Saikss,
Thanks for your response on the African Gender question. I am busy with
other relevant issues and I don't think I have time for any form of childish
intellectual debate. I don't think how any serious minded person can take
your response seriously. I will leave it for others to judge for themselves.
thanks.
>From: saikss <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: AFRICAN GENDER QUESTION IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:16:58 +0200
>
>Sir Fatty,
>
>Since you know the reason for the delay, I will not waste any more of your
>time. With the energy you have put into this issue, I am withdrawing my
>statement of sending you into exile for one more time .But I will have to
>tell
>you that I have gone beyond this level of Afro centrism in dealing with
>African history. I would rather lent my ears to Lalo Kebba Drammeh to a
>more
>reasoning narration of our common history than wasting my time in
>confronting
>white racism on such an issue. Secondly I will not start from where you
>took
>off, since this will mean to defend the distortions of some of the things I
>said earlier. History is the work of life human beings and the condition of
>our mothers and sisters for over 400 years is a fact of real life and not
>that
>of an African Queen who existed from or before BC.Prince Charles is not the
>head of the royal family in Great Britain, it is still the Queen, to call
>this
>a triumphant in the empowering of Women will be a nonsense, this you will
>have
>no problem of agreeing with me.
> This is the very reason why when we talk of "historical
>perspective"
>we are not talking of records of history in an empirical manner, which you
>have been very busy doing, what we meant was the dialectical development of
>the mass movement itself, in another word, the subjective and the objective
>development of the movement from one stage to another, through, among other
>things, contradictions. You did not seem to understand this and this has
>been
>the main problem of your response to my last piece and before you realise
>it,
>you wasted much of your time in diving into contradictions.
>Precisely, because when I did try to explain that the resistant of Gambian
>women from male/Society oppression have moved from just composing songs and
>story telling (an unorganised form of resistant) to a more concrete thing,
>as
>they are now (With the many women organisation) you take this to be a
>stagnation of women struggle. For more that 400 years of our history, we
>have
>never had an organised women organisation as we have today.
>Again, when you even attack white racism in recording the history of Africa
>you end up doing the same, I will tell you why later. You told us to take
>heed
>to the word "Universal", to be very frank, I was reading through with much
>patient, with a mind that you will start to understand what I was trying to
>say, but you started talking of Karl Marx, which I found very irrelevant to
>the discussion, not only that you distorted the meaning of the "Universal"
>but
>the whole idea of Marx in the Man/Woman relationship. Marx never saw only
>to
>the European society as the basis of his analysis of the primitive form of
>human relationship and listen;
> "…it was not only, the populist, Mikhailovsky, who tried to attribute to
>Marx
>the marking of "The Historical Tendency of capitalist Accumulation" into
>universal for all human development. As we showed, Marx had written a very
>sharp critique of Mekhailovsky's article. Post-Marx Marxists, however,
>continue to express similar views to Mikhalovsky's and to base themselves
>on
>the Editions of Volume 1 of Capital" WLDR (RD)
>
>Did you see your self here? And further down in your article one will find
>you
>confusing the ideas of Marx to that of Engel, most likely because you don't
>know of the existents of Marx's view on the question of the matricahecal
>societies as presented in his many unknown material as the "ethnological
>notebooks". Engels work on "The origin of the Family" was based on the the
>works of Morgan and it was on the basis of this work that he made his
>conclution, Even though Marx believed that "Ancient Societies" was a great
>work, his conclusion on the study of this work differ from that of the
>author
>and even Engel's don't find it necessary to go in to details here but just
>to
>show that you are wrong to insist that Marx works was euro-centrist and or
>made his conclusions to be "Universal".
> My challenge to you would be on the basis of the fact that the down
>fall
>of the Martichal societies that existed in some of the African societies
>was
>not brought to end by only external forces. You see Sir, when we are
>discussing Anta Jobe, we should do it with the understanding that his work
>was
>one based against the racist explanation of the development of African
>history. Without such an understanding we will be misusing the work of this
>great thinker. But when one differ in ideas with this great thinker, it
>will
>not even be on this assertion that;
>
> " Matriarchy must not be confused with the reign of the African Amazons
>or
>that of the Gorgons.Those legendary regimes in which women allegedly
>dominated
>man were characterized by a technique intended to debase the male…." TAOC
>(p145)
>
>But on the very facts he presented as the "matriarchal proper". Because,
>among
>other things, historical facts tells us also that even in " matriarchal
>proper" societies, there were evidences that shows that limitations
>existed,
>he (Jobe) never insisted that Matriarchal societies that existed in certain
>African societies by then were unique, so even where as Marx insisted that
>the
>Iroquois women did enjoy more freedom than women in the civilised world, he
>wasted no time in putting forward the limitations involved in these
>societies,
>he wrote;
>
> "…. The women allowed expressing their wishes and opinions through an
>orator
>of their own selections. Decision given by the council. Unanimity was a
>fundamental law of its action among the Iroquois…." RLWMMP (p182)
>
>But where do we go from here. If Anta Jobe insists that the position of the
>women in the Matriarchal system was due to their economic power, in my
>opinion, it should be logical that there were limitation, which might have
>been the bases for the contradictions that existed in those societies, but
>no
>this is what he wrote;
>
> "The matriarchal system proper is characterised by the collaboration
>and
>harmonious flowering of both sexes, and by a certain prominence of women in
>society, due originally to the economic conditions, but accepted and even
>defended by men" TOC (p145)
>
>I beg to disagree with this great thinker, if we have women, and in their
>large numbers too, defending a semi feudal, capitalistic, fascist
>oppression
>of Gambian women and society, I see no reason why it should not happen in
>any
>other form of society that is not based on the equality of men both in
>terms
>of economic, social and political.
