vernacular text. For example, Barulaganye Thedi, who translated Bessie

Head’s When Rain Clouds Gather into Fa Maru a Pula a Kokoana, offers the strategy that she applied to keep the cultural content in the Setswana text. In addition to translating Bessie Head into Setswana, Thedi further writes a critical essay that provides context where she reflects on her successes and challenges as a literary translator. Her reflective and critical essay is very important for translators of modern written Setswana literature, who may face the challenge of dealing with some obsolete words and concepts as well as new expressions that are now a recognized part of Setswana vocabulary and culture. By explaining her methodology, Thedi proves herself as the culturally equipped translator who finds Bessie Head’s cultural context, plot and characters relatable to her childhood experience. Thedi reports that her background experience, as well as previous interactions with Bessie Head during her lifetime helped her to manipulate and apply the effective methods of translation into the Setswana text. Her reflective essay suggests that without exposure to cultural background that Bessie Head shared, it would not have been possible to produce a far-reaching literary translation which appeals to a Setswana reading audience. As Thedi writes,

translating a work of literature from one language to another is a serious challenge

because the language of literature contributes to the way readers perceive a text.

Translating Bessie Head meant capturing the sense of her words and presenting

them in Setswana without distortion. (17-8) 211

This statement reiterates the fact that distorting the cultural narratives can have the negative implications on the work of literature, and therefore, it is the translator’s responsibility to take into consideration all the factors that can amount to the likely theoretical problems when translating a Setswana text in any other language.

In addition to articulating and adopting a complex methodological approach aimed at decolonizing the translation technique to ensure that her literary translation captures Setswana culture, Thedi further highlights the challenges and suggests ways of rectifying them:

What also makes translation difficult is the dynamism that has caused the two

languages to develop in unique directions in response to societal change. For

example, the whole gamut of machine-age agricultural English is not replicable in

Setswana, and I had to resort to tereketara for tractor. Also very challenging was

the double identity of the Setswana text, in the sense that when Bessie Head wrote

the original work, she must have been fully engrossed in it, responding to the

unique urgent sensations and instincts that must have driven her to write it, and

that must have made equally unique and intense demands on her skills with

language and structure. I think this is what writers mean when they say their

works have written themselves. I as a translator of her text and not similarly

driven may not have, may have failed to find the words, sentence rhythms and

tones that convey the precise thoughts she must have had and emotions she must

have felt and captured in English. Because of the intangibility of what lay behind 212

Head’s driven-ness, I could do no more than imagine myself into it, which, taken

together with the translated word itself, has resulted with the double identity of

what I call the double identity of the translated text. I do not think that this

problem arises when translators translate their own works. They probably rewrite

their texts with equal intensity as the first time. (18)

The assertion above warns about the implications of using a word for word approach of translation and also sensitizes us that a cultural translator of a Setswana text always faces some limitations when rewriting a text. In other words, a translator and the original author of a novel differ and such differences become apparent in a work of translation especially when they do not share the same motivations of carrying out a work of translation. This assertion supports the notion that when dealing with literary translations in African language literatures such as Setswana translation is a sensitive issue because of the embedded cultural issues that need to be decoded first for the translation to make sense as a work of art. Decoding of cultural meaning in a translated text is key, and Thedi achieves it through her elaboration that can be viewed as a crital essay accompaning the actual translated work. The translation’s awareness to the cultural complexities equips her to be able to communicate ideas in Setswana meaningfully. This is because as a cultural translator dealing with a postcolonial text, Thedi understands the objectives and purpose of the translation in disserminating the cultural meaning of the text objectively. The objectives include 1) making Bessie Head’s postcolonial novel available in the Setswana language as a repatriated cultural production , and 2) demonstrating the vitality of 213

Setswana as a literary language, and finally in exposing the limitations of a misconception that African languages such as Setswana are not versatile as written literature. In addition to understanding the objectives of carrying out a work of translation, it is very clear that Thedi is the translator who shares the same postcolonial ideology shared by Bessie Head as the author, which compares with some translators such as Laurent Dubois who translated Achielle Mbembe from French into English, and doing so because he shared Mbemebe’s theoretical orientation.

Translational Similarities in Theme and Style

Like most postcolonial cultural translations in African literature considered in the current study, When Rain Clouds Gather portrays some congruent similarities with

Achebe’s Things Fall Apart in many ways, especially when it comes to translating stylistic and thematic aspects. Both novels explore similar themes, and therefore, are comparable postcolonial African literary texts. They also represent the texts in a style that portrays more similarities than differences. In other words, beyond the translation of the written text, we see that translators working in Setswana language have also explored the possibility of the translation of postcolonial writing canons established as a form of cultural resistance in Africa. Therefore, it is unsuprising that When Rain Clouds Gather translates the writing style introduced by Achebe about ten years earlier in the 50s, which must have influenced Bessie Head’s writings in terms of thematic focus and style. These similarities in terms of theme and textual stylistic features are not a mere coincidence but, are understood in the context of this study as translational factors that prove that 214

Setswana literature challenges a preconceived narrow understanding of translation of written African literature. This relationship of similarities and translation suggests that there are other aesthetic elements of the literature that can also translate beyond the written word. Theme and stylistic features are examples of this neglected subject of translation, especially in relation to the postcolonial literatures that were expected to comply with western Eurocentric canons. It also shows the acceptance of the ‘writing canons’ established by elite postcolonial novelists as contemporary Setswana literature tends to effectively translate and incorporate its cultural stylistics instead of adopting forms of storytelling from the colonial epoch that have proved to be irrelevant in the context of Setswana literature. It also diffuses the underlying of theoretical issues, such as

‘minoratization and othering,’ of the unconventional texts that arise when postcolonial literatures translate into other languages. Other examples that I revisit in the chapter and the following chapter reveal this complex character of translation, as it navigates its space in postcolonial Setswana literature.

In terms of the style, both English and Setswana literary translations of most works share similarities because they use Latin-based alphabet in their literary translations and transliteration. They are not based on the original scripts that draw directly from the author or the translator’s cultural background, but rather they appropriate a writing system that was influenced by the colonial alphabet. This is a feature that is not only peculiar to Setswana written and translated literature, but also in 215

other postcolonial literatures from diverse cultural backgrounds across Africa, as I have already argued in the first chapter.

In the following sections, I will focus on providing a detailed translational analysis of existing postcolonial works of literature in Setswana language, and my approach to these cultural texts deploy the methodologies already advocated for, and applied by translators such as Thedi, Achebe, and Ngugi including other approaches espoused by various critics in translation studies. The aim is to highlight theoretical underpinnings of translating postcolonial Setswana novel, and how in its translation, the application of decolonial translational methods helps in preservation of aspects of

Setswana culture.

Analysis of Monyaise’s Dilo Di Masoke with Achebe’s Things Fall Apart

Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart is an interesting postcolonial African novel that chronicles the pitfalls of colonialism in an imaginary precolonial African society called Umuofia, and its translation into Setswana language reveals some pertinent cultural commonalties. The shared style of storyteling and writing, and the common historical background of European colonialism makes it easily translatable from English into Setswana. Hence, it is worthnoting that there are some works in the Setswana written literature that have been influenced by Chinua Achebe, particularly his serminal work

Things Fall Apart. Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo and When Rain Clouds Gather are the best examples of this influence.The authors have shown in many ways that they translated the stylistic and aesthetic modes into their narratives. The oral tradition of 216

Setswana, which predominantly uses proverbs and cultural images and symbols makes it compatible with the Achebe’s novel. Therefore, it is unsuprising that Things Fall Apart is one of the most translated African novels, as it has been translated into many languages mostly European languages, with only a few exceptions of African languages. Hence,

Mukoma wa Ngugi observes that “Things Fall Apart has been translated into over fifty languages, making it the most translated African novel” (53), compared with most

African novels written in English including most of Achebe’s other works . Fortunately,

Setswana is one of the languages that Things Fall Apart was translated into, and the focus of this section is on analyzing the novel in the context of translation by comparing it with its Setswana counterpart, Dilo Di Masoke, translated by D. P. S. Monyaise.

217

Figure 7 Achebe, Chinua. Dilo di Masoke. Houghton, South Africa, Heineman Publishers, 1991.

Things Fall Apart in Setswana.

218

Figure 8

Things Fall Apart in Setswana, and an excerpt from from the first chapter of the novel. It was translated from English into Setswana by D.P.S Monyaise. Achebe, Chinua. Dilo di

Masoke. Houghton, South Africa, Hein eman Publishers, 1991.

When I started reading Things Fall Apart in Setswana, I noticed that the translator

D.P.S. Monyaise adopted a translation style that resornates with Setswana readership and 219

culture. This was achieved by the translator’s ability to communicate using proverbs, and other cultural expressions, that resonate with Setswana culture. However, Monyaise’s style does not in any way attempt to appropriate or assimilate Achebe’s work, since he is able to communicate the intended meaning yet working from the two literary cultures—

Igbo and Setswana—that have similar story telling codes. For example, Monyaise’s translation demonstrates his prowess as a translator by providing some cultural expressions from Setswana oral literature. In the process, Monyaise provides more information instead of replacing it with equivalents that can alter the meaning in the original text if not carefully applied with a decolonial agenda. The use of equivalents is usually deployed as a solution in most translations of Setswana literature, and translators of his time such as Plaatje and Raditladi, have used it extensively in their literary translations. The Setswana translation that Monyaise presents us illustrates texual intelligibility, which demonstrates a close relationship between the two translating languages namely Setswana and English, is a feature that is very important for cultural translations. However, I submit that Achebe’s use of “new English”— defined by the extensive use, and centrality of the African cultural narratives—unfolds the postcolonial themes, which is what makes the novel a translatable cultural text, especially in relation to other African languages that have a common history and heritage, such as Setswana.

Things Fall Apart relies heavily on the use of Igbo oral narratives as a central part of its storytelling, although it is written in English. Its translation into Setswana is made possible by the fact that, as an African language, Setswana also uses proverbial and 220

other idiomatic expressions, as an important part of its literary repository. Hence we can argue from the perspective of translation studies that, it has textual intelligibility with

Setswana. Both translations of Things Fall Apart show the interconnection and an interplay between the two cultures namely Igbo and Setswana. This phenomenon reiterates the “diversity of voices and heteroglossia [diversity of languages ], and how they enter the novel [as a genre], and organize themselves within it into a structured artistic system”(Bakhtin 300).

An example of this textual intelligibility in translation can be seen in the way a

Setswana novelist and translator, D. P. Semakaleng Monyaise, manages to translate

Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart using relevant cultural expressions commonly used in Setswana to communicate cultural messages, and to make the narrative more interesting and receptive to the readers. Therefore, it is essential to highlight that, in his use of cultural expressions, Monyaise shows prowess as a culturally oriented translator who does not temper with the meaning or the readability of the text in Setswana. And, this is because Achebe’s writings were influential to most of Monyaise’s Setswana novels that explored similar themes considered by Achebe.

221

Figure 9

D.P.S Monyaise, Translator of Things Fall Apart in Setswana Dilo Di Masoke.

Monyaise manages to include with ease complex aspects of the oral literature, such as proverbs and idiomatic expressions from Setswana oral tradition that resonate with the expressions in Achebe’s work. As a result of implementing the decolonial strategies, Monyaise does not present his readers with a bland translation that is devoid of the creative cultural imaginary, and therefore irrelevant to the Setswana reader. However, he ensures that the cultural messages are meaningfully communicated in the text even as a translation. The efforts aimed at producing a culturally sound translation by Monyaise was hadly the case with the colonial translators, who viewed African oral and written 222

cultural texts as inferior and substandard. However, the assumptions were exposed by their translations of Setswana literature.

Monyaise’s success as a translator is attributed to the fact that, the source text uses cultural mythology that is also commonly used as part of the aesthetics of Setswana novel. The translation of the Setswana mythology has suffered gross mistranslations at the hands of the Christrian missionaries who had a different agenda about translation practice since the colonial era, therefore, it is interesting that Monyaise’s ability to translate Igbo mythology from west Africa into in Setswana challenges misconceptions about translation practice propagated in the colonial missionary translators. For example, he integrates Setswana idiomatic expressions and proverbs where Achebe does not use them in his text, as a way of elevating the meaning in the Setswana text. This shows the ability of Setswana’s a unique way of using translation to intergrate its cultural aesthetic without altering the meaning in the original text. The following excerpt from both the

English and the Setswana translation of Things Fall Apart, demonstrates in many ways, and illustrates how Monyaise decolonizes his translation methodology by utilization of proverbial and idiomatic expressions in Setswana text:

Unoka, for that was his father’s name, had died ten years ago. In his day he was

lazy and improvident and was quite incapable of thinking about tomorrow. If any

money came his way, and it seldom did, he immediately bought gourds of palm

wine, called round his neighbors and made merry. (1) 223

The Setswana translation negotiates ways of enhancing the meaning in a way that corroborates what readers find in the main texts. Monyaise achieves this through proverbization and extensive use of idiomatic expressions that draw from Setswana oral tradition.

Rragwe, ebong Unoka, a le dingwaga di le lesome a ile badimong. Mo malatsing

a gagwe o ne a le botswa, a le sefafalele; a bona e kete batho ba pateletsa phiri fa

ba re o kile a re ga bo se gangwe. Fa a ka tshokane a setse ledinyana-le gale seo se

sa atise go direga- a bo a sianela kwa ga bo-tlhotlha-le-mang, a fitlha a reka

ditsaga tsa bojalwa jwa setlhare sa mokolana, a bitsa ditsala, go nowa go

itumelwa. (2)

As a culturally conversant translator, Monyaise enriches the Setswana text through the use of the proverbs and idioms found in Setswana literature without tempering with the meaning of the original text. The use of proverbs and idiomatic expressions in the context of his translation is tactfully applied to make the Setswana text equally detailed and interesting to the readers. For example, in the above excerpt, the highlighted expressions in their simple form and complex forms are analyzed and tabulated as follows:

224

Table 1 A Comparative Analysis of Setswana Translation of Things Fall Apart.

English: from the Setswana Adapted Translations and Explanations source text Literal/Direct/Faithful Translation …had died ten …o ne a le dingwaga ...a ile badimong (derived from the years ago tse di lesome a Setswana idiom go ya badimong, which tlhokafetse means to die in the context of Setswana culture). The literal meaning of the expression is “to go to the ancestors,” and it is related to a common belief among the Tswana people that when a person dies he or she joins the ancestors. …he was lazy …o ne a le setshwakga uses botswa (lethargy) and sefafalele and improvident e bile a se botlhale (careless), which tend to exaggerate in a culturally meaningful way Okonkwo’s attitude towards his father. …incapable of …o ne a sa itse go ...e kete o bona batho ba pateletsa phiri thinking about akanyetsa kamoso fa ba re o rile ga bo se gangwe tomorrow The translation uses exaggeration and a common proverb in Setswana phiri o rile ga bo se gangwe. Its direct rough translation is “a hyena once said it does not dawn once.” In Monyaise’s text, the translation exaggerates this character’s attitude, and its direct translation would read like he made it seem like people are telling lies when they say that a hyena once said dawn does not come once. Monyaise is prepared to produce a text that that captures the aesthetic sensibilities in his culture without tempering with meaning in the original text. He also demonstrates that the quality of literary translations in African literature are creative productions. …if any money … fa a ne a bone madi ...a setse ledinyana: in this context came his way Monyaise uses a diminutive idiomatic expression, which has a common usage 225

in Setswana to indicate how poor Okonkwo’s father was. (madi means money, and ledi is a singular form modified using dimunitive suffix - nyana). In addition, although the English text does not give us more information, Monyaise’s translation offers more by suggesting that Unoka might have just picked the money along the way without necessarily having worked or sweated for it to emphasizes his lazyness. …he immediately …one a reka dinkgo …kwa ga bo tlhotlha-le-mang bought gourds of tsa mofine wa leungo In this sense he uses a culturally palm wine la mokolwane. relevant idiomatic expression in Setswana to describe a way of preparing Setswana traditional beer, which is prepared differetly from palm wine. It must be emphasized that as a translator, Monyaise does not attempt to translate palm wine, which is not a common traditional drink among the Setswana speaking communities, because doing so might obscure the cultural meaning with ambiguity. While he achieves his objective in the sense that he does not introduce palm wine to the Setswana readership by borrowing a more relevant cultural expression, that may have some limitations. However, his translation presents to his readers the themes that the author aims to explore and does not remove the readers from the important themes tackled in the novel.

Monyaise maintains and localizes names of some of the characters in Things Fall Apart in the Setswana translation, thereby employing a common strategy in the tradition of 226

storytelling from both Achebe and Monyaise’s cultures, which were both apprehended by the Eurocentric reductionism. This combination empowers the Setswana text by introducing new proverbs and cultural expressions to Setswana narratives which develops

Setswana as a linguistically marginalized language. I found this strategy very useful when I translated The Conscript from English into Setswana and The Abomination from

Setswana into English as I will show in the following sections of the chapter.

As a cultural translator, Monyaise is well equipped with relevant tools of storytelling expressed orally as verbal art, which is a quality that Achebe the postcolonial

Nigerian novelist has used effectively to move away from the influence of the English literary canon even though he is using a novel. His work, despite of being written entirely in English, it offers a different textual perspective because of how it draws from the author’s culture and oral tradition. Therefore, Things Fall Apart translates very well into other African languages such as Setswana, as demonstrated in Monyaise’s translation.

Monyaise’s Approach to Decolonizing Translation Methods

An example from the English text and its Setswana translation reveals how

Monyaise decolonizes his methodology when translating Things Fall Apart into

Setswana. First, I analyze the translation of the title Dilo Di Masoke in Setswana because it is not a direct translation of the actual title as it appears in English, yet it has the same thematic significance in Setswana. First, it is worth noting that while Achebe’s title intertexualizes the Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)’s poem The Second

Coming, Monyaise, on the other hand, intertextualizes from Setswana oral tradition to 227

retain a clear and unparalleled cultural meaning. Dilo di Masoke (literal translation is

Things Are Twisted or winded) is a title that works well for the Setswana translation as it offers a similar narrative that does not necessarily corrupt the meaning that Achebe seeks to convey. It is a derivative of the verb form in Setswana go sokeletsa (Eng. to twist or to wind) commonly used metaphorically within the context of Setswana to describe a condition when situations get over complicated due to circumstances, therefore, requiring to be circumvented as a solution. On the contrary, if Monyaise was to use a literal or word for word technique, the title Things Fall Apart would have been Dilo Di Arogane/

Dilo di Phatlakane, and some specific translation and esthetic problems would have surfaced. The word for word technique in this sense oversimplifies the Setswana text, and devalues its role as a work of art, which may make the English text compete unfairly with the Setswana text than complement it. The transliteration technique helps in keeping the title short and terse, and similar to the English version. In other words, Monyaise’s approach avoids the possible problem of ennoblement in the translation, which is dismissed in this study as an ineffective approach to culutal translation practice in relation to Setswana. Furthermore, due to its investment in the morphology, or the actual formation of the word and its associated meaning, the word for word technique fails to recognize the idiomatic expression things fall apart, which has equivalents or an expression with the same meaning in the Setswana language. 228

Analysis of Moswelatebele and Gebreyesus Hailu’s The Conscript

A Tigrinya novel, The Conscript translated into Setswana reflects some fundamental cultural issues about translation practice in the context of postcolonial

African literatures. If the translation is critically analyzed with a postcolonial orientation, it reveals several features that help us understand the underlying cultural sentiments that are directly related to theoretical, stylistic and thematic approach to the decolonization of

The Conscript as an example of a cultural translation in both Setswana and English. Both the translations of the text can, therefore, be analyzed based on the following three facts that are understood in the context of postcolonial theorization. First, it can be said that the original work is itself an example of a cultural translation considering that the author

Grebreyesus Hailu was at the time of writing it in Tigrinya adapting and translating the

Italian genre known as a novella into Tigrinya to document a historical fiction. It is clear that the aim of the original author was to communicate a sensitive cultural message using

Tigrinya cultural imagery and symbolism, which influenced the translatorbility of the novella into Setswana from its origional language.

