Saikss, Thanks for your response on the African Gender question. I am busy with other relevant issues and I don't think I have time for any form of childish intellectual debate. I don't think how any serious minded person can take your response seriously. I will leave it for others to judge for themselves. thanks. >From: saikss <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: AFRICAN GENDER QUESTION IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE >Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:16:58 +0200 > >Sir Fatty, > >Since you know the reason for the delay, I will not waste any more of your >time. With the energy you have put into this issue, I am withdrawing my >statement of sending you into exile for one more time .But I will have to >tell >you that I have gone beyond this level of Afro centrism in dealing with >African history. I would rather lent my ears to Lalo Kebba Drammeh to a >more >reasoning narration of our common history than wasting my time in >confronting >white racism on such an issue. Secondly I will not start from where you >took >off, since this will mean to defend the distortions of some of the things I >said earlier. History is the work of life human beings and the condition of >our mothers and sisters for over 400 years is a fact of real life and not >that >of an African Queen who existed from or before BC.Prince Charles is not the >head of the royal family in Great Britain, it is still the Queen, to call >this >a triumphant in the empowering of Women will be a nonsense, this you will >have >no problem of agreeing with me. > This is the very reason why when we talk of "historical >perspective" >we are not talking of records of history in an empirical manner, which you >have been very busy doing, what we meant was the dialectical development of >the mass movement itself, in another word, the subjective and the objective >development of the movement from one stage to another, through, among other >things, contradictions. You did not seem to understand this and this has >been >the main problem of your response to my last piece and before you realise >it, >you wasted much of your time in diving into contradictions. >Precisely, because when I did try to explain that the resistant of Gambian >women from male/Society oppression have moved from just composing songs and >story telling (an unorganised form of resistant) to a more concrete thing, >as >they are now (With the many women organisation) you take this to be a >stagnation of women struggle. For more that 400 years of our history, we >have >never had an organised women organisation as we have today. >Again, when you even attack white racism in recording the history of Africa >you end up doing the same, I will tell you why later. You told us to take >heed >to the word "Universal", to be very frank, I was reading through with much >patient, with a mind that you will start to understand what I was trying to >say, but you started talking of Karl Marx, which I found very irrelevant to >the discussion, not only that you distorted the meaning of the "Universal" >but >the whole idea of Marx in the Man/Woman relationship. Marx never saw only >to >the European society as the basis of his analysis of the primitive form of >human relationship and listen; > "…it was not only, the populist, Mikhailovsky, who tried to attribute to >Marx >the marking of "The Historical Tendency of capitalist Accumulation" into >universal for all human development. As we showed, Marx had written a very >sharp critique of Mekhailovsky's article. Post-Marx Marxists, however, >continue to express similar views to Mikhalovsky's and to base themselves >on >the Editions of Volume 1 of Capital" WLDR (RD) > >Did you see your self here? And further down in your article one will find >you >confusing the ideas of Marx to that of Engel, most likely because you don't >know of the existents of Marx's view on the question of the matricahecal >societies as presented in his many unknown material as the "ethnological >notebooks". Engels work on "The origin of the Family" was based on the the >works of Morgan and it was on the basis of this work that he made his >conclution, Even though Marx believed that "Ancient Societies" was a great >work, his conclusion on the study of this work differ from that of the >author >and even Engel's don't find it necessary to go in to details here but just >to >show that you are wrong to insist that Marx works was euro-centrist and or >made his conclusions to be "Universal". > My challenge to you would be on the basis of the fact that the down >fall >of the Martichal societies that existed in some of the African societies >was >not brought to end by only external forces. You see Sir, when we are >discussing Anta Jobe, we should do it with the understanding that his work >was >one based against the racist explanation of the development of African >history. Without such an understanding we will be misusing the work of this >great thinker. But when one differ in ideas with this great thinker, it >will >not even be on this assertion that; > > " Matriarchy must not be confused with the reign of the African Amazons >or >that of the Gorgons.Those legendary regimes in which women allegedly >dominated >man were characterized by a technique intended to debase the male…." TAOC >(p145) > >But on the very facts he presented as the "matriarchal proper". Because, >among >other things, historical facts tells us also that even in " matriarchal >proper" societies, there were evidences that shows that limitations >existed, >he (Jobe) never insisted that Matriarchal societies that existed in certain >African societies by then were unique, so even where as Marx insisted that >the >Iroquois women did enjoy more freedom than women in the civilised world, he >wasted no time in putting forward the limitations involved in these >societies, >he wrote; > > "…. The women allowed expressing their wishes and opinions through an >orator >of their own selections. Decision given by the council. Unanimity was a >fundamental law of its action among the Iroquois…." RLWMMP (p182) > >But where do we go from here. If Anta Jobe insists that the position of the >women in the Matriarchal system was due to their economic power, in my >opinion, it should be logical that there were limitation, which might have >been the bases for the contradictions that existed in those societies, but >no >this is what he wrote; > > "The matriarchal system proper is characterised by the collaboration >and >harmonious flowering of both sexes, and by a certain prominence of women in >society, due originally to the economic conditions, but accepted and even >defended by men" TOC (p145) > >I beg to disagree with this great thinker, if we have women, and in their >large numbers too, defending a semi feudal, capitalistic, fascist >oppression >of Gambian women and society, I see no reason why it should not happen in >any >other form of society that is not based on the equality of men both in >terms >of economic, social and political. >If you think that it will take a man to wait for an European or and Arab >invader to resist against the economic dominance of women in a any given >society at any given time of history then you must be seriously mistaking. >But let us move to your other points. You wrote; > >"You have also stated that you are of the "opinion that Lang Binta Samateh >is >not significant to the status of women." If that is the case, why are we >discussing the historical contribution of women in The Gambia or Africa >today? It is just like saying that an African name is not significant to an >African or black person named Benjamin or Yousupha. Or saying that there is >no significance for us to speak and write in our language. The significance >of this statement is a manifestation of how disempowered African women are >today. It is very significant with regard to the historical contribution of >women in African societies. Take note of it because the historical reasons >will be shown later" > >I will not take you seriously on this point. Had you known the time I have >spent in collecting typical Gambian names through this forum you would have >had another conclution. What I have said was that and still mean to say is, >Lang Binta Fatty has been used and still in use for the purpose of >identification and not necessary that it is a remnant of the past >Matriarchal >society. We leaved in a society where men do get married to more than one >woman and being a patrichal society one father could be the "father" of all >the children in the clan or the family. That is to say, you become >automatically the father also of the children of your brother and both you >and >your brother could have a child with the same name in the same house or >compound, to identify these children, they do refer to the mother and not >you >the farther. What relation has this to women liberation or given a child a >Gambian name or a written African language's have given you another >examples >which sounds more logic in tracing the matrimonial linage system in our >society, the Wulli example. Wassa only two people in my family are >constantly >referred to through the name of my mother, but not the rest of us. Do you >know >the reason? I believed that the reason is, these two people have a name >that >is very, very common within the Samateh clan in Badibu and these two names >are; Kebba and Samateh-Nding.Should I explain more? > >See here you go again, listen to your self; > >"Finally, before moving further, I would like to point out that your >theories >on this issue is too shallow and simplistic. One thing you failed to >realize >is that human history is a catalogue of unequal developments and for that >matter; societies did not emerged uniformly to follow the same pattern of >development. There were fundamental differences in structures, worldviews >or >philosophy and production relations among others. What therefore happened >in >one human patch or society in a remote corner of the world, does not >necessarily mean that it was a universal reality and applicable to all >other >human societies. This idea of universality came into force as a result of >European conquest and cultural hegemony over non- European societies. Take >note of universality, I shall come back to it. Now let's go back to the >main >issue and discuss the historical contribution of African women and the >evolution of male oppression in Africa." > >It would have been interesting for you to state where in my article did I >refer to world history as one and the same. But I can see your confusion >here >too, are you talking of individual States, societies or empires or are you >talking of Africa as a country, this is what racist historian do, unless >your >"Universal" is misinterpreted here. But see what you wrote; > >"The >Queen at the time, Cleopatra, committed suicide rather than betray Africans >to the Roman invaders. > > The worldview of Africans from the classical period to the era >of the Arab and European interventions of the 7th century AD onwards into >Africa was centered on the sacredness of the woman, as manifested in >production relations. This worldview enhanced the internal dynamic and >independent development of African societies." > >Egypt/Ethiopia becomes Africa and Rome becomes Rome and not Europe, who is >now >treating African past and reality as an entity. I can sense an Afro >centrist >way of dealing with African past and reality, which should now be a thing >of >the past and I have reach the same conclusion as Fanon did for more than 40 >years ago. To even believe that because we had a "Queen" in Egpt/Ethopia >with >so much power angered European/Aran chauvinist to invade the continent is a >falsification of history. There were times when advanced and evil >empires/States/Societies exist side by side in the continent, if racist >White >historian wasted much of their time in talking about the evil >societies/States/Societies that existed in the Continent and refused to see >the wonderful human development that were taking place in other >societies/States/Societies in the continent, should not give us the liberty >to >use the same method because this will not be in the interest of the >struggle >we are involved in or whish to involve in, but systematically forced us to >be >on the defensive, we have no time for this. Why should even a white racist >you >read your piece should not be of the notion that African history, culture >and >people are of the same? >Afro centrism is narrow nationalism, it could be understood under certain >circumstances, more so in the racist environment some of us are surrounded >with, but it could never solve our need for a theory of liberation, you can >end up glorifying even the oppressor or that which is oppressive >unconsciously. With the 4000 years of historical narration you have made >here, >the only Africa that existed in your piece is the continent that has been >oppressed and destroyed by only Arab and White intruders until after >independence, this is not serious. >In conclution, the struggle for the empowering of Women, is not the same as >a >struggle for a Martriarchal society, not even your Matriarchal African >society >you presented in your piece, the empowering of Women should lead to the >uprooting of the semi feudal, chavinist and capitalist society we are >living >under today, to a new form of human relationship without any form of >oppression or exploitation and equality between all. > >For Freedom > >Saiks > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >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 contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: >[log in to unmask] > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~