G-L Community:
This is for those of you who requsted a copy of my Oslo paper and other
interested parties.  Many thanks.

Abdoulaye




Reflections on Female Circumcision/ Cutting/ Genital Mutilation in
Africa
Paper Presented at the Oslo, Norway, Annual Gambian Cultural Week, July
31, 2001

By
ABDOULAYE SAINE
Department of Political Science
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056

Fellow Gambians, Friends of The Gambia, Ladies and gentleman, I have
been asked to address the issue of female circumcision, cutting and/or
genital mutilation in The Gambia as a human rights issue, but before I
do, I wish to thank the organizers of The Gambian Cultural Week in Oslo,
Norway, for their kind invitation, and hospitality.  I am extremely
delighted to be here, as this is an opportunity that I appreciate
greatly, and one that I will always cherish.

By setting aside this week to celebrate The Gambia’s rich and diverse
cultural heritage, Gambians in Norway help maintain, sustain, and renew
the ties that bind all Gambians in the Diaspora to this tiny but
beautiful country, and its peoples.  In celebrating The Gambia, and its
peoples you recognize, and in fact, highlight, the place, and
contribution of The Gambia to a world of interrelated cultures.  In
setting aside this week to celebrate The Gambia, Gambians in Norway
showcase to the larger community in Oslo, The Gambia in all its beauty,
majesty and, yes, its contradictions.  And, contrary to the presumption
that globalization has the inevitable effect of neutralizing many
non-Western cultures, this cultural week in Oslo, reaffirms the historic
resilience and changing nature of Senegambian culture, in spite of the
influences from others.

This enduring, yet changing nature of Senegambian, and Gambian culture
in particular, has to do in part, with The Gambia’s geographic, and
cultural location which is at the confluence of three major cultural
civilizations, African, Islamic/Arab, and European.  These civilizations
have together shaped, and continue to shape Gambian culture.  Thus,
Gambian culture is a syncretic culture with the African, and
Islamic/Arab strands being the most dominant. We must not underestimate,
however, the influence of Western, and Christian cultures.  Their
effects are lasting, and are still being felt today as they are manifest
at the political, economic, and cultural dimensions.

Western colonial domination had the expressed purpose of destroying
indigenous African cultures or at least restructuring them to serve
foreign economic, and political interests.  Yet despite the effects of
colonialism, and other afflictions, Africans, and African cultures
endure, even if modified. The emphasis on family, and marriage as the
organizing principles of society, the centrality of children in the
family, and society, the sense of collective responsibility to children,
and of each other, ways in which Africans psychologically feel toward,
and identify with one another, kinship relationships, age sets, the role
of secret societies, and faith in God, are but a few of the many
institutions that have sustained Africans in Africa, and those of us in
the Diaspora.

And despite the changing character of these institutions, an adverse,
even hostile international environment, these institutions continue to
serve Africans well, especially at a time of declining economies,
HIV/Aids, and other challenges. It is also worth mentioning that despite
attempts by some Western academics and media to marginalize, and paint a
poor picture of Africans, and Africa, Africans in all walks of life, in
general, maintain positive levels of self-esteem imbued with optimism
for the future.  The struggles for democracy throughout the continent,
and in our own homeland, the efforts, and some successes in
counteracting the effects of Hiv/Aids in order to improve the lives of
Africans, testify to our optimism and resilience.

The recent name change of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the
African Union (AU), in July 2001, in the Zambian capital, Lusaka, though
symbolic, is recognition of the need for economic renewal, and vitality
in the face of daunting challenges.  Our resolve as Africans to face our
current challenges is born out of our cultures, and a collective
realization that we must have a vision not only to explore alternatives,
but also the hidden treasures within our own cultures, and the courage
to admit their misinterpretations, and abuses in order to correct them.
Additionally, Africans have made clear to the international community
what we want.  And, as a start, Africans together with some of our
progressive leaders want the dignity gained by knowing that our hopes
for our nations, the needs of families, and individual dreams for
liberty, and progress are deemed important.  Ultimately, though, the
true dividing line of power, and progress in the twenty-first century
will be the division between those who think only within and in terms of
their immediate culture, and those who think about how people in their
own, and other cultures think about, and react to every aspect of their
entire world.  In other words, we live in a world where cultures are not
static but open, and permeable.

