Hi Baba!
I do not want to misinterprete a couple of your statements.
Could you please clarify what you mean. The statements are:
"The fact that they were Africans or strove hard to wrest independence from
the Colonialists matters less to me."
"You then harped on Nkrumah's wish for an Economic Commission for Africa,
and Lumumba's clarion call for an African renaissance, and you went the
whole
hog..."
Thanks.
Buharry.
----- Original
Message -------------------------------------------------------
From: chernob jallow <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 1:28 AM
Subject: Memo to Halifa
> Note: A tight schedule with my classes distracted me from Gambia-L. Hence
> the brief delay in responding to your response.
> -----------------
>
> Well. It's been quite an exciting literary cross-fire. It ought to be. It
is
> nice to provoke a debate. Nicer still, when a proliferation of comments
and
> ideas follow, and when these comments and ideas - their comicality or
> illogicality notwithstanding - are given due recognition and
> acknowledgement.
>
> I must say that I am a bit titillated by your arguments this time. It is a
> better alternative from your earlier comments that were so dogmatically
> Pan-Africanist, misleading and lacking objectivity, that it was tempting
to
> toss your rejoinder to Ayittey's article aside. I said that you argued
your
> points from the position of a Pan Africanist, and you said you argued
yours
> from polemics.
>
> Polemics? Please! Beauty, they say, lies in the eyes of the beholder. You
> are entitled to your own opinion, even wrong opinions. But honestly, there
> is nothing seriously polemical about your article. Well, wait: your
> condemnation of colonialism for not leaving behind productive bases for
> independent African countries shimmer out for acknowledgement. You wrote:
> "....it was the colonial multinational corporations which controlled
imports
> and exports, mines, plantations and industrial establishments. What could
> such people do to create a national economy?"
>
> But here, you simply landed yourself on common ground, marshalling
familiar
> evidence known to everyone even a primary six pupil. The rest of your
> article is akin to sauerkraut ice-cream - a mishmash of incompatible
> ingredients - ranging from your regurgitation of history without
analytical
> connectivity, to fault-mongering, blame-shifting on American leaders,
> reeking of irrelevant thinking, to your so-called "dialogue with Nyerere,"
> mouth-watering with plaudits and eulogies.
>
> Your Pan Africanism, not polemics, summoned your wit to urge Ayittey and
> others to find ways of salvaging Africa from its political and economic
> morass. You wished: "so-called intellectuals like Dr. George Ayittey have
> the responsibility of examining this net in which Africa finds itself and
> come up with ideas which can facilitate the liberation of the African
> continent rather than engage in this empty quackery which those who
> controlled us yesterday still occupy us with, thus depriving us of being
the
> architects of our own destiny."
>
> You then harped on Nkrumah's wish for an Economic Commission for Africa,
and
> Lumumba's clarion call for an African renaissance, and you went the whole
> hog, accusing African scholars of reading "without sincerety and honesty,"
> the works of Nkrumah, Nyerere, Frantz Fanon, Cabral, and "reading the
works
> of those who have plagiarized what has been written by many pioneers of
the
> national liberation movement..." Are you a polemicist or a Pan Africanist
> here?
>
> I am flattered by your self-trumpeting plaudits. You enthused: " I have
> succeeded in achieving precisely what I set out to achieve. This is
> confirmed by the back-tracking that Ayittey has made in his response to my
> challenge." But if you had taken your time, tempered your effusiveness
with
> restraint, and re-read Ayittey's and Shirima's article, you would have
> realized that your celebration of self-congratulation is simply hogwash.
>
> The back-tracking in Ayittey, in your thinking, is summed up in this
> addendum of his: " No African would deny that the first generation of
> leaders strove gallantly and endured personal hardships to win
independence
> from colonial rule. They were hailed as heroes by their people and the
> international community. We made this point in our piece. BUT in country
> after country, these leaders proceeded to establish brutal regimes,
violated
> the civil rights of their own people and looted their economies. Nyerere
was
> an exception, which we also said in our article." And you conclude: "The
new
> element here is the emphasis that Nyerere is an exception. That is my
> point." But what's wrong with your vision? Need I more proof why you have
> let your emotionalism traumatise your objectivity in this issue, making
you
> impervious to even visible things?
>
> Re-read Ayittey's and Shirima's article. They write: "Although Julius
> Nyerere belonged to this generation of African leaders, he did not display
> their egregious and megalomaniac excesses. He was not personally corrupt
and
> his living style modest - a rare and refreshing exception among African
> leaders." They continue: "Nyerere was also among the very few African
heads
> of state who relinquished political power voluntarily." Is Ayittey and
> co-writer not emphasizing Nyerere's exceptional qualities?
>
> Ayittey wrote that clarification to energize your mind to the fact you had
> completely taken his argument on this issue, out of context. This is why I
> said earlier on that your initial rejoinder to Ayittey's and Shirima's
> article had misleading effects. You write: " They say in their paper that
it
> is criminally irresponsible for people to accord the Nkrumahs and Nyereres
> the respect that is being given to them by those who knew their
> contributions." That is false.
>
> The co-writers didn't say anything close to that. They write: "To
> continuously celebrate them (Nkrumahs and Nyereres, insertion mine),
without
> a hint of of the unspeakable misery they bequeathed to their people is
> criminally irresponsible." Ayittey and Shirima is not urging us not to
> celebrate the achievements of the Nkrumahs and Nyereres. They are aware of
> their heroism but at the same time urging us not to lose sight of the fact
> of their failures and shortcomings.