>If you think that it will take a man to wait for an European or and Arab
>invader to resist against the economic dominance of women in a any given
>society at any given time of history then you must be seriously mistaking.
>But let us move to your other points. You wrote;
>
>"You have also stated that you are of the "opinion that Lang Binta Samateh
>is
>not significant to the status of women." If that is the case, why are we
>discussing the historical contribution of women in The Gambia or Africa
>today? It is just like saying that an African name is not significant to an
>African or black person named Benjamin or Yousupha. Or saying that there is
>no significance for us to speak and write in our language. The significance
>of this statement is a manifestation of how disempowered African women are
>today. It is very significant with regard to the historical contribution of
>women in African societies. Take note of it because the historical reasons
>will be shown later"
>
>I will not take you seriously on this point. Had you known the time I have
>spent in collecting typical Gambian names through this forum you would have
>had another conclution. What I have said was that and still mean to say is,
>Lang Binta Fatty has been used and still in use for the purpose of
>identification and not necessary that it is a remnant of the past
>Matriarchal
>society. We leaved in a society where men do get married to more than one
>woman and being a patrichal society one father could be the "father" of all
>the children in the clan or the family. That is to say, you become
>automatically the father also of the children of your brother and both you
>and
>your brother could have a child with the same name in the same house or
>compound, to identify these children, they do refer to the mother and not
>you
>the farther. What relation has this to women liberation or given a child a
>Gambian name or a written African language's have given you another
>examples
>which sounds more logic in tracing the matrimonial linage system in our
>society, the Wulli example. Wassa only two people in my family are
>constantly
>referred to through the name of my mother, but not the rest of us. Do you
>know
>the reason? I believed that the reason is, these two people have a name
>that
>is very, very common within the Samateh clan in Badibu and these two names
>are; Kebba and Samateh-Nding.Should I explain more?
>
>See here you go again, listen to your self;
>
>"Finally, before moving further, I would like to point out that your
>theories
>on this issue is too shallow and simplistic. One thing you failed to
>realize
>is that human history is a catalogue of unequal developments and for that
>matter; societies did not emerged uniformly to follow the same pattern of
>development. There were fundamental differences in structures, worldviews
>or
>philosophy and production relations among others. What therefore happened
>in
>one human patch or society in a remote corner of the world, does not
>necessarily mean that it was a universal reality and applicable to all
>other
>human societies. This idea of universality came into force as a result of
>European conquest and cultural hegemony over non- European societies. Take
>note of universality, I shall come back to it. Now let's go back to the
>main
>issue and discuss the historical contribution of African women and the
>evolution of male oppression in Africa."
>
>It would have been interesting for you to state where in my article did I
>refer to world history as one and the same. But I can see your confusion
>here
>too, are you talking of individual States, societies or empires or are you
>talking of Africa as a country, this is what racist historian do, unless
>your
>"Universal" is misinterpreted here. But see what you wrote;
>
>"The
>Queen at the time, Cleopatra, committed suicide rather than betray Africans
>to the Roman invaders.
>
> The worldview of Africans from the classical period to the era
>of the Arab and European interventions of the 7th century AD onwards into
>Africa was centered on the sacredness of the woman, as manifested in
>production relations. This worldview enhanced the internal dynamic and
>independent development of African societies."
>
>Egypt/Ethiopia becomes Africa and Rome becomes Rome and not Europe, who is
>now
>treating African past and reality as an entity. I can sense an Afro
>centrist
>way of dealing with African past and reality, which should now be a thing
>of
>the past and I have reach the same conclusion as Fanon did for more than 40
>years ago. To even believe that because we had a "Queen" in Egpt/Ethopia
>with
>so much power angered European/Aran chauvinist to invade the continent is a
>falsification of history. There were times when advanced and evil
>empires/States/Societies exist side by side in the continent, if racist
>White
>historian wasted much of their time in talking about the evil
>societies/States/Societies that existed in the Continent and refused to see
>the wonderful human development that were taking place in other
>societies/States/Societies in the continent, should not give us the liberty
>to
>use the same method because this will not be in the interest of the
>struggle
>we are involved in or whish to involve in, but systematically forced us to
>be
>on the defensive, we have no time for this. Why should even a white racist
>you
>read your piece should not be of the notion that African history, culture
>and
>people are of the same?
>Afro centrism is narrow nationalism, it could be understood under certain
>circumstances, more so in the racist environment some of us are surrounded
>with, but it could never solve our need for a theory of liberation, you can
>end up glorifying even the oppressor or that which is oppressive
>unconsciously. With the 4000 years of historical narration you have made
>here,
>the only Africa that existed in your piece is the continent that has been
>oppressed and destroyed by only Arab and White intruders until after
>independence, this is not serious.
>In conclution, the struggle for the empowering of Women, is not the same as
>a
>struggle for a Martriarchal society, not even your Matriarchal African
>society
>you presented in your piece, the empowering of Women should lead to the
>uprooting of the semi feudal, chavinist and capitalist society we are
>living
>under today, to a new form of human relationship without any form of
>oppression or exploitation and equality between all.
>
>For Freedom
>
>Saiks
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
