Edinburgh may withdraw Mugabe degree

[hetty ter haar]

Edinburgh may withdraw Mugabe degree
Press Association
Tuesday June 5, 2007
EducationGuardian.co.uk
The University of Edinburgh senate is to decide tomorrow whether to strip African leader Robert Mugabe of his honorary degree.
 

A panel of three senior professors investigating the case of the Zimbabwean president is to recommend to the university's highest decision-making body that the degree, conferred in 1984, should be withdrawn.

 

"This recommendation has been made after examining evidence relating to the situation in Zimbabwe in the early 1980s - evidence which was not available to the university at the time the degree was conferred," said a university spokesman.

 

"If the senate decides that the honorary degree should be withdrawn, the formal process for so doing will begin."

 

Mr Mugabe was awarded the degree for services to education in Africa.

 

He has since been accused of a running an oppressive regime involving human rights abuses against opposition members, activists and ordinary Zimbabweans. Most specifically, he is charged with ordering the massacre of thousands of people in the Matabeleland region of Zimbabwe in the early 1980s.

 

He is also blamed for Zimbabwe's failing economy, which is experiencing estimated inflation rates of about 3,700%.

 

The Labour MP for Edinburgh South, Nigel Griffiths, a former Edinburgh student who tabled a motion in the Commons asking to have the degree withdrawn, said: "It says to all dictators that no matter how reputable a past they have, they are unable to act with barbarity and impunity.

 

"It shows that Edinburgh University is maintaining an international lead in exposing and punishing them."

 

The university rector, Mark Ballard, while unable to influence the decision, has also called for the degree to be withdrawn.

 

He said: "I hope the senate decides to revoke the degree. I am very pleased that after years of campaigns by the student association and successive rectors we are finally seeing a resolution."

It is understood that Michigan State University and the University of Massachusetts in the US are also considering stripping degrees from Mugabe.

 

Mugabe has run Zimbabwe with his Zanu-PF party since independence from white rule in 1980.

 

EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

[Amina Zeblim]

In my opinion, Mugage should neatly parcel the
honourary degree certificate in a Zimbabwean flag of
resistance and send it to the University of Edinburgh.
The parcel should be accompanied with the message that
Mugabe no longer values the honorary degree because
Edinburgh has allowed visceral, hegemonic partisan
politics to influence its decision our a future one.
The message should make clear that Edinburgh has
failed to apply the rigours of academic scholarship in
its assessment of the Zimbabwean condition by blaming
Mugabe alone! It should also make clear that all those
slave merchants who contributed to the establishment
of the Edinburghs of this world of inequalities and
whose names bear universities and faculty buildings
should lose their "honorary degrees" and posthumuous
privileges.

Amina Zeblim

--- hetty ter haar <hettyt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Edinburgh may withdraw Mugabe degree

> Press AssociationTuesday June 5, 2007

> EducationGuardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media
> Limited 2007
>
>
>

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

[Adeniran Adeboye]

I suspect that the Mugabes of this world accept these honorary
degrees as a diplomatic gesture on their parts to show a willingness
to work with these institutions and their nations to create new
perspectives and new beginnings. It is probably not because they
thought the universities awarding them these degrees are really
citadels of pure thoughts or honorable designs. If Edinburg now
chooses to show its true colors, there may not be anything necessary
for Mugabe to do about it, at least at this point. Can a leopard
change its skin? From realistic point of view, outside of its
diplomatic use, the degree has never been worth more than the paper
on which it is printed.

Best regards,

Adeniran Adeboye

[Mensah, Edward K.]

This is ridiculous. The degree was conferred on Mugabe in 1984 for his
role in freeing Rhodesia, and nobody can deny the role he played. Later
on, he became a moron, and that too is undeniable.If universities start
withdrawing degrees for stupid excuses like 'information not available' at
the time the degrees were conferred lots of degrees are at stake.
Plagiarism alone will be reason enough for withdrawing lots and lots of
dissertations. It is very easy to show that very good dissertations have
used ideas from sources that were not acknowledged at the time the
dissertations were defended. What are universities going to do? Are they
going to withdraw those dissertations when they discover the forgery?
Ridiculous! Let the old man keep his honorary degree. As far as I am
concerned there are tow Mugabes: the good Mugabe who liberated Rhodesia
and the horrible and murderous Mugabe who is running Zimbabwe down the
drains.

Ed Mensah

[Akurang-Parry, Kwabena]

Ed Mensah,

I take exception to your characterization of Mugabe as "a moron." I think that as scholars we can do better by avoiding lopsided analyses and reductionist conclusions. Although, we can hold Mugabe accountable for the vortex of problems that have flooded Zimbabweans, the watershed of the problems is traceable to the vestiges of colonialism and the forces of neocolonialism. Indeed, as long as Mugabe allowed white settlers to control land and use landless Zimbabwean farmers as cheap labor on white plantations, the imperialist powers saw nothing wrong with that, and this is exemplified by the honorary degree awarded by the University of Edinburgh.

Your characterization of Mugabe as a moron is a knee-jerk response to the tools of propaganda being used by the imperialist powers, the very states that have refused to honor their part of the land redistribution agreement. Also, consider the international media forms' demonization of Mugabe and the effects of the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the agents of imperialism. If the imperialist powers cared so much about Africa and Africans, periodization of the Zimbabwean problem, shows that Zimbabwe was not the only African state facing problems! Why did they ignore others and latch onto Zimbabwe with all the negative political propaganda in their armory? We should also remember the ways that the imperialist powers have continued to demonize and marginalize some of our best leaders, for instance, Kwame Nkrumah whose pan-African agenda and anti-imperialist ideas posed threats to neocolonialism.

Kwabena Akurang-Parry.

Kwabena O. Akurang-Parry, Ph. D.
Assoc. Prof. of African History & World History
Dept of History
Shippensburg University
Shippensburg, PA 17257 U.S.A.

Phone: 717 477 1286
Fax: 717 477 4062

________________________________

Ed Mensah

>> junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http:// <http:///>
>> mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
>>
>>
>> >
>
>
> >

[Charles Geshekter]

Ed Mensah is absolutely correct.

Mugabe has become a senile, muddle-headed fool and a vicious, vile
anti-democrat who perpetuates, by his crude and cruel actions, a
number of racist stereotypes embraced by Victorian-era imperialists.

Of course, Mugabe wasn't always that way, but in light of his
appalling lack of leadership the label "moron" is certainly
appropriate in 2007.

Who cares what he does with his honorary degree? Let's not confuse
idle symbolic niceties with the harsh material realities of daily
life in Zimbabwe.

