Hi Cherno!
Thanks for your response and clarifications. On your first
point, I can only add that while the "the sheer love of narrow-minded
pan-africanism... without any hint of critical objectivity " is dangerous,
reactionary rejection and complete acceptance of others' weak positions
disguised in quotations to mask their positions' superficiality without any
hint of critical objectivity and analysis is equally dangerous.
On your second point, it was neither the lack of comprehension of the
idiomatic expressions nor the failure to understand the words you used that
prompted me to ask for clarification. It was rather your apparent (at least
to me) dismissal of, not only in that paragraph but throughout your mail,
the attempts made by the Nkrumahs etc. to lead Africa and create
institutions that safeguard Africa's independence and integrity in the face
of the realities of their time. I asked for clarification to not only gauge
the psyche behind the comments but also to avoid misinterpreting what you
wrote.
Finally, I have learnt through your clarifications your stand with
regard to certain things. Keep the debate going. I am enjoying it. Thanks.
Buharry.
----- Original
Message -------------------------------------------------------
From: chernob jallow <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 7:22 PM
Subject: Response to Momodou Buharry Gassama
> Buharry,
>
> The fact of Nkrumah or Nyerere being simply Africans or Independence
winners
> from the colonialists is not as important to me as what they did with
> independence and thereafter. Some people, for the sheer love of
> narrow-minded pan-africanism, are entertained by the personalities of the
> Nkrumahs, the Nyereres, the Cabrals, without any hint of critical
> objectivity on their legacies. I am not trying to 'kill' Africa's
> 'prophets,' but their being Africans alone is insignificant to me.
>
> On your second point, I was talking about Halifa's references to what the
> Lumumbas, the Nkrumahs, the Nyereres wished for Africa's development. He
> 'harped'(talked about it repeatedly)on this; and he 'went the whole
> hog'(idiomatic expression, meaning to do something thoroughly or
> completely).
>
> I hope you have understood and learnt something. Thanks for the
> correspondence.
>
> Cherno
>
> >From: MOMODOU BUHARRY GASSAMA <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Memo to Halifa
> >Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:09:45 +0100
> >
> >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
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> ______________________________________________________
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