Second, in addition to being written in the original Tigrinya alphabet, the English translation presents it in a Latin based alphabet used to express Tigrinya culture, which makes it comparable to the Ajami literatures, except that, in this particular context the translation is initiated from its original alphabet. As an English translation it is represented in Latin alphabet which makes it comparable with written Setswana literature that uses the same writing system to express its written literature after theoriginal script 229

was ruptured. Even when presented as a translation, it is clear that the translator was careful not to fall into the trap of what Susan Bassnet describes as the “devaluation and the marginalization of the translation”(69-70 and Jeremy Munday 29), which makes the translated work inaccessible to global readership.30 The English translation makes it easy to translate to other languages—such as Setswana that share the same history of colonial conscriptions. It also has shared features in the use of oral poetry and proverbs, as part of its storytelling, which makes it an easily translatable or adaptable text to Setswana. As

Abraham Zere makes a fitting observation in his thesis on “Narration in Gebreyesus

Hailu’s The Conscript,” “Turning points in the story are expressed through a proverb or a tradional song”(52), which applies to Setswana literature. This is because Setswana literature utilizes poetry and proverbial cultural images from oral tradition that are comparable with those found in The Conscript.

Third, Setswana language translation of The Conscript makes it available for the first time in an African language other than Tigrinya, Therefore, the current study highlights this phenomenon as a way decolonizing translation practice in relation to postcolonial African literary cultures,which continue to record a few translations from within the African languages. Setswana is the first African language that The Conscript has been translated into, and the Setswana translation was initiated by myself as an experimental project that closely studies the methods used in the English translation.

30 Jeremy Munday writes that in the nineteenth and early twentieth century in Britain, translations were only produced for only a select elite (21). 230

Therefore,my approach closely followed the decolonial methods of translation practice used in the exisiting postcolonial African literatures. By definition, these are experimental methodological approaches to translation practice in African literature that are concerned with delineating cultural ethos and ideologies as a priority in a translated text. It is a way of liberating a literary text from the impositions of the western canons or prescriptive theories of translation practice that have been in existence since the eighteenth century. The decolonial translation experimentalization comes after observing that colonial cultural translations intentionally marginalized the cultural texts of their colonies to impose their world view and aethetics. Setswana literature is an example of such marginalized literatures, and the expansion of its literary corpus can be reenergized using decolonial experimental translations.

There are several theoretical underpinnings that make the Tigrinya novella to be translatable into Setswana, but I want to highlight two. First, The Conscript is an example of historical fiction, which is a genre espoused by most Setswana novelists such as

Raditladi, Marope, and Pheto. In addition, the novel draws from oral tradition and this can be seen in its use of poetry and proverbs, which are also a very important aspect of storytelling in Setswana literature. Lastly, the existence of The Conscript in three languages reiterates the complex interaction of a shared ideology of postcolonial theory by African writers who come from diverse linguistic-cultural backgrounds. For example, the translator of the English version, Ghirmai Negash, is not only a native speaker of

Tigrinya, but he has also distinguished himself as an outstanding postcolonial scholar. 231

Therefore, as a translator, his English translation is much more penetrating to the audience because he does not only use Tigrinya as a means of communication, but utilizes it also as a carrier of his own culture. The same can be said about the Setswana translation, considering that the translator similarly has a deep interest in postcolonial theory, speaks English as a second language, and is a practicing translator and poet in both English and Setswana languages. Clearly, this thorough theoretical, cultural and linguistic grounding makes it much easier for other translators who share the same ideology and linguistic or cultural exposure to access Tigrinya cultural literary production although unfamiliar with Tigrinya. I base my conclusions on the observations that I made while I was carrying out the translation experiment into the Setswana language, and some specific examples drawn from the text illustrate this observation.

The theoretical issues I have categorically highlighted above portray the translational aspects of the postcolonial African literatures and suggest relevant decolonial interventions that can be used to empower translations of African language literatures. They also show that the objective of any work of translation in postcolonial literature requires a shared ideology to preserve the cultural perspective of the text instead of marginalizing it further by subjecting it to literary practices that seek to validate its existence. Due to a shared ideological background, it is very crucial that the translators are highly selective and careful in their methodological approach. This is because the primary aim is to highlight postcolonial thematic content, as espoused by the original author, who disseminates information from a cultural perspective designed for a 232

specific audience. Therefore, as a translator, Negash understands that The Conscript is a postcolonial text that the novelist directs to the Tigrinya audience and translates it in a way that makes the text culturally accessible beyond Tigrinya readership. This approach and solution based attitude to translation reiterates the role of translation practice as a cultural mediator between and within the domain of African language literatures.

A Comparison of Setswana and English Translations

The translation of The Conscript into Setswana as Moswelatebe is a remarkable contribution to Setswana literature considering that it is the first of its kind. In other words, this is for the first that time that a Tigrinya postcolonial novel is translated into

Setswana language, which makes it a unique case as Tigrinya cultural concepts are now documented in another African language outside the Horn of Africa. Therefore, both

English and Setswana texts can be compared and analyzed further especially where there is extensive use of proverbial expressions and poetry as part of the translation. The cultural aspects derived from oral tradition contain embeded cultural meanings, that translators can deduce and transcode as a way of enhancing plausibility and reliability in the decolonized translation. Therefore, my aim as a translator was to use relevant expressions in the Setswana language that would render the meaning as it was intended in the English translation, while avoiding alienation of the readers from the cultural background shared in the Tigrinya novel. At first, this seemed like an impossible task that required a continued engagement with the source text to ensure that the Setswana translation does not alter the cultural meanings, and that to abstraction in the way its 233

rederings. For example, Setswana does not have an equivalent of the English noun conscript, and my solution to that was to find an expression that would capture the same meaning, while also closely reflecting the events that unfold in the novel. Any attempt of localizing the word concript in Setswana leads to an abstraction, and therefore, shows less sensitivity to the translating culture. Therefore, when translating the title I used the shortened form of the Setswana proverb moswelatebele derived from a well known saying in the Setswana oral tradition, which says moswelaga’abo o tshwana le moswelatebele. This proverb was fitting for this particular context because it has a similar use within the cultural context of Setswana, and it may be applied to describe the situation of the Batswana men who were conscripted to fight during the world war as shared in another Setswana novel that I will be analyzing next. In adopting the use of this proverb, I was avoiding any attempt to nativize the English word that does not exist in

Setswana vocabulary to avoid the unnecessary ambiguities, abstractions, and use of expressions that would still seem to colonize the Setswana text by imposing a word that does not exist in Setswana semantics and cultural discourse. As a translator, I was primarily invested in offering a translation that would show an earnest effort of decolonizing the methodological approach to the translation practice in Setswana literature, and therefore, drawing a relevant proverb from the oral tradition was an effective way of decolonizing my experimental translation.

There are several examples of cultural translations to draw from the English version of The Conscript, but in this case, as part of the translational analysis, I want to 234

focus on analyzing the use of poetry and proverbial expressions. Through the utilization of the unothordox translation methods aimed at translation practice, I sought to undertand the cultural commonalties between the Tigrinya and Setswana literary traditions. First, the approach adopted when translating the poetry in the postcolonial Tigrinya novel resonates with the art of poetry that exists in Setswana literature or verbal arts. Therefore, this is one of the features that enabled me as the translator to prepare a text with a content that Setswana readers will find relatable and not abstracted. This approach was important because Setswana literature is rich with the use of poetry that alludes to historical events as shown in the opening chapters of The Conscript. Therefore, this was more than just a stylistic feature, but also an aesthetic property that made my translation easy to handle.

Second, the English translation of The Conscript extensively uses proverbs that serve as the building blocks of the major theme, which makes it fitting to describe the work as an example of postcolonial African literature. Through its use of the proberbs that are drawn from the Tigrinya literary depositoty, the novel even as a translation compares with other postcolonial works of literature from other parts of the continent such as in the Setswana literary canon which exploits the use of expressions with both metaphorical and proverbial meaning. These proverbs are not just a mere coincidence, but they reveal a strong cultural attatchment because of the way they draw from the imagery of their oral tradition to be commensurate with the postcolonial themes. 235

Adressing Translation Challenges through Experimentation

In the remaining section of the discussion of the postcolononial Tigrinya translation and its Setswana counter part, I discuss the eminent challenges that I experienced and how I solved them without necessarily employing the traditional methods of clarification, rationalization or ennoblement, which were common in colonial literary translations. As a translator who seeks to highlight the cultural heritage in a written text, it was necessary that I deploy relevant methods aimed at decolonizing the text and avoid those that decontextualize the culture because of their “assimilationist and appropriationist” dictations to a literary text that is being translated into the Setswana language. I found that the use of rationalization as a method in translation is problematic because of its embedded assumptions. It assumes that the source text has to be validated by a more dominant cultural text, and it has been applied as a technique to supress

Setswana in most translations of Setswana narratives into English. However, in the process of this validation, there is an insuation that the target culture is much more superior. Ironically, this problematic assumption exists in relation to the African language literary translations, and not necessarily when languages such as English and French are translated. For example, when reading the translation of a work that was originally written in French, it is almost impossible to see this complex dimention of linguistic dominance. Therefore, it is crucial that cultural translators intervene to adress such translational inconsistencies especially in relation to theoretical and literary texts. 236

The other approach to undertaking a translation that I avoided was the

“clarification” approach, which shows tendencies of tempering not only with the meaning of a cultural text, but also sort of dilutes the artistic form of a literary work and reduces it to an oversimplified reproduction. Decriptively, it is characterized by the use of unnecessary footnotes and endnotes aimed at explaining or clarifying material that readers can attain from reading the literary criticisms. Translation methods of this nature have been widely used, and accepted as authoritative cultural translations of most postcolonial African literary texts including in Setswana literature, despite their irrelevance to the cultural context. For example, I avoided changing the names of characters and places in the Setswana translation, but instead adopted the nativised form with minor modifications to make them fit into the Setswana reading context. Names such as Asmara=Asemara (some consonants in the Setswana language are accompanied by vowels), Tuqhuabo=Tukuabo (Setswana does not have the sound q). These modifications were done with a careful attention not to alter the meaning found in the source text, and somehow obsure the cultural meaning in the translation through domestication.

Analysis of Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo and Botlhodi: The Abomination

Postcolonial written Setswana literature has suffered neglect from researchers,critics, and translators who tend to focus on African literature and criticism written in English. The work of Setswana novelist Tiroentle Bafana Pheto provides the basis for this argument in Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo (1985), his postcolonial novel 237

which exists as a cultural translation in English from Setswana. The novel’s indigeneous language and its translational critical analysis highlights the compexities of translating culture, and the relationship between the postcolonial texts in African literature. It also shows the complexities of translating a novel that draws from Setswana oral tradition into a European language that has co-existed with Setswana since the early nineteenth century such as English. The Setswana version was an essential object of my study, and therefore, it was analyzed as both an archived cultural text and a literary translation from a

Motswana author who writes exclusively in Setswana language. Prior to translating the novel into English, I visited the author to obtain the permission and familiriarity with the setting of the novel in the village of Molepolole. Doing this was very important for me as the translator because it prepared me to deal with the text in relation to its cultural contexts, and not as an isolated object.

Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo (1985) was translated into English after almost four decades of its existence, and before that it was read as a prescribed text for Setswana literature subject in Botswana secondary schools. Despite its success as one of the few existing postcolonial Setswana novels, it was never translated into any other language until recently, when I translated and published it in English as Botlhodi: The

Abomination—A Postcolonial Setswana Novel (2019). As a translator who shared the postcolonial ideological framing of the novel, and the cultural background with the author, my objective was to use the English translation as a form of an experiment aimed at highlighting solutions to the existing cultural misrepresentations that define Setswana 238

literature in other existing translations. Some of these misrepresentations include the textual mistranslations or attempts by foreign critics to analyze Setswana literature based on western standards. Therefore, I followed the existing examples of translations done in the history of Setswana literature, and other African literatures, and further engaged other problematic colonial literary translations that were designed to minoritize Setswana cultural content in the translated texts.

It is interesting, however, to note that this postcolonial novel has been studied and analyzed few critics of Setswana literature such as D. S.Matjila and J. P. Tshukudu, although these studies did not necessarily focus on the translation of culture and why it should be decolonized.14 These two prolific Setswana literary scholars have responded by writing critical essays about the novel but not in its entirety, which illustrates the extent of the scarcity of criticism and translation of such works written in the African languages.15 The criticisms that exist are only written in English language even though they claim to base their analysis on a novel written in Setswana language. Thefore, more work to be done in the area of translating criticism into Setswana to accompany the creative literary productions, and to further explore the study of Setswana literature using material translated from their criticims. Therefore, translation of both creative works of written Setswana literature and its criticism, remains to be an area that needs the attention of critics to be developed and map Setswana literary traditions into global literatures. In a 239

point of fact, it opens new avenues of discussing the broder scope of the literature in relation to world literatures.31

In Matjila’s critical essay, an attempt to translate the title of novel using a technique commonly known as "literal translation" or "word for word" translation is made, but unfortunately, the application of this technique implicates the text as it negatively affects the cultural meaning. However, it is understandable because Matjila uses the translation only for purposes of his research and he is not interested in the dynamics of the translation practice. In other translation contexts, this technique is also called "formal correspondence," and there are implications of applying it mainly when translating postcolonial literary works such as Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo into languages with a colonial legacy like English that don’t share the same cultural background with Setswana. Matjila's engagement with the translation of the title of the novel in his essay is clearly for purposes of criticism, and not necessarily for a through translational analysis aimed at preserving Setswana culture. To emphasize the negative implications of using word-for-word approach as a method when translating the title

Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo into English, I use the following three examples based on

31 The earlier attempts to translate Setswana cultural concepts and present them as written literature in English date back to 1930 pioneered by a prolific South African novelist Sol Plaatje. For example, Sol Plaatje’s Mhudi (1930) is among the earliest works of literature that expresses Setswana culture written from the perspective of a local and its use of Setswana cultural concepts in imagery, symbolism and characters affirm this claim. This argument is corroborated in the dissertation on Mhudi titled “Taoto ya Phetsolelo ya Mhudi ka Sol T. Plaatje mo Setswaneng jaaka mmusetsagae wa dikwalo tsa Maaforika tsa Seesimane” where she makes a compelling argument that “Mhudi, an African novel written in English by Sol Plaatje, is for all intents and purposes a Setswana novel by a Motswana, about Batswana, and should be repatriated into Setswana for the benefit of Plaatje's people, the Batswana”(Eileen Pooe 2019 qtd. in North-West University Press Release, 18 October 2019). 240

Matjila's translation, but before that I must clarify that the title of the novel derives from an exisiting oral narrative in Setswana culture. Therefore, other expressions which may be regarded as equivalents are very limited in their contextual usage. This is because they tend to appropriate or assimilate the meaning of the original narrative which creates some ambiguities due to cultural differences. For example, the Setswana word botlhodi can be literally translated as “omen or bad omen,” but using direct translation in this sense fails to account for the meaning as appears in the oral narrative. Therefore, I provide an interpretation of Matjila’s translation, and show the likely ambiguities that should not be overlooked to repatriate the cultural context into the translation:

Sentence (1) The Miracle of a Head Louse

Sentence (2) Marakalase a Nta ya Tlhogo

Sentence (3) Dikgakgamatso tsa Nta ya Tlhogo

Based on the examples above, I concluded that Matjila’s translation has limitions because it presents some semantic problems that alter the meaning of the main text. It achieves that through ambiguity and nativization or lexical borrowing from English. For example, sentences 2 and 3, which I translated based on Matjila's suggestion of what could be the possible title shows a different meaning from the original text even though the novelist has provided a rich cultural context within the narrative of the novel to avoid the mistranslation of the Setswana text. It is unclear why Matjila chooses to overlook the cultural context of the title provided for in the novel, and uses the example that alters the intended cultural meaning in the source text. It can be argued that part of the reason why 241

Matjila uses this approach has to do with the fact that Setswana borrows and uses words from English through a process of nativization. The word marakalase is a nativized form of the English word miracle, which miscontextualizes what Pheto aims to highlight in his work. This observation, however, does not to suggest that all cases of using nativization in Setswana literature always fail to capture the intended meaning as Thedi has revealed in her translation. These translation problems are linked directly to the cultural implications of attempting a literal translation in Setswana and English, which do not share a common culture but have had many years of coexistence after years of colonial occupation. In addition, Setswana and English are not mutually intelligible, and therefore, despite many years of their co-existence, linguists have shown that their relations have always been skewed towards English as having linguistic dominance although it is spoken by a tiny minority in Botswana. 32 Linguists have also warned about the implications of English linguistic dominance in Botswana, and how it negatively affects

Setswana.33As Ngugi argues in Decolonizing the Mind "Language, any language has a

32 In Botswana, as in many other sub-Saharan African countries, English, ex-colonial language has been allocated the role as the official language and the language of education. The Report on the National Council on Education (NCE) (1993) considered the language question and decided “in favour of the introduction of the use of English [and not Setswana] as the medium of instruction from standard 1 by 2000”. It was later amended to: “English should be used as a medium of instruction from standard 2 by year 2002 (Basimodi 145, Akindele 4). Furthermore, Nkosana also observes that English is given an elevated status when he writes that, “Proficiency in English expands one’s frontiers” (Nkosana 129). 33 For example, historical research shows the extent of cultural erosion and denigration that is a result of colonial legacy: “Setswana and English are the two school languages, complementing each other but also inevitably in competition. This competition continues to increase in what can be seen as an indication of Setswana losing ground to English. Basic skills in Setswana are taken for granted, and there are no awards for exceptional proficiency. Therefore, school students tend to work very hard on their English, but they often neglect their Setswana ”(Anderson and Janson 27).

242

dual function, it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture"(13), and this phenomenon is shown by how much it takes for a translator to learn about the source culture so as to integrate Setswana concepts effectively into the narrative translated into

English. In addition, the reason for this ambiguity is due the fact that Setswana and

English are not mutually intelligible languages as compared to other languages spoken in

Botswana, and in the region.

To further deconstruct the sentences above, sentence (1) presents us with

Matjila’s translation, where he makes an attempt to explain and elaborate the translation in the context of his thematic essay. The sentences (2) and (3) reveal a mistranslation especially if the translation is understood from a cultural perspective by a translator who wants to ensure the translation adequately "carries the Setswana culture," and therefore, decolonial in its approach. This translation allows for other possibilities of translations suggesting alternative meanings that do not necessarily fit the description of the narrative of the novel that the author based on a well-known oral narrative from Setswana storytelling. Viewed from the point of view that emphasizes the differences in the storytelling techniques, it is clear that the analysis of a translation reveals an essential fact that Setswana storytelling code differs considerably with that of the English culture in terms of aesthetics and other features, and this is revealed through engaging an analytical study of the literary translations. Understandably, Matjila’s work was only engaging the translation to write a critical essay, and therefore, did he did not have the motives that a literary translator and critic may have. Furthermore, the focus of his criticism is not on 243

the subject of translation, but he uses it only to achieve the objective of his paper, which was to argue how another Motswana novelist, Leetile Raditladi, influenced other

Batswana writers through his writings. Pheto is counted among the Setswana writers whose work was influenced by Raditladi’s writing in Matjila’s view. The current study shares Matjila’s view on how writers tend to translate one another, and it approaches it from the perspective of translation studies using decolonized methods. This translational relationship of Setswana texts by Botswana novelists is viewed as a way of engaging in textual repatriation of cultural productions written by Botswana authors. Unlike most colonial translatiors, who privileged and praised the imposition and integration of the

European literary tradition in Setswana literature, Matjila makes an earnest effort that provides a detailed explanation of his translation by drawing directly from the narrative:

Pheto’s analogy foregrounds the story of Botswana’s social transformation. He

tells of a head louse’s conversation with a body louse. The head louse was

ashamed of her black color. She asked for advice on how to change her color to

red. The body louse advised its sibling to plunge into a tub of boiling water. The

head louse plunged into the boiling water and died. (Matjila 111)

The translation is interesting in many ways, especially when it is interpreted based on the cultural narrative from Setswana mythology associated with it. It emphasizes the fact that, without background and familiarity with Setswana oral tradition and the cultural meaning of the mythology oral narrative in the text, then the translation loses its intended meaning. Therefore, this translational occurance poses the problem of being interpreted 244

in a decontextualized fashion. Clearly, without this interpretation, the expression is bound to lose its cultural meaning and becomes irrelevant to any reader who is unfamiliar with the Setswana narrative. This phenomenon emphasizes the importance of producing culturally relevant forms of translation when dealing with any Setswana literary text.