Charles Geshekter
California State University, Chico

=================

[Amina Zeblim]

Charles,

 

I wish that you had illuminated your contradictory assertion that "Of course, Mugabe wasn't always that way, but in light of his  appalling lack of leadership the label "moron" is certainly  appropriate in 2007." If Mugabe was "not often that way" then the question which should 'na who cause am," to borrow a popular phrase!

 

This type of stigmatizing, as Akurang-Parry points out, is what we should critically interogate in the context of the history of colonialism and postcolonial white domination in the political economy of land control. Land alienation was the very reason why the Africans in Zimbabwe resorted to armed resistance. In sum, the deployment of mere one-edged misslile-laden insults like "moron," senile, "muddle-headed fool" "crude" does not say much about Mugabe, but more about those who use such "ways of knowing" as tools of scholarly analysis.

 

Amina Zeblim (M.D., Ph.D.)


Charles Geshekter <chol...@earthlink.net> wrote:

---

All new Yahoo! Mail

---

Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

[Charles Geshekter]

Amina:

Political leaders, like all of us, change over time. Some grow senile and paranoid while others age gracefully and thoughtfully.

Why not attribute Mugabe's apparent degeneration to his disenchantment with Marxism or with Catholicism?

Sometimes missile-laden insults, sarcasm and ridicule are entirely appropriate. It's impossible and historically inaccurate to always lay the blame or fault off on external forces and actors.

Eventually, Mugabe himself as a sentient being with considerable power at the local level, must be called to account, just like anyone who causes material harm to his fellow humans.

If you wish to defend Mugabe, go right ahead, and be sure to use rose-colored glasses and terms of endearment all you wish.

Charles

===========

[Edward Mensah]

Amina

 

First of all, I must apologize for using the word moron to describe Mugabe.  My African values taught me not to abuse our elders, and Mugabe is certainly an elder African. I should have put the word moron in quotes to soften the meaning quite a bit.  But I will not retreat from the theme of my argument, that we are going to learn to live with the 2 Mugabes : the liberation fighter who made us all proud as Africans by wrestling power from Ian Smith and his Western supporters, and murderous Mugabe the killer of his own people who has, with the help of western-imposed sanctions, ran down his country's economy. ( Some people take advantage of sanctions by innovations and adopting self-sufficient lifestyles. He chose to destroy his country and blame sanctions.)  Note that the degree was conferred when he was a darling of all freedom-loving people. It is quite ridiculous to now withdraw the degree for such stupid reasons as 'information not available'....  When it comes to Mugabe I am very conflicted between these 2 versions of the man. I blame him completely for continuing to impoverish his own people and assuming that he is the olny leader who can save the country  in the presence of an overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Unline others, I will not dwell on 'na who cause am'. That is like blaming somebody for your role is running down a sucessful organization.  Note that Mugabe sent his troops after his co-liberation fighter, Josua Nkomo,  in Bulawayo to cause   massive destructions in a matter that was purely political. That was a couple of years after the liberation wars. He needs to retire quitely and save Africa the embarrassment of his misrule. Having said that, I still have a soft spot for Mugabe the African Freedom Fighter.

 

Edward Mensah

[Gemini]

To take Zimbabwe's flourishing economy and agriculture that fed its citizens, and to turn it into one that has witnessed hyper-inflation, warnings of a food crisis and as many citizens as can make it legging it across the various borders of the landlocked country in search of work and food does take a special kind of ability.  One might quarrel with the term 'moron' for perhaps lowering the tone (!) of this esteemed dialogue series, but those achievements are hardly the work of a towering intellect are they?

 

One may argue that an omelette cannot be made without breaking eggs, but must one break all the eggs at once when one knows one's mixing bowl can only handle one egg at a time?  That was not exactly smart.

 

And even if one wants to blame external forces, if the reaction of the West to the treatment of white Zim farmers wasn't anticipated, what stopped a moderating of the treatment when that reaction became all too clear?  Again, inability to foresee reactions or to respond to evolving situations is not a mark of genius.

 

We shouldn't confuse support for land reform in Zimbabwe with support for an eighty-something year old man who threatens to seek 're-election' after almost 30 years in power - with a sit-tight ruler from the likes of which we have recently extricated ourselves.  As for Edinburgh University, the massacres of the early 1980s were not as much of a secret as we like to pretend.  It was politically convenient to look the other way - for some because of their relief that Mugabe wasn't after all the Marxist that he had proclaimed himself to be, and for others because we didn't want to hear, or make too much noise about bad things being done by Africans to Africans when an apartheid regime was still ruling South Africa and Zim was the latest example of the 'majority rule' that we were demanding.  So Edinburgh can withdraw what it wants, but let it not pretend that it didn't know ...

 

The only other thing to add - or to lament - is that the actions that fail to highlight Mugabe's credentials as an intellectual giant seem to have been matched by failures on the part of the 'opposition'.  It is so difficult to put one's finger on Morgan Tsvangerai or understand why he let some early opportunities to rescue the situation before it became so bad slip through his fingers (or rather, his loose lips).  It is good to be brave, as the opposition has shown itself to be.  But it's also good to think things through!  And it's also a good idea not to hold one's breath waiting for massive support from the West if what Edinburgh University is considering really constitutes (and I quote Nigel Griffiths MP) 'maintaining an international lead in exposing and punishing' dictators who will now be told 'that no matter how reputable a past they have, they are unable to act with barbarity and impunity.'  I can see Dr. Bob tearfully recanting even now ... or is that just the finger that he's giving?!

 

Ayo

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Charles Geshekter

To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

[Ayoola Tokunbo]

Charles' position and arguement are excellent.
While no sensible person will play down or eliminate the role of slavery,
imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, and globalization in the African
tragedy, i think we have now got up to a point in our understanding of
African situation that it is time we held our lunatic elite - Chinwezu's
characterization - accountable for their highly irresponsible leadership.
Tokunbo Ayoola

> > All new Yahoo! Mail

> > Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page
> > >
>
>
>>

_________________________________________________________________
Play your part in making history - Email Britain!
http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/

[Ayoola Tokunbo]

Amina,
We cannot run away from Mugabe's irresponsible leadership.
I think the problem with those of us who pride ourselves as educated
Africans, is according to Raphael Njoku, we do not want to accept that we
are part of Africa's problem; actually, accept that we have problem!. We are
quick to blame outsiders for ALL our problems. Our leaders - at the subject
level, as distinct from the objective conditions the operate in (slavery,
colonialism, neocolonialism etc) - have a major role to play in changing the
negative situation in that continent.
While we must accept the tragic role of foreigners in our situation, we
cannot run away from the obvious fact that our leaders with few exceptions -
Mandela, Nyerere, Senghor, Nkrumah, Murtala Mohammed, Neto, Cabral. Eduardo
Montlane, Samora Machel - have been exceptionally bad.
Tokunbo Ayoola

>From: Amina Zeblim <aminaze...@yahoo.ca>
>Reply-To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

>---------------------------------
>All new Yahoo! Mail
>---------------------------------

>Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
>>

_________________________________________________________________
Could you be the guest MSN Movies presenter? Click Here to Audition
http://www.lightscameraaudition.co.uk

[Tony Agbali]

I am surprised that you have sympathy for a man who has now signified himself to become an emblem of totalitarian misrule. We saw the other time how he bloodied some members of the opposition. Given you antecedents of disavowing brutal dictators, I find this support for Oga Mugabe somewhat out of sync. This man, no matter his past antecedents has not transformed but transmogrified himself into ruthless ideologue. Yes, he fought and Zimbabwe got their indepedence, but is that merely enough? Shouldn't there be life after independence, a life in which the people must be entitled to some dignity? Unfortunately, in Zimbabwe, like the rest of our own countries throughout Africa, it is sorry tale of abysmal failure and disillusion.

