Gambia L,

As promised the other day, I intend to do, God's willing, some
interpretative journalism on the various articles written by Professors Wole
Soyinka and Ali Mazrui, on their debate over the Henry Louis Gates Jr TV
series, so as to expose the childish and personal nature of some of their
arguments.

This would then provide us with the basis to start DEMYSTIFYING some of
these big name professors, and see them as mere human beings who are bound
to make errors in judgement, just like anyone of us.

They, like you and I, have faults/flaws, and none of them, for that matter,
is omniscient, or all knowing. Only God is! In other words, not a single one
of them has a monopoly of ideas or know it all.

They could be very, very knowledgeable, but that knowledge is not
exclusively reserved for them. With hard work and determination, you and I
could also possess that same knowledge, or even a superior one.

And since they are as fallible as you and I are, or since they are far from
being perfect, we shouldn't then take whatever they say/write, or whatever
conclusions they draw, as the gospel truth. To be fair, some of them are
very honest and dedicated to their work. And their only commitment is to
transfer their wealth of knowledge to their fellow human beings.

But there are also others - among these big name professors - who are not
sincere at all and who may have hidden agendas. This is why in this 21st
century, it is more than necessary, that we develop very critical minds
which are capable of separating the facts from the fictions at all times,
regardless of whether the speaker is a politician, a big name professor or a
journalist like myself.

Presently, I am on mid-term break, but, by the grace of God, sometime next
week, I hope to post to the L, the article I've promised (that is if time
permits me) on the childish nature of the debate between Wole and Mazrui, in
order to expose the personal nature of some of their argument, so that
people on the L and outside the L, are convinced that after all, we - at
Gambia L - are not doing that badly.

Meanwhile, allow me, in this piece, to try and piece together for you, the
root cause of the controversies between these two "great" African scholars,
based on their own letters to each other over the period.

But the first point to note, which is an important one, is that Soyinka is a
devout Christian and Mazrui a devout Muslim.

Now, many of us are already aware that in 1986, two important events
happened in the African calendar. It was during this year that Mazrui came
out with his TV series entitled "The Africans - A Triple Heritage."

Well, as we also know, it was in 1986 that Soyinka also won the Nobel Prize
for literature.

Now, after Ali Mazrui's 9-part film series was shown worldwide, Wole
Soyinka, for reasons best known to him, accused the TV series of being
pro-Islam, arguing too that Mazrui had denigrated indigenous African
cultures.

He also accused Ali Mazrui of being an Islamic fundamentalist, or an
intolerant religious fanatics. Ali Mazrui, in turn, accused Soyinka, among
other things, of turning against him because he, Ali, "had dared to share
the limelight very briefly with him (Wole) in 1986", having, in his (Ali's)
view, directed and presented the first globally televised TV series about
Africa.

Then the fight - figuratively speaking I mean - between the two men
intensified after Salman Rushdie published his controversial book "The
Satanic Verses".

However, it needs to be pointed out that before Salman Rushdie's book was
published, the exchanges between Wole and Ali Mazrui were only
reported/covered in the pages of the then US-based Transition Journal.

Now, when Salman Rushdie's book came out, which many, or most, Muslims
regard(ed) as being blasphemous, Soyinka came to the defence of Salman
Rushdie and condemned as "murderous incitement", the FATWA placed on
Rushdies' head by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.

Ali Mazrui, at this very time that Soyinka had come to the defence of
Rushdie, decided, according to Soyinka, to "send a portion of the exchanges
between him and Soyinka which took place in the pages of the Transition
Journal, to the local newspapers in the predominantly Moslem Northern
Nigeria", for publication.

And in these articles, Ali Mazrui had accused Soyinka, among other things,
of being a hater of Islam. Now, Ali Mazrui's accusations against Soyinka
were then published in Northern Nigeria, at a time when many Muslims in that
part of Nigeria, were demonstrating in the streets of Zaria and Kaduna
carrying placards with readings "Death To Wole Soyinka".

These demonstrations were of course provoked by the fact that Wole Soyinka
had publicly or openly defended the publication of the "Satanic Verses"
authored by Salman Rushdie, which many or most Muslims regard(ed) as being
disrespectful to Prophet Muhammed (SAW).

Soyinka, however, attacked Ali Mazrui "for sending a portion of their
intellectual exchange, taking place in the Transition Journal in the USA, to
Northern Nigeria, at a time when Muslims in the North were calling for the
"Fatwa" to be placed on his head."

Ali Mazrui's articles, published in Northern Nigeria, in Soyinka's view,
aggravated the demonstrations in that part of Nigeria against him, since
they (the articles) were sent to the North, during a very sensitive period.

Ali Mazrui, however, countered that he never tried to "incite Northern
Nigerian Muslims against their distinguished compatriot (Wole Soyinka)." He
argued that he had "to alert The Democrat newspaper in Kaduna, in the North,
and The Guardian in South, because it was in Nigeria itself, that Wole
Soyinka had started attacking him and his TV series", in the late 80s.

He had an obligation, he said, to send his defence to Nigeria as well, so
that his side of the story, as it were, can be heard. And if he, Ali accused
Soyinka of being a hater of Islam, he went on, it was because Soyinka wrote
articles in the Numbers 51 and 57 issues of the US-based Transition Journal
that were "satanic", or anti Islam.

Now, against this background then came in the Henry Louis Gates Jr TV
series. Having watched the TV series entitled in the US "Wonders of the
African World", Ali Mazrui then took issue with Henry Louis Gates'
perspective and issued a critique to which Gates had reacted to. (By the
way, in the UK, the BBC version was entitled "Into Africa" and was shown
earlier in August 1999).

Anyway, professor Soyinka who is a mentor and a good friend of Henry Louis
Gates Jr, then joined in and rebuked Ali Mazrui "for crossing the bounds of
academic decorum."

Now, apparently provoked/angered by Soyinka's initial rebuff, Mazrui then
wrote a second critique of the Gates' TV series, in which he, Mazrui had
accused Gates of "Black Orientalism."

Ali Mazrui had argued that in order for his (Gates') TV series to be well
received by the Western Media and academia, Gates had paid a very heavy
price for its acceptance.

Gates decided, in Mazrui's view, not to present a radical view, a view that
would challenge western interpretations and prejudices, so that the TV
series would be accepted by the Western Establishment. In other words, Gates
had to twist the facts of history so as to please the Western Establishment.

Meanwhile, writing in support of Ali Mazrui, Eddie D'Sa, who edits the
London-based quarterly called "Goan Overseas Digest", wrote:..."To be
accepted by the Western establishment, Gates had to play by the rules
current today: (that is to) demonize the muslims and others "extremists" (or
at least play down their positive side), don't knock the Jews, go easy on
past of Western misdemeanours"...

So, what Ali Mazrui (a Muslim) was doing in his critiques, according to
Eddie D'Sa, was to show that Gates (a Christian) had abided by the rules. To
back his (Eddie's) claims, Eddie D'Sa added:.."The series contain little
about the Islamic cultural contribution to Africa....Gates had ignored
virtually the whole of Arab North Africa. He had misrepresented the Swahili
people and preferred to hear the views of a Christian missionary on Muslims
atrocities in Zanzibar."

Earlier, Eddie D'Sa went on, "Gates had denounced the black American
Africanists and Afrocentrists in the columns of New York Times, which is an
Establishment paper". Furthermore, Eddie D'Sa wrote:.."Gates did not hide
his pro-Jewish bias and worst still, there was an emphasis on the Arab
(rather than the White) role in the slave trade."

Eddie D'Sa also argued that as Ali Mazrui himself charges, Gates had indeed
"got the white man off the hook for the Atlantic trade", by blaming it
(slavery) on Africans themselves and the Arabs.

Professor Soyinka, however, holds a different view. He insinuated that Ali
Mazrui's "hostile" actions (towards Henry Louis Gates Jr) showed or proved
that he, Mazrui, was resenting the success of Gates' TV series and its
positive reception by the Western media and academia.

Meanwhile, the bitter exchanges between Mazrui and Soyinka have become so
ugly and dirty that Wole Soyinka called Ali Mazrui, in one of his
correspondences to him, a liar and also questioned Ali Mazrui's
"Africaness".

Gambia L, if these two African scholars are Africa's role models, then God
save the Queen, as we say in England, because their behavior, in the wake of
the Gates' TV series, in my view, is a disgrace or very distasteful indeed.
And for Heaven's sake Africa and Africans deserve better than this in my
view!!

Well, let these two professors be informed that a new breed of leadership
will soon emerge in Africa; leaders who are more than capable of defending
Africa's interest, image, borders, economies, needs and aspirations and
whose sole interest, I emphasize, would be to protect Africa's interest and
nothing else.

Ebrima Ceesay
Birmingham, UK.

PS: Gambia L, I saw Professor Sulayman Nyang being interviewed on Saturday,
by CNN International, on the Burundi Peace Talks, and certainly, his
comments on the subject, were worth listening to.

By the way, Gambia L, is history itself on trial, in the wake of Gates' TV
series, since he is arguing - in the series - that Africans took active part
in the slavery and should in fact be equally blamed for it.

Meanwhile, here in England, there is already a court case in which a well
known British historian is arguing that Adolf Hitler, after all, did not
kill the number of Jews as reported. The historian says he'll prove that the
number has indeed been exagerated or inflated.

Gambia L, believe me, interesting times are ahead, since it looks like
history itself is now on trial!!!
______________________________________________________
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

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