Therefore, Matjila’s translation and interpretation can be analyzed based on the understanding of the narrative, and how it compares with the author’s use to reveal the dominant theme in the novel.

245

Figure 10 Tiroentle Bafana Pheto Source: Provided by the author

A close reading of the Setswana text, coupled with some preliminary discussions with the novelist before undertaking the translation, exposes the embedded cultural aspects that cultural translators and critics must first decode. Based on my analysis of Matjila's text, I 246

found out that although he is without doubt familiar with Setswana culture, and inspite of being a prolific Setswana writer, Matjila offers readers a problematic interpretation which appears to be extraordinarily oversimplified. Therefore, it fails to capture the intended cultural meaning, and poses significant theoretical problems, that can be further problematized by critics of translation in Setswana literature. This approach ignores and reduces the artistic value and vitality of Setswana literature by transposing its creativity to be legitimized, and attain contextual relevance, in another distinct culture. For example, Matjila’s interpretation of the text accrues a feminine gender marker to the narrative of a head louse, by suggesting that the head louse was ashamed of her black color although the Setswana text uses a gender-neutral expression. The Setswana narrative does not focus on a specific gender of its subject, but on revealing the major theme. However, in his work, Pheto briefly uses a phrase morwarrayo, which translates into son of, and therefore, it is unclear why Matjila’s translation uses feminine pronouns when interpreting the narrative in English. This mistranslation attracts some serious cultural implications, which I have attempted to rectify when translating the novel from

Setswana into English, to ensure that the translation does not decontextual the original expression. For example, beyond being interested in translating the meaning into English,

I also acknowledged the fact that the narrative develops based on a complex plot that uses tension, climax, characterization, imagery, and other cultural symbols that have relevance in the Setswana context. Therefore, I have attempted to suggest a solution after consultation with the author by offering a translation that pays close attention to the 247

theme of the novel. What follows is an excerpt from the Setswana novel followed by the translation that I did when translating the novel into English. To achieve a relevant translation, I closely followed examples of translations done in the history of Setswana literature, and other African literatures. Furthemore, I examined other problematic colonial literary translations that were designed to minoritize Setswana cultural content in the translated texts

In the following excerpt from Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo, novelist Tiroentle

Pheto gives his readers the background of the oral narrative that he uses as the title of his work:

Nta ya tlhogo e kile ya tsaya kgang le nta ya diaparo. Nta ya tlhogo e ne e

tlhabisiwa ditlhong ke bontshontsho jwa yone. Ya botsa nta ya tlhogo gore e ka

dira jang go nna tshetlha jaaka yone, gore e tle e re e nole madi, e kgone go nna

khibidu jaaka nta ya diaparo le jaaka sethunya go le selemo. Nta ya diaparo ya

gakolola morwaayo gore go botoka go tlhapa ka metsi a a molelo go kgobola

mmala o montsho. Nta ya diaparo ya bolela gape gore golo mo go tla e thusa fa

moriri o betswe gonne batho ga ba kitla ba e bona ka bontsho jwa yone. Nta ya

tlhogo ya ithabuetsa mo metsing a a belang go ikarapa. Ya swa, setlhodi sa swa.

Setshedi se se lekang go iphetolela mo popegong e badimo ba se e fileng, tsela ya

yone e nngwefela, leso. (Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo 101)

My English translation in Botlhodi: The Abomination (2019) attempts to follow closely the description that Pheto gives in his work. It includes all the specific cultural details 248

embedded in the text as a way of retaining the cultural meaning. Some of the cultural details deduced from the text include showing the belief of Batswana in Badimo (loosely translated into English as ancestors, and in some contexts as Gods) as their creators. It shows the possibilities of translating Setswana mythology into English without offending the sensibilities of Setswana oral tradition. It further shows that this is an oral narrative that explores a theme on the implications of colonialism in the identities of blackness and whiteness. The translation gives a different experience by avoiding presenting readers with a mere interpretation or an overly simplified version of the actual narrative,

A head louse once had a conversation with another one usually found on clothes.

The one in the head was ashamed of its blackness. It then asked the body louse

what it must do to look whiter like the body louse. It wanted to look like the body

louse especially after sucking blood so that it looks red like summer flowers. The

body louse suggested to the headlouse that it was better for him to quench himself

and bath in boiling water. That would in return remove its black color. Blindly the

head louse listened, and then jumped into boiling water, and then died. Any

creature that tries to transform itself from how ancestors[ or Badimo] created it

will die. (103)

In comparing the three texts by Pheto, Matjila and myself, several conclusions about the translations can be reached. First, that it is impossible to translate Setswana literature meaningfully without establishing a deeper understanding of the cultural contexts first.

Furthermore, it shows that a translator must be in a position to deduce the meaning from 249

the cultural expressions in the text—badimo,— and interrogate if they should be translated into English or not. Therefore, I have attempted in my translation to retain features of the novel such as its use of figurative language revealed through the extensive use of proverbs and idiomatic expressions, humor, aesthetic style, and form. In terms of form, the Setswana novel uses satire and word play, and simulteneously adopts a writing style that is translaterble to global contexts.

T. J. Pheto’s Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo is a unique postcolonial Setswana novel in the way it uses Setswana oral tradition to highlight themes on the politics of identity, social transformation, and the implications of British colonial cultural legacy in

Botswana. The novel communicates its central ideas by translating Setswana mythology as oral tradition into its narrative plot. It remains one of the few postcolonial Setswana novels written exclusively to expose the author’s contempt of colonialism but one that also chronicles local literary responses, resilience, and resistance of the British colonial cultural legacy in Botswana. In addition, the novel is written to address the local audience who may find themselves struggling with the complexities of identity in the wake of

European modernity. To have the first edition of its translation in English but not in the western literary aesthetic conventions is a significant step that allows for it to be shared globally across different cultures of diverse readership. This opens a platform for critical debates about Setswana literature, and around works that are written in the less researched African languages. 250

Pheto's writing is influenced by early postcolonial African novelists namely

Chinua Achebe and Ngugi wa Thiong’o, but his novel also shows that he borrows from a literary tradition used by English novelist George Orwell. In this regard, his style can be viewed as also translating and blending the western literary tradition. Therefore, he translates the styles used by earlier writers by way of replicating them effectively into the

Setswana text. Throughout Pheto’s narrative Setswana cultural narratives are carefully translated and documented using a canon that was established by elite postcolonial writers and satirists. For example, Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo compares very well with

Ngugi’s A Grain of Wheat and Achebe’s Things Fall Apart in terms of plot, characterization, and theme in addition to the stylistic features. As I will show, the formulation of the title, the characters, form and the major themes of these works share many similarities than differences. The only difference between these three texts is that one text is written in Setswana whereas the other two are written in English

(although Things Fall Apart is an exception as it has Setswana translation).

The remarkable textual similarities between Pheto’s Botlhodi (1985), and

Ngugi’s A Grain of Wheat (1967) reiterates that as a postcolonial novelist, Ngugi’s style of narration was higly influential in Setswana literature especially for Setswana novel.

Hence, Pheto successfully translates this aesthetic style of writing and integrates it into the Setswana text in the following manner:

We went to their church. Mubia, in white robes, opened the Bible. He said 'let us

kneel down and pray'. Mubia said: Let us shut our eyes. We did. You know his 251

remained open so that he could read the word. When we opened our eyes, our

land was gone and the sword of flames stood on guard. As for Mubia, he went on

reading the word, beseeching us to lay our treasures in heaven where no moth

would corrupt them. But he laid his on earth, our earth. (Ngugi 15)

In the Setswana text, Pheto creates a narrative with a similar structure and content that delineates the same thematic content. He writes that,

Motho-mosweu o tsile mo go rona ka maime. Kare o tsile mo go rona ka maime.

O nkutlwe sentle. O tsile ka maime a: Lwantlha o tsile a bua ka kagiso le botsala

mo go rona. Ra mo amogela re ithaya re re o a feta mme o tshwerwe ke tlala. Ra

mha dijo, fa a sena go ja mpa e tuka molelo, a ntsha Baebele. Mo Baebeleng a re

bolelela ka ga Modimo le ngwana wa one wa mosimane yo o ka dirang gore

bogobe jo bo mo maragong a mogopo bo kokomoge bo jewe ke batho botlhe ba

ba mo Molepolole.(Pheto 100)

In my translation of Pheto’s work, I to show this translational phenomenon in the way it makes the two texts comparable:

A white man came to us with some tricks. Yes indeed, he came with deceit. Listen

to me properly. First when he came he was preaching peace and friendship to us.

We welcomed him warmly thinking that he was just hungry and passing by. We

gave him some food and after he finished eating, his belly filled, he took out the

Bible. From the Bible he told us about God and his son who was capable of 252

making all the porridge in this basin to raise and feed all the people living in

Molepolole. (The Abomination 101)

However, other features of the text show the similarities in the text, and that Pheto was preoccupied with effectively translating the style that Ngugi used when writing A Grain of Wheat. These aspects include similarities in the way both texts use proverbs by way of intertextualizing them from oral tradition. Furthermore, in the way Pheto transcreates

Ngugi’s text, he also strengthns the Setswana version through exaggeration and pun that resonates with Setswana humor. A similar narrative is also found in Chinua Achebe’s

Things Fall Apart.

This form of translation demonstrates that as a novelist writing in Setswana—as a linguistically marginalized language— Pheto wanted to deliniate postcolonial themes espoused and perfected by prominent African writers elsewhere. It also shows that he wanted to produce a text for his people, and show them how traditional Setswana way of life is their true identity, and not the one imposed by the imperial pursuits.

The existence of this translational phenomenon suggests something complex about translation in Setswana literature as a practice that goes beyond the confines of written texts to the exclusion of oral texts. In so doing, Setswana literature and its acceptance of decolonial methods of translation challenges the often recurring misconceptions that limits an understanding of translation practice to the written texts only by showing that oral tradition is at the center of written forms of literature. Pheto’s ability to translate the intangible and nonwritten aspects of a postcolonial canon, and 253

present them to the readership as a Setswana novel, illustrate the complex nature of translation practice, and how it navigates its positionality in the context of Setswana literature.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm also influences Pheto's writing because of the way he translates some unique features of the text, such as simplicity in the writing style, and the storytelling code. Pheto adopts a similar style throughout his narrative, and several examples drawn from the novel affirm his abilities to use external style of narration beyond postcolonial texts. However, it is understandable why Pheto is influenced by the simplistic style of narration used in George Orwell’s work. This is because it compares with the one commonly used in Setswana folktales, as part of storytelling tradition in

Setswana culture. The structure of the Setswana folktales often centers around animals, which are personified and used to reveal important themes in the narrative. George

Orwel’s Animal Farm utilizes a similar style of narration, which is presented as written literature as compared to Setswana literature where folktales constitute an essential part of oral literature. How Pheto uses animals to tell a story within a story demonstrates that he is not only engaged in translating Orwell, but he also capitalizes in intertexualizing his work in the sense that his animal stories tend to follow carefully the constructions adopted by Orwell. The use of animal characters in the storyline develop themes of resistance and revolution that are also highlighted by Orwell in his Animal Farm. The following examples drawn from the translation of Pheto’s work can be used to reiterate this observation, and each example considered is followed by an analysis that 254

contextualizes and highlights these as essential examples of cultural translations. For example, to emphasize the theme of identity, Pheto translates the following story, which shares similar features with the one used in George Orwell's satire,

Once upon a time an evangelist man went to the bush and preached to all animals.

Most of the animals were converted and they dedicated their lives to the lord. He

continued: the pig, cow and the goat too were converted, and they dedicated their

lives to upholding the law. The evangelist was very happy for the conversion of

these animals so he gave them a special attire which the animals would wear at

heaven. It would have been a true testimony that the animals would have given

their lives to the lord. Three well-fitting suits were tailored by the evangelist for

each one of these animals. The material that was used for the outfit was very

expensive, and they were tailored very beautifully. This is the evidence that you

are followers of the Lord, and you must take a very good care for these clothes.

The evangelist instructed the animals who replied by saying, ‘we will take good

care of them pastor’. The evangelist then left the animals and went away. Just

before he passed through the nearby river, the goat got bitten by a fly. Instantly it

ran and rubbed against a motlhakola tree. Upon realizing that rubbing against the

tree did not yield any results, it bleated and rubbed itself desperately against an

uneven wall. The suit was left torn apart and worn out. Since it was very hot, the

suit that the pig wore made the situation worse. It advanced toward the pond

where it desperately swam in the mud. There were tadpoles and algae in the pond 255

that had just began to dry. So, the mud was still very wet when the pig smeared

the suit with the mud. After the mud had dried on the suit, it looked torn and worn

out. It was the cow only that took care of the outfit. Upon arrival the evangelist

was extremely discouraged by the behavior of the goat and the pig. He demanded

to know why the goat and the pig could not do as the cow did. In response, the pig

went back to the mud, whereas the goat rushed to the wall once more. The two

confessed that it was a very difficult thing to disown their culture. They even

asserted that the new religion was not for animals at all. (Botlhodi: The

Abomination 21-2)

There are many ways that the above excerpt from Pheto’s novel can be interpreted especially if we focus on how the novelist manages to translate Geroge Owell’s style and adapt it to a Setswana text. The animal characters that Pheto created give the text some elements of a satire, which compares with George Owell’s work. It is also very clear that in using the style of George Orwell in Animal Farm, Pheto ensured that he used the examples that are relatable within the context of the Setswana culture, while at the same time achieving the objective of giving his readers a text that satirizes social and political institutions in colonial Botswana. The excerpt from Botlhodi (2019) also compares in many ways in terms of structure, form and thematic focus with the one found in Animal

Farm, which opens with all animals in the farm revolting against their master. For example, first the pastor in Pheto’s novel compares with Mr. Jones who is the farm owner in Animal Farm. Second, the animals in both texts seem have similar actions of revolting 256

against their master, and to actually agree on the pioneering their liberation. The two texts, although written from a perspective of different cultural backgrounds, develop similar themes and share elements of satire, humor and irony. I argue that these textual occurrences are not a mere coincidence, but a true demonstration that Pheto’s writing is in conversation with another writer from a different literary tradition. However, his engagement with Orwell is aimed at empowering Setswana literature, and not to suppress it as it has always been the custom with other forms of translations. As a postcolonial writer, or a Setswana novelist who is influenced by other postcolonial writers, it is understandable why Pheto would admire the writing style adopted by George Orwell, and not necessarily by other influential writers of Orwell's time. Arguably, although Pheto manages to translate the style used by Owel, his approach is very selective. For example, he blends the narration style in a way that is consistant with how

Setswana folktales are told. These folktales use satire and irony to elevate their thematic content, and the approach portrays Pheto as a culturally responsive novelist and translator who incorporates into his narrative styles that have been preferred by other influencial writers. I found this to be a very important decolonizing factor in translation when I translated Pheto’s work from Setswana into English.

Conclusion

Very little written postcolonial Setswana literature is translated into English and other African languages, and this chapter has attempted to analyze the existing literary translations by focusing exclusively on written Setswana literature. It is interesting to 257

note that, some of the existing translations in Setswana literature draw from the earlier forms of writings by those counted as the pioneers of the first literary responses to colonialism in Botswana, and in other parts of Africa. Based on a critical analysis of the literary translations in Setswana literature, we can see how these translations reveal a lot about the written Setswana literature when approached with a critical analysis. The critical analysis reveals that some traditional methods commonly accepted, and widely used by translators are not applicable in the context of Setswana literature. Therefore, their use or application in Setswana literary contexts is irrelevant, and require to be decolonized. This is because in Botswana, literary production draws from oral tradition as the basis of its creativity, but some translations have overlooked this fact or neglected to intergrate oral tradition into written texts. Therefore, capitalising in adequate translation of oral tradition demystifies the imposition of traditional prescritive methods of translation, and calls for their replacement with the decolonial methods. This undertaking is cognizant of the fact that, the Latin based literary creations that now represent written forms of Setswana literature, cannot holistically describe translation practice in Setswana literature.

By analyzing specific examples and drawing from the exisiting cultural translations, the chapter argued for the intergration of culturally relevant translations in

Setswana literature. It has also shown that through the use of the experimental translations, translation practice in Setswana literature accounts for the growth and expansion of the Setswana postcolonial literatures and films. The chapter has also shown 258

how Setswana literature is continually transformed by translation practice. Therefore, decolonization of translation methods in the postcolonial Setswana literature is important in combating the challenges and complexities of cultural translation. Clearly, it is very important to study translation in relationship to cultures, and in the context of postcolonial Setswana literature because the area of study has been subjected to many years of marginalization by the western literary canons. Production of the culturally relevant translations opens new platforms for Setswana literature, in the way it maps it in global contexts, where the literature can be read and critiqued. It is also one of the ways of repatriating and preserving Setswana culture.

The chapter has also highlighted the negative implications of imposing technques such as domestication, rationalization and clarification in Setswana cultural translations.

Selected texts from the elite postcolonial writings were considered, and utilitzed as guiding translational frameworks for the experimental translations that were considered in the chapter. Such translated Setswana literature depicts the importance of culturally relevant translations, and shows how we can use them to improve the quality of future translations in Setswana literature. This is called repatriative transcreations, which is a conceptual term used by Shole to describe types of translations that draw from their cultural contexts even though they are not written in their indigeneous African languages.

The interventions from various critics such as Thedi, Ngugi and Gikandi have responded to the translation question suggesting specific measures that can be taken to decolonize translations practice. Their way of theorizing was applied to Setswana literary 259

texts to show that the uncritical acceptance of the imposition of the mainstream understanding of translation in marginalized literatures is detrimental to their potential growth. Today it is even more important to be worried about the dearth of criticism in the translation of the oral texts in postcolonial African cultural productions. This is because the literatures associated with these texts have come to a point of near extinction.

Therefore, deploying the decolonial translation strategies and techniques to translate written postcolonial Setswana literature is very important. In addition, it is especially important when the decolonial methods of translation aim to repatriate the cultural innuedos of a text. It also requires openness and constant engagement with the texts that translate to open avenues for availing the revised editions of the translated works, which will take into consideration the translations of other aspects of the literature, such as the orality. The following chapter focuses on how verbal and visual arts have been translated in the context of Setswana literature and film.

260

Chapter 4: Critical Analysis of Verbal/Oral Arts and Botswana Films in Translation

Introduction

This section makes a critical analysis of local drama and film productions based on the premise that the principle of orality, which is an important part of literature in

Botswana has also translated into new mediums of documentation and preservation. For example, the film productions that I will analyze in the context of translation are available on the internet and were produced by local film producers in Botswana. Just like the novels, I will be analyzing these in terms of language use, style and contextual or cultural relevance. Specifically, the two local film productions that I will focus on as objects of my study are O Bone o Ja Sereto (2012) and Beauty (2009). I will analyze the oral tradition that has been documented through Setswana film and that show how the adaptation of Setswana oral tradition into cinema can be viewed as a form of cultural translation. This section will also respond to some key questions that are central to my dissertation; such as why it is important to understand translation in relation to orature—a defining feature that draws from both visual and performing culture.