I understand and detest the fact that the best arable land were grabbed from the aboriginal owners during the colonial era. I equally understand that sometimes for change to occur, it might need some ruthless highhanded leader to direct it. But the way I see it, the kind of change and the direction to which Zimbabwe is headed does not offer significant solace to her citizens, both whites and blacks. As a matter of fact, Mugabe's policy regarding land has become ambivalent. Not long ago, he was ready to give back to some whites land the government and its militia grabbed from them. Many blacks are not happy with the government policy, not because they are oblivious to the historical injustice, but primarily because even the land seizure from white perpetuates further injustice, as these land are handed over to Mugabe's cronies. 

What is the material difference between these cronies and the whites? Even, it might be worsts, as some incompetent ones would not even be able to develop these properties to ensure that Zimbabweans are fed. For them, these are trophies, loots, for serving the right master, when overall the real ones to be served are the masses, the people. But is this so in today's Zimbabwe? Therefore, is yesterday's heroics still sufficient today when heroes become despots, transmogrified Frankenstein monsters?

The unfortunate irony is that with the pauperization of the country's economy whites are more likely to flee the doomsday created by Mugabe and his cohort, while blacks for so long rendered poor, would be trapped enmeshed in poverty and destruction. I think this is the perspective that is scary, and which precipitates the denunciation of Mugabe's current ways.  

It reminds me of even the realities of urban and Suburban America, especially with the riots of the 1960s in places like Detroit, where with the White flight, inner cities began to experience blight. This was not because blacks in these places were incapable, but primarily because they have been for so long denied access to economic advancement. The Zimbabwean situation, you may assert is different. However, the reality is that with the way Mugabe is carrying on he is ruinating and destabilizing a once towering African country.  We may decry the use of labels and terms already, and engage in various analyses, equally important, but we must be cognizant that daily the lives of many like ourselves, ordinary people- men and women, children, old and young- are being paralyzed and denigrated.

It is true that the withdrawal of the honorary doctorate even if symbolic is vain politics given the dressing of rationality. In fact, the honorary doctorate has no use for Mugabe, a man who is already in his eighties, not looking for a job, not to talk of including this fact in his resume.  The whole notion of withdrawal of the honorary degree is laughable. We have too many acts of the west playing double standard, just like the Paul Wolfowitz case.

On one hand ethics is demanded of the minorities, like the current William Jefferson case, but on other, there is mammoth hypocrisy that decorates the rostrum when it comes to those on the "good side", the good Ol' boy.  Wolfowitz even though he acted unethically could be given a safe landing to exit the World Bank without grave ramificatios. These things are apparent on the global scene, even within the various discrete places where we school, work, worship etc. However, no matter the past heroics of Mugabe, we must not add to his glorification of ills, especially those that affects the human dignities of fellow Africans and abuse their sense of pride.

Ordinarily, I think that the entire mode of Mugabe's acting has gone beyond the land issue, which the colonialist and their coterie of allies must be held vitally responsible, holding him accountable for his own mess- which in deed is becoming overtly too disgraceful. We must not lend him our support in traumatizing the citizens of Zimbabwe, who are our fellow African brothers and sisters. It is in the same way that we must be acutely deny legitimation to the Darfur rebels and their backers.

Amina Zeblim <aminaze...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

---

Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

[Amina Zeblim]

Edward,

 

Thank you for the response. First, let me tackle the lighter side of your response which is an aside to the question at stake. What you call "African values" may be essentializing your own values. This is because I learnt from the Zongo marketplace, where I lived most of my early evenings with my mother after my primary school had closed for the day, that our "African values" do not allow us to insult people just because we perceive that they are wrong. Our normative values enable us to question anyone, irrespective of age, who has done wrong, but not in the framework of insults!

 

Second, and indeed on a more serious note, for one thing, you don't understand Mugabe's position on issues, yet you call him a "moron."  In your view Mugabe did things right earlier on by pleasing the British government. Unfortunately, for the people of Zimbabwe, Mugabe changed his good behaviour by stepping on the large imperial toes of "Massa" Britain and hence deseve the sanctions. For this reason, you happily write that:

 

 "Some people take advantage of sanctions by innovations and adopting self-sufficient lifestyles. He chose to destroy his country and blame sanctions.)"

 

Could you please enlighten some of us by citing examples of states where sanctions worked in the interest of the citizens? What strategies should Mugabe use to side-step the sanctions? I am not a social scientist and hence pardon me if I "butcher" terms of trade and misinterpret it in arguing that global "terms of trade" dictated by the North do not favor "non-sanctioned" African states, let alone a "sanctioned" state like Zimbabwe. Thank you.

 

Amina Zeblim (M.D., Ph.D.)
 

 

 

 

Edward Mensah <deha...@uic.edu> wrote:

Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

[Amina Zeblim]

Tony,

 

It would appear that you ran out of the sidelines too soon. I have not offered any flowers to Mugabe. On the contrary, my arguments regarding the Mugabe problem have been that we need to approach it from two perspectives: look at the historical antecedents that forced Mugabe to change course and also Mugabe's failings, at least, his urge to rule forever.

 

You allude to the fact that I am against dictatorship obviously because of what I wrote about Rawlings and therefore I should write against Rawlings. In the same vein you placed your enormous weight behind Rawlings so why are not supporting Mugabe since in your view both are dictators.

 

You argue that African states are beset with problems as much as the Zimbabwean condition. Perhaps we should take your implied statetments and ask Britain and the US to impose sanctions on all African states!

 

Are you saying that whites should not flee at any cost because of what? No condition is permanent! Let the whites flee. Africans will remain and build Zimbabwe. We turn to forget that Britain and America, for example, went through worse times than Zimbabwe.  

Tony Agbali <atta...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rita K Edozie]

Yes, but here we go again- into and stuck in the "lone, errant leadership
pidgeon-hole explanation"!