It is against this backdrop, the ways we think of our culture, and how
in turn other cultures think about, and react to the issue of female
genital mutilation, circumcision and/or cutting that the current
discussion must be framed.  This is because we live in a global
community of cultures where Senegambian culture, and Gambian culture in
particular, continues to influence, and is likewise, influenced by
others.  In this regard, the generated interest, passion, and
controversy over female circumcision in Africa, Asia, the Middle East,
and The Gambia specifically, have become universal.

Admittedly, the issue of female cutting is a sensitive one, and a
concern that is not customarily discussed by Gambian males, and male
academics at that.  Many have tended to ignore the issue, and/or have
stood by the sidelines, and yielded to Gambian female activists,
Western, and African female academics, and non-governmental
organizations.  Low male, and Gambian male participation in the debate
in particular, could be explained by the exclusivity women in The
Gambia, and elsewhere have, and continue to have over this sacred, and
likewise secret institution, where older women perform the excisions/
cutting on young girls.  While female exclusivity in framing the issues,
and the practice of genital mutilation is still present, some men have
joined the debate for a change.  Thus, the cultural constraints that
once limited discussion of female circumcision to female initiates
alone, and who in turn guarded their secrets from men, and foreigners,
are now eroding.

Discussing the issue of female excision as a male has its limits,
obviously, and I therefore, ask your indulgence in a discourse that is
intended more to explore and raise some important concerns rather than
to offending cultural sensibilities, and those of initiates,
specifically.  What takes place in women secret societies during female
circumcision, however, is paradoxically an open secret.  Thanks to the
works of African, Gambian women activists, organizations, Western female
academics and activists.

My venture into this terrain of female circumcision is a consequence of
training, teaching, and interest in various aspects of international
development, political economy, women, gender equity issues, and
feminist theory for over a decade.  This interest was academic at best,
however.  It took seeing, the Malian film Fanshen, the docudrama,
Warrior Marks, by Alice Walker about ten, and five years ago,
respectively, and listening to a harrowing narrative of a young Gambian
woman initiate in London, two years ago, to awaken me, and end my days
at the sidelines.  Warrior Marks, and the Gambian woman’s narrative in
particular, left me sleepless for several nights, and forced me to look
at female genital mutilation critically, since.  It is not necessarily
the foci of my academic research, yet it has nonetheless, taken a
significant chunk of my research time, and interest in the last two
years.  This, in part because of a promise I made to the Gambian woman
initiate I met in London.

It goes without saying, therefore, that female genital mutilation,
circumcision, excision and many of the terms used to describe this
practice are seeped in controversy.  This controversy is often deeply
ideological, and sometimes divided between those who see it as a valued
cultural practice, on one hand, and those who perceive it as a
maladaptive, and an unnecessary cultural practice, on the other.  The
clash between those who support, and those who oppose female cutting in
the debate are often referred to as cultural relativists, and
universalists.  On one hand, relativists contend that societal norms,
and practices such as female circumcision cannot be subjected to, and
judged by universal human rights standards.  In fact, many cultural
relativists see universal norms, and efforts to impose them on all
societies, as constituting cultural imperialism.

By contrast, those that advocate universal human rights norms argue that
despite our cultural differences, we can live by certain human rights
standards to protect humankind, and vulnerable groups, in particular.
Differences in orientation regarding female circumcision, hinge
fundamentally on differences in value orientations.  For instance, many
African feminist activists, with the support of not exclusively Western
feminists, have made compelling arguments regarding the eradication of
the practice.  Many contend that female genital mutilation is rooted in
structures of patriarchy, that it is medically dangerous, and intended
to curb and control female sexuality.  Still yet, some African women see
attempts to eradicate female cutting by other African, Western feminist
writers, and advocates as neocolonial meddling, and efforts to deflect
attention from the more urgent issues of development such as poverty,
gender, national and international income inequality.