An Overview of Postcolonial Setswana Film, Verbal Arts and Translational

Dynamics

Verbal Arts—or arts expressed and shared intergenerationally by word of mouth and through performance—in Setswana cultural productions have not been satisfactorily 261

studied, especially in the context of translation practice of postcolonial cultural texts.34

However, critic Harold Scheub observes that “There is an unbroken continuity in African verbal art, from interacting oral genres to such [written] literary productions such as the novel and poetry” to underscore the resilience of oral tradition despite and a paucity of research in the area (1).35 This neglect by scholars exists even though the verbal arts, which draw from Setswana oral tradition as they constitute a vital part of oral literature, are continually translated into film adaptations by filmmakers from Botswana. This notion of adapting oral tradition of Setswana culture is what gives Setswana film its distinct identity as opposed to some existing cinematic translations about Botswana that translate Setswana cultural narratives from an outsider’s perspective. The reasons for this

34 The use of the conceptual term verbal art in the dissertation is applied synonymously with oral literature to describe the artistic practice that is deeply embedded in oral tradition of the people of Botswana (denoted in this study as Batswana). In other words, verbal art refers to non written literature that primarily uses oral expression to disserminate important cultural messages across generations. In this sense, Setswana praise poetry, or poko, uses speech and sound (whistling, ululation, horn-blowing), which reiterates that the principle of oralily in this sense, goes beyond the use of speech only, but also includes other related verbal artistic practice. Batswana, like most African societies, use verbal artistry as part of the collective consciousness of the people of Botswana, and in expressing cultural identity. Although in the Setswana literary history written forms of literature that use a Latin based alphabet is a by-product of modernist literary genre, oral tradition continually translates and adapts into the written genre. The verbal arts or oral literature such as poetry, song and dance are passed on as oral tradition from one generation to next in different versions (including in their translated form) and renderings. Even though Setswana oral tradition dates back to the earliest stage of human history, it continues to be used as an important cultural practice of the Batswana in modern times. 35 In his 1974 essay “Verbal Art as Performance” critic and folklorist Richard Bauman redefines ‘verbal art as performance’ and adopts a description that synonymously uses the terms oral narratives, ritual speech and performance to mean the same thing. Furthermore, his study acknowledges that, generally disciplines that study the verbal arts such as in anthropology, linguistics, and literary criticism offer their own distinctive perspective regarding the verbal, arts, and therefore, indicate a range of new perspectives in the field (290). Hence, in this dissertation, I depart from a critical literary conceptualization of verbal art in translation that exisits within (and beyond) the scope of African languages. However, Bauman’s insights on the subject are very key to developing my broad conceptualization of verbal art, particlulary when he rightly postulates that “the terms ‘verbal art’ and ‘oral literature’ provide a better frame of reference . . . than the more diffuse and problematic term ‘folklore’ [which others oral tradition from a western viewpoint]”(290-1). 262

lack of extensive study remains a political speculation, but most critics agree that the colonial cultural legacy sought to displace the oral traditions of the Botswana by replacing it with cultural aesthetics that reflect western thought and perspective.

Translation practice was among the weapons deployed and used reliably by westerners to undermine the wealth of cultural heritage in the oral arts. This cultural dispossession, especially in translated religious literature, viewed oral cultural traditions of the Tswana as heathen. For example, the nativized or domesticated form of the word heathen in

Setswana translates to moheitane and despite being a foreign concept in Setswana culture, it has been in circulation since the 1840s when European missionaries started visiting Botswana. Christian missionaries used the term moheitane in the sermons and teachings to denote Setswana oral lore in a negative manner. Furthermore, theology of translated Biblical Setswana texts asserts that “the translation process was an attempt by the translators to shackle Tswana Modimo and to demonize Badimo”(Dube 149). The two examples—Modimo and Badimo— of mistranslated cultural concepts of Setswana tradition constitute an important part of Setswana oral tradition, therefore their lack of adequate translation yielded a problematic conceptualization of the culture.

The complex translational dimension of oral tradition does not necessarily always involve a translation of the written texts, but it also emphasizes the translation of the non- tangible oral art that occupies a central role of the Setswana film. In cases where these arts are expressed in their written form as transcripts, they are sometimes used as subtitles in Setswana film. The current study considers such cultural translations from a critical 263

perspective. If compared with written Setswana literature (particularly dramatic literatures), which translates but has not been adapted to film, the translation of the verbal arts of the Setswana canon fares much better , as most local film productions in Botswana tend to incorporate and design their storylines on Setswana oral narratives. Since the first

Setswana novel Marothodi was published, no work of has been translated or adapted into film until my recent contribution The Abomination. For instance, it is typical for filmmakers working with Setswana film to use proverbs or commonly used imagery with symbolic cultural meaning drawn from oral tradition to develop plot. The portrayal of these tendencies to easily adapt to screenplay reinforces the fact that the verbal arts are dynamic, and therefore, their translations into the film as a medium of cultural production challenge a preconceived notion of these arts as a prehistoric art that has never succumbed to change.

Viewed from a holistic perspective of literary translations as adaptations, translation practice in postcolonial Botswana film encompasses adaptations of oral narratives into cinematic translations. Typically, in this kind of translation, a migration of cultural texts occurs from one medium to another. Furthermore, because film is a foreign genre in Botswana cultural contexts, and that there are existing films about Botswana produced by western filmmakers, significant attempts by outsiders to translate Botswana cultural narratives for the western audiences have been visible. Therefore, several films can be studied comparatively with the local productions in Setswana language, and 264

understanding how both categories of films approach the translation question with various agendas and ideologies is of particular interest to this study.

The translation of verbal arts in Botswana is further revealed by the efforts of anthropologists such as Isaac Schapera, who preoccupied himself with translating praise poetry of the Tswana chiefs from Setswana into English. Shcapera was regarded as one of the leading anthropologists among the Batswana whom he studied and translated, and most of his publications including cultural translations are considered authoritative texts on Botswana culture. His seminal work of translation, Praise Poems of Tswana

Chiefs (1965) has been generally accepted uncritically among the literary critics, even though it is filled with translational errors that make it impossible to envision the

Setswana oral poetry within the context of performance as verbal art. Schapera’s translations were actual transcriptions derived directly from their oral forms into written

Setswana literature using a Latin orthography. Through their transcriptions and representation as written literature, they were presented outside their traditional cultural context in many ways. First the written form did not capture aspects of dramatic ritualistic performances and theatrical elements. His footnotes and annotations do not provide information that provides details about the visual or physical appearance of the poets in terms of constume and performance objects but focuses instead on formal correspondence. Secondly, Shapera ignores vital features of verbal artistic expression in

Setswana oral tradition such as whistling (molodi) and ululation (moduduetso) and excludes them in the his translations. If viewed as written Setswana literature, the English 265

translations tend to appropriate and assimilate meanings in Setswana text, and therefore they are not easily adaptable to film as English translations because the non-verbal cultural aesthetics that accompany the oral forms have been omitted and compromised in the translation.

The praise poems that Schapera translated constitute Setswana verbal art represented as written literature that resembles a free verse lyric poem of the English canon. In terms of description, these praise poems are defined based on the following features. First, tone, stress speed during recitation is important for emphasis or expressing mood. Second, the association of Setswana oral poetry with dramatic performance shows that they also function within the space of visual artistic space. Therefore, translating them from Setswana into written form in English reduces them to written literature that imitates a foreign canon. As translations, they also defy their perfomative cultural context—which Schapera could have accounted for as a translator. The translations represent them as written literatures expressed using a distinct writing system and cultural semeotics. They are presented outside their traditional cultural context, and they do not only translate the words, but also the western canon of writing.

Schapera’s translation of the verbal arts of Setswana oral literature, which co- exists with the performative and visual culture demonstrates that he was very limited as a cultural translator and an outsider who had interest in understanding Setswana verbal arts.

Therefore, his translations reflected an outsider’s perspective because of the way they tend to overlook some significant cultural material that must be adequately translated to 266

retain the cultural meaning. There are many ways to identify his limitations as a translator, but I focus on analyzing the two primary ones, namely, his ideological bias and lack of attention to specificity in terms of how Setswana poetry uses cultural images and symbols for specific purposes—that account for problematic translations. To rectify the inherent translation problems in his work, Schapera uses many annotations and footnotes excessively as an attempt to explain and transcode complex cultural concepts embedded in Setswana culture. However, this style or approach to translation cannot be viewed as an attempt to decolonize the translation practice of Setswana literature, because as an anthropologist, Schapera was concerned with preparing a text for an

English audience and not for the Batswana, who at the time were under British colonial rule. He also uses a formal approach of translation in re-expressing Setswana imagery and symbolism in English delimits his capabilities as a translator to the methods used and applied by missionaries. Therefore, the aims of his translations did not emphasize the vitality of Setswana literature by highlighting its sophistication in terms of its aesthetics but to present it as the ‘other’ literary form. His translations of Setswana praise poetry into English emphasize the linguistic binaries and portray English as a dominant language. This observation is corroborated by a series of his mistranslations, which reflect ideologies that that were foreigh to Setswana culture. Hence, it is understandable why some of his translations repeatedly misread and misinterpret some cultural referents and imagery with intricate symbolic meaning in the context of Setswana culture. 267

These examples indicate the need for a more extensive approach and technique when translating oral literature in Setswana culture and the failure to adequately translate the cultural meaning embedded in these texts results in texts that decontextualize

Setswana oral narratives. Oral literatures in Botswana exist in the space of visual and performing culture and, due to this co-existence, their translations it into any languages not mutually intelligible with Setswana present some limitations. The translations decontextualize the Setswana cultural narratives through textual assimilation and appropriation of meaning. Therefore, I will start by briefly analyzing selected Setswana literary translations by Schapera, and conclude by analyzing selected Setswana film texts from local filmmakers as examples of cultural adaptation or cinematic translation. The reason for the choice of the verbal arts and their translations is that they are closely related to visual culture and therefore constitute an important aspect of Setswana film.

Setswana Verbal Arts in Translation

Language use

The translation of praise poems from Setswana into English by Isaac Schapera reflects various aspects of Setswana ethos and how it was appropriated and assimilated in

English literary translations. A comparative analysis of the two languages demonstrates that despite an attempt by the translator to be elaborate translated material using descriptions, these are only for purposes of emphasizing the difference between Setswana and English. The aim of the translator is not to highlight the aesthetic literary sophistication in Setswana verbal arts or to show awareness of the historically complex 268

history of the two languages in question. The following examples reiterate my argument by showing how the English translations of Setswana verbal art were very limited; therefore, to compensate for such limitations the translator resorted to assimilations and appropriation of the Setswana texts. Obviously, this translation approach ignored the aesthetic principles that guided Setswana oral praise poetry, and as a translator, Schapera shows no effort to decolonize the text by repatriating the cultural concepts in the English translation. The table below show excerpts of translations from both the Setswana and

English texts, and they are positioned in a way that makes comparison of both Setswana and English literary translator easier:

269

Table 2 Schapera's Translations of Setswana Oral Poetry.

Excerpts from the Poem (Transcription Schapera’s Translations (with from the oral source) their corresponding entities from Setswana) 1. Thebe e phatshwa ya marumo A black and white shield 2. Go ile tshwaana, go ile tilotsana The white cow is gone and the white spotted one 3. Tau tshetlha ya ga marutla letsogo e The tawny lion tears off an arm//The etshetlha ya ga mafafola serope tawny one also rends a thigh 4. Ramalebanya o thebe tshwaana, o The wise one is a little white shield// thebetshweu monna makuka a ga he is a white shield junior of Kgafela Kgafela’s Makuka 5. Ke yone thebe e phatshwa ya gaabo It is the black and white shield of Mmakgosi, e phatshwa ya gaabo Mmakgosi’s brother// the white and Mosadithebe black one of mosadiathebe’s brother 6. Kgodumo e tlhabang e naka di The roarer that pokes with incurved makoro horns 7. Phologolo ya Botlhapatlou Fawn-colored beast of tuba//Khunou ya Metsemotlhaba Botlhapatlou// red-ox of Metsemotlhaba river 8. Kgomo kgwana e mo There is a white cow in the Mathubantweng//tlogang lo eme lo e Mathubantwa// Get up and tie its kaye// Kgomo e padile ka mekao legs//the cow refused leg ties in the sakeng// Phatshwane e megala mene kraal// the black and white cow with white thongs 9. Tshunyana e thudile mahula- The white faced cow butted the phofu//Khunwana ra bona e kata eland shooters//the red one we saw Moanaphoti trample on moana photi 10. Kgomo e tsaletse nageng A chestnut cow calved in the tubana//tshetlhana ya ga MmaKhama veld//the yellow cow of Khama and Sekgoma

As depicted in the above excerpts from the praise poems and their translations, the complexity of translating Setswana praise poetry into English is revealed in a way that 270

shows considerable differences between Setswana and English. We can analyze these linguistic differences further to show how such translational differences affect the aesthetic structure of Setswana poems and suppress their embedded cultural meanings.

Based on these significant differences, I have concluded that Schapera’s translations are limited in the way they tend to obscure the cultural meaning embedded in the source texts, and therefore his translations should be revisited with a careful methodological approach aimed at decolonizing the translations.

The above excerpts from the praise poems and their translations can be compared and analyzed in terms of language use, style, and contextual relevance to reveal the extent to which the translator deployed methodologies that were culturally limited and therefore ineffective. Beyond the translational limitations of oral literature in the Setswana canon, the critical analysis of the translations also reveal that the Setswana verbal texts are highly descriptive forms of artistic expression and have a different rhyming pattern and style commonly used in English poetry. However, attempts have been made by some local writers to impose the English literary aesthetic into written Setswana poetry, but the outcomes of the translations have resulted in awkward combinations that betray the cultural innuendos of the artforms. The English translations in Schapera’s work appropriate the color references used in Setswana oral poetry even though it is an essential characteristic of the poem’s rich vocabulary and imagery in any Setswana text.

In addition, the literary translations of oral poetry reduce the literary forms into the written form but ignores the fact that these arts are verbally expressed and accompanied 271

by other untranslatable heritage such as the extensive use of whistling and ululation as accompanying forms of art.

Style

Schapera’s translation offers an elaborate explanation and clarification than the actual artform as a literary translation that adapts the poem outside the context of its cultural milieu, where it uses a caller-response approach. This approach has some implications in the sense that the praise poems in question do not only lose their cultural meaning and symbolic imagery due to oversimplification or appropriation but also lose their rhythm and structure considering that they are designed to be rendered orally in the context of a cultural performance. In terms of how they are performed, these poems show a distinct stylistic feature, which emphasize that they are not designed to be preserved as written literature without the accompaniment of other related arts. This phenomenon emphasizes the fact that Setswana literature is communal in nature and therefore it does not discriminate based on an individual’s knowledge of the Latin alphabet or mastery of the meter. The translation technique used in this particular context is seen as a tool of acculturation because of the way it assimilates and imposes references that are relevant to the context of English literature and not favoring Setswana verbal literature. The extensive use of explanations and clarifications in the footnotes can be viewed in postcolonial understanding as an attempt of ennoblement or rationalization of Setswana texts to make it receivable to the western audience who may judge it based on their established cultural canons. In the process of making such judgements, the translator 272

employs reductionist methods that are significantly annotated and thus diminish the cultural role of the verbal artistry of the Setswana culture. Regarding the cultural texts, especially the oral texts that can be negatively affected by translation practice, textual anthropologist Karin Barber warns in her essay “The Constitution of Oral Texts” that

Text is differently constituted in different social and historical contexts: what a

text is considered to be, how it is considered to have meaning, varies from one

culture to another. We need to ask what kinds of interpretation texts are set up to

expect, and how they are considered to enter the lives of those who produce,

receive and transmit them. (67)

Barber’s assertion is applies to the description of social and historical contexts of

Setswana literary translations since missionary times to Schapera. Beginning with the first missionary translations in the late eitheenth century to Schapera’s 1965 translations, exisiting literary translations corroborate Barber’s view. Schapera’s approach to the translations reveals lack of familiarity with the sensitive nature of Setswana verbal arts, especially in cases where they are translated into English from their original aesthetic form.

Contextual Relevance

Isaac Schapera’s translations are problematic because they foreignize Setswana verbal arts by mistranslating color references for the western audience. Therefore, his translations of Setswana oral poetry decontextualize the praise poems which are an old tradition among the Batswana. Such poems, even today, are passed on as part of oral 273

tradition intergenerationally yet the way they have been document as English translation defy their thematic content. Furthermore, the poems exists in the context of performance and co-exist with other art forms defined by Setswana culture and as translations they lack that vitality. Furthermore, Schapera’s translations and annotations portray tendencies of the translator to translate and describe oral literature in Botswana from an outsider’s perspective and experience and not on the basis of the mastery of Setswana culture. This is depicted in the way his translations utilize expressions that create ambiguities and awkward syntactical combinations that do not resonate with Setswana culture and its poetics. For example, Schapera translates phatshwa as “black and white”, khunou as “red fox”, khunwana as “the red one”, makoro as “incurved horns”, tilotsana as “white- spotted one”. The inaccurate use of these expressions in their translated form is problematic, as they are mere attempts to interpret and describe complex cultural concepts that should be closely studied and understood within the context of Setswana culture. Schapera does not show familiarity about how the expression of color in terms of precision and specificity is important to the aesthetics of Setswana poetry and style.

Therefore, his translations of Setswana verbal art are simplified descriptions of the colors and do not necessarily pay attention to the embedded cultural complexities of Setswana as a source language.

In the process of oversimplification, not only is contextual meaning lost but also the style and elegance of the poem in the source text are tampered with. For example, it is unusual within the context of Setswana culture to describe the color of a cow as red or 274

yellow, which Schapera does without account for it. The methodological approach he uses to translate Setswana oral poetry therefore insinuates that there are “red and yellow cows” in Botswana which is something that is far from being realistic. The use of the color terms he uses to describe animals in Setswana culture is only limited to for use in some objects and food, and results in weird constructions if used to describe animals.

This particular theoretical problem of translation emanates from the fact that as a translator, Schapera did not use the Setswana oral tradition as the philosophical base of his translation but focused on articulating the description of the praise poems of the

Batswana from his specialization as an anthropologist. This example shows that in the

Setswana cultural context specificity and precision when expressing color is very important, which Schapera seems to have overlooked in favor of the English translations.

Therefore, Schapera’s translations reveal a gap of inconsitencyies, and reflect that his interpretations of Setswana culture is ideologically constructed. This translational misconception attracts negative implications and interpretations of Setswana literature in many ways. Critics of Setswana traditional literature may arrive at wrong interpretations and conclusions based on Schapera’s mistranslation of color terms into English. The basis of Setswana script and oral tradition is clear about the names that it accrues to color terms that also have cultural significance and symbolism which are somehow buried in the English translation. For example, the color references are used as an essential part of the literary aesthetic of the verbal artistry in Botswana, something that eludes Schapera’s translations. Schapera becomes a bemused spectator of the cultural text that he does not 275

have a deep command of its tradition, and therefore his focus as an anthropologist aimfully targets the presentation of the verbal arts in the written form in a decontextualized manner.

The translation of Setswana oral literature by colonial translators reflects ideological bias towards not only the western literary aesthetic but also on its existing theories that were initially designed to further marginalize minority literatures. Therefore such texts do not empower the Setswana cultural narratives because they are not tools for advocating for cultural independence based on Setswana epistemological orientations.