Leadership is borne in historical and social context! This, I think was
Amina's point!

As well.....the West(I) versus Africa (other) discourse over 'leadership' in
Africa, and other dev. nations needs to be underscored as some of the
previous threads have done!

Take a comparative analysis of two African leaders- Mugabe (Zimb) and
Museveni (Uganda)......Students and scholars of African politics need I go
on?

Mugabe's leadership tenure only outruns Museveni's by six years (coming to
power in Uganda by militant, 'post-nationalist' revolution in 1986) but has
only had ONE multi-party election (after 20 years in power in 2006)- and
even then rigged a third term (he may outrun Mugabe in power after all since
he's already had 21yrs in office),and outrageously incarcerated his key
opposition opponent a few weeks before the election!

Where is the "international" outrage on Uganda? The response that you'll get
on this is that Ugandans have reduced 'AIDS', Museveni helps his people-
this is paternalism....an infantalization of African politics and
leadership!

Rather, the international politics of Eurocentric versus Africancentric
"ideational" clashes is an element (not the only one) that should be used
the 'understand' the contemporary situation in Zimb!

Unlike Museveni, Mugabe is a 'post-colonial' leader borne out of a viscious
'settler colonial' struggle in Zimbabwe's whose legacies countinue in
Mugabe's leadership for a number of "unique" reasons! This is just a fact
(no value)

Please, Toks (if i may, Tokunboh)! Mugabe does NOT represent African
leadership - this is the politics of "African misrepresentation" , t

Otherwise, how would you expalin, Mandela, Mbeki, Kikwete....Chissano (and
his elected successor), Nujoma (and his elected successor),
Mwansawana....,Mogae- all "Southern African" leaders of various brands,
genres, and complexities!!! I can go around the continent to find this
"variety" and "complexity"!!!

Charles, too! Just as "aids in Africa" analysis requires critical review so
do othr African socio-political and economic processes.........!

All in all, Mugabe's leadership fate can be compared to Hugo Chavez' of
Venezuela-

-both are Millennium "nationalist"(yes, hyper-nationalist) leaders with
"populist" inclinations; and thus both find themselves as "anti-globalists"
and especially at "discourse" war with what they perceive as "imperialists"
(US for Venezuela and Britain for Zimbabwe)

-but one (Venezuela) has resources (oil) and ideas to pull off this brand of
nationalism in a globalized world; while the other (Zimbabwe) has no
resources (a dependent 'urban-elite' economy) to pull off this stance, and
thus will surely fail as is occurring!

The result for Zimbabwe will unfortunately surely be the magnification of
symptons of "praetorianism"- oligarchyism and elitism among the leadership,
depair among the subordinate classes....violence......

Rita Kiki Edozie
Michigan State University

Ayoola Tokunbo writes:

Rita Kiki (Nkiru) Edozie (Ph.D)
Assistant Professor of International Politics,
International Relations at James Madison,
Michigan State University
office location:364 North Case Hall
office phone: 517-432-5291
website: http://www.msu.edu/~rkedozie/

[Ayoola Tokunbo]

Dear Sister Rita,
How then do we account for Obasanjo's eight years of sustained atrocities
in Nigeria? Simply imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, globalization
etc. hey !
Sister, Africans are intelligent people; we are NOT morons ! Let us call a
spade a spade. "Our" leaders and ruling elites have not performed well. What
we should be discussing now is this: how do we transform our dear Africa
from the present morass. Not ALL of our problems are created by foreigners
and imperialists.
In fact the imperialists would want all our infrastructure to work well;
security of lives and property to be secured and guranteed; our workers to
be very efficient etc. - so that they can exploit us to the maximum.
Imperialism is not happy that Africa is not working well; it is in its
interest that it does work well!
Thus, the G8 leaders and others expect our leaders, their errand boys and
girls, to fulfill their part of the bargain - make Africa work well for our
exploitation!
Tokunbo Ayoola

_________________________________________________________________

[Prof Alfred Zack-Williams]

Edward,

 

Thanks for a serious analysis of former Comrade Robert Mugabe. My only problem with your well thought out analysis is your apology for using the word 'moron'. Why not? The Elders that we venerate have to earn it, it is not all ascription, or simply hero worship, otherwise we destroy such institutions and render them atrophied. Historians tell us that there were viable checks and balances within traditional African polities, which made the leader(s) accountable to the masses, or in some cases leading to their removal or regicide. As you rightly pointed out, how can we explain a leader who systematically destroy what he and others have spent decades fighting for. I am prepared to accept that perhaps Britain did not fulfil all her commitment to the Lancaster House agreement, re: white farmers, but does this justify unleashing 'veterans to burn houses of farm labourers, home of farmers; turning Zimbabweans into paupers. In my own town recently, I ran into a Zimbabwean who was a petrol pump attendant, in speaking to him he informed me that he was a qualified vet who had to escape for his life from Mugabe's security forces. Can we afford to push such qualified technocrats and professionals out of Africa? For our 'nationalist' comrades, who see everything in white and black, the fundamental question is this: what group suffers the most in Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Is it the white who can easily migrate to Britain, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and to West Africa, or is it the poor black Zimbabweans who have no where to go, or even when they do, have to live with constant 'immigration raids' and xenophobia? As Africans we have had our share of political 'morons': do you remember The Emperor Jean-Bedel Bukassa of Central African Empire, who according to Martin Meredith (The State of Africa) told the French representative to his coronation that he had just eater human flesh; do you remember Field Marshall, Dr Idi Amin Dada, Conqueror of the British Empire, who fed the Nile crocs with thousands of innocent Ugandans? These are men who lack the usual power of mind. Africans do not have a monopoly of morons either: Europe's Milosovic, Hitler; Asia's Pol Pot; Latin America's Anastasio Samoza, Papa & Baby Doc Duvalier.

 

Tunde

[Tony Agbali]

"Sister, Africans are intelligent people; we are NOT morons ! Let us call a
spade a spade. "Our" leaders and ruling elites have not performed well. What
we should be discussing now is this: how do we transform our dear Africa
from the present morass. Not ALL of our problems are created by foreigners
and imperialists."

 

Significant assertion. Africans are not Moron, we are intelligent people. True. But why have we wasted all these intelligence in poor governance, and allowed all these so-called leaders to traumatize us. In our intelligence, how do we get rid of bad leaders? How do we work for change and transformation? It is true, we do not want to die senseless death. But shouldn't something also be stated about the crop from whom the leaders evolve from too? I mean the people, the polity, and the culture, that has condoned all these. We hear talk about strategizing, in using tactical means to in optimal utilization of our resources, even in shaping the face of resistance.