Among Western, mostly American academic and feminist advocates for
eradication, the debate between cultural relativists, and universalists
is often intense.  In this regard, Daly and Hosken have been singled
out, and accused by some feminist scholars of a “patriarchal “cover-up”
because their writings harbor racist prejudice.  Additionally, it is
argued that such writing has often framed, and distorted the image of
African women as helpless, passive, and oppressed, and needing the
intervention of their “liberated” Western sisters.  In fact, in support
of this position, some African women who have been circumcised, charge
African, and Western opponents of female genital mutilation/circumcision
of not understanding the context, meaning and significance of this
practice to young girls in societies that practice it.  Fuambai Ahmadu,
a scholar at the London School of Economics and political Science (LSE),
who was herself circumcised, laments the “venomous” tone of the debate,
and its unyielding stance in support of eradication from advocates who
are themselves “outsiders and uncircumcised.”  Needless to say, the
debate, and the normative values that fuel them have important
implications for policy against or continued support of the practice.

It is clear from the works of Shell-Duncan et al., Thomas, Gosselin,
Johnson, and others that many circumcised women favor the continuance of
the practice for their daughters because of its transforming effects.
In fact, these studies in parts of Kenya, Mali, and Guinea Bissau,
suggest the effect circumcision has on religious identity, personhood,
marriage, and procreation to the extent that young girls in colonial
Meru, Kenya, defied laws and circumcised themselves.  Yet, Hernlund,
Mandara, Orubuloye, Balk, Abusharaf and Mackie show how the practice is
changing in Senegal, The Gambia, Sudan, and northern Nigeria.

In Gambia’s case, Herlnlund suggests how young girls were initiated at
an earlier age to ensure compliance, and shows how in Basse, with the
help of domestic non-governmental organizations, young girls are
initiated without being circumcised while undergoing all other rituals.
Mackie has shown how Senegalese villagers through education decided to
end the practice, which was in turn emulated by other villages. In
northern Nigeria, by contrast, medicalization of the practice has been
seen as a transition toward eradication, even if opposed by some medical
doctors and the World Health Organization.

The book, Female “Circumcision” in Africa, edited by Shell-Duncan and
Hernlund is testimony to the different and complex cultural perceptions
and views held toward female circumcision in the continent.  The views
held by these societies regarding female circumcision are by no means
monolithic.  Yet, the major contribution of the book lies in unraveling
what sometimes are simplistic and binary arguments between cultural
relativists, and Universalist presumptions. What the book also shows is
that the literature on female circumcision, its ideological, and policy
positions though essentialized, are in themselves mixed, and at times
ambiguous.  What is clear is that some of the various contentions of
relativists and Universalists do have merit even when many others are
less so.

This debate has important implications for the ultimate eradication of
female genital mutilation or its continued practice.  It is important
that Western feminists, and advocates who condemn the practice acquire
greater understanding of the internal dynamics, power, and gender
relations in societies where it persists.  That circumcision in these
societies has a dynamic of its own seemingly independent, and beyond the
control of men.  That in many societies young girls are imbued with
certain psychological, identity, self-esteem, and material rewards as a
result of being circumcised.  That mothers who have their daughters
circumcised do it out of concern for their daughter’s future in
societies where an uncircumcised woman is often seen as a child, in some
cases, not a suitable partner, and yet in others, ostracized for bearing
children while still uncircumcised.  To understand these arguments,
however, is not to accept or condone the practice, but understanding
them would indeed make arguments for eradication more compelling.  More
important, however, is that female circumcision cannot be disassociated
from the social, economic, and political forces that gave rise to it in
the first place.  Acknowledgement of this dynamic could go a long way in
assuaging the tension, and accusations of racism, cultural imperialism,
and neocolonialism.  In other words, be informed, be less judgmental,
and avoid a “mightier than thou” attitude.  African feminists, and
activists alike, must be mindful in the ways they approach this issue.
Similarly, cultural relativists must pay attention to the adverse
medical effects of the practice, and at least entertain the notion that
the continued practice of female circumcision is indeed a symptom of
underdevelopment, and a cornerstone of male domination.  It must also be
acknowledged that cultural justifications for female circumcision appear
untenable in light of the potential loss of life, infections, and
complications during childbirth.  Not to mention the potential for
infertility, divorce, and admittedly, the more contentious issue of
sexual gratification or lack thereof.  All cultures, and in particular
African cultures are imbued with resilient institutions, and the
eradication of genital cutting will not bring these cultures and their
institutions crashing to the ground.

