It's more about getting more publicity for it, and getting the library and digitization program mentioned in the article going. That should have been the angle in the article.
>Nor do I understand the numerous mentions of European colonialism in the article.
They're examples of an appeal to current forms of orientalism and colonialism: just spin the story in an angle Americans and Europeans will be sympathetic to, because of their own preoccupations, in order to keep the grants going.
Focused on how these scripts were used for close to a millenium, before European colonialism was established in those parts, and arising under practical needs (they had the language, arabs had the script), wouldn't make such an enticing story to modern audiences.
Now peoples there speaking French or varieties of Dutch/German, or having their upper classes follow European norms and fashions and shun their own legacy, that's cultural colonialism in Africa (aside the economic, political, and millitary one).
A researcher not being aware of something openly used for centuries and already covered in relevant studies, research literature, symposiums (and even popular articles) well before they learn about it, does not quality them made aware of it as being a "discovery".
That's not how the term "discovery" works in an academic context, and certainly it's not what discovery as implied in the article means.
>People are preoccupied with alleviating illiteracy in Africa, it's interesting that these illiteracy figures may be inflated, and it makes me wonder what groups are trying to make Africa look more illiterate than it is, and why
The use of Ajami (which doesn't affect the kind of illiteracy people are concerned about, or even is widespread enough to be used as a substitute for it), and wouldn't much affect that concern (which is about people being able to participate in the official languages and writing systems of their country, and beyond that, for people going to school in general, beyond reading and writing).
>It seems at least in part some of the people classified as illiterate like it that way, since the government can't monitor your communications if it refuses to acknowledge they exist.
It's a system that has been used for half a millenium. It's not like it keeps any communication unreadable or even more difficult to read from the government (another incorrect information in the article).
The government just doesn't bother with it in any official capacity, precisely because it's not official. The same way some patois dialects are not part of many place's publicized literature, are not taught in school, are not used in official documents, and so on. Aside from that, anybody who knows the target language and is familiar with the arabic alphabet, can easily read it - which is exactly why it was used by "illiterate" people (meaning illiterate in the official, colonial or otherwise, languages and writing systems of their country).
Not that different from the US, come to think of it. There are some real multilanguage countries on Earth, where two or three or more languages have an equal footing, but that is not it.
The "American standpoint" might be "pluralistic and opposed to the idea of an official language" in abstract theory and as seen from an ivory tower, but see how far an immigrant just speaking their own language, even if that's as common in the US as Spanish, or some Native American or Cajun or whatever person not well versed in English, and see how far they go. Hell, even blacks from poor backgrounds, who do speak english, and for all the lip service to equality and opportunities, have to be deprogrammed to speak whiter english, and they undergo just that in university, if they want to work in any position from PR and finance sector, to law, public sector, the news, and so on. It's not about racism, even, it's more about classism: a redneck speaking like one would in rural country, with the dictionary, accent, mannerisms, and everything, wouldn't go far in the East or West coast either.
If the foreign government can only read French, it sure does it. Especially at a time when there was no google translator.
This should be the top comment. That explains everything about this piece's framing.
The remark I found most interesting was that it wasn't taught at school, but that people seem to have taught it among themselves. The article doesn't mention any other form of teaching, but it might have something to do with the earlier Muslim colonization/proselytizing and the subsequent spread of the Quran.
Calling it an arab colony would be like saying Sweden was a roman colony because they use the roman script.
Sweden is not a particularly good example. A better example might be Latvia (or any of the other areas invaded as part of the northern crusades), which was invaded by a group of Catholics spreading the faith[1], Latvia could not be called a colony of the Papacy, but it certainly moved the area into Romes sphere of influence, with all the religion and language that entails.
"Ajami, from the Arabic word ʿAjamī, meaning “non-Arabic” or “foreign,” was created centuries ago by Islamic evangelists to spread the religion to African communities. Over generations, it was adopted by members of anticolonial nationalist resistance movements throughout the continent, as French and English colonists installed their own languages and customs."
It didn't work that way.