In the first of the abuse of power, what is the role of the people, the real leaders of the leaders that lead them? What can they do, and how should they do it? Remember, how the Cote d'Ivoriens dealt with General Robert Guei, or the Kosovars with Milosevic, is that a good and reasonable option? Altogether, by the way who are these "our leaders"? Is it possible that the same hands we point outwards toward "these our leaders" who have failed us also have the rest pointing in our own direction? Ain't we too leaders in some respect, and therefore, when we blatantly point at "these" or "those" "our leaders" we too are culpable?

When we too have failed in our own little worlds of authority, when the students decide to glory and reify cultism in Nigerian tertiary institutions of learning, and turn against their fellow student, unmasking terror, raping, and annihilating, isn't these "our leaders" too abusing their own discrete power and authority over the other? Or is this an inscription of internalization of the horror and terror that filters through from the top to the bottom, and makes us all senseless and irrational robotics of remoted intelligence? Who then, are these our faceless "our leaders." I contend that the question of leadership in Africa, as elsewhere, is not just a political one, but one that filters through the different spheres where leadership is demanded.

When a high school principal steals school fees from his school, when a teacher uses his/her office to abuse prior to awarding grades, when a pastor/priest molests their adherents, when an Imam calls for the extermination of the non-believers, when a nurse in dereliction of duty administers an AIDS infested blood pack to a patient, don't we see these our leaders, who are failing us? When our leaders are starching stolen wealths in foreign lands to aid the development of those nations, and we too follow their lead in privileging "foreignness" and depositing our "brain power" in helping the transference and enrichment of knowledge all in the same West that we criticize like our leaders, where is the difference between us and these our leaders, who fail us, who are aloof, and in the words of the Ogoni MOSOP become "vultures" feasting upon our carcasses? We like them decry colonization, imperialism, but we have all ran to those colonial and imperialist centers, to cool our heels. When we call for the celebration of African cultures, we relish all that the West has created as cultural paradigms, and of course, without which our lives would in the majority not be enriched, and the spaces of the West attractive.  

Douglas Massey and others pointed out in their studies of pthe henomenon of concentrated poverty in American inner cities, when the "Black Middle class" left how it impacted these mainly minority areas, causing blight, because of the depravation of role models, leaders within minority communities. But that is not yet my final answer- Massey also notes that immigration has equally been a historic vehicle in enhancing the development of emigration spots. Additionally, even when we send remittances, and return glamorously to the excitement- and at times, I am afraid, the abuse- of those left behind at our various homelands- in some variegated and metaphysical forms, so we conceive of ourselves as leaders, capable of utilizing our various powers, knowledge, to become leaders of change.  Yes, among Nigerians, they have a NIDO association (please they are not distributing that ole times powered milk of that NIDO fame), but are they leaders in that sense. Have they too failed? Have we failed?

 Our leaders have failed us, so much. But, we too are those leaders. We too are those failed leaders who have failed to bring hope and solace. But this is only a partial story. All our leaders haven't failed. Some of our leaders have failed. Therefore, not all of our leaders have failed. Syllogistic! Yes, but there it is also factual.  We have leaders who have not failed us. In Nigeria, we saw a Senator Ken Nnamani, who sterling character made the Nigerian legislature, attempt to function as it ought. He is a leader, even if we say he is in the minority league. In America, we have many Nigerian leaders that I know. I can tell of many-Chuka Onyeani, George Ayittey, Chinua Achebe, Kwabeni Akurang-Parry, Akwasi Assensoh, Toyin Falola, Ugorji Ugorji, Kassahun Checole, Mobolaji Aluko, James Fadele, Kashim Ola, Kase Lawal, E,. Idogu, Olusegun Fayemi, among so many others, who are striving, committed, and dedicated to Africa and her affairs. Their ideas many not us always fit into our paradigms, but they are selfless and committed leaders nonetheless.  Achebe is right, to say that the problem of leadership is the bane of Nigeria, but it is political leadership he is most articulate about. That too is the problem of leadership, in its analytical sense. To reduce the totality of the modes of existence to one out of many spheres is part of the problem. It is because the arena of politics have become too totalitarian, too verbose and adorned with hegemonic arrogance that the other sphere suffers. People pander to politicians and political affairs, academic, religion, economics, morality, every arena of life becomes subsumed under the overarching paradigm of the political. Yet, these specific spheres and fields have their own innate and autonomous power to even grab politics on its head and spin it around. Any wonder that the American Religious Rights have become so powerful in recent years. Any doubt that an innocuos pastoral letter by Malawian Catholic Bishops in 1992, unveiled Banda and spit him from power? Any surprise that gory affairs in different stock exchanges can bring down governments. Any wonder, that moral scandals can unmask, stain, and render forever irrelevant political actors and influential personalities? They are leaders everywhere and in every sphere, but how do we all experience their leadership, and enable their leadership bring transformations? How do we use these leaders to our advantages? How do these leaders use their powers to our advantages? Maybe all there need to be is to boost these different leadership units to become checks upon the abusive power orders within our divergent African nations.

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Dr. Valentine Ojo]

Fr. Tony Agbali:

I frequently find your position incomprehensible.

In one breath, you are ready to justify and even defend the rot in Nigeria
- which you know first hand - including seeing 419 scams as a sign of a
"robust economy".

And here you are, condemning Robert Muagbe and putting the blame of the
plight of Zimbabwe solely on him. You neither know Zimbabwe nor Robert
Mugabe, except from the picture of a bete noire painted of him by the
Weste4rn press.

This is not about holding brief for Robert Mugabe. However, anyone who is
playing judge on Robert Mugabe without seriously looking at the legacy of
"settler politics", which we in West Africa, thank God, never had to put
up with, is being less than an honest arbiter here.

Why is that we readily buy into this business of putting the
responsibility for whatever happens in a so-called "Third World" country
on some omnipotent leader?

What changed in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed with "shock and awe"?

Why is the blame for Western policies are never put squarely on George
Bush or Tony Blair, who after all are the duo calling the shots in these
"Western democracies"?

Why is it that Africans are loath to ask Britain and the US if they ever
kept their own part of the agreements of the Lacanshire House accord?

Like every other "treaty" before it, whether with Native Anmericans, or
with African "chiefs", or with the Maori of New Zealand, or the Aborigines
of Australia or the Ikut of the North Pole, or the recent treaty on global
warming unilaterally revoked by George Bush, Europeans have always shown a
penchant to unilaterally break ALL treaties they ever enter into, even
among themselves!

When their opponents now react to this lack of good faith on the part of
the West/Europeans, it is only then that the Western press goes to town on
them, and some of us get railroaded into supporting this Western duplicity
- unquestioningly.

What did the West do about the travesty of an election recently held in
Nigeria?

