Cherno, Your defence of your position is admirable. Halifa's declaration about shutting up critics in the Gambia is what gets to me. Just b/c people don't have the time or the resources to go back and forth w/ him doesn't mean that they've "put their foot in their mouth." But I guess when you live in your own little universe, you're bound to see the regular world through some peculiar prizm. Excellent response, anyway. Saul Saidykhan >From: chernob jallow <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Memo to Halifa >Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:28:12 PST > >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 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________ 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------