Schapera’s literary translations of Setswana praise poetry—as an example of verbal art—draw from the Darwinist ideological assumptions and not necessarily from

Setswana oral tradition. His translational approach therefore compares with the one adopted by colonial missionaries and differs considerably with methods of translation adopted by local translators discussed in the previous chapter. This is because Schapera’s way of translating alters the cultural meaning of the source text in his quest to make the

English translations of Setswana oral poetry more readerble and perceptible to his readers. He achieves that by translating Setswana cultural values and ideologies outside their cultural context and uses foreign ideologies to legitimize the Setswana texts he translates. For example, in the praise poem of Kgosi Isang of Bakgatla, the totem of the

Bakgatla kgabo (monkey) is translated as “ape”, which misconstrues the cultural conception of a kgabo as a revered animal among the Bakgatla. Schapera’s translation ignores the cultural imagery embedded in the oral poem and its contextual usage of kgabo 276

by reducing it to a problematic Darwinist conceptualization. In addition, apes are associated with negative connotations in western cultures—Schapera’s target audience.

Working as a cultural translator, Schapera deliberately ignores the history of the derogatory use of “apes” to describe ‘blacks’ or its use as a racial slur in the western world. It is unclear why Schapera preferred to use an expression that substantially digresses from the implied cultural meaning of the poem. As a social anthropologist, familiarity with the concept of totemism—a well respected tradition among the Tswana people—was highly expected from Schapera.36

In Setswana traditions, the importance of totemism is clearly seen in its continuous use in oral praise poems to describe Tswana Kings. In other ethnicities such as the Bakwena, Bangwato and Balete, praise poets use, respectively, kwena (crocodile), photi (duiker), nare (buffallo) as totems to refer to the Tswana Kings. However, the translation that Schapera provides, differs considerably in meaning with the one found in the verbal texts, and the reason for that is because it is intended for a western readership.

In addition, the translation demonstrates that Schapera had an agenda that did not aim to disseminate the correct image of Setswana culture but to represent it in a way that appealed to western aesthetic sensibilities. Hence, Schapera’s 1965 translation of Kgosi

36 On the subject of totemism see Paul Rantao’s Setswana Culture and Tradition, where he defines the concept based on its cultural context in Botswana. Rantao argues that “one of the Tswana customs that have remained intact is that of totems (direto). Among all communities a totem is a traditionally effective way of identifying the ethnicity and historical roots of a person. [I]n the absence of written historical records, the totems may themselves provide an explanation of the ancestral history of a given community”(29). This assertion by Rantao emphasizes the cultural significance of totems in Setswana culture. Due to their connection with historical events, their use in Setswana oral poetry is symbolic and convey meaning on the nature of aesthetics of Setswana poetics of oral tradition. 277

Isang is just a textual representation that delineates his ideologies and misguided views about the verbal arts in Setswana language. To show that the totem always accompanies a poetic narrative that draws from oral tradition, Rantao underscores that,

animals mostly targeted for totems are those with special character traits such as

the crocodile, adored for its bravery, slyness and viciousness. Those whose totem

is a crocodile accordingly enjoy a psychological feeling of being feared by other

groups. (29)

Rantao also writes about the cultural significance of other totems such as photi, or the duiker, which oral tradition teaches that

the duiker saved Khama’s ancestor from eminent death. . . . Legend and history

have it that the Batswapong’s adoption of mmutla, or hare as their totem arises

from a historical event associated with the Matebele attacks against the

Sotho/Tswana speaking people and other tribal communities. The hare is a

common protagonist and starring in most Tswana folktales, fables, fiction and

poetry. (29-33)

Rantao further observes that

In the life of Batswana, totems play a very important social function. . . The other

major function of Tswana totems is in the realm of praise poetry. In praising a

person, a group of people or an entire ethnic community, reference to their totem

is very common among all communities. Almost all the time when praising the

kgosi [which Schapera mistranslated as chief and not King] or some prominent 278

figure within a community, reference to their totem is a must [. . .] Totems mainly

associated with land and water animals feature predominantly in folk stories,

poetry, signs and symbols of various communities up to this day. (29)

Based on the above assertions, we can deduce two important attributes of verbal arts as clarified by Rantao: first, the verbal narratives serve a specific communal function among the Tswana people; second, they constitute an important part of the aesthetics of

Setswana praise poetry. Therefore, Schapera’s translation of kgabo as “ape” was just an abstraction that did not have any cultural significance and justification within Setswana oral tradition. In other words, through this particular translation, clearly Schapera was not interpreting Setswana oral narratives based on their cultural and historical context.

The following translations are excerpts drawn from Kgosi Isang and another one from Kgosi Molefi Molefe. They reveal the translation problems in Schapera’s work and highlight that his decontextualized use of “apes” in reference to the Bakgatla totems reflected his ideology or ignorance towards the poetics of totems as a cultural tradition among the Batswana. Yet Schapera is often praised to have studied Tswana cultural groups extensively.

279

Table 3

Schapera's English Translations of "Kgosi Isang" in Praise Poems of Tswana Chiefs

(1965 102-11).

English Translation based on Setswana Setswana transcription transcription/translation from the oral source The Ape springs with it into action, Kgabo e tlola kayona marumong, he springs with it into line of battle e tlola kayona moleng wa ntwa

When I the Ape, Tlhabane’s brother, grew up Mokgatla wa gaaboBana le Tlhabane The Ape, brother of Bana ba Tlhabane Kgabo ga keagola aboTlhabane, When I grew up I surpassed other people nna ga keagola ka feta batho

The Ape springs with it into action Kgabo e tlola kayona marumong, he springs with it into the battle e tlola kayona moleng wa ntwa

280

Table 4

Schapera's 1965 English Translations of "Kgosi Molefe" in Praise Poems of Tswana

Chiefs (61-5).

English Translation based on Setswana Setswana transcription transcription/translation from the oral source The black and white war shield, the Thebe ephatshwa ya marumo, Tester,(line 10-11) Seleki Motshwane has come, the avenger of the Ape (line 49) O fitlhile Motshwane a mabusolosa a kgabo

And when the women of Molekwa’s weep, Mme ere e lla tshadi ya ga their voices they direct this way Molekwa, they direct them to Magong, to Motshwane mantswe a bona a lebile kwano to the Avenger of the Ape (51-52) baalebisa kwaMagong, Motshwane, go mabusolosa a kgabo.

People kept lifting up tiny tots Ga nna ga tsholediwa dirathana, and saying take confort child bare, ngwana, gomola, Motshwane has come, the avenger of the ofitlhile, Motshwane ape (line 49) aMabusolosa akgabo

I should have said I’m the storied one Nkabe ke rile keRradibolelo, the man beloved of the praises, Motshwane Yo o ratilweng ke diphoko (sic), the assembler of the Apes (55-57) Motshwane waRrammileng akgabo

Schapera’s persistent misleading word choice or diction in the translations of the Kgosi

Isang and Kgosi Molefe poems is unaccounted for.

The use of ‘ape’ in the translation to denote kgabo as a totem of the Bakgatla ethnic group in Botswana has ridden it off of its cultural significance. In Kgosi Molefe, the mistranslation is repeated four times, along with other mistranslations—such as 281

reference to kgosi as chief and appropriation of color references phatshwa and tilodi— that were stipulated earlier. Even when Schapera attempts to provide an explanation for his choice of ‘ape,’ he buries it in a footnote,

The ape: Mokgatla, the word here used is the singular of Bakgatla, and is often applied as a term of respect to any member of the tribe, especially the chief, but the word kgatla is also a synonym of kgabo. . . ‘the ape totemists,’ the Mmanaana-Kgatla whose totem is the ape. (f. 108, 134)

This idea of burying a culturally significant concept in a footnote must not escape the attention of critics of postcolonial translations in Setswana. It could be interpreted and problematized in the following way: It exposes Schapera’s epistemological negligience vis a vis Setswana culture to appeal to the western theoretical tradition. Furthermore, it demonstrates that Schapera subtly deemphasizes the importance of Setswana conceptualizations. Schapera’s explanation affirms that he was biased as a translator, and that he sought to impose a Eurocentric view of translations on Setswana praise poetry.

Clearly, this misleading information about totemism in the Setswana tradition is revealed through a critical assesment of the translations provided by Schapera that have been accepted uncritically as authoritative texts. The critical assesment in this dissertation emphasizes the complexities of translating or adapting oral tradition into a language that does not share the cultural background with Setswana. Furthermore, As a social anthropologist, it would be expected that Isaac Shapera was familiar with the culture of

Batswana, which included learning its language and understanding its cultural dynamics. 282

However a critical evaluation of his translations demonstrates bias towards his reductionist view of Botswana literature, as examples from the verbal arts affirm. They show the same pattern and continuity with the colonial missionary translations that did not translate Setswana mythology without first prioritizing the doctrines of the Christian faith and censoring Setswana cultural content.

The critical evaluation reveals a desire of the colonial translator to represent oral written Setswana praise poetry in a way that imitates and regurgitates the English tradition and canon. This canonization is achieved without a rigorous consideration of

Setswana tradition and aesthetic standards as the philosophical basis of the narrative. In doing so, this critical evaluation suggests that such cultural translations ignore and belittle the importance of drawing from Setswana oral tradition and its aesthetics. In undermining Setswana aesthetics, the English canon is placed at the center and is used as a reference or aesthetic standard. However, this study intervenes to suggest that a way of decolonizing exisiting forms of cultural translations is empowering Setswana narratives by producing culturally relevant and responsive narratives instead of reproducing paternalistic narratives using translation. The translation loses its intermediary and interventional objective when it overlooks the central role of the Setswana oral tradition and its aesthetics. It collapses the possibilities of considering Setswana literature as literature in its own right with equal vitality to other language groups. At the cost of getting a final substandard English translated text—a domesticated, rationalized and 283

foreignized Setswana text—the translator rids it off of its original epistemological composition of the cultural elements.

In Wilfred Vandamme’s critical essay, “African Verbal Arts and the Study of

African Visual Aesthetics” he puts emphasis on the necessities of translating oral tradition. Vandamme posits that the complex aesthetic structure of verbal arts in African literature should be approached with careful attention particularly when the translator is unfamiliar with the background of the source culture. Vandamme further argues that translators undertaking such forms of translations should be culturally equipped and prepared to conceptualize the cultural imagery and symbolism before they can translate.

He writes that,

only those who have had the first-hand experience of [the African Cultures] can

pick up clues offered by these statements [in the various forms of oral tradition

that usually contain deep artistic and aesthetic insights which reflect the prevalent

principles and canons of criticism, evaluation, creativity, etc] and delve further

into their meaning . . . It is indeed true that forms of oral tradition that may be

quite cryptic to a cultural outsider frequently need to be contextualized on several

levels before their actual significance for understanding aesthetic views is

revealed to the analyst. (10)

Clearly, the contextualization of these translated narratives require more robust effort and an advanced methodology that understands the importance of decolonization as an important factor in the translation practice. However, it is understandable that Schapera is 284

an anthropologist who studied Setswana oral arts, and therefore, much of his work, though widely disseminated was simply ethnographic translations that sought to compare

Setswana literature with European mainstream literary traditions. Because of the association of the oral arts with Setswana culture, some of these expressions cannot translate meaningfully into English. Hence their use in the untranslated form is essential to keep the embedded meaning of the cultural references.

The examples drawn from the exisiting translations of oral literature into written forms emphasize how extensive verbal arts in Setswana literature are, especially when understood through the frameworks of postcolonial translation theory. First, the translations—regardless of the fact that they have been mistranslated—have opened a new platform for translation and Setswana literary studies. It also allows possibilties for researchers to negotiate solutions of decolonizing the traditional methods of translation that were previously applied to Setswana verbal arts. In point of fact, although these texts were mistranslations and problematic textual representations of Setswana oral literature in its written form, they can be used effectively as case studies to decolonize translation practice. This approach to translation allows for a critical comparison with earlier translations that were conducted from an outsider’s perspective with the ones that attempt the new decolonial and experimental methods of translation.

Second, after a close study of Schapera’s translations, it is apparent that if argued in lieu with the theories of postcolonial translation, anthropological translations of the

1960s in Botswana assumed that translation practice was a new phenomenon to Setswana 285

literature. They also viewed it as a civilizational development for Botswana as it was carried using the colonial writing system and required one to have literacy of Latin alphabet. They wrongly thought they were improving literacy of the people of Botswana who were regarded as illitrate. Translation, as it was assumed with the “introduction of the writing based on Latin alphabet”, was perceived to be a measure or a form of literacy as it was implemented in a writing system that differed from the indigeneous Setswana script.37

Translated verbal arts in the Setswana literature portray a very elaborate, yet misunderstood, and complex history of translation practice. Similar to the written

Setswana literature, oral literature was translated during various time periods by translators who had different agendas. Apart from the anthropological translations of the verbal arts, some of the translators include filmmakers who represent a distinct category of Setswana cultural translations. This category includes filmmakers from Botswana who focused in the adaptation of Setswana oral tradition into visual images as film. Therefore, their contributions to translation of Setswana cultural narratives are equally important, and can be studied comparatively with the existing western films about Botswana. In

37 Researchers show that, “in 1910 white missionaries from all the South African churches met to develop and standardize the [Setswana] orthography so that it could be used in printing of a new Bible translation” (Molema 77). Therefore, the initial standardization of Setswana was not for cultural productions but for purposes of spreading Christianity. Furthermore, the standardization of Setswana was done by missionaries and not Batswana, which explains the prevalence of translational problems in Setswana cultural texts. Another study shows that locals were ironically not invited to participate in the standardization of Setswana othorgraphy, but the resilient writer Sol Plaatje invited himself and contributed some publications including the translations of Shakespeare into Setswana (Ndana 2005 qtd. in Pooe 54-7). Therefore, the initial motives of deducing a Latin based Setswana orthography by missionaries was entirely for purposes of translating the Bible into Setswana, and not for its use in literary production. 286

terms of developing their storyline, their content derives from extrapolation and translation of the Setswana historican and cultural narratives.

The local productions by the Botswana filmmakers are analyzed in terms of their language use, style, and contextual relevance as primary data that reveals how Setswana oral tradition was documented through film using translation practice. Like written literary translations, these films portray some similarities in terms of how they adapt

Setswana oral narratives as cinematic representation. After a close examination and analysis of the translation practice in Setswana film, I concluded that the way Setswana film translates oral tradition and Setswana culture differs significantly from films by the western filmmakers. As a cultural translation, Setswana film follows the precedence set by elite postcolonial African filmmakers—their films translate oral tradition for positive portrayal of the African (Setswana) cultural espitemologies. On the contrary, Botswana film productions that have origins in the western countries portray a different agenda as cultural translations because of how they favor the western market and reinforce ideological assumptions about Botswana traditions. In terms of how they translate and interprete Setswana cultural narratives they compare with the missionary and anthropological translations of the Bible and other literatures.

Setswana Film as a Translational and Cultural Production

An analysis of the oral textual productions considered in this chapter reveals that translation is an essential aspect of postcolonial Setswana films because of the way it draws heavily from the oral, visual and performing culture. In other words, oral tradition 287

is a defining and basic aspect of Setswana cinema, and local films use it to communicate cultural messages by drawing from, and adapting the storytelling oral traditions into film as a medium of persuasion. Hence, the complexity of Setswana film is similarly impressive as its literature because of the composition of its cinematography, which capitalizes on translating its core cultural elements. In addition, a critical analysis of selected films produced by local filmmakers in Botswana reveals this fact of resilience of

Setswana film even though such films have remained marginalized by western films about Botswana.

In terms of criticism, local film productions in Botswana remains overlooked by critics who only focus on the films that gain popularity in western countries despite the fact that they achieve publicity through the mistranslation of Setswana cultural narratives.

The traditional translation methods that are used to achieve these cinematic translations are the appropriation and assimilation of Setswana cultural material, which defies the aesthetics of Setswana film but uphold the western cultural sensibilities. As a result,

Setswana film and translation practice in Botswana is facing the challenge of colonial cultural influences and impositions that make it invisible. While western productions about Botswana are not necessarily primary objects of my study, I use them occasionally to make comparisons with the local productions primarily because of how they depict interesting parallels with the earlier forms of translations in Setswana literature. 288

Translation, Adaptation, and Contextualization of Setswana Idioms in O Bone o Ja

Sereto (2012)

The postcolonial Setswana film O bone o Ja Sereto (2013) by Joel Keitimule and

Cathy D depicts a translational relationship of oral tradition and film. Therefore, as a cinematic translation, it should be analyzed and interrogated for its extensive use of oral, verbal, and dramatic arts as translations and adaptations.

O Bone o Ja Sereto (2012) is a Setswana film by Joel Keitumele and Cathy D that tells a story of an unemployed, orphaned youth, Thato, who is left with nothing except a few goats inherited from his parents. After a bitter exchange with his sister, he looks for employment at Raleru’s compound but later falls in love with and impregnates Raleru’s daughter. He is fired from his job by the incensed Raleru and ends up struggling again, but this time with Neo, his pregnant lover. While this complex plot unfolds, Raleru’s grandchild is kidnapped and becomes a victim of ritual murder, which devastates the whole family. The mystery of the missing child is met by the good news that Raleru’s first daughter is getting married to a wealthy man. This wealthy man is the one who kidnapped the child and later went to seek fortune from a Sangoma. At the end, Raleru is devastated to learn that all the weath from his son-in-law came because one of his grand children was sacrified. He realizes his mistake and sees that accepting the ill-gotten wealth from his son in law was like an act of consuming his own totem. Thato finally finds a job as a banker, and their life change dramatically. The film highights themes of unemployment, tradition versus modernity and ritual murder as postcolonial challenges in 289

Botswana. Its narrative is exclusively in Setswana language. The film’s cinematography such as the mise en scene and other aspects of suggets that Setswana film show other nonlinguistic ways of transltion. For example, the shots show characters who live in both the village and urban areas wich allows viewers to draw some parallels.

The title O Bone o Ja Sereto translates into English as “Beware, You are

Consuming a Totem,” and in its contextual usage it is both a caution and a historical lesson about how totems are viewed among the Batswana people as discussed earlier. In

Setswana culture it is a taboo to consume the meat of an animal that is your totem—but in the context of the film the meaning is extended to apply to the film narrative where a man out of greed unknowingly becomes an accomplice in his son-in-law’s illgotten wealth. Therefore, through its ability to explore the film narrative using oral tradition, the film not only reiterates the validity of Setswana oral tradition, but also makes a statement on the dispossestion and repossession of Setswana culture and identity. The filmmaker creates characters who break the traditional codes of conduct in their quest to attain and accumulate wealth.

The film is contingent on Botswana’s rural and urban cultural contexts, and it compares with films produced by influential postcolonial filmmakers from other parts of

Africa, especially west Africa. For example, it shows similarities in terms of the thematic content, aesthetic and stylistic features with the works of Idrissa Ouedreago, Ousmane

Sembéne, and Gaston Kaboré in terms as a postcolonial cinematic translation. Therefore, just as the aesthetic writing style of the elite postcolonial writers influenced novelists 290

from Botswana, there is continuity in maintaining the same pattern with Setswana film particularly how it translates Setswana cultural narratives as the nucleus of its storyline. It successfully draws an oral narrative from Setswana oral tradition and presents it in such a way that it is commensurate with the socio-political issues in contemporary postcolonial

Botswana.

For example, while Sembéne dealt with translating the concept of xala or sexual importance, Keitumele and Cathy D’s O Bone o Ja Sereto explores the similar subject of infertility. Another similarity is portrayed by how African people often consult traditional practitioners for healing rituals. In the film, one sequence shows a woman who is married fears losing her husband due to boopa or infertility, and therefore ends up consulting with a ngaka or a traditional healer. In xala, the same thing happens to the character who wants to heal his condition and similarly consults with a traditional healer. This similariry is viewed as an example of a cultural translation—translation of aesthetics of postcolonial film—occurring between two ideologically conjoined types of African language films.

