Hello, Bailo, on discussing ( or not) Gambian issues/politics, I
really don't have anything more to add other than I think there is a
way of disagreeing with people, other than calling them liars,
hypocrites, mentally unstable, using foul language, etc.  Why not just
take the quotes you disagree with and illustrate why you don't agree
with them?  I'm saying "you" in a general sense not "you" directly.

All I'm saying is that if I choose to engage in a discussion regarding
Gambian issues, I will do so privately, or at least in an environment
where my very character isn't going to come into question simply
because I don't agree with you.  Or I should say, I've extended this
to all issues.  For example, I'm not going to discuss health-care
policy and why we in America need health care reform with a bunch of
people who will consider me a "Communist" for saying such a thing, and
who will go after me as a person, rather than discuss the fact that
millions of people in this country can't get basic medical care simply
because they can't get insurance.  So this isn't just an issue related
to this list or Gambian issues, in particular.

At any rate, somehow I seem to have projected an image of myself that
I'd not intended and I'm trying really hard to remedy that.

Even if I did want to continue to publicly discuss, engage with,
support, give money to, etc., etc., how can I even do that when at
least a vocal segment of the people I'm supposedly trying to "support"
doesn't want it?  Or feels I'm going about it in the wrong way?  Or
worse, considers me to be racist or at least superior in my thinking,
conceited, arrogant, and I could go on but...  If I continue to speak
publicly on an issue that I supposedly know nothing about, continue to
display hypocrisy regarding said issue, at least in some people's
minds, have no business having an opinion on aspects of said issue
because I'm an "outsider", whatever that means...  If I continue to
speak up on something that the majority of people don't want my advice
or opinion on, or feel that I have no idea what I'm talking about,
then I would be conceited and arrogant and fool of myself.

And everyone can be all "oh but you have a right to speak out" but you
yourself stated that you have a right, which you do, to also come back
and "criticize" me, whether it be constructively by quoting my words
and outlining where I've erred, or unconstructively by cussing me out
and calling me a mentally unstable liar, and it's those sorts of
"criticisms" that I'm trying to avoid.

I have a right to say and do anything I want, but do I want to
continue to make a fool of myself and draw the ire of many on this
list because our views don't mesh?  I don't think so.  I don't have
that kinda time and I don't have that kinda energy.  And that's an
image of myself I'd not like to project, because I'm not that way in
real life.  I don't spend my time offline getting into contentious
debates, knowingly, with people, because I can.  I am a talkative,
outgoing person, and I do like a good discussion, though I don't like
contentious debates, I don't like foul language, and I don't like
character assassinations.  And the fact is, the vast majority of
people on here have never met me off line, so have no idea what I'm
really like.  And my belief is that you don't truly know people
online, you just know the part of themselves they choose to put out
there.  The Net carries a sort of annonymity that allows people to say
and write and do things that they'd never say and write and do in real
life, if they were to ever come face to face with a person in the real
world.  So somehow the image of me that many of you seem to have of
me, or at least the image of me that you're choosing to express in
words, is one that I'd dare say that many people who actually know me
do not have.

And while that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it does
matter, IMHO, when a group of people are trying to work together for a
common purpose, because I'd not want someone in the group who was
arrogant, a liar, mentally unstable, etc., because it would disrupt
the cohesiveness of the group, and the goals of the group would
possibly not be met.  And sometimes perception is the same as reality,
in that even if said person isn't any of those things, if people feel
that they are, then it might as well be the truth.

And this is demonstrated by Musa Jeng's comments a few months' back
that I pretty much singlehandedly had destroyed the opposition's
chances of reuniting.  Now, I'm not sure if he really meant this or if
he just said it in the heat of anger, emotion, or just because it
sounded good.  But I take what people say seriously, I don't care if
it's online or offline.  Because if someone says something, I assume
they really mean it.  Now if they don't, if they say things just to be
saying them, then that's an issue they need to work out. Now, if Musa
is going to say to me that statements that I make online are
singlehandedly damaging the opposition's chances of uniting, then why
would I want to continue to make them?  Going further, why would I
want to publicly support an organization like STGDP, for example, if I
supposedly am causing the Gambian opposition to fragment?  And a
united opposition is a goal that STGDP and other organizations are
striving for?

You see where I'm going?  You and many on this list have told me over
and over again that I've got the wrong idea about the Gambian
opposition, and worse, have continued to hold on to said wrong idea,
even when facts have continually been presented to me.  And worse,
that my statements made online have caused or could cause disunity to
the opposition, which is a goal that I don't want.  Now, truthfully,
if something I said online could cause disunity within the opposition
of a country thousands of miles away from me, then the opposition has
bigger problems than just someone making statements thousands of miles
away from them.  And if my words truly carried that much weight, then
Jammeh would have been long gone by now.  So I'm not saying I
necessarily believe all of this.

However, the perception is there!  And at least someone who seems to
be a fairly high ranking and involved member of an organization set up
to restore democracy in The Gambia took time out of his busy schedule
to come online to this list and write as much, that my words were
doing harm to the oppositions efforts to unite.  And I don't think
this is the first time he's said this.

Now of course, he could say that this is his personal opinion and he's
not speaking on behalf of STGDP, however, again, he's a member of said
organization, and because of that, to me, what he says carries weight,
because if he truly believes this, he will take this opinion in with
him, whether or not he's speaking on behalf of or representing STGDP,
or any other organization for that matter, or not.  So, let's say I
choose to once again become a member of STGDP, or any other
organization set up to deal with the current situation in The Gambia,
how are my interactions with people in that organization going to be
if they truly believe that I'm singlehandedly obstructing the goals
that said organization is trying to achieve, i.e., a united
opposition, which would, hopefully, be a path to restoring democracy
and the rule of law back to The Gambia?  My guess would be that if I'm
viewed as some kind of an obstructionist than my interactions with the
people in tha group would not be very fruitful, and thus my presence
could hender the group's ability to carry out its stated goals.

In short, I just think it's better to keep silent, publicly anwyay,
for everyone's sake.  And I really didn't mean to be so long-winded
which I know I can be at times.

Now I'm off to watch the football game and perhaps take a nap.

Ginny







On 11/1/09, Ginny Quick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello, Bailo, I really don't like the use of the "n" word, in any context.
> Kinda like the same way I don't like the use of the "b" word in regard to
> women.  But again, it's an American cultural thing, perhaps, and given that
> many of my family hail from a small town that not 40 years ago, black people
> were hung off bridges (at least that was a snippet from something I heard
> family members discussing during childhood), that is the image that pops
> into my head every time I hear that word, and I don't care how it's used,
> how it's "pronounced" or in what context.  When I heard that word, I think
> of the people who'd hang people from trees and off of bridges simply because
> of the color of their skin.
>
> I'm glad that you took something offensive and made it into something
> better, however, my very skin crawls every time I hear that word.
>
> Ginny
>
>

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