As long as whoever "rules" in Nigeria does not disrupt, or pose any threat
to Western interests, who cares about somethging as insignificant as
"democratic elections"? It's business as usual.

I do not remember Musharaf of Pakistan ever being democartically elected...

Any African going to the barricade to defend Western policies and
practices in Southern Africa - and especially in Zimbabwe - needs to go
back and re-study African history, not through Western opportunistic
binoculars, but through the eyes of the victims of British/Boer apartheid
in South Africa, and victims of Ian Smith's and Cecil Rhodes' Rhodesia.

Dr. valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD
****************

> ---------------------------------
> All new Yahoo! Mail
> ---------------------------------

> Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page
>
>
>
>

> ---------------------------------

[Ayoola Tokunbo]

Obviously Tony Agbali is reacting to my contribution to the present
discourse on Mugabe, and the opening quote in its intervetion, which was
from my own contribution.
Of particular importance in Tony's contribution is his definition of
leadership which is all embracing. I not only agree with him hundred per
cent on this, i go forward to state that this is my own position as well -
leadership cuts across political, religious, economic, cultural spheres. As
to the rest of Tony's contribution, i agree in to to.
It would appear Tony did not get the gist and the context of my
intervention. I was actually reacting to our dear compatriots who were
arguing that we should not hold Mugabe responsible for the tragedy in
Zimbabwe; and that all could be blamed on colonialism, imperialism, white
settlers, neocolonialism, and Britain's treachery vis-a-vis Lancaster
agreements.
My position is this: while of all these factors are very germane to the
crisis in Zimbabwe (and indeed Africa), Mugabe also bears some personal
responsibility. Now speaking generally of Africa, Mugabe is not alone in
this, other political leaders have failed Africa.
Now if we want to expand the definition of African leadership beyond the
purely political, that is fine and excellent. In fact in our discourses, it
is this expanded form that we should always employ. Only then can we to
proper grip of Africa's problems.
So Brother Tony, i agree completely with your analysis
Tokunbo Ayoola

>From: Tony Agbali <atta...@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Edinburgh may withdraw Mugabe
>degree

>---------------------------------

>Don't pick lemons.
>See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>>

_________________________________________________________________

[Tony Agbali]

Dr. Ojo

I was not going to respond to this. But I changed my mind. It is going to be somewhat lengthy in addressing your issue. In any event, I think that you read and see what you want to see. That is your exclusive right, but you cannot peg or transposed your imagination upon me. As Paul Bohannan noted, once a text is written, there is nothing the writer can do about its interpretations. Of course, those shades of interpretations would be countless based upon the prisms through which people conceptualize and perceive reality, especially social reality, which yields to multiple, non-specific, and at times, irrational interpretations. Another thing to be stated is that interpretations can go in dual directions, name exegetical or hermeneutical. In both cases, it is the burden of the reader who is preoccupied with the facts, rather than that of the author.

 

Also, I recognize that writing, is like politics. It is a position or stance taking event.  Therefore, writing inscribes one into an arena that is political. Therefore, even innocuous assumptions can then acquire political undertones and interpretations, often along the line that suits the one interpreting. 

 

Having noted this, I do not think that it really bothers me personally, whichever detour or outlook the reader finally comes out with.  See! Henry Ford, picks up a magazine article, which maybe other millions have equally picked and read. The same article read by a multitude triggers in Ford how to construct cars, and Ford going beyond manufacturing cars, set the basis for our current economics- especially its credit schemes.

 

I have never considered ever, Nigeria's rot incomprehensible. All I have ever noted is that there are certain elements within the Nigerian polity that have recorded some minute- even remarkable- achievements. I wold be a fool to think that even within the worst case scenario there is no iota of goodness. I see goodness in a sinner or a criminal, because, a human person is innately not created- or evolved- as a composite of evil. 

 

However, you want me to pander to your own perceptions regarding issues at all times, in a kind of hero worship. Sorry, I cannot. I am different and cannot always think like you, or clone your thought exactly and precisely. This is not because, I am depraved. No, that isn't it. Rather, it is because I am not your clone, or reflect your clone ideations. I am who I am, and given our different sitz im leben; our specific backgrounds and experiences, we are alter egos. True, sometimes, our ideas converge or intercept, but that is all there is to it.

I'd  refused to respond to your other earlier writings (the tirade of the Penkelemesi) deliberately, precisely because it was leading no way, and it was all an attempt to satisfy an egoistic need, rather than look at the issues been articulated.  While you were trying to push the envelop, attempting me to become your consultant in providing you the resources to examine the facts raised therein, I reneged because it was a cyclical attempt that was directed toward a cul de sac. I had expected that you crosschecked my facts, therein.

 

With regards to Nigeria, you might have an issue with Nigeria as a country, but that is your own issue to deal with, and appropriately at that. I know that some Nigerians can even sell their homeland for the price of peanuts, but that is their business. As far as I can see,  I can see even if not immediately, that Nigeria, in spite of her current fate and ills, would survive her trauma.  Even, in the emergency rooms, except there is a DNR (do not resuscitate) order, all feasible attempts are made until futility is conceived. That is why for me, when you see rot, as I too see, I decry it as it pains me, but I attune myself toward doing the little that I can to ensure that I chop a segment of that rot away, within my best ability. Moses Ochonu, has noted that patriotism, inheres even among those who are critical of a nation's state of being, which I too had earlier asserted.

 

But there is a level of pessimism that is uncalled for, the one that attempts to bury others within one's oceanic pessimistic outlook. Not everyone shares similar views, and for those who do so, I hope they feel good about themselves and how they feel.  For me, I try to see the different perspectives of realities- both good and bad.  I  call attention to these are they unfold, and within an activist adventurism along the terms that I adjudge as relevant, I do what I can. I believe that if we all pay our two cents, Nigeria would be a better place. It is not only those abstract leaders that have failed. And I think you raised the question herein, who are these leaders once? You too, you are a leader, and I assume, like the rest of the Nigerian leadership, you too have failed woefully. Right! Makes sense!  Therefore, I am not going to tow your lines because you want me to, in robotic style.

 

Further, you see Nigeria as bad. You see the West as bad and always as having ill intentions toward Africa. True, but with a caveat. Call it an antimony! Or paradoxical, whatever. The same western civilization and way of life is what we are privileging, having eloped as foragers of fortune to reside ironically and paradoxically in the same west that we so despise. Many of us are soldiers of no known loyalty, ever mutinying, ever in fluidity. Restless souls of no homeland, no feet on any firmaments. Chameleonic characters! Western education, healthcare, and technology has brought us succor.  This whole point was again brought significantly alive and enriched from the perspective of a Kenyan Pastor, of a striving church that caters to the social needs of African immigrants within the St. Louis metropolitan area, helping the vital resettlement of new arrivals and sustaining his congregation moving them to fast upward mobility.  This was just yesterday, when I interviewed this amazing, gifted, visionary, and highly erudite pastor. 