>
> Your misleading allusions continue: After quoting Nyerere verbatim on
> leadership, you concluded: "This is what Nyerere said on 1 January 1968 at
a
> seminar organized by university students. Now we may ask: can this be the
> words of a tyrant?" You gave the wrong impression of Ayittey and Shirima
> tagging Nyerere a tyrant. Again, quoting Nyerere verbatim on freedom, you
> concluded: "Now we may ask: can someone who wanted to be a megalomaniac
> utter such statements?" Your utterance of "megalomaniac" has origins
rooted
> in this part of Ayittey's and Shirima's article: "Although Julius Nyerere
> belonged to this generation of African leaders, he did not display their
> egregious and MEGALOMANIAC(emphasis mine)excesses." How does your allusion
> square up with this?
>
> You see, I am sifting through the debris of your article, separating fib
> from fact, myth from reality, blindness from clarity, which if lumped into
a
> mixture can find easy access to gullible minds. I am enjoying the trouble
to
> do all this, lest misinformation and subjectivity cloud our collective
> insight.
>
> You said that your "objective was not to refute facts, but to refute the
> interpretation of those facts that put Nyerere in a negative light." The
> reality is, you can't refute anything in Ayittey's and Shirima's article.
> And you have now reduced your so-called polemics to an interpretation of
the
> "interpretation of those facts" that put Nyerere in a bad light. Nyerere
in
> a negative light? Who cares if his shortcomings and failures put him so?
> Again, you are miffed at the contents of the co-writers' article that you
> can't refute, and which put Nyerere in a "negative light" that you don't
> like. Reference to his positives in Ayittey's and Shirima's article don't
> shimmer into your view. You are not interested. You are worried about the
> "interpretation of those facts that put Nyerere in a negative light."
Whoa!
>
> But let's stretch your interpretation of facts further. First, you take
> issue with the caption of the article, NYERERE: A Saint or A Knave? And:
you
> define the words, Saint and Knave. And: you want Ayittey and colleague to
be
> conclusive in their assessement of Nyerere's legacy. Call him a Saint or a
> Knave, you seem to argue. That failing, you find their position absurd. In
> sheer immaturity of thinking, piffling analysis, you conclude: "....if we
> rely on the evidence that Ayittey and Shirima have given and which you
have
> quoted from(the positives and negatives of Nyerere, insertion mine),
> we would have to conclude that Nyerere is both a saint and a knave.
Nothing
> can be more ridiculous than such a conclusion."
>
> Plunging us into such semantics minutiae cannot deviate us from the
contents
> of Ayittey's and Shirima's article. Nyerere had his good and bad sides. He
> wasn't all-saintly, or all-knavely. His legacy is impressive here,
> unimpressive there. Apparently, you can't grasp this fact of reality. Your
> worry over Nyerere being cast in a "negative light" by his own failures
and
> shortcomings, is worst than ridiculous. I hereby state: your defence of
> Nyerere is an infatuatioin, and like every other infatuation, you are
> seduced by the pleasures of his achievements, and blinded to the
extremities
> of his shortcomings.
>
> Objectivity is never attainable like that. The mentality you have tossed
> into your so-called polemics is called fanaticism. Someday, you may be
able
> or willing to come to terms with not only Nyerere's achievements or his
Pan
> Africanism, but also his abject failures. It wasn't encouraging that your
> initial rejoinder to Ayittey's and Shirima's article was all-embracing,
> all-appreciative of the Nyereres and the Nkrumahs, and without a scintilla
> of dissent over their policies. This is why people like me do not buy
this
> kind of Pan- Africanism. And we make no fetish of the personalities of
> Nkrumah or Nyerere or any other for that time. We are both in agreement
and
> dissonance over their policies. The fact that they were Africans or strove
> hard to wrest independence from the Colonialists matters less to me.
>
> Worrying over Nyerere being cast in a bad light, or sifting through the
> semantics of what is saintly or knavish about Nyerere, or Kamuzu Banda
being
> mentioned in an article about Nyerere, which gives you the hackneyed
> imagination that Nyerere is being equated with the Hastings Bandas can
only
> emphasize why people like me can find you so intellectually trifling,
> delusionally imaginative. And this is intellectual sophistication? Please!
>
> Your fixation on my vocabulary never ceases to entertain me. Time was when
> out of trifling imagination, you deluded yourself into thinking that all I
> do is to fish out for words in a dictionary and paste them into my
writings.
> Here again, you are being inundated with my language. You write: "It is
> indeed true that language is the tongue of the mind and proficiency or
> eloquence in the use of language is of aesthetic value. Fine language,
> however, tends to lose its finess when it is not tempered by substance."
Let
> me add this: when ideological myopia, intellectual sloppiness,
> self-perpetuated delusions are being preyed upon by the candour, precision
> and truthfullness of arguments, it can bring an unintended effect of
> spawning cynicism and obscurantism into the minds of message-recipients,
> making them impervious to the essentiality of lessons. So need I wonder
why
> you keep hammering at and yammering about, my "flowery language?"
>
> But I am pleased for one thing about your response: "Frankly speaking,"
you
> write,"I do enjoy your interventions. It strikes me that you have a right
> approach to freedom of expression. You seem to believe that everyone has
the
> right to speak about anything and everything....." This is a positive
> back-tracking from your soap-box oratory, earlier this year. Recall what
you
> said: Cherno Baba, we have closed many mouths in The Gambia, and we are
very
> confident that before the end of this debate you will put your foot in
your
> mouth.
>
> Translation: your ideological invincibility has crushed many, and will
spare
> no-one. Well. Indication is, your self-perpetuating delusion of
ideological
> grandeur is being gradually disciplined by the grace of humility. And
> understanding. There.
>
> I rest my case. Thanks for the correspondence.
>
> Best regards,
> Cherno B. Jallow
> Detroit, MI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> 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 unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