Trade, technology, information, travel, and ideas integrate the world,
and the retreat to culturally based arguments and female exclusivity, is
less than convincing, in spite the emotive effect accusations of racism,
and neocolonialism may have.  In fact, recent studies in Kenya, and The
Gambia show that the teachings, songs, and other markers of personhood,
womanhood, religious identity etc. can be kept while doing away with the
more painful practice of cutting.

Many Westerners hearing about female genital mutilation are at once
repulsed, and unable to understand why women would want to practice it.
Many see the practice as peculiarly backward whose eradication,
especially among immigrant populations in countries like Norway, and the
U.S., is long overdue.  It is believed that African Muslims, and Muslims
in general, need to be educated in order for them to relinquish these
superstitions, and embrace scientific reasoning, and objective
rationalization. More worrisome, however, is the notion that Islam
supports the practice even though the Koran makes no mention of it.  In
so doing, the association of Islam standing in the way of progress is
often made, albeit, erroneously.

Thus, the national, and international efforts by some Westerners to
eradicate female circumcision in Western countries, Africa, Asia and the
Middle-East is widely perceived as paternalistic at best, and racist at
worst.  While many Muslims oppose female circumcision, the fever for
eradication by Westerners is often seen as a hidden agenda to change
people’s lives according to a particular Western model of development.
It is also seen as another assault on Islam, a religion often framed as
anti-Western and whose practitioners lack the rudiments of a democratic
polity, and ethos.  Many Muslims will quickly suspect that female
circumcision is not what is at stake, what is at stake is Islam itself.
Similarly, the term “Democracy,” and “Human Rights” may be perceived by
many Muslims as codes used to attack Muslims who are widely portrayed as
terrorists, and undemocratic.

When a 20-year-old Somali woman named Kadra walked into a mosque in Oslo
last year, equipped with a hidden camera in alliance with national
television network TV2 to expose the alleged non-compliance, and alleged
inconsistencies between the public, and private views of Imams against
female circumcision, it caused an uproar amongst Muslims in Norway,
Europe, and the U.S.  The program aired on October 4, seven months after
Kadra first visited the mosques.  This further divided the African
Muslim community from the larger population, and was seen as another
assault on Africans, Islam, and Muslims alike.  Kadra’s expose propelled
a national action plan against female genital mutilation with a budget
equivalent to $1 million.  It was reported that some parents were put on
trial and that a Gambian national lost his job, and was forced to resign
from the Islamic Council.  Recent information I received on arrival in
Oslo, however, suggests that the Gambian national did not in fact, lose
his job nor did he resign from the Islamic Council.  What appears to
have been at play here, without claiming to know the details, beyond
what I read in the papers and magazines in the U.S., is a clash between
what I earlier termed cultural relativists, and Universalists? More
importantly, however, it was a clash of cultural perceptions with their
accompanying, perhaps, preexisting images, ideologies, and beliefs about
female cutting.

What is needed is an alternative to the polarization presented above.
The alternative requires an open environment where issues about female
circumcision are discussed by all interested parties, and including
those from the social, legal and medical professions.  Such open
discussion could engender trust, clarify the issues about female
circumcision, and enable participants to arrive at a comprehensive
national program to address the practice.  It would also be an
opportunity for immigrant Muslim communities to face head on, and deal
with female circumcision in a comprehensive manner.  In the process, the
larger community is educated, and sensitized about female circumcision,
while the immigrant Muslim community feels empowered as a result of its
participation in creating a national plan to address female genital
mutilation.  Each community could legitimately claim ownership of the
resulting national policy.

Yet in spite of this, and other controversies in Norway and elsewhere,
there is much confusion surrounding the practice of female circumcision,
in part, because of the different types practiced in different
cultures.  The WHO Technical Working Group, however, has helped in both
the definition, and classification of the different practices.  The
first, and simplest, (nothing simple about this procedure), less
invasive form, involves the removal of the clitoral hood, and sometimes
all or part of the clitoris.  The second often includes the first
procedure together with the removal of the labia minora.  The third,
infibulation, involves the complete removal of the clitoris, labia
minora, together with the inner surface of the labia majora.  The raw
edges are then stitched together with a small opening to allow the
passage of urine, and menstrual blood.  Another, and relatively new
category encompasses other surgical procedures that involve some
manipulation of the genitalia.  These include pricking, piercing or
incision of the clitoris, and surrounding tissue.  In fact, anecdotal
evidence in Europe and Norway, specifically, suggest that some women now
engage in genital alteration(s) or mutilation for cosmetic reasons.

