When two elephants fight... well, you know the rest. I'm not sure whether
I forwarded the first part of the article to the list. I'll check the
archives.

Cheers,
         Madiba.

ABUJA MIRROR: FEBRUARY 16-22, 2000

ISSUES


  Professor Ali Mazrui replies Soyinka - The strange case of Nobel
Schizophrenia

(Continued from last week)

How early in my life did I identify with the African side of my ancestry? My
answer is that I became a Pan-Africanist as soon as I became politically
conscious in colonial Kenya. By the time I was an undergraduate at the
University of Manchester in England I was Pan-African enough to be elected
President of the African Students' Association, leading a membership which
included Nigerians, Ghanaians as well as East Africans. They all looked to
me for leadership. As an African I never looked back.

I do not need Wole Soyinka's stamp of confirmation that I am an African. My
identity is in my blood, my ancestry, my history, my commitment, my life. If
I was somebody constantly looking for approval from people who were
"blacker" than me, I would have kept a low profile instead of becoming a
controversial African political analyst. If I was looking for the stamp of
approval from governments which were "blacker" than me, I would not have
challenged Milton Obote and Idi Amin of Uganda, Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya or
Julius K. Nyerere of Tanzania. Obote was sometimes tempted to detain me or
expel me; Idi Amin eventually wished he had eliminated me; and Julius
Nyerere was in recurrent debates with me. Moi does not know what to do with
me. And yet none of the politicians have tried to dis-Africanize me unlike
Wole! What a pity! Why do you descend to ethnic politics?

Mr. Soyinka, your interpretation of my behaviour as a human being is so
simplistic that it does not do justice to you as a writer and intellectual.
Shall I tell you how I would have behaved if I wanted to live down my
ancestry and play to the gallery of those who claim to be "purely Black"?
First and foremost, I would not have used the name "MAZRUI" as my surname.
Since surnames are a Western tradition, I could have used instead the name
of my father or grandfather as my surname. There are other members of the
Mazrui clan who have chosen to do without the Mazrui name, including some
very distinguished Kenyans. They have thus disguised their ancestry. The
name "Mazrui" is well-established in East African history. By CHOOSING it as
my surname, I decided I could be an African without denying my historic
ancestry. That was not a sign of guilt-ridden opportunism.

Secondly, if in the post colonial era I wanted to play down the Arab side of
my descent, I would avoid the Arabs. I have done nothing of the kind.
Although I have both Arab friends and Arab relatives, they treat me as their
AFRICAN relative. I lecture about Africa in the Arab world, and often wear a
kente scarf instead of an Arab turban when I speak in the Middle East. I do
not try to affirm my Africanity by rejecting my Arab relatives. Is that a
sign of guilt-ridden opportunism?

Thirdly, I came from an African country where Muslims are a minority
(Kenya). If I wanted to play to the dominant Christo-secular gallery in
Kenya, I would not choose to be highly visible as a spokesperson for Muslim
minorities. Indeed, I would not choose to become one of the most highly
visible Islamicist scholars from Africa. I have chosen not to affirm my
Africanity by hiding my Islamicity. Is that a sign of guilt-ridden
opportunism?

I have never worried about religious tolerance from followers of African
traditional religion. I have said time and again that I regarded the
indigenous tradition as the most ecumenical of Africa's triple heritage. Mr.
Soyinka, you have not read my writings. You do not have to. But do not
pretend you know anything about what I stand for. If you had only seen my TV
series, or read the companion book The Africans: A Triple Heritage, you
would know that I repeatedly give full credit to the tolerance and
ecumenical spirit of Africa's traditional religion. It is a pity you like to
attack a TV series you have never seen (like mine) and defend some other TV
series before you have ever watched it (like Gates'). If you have to be
judgmental, I can think of more rational ways of evaluating television
series than your idiosyncratic methods.

Fourthly, if I was insecure about my Africanity and was afraid of the
disapproval of the so-called "pure Black Africans", I would have kept a low
political profile in the sub-region of Africa where I belong. Let me repeat.
I would not have gone around either irritating or infuriating powerful
"Black African" Presidents in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. I certainly would
not have engaged in public debates on sensitive policies with Milton Obote
when he was in power in Uganda. On one occasion he attacked me in a
presidential speech in the Uganda Parliament ­ but he never used a single
ethnic epithet against me. To the credit of all those African politicians,
they never questioned my Africanity. They knew more about the Mazrui in
history than you do. They certainly did not make their recognition of my
Africanity dependent on my good behaviour, as you seem to be doing. Our East
African leaders might have had many faults, but (apart from Idi Amin with
regard to Indians) they were less "racially purist" in public posture than
Mr. Wole Soyinka. I spoke my mind and criticized their faults. Was that the
behaviour of an insecure guilt-ridden Arab opportunist? My relationship with
Idi Amin had its ups and downs.

But even when I criticized his policy towards Uganda Indians, he never
questioned my Africanity. Like you, I have interacted with the high and
mighty in politics, diplomacy, the military, high society as well as
academia. But unlike you, I am a minor player and could easily have been
brushed aside in ethnic terms. Yet as far as I know only you, Bioden Jayefo
and William Ochieng (a Moi academic supporter in Kenya) have ever publicly
played the ethnic card against me.

Yours is an exclusive club of three racial purists among African
intellectuals! Congratulations!!

When President Idi Amin in Uganda did not like the challenge of Frank
Kalimuzo, he said Kalimuzo was not a Ugandan. Amin later killed Kalimuzo.
When Patrick Chiluba, President of Zambia, did not like the challenge of
Kenneth Kaunda, Patrick Chiluba said Kaunda was not a Zambian. When
President Konan-Bedie of the Ivory Coast did not like the challenge of
Alassane O. Outtara, the incumbent president said the challenger was not
Ivorian.

Similarly when Wole Soyinka does not like the challenge of Ali Mazrui, Wole
Soyinka says that Ali Mazrui is not an African!! Can you imagine? How
different is Soyinka from the likes of Idi Amin, Patrick Chiluba, and
Konan-Bedie apart from the fact that Soyinka does not control the state
apparatus? The authoritarianism in Kongi Soyinka is unmistakable!



VI. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Let me paraphrase from the 2nd Earl of Birkenhead (1872-1933): Soyinka: You
are extremely offensive, against Mazrui! Mazrui: As a matter of fact, we
both are. The only difference is that I am trying to be offensive, while you
can't help being offensive! At least your Mr. Hyde can't! I can fully
understand why Mr. Soyinka would want to defend Gates. But until this latest
dirty exchange between Soyinka and myself, I have never been sure why he was
so hostile towards me.

The Southern Sudanese scholar, Dr. Dunstan Wai, called these symptoms
"MAZRUIPHOBIA". But a more elaborate psychiatric explanation for Soyinka's
"Mr. Hyde" mentality and his animosity towards me personally comes from
another distinguished Nigerian literary figure. ("Soyinka, their Soyinka").
According to this literary critic, there was one coincidence in 1986 which
was bound to disturb a mind as proud as Wole's. Wole Soyinka won the Nobel
Prize and Ali Mazrui aired the first global TV series by an African both in
1986. For at least a few months as many people discussed Ali Mazrui's TV
series as refereed to Soyinka's Nobel Prize. This was intolerable to Soyinka
's monopolistic pride, especially since Ali Mazrui was a Muslim. Soyinka did
not want to share the limelight even for a few months with an African
Muslim! Mr. Hyde was possessive in any case about the limelight! But my
being a Muslim was the last straw.

So Soyinka (or his Hyde) embarked on a crusade to demean and denounce my TV
series. That campaign of yours is fully documented. You turned against me
from 1986. You called me a born-again Islamic fundamentalist because I had
dared to share the limelight very briefly with you in 1986. Kwame Nkrumah
would be uneasy in his distorted? That question of wisdom and prudence still
remains. Is comparing Gates to Garvey a hyperbole? I certainly hope so! I
certainly hope that the negative impact of Gates on Pan-Africanism is not as
lasting as the positive impact of Marcus Garvey. But who is to know? Marcus
Garvey died almost a pauper in 1940. Few people thought his influence would
be long lasting. And yet in 1999 the natural scientists of Africa (chemists,
biologists, and physicists) gave him a posthumous Distinguished Award for
his services to Africa. The African Academy of Science gave this award at
their conference in Tunisia in April, 1999.

I was designated to receive the award in Tunisia on behalf of the family of
Marcus Garvey. I also gave the acceptance speech. I brought the award back
to the United States and handed it over to Dr. Julius Garvey, Marcus Garvey'
s son. Receiving the Garvey Award on behalf of his family was one of my
great honours of the 20th century. And yet this man, Marcus Garvey, died
almost a pauper and in obscurity sixty years ago. Skip Gates is not a
pauper, and may the Lord grant him continuing prosperity. Skip has
remarkable access to the highest echelons of the Western media. Is it really
that far-fetched to envisage a scenario in which Skip Gates would leave his
mark on Black perspectives? If Skip does become a major historical figure, I
hope his impact will be much healthier than that of "Wonders of the African
World". Skip may not himself be encyclopedic, but he is controlling
encyclopedias! Garvey had no such mechanisms of dissemination. You are right
that in 1999 I wrote far too often in the Gates debate. But the frequency of
my interventions was neither a crusade nor a jihad.

Originally I envisaged three interventions in all ­ my first one ("The
Preliminary Critique"); secondly, a reply to the hundreds of Internet
participants who responded to my "Critique"; and thirdly, my response to
Gates himself in his rebuttal of my arguments.

What provoked additional responses from me was not Gates himself but Biodun
Jayefo and his startlingly personal attacks on me. I thought B.J. singularly
lacked "decorum" and brazenly lacked "proportion". But that was before you
lately joined the debate. The vitriol of your latest onslaught!! You used to
combine rudeness with art. Now there is only rudeness. Alas, the pity of
it!!

Dear Mr. Soyinka, you clearly have no idea what the concept of collective
love means.

If someone sincerely says "I love my people" of course he or she includes
those who have fallen from grace as well as those who strive for perfection.
Likewise, when I said "I love Black America", I did not simply mean I loved
the Randall Robinsons and the Martin Luther Kings. I also meant I loved
those on death row, and the millions of others damaged by history. I also
loved simply those whose views or values I regarded as fundamentally wrong.
That is what loving a whole people means, Mr. Soyinka. Even patriotism means
loving the saints and the sinners.

Obviously collective love to you means discarding Carole Mosely-Brown and
Roy Innis and anybody else who does not put the latest dictator in Africa at
the centre of their global and universal moral code. We cannot abuse our
brothers and sisters in the Diaspora by the yardstick of whether or not they
are polite to Daniel arap Moi or some other African tyrant. Before harassing
African Americans who had dealings with Sani Abacha, have you resolved never
to speak to hundreds of thousands of fellow Nigerians who had many more
extensive dealings with Abacha?

In December 1992 I wrote to you a letter and begged you to stop quarrelling
with me. I said: "I would like to return to the normality which once
characterized our relationship. Younger Africans look up to us as
intellectual elders. We have lately been disturbing their peace of mind . .
. . If you would stop abusing me in public, we could be friends and serve
our people better." (See Appendix) Instead you have opened the new
millennium with your new HATE MAIL! The pity of it; yes, the pity of it!
Please re-read my 1992 plea for reconciliation that is attached here. Each
time you have attacked me, it has been totally unprovoked. You slapped me
last evening; I am slapping you this afternoon. Even if you and I cannot be
friends, can we at least end this public brawl? If it will keep the peace
between us, I will even settle for the aphorism of Thomas Szasz (The Second
Sin, 1973): The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and
forget; the wise forgive but do not forget. Let us settle for the silent
wisdom of forgiving even if we cannot forget.





Mazrui's letter to Soyinka



PLEA FOR RECONCILIATION

Professor Wole Soyinka Chair of the Editorial Board Transition

1430 Massachusetts Avenue,

4th floor Cambridge,

Massachusetts 02138



Dear Wole:

We missed you in November at the African Studies meetings in Seattle. Many
people were disappointed that you were not able to come. I hope you are well
(health-wise). We were concerned. Upon my return from Seattle I found
Transition No. 57. I do appreciate your desire to put an end to this
fratricidal warfare between you and me, though your concept of giving me
"the last word" seemed a little ambivalent! You allowed yourself a couple of
additional pages of entirely new accusations of "diabolical" proportions.

The Democrat newspaper in Kaduna, Northern Nigeria, is not my "mouthpiece".
I respect the newspaper. But even before I alerted The Democrat, I had
alerted The Guardian in Southern Nigeria (through Dr. Olatunji Dare) that I
was about to answer Wole Soyinka's repeated attacks on me and my TV series.
Given that you had been attacking my TV series since at least 1988, it was a
fair assumption that some of your attacks were made within Nigeria.

When I finally wrote my response for readers of Transition, I wanted to
alert Nigerians also of what I had to say in my defence. I therefore alerted
The Guardian in the South and The Democrat in the North about the Transition
debate and where I stood. As you may know, The Guardian had lead-time since
I was their 1991 Distinguished Anniversary Public lecturer. I tipped The
Guardian off about the impending transition debate!! Was that also
"diabolical", to use your word?

On the basis purely of your own reaction, I deduce that The Guardian ignored
my disagreement with you, while the northern Nigerian newspaper, The
Democrat, did not.

Did the former publish nothing while the latter published my defence? Is
that what happened? I had nothing to do with which newspaper published what.
Indeed, I still have not seen what you say The Democrat published. The
Democrat did not send me a copy of what they had used. They did not consult
me before going to press. Above all, I am not guilty of trying to incite
Northern Nigerian Muslims against their distinguished compatriot, as you
seem to suggest. Heavens forbid. Nothing "diabolical" was conspired.

Are The Guardian and The Democrat the only newspapers I alerted about the
Soyinka/Mazrui debate? As you know, I am myself a Kenyan. I have written
articles from time to time for the Sunday Nation in Nairobi. I alerted the
Sunday Nation about my defence against your original charges. The paper made
its own selection of what to publish. I had nothing to do with what the
newspaper selected. (However, it was good East African publicity for
Transition! Definitely nothing "diabolical" there!)

You refer to a "Satanic Trilogy" - presumably omitting both your original
article in Transition No. 51 which provoked my response, and your final
two-pages in Transition No. 57 implying a diabolical conspiracy between a
Kenyan Muslim and a Northern Nigerian Newspaper. Clearly you do not think
your original charges were "Satanic"? Nor do you Satanise your final two
pages (after allegedly letting me have "the last word"). Alas, our
differences in perception are about more than a mere television series. I,
the victim of unfounded charges, is turned into the culprit of a "Satanic"
debate.

Wole, nothing would please me more than to put all this fratricide ehind us.
But it does not help when you come up with new allegations in every new
response. By all means let us stop arguing in the columns of Transition. But
what can I say in semi-private correspondence to convince you that (a) I am
not an intolerant religious fanatic (b) my TV series does not denigrate
indigenous African culture (c) I am as African as you are and (d) I have not
entered into a conspiracy with The Democrat to incite Northern Nigerian
Muslims against you? (In any case, I do not regard Nigerian Muslims as
fanatics waiting to be incited! But I do agree that Nigeria as a whole has a
sectarian problem.)

I would like to return to the normality, which once characterized our
relationship. Younger Africans look up to us as intellectual elders. We have
lately been disturbing their peace of mind with our quarrels. If you would
stop abusing me in public, we could be friends and serve our people better.

Best wishes of the season and Happy New Year to you and to your loved ones.

Yours sincerely,



Ali A. Mazrui, D.Phil., (Oxon)

Director, Institute of Global Cultural Studies

AAM/nal Institute of Global Cultural Studies,

Binghamton University,

P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton,

NY 13902-6000

Phone: (607) 777-4494 Fax: (607) 777-2642

E-mail: [log in to unmask];

http://igcs.binghamton.edu

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

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

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