Cherno Baba,

I have been away the whole day at the UNICEF Office. I came back and saw
your piece. The objective here for me is not to try to impinge on your
integrity. I am putting you to task so that you will temper your
intellectual disposition with intellectual maturity.

If we are to engage in a discourse, we must agree on the premises for the
discourse. We must agree on what is a scholarly work in order to be able to
determine whether a given article is scholarly or not. We must agree on what
is objective in order to be able to evaluate whether a given article is
objective or not.

What I noticed in your last piece is an attempt to argue without being
faithful to the essence of the discourse. Your original position is that I
missed the point. I raised the question what is the point. In your response,
you evaded this particular question. I did not evade this particular
question. I asserted that scholars who are worth the salt must state the
problematic of the issue they want to investigate. They then proceed to
gather empirical data to be able to address the research questions which
arise from the fundamental point at issue.

I stated categorically that the fundamental point that Ayittey and Co.
raised can be found in the very theme of their article which reads: NYERERE:
A saint or a knave? This is the point at issue. I did not raise it. It is
Ayittey and Co. who raised this.

However, Ayittey and Co. proceeded to talk about entirely different issues
from the question they raised to the point that one cannot know whether one
should conclude that Nyerere was a saint or a knave, yet you, Cherno Baba,
who claims to be intellectually honest and objective, cannot see the
incoherence embedded in the article. It is not obvious to you that its
fundamental point they raised is divorced from the substance they delved
into in their article.

Let me ask you this simple question: Did Ayittey and Co. substantiate
whether Nyerere was a saint or a knave? You evaded this question because to
address it is to confirm that no empirical data was given to prove one thing
or the contrary.

How then can you continue to that  Ayittey's and Co's. article is objective
and scholarly? The  first point is that Ayittey and Co. did not address the
fundamental point they raised as their theme. This conclusion stands
irrefutable. This is the first point.  And please when you are responding do
not just talk about everything and anything. Treat issues as a scholar
would. You must either refute the premises I have set for a scholarly
article which is internationally accepted by all social scientists or accept
that premises that an article must state the fundamental point, the
problematics, at issue, and the writer must address the fundamental
questions which that issue poses which should be the subject of enquiry.

My position is that Ayittey and Co. have stated a problematic without
providing data to substantiate the point at issue. If you are to give
significant reply, you should refute this conclusion.

I have indicated that Ayittey has back-tracked from his position by claiming
that Nyerere was an exception (full stop). You said that I have been blinded
by my Pan Africanism to such a scale that I could not even see where Ayittey
made Nyerere an exception.

If you are an impartial analyst, I cannot understand why you are still an
apologist of Ayittey and Co. I have read what you have read, but I have also
read between the lines to see what you refuse to see. Needless to say, if
you refuse to look at what is in between the lines, you will continue to
accuse me of being blinded by narrow Pan Africanist sentiments. What you
refuse to see is that your scholars started their article not by giving
empirical data, but by giving a moral sermon. They started with a 'fire and
brimstone' sermon threatening to consign those who revere certain African
leaders to criminal irresponsibility.

Ah+ACE- you claim that their intention was not to impinge on Nyerere's integrity
and what they simply did was to state facts, both positive and negative,
about Nyerere.

What was the conclusion, Cherno Baba? Did they simply state facts and leave
the reader to pass his or her judgment? Let me refer you again to their
concluding remarks:

+ACI-Perhaps, this +IBw-reeducation+IB0- came a little too late but it validated the
adage that one never ceases to learn until death. In this sense, Nyerere was
a true teacher. But the supreme irony of it all is that, Julius Nyerere, who
denounced the British colonialists, should seek medical help from Britain
where he died of leukemia. But then again, who thought Sergei Kruschev, the
son of Soviet President, Nikita Kruschev, would take up U.S. citizenship
this year?

+ACI-May Nyerere rest quietly in peace.+ACI-

Cherno Baba, can you say that Ayittey and Co. have respect for Nyerere after
reading their conclusion? Are they not trying to caricature him? What has
seeking treatment in Britain got to do with his records as a leader of
Tanzania? What is negative about him seeking treatment anywhere there is a
doctor who is competent to treat him? Who has monopoly over medical
knowledge? And what glory can Britain claim even if Nyerere was cured in
Britain? The fact that he was not cured, should we now take that as an
indictment of British medicine?  And you still call this clap-trap
objective, non-emotive assessment. Are you really honest? Am I blinded by
emotions or are you the one who is blinded by a deliberate desire to win an
argument by closing your eyes to the naked facts?

Let us separate the sentences. And let me take you to the classroom as a
teacher of English to tell your students what this sentence would mean +ACI-May
Nyerere rest quietly in peace.+ACI-  Now, professor, can you tell me what this
means? Why did Ayittey and Co. select the adverb 'quiety' to qualify 'rest'?
Let me repeat +ACI-May Nyerere rest QUIETLY in peace (emphasis mine). So what
your scholars are saying is that the media pundits/mavens should stop their
clamour for Nyerere is a knave and not a saint who should 'quietly' be
effaced from Africa's memorable history. He should be heard from no more.
This is the simple and elementary truth that any objective analyst should be
able to deduce from their concluding remarks.

I now challenge you to refute this conclusion.

I will purse for you to address these issues which I have tried to state in
the simplest and most coherent of manner for you to deal with the point at
issue. Depending on your response, I would then determine whether it is
appropriate to deal with your last piece the way I had originally decided to
treat it. As of now, I will continue to maintain the view that you are still
recalcitrant because you are yet to understand my point. I hope I have now
explained very clearly why I had to take up issue with Ayittey's and Co.'s
interpretation of Nyerere's place in history as inherent in the concluding
remarks of  their article. I now purse for your reply.


Halifa Sallah.

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

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

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