 

Talking about this issue, he made a reference that has stuck with me. The reference pertains to the late Jomo Kenyatta. He noted that Jomo Kenyatta taught them to despise whites, to hate them. "If I was in the village" he averred, "I would have believed him. I would hate whites, I would despise them. Yet, let me tell you something." Ok. "The same Jomo Kenyatta in the day would despise the whites to us, but in the night guess whom, he was with, the white women. The whites were no good, but guess what, he stayed in London for eighteen years." I am not saying that western civilization is an accomplished phenomenon, and a perfect order. Such perspective would be a lie. Doubtful, indeed. But is anything even a finished totality? Again, our ways of seeing social realities differs.

 

I see goodness and badness within these different spaces- and do not hold one above the other, simply because of the immense human capability, as reflexive social agents to ensure changes and transcend even the most deplorable situation. The Jewish Holocaust was bad, but some survivals refused to be so entrapped in the realms of evil, but utilized that context to aim toward a better world. Elie Wiesel, Victor Frankl, among many others saw in their experiences and memories ways of transcending gloom.

 

Now, coming to Mugabe, I do not think that all of us herein have to uphold a consensus of thoughts. Some will see the glass half-full, whereas others would see it empty, or even full. It depends on one's positionality and approach. In critical terms, for me Mugabe is evil in what is doing right now. Mugabe is Catholic, but even his own archbishop, Pius Ncube persistently continues to denounce him.  Recently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, called attention to the problematic that is Zimbabwe under Mugabe, criticizing the hierarchy of his Anglican chuch in that country of not doing much.

 

Mugabe's heroic, is consigned to a "Once upon a time" past tense syndrome.  When he led his uprising against Ian Smith, alongside others like Joshua Nkomo, he did some good. Then he was a hero, now he is bestial and inhumane, having discarded all aspects of the humanity that made him towering in goodness.  Then he flooded the sea of evil eroding its ruptured racism, swimming Zimbabwe to safety he then a hero. But sorry, sir, not now, he has thrown away that goodness. No matter the reason you assert- historical, anthropological, sociological, economical- all the "icals," Mugabe is an ideologue of the degraded nature of debased humanity.  

 

One point is clear, one injustice is too much, to continue to stockpile injustices in the name of rectifying a wrong, only create more problems. Then there would be too many injustices to deal with. Why did it take Mugabe over twenty years to begin his land grabbing? Why, did it take that long, when he had always saddled power? The reality is it was a convenient political carrot, that within the atmosphere of changing sit-tight leaders, was conceived to perpetuate himself in power.

 

Herein, is where my perspective between Mugabe and Rwalings differs. Rwalings, no matter his ills and assumed attrocities, left power, even if it was unwillingly. Anti-Rawling supporters would say he was forced to acquiesce by Britain and some western country. Ok, maybe so. But why has Mugabe not acquiesced, still a leader when he is well about eighty-three years old? In comparison to Nigeria, which you alluded, Zimbabwean themselves began to call attention to a failing older, calling the shot they have continued to be ardently  committed (in spite of their own internal conflicts and contradictions) in the face of immense suffering. Now, you want America or Britain to be the one to do something about the Nigerian rigged elections! What have you done? Organize, mobilize, and sustain it and see if you will not have support. You will have mine, at least. Nigerians, I beg to say, are too afraid to act, too afraid to die for a cause. Many cannot die because truly the death of many in the past haven't changed a thing. That is the truth. But what new ways have we propelled to force change in Nigeria. 

 

According to Dan Agbese, Nigerians quip "Na Wa" resigning to their fate, not doing anything to change the order.  "We pay and we whine. Na wa oh, we chorus, resigned to our fate and suffering in the hands of our country men and women. We sustain the cheats by our indifference we make them thrive because none of us feels responsible for the system and the situation. It is our duty not to change but to survive...A Lebanese friend of mine has a good explanation for this. Nigerians, he says are very flexible.They take anything. They accept everything. But moaning has become the national greeting. Once the Nigerian greets another with Na wa oh, he has said everything about his life, his nation, and the leaders of his country...

"In our desperation to make it, (notice how frequently that phrase crops up in this piece), to win the little battles of our private lives, we have created and now eagerly support a system that has become so pervasive it is destroying us body and soul" (Newswatch [Nigerian news magazine], March 1, 1993], pp. 34-35).

 

The decimation of any person, or a group of people, and the sanctioning of the rules of absolute exclusivity of persons, based upon the accidence of race, ethnicity, gender, phenotype, is wrong. Any harm intended or wilfully directed against the dignity of any human person is totally evil and abhorring, no matter who that individual person is.  The fact that the black person suffers does not explain why we must accept that suffering for other persons and people. We fight a loss battle, if our ethics, is inversed and perversed in making waivers and exclusionary interdicts, that are discriminatory.

 

The mirror of hope that we uphold for our own redemption from the savagery of our past oppressions from white folks, we must uphold for even the whites. In fact, whether accepted, recognized, or not, the lessons of black fortitude has led to the conversion of even whites- this is evident in the abolition and civil rights movement, and it will have to be.  One is not suffering we must accept and condone pain and humiliation as a way of life. That would be a false consciousness. Both whites and blacks suffer, even in the so-called rich nations of the West. We have heard expressions Hilly-Billies, White trash, and we see come blighted inner suburban communities inhabited by whites. While whiteness is often associated with privilege, unfortunately this is not all true of all whites. Many are emblematic symbols of the attainment of mis-privilege.More than whiteness, I would think the stunted Zimbabwean economy is even adversely affecting blacks more ( I noted this view and Professor Zack-William reinforced it).

 

We saw the footages of the brute forces in which Mugabe's apparatus administered to the opposition in March. We saw the bloodied and despicable images of Morgan Tsvangirai and Nelson Chamisa on televsion, and yet you seem comfortable to justify that kind of treatment in the name of an historic past?  No history should warrants the debased treatment of fellow human beings in the present, within its ongoing occurence in today's Zimbabwe. We all know Zimbabwean history, especially of the struggles. It is belaboring the point to keep regenerating it. '

 

You see that last time you wrote on this Zimbabwean madness, Dr. Chuka Onyeani, took you on regarding the absurd nature of your conclusions.  Correctly, I appreciated his perspective and courage, because somewhere in the past, he also had adduced the same historical premise of land grabbing to support Mugabe. Now,he sees the current events as beyond that, and transcended his thoughts and previous worldview. This I would say constitutes the process of reflexive monitoring, which gives to a consciousness of continous engagement with the world in which we live. To transcend thoughts and previous consciousness, is not a weakness but a strength. To continue rendering mumified and stupendously fossilized thoughts is acrid stagnation. 