Furthermore, the translational similarities occurring in Setswana and Wolof films emphazise that the cultural style adopted by postcolonial filmmakers translates and influences marginalized filmmakers unknown globally but relevant in their cultural communities. The similarities are not just a mere concidence, but illustrate a translational phenomenon that cuts across most postcolonial literary and film texts.

Another translational commonality occurring between postcolonial Setswana film and other Africa films is revealed through its use extensive of Setswana, and on the 291

exploration of similar themes or subject matter. O bone o Ja Sereto uses Setswana as the main language and without accompanying subtitles, which localizes the film and limits its accessibility to Setswana speakers only. However, the exclusion of subtitles is interesting to the study, as it is an exercise that would have required a balanced decolonial translation approach of film storyline to delineate the intended cultural message (in the subtitles) without altering it. Hence, the film bases its entire narrative plot in an idiomatic expression with a cultural meaning in Setswana language. The use of oral tradition in this way corroborates the argument about the didactic function of oral literature, and the extent to which it is dynamic or changes over time.

The film has shots and sequences showing the use of bongaka jwa setso, or traditional medicinal practice, where the actor who assumes the role of a diviner uses praise poetry or verbal art as part of the divination process. In these sections, the mise en scene is designed by the filmmaker to fit the cultural context of Setswana traditional medicinal practice. These aspects of the Setswana tradition are depicted in the film as a normal way of the lives of the ordinary Batswana and show a contrast with the colonial translations of the film storylines, which emphasized were either dismissive or streotyping. One of the contrasting features is that colonial films used English as the primary language while the local productions use Setswana. The use of English in the western films about Botswana require a translation of cultural stories from Botswana before they can be adapted into the film narrative as vidual images. However, because of these translations are undertaken by from the point of view of westerners—who are 292

predominately filmmakers without background in cultural translation—their works are often limited in many ways. They tend to push the agenda of a western point of view and in the process exclude the people who are familiar with Setswana culture. Exisiting films about Botswana reiterate this translational gap, which can only be rectified through the application of decolonial methods of translation.

The similarity in the thematic content tackled throughout the film portrays tendencies to translate that resonate with postcolonial themes explored by filmmakers in other parts of Africa. The film gives a compelling commentary on the postcolonial and post-independence political situation of Botswana in its use of folkloric aspects of

Setswana culture, such as proverbs and popular stories. On the contrary, in films about

Botswana this important part of the Setswana oral tradition is ignored and replaced with problematic adaptations and images. For example, the title of the film, O Bone o Ja

Sereto derives from a proverbial expression in Setswana literature represented in the film as visual images, and in a way that appeals to the local aesthetic sensibilities due to its cultural relevance. My analysis compares these films with other films about Botswana that were produced by western filmmakers such as A United Kingdom (2016) and other documentaries. The reason for such a comparison is to show that even when it comes to films, the error of misrepresenting non-western cultures remains a big challenge in most western films due to the inability of outsiders to appreciate and translate the cultural intricacies of nonwestern cultures. Cultural adaptations of this nature are an important aspect of the growth of postcolonial Setswana film, as they allow for possibilities for 293

these narratives to be readapted and translated into other mediums beyond film. For example, the film storyline can be translated into a full length and elaborate Setswana novel that can be read to complement film as a cultural production in Botswana.

As a postcolonial Setswana film, O Bone o ja Sereto shows the possibility of translating the oral narrative of Setswana literature without compromising the embedded cultural meaning. In fact, this attribute is what gives the film its identity as Setswana film because of the way it centers around the well known expression in Setswana culture. In the film, when Raleru realizes what he has done—that he committed the unthinkable act of accepting blood money from his son-in-law—he immediately proclaims,

Ijoo! ke jele sereto/Ijoo! I have consumed a totem

Ke jele sereto ke jele ngwanake/I have eaten a totem, I ate my child

Ngwanaka ke jele sereto/My child I have consumed a totem

Mma Raleru, ke jele ngwana/Mma Raleru I have consumed a child

Ke jele ngwana wa rona/ I have eaten our child. (O Bone o Ja Sereto)

This is a proclamation of guilt, by the actor, Raleru, who expresses his emotion using an oral narrative that has cultural significance within the context of Setswana culture. As already argued, it is taboo in Setswana culture to consume an animal considered to be an individual’s totem, therefore the effective use of this verbal art reminds us of important aspects of the Setswana tradition. The translation of the oral narrative into English does not do justice to it because we first have to deconstruct the ambiguity embedded in the text. Setswana language extensively uses ambiguity and indirect language to 294

communicate messages depending on the context, which means one expression or phrase can be used to mean different things. In this sense, a proverbial meaning of ‘consuming a totem’ refers to all specific circumstances that have led to ‘the ritual murder of Raleru’s grandchild’.

Its proverbial expression is further used to reiterate the themes of greed and

Setswana tradition versus change. To deconstruct this ambiguity and the problems it poses for those who attempt to translate the film without a decolonial approach, the two expressions repeatedly used in the film “ke jele sereto” and “ke jele ngwana” could change meaning depending on cultural context. For example, in Setswana, go ja ngwana is an expression that is sometimes used to express happiness when someone’s daughter is married. It aligns with the Setswana tradition of dowry or magadi, where a man who marries is required by tradition to pay the bride’s family a certain number of cattle. Therefore, consuming these cattle and using them for other family functions is likened to ‘eating one’s own daughter’ in a metaphoric sense. This is not the meaning that depicted in the film, the filmmaker manipulates and adapts the embedded aspects of

Setswana oral tradition such that it suitably translates to themes divulged in the film. This proverbial expression is an important part of the film narrative, and therefore, its decolonial translation into English requires a translator with a deep command of the language and an understanding of how the Setswana tradition functions. 295

Translation, Adaptation and Contextualization of Setswana Culture in Beauty

(2013)

Fenny Lekolwane’s Beauty (2013) is another film production in Setswana by a local filmmaker from Botswana, and its two distinctive features are that it uses Setswana as the primary language and translates Setswana culture. However, the use of English in the film is only for purposes of reiterating how the ‘illiterate’ or ‘uneducated’ actors struggle to use English for survival, and the filmmaker mocks that stuggle. In doing so, the film narrative aligns to postcolonial conceptualizations that define African cinema.

Therefore, like most of the African language films, it translates and adapts some cultural components from oral tradition from Setswana cultural context into visuals.

The Setswana film Beauty (2013) explores an interesting plot through the character of a young woman called Beauty. Beauty’s actions are used by the filmmaker to reveal some of the social problems that the modern nation of Botswana continues to grapple with. The film can be viewed as a call to reflect on the postcolonial condition of post-indepence Botswana. The film explores themes of colonial mimicry, and the enduring legacy of colonialism among key themes considered. In its manner of interrogation, it also emphasizes the construction of postcolonial identities in Botswana and how they are revealed through several factors. These include how the film narrative exposes social clashes between English and Setswana languages. It also shows the implications of British cultural dispossesion and education in Setswana language, and a devaluation of Setswana culture through linguistic mimicry. For example, the 296

construction of the title of the film, Beauty, is suggestive of the acceptance or adoption of the European naming practices, and the defacing of Setswana names. The name Beauty in

Setswana translates to Bontle—a commonly used Setswana name—and the filmmaker’s decision to use the English name emphasizes the dispossesion of naming practices of

Setswana tradition. Throughout the film, Beauty is depicted as a character who takes pride in a flashy lifestyle, and who also tries unsuccessfully to twang her English to sound like that of a native speaker. The humor created through these incidents considered in the film narrative is designed to disseminate postcolonial themes to its viewers, which paralells the work of filmmakers from other parts of Africa.

Through its use of Setswana language and by capitalizing on drawing from local cultural context, the film documents aspects of Setswana oral traditions that were historically passed from one generation to the next by word of mouth. Therefore, it reiterates the dynamic attribute of Setswana oral tradition in the way it is translated and adapted using cinema as a medium. An appreciation of these cultural translations establishes Setswana film as an area that has a perculiar cinematography, which shares a degree of similarities with exisiting postcolonial films productions.

The film explores the culture of code-switching between the two languages of

Setswana and English as a reality in Botswana, and how that poses communication barrier for native speakers of Setswana who are forced to use English for survival. To archive this, the two actors, Banki and Marea are represented as struggling to express themeselves in English—they are fluent Setswana speakers—yet, they love being told by 297

their boss, Sir Bernad, that their English language has improved. The film also explores other social issues such as youth unemployment that have affected young people.

Furthermore, Beauty translates themes that are relative to Botswana postcolonial context, and this makes it an important contribution by indigeneous filmmakers who interprete the lives and cultures of Botswana from a local perspective. In contrast with most other existing films about Botswana, it does not approach its narrative through the lense of an outsider’s point of view. It compares with most other postcolonial films produced in other parts of Africa that comment on themes that reiterate the implications of the colonial cultural legacy and the condition of the post independence politics in modern Botswana. Therefore, the filmmaker continues a common trend that does not only translates the aesthetic style but also the thematic composition of the postcolonial

African film.

The dialogue of the film translates to various forms of cultural expressions that currently occupy an important position of public discourse among the Batswana. The reason it effectively communicates cultural discourses of Botswana is due to its ability to translate the verbal culture in a way that aptly describes its Botswana cultural context. Its approach of translating the cultural millieu surpases the dialogue deduced by western film adaptations which reveal limitations when it comes to understanding Botswana culture.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that critics have warned that such films continually portray tendencies of misinterpreting Botswana context. Translation is one of the basic detectors that exposes discrepencies that reflect the western view of Botswana. 298

Anderson and Cloete’s critical essay “Fixing the Guilt: Detective Fiction and The

No.1 Ladies Detective Agency Series” makes a compelling argument of the problematic way British writer Alexander McCall Smith depicts Botswana. Anderson and Cloete conclude that,

Structurally, Mma Ramotswe’s cases are presented as short stories interwoven

with one “heart of darkness” tale that needs to be resolved by the end of each

novel—the so-called Serpent in the modern African Eden. For instance, in the

first book of the series, a finger of a child is found in the glove compartment of an

influential person’s car, and Mma Ramotswe immediately makes a connection

with a village child that has mysteriously disappeared—probably into the dry,

marginal lands edging the Kalahari desert. The traditional muti murder feeds into

notions of Africa’s heart of darkness – witchcraft. (136)

The reflection of the western images of Botswana as ‘the other’ are not emphasized but problematized in local productions. Clearly, films such as Beauty and O

Bone o Ja Sereto develop narratives that a relevant to Botswana cultural context, that reflects the postcolonial realities. On the contrary, through translation practice western productions develop decontecualized narratives.

Claire Counihan’s essay “Detecting Outside History in The No.1 Ladies Detective

Agency” problematizes how McCall Smith misreprents Botswana’s image for western popular discourse through idealization and ethnographic realism. Counihan argues that

“the movie depicts the “real” Botswana as incompatible with modernity. Drawing its 299

vocabulary from National Geographic, the movie's “salvage ethnography” preserves

Botswana’s “traditional” state close to nature, while the portrayal of Mma Ramotswe insists on the African subject as alternately fumbling and comic. This vision is a product of the film’s inability to reconcile “Africa” with the twenty-first century”(101).38

Conclusion

The chapter concludes that the analysis of Setswana verbal arts, oral literatures, and films in the context of translation practice is a challenging yet important undertaking that shows the complexities of how Setswana culture translates. The challenges tend to prevail even more depending on underlying forces of a cultural translation—such as when the languages involved in the translation are not mutually intelligible with

Setswana language and culture, and the aims and priorities of the translator are already biased both theoretically and culturally. Setswana films considered in this chapter show that they draw their narratives from the oral tradition to be culturally relevant, which is further adapted into cinematic images by filmmakers. This chapter has shown that there is a strong translational relationship between Setswana oral literature and Setswana film. It has also demonstrated that depending on the agenda of the translators of the film

38 The African Studies talk that I presented during the Africa at Ohio symposium titled “A Postcolonial Reading of A United Kingdom (2016)” identified how the film misreads the political history and culture of Botswana, yet it has established itself as an authoritative text. I noted that, the film, in its lack of adequately translating narratives from Botswana reinforces streotypes, and de-emphasizes the detrimental effects of colonialism in Botswana. My subsequent publication of the film review in The Weekend Post “problematizes the film on the basis of the following: its lack of relevance to Botswana in representing the historical legacy of the country’s nation building amidst the reality of colonialism. Further, in the way it intentionally contorts and interprets cultural values of Batswana, it lacks sensitivity and attention to time. [The film] reiterates a decontextualized account of how the Bangwato speak Setswana.”(9 April 2018) 300

narratives, the style, language use, and contextual relevance cinematic translations differ.

Furthermore, there exisiting Setswana cinema demonstrates a portrayal of similarities with postcolonial African films. For example, that filmmakers from Botswana are doing a similar work done by filmmakers who come from other parts of Africa, especially when we look at aspects of language use and in aligning the storyline to the cultural context of

Botswana audiences. Therefore, just as in the area of creative writing in the Setswana language, where writers translate the writing style of earlier postcolonial novelists, filmmakers from Botswana do the same thing but in their medium. However, their work remains ignored by critics and researchers of film who prefer to focus in western film productions in the English language, and in the process ignore Setswana cinema. The situation depics literary critics in Botswana who predominatly focus on critiquing literatures from Botswana written in English and overlook works written in Setswana language.

The chapter has shown that local filmmakers in Botswana constantly negotiate ways to decolonize translation methods in the postcolonial Setswana films through their ability to adapt the verbal arts into visual images. They demonstate that the verbal arts draw from Setswana oral tradition and it is translatable and applicable to postcolonial cinematic contexts. This unique form of translation practice, performed by individuals who are unconsciously engaged in cultural productions that decolonizes the translation practice in Setswana literatures and films, is benefial to the preservation and vitality of the Setswana oral tradition. Furthermore, these translated films reiterate the fact that 301

verbal arts and oral literature are dynamic cultural elements poised to change and adapt to time bound themes. This is contrary to the earlier attempts aimed at suppressing the potential development of the oral arts through cultural mistranslations that were only meant for comparing Setswana literatures with the western literatures, thus highlighting the superiority of the latter. Therefore, Setswana literature and film reveal the complexities of translation practice but, also provide an enriched platform to show how these complexities can be adequately rectified in a way that reestablishes Setswana cultural canons as the center and not the periphery.

Studying translation practice in relation to Botswana films as postcolonial cultural productions is a new territory that has not been explored by critics and reseachers, despite the fact that translation has played a very instrumental role in developing Botswana’s repository of literature and film. In addition, most of the existing works of literature and films are actual translations that derive from Setswana oral history and oral narratives, and therefore, they reiterate the importance of translation practice in cultural productions from Botswana. Such a study ensures the implementation of adequate interventions aimed at ensuring the growth of Setswana literary and film arts. The benefit of producing culturally relevant translations in film is that cultural translations make interventions that correct inaccurate depictions or representations of Botswana by western filmmakers.

Furthermore, the decolonized translations help us develop new approaches and methods to effectively address the translation question especially where it concerns cultural productions such as in Setswana film where it is seldom addressed. Specifically, as the 302

analysis of the Setswana verbal arts and film in the context of translation have shown, some of the measures that can be taken entail first recognizing the need to decolonize literary and cinematic translation methods and practices. Second, it can be made possible by drawing comparisons with colonial cultural translations that undermined the vitality of

Setswana literary arts and oral traditions. An assessment of colonial malpractices in

Setswana literatures was that they were concerned with replacing Setswana literary arts with the foreign canons, which answers the question of why the dearth of criticism of translation of the oral texts in postcolonial African cultural productions such as Setswana should concern us today.

303

Conclusion

In conclusion, the dissertation has argued for the decolonization of translation practice as an essential cultural tool in the transformation of postcolonial African literatures and films focusing on Setswana language. It has established how the decolonized translation practice—achieved by rejecting prescriptive translation methods and experimentalizing using translations—is a suitable tool that can be used to achieve the empowerment or disempowerment of cultural texts. Historical evidence that draws from a variety of existing translations in postcolonial African literatures reiterates this claim and deduces that translation is a misunderstood concept yet it is an important aspect in our cultures.

The dissertation highlighted factors in translation practice that have led to the marginalization of postcolonial African literatures and films in Setswana language. These factors entail a heavy presence of translated material produced by colonial missionaries and anthropologists—its uncritical acceptance, and continued use to understand postcolonial cultural productions—that are viewed as authoritative texts of Setswana cultural productions by some critics. Their reductionist attitude towards the African oral and written literatures revealed through translation led to ideological impositions and manipulations found in most marginalized Setswana texts. The research has relied on the notion of applying decolonial translation methods to make interventions, and demonstrate the extent to which colonial translations performed by missionaries and anthropologists were problematic. They differed with the ones that followed after the interventions form 304

postcolonial critics and translators, which were highly influencial to other African novelists who wrote in African languages such as Setswana. The persistent use of cultural translations and resilience from writers helped in the expansion and direction of the

Setswana literature and its navigation into film practice. This form of resistance happened despite the aftermath of British colonial occupation in orchestrating linguistic and cultural suppression of Setswana literary traditions.

The translational interventions by postcolonial African writers favored African cultures as a new aesthetic of literary and cinematic productions used in the decolonial transformation of marginalized postcolonial African literatures. By theorizing using the postcolonial and translation conceptual orientations, such as Spivak's concept of translation as catachresis, and Shole’s idea of “repatriative transcreations,” the dissertation explored various ways of decolonizing translation practice in Setswana literature—such as experimentation, repatriating cultural content, identifying and problematizing translational gaps in colonial translations—in its quest to emphasize the need for revolutionalizing translation practice. It established a critical assessment of the conventional translation methods and practices, and considered other translated material that was never analyzed critically in the context of translation as culture. In doing so, the study demonstrated how to establish decolonization in cultural translations in postcolonial Setswana literature through experimentation—which involves the use of exisiting postcolonial texts as a blueprint or the basis of translations,—as opposed to heavy reliance on the western translation technique. 305

The conclusions that this study reaches based on a critical analysis of Setswana literary and film texts studied in this work indicate that: there is a paucity of research on translation studies in Setswana literature and cinema, and that existing translation practices in postcolonial written Setswana literatures has not yet permeated into strategic areas such as translation of theory and criticism. Therefore, the area remains marginalized, yet historical evidence shows, translation practice was always an essential part of Setswana oral and written literary traditions. Through translation experiments, the study demonstrates that translation remains one of the essential ways that can be used to transform the slanted growth of creative cultural productions in Setswana, especially in the areas of literature and film. Furthermore, the use of decolonial translation methods in generating criticism and theory in Setswana language is one way of preserving the indigeneous epistemologies and the future of these marginalized literatures. Currently, there is a large volume of criticism written on Botswana literature in English, and in some cases, criticisms of postcolonial Setswana novels exist in English, and not in Setswana.

For example, even though Things Fall Apart and When Rain Clouds Gather have

Setswana translations, Botswana critics have increasingly ignored translating criticisms into Setswana language. Therefore, in making interventions through the application of the decolonial methods of translation, these criticisms can be translated into Setswana as a way of empowering literary studies in the language.

