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