 

I am among those who use to decry George Ayittey's perspective that we should not blame colonialism for the present woes of Africa. I felt he arbitrarily dismissed the role of colonialism, which I know plays a part in our predicaments, even today. However, with the benefit of some introspection, Ayittey is partially right. The continuous preoccupation of African scholars with imperialism and colonialism as the sole determinated of the reason for African arrested development becoming too arcane reasoning, too ossified in carcinogenic aridity, and not yielding to newer analytical constructs in explaining the phenomenon of poverty.

 

Colonialism, Imperialism, Colonialism, Imperialism, all rhythmic sing-song, does not explain why Mugabe after over twenty-seven years of leadership has not been able to transform Zimbabwe.  There was land grabbing throughout the Americas, is the U.S.A. and Canada, among others, so static? Or has the land been returned to the Native Americans. Saying that does not sanction these past practices that were cruel and even bestial.  Further, why have Asian countries with the same history of imperial colonialism moved substantially forward, including communist China, when our African polities continue to show signs of continuous morning sickness?  Fervently, we must move beyond static theorizing and pursue new fields of thoughts.

 

The point essentially is that while you despise the failed leaders of Nigeria you are celebrating Mugabe in a composite form, without distillation. Which is not surprising, because it is a methodological way you favor- much like you do not distill between discrete phenomena within unitary schemes. You see in wholistic and composite terms, and do not differentiate parts from the whole. This is obvious with regards to how you cannot conceive of any significant aspect, no matter how minute, that has occured in Nigeria from the odous pollutants that contaminates Nigeria, and stench the rest of us.

 

Finally, without much ado, in some analogical sense, can it not be stated that you are also grabbing land and opportunities in a space that is not aboriginally yours? Yet, the rule of law, the rights, and struggles of others, including your own struggles has continued to make this land of immigration/sojourn such a habitable one for you. Why can the same not  be for the Zimbabwean whites, in building a society of equity and hope, in spite of historical wrongs? What is their crime, their color? Maybe, they have to suffer for the sins of their ancestors- the children have eaten sour grape and their teeth set on edge? All good, right!

 

Why do we get vexed when African-Americans lump us with our ancestors, whom we have no direct knowledge who denigrated their own ancestors by selling them into slavery? Do we feel, that it is our burden to carry such off-loads of the past? Or, even, more circumspect and textured toward the present, Isn't it right that because we came from elsewhere taking away jobs, opportunities that belong to Americans, it is morally right for Americans to despise immigrants, spit on them, blame them for all their woes? Maybe, and why shouldn't they! Ain't we pestilence on their land, their history, their culture, in the same ways that the Zimbabwean whites should feel in Zimbabwe because their ancestors came from elsewhere?

If we are not tolerant of others within our "own" spaces, why should others be tolerant, respectful of us. This I say, noting, how these whole native versus indigenuos rhetoric have been used to painfully dispossess others, in an unwarranted inhumane way.

 

Evil is evil. As many people herein have emphatically noted, such evil must be named in calling a spade a spade. No matter, our differing sense of imagined and experienced injustices, we cannot be seen to sanction injustices as a way of redressing our own sense and feeling of arbitrary and senseless maltreatment.  That commonsensical notion, that two wrong does not make a right, I think could offer a meaningful outlook. See, what I mean? The tube bombers in London (2005) hated so much, but in their hate and attempt to redress what they considered injustices perpetuated against the global Moslem, Umma, they hurt even those that looked like themselves too- Middle Eastern, African, and even Muslims. War collateral, right! Let us beware what we seek, we shall surely get it, even worst.

 

Dr. Ojo, I once read your article in Presence Africaine, regarding African retentions among Black communities of the New World- not novel, but still original- which marked how diverse people have made foreign spaces home, in spite of historical wrongs. Historical and current wrongs is at the heart of new immigration of Africans to new global spaces, if we push these extremity of treatment of others, who differ from the rest of the population, using historical barometers, we too would be pointing the rest fingers at our very selves, now inhabiting foreign spaces, ethically sanctioning certain pejorative modes of our own treatment.

 

The Zimbabwean issue has ramification for what happens to Nigerians everywhere.  An example comes from South Africa, where Nigerians are remarked to be highly despised. In fact, the case of Enyinna Nkem-Abonta, a Nigerian-born member of the South African parliament and member of the opposition Democratic Alliance party is particularly telling. Nkem-Abonta  was told by the deputy minister of Minerals and Energy, Lulu Xingwana, to go back to Nigeria to effect his ideas of development. Xingwana noted: "I want to thank Mr. Nkem Abonta for his bright ideals, but I do think millions of black people, who are poor and suffering where he comes from, do need him" (Kamai Tayo-Oropo, "Nigerian-South African Parlimentarian Faces Discrimination," The Guardian (Nigerian Newspaper, September 19, 2004). This is similar to the treatment of a Nigerian economic that Professor Akwasi Assensoh, noted in the recent past, refused hiring at a Louisiana university, in spite of his impeccable credentials, told that if he was worth his salt the Nigerian ecomony would not be so shattered.  Yes, in deed, individual Nigerians take the blunt of the nation, whether patriotic or not.

 

Anyway,  Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, had prophetically pointed to this state of affairs following Nigeria's shabby treatment of African foreigners in her midst in the 1980s.  "We should be the last to throw stones. Ther are still more Nigerians spread all over West Africa than the sum total of African aliens resident in Nigeria. Are we not afraid of retaliation?" ("Why Akinyemi Dissents," Concord Weekly [Nigerian newspaper of the National Concord stable], April 29, 1985, pp. 7-9). As we already know such attitudes directed against immigrant groups whether black or white can be dispossessive and painful (see Manthia Diawara, In Search of Africa).  In the same vein we must guard against backlash against African immigrants by nativist groups in various western countries, by the way we treat, or assume, others to be treated.

---

Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Ifedioramma E. Nwana]

Dear Val Ojo!

 

You are right about the attitude of so many of us to Western thoughts; in many other affairs.  However, in the case in view, let me simply say that whoever confiscates the opportunity to build or correct a system, to the forceful exclusion of other efforts, is responsible for the failures in that system, and should accept the blame. 

 

Credible election, even as it is a very important step in democracy, is not all that there is in democracy.  The point, however, is that where a free and fair election had been conducted, the leader has the mandate of the people to do what he/she does and all who gave the mandate are obliged to share in the success or failure of the resultant actions of the elected.  So with Mugabe, so with any other "ruler" anywhere, be it over a nation or over a business concern or an institution. 

 

Ifedioramma Eugene Nwana. 

 

"Dr. Valentine Ojo" <val...@md.metrocast.net> wrote:

---

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.