Each one of the four chapters had a specific focus, and a collective aim of re- centering culture through decoloniality in the translations of postcolonial African 306

literatures and films. The first two chapters provided a critical historiography of translation practice in African literature and film, and argued that the history of translation practice in Africa predates the colonial period. It discussed the subject of translation practice from a broad historical timeframe in African literatures and films, reiterating how the use of translations in literary creativity for both the oral texts is not a new phenomenon in Africa. Furthermore, it dismissed problematic preconceived notions that suggest translation was ultimately a by-product of colonialism by showing how

African societies have always translated from their oral tradition. For example, in the case of the Ajami literatures, as researched by Fallou Ngom, the misconception about literary translations was challenged and dismissed as the Wolof speakers in Senegal and across West Africa decolonized Arabic script to spread their cultures. The slave narratives from Olaudah Equiano and others became a precedent for modern African literature in English, and a blueprint for the aesthetic writing style adopted by postcolonial writers through translation practice. In the Horn of Africa, translations were similarly used to preserve the oral and written literatures. The chapter also highlighted the role of the postcolonial African filmmakers in transforming African cinema by decolonizing its narrative. In fact, they were actively involved in translating and adapting the African cultural narratives into filmmaking, thereby transforming the identity of cinema in Africa. Through their efforts, their methods were closely imitated by filmmakers from other parts of Africa, such as in Botswana. 307

Chapter two narrowed down the subject by focusing on the history of translation concerning postcolonial Setswana literature and film. It argued that Setswana oral tradition and its indigenous script occupy a very central role in the way it has translated and adapted into modern written forms of Setswana literature. The history of precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial translation practices was revisited, and some significant differences in the translations of each historical period were noted. Based on this complex history of various types of translations, the study warned about the uncritical acceptance of literary translation practices that have been used to suppress Setswana literature since colonial times.

Chapter three analyzed texts that were primary objects of the study. This included translated material in the form of Setswana published novels and translated manuscripts. I also drew from the existing postcolonial writings that were not 'translations' in the usual sense of the word because they were never translated from a source text to a target language. However, such works are regarded as cultural translations because of the way they established a cultural esthetic precedent that was closely followed and hitherto translated by other postcolonial translators.

The final chapter discussed Setswana verbal/oral arts and film production in relation to translation practice and decolonization. Oral literature in the context of

Setswana culture entails the use of visual arts and performative aspects, which blend well into the film medium as translated cultural adaptations. However, the chapter has revealed the challenges that anthropologists faced in their attempt to translate Setswana 308

verbal arts from their oral traditions. Anthropologists such as Isaac Schapera were translating Setswana culture out of context, and therefore, their translations presented limitations and theoretical problems that were revisited in the current study. Translation practice also revealed that local filmmakers in Botswana utilize oral tradition extensively and borrow aesthetics from other filmmakers.

The analysis of Setswana literary and film texts studied in this research reiterates that indeed, translators, literary practitioners, and filmmakers in postcolonial Africa continually encounter challenges in their efforts to decolonize cultural productions through translation practice. As a result, this has led to further marginalization of literary translations from Southern Africa due to the dominance of the European languages spoken in the region that spread their colonial cultural aesthetics. In the process of doing so, they suppressed, silenced, or destabilized the cultural narratives and languages of the former colonies. Translation practice was among the tools that were used by anthropologists and missionaries to suppress and further marginalize the literatures of minority ethnic groups in most regions in Southern Africa, including Botswana. It was also used strategically to disseminate and implant colonial ideologies aimed at reducing

Setswana culture to an inferior entity, while portraying the European beliefs as conventions. These colonial translations were carried out by anthropologists who ‘sought to understand the African cultures,’ and by the missionaries whose agenda was to spread

Christianity. Therefore, the political contexts of literary translation practice during that time overlooked the application of suitable decolonial translational methods, despite their 309

debilitating effects on regional and ethnic literatures. Translations by social anthropologist Isaac Schapera, other Christian missionaries and commentators such as

David Livingstone, Robert Moffat, and A. Sandilandis who translated the Bible into

Setswana depicted colonial attitude in the way they suppressed Setswana literature by textual appropriation and assimilation even though they are read but not sufficiently problematized by critics. The religious translations, on the other hand, were designed to delineate content that vilified Setswana culture, although widely used and accepted uncritically by the African societies as critics of Biblical translations have reported.

Based on the sad reality that defines the history of translation practice in postcolonial

Africa, the task of decolonizing translated Southern African literatures in Setswana remains a challenging ‘nightmare’ to translators. In a point of fact, such works have been in circulation since the eighteenth century and are espoused by critics as authoritative texts of Setswana culture. There is also a lack of interest among scholars or critics because most tend to focus on African literature written in English. In doing so, they neglect important elements that can be used to stimulate the growth of literary creativity and criticism in African languages such as using translation practice.

In terms of limitations, the study focused exclusively on Setswana literature and film in translation but has not explored the subject beyond postcoloniality and translation practice. Due to its narrow focus, the discussion of African literatures and cinematic productions were exclusively based on cultural productions from Africa to the exclusion of black literary and diasporan studies. Future studies can focus on understanding the 310

complexities of the translation question in the context of polycentric and transnational black diasporic experience.

The dissertation makes the following recommendations: first, the translations of more works of Setswana literatures into and from other languages, especially the African languages is is of paramount importance. Second, decolonizing translation practice should not only be limited to creative productions, but should also be used to generate theory and criticism in languages such as Setswana. Third, a depository of translated and archived works of Setswana literatures and films is much needed to stimulate research on the subject of translation studies. Although there is a department of translation in

Botswana, it only focuses on the translation of official government documents from

Setswana into English and vice versa. Therefore, it is time that the department of translation changes its focus by incorporating the translation of cultural material, which extends to the creative literatures and their criticisms written by Batswana. Although most Setswana cultural productions are centered around postcolonial themes, literature in

Setswana is studied using formalist methods which come with limitations. Hence, literature and language education in Botswana can be empowered by translations of existing postcolonial creative works and their criticisms into Setswana. However, the current study recognizes the fact that there is ongoing work on translation that should be supported and applauded, such as Eileen Pooe’s work, which attempts to translate theoretical concepts and technical terms such as postcolonialism and deconstructivism theory—botswabokoloniale and tlharamololo—from English into Setswana. In this 311

regard, a full length dictionary or reference of literary concepts and terms in Setswana language is highly recommended, to document and monitor new contributions. The substantial support towards existing literary translation projects such as the

“Transcreations for Repatriation” project, which are designed to translate Europhone

Literatures written by Batswana into Setswana language is very crucial for ensuring continuity in decolonizing translation practice. Shole, who pioneers this translation project in South Africa, North West University reiterated that,

In the past, historical forces of colonialism and imperialism imposed European

languages on Africans as a medium of literary expression. This led to African

creative talent being lost to European languages and cultures, and denying African

languages the opportunity of serving the same purpose. In the end, it deprived

Africans of the pride and joy of reading works by African literary greats in their

own languages. (Northwest University Press Release 13 March 2019)

The study further recommends that, projects and departments mandated to execute their mission through translations, should be studied closely as case studies by researchers interested in the issues of translation as a cultural practice in postcolonial Africa. The importance of developing translation practice in the direction of decolonization for postcolonial African literatures and films should be overemphasized, especially in contexts like Botswana. 312

References

Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa”. Amherst, The Massachusetts Review 18.4, 1977,

pp 782-794.

Achebe, Chinua. Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays. London, Heinmen Education,

1988.

Achebe, Chinua. Morning Yet on Creation Day: Essays. Garden City, Anchor Press,

______1975.

Achebe, Chinua. Dilo di Masoke. Translated by D.P. Semakaleng Monyaise, Heineman

Southern Africa and Juta & Co, Ltd, 1991.

Alimi, Modupe M., and Mompoloki M. Bagwasi. “Aspects of Culture and Meaning in

Botswana English.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 44.2 (2009): 199-214.

Andersson, Muff, and Elsie Cloete. “Fixing the Guilt: Detective Fiction and The No. 1

Ladies’ Detective Agency Series.” Tydskrif vir Letterkunde, 43.2 ,2006, 123-140.

Armes, Roy. African Filmmaking: North and South of the Sahara. Bloomington, Indiana

University Press, 2006.

Armes, Roy. Third World Film Making and the West. Berkeley,University of California

Press, 1987.

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and

Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. London, New York, Routledge, 2003.

Attridge, Derek, and Rosemary Jolly, eds. Writing South Africa: Literature, Apartheid,

and Democracy, 1970-1995. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 313

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays.

Austin, University of Texas Press, 1981.

Bandia, Paul. Post-colonial Literatures and Translation. Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn :

Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.

Bandia, Paul. “Orality and Translation.” Translation Studies. Routledge, 2015, 8.2, 125–

127.

Basimolodi, O. M. “A Review of Botswana’s Language Lolicy in Education and its

Effects on Minority Languages and National Development.” Language and

Development in Southern Africa: Making the Right Choice, 2000, 143-158.

Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary

Translation. Vol. 11. Multilingual Matters, 1998.

Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi. Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice.

Routledge, 2012.

Bauman, Richard. Verbal Art as Performance. Prospect Heights, Waveland Press, 1984.

Bewes, Timothy. The Event of Postcolonial Shame. Princeton University Press, 2010.

Bertens, Hans. Literary Theory: The Basics. London and New York, Routledge, 2007.

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London and New York, Routledge, 2012.

Campbell, Alec and Tlou, Thomas. History of Botswana. Gaborone, McMillan Botswana,

1984.

Collins, Georgina. Feasibility Study: Literary Translation and Creative Writing Training

in West Africa. Bristol, University of Bristol, 2019. 314

Cantalupo, Charles. “Literature, Power, Translation, and Eritrea.” Journal of Eritrean

Studies, 6.2, 2014.

Cantalupo, Charles. Non-native Speaker:Selected and Sundry Essays. Trenton. Africa

World Press, 2017.

Chapman, Jane. Issues in Contemporary Documentary. Cambridge Polity Press, 2009.

Chapman, Michael. Southern African Literatures. Longman Pub Group, 1996.

Chaume, Frederic. “Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two Disciplines at Stake in

Audiovisual Translation.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’

Journal 49.1, 2004, 12-24.

Chrisman, Laura, and Patrick Williams. Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory: A

Reader. Routledge, 2015.

Corrigan, Timothy. Film and Literature: An Introduction and Reader. Abingdon and

New York, Routledge, 2012.

Counihan, Clare. “Detecting Outside History in The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency”.

Mosaic: A Journal for The Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, 2011, 101-118.

Diawara, Manthia. African Cinema: Politics & Culture. Bloomington, Indiana University

Press, 1992.

Diawara, Manthia. African Film: New Forms of Aesthetics and Politics. Munich; New

York: Prestel, 2010.

Diawara, Manthia. “Popular Culture and Oral Traditions in African film”. Film Quarterly

41.3 1988, 6-14. 315

Di Giovanni, Elena, and Uoldelul Chelati Dirar. “Reviewing Directionality in Writing

and Translation: Notes for a History of Translation in the Horn of

Africa.” Translation Studies. Routledge, 8.2, 2015, 175-190.

Dikole, Rrenyane Sesupo. Aspects of Theme and Technique in the Setswana Novel, 1940-

1980. Diss. The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of

London, 2003.

Dovey, Lindiwe. African Film and Literature: Adapting Violence to the Screen.

Columbia University Press, 2009.

Dow, Unity. Far and Beyon’. Gaborone, Longman Botswana, 2000.

Dube, Musa W. “Consuming a Colonial Cultural Bomb: Translating Badimo into

‘Demons’ in the Setswana Bible (Matthew 8.28-34; 15.22; 10.8).” Journal for the

Study of the New Testament, 21.73, 1999, p.33-58.

Epstein, Edmund L., and Robert Kole, eds. The Language of African Literature. Asmara

and Trenton, Africa World Press, 1998.

Ettobi, Mustapha. “Translating Orality in the Postcolonial Arabic Novel: A Study of Two

Cases of Translation into English and French.” Translation Studies. Routledge,

8.2, 2015, 226-240.

Fanon, Frantz. “On National Culture.” Postcolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural

Theory and Criticism. Rutgers, 1963, 198-219.

Fanon, Frantz. Toward the African Revolution: Political Essays. New York, Grove

Press,1969. 316

Faweus, Peter. Botswana: The Road to Independence. Gaborone, Pula Press, 2000.

Gammage, Marquitta Marie and Gammage, Justin T. “Streotyped Cultural

Representations of African Cultural Values in Black Medi: A Critical

Analysis.” Media Across the African Diaspora: Content, Audiences, and Global

Influence, edited by Omotayo O. Banjo, Routledge, 2019, 85-97.

Genova, James Eskridge. Cinema and Development in West Africa. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 2013.

Gikandi, Simon. “Chinua Achebe and the Post-Colonial Esthetic: Writing, Identity, and

National Formation.” Studies in 20th and 21st Century Literature, 15.1, 1991, 4.

Hailu, Gebreyesus. The Conscript: A Novel of Libya’s Anticolonial War Reason.

Translated by Ghirmai Negash, Ohio University Press, 2013.

Harrow, Kenneth. Postcolonial African Cinema: From Political Engagement to

Postmodernism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007.

Harrow, Kenneth, ed. African Cinema: Postcolonial and Feminist Readings. Trenton,

Africa World Press, 1999.

Head, Bessie. Maru. London, Heinman Educational, 1978.

Heywood, Christopher. A History of South African Literature. New York, Cambridge

University Press, 2004.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York/London, Routledge, 2012. 317

Julien, Eileen. “The Critical Present—Where is African Literature?” Rethinking African

Cultural Productions, edited by Frieda Ekotto and Kenneth Harrow, Indiana

University Press, 2015, 17-26.

Krebs, Katja, ed. Translation and Adaptation in Theatre and Film. Vol. 30. New

York/London, Routledge, 2013.

Klee, Paul. Botswana Craft: Botswana Basketry Information,

https://botswanacraft.com/botswana-baskets. Accessed Nov 2018.

Mafela, Lilly. “Colonial Literacy and the Socio-Political Dimensions of the History

Syllabus in Colonial Botswana”. Literacy Information and Computer Education

Journal, 1-2, 2010, pp 67-74.

Marope, Mmantsetsa P.T. Ngwana o Anywa Mmagwe a Sule. Manzini, Macmillan

Boleswa Publishers, 1987.

Mast, Gerald, Marshall Cohen, and Leo Braudy. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory

Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Mathew, Wesley. “Reality in Ethnographic Film: Documentary vs. Docudrama”. Visual

Anthropology, 27.1-2, 2014, pp 17-24.

Mereeotlhe, Diphimotswe Dipsy Victoria. A Feministic Reading of Four Tswana Novels.

Diss. University of Johannesburg, 1998.

Mbembe, Achille. Critique of Black Reason. Durham, Duke University Press, 2017.

Mohammed, Abdullah. The Representation of Globalization in Films About Africa. Diss.

Ohio University, 2012. 318

Moilwa, James. “Monyaise as a Setswana Novelist: With Particular Reference to the

Novel Go Ša Baori.” Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 3.2, 1981, 61-

70.

Moji, Polo Belina. “New Names, Translational Subjectivities: (Dis) location and (Re)

naming in NoViolet Bulawayo’s We Need New Names”. Journal of African

Cultural Studies 27.2, _2015, 181-190.

Molosiwa, Annah. “Language and literacy Issues in Botswana? Cultural Practices of

Literacy: Case Studies of Language, Literacy, Social Practice, and Power, 2007,

41-54.

Mompoloki, M., and Thapelo J. Otlogetswe. “An analysis of Two Setswana Colour

Terms: Ntsho and Tshweu.” Marang: Journal of Language and Literature 18.1,

2008, 1-13.

Mpe, Phaswane. “Sol Plaatje, Orality and the Politics of Cultural Representation.”

Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa 11.2, 1999, 75-91.

Murphy, David. “Africans Filming Africa: Questioning Theories of an Authentic African

Cinema.”Journal of African Cultural Studies 13.2 ,2000, 239-249.

Mzamane, Mbulelo Vizikhungo. “Cultivating a People's Voice in the Criticism of South

AfricanLiterature.”Research in African Literatures, Indiana University Press,

1991, 117-133. 319

Ndana, Ndana. “Of Disinclined Trains and Clever Actors to be Admired and Not

followed”: Sol Plaatje, William Shakespeare, and the dilemma of the African

intellectual 1894-).1920's.” Marang: Journal of Language and Literature, 2008.

Ndana, Ndana. Sol Plaatje’s Shakespeare: Translation and Transition to Modernity.

Diss. University of Cape Town, 2005.

Negash, Ghirmai. A History of Tigrinya Literature. Trenton and Asmara, Africa World

Press, 2010.

Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Oxford and NewYork, Pergamon Press,

1981.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o. Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African

Literature. London, Nairobi, Portsmouth, Heinmann and James Currey

Educational Publishers, 1981.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o. A Grain of Wheat. Oxford, Heinman Educational Publishers, 1967.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o. Penpoints, Gunpoints, and Dreams: Towards a Critical Theory of

the Arts and the State in Africa. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o. Something Torn and New: An African Renaissance. New York,

Civitas Books, 2009.

Nhlekisana, Rosalene. Setswana Poetry: A Continually Self Adapting Genre. 1996.

University of Winsconsin-Madison. Master’s Thesis.

Nkosana, Leonard B.M. “Language policy and planning in Botswana.” The African

Symposium. Vol. 11. No. 1. 2011. 320

Mukoma wa Ngugi. The Rise of the African Novel: Politics of Language, Identity, and

Ownership. Ann Arbo, University of Michigan Press, 2018.

Okpewho, Isidore. African Oral Literature: Backgrounds, Character, and Continuity.

Bloomington, Indiana University Press, Vol. 710. 1992.

Otlogetswe, Thapelo. Tlhalosi ya Medi ya Setswana. Gaborone, Medi Publishers, 2012.

Oyěwùmí, Oyèrónkẹ́. The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western

Gender Discourses. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Parsons, Neil. “Botswana Film Production in Historical Perspective.” Critical

Approaches to African Cinema Discourse, 2014.

Parsons, Neil. “The Kanye Cinema Experiment 1944-1946.”University of Botswana

History Department, http://www.thuto.org/ubh/cinema/kanye-cinema. (2004).

Petty, Shiela. Contact Zones: Memory, Origin, and Discources in Black Diasporic

Cinema. Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 2008.

Pheto, Tiroentle J. Botlhodi Jwa Nta ya Tlhogo. Gaborone, Pula Press, 1985.

Pheto, Tiroentle J. Botlhodi—The Abomination: A Postcolonial Setswana Novel by T.J.

Pheto. Translated by Keith Phetlhe, Langaa Research and Publishing Common

Initiative Group, 2019.

Pooe, E. E. Taoto ya Phetsolelo ya Mhudi ka Sol T. Plaatje mo Setswaneng jaaka

Mmusetsagae wa Dikwalo tsa Maaforika tsa Seesimane: ka Molebo wa Botswa-

bokoloniale. Diss. North-West University (South Africa). Mafikeng, 2019. 321

Prabhu, Anjali. Contemporary Cinema of Africa and the Diaspora. Malden, Wiley

Blackwell, 2014.

Prah, Kwesi Kwaa. Challenges to the Promotion of Indigenous Languages in South

Africa. Cape Town: The Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society. Online.

http://to. ly/TTNc (accessed 4 August 2015) (2006).

Wali, Obiajunwa. “The Dead End of African literature?” Transition. Kampala, 1963, 10,

13-15.

Wilderson, Frank B. Red, White & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms.

Durham. Duke University Press, 2010.

Rantao, Paul. Setswana Culture and Tradition. Gaborone, Pentagon Publishers, 2006.

Saks, Lucia. Cinema in a Democratic South Africa: The Race for Representation.

Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2010.

Schapera, Isaac. Praise-poems of Tswana Chiefs. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Scheub, Harold. “A review of African Oral Traditions and Literature.” African Studies

Review 28.2-3, 1985.

Seloma, Pearl Seipone. Analysis of the Poetry of Praise and Exhortation in Setswana.

1990. University of Winsconsin-Madison. Master’s Thesis.

Shaochang, Qian. “Film Translation; a Field of Growing Importance in Translation”

Chinese Translation Journal 1, 2000, p 14.

Shole, J. S. “Setswana Literature: A Perspective”. Comparative Literature and African

Literatures. Via Africa, 1983, pp 169-192. 322

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Translation as Culture.” Parallax 6.1, 2000, pp 13-24.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an

Idea, 1988, pp 21-78.