The most common type of female genital mutilation is the removal of the
clitoris, and part of the libia minora.  It constitutes up to 80 per
cent of female circumcision practiced.  The most severe form is
infibulation, and by some estimates it constitutes 15 percent of the
practice.  The latter is practiced predominantly in parts of Somalia,
northern Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and northern Kenya, some
parts of Mali, and northern Nigeria.  While performed by traditional
practitioners without local anesthetics, and often under unsanitary
conditions, the WHO as mentioned earlier, opposes it medicalization.
The age average at which it is performed globally varies from about 7
years, in children, and before marriage.  Yet as Hernlund, and others
have shown in The Gambia, and elsewhere, the age at which these
procedures are performed is falling, and sometimes performed seven days
after birth.

Why is it done?  Supporters generally defend the practice on two
grounds.  One is tradition, and the second is that it supposedly ensures
chaste behavior in girls, and married women.  Its origin is unknown and
a variety of social, cultural, psychosexual, hygienic reasons are given
for maintaining it.  It is performed in 28 African countries, the Middle
East, parts of Asia, Australia, and among immigrant populations in
Europe, and North America.  The WHO estimates that between 85 million,
and 114 million girls, and women in the world today have undergone some
form of female circumcision.    It cuts across religion, ethnic, and
class lines.

In Islam, male, and female circumcision is optional.  The legal Islamic
position is that males should be circumcised although some legal
scholars contend that male converts do not have to be circumcised if
they are fearful of the procedure.  Female circumcision is considered
Sunnah, which in this case means optional.  According to Eric Winkel,
who is himself a Muslim, and a scholar, “ There is no harm in not doing
it, and there is reward in doing it.”  The prophet Muhammad, (Peace be
Upon Him), cautioned the “Khafidah” (one who trims back) “ do not overdo
it because it (the clitoris) is a good fortune for the spouse, and a
delight to her.”  In sum, Islam does not obligate female Muslims to be
circumcised, it is a Sunnah, and therefore, optional.

In fact, I am inclined to believe, based on my reading on the subject,
that female genital cutting predates Islam as it is practiced by
non-Muslims, some Christians, and not practiced by all Muslims.  In
fact, some Christian groups as those in Meru, Kenya practice it, and
others do not.  Additionally, it is not generally practiced by all
ethnic groups in Ethiopia, Senegal, Gambia, Mali or Kenya.  The practice
is not universal either among the Yoruba of Nigeria.  Thus, it would be
wrong to assume that all the women from The Gambia, for instance, have
been circumcised.
Let me conclude by sharing with you my views about female circumcision,
and commitment to ending the practice in The Gambia, and elsewhere.  Let
me say from the outset that Gambian culture is rich, diverse, and
vibrant, and events of this week in Oslo lend credence to that.  And
like other cultures, Gambians continue to evolve new institutions to
help adaptation to ever changing domestic needs, and international
concerns.

It is my view that female genital mutilation is a maladaptive practice,
a practice that must do away with its most painful, and dangerous
attributes should we wish to keep the rituals, and celebration.  The
elements that emphasize respect for elders, instill hard work, and
responsibility among initiates, the ceremonies, and celebration marking
the rite of passage from childhood to womanhood, personhood etc., are
elements that are worth preserving without the physical cutting of
genital parts.

When it comes to eradication, I believe that education, discussion,
medicalization as practiced in some countries as a transition to
eradication, or eradication as argued from a human rights perspective,
legislation, and all other strategies have an important part to play.
We may not all agree on a given mode, but together they can make an
impact.  Similarly, a mother or group of mothers who refuse to
circumcise their daughter(s) would be contributing in no small measure
to the ultimate eradication of female circumcision.  Likewise, fathers,
brothers, uncles, and other male relatives who convince their wives, and
daughters not to engage in circumcision, or support their partners, and
daughters who refuse to, could also have an impact.  But perhaps the
most all of us can do is to be educated, and educate others about the
issues pertaining to female circumcision.  Despite the raging
controversy surrounding female circumcision, many people, unfortunately,
remain uniformed.  It is our duty then to educate ourselves, and help
others acquire information about the subject, and issues.

When it comes to female cutting and its eradication, I am on the side of
the debate that argues that despite our cultural differences, binding
universal laws, standards, and norms are possible, in fact, necessary.
This is because despite our cultural differences many principles and
covenants in international law are premised on different and sometimes
divergent customs.  The international community is generally agreed that
torture, genocide, slavery, and rape of women political prisoners are
crimes against humanity.  Consequently, we must not hide behind the
edifice of culture, cultural explanations, and excuses to justify female
circumcision.  In fact, few people do.

As the Burmese political activist Aug San Suu Kyi argues so eloquently,
“the national culture can become a bizarre graft of carefully selected
historical incidents, and distorted social values intended to justify
the politics and actions of those in power.”  She goes on to add that as
for the charge of cultural imperialism, “when democracy and human rights
are said to run counter to non-Western cultures, such culture is usually
defined narrowly and presented as a monolith.”  To avoid this, she
contends that it is possible to conceive of rights “which place human
worth above power and liberation over control.”

Female circumcision, in my view, is the imposition of control over
women, and their sexuality in societies that are inherently patriarchal,
even when many women partly control, and support the practice.  Men who
support it do so in order to preserve gender elements of a culture that
are no longer defensible so as to preserve male power, privilege, and
advantage.  It has little or nothing to do with religion, chastity or
tradition, but has everything to do with power.  And because female
circumcision straddles both health, and human rights issues, it needs a
community based multidimensional approach to eradicate it.

I urge you all to get engaged, and engage others in the debate, and
efforts to end female circumcision in The Gambia, and elsewhere.  This
week’s celebration of Gambian culture in Oslo is a reaffirmation that
our culture, despite its shortcomings, is rich, and one that all of us
can take pride in.  That you, together with women, and men all over,
including your Norwegian hosts, and hostesses, governmental, and
non-governmental organizations, will commit yourselves to the struggle
to bring about a day when young girls will not be circumcised.  That we
will all work toward a day when women will become equal partners, and
citizens of the world. Because men will never be completely, and truly
free unless the rights and freedoms, advantages, and privileges that
they have, and take for granted are shared equally by women.

Those women in The Gambia who risk life, and limb, and are leaders in
the struggle need our moral support, but more important, our financial
assistance.  Too much is at risk when we leave the issues of female
genital mutilation to a few politicians in The Gambia.  In other words,
we must support and fight for gender equality in The Gambia, and
elsewhere.  In fighting for gender equality, and human rights, we must
also fight for freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and not least of
all, Free, and Fair Election in The Gambia in October 2001.  Because our
chances of achieving gender equality is most optimal under a democracy
rather than the military dictatorship currently in place.

In conclusion, by setting this week aside to celebrate The Gambia’s rich
cultural diversity, and history, Gambians in Oslo, and in Norway
demonstrate beyond doubt the proud traditions, and practices we cherish
as a people, and show to the world that The Gambia, and Africa occupy a
central place in the diverse cultures of humankind.  That our cultures
are indeed dynamic, rich, and innovative, and one to be emulated by the
world for its humanistic and other attributes.  However, a culture that
does not reevaluate its deeply held values, and traditions periodically,
and then discard its most undesirable elements would most certainly
flounder in the end.

We commend the Gambian, and Muslim communities in Oslo, and throughout
Norway, their Norwegian friends, neighbors, governmental, and
non-governmental organizations, and implore them to work together in
educating each other about female circumcision, and its eradication.
Thank you.

Selected Bibliography
Bakke, K. “Kadra: FGM Exposed,” Ms. News, June / July 2001.

Dorkenoo, E. “Combating Female Genital Mutilation: An Agenda for the
Next Decade,” World Health Statistics Quarterly, Vol. 49, No.2 (1996).

Shell-Duncan, B. and Hernlund, Y. Female “Circumcision” in Africa.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2000.

Winkel, E. “A Muslim Perspective on Female Circumcision,” Women and
Health, Vol. 23, No.1 (1995).

For correspondence:  Abdoulaye Saine, Department of Political Science,
Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056.  Phone: (513) 529-2489(O); Fax:
(513) 529-1709; Email address: [log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------