Africa Cursed: George B. N. Ayittey and the Curse of the Africanist
On January 21, 2006 (see archives) I drew your attention to one George B. (does that stand for "Baskervilles"?) N. Ayittey, an economist teaching at American University. Partly parodying his penchant for melodrama and his militant ignorance, I described him thus: "[Ayittey] is one of those morally grotesque and numbingly mediocre figures that the American Right has the uncanny talent for digging up. Every full moon he is unleashed from the dank caves of the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation his rancid mouth awash with the latest racist pronouncement on Africa." Now it appears its high tide and the 'ound of the Baskervilles is abroad. In what he takes to be a response to the blog post, he offers a full-throated bay at the moon:
"Sir,
Your comment about my interview with Ray Suarez reeks of intellectual astigmatism and it is bereft of serious intellectual analysis. Desperate people who lack the facts to challenge a viewpoint resort to name-calling and ideological demagoguery.
Africa has been oppressed, exploited, enslaved and raped -- not just by the West -- but by Arabs and African leaders as well. If you cannot accept this, then you represent the OLD thinking, which had led Africa to our present quandary.
If you cannot admit of your own responsibility in causing a problem, then NOBODY can help you solve it. This is neither an ultra-right-wing conservative or leftist viewpoint but just plain common sense.
Another common sense principle is this: Before you write something critical about someone, do your own research about him or her and not just base your commentary on just one interview or article. You could have done a Google search on "George Ayittey." Did you?
Have a good day.
George Ayittey,
Washington, DC
March 19, 2006
E-mail: ayittey@american.edu." (posted on Anawim, March 19, 2006).
My response:
Dear Professor Ayittey,
So let me get this straight:
1. On the one hand, you charge that the blog post "reeks of intellectual astigmatism" and "name-calling." On the other hand, you refer to the writer as "desperate" and refer to her/his writing as "ideological demagoguery."
2. On the one hand, you argue that the blog post is "bereft of serious intellectual analysis" and you claim that the writer lacks "the facts to challenge a viewpoint." On the other hand, you offer not one fact or argument defending your racist and Islamophobic claim that Arabs are not Africans and that Islam is a "foreign" religion in Africa. Why are the identities "Arab" and "Africans" mutually exclusive? Why is Islam a "foreign" religion to Africa?
3. On the one hand, you charge that the writer of the blog post lacks "the facts to challenge a viewpoint." On the other hand, you lied through your teeth to Ray Suarez when you claimed that "no other Arab country condemned that [1998 embassy] bombing." Fact: the Arab league condemned the attack; Fact: Tunisian President Zein al-Abidin Bin Ali condemned the attack; Fact: Morocco's King Hassan II condemned the attack; Fact: the Moslem Brotherhood of Egypt condemned the attack.
3. On the one hand, you lecture the writer on "the common sense principle" of Google searches. On the other hand, a simple google search could have availed to you the facts laid out above -- see here:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980812/1998081203.html
4. On the one hand, you charge the writer with "OLD thiking, which had [sic] led Africa to our present quandary." On the other hand, your fantasy of a racially pure Africa and a presumably authentic African religion is a regurgitation of eugenicist and Nazi politics.
5. On the one hand, you charge the writer with refusing to "accept" your allegation that "Africa has been oppressed, exploited, enslaved and raped -- not just by the West -- but by Arabs and African leaders as well." You continue: "If you cannot admit of your own responsibility in causing a problem, then NOBODY can help you solve it." On the other hand, you irresponsibly do not indicate where the writer argued otherwise.
6. On the one hand, you wish that that the writer would "have a good day." On the other hand, you have made that impossible with your racism, religious bigotry, and ignorant harangues.
Sincerely,
Ptochos."
"Sir,
Your comment about my interview with Ray Suarez reeks of intellectual astigmatism and it is bereft of serious intellectual analysis. Desperate people who lack the facts to challenge a viewpoint resort to name-calling and ideological demagoguery.
Africa has been oppressed, exploited, enslaved and raped -- not just by the West -- but by Arabs and African leaders as well. If you cannot accept this, then you represent the OLD thinking, which had led Africa to our present quandary.
If you cannot admit of your own responsibility in causing a problem, then NOBODY can help you solve it. This is neither an ultra-right-wing conservative or leftist viewpoint but just plain common sense.
Another common sense principle is this: Before you write something critical about someone, do your own research about him or her and not just base your commentary on just one interview or article. You could have done a Google search on "George Ayittey." Did you?
Have a good day.
George Ayittey,
Washington, DC
March 19, 2006
E-mail: ayittey@american.edu." (posted on Anawim, March 19, 2006).
My response:
Dear Professor Ayittey,
So let me get this straight:
1. On the one hand, you charge that the blog post "reeks of intellectual astigmatism" and "name-calling." On the other hand, you refer to the writer as "desperate" and refer to her/his writing as "ideological demagoguery."
2. On the one hand, you argue that the blog post is "bereft of serious intellectual analysis" and you claim that the writer lacks "the facts to challenge a viewpoint." On the other hand, you offer not one fact or argument defending your racist and Islamophobic claim that Arabs are not Africans and that Islam is a "foreign" religion in Africa. Why are the identities "Arab" and "Africans" mutually exclusive? Why is Islam a "foreign" religion to Africa?
3. On the one hand, you charge that the writer of the blog post lacks "the facts to challenge a viewpoint." On the other hand, you lied through your teeth to Ray Suarez when you claimed that "no other Arab country condemned that [1998 embassy] bombing." Fact: the Arab league condemned the attack; Fact: Tunisian President Zein al-Abidin Bin Ali condemned the attack; Fact: Morocco's King Hassan II condemned the attack; Fact: the Moslem Brotherhood of Egypt condemned the attack.
3. On the one hand, you lecture the writer on "the common sense principle" of Google searches. On the other hand, a simple google search could have availed to you the facts laid out above -- see here:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980812/1998081203.html
4. On the one hand, you charge the writer with "OLD thiking, which had [sic] led Africa to our present quandary." On the other hand, your fantasy of a racially pure Africa and a presumably authentic African religion is a regurgitation of eugenicist and Nazi politics.
5. On the one hand, you charge the writer with refusing to "accept" your allegation that "Africa has been oppressed, exploited, enslaved and raped -- not just by the West -- but by Arabs and African leaders as well." You continue: "If you cannot admit of your own responsibility in causing a problem, then NOBODY can help you solve it." On the other hand, you irresponsibly do not indicate where the writer argued otherwise.
6. On the one hand, you wish that that the writer would "have a good day." On the other hand, you have made that impossible with your racism, religious bigotry, and ignorant harangues.
Sincerely,
Ptochos."
posted by Anawim | 9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home