Thedi, Barulaganye. “Fa Maru a Pula a Kokoana: Translating Bessie Head’s When Rain

Clouds Gather.” The Life and Work of Bessie Head: A Celebration of the

SeventiethAnniversary of Her Birth. Ed. Mary S. Lederer et al, Pentagon

Publishers, Gaborone, Botswana, 2008.

“Translation Project Reclaims Africa’s Creative Talent.” North-West University, 13

March. 2019,

http://pressoffice.mg.co.za/northwestuniversity/PressRelease.php?StoryID=28869

6. Press release.

Ukadike, Frank. Black African Cinema. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1994.

______“African Cinematic Reality: The Documentary Tradition as an Emerging

Trend.” Research in African Literatures,1995.

Van Damme, Wilfried. “African verbal arts and the study of African visual aesthetics.”

Research in African Literatures, 31.4, 2000, p 8-20.

Venuti, Lawrence, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. Oxfordshire, Routledge, 2012.

Zere, Abraham T. Narration in Gebreyesus Hailu's The Conscript. Diss. Ohio University,

2014.

Zacks, Stephen A. “The Theoretical Construction of African Cinema.” Research in

African Literatures 26.3, 1995, pp 6-17. 323

Filmography

A United Kingdom. Directed by Amma Asante, performances by David Oyelowo

and Rosamound Pike, director’s cut, BBC Films, British Film Institute,

Indigeneous Media Pathé, 2016.

Beauty. Directed by Fenny Lekolwane, performances by Elsie Ntshonono and Samuel

Gape, director’s cut, A Handprint Multimedia Production/Tswana Music and

Picture Production, 2013.

Neria. Directed by Tsitsi Dangarembga, performances by Jesese Mungoshi and Anthony

Chinyanga, director’s cut, Media for Development International, 1993.

O Bone O Ja Sereto. Directed by Joel Keitumele, performances by Joel Keitumele

and John Mokandla, director’s cut, Media for Development International, 2009.

The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency (TV Series). Directed by Anthony Minghella et al.,

performances by Jill Scott and Lucian Msamati, director’s cut, Timothy Bricknell,

2008.

Yam Daabo. Directed by Idrissa Ouédraogo, performances by Aoua Guiraud Bologo

and Moussa Assita Ouedraogo, director’s cut, Les Films de l'Avenir, 1986.

Xala. Directed by Ousmane Sembène, performances by Thiemo Leyeand Moussa Seune

Samb, director’s cut, Filmi Domireve SNC, 1975.

324

Appendix: A Note on Postcolonial Studies and Setswana Literatures in Translation

The colonial history of Botswana is broad and extensive as it dates to eightieth century until September 30th, 1966, when Botswana attained independence from Britain.

To provide context to this complex history, in Botswana: Road to Independence historians report that,

In 1885—in the early days of the “Scramble for Africa”—Britain established a

protectorate over a large part of the country called Bechuanaland, an extensive

area to the north of Cape colony named after the Batswana tribes who were its

principal inhabitants (and who were then known in English as the Bechuana).

There seem to have been a larger number of motives for Britain’s move, which

followed an earlier reluctance to become involved, but there can be little doubt

that, had the protectorate not been declared, Bechuanaland would not have been

divided up between the land hungry Boer Republic of the Transvaal on the east

and Germany, seeking an African empire and having already seized the

substantial territory now known as Namibia on the west. Its people could have

been decimated in the process. (Fawcus and Tilbury 19)

Hence, in terms of historical conceptualizations, the period of colonialism in Botswana started in 1885 and ended after eighty-one years in 1966. Precolonial history of

Botswana, therefore, takes us back to periods before 1885. However, this view can be problematic, considering that there were signs of colonial occupation before the period identified by historians as the starting point of colonization, and that more importantly, 325

the notions of arriving at the dates rely heavily on the western compass of scholarship.

Therefore, the use of the conceptual terms precolonial, colonial, postcolonial in this study align to existing notions of historical documentation.

Precolonially, historians Thomas Tlou and Alec Campbell show that oral tradition of Botswana is significantly old, and comprised of oral literature, however a discussion of written tradition is ignored in their study:

The very earliest oral traditions (stories) go back about 700 years. For example,

Morolong, first ruling ancestor of the Barolong, lived in about AD 1280. Over this

time stories have been passed down through at least 25 generations by word of

mouth. Historians have combined this information with that gained from

archaeology in order to reconstruct the past. (62)

The objective of this section of my dissertation is to familiarize readers with postcolonial theory as a form of writing, and how it generally applies to contexts of translated Setswana literature (and film or Setswana cinematic translations) as used in this study. Postcolonial theory is important for Botswana writing, especially for those who write in Setswana language. The conceptual term “postcolonialism” has been applied more generally in these writings to describe a historical era after Botswana’s independence from the British in 1966. Presumably, the independence from the British imperial rule in Botswana was not only supposed to be political and economic, but also as a cultural emancipation. Therefore, as a theory it required an absolute cultural autonomy, liberation from the colonial cultural aesthetic impositions and English linguistic 326

hegemony. Its application to Setswana cultural narratives, particularly in literary and cinematic arts, reiterates a growing concern by local writers to achieve cultural independence and emancipation through decolonization of cultural narratives as a way of resisting the paternalistic narratives planted during colonial times. Therefore, the use of postcolonial as a historically charged conceptual term in this sense does not seek to emphasize the ‘pastness’ of the colonial influences in contemporary cultural texts from

Botswana, but it acknowledges the fact that some of the literatures (and films) reflect adherence to colonial aesthetic impositions. However, other cultural texts emanating from local writers who work in Setswana from Botswana, reflect a sense of resistance towards the colonial cultural impositions. This category of writers—Setswana creative artists such as novelists and poets—reject tendencies to translate the European aesthetic canons in their cultural productions. In doing so, they differ with most who work in English language, with a few exceptions, however.

In outlining the key objectives of postcolonial theory, Hans Bertens reiterates that,

It focuses on the cultural displacements–and its consequences for personal and

communal identities–that inevitably followed colonial conquest and rule, and it

does so from a non-Eurocentric perspective. Postcolonial theory and criticism

radically question the aggressively expansionist imperialism of the colonizing

powers, and in particular the system of values that supported imperialism, and that

it sees as still dominant within the Western world. It studies the process and the 327

effects of cultural displacement and the ways in which the displaced have

culturally defended themselves. (200)

In the context of postcolonial Setswana literatures, portrayal of cultural displacements and power dynamics are revealed and contested through a critical study of translation practice. In addition, translation practice was used as a tool for the colonizing imperialists to occupy a dominant role, and marginalize Setswana cultural narratives.

However, it was met with some degree of resistance from creative artists who wrote in

Setswana language.

Sometimes critics assume that writers who work in African languages such as

Setswana lack familiarity with western philosophical reason, and therefore their works remain largely marginalized by local critics and researchers. Yet, these works remain studied using formalist and structuralist literary thought even though postcolonial theory is a more relevant tool. Hence, in Botswana preference towards literary contributions in the English language exceeds works written in Setswana, which negatively implicates the production of discourses in Setswana language. However, writers such T.J Pheto in

Botlhodi Jwa Nta Ya Tlhogo, and Mmantsetsa Marope in Ngwana o Anywa Mmagwe a

Sule have demonstrated through their conceptualization of postcolonialism, feminism, and gender discourses, the literary vitality of Setswana language. Other writers—such as the internationally acclaimed Bessie Head, and Solomon Plaatjie—though writing in

English, have produced thematically engaging literary texts centered around the implications of British and Dutch colonialism in Southern Africa. Shole Shole and Eileen 328

Elizabeth Pooe’s argument that their contributions should be repatriated into Setswana canon of writing suffices. Colonization in Botswana has therefore led to the emergence of postcolonial writers who write in Setswana language for several reasons. Their works reveal concerns about the cultural implications of colonization on the identity of the colonized. Therefore, it is understandable why novels such as Pheto’s implores his people to know their identity and how to confront the realities brought by colonial occupation.

It is also important to note that the potential growth and stimulation of Setswana as a literary language was suppressed by the rise of Commonwealth literatures, which although claiming to draw from African cultures, they were in fact contributing to the

English literary tradition, and not necessarily that of Setswana. This exercise had negative implications not only in Setswana language, but also in most other languages spoken in the Southern African region. However, the production of Anglophone literatures reflected native cultural experience and drew from oral tradition. By so doing they emphasized resilience and resistance towards cultural narratives that misrepresented them, hence their association with postcolonial conceptualizations. As literary critic Bertens rightly observes,

Even if African writers use English, they often let the rhythms and idioms of their

own language be heard because the defamiliarization that results from such a

practice automatically draws our attention to the non-English linguistic and

cultural context of their work. (195) 329

Bertens talks about the ability of the postcolonial writers to defamiliarize the text written in English using translation of cultural aesthetics into written narratives. This argument holds, especially in contexts where Setswana is translated into English. My experience in translating cultural texts from both Setswana into English and vice versa corroborate Bertens’ observation. This form of persistence in the use of the cultural aesthetic material at the heart of the written narratives is also reflected in the writings of other prominent Botswana writers who write in English. Following my assessment of their writings, I concluded that some of the works reflected a strong attachment to integration of oral tradition into their narratives through translation practice. In my view these creative artforms can be used to show literary resilience of literatures represented by minority cultures, and how it is important emphasize the role of Setswana epistemologies in their narratives. For example, Botswana novelist Unity Dow’s Far and

Beyon’ reiterates this claim when she writes in a way that suggests her familiarity with the Setswana tradition of consulting with traditional diviners, also known as bongaka jwa setso:

Having thrown in her own handful of earth she staggered away from the grave.

She heard the piercing wail of the very person who was causing her misery. The

words of the first diviner came to her as she tried to close out the wails, the

hymns, some of them bordering on jovial, and the chanting of the priests from her

mind. ‘I see a thin woman entering your home yet does not quite belong. She

must be a relative or perhaps a friend?’ The diviner asked with a frown of 330

concentration as he tried to decipher some meaning from the bones. Before Mara

could answer, the bone thrower shook his head in deep thought and concern at

what his bones were telling him. He looked up at her and said, “pick them up and

breathe life into them.” Mara collected the eight small pieces of bone and cupping

them into her hands, blew into them. . . Mara threw the bones and they scattered

all over the floor. One bone, which looked more like a piece of plastic or ivory

with intricate engravings jumped away from the rest and fell with its point facing

west ward. Mara drew in a sharp breath. Although she could not interpret this, she

knew only too well that the west is the direction of the sunset, the place of

darkness and death. Hopelessness. Nothingness. The end. She stifled a scream. (3)

A close examination of Far and Beyond shows that because of the author’s cultural background as a Motswana who writes in English, Unity Dow manages to create a narrative that describes the culture and beliefs of the Batswana through the use of translation. In this example, the novelist translates several aspects of Setswana culture— derived from oral tradition—that are somehow buried when expressed in English and not

Setswana. Therefore, it requires a skillful translator equipped with Setswana cultural values and aesthetics to produce a culturally distinct narrative that is not necessarily an appendage of what is considered mainstream culture or cultural esthetic. Unlike the other works that were discussed from the colonial missionary and anthropological translations, the novelist does not see the need to use detailed, and at times superfluous explanations in the form of the footnotes designed to clarify things for non-Setswana speakers. First, the 331

narrative refers to sejaro, which is a special type of a bone used in the divination ritual.

Second, through the character of Mara, the narrative reveals how Batswana conceptualize the “west”, or “bophirimatsatsi” as a symbolic entity and cultural imagery. It carries the negative connotations of death and darkness, and it corresponds with a Setswana idiomatic expression “go phirima,” therefore its use in this context shows the author’s ability to use translation to defamiliarize readers with ritual and myth in Setswana culture. Third, the narrative also introduces readers to the funeral processions and ritualistic performance in Botswana, and belief in the existence of witchcraft. In my view, these are translational features that can be described as postcolonial because of how the novelists persist on translating such aspects of tradition without dismissing them on the grounds that they are irrelevant. Colonial translations depicted these aspects of Setswana tradition in negative light, and in so doing they were dismissing them because they did not share the cultural aesthetics with the European cultures that had spread since the period of colonization.

From the above excerpt in Far and Beyon’, we see that the character Mara consults with the traditional diviner to seek help in understanding things that cause her affliction. The inclusion of this occurrence in the text demonstrates the novelist’s ability to capture the typical traditional way of Setswana cultural traditions in order to make the text more relevant and comprehensible to the readers. It can be viewed as a way of defying the western literary tradition and its canons through the extensive use of 332

translation practice, which is strategically utilized to plant and deepen our understanding of the cultural milieu of Setswana aesthetics.

However, it must be clarified that Botswana writers working in English language not always manage to effectively translate these cultural concepts in their writings— hence the need for revised translations. Therefore, it is very important for critics of translations in African Literature in English to revisit such works with the aim of decolonizing or correcting attempts to translation that may suppress the meaning. This is because some of these creative literary works, despite their postcolonial thematic focus, tend to perpetuate the misconceptions about the African cultural traditions that were planted by the earlier colonial translations. Therefore, the colonial memory still has implications in the way these writers translate the complex cultural concepts and intergrate them into their plot narrative. For example, Bessie Head’s Maru, demonstrates that she misreads the Setswana concept of tladi by calling it horrific magic, even though her novel is thematically focused. Bessie Head narrates in the following way,

A terror slowly built up around the name of Maru because of these events. In their

conversations at night they discussed the impossible, that he was the reincarnation

of Tladi, a monstrous ancestral African witch-doctor who had been a performer

horrific magic. . . (36).

It is also important to highlight that in Botswana, writers who write in English do so because of the colonial linguistic cultural legacy, which led to the suppression of

Setswana culture. Therefore, the Setswana alphabet and its orthography in its current 333

usage emanates from decisions made by colonial missionary and anthropologists who decided on the standardization of Setswana without the inclusion and participation of the native speakers of the language. It compares with the Berlin conference of 1884-5 of the

Scramble for Africa in terms of its aims, exclusion and outcomes—mistranslations, exploitation, and representations of the Setswana culture. However, the interventions of writers like Plaatje were revolutionary because they rejected the thought that western conclusions can be used to rationalize literacy in Setswana context. It was not only

Plaatjie but also the contribution of Tiroentle Bafana Pheto who is counted among the first local literary respondents to combat the implications of colonial legacy in Botswana.

The Setswana postcolonial writers who rejected western impositions were questioning the irrational belief espoused by imperialists that advocated for the use of western aesthetics on non-western literary texts. Their adoption of the literary aesthetic established by elite postcolonial writers, and a rejection of the western canon even when they wrote in Setswana was a demonstration of literary resilience. Translation practice was very important in repairing the misconstrued narratives established during a period of colonialism. In doing so, they insisted on the independence of their cultures because as critics see it,

to take another culture seriously means to accept it on its own terms, to accept the

distinctive ways in which it differs from our own culture. And it entails a genuine

interest in the predicament of those who belong to the minority culture—in such

encounters the cultures that are involved usually do not meet on equal terms—and 334

who see their culture and their identity threatened by that of the dominant

majority. (Bertens 199)

Translation practice was a commonly used tool to combat colonial cultural impositions, and in executing attacks on Setswana culture—the colonialists used it to suppress the legitimacy of Setswana cultural texts while locals used it to protect their cultural narratives.

Figure 11

Map of Botswana Source: Edited by the author based on Botswana Atlas, Linguistic distribution

335

Linguistically, Setswana is a major language spoken in Botswana, and it co-exists with other local languages in Botswana. The language has mutual intelligibility with other languages spoken in the region, which aids linguist diversity in translation practice.

Setswana is also surrounded by other former colonial languages beyond English—for example, Portuguese, Afrikaans, Dutch and German—these languages have impacted the direction of translations. Setswana has co-existed with English since the colonial period, and this is accounted for by an increased production of creative literatures by local writers in English. From the perspective of translation studies, this is an interesting aspect which can be used to increase the visibility of Setswana literature through cultural translations. It is interesting to note that already, local writers in Botswana have contributed written literatures, although their works have remained buried due to preference towards literature written in English. The following table shows some few examples of available and locally published genres of Setswana literature between 1988-

2009 that can be translated into other languages and adapted into film:

336

Table 5

Significant Setswana Postcolonial Literary Contributions by Botswana Writers.

Text Description of Genre Dire, T.A. P. Matsuetsue a Lekwalo. Gaborone, Botsalano Play Press, 1994. Gaborone, O.M. Setlhoa sa Thaba. Gaborone, Longman Novel Botswana, 1988. Ditebo, Bogale. Mamphorwana Malatlhegi. Gaborone, Play Botsalano Press, 1993. Mothei, S.O. Mareledi a sale Pele. Gaborone, Longman Novel Botswana, 1989. Mouwane, T.K. Mmoko wa Talane. Gaborone, Botsalano Play Press, 1991. Kelaotswe, M.B. Botshelo Teemane. Gaborone, Botsalano Novel Press, 1993. Lekgetho J.M., Kitchin M.S., Kitchin N.H. Matsuetsue a Poetry Anthology Lekwalo. Johannesburg, The Ecumenical Literature Distribution Trust, 1949. Mothei, S.O. Dikgang tse Tharo. Gaborone, Longman Novel Botswana, 1990. Mokgachane, N.S. Tsela-pedi. Gaborone, Botsalo Books, Play 1994. Moreri, Moroka. Sengana. Gaborone, Lobatse, Jaboyonko Poetry Artworks, 2012. Makgeng, Moetsi. Borobe Jwa Puo. Gaborone, Heinemann Poetry Educational Boleswa, 1991. Morakaladi, Mapula, M.E. Di Boela Mong. Gaborone, Play Botsalano Press, 1993. Mokgosi, Billy. Segwana sa Phefo. Gaborone, Botsalano Poetry Press, 1995. Legwaila, Lekala and Mokobi, Abednico. Matswakabele. Novel Gaborone, McMillan Botswana Publishing, 2009. Mogotsi, S.J. Sesigo sa Maboko. Gaborone, Botsalano Press, Poetry 1992. Moilwa J, Makepe, P. Monna o Jewa Ke Se a Se Jeleng. Play Gaborone, Botsalano Press, 1988. Mokgachane, N.S. Bona Mae. Gaborone, Botsalano Press, Short stories 1993. 337

Mokibelo, E.B. Boswa. Gaborone, Longman Botswana, Play 2009. Mokobi, R.F. Lookana. Gaborone, Longman Botswana, Poetry 1992. Moncho, N.K.H. Mothubamotse. Gaborone, Longman Play Botswana, 1992. Molebaloa, M.K.N. Letlhokwa la Tsela. Mogoditshabe, Shortstories Century Turn Publishers, 1990. Molefe, R.D.. Ipelafatso. Gaborone, Mcmillan Botswana, Poetry 1990. Otladisang, Obakeng. Leapeetswe. Gaborone, Botsalano Play Press, 1992. Oaitse, C. Ga ba na Thwadi. Gaborone, Longman Botswana, Play 1992. Mouwane, T.K. Nawa Ya Phure. Gaborone, McMillan Novel/Shortstories Botswana, 1991. Makgeng, M.R.T. Ga a itsewe e se naga. Gaborone, Botsalo Novel Books, 1992. Makgeng, M.R.T. Phare wa Ntlha. Gaborone, Botsalo Poetry Books, 1991. Makhaya, Godiramang. Bobi Jwa Segokgo. Mogoditshane, Play Century Turn Publishers, 1991. Mantswe, C. Botshelo-Disana-pedi. Gaborone, Botsalano Novel Press, 1992. Mbuya, Titus. Mosekelampeng. Gaborone, Botsalano Press, Novel Year Unknown. Motlhasedi, G.C. Kgarara, Morwa Pala. Gaborone, Play; Translation of Botsalano Press, 1994. Shaka Zulu play Mbuya, Titus. Pabala tsa Nnete. Gaborone, Botsalo Books, Novel 1996.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !