My Last Nail On Africa’s Tribal Politics
By Lieutenant Colonel Samsudeen Sarr (Rtd.)
Lieutenant Colonel Samsudeen Sarr (Rtd.)
I am afraid I would have to make this paper my last one on the subject of Tribal Politics in Africa. This is also in response to Sulayman Saidy-Khan’s Part II discourse published about a week ago. I must however, first confess that many of my friends and associates had advised me to stop this debate but hey I think I am enjoying it like any serious challenge I had confronted in the past. To start with I thought it vital to first deal with some of his numbered examples highlighted as misquotes or distortions of the facts he presented.
As a matter of fact, going through all of them, it is fair to say that their significance to the central theme shouldn’t have merited the grief shown by Mr. Saul Khan. By and large, it was apparent from the start that Saul’s argument was predicated on profiling the Colony Wolofs as being very unkind to Mandinkas in particular, hence the seemingly unbridled anger. But in that state of mind he also sadly developed the notion that I was
symmetrically poised with similar rage to confront him on behalf of Colony Wolofs. That foundation, I believe, dictated his inability to operate from the same frequency in the first place. Then in his Part II account I saw a rather disappointed warrior whose failure to perhaps engage his imagined opponent into a battle of words compelled him to cling to any point to claim cheap victory. And I think it worked out well for him especially, when I noticed few of his disciples begging for my forgiveness in a battle that never was with others suggesting that I should apologize to the Mandinkas for doing nothing wrong to them. I don’t know how many times I have repeated that this was not about the Mandinkas in general but few unscrupulous politicians using baseless and ineffective tribal propaganda to get votes. But I guess Saul just couldn’t get it.
But with the litany of troubles he presented in his “Part I” as evidence of what the Wolofs did wrong to the Mandinkas, I tried to make him see the possible logic behind all of those. The worse case scenario was, to me, the Bathurst residents’ refusal to give assistance to Mandinkas trying to bury their dead in the city despite their claim to be Muslims. It was something he quoted from an interview given by the late Sanjali Bojang in a Foroyaa documentary. About Mandinka men and Wolof women unable to stay away from each other, an institution often criticized by the Saul Saidykhans, I gave him reasons perhaps never heard before about its natural inevitability. About women circumcision, I also thought by revealing that some of my own sisters (Wollofs) underwent the initiation neutralized that feud accusing me of insulting Mandinka women in my first paper. About Bathurst being unkind to Mandinkas, I have showed him how the British-owned Island was equally unkind to the Wolofs whose terrible living conditions compounded by their primitive predilections were delineated in President Roosevelt’s visit there in 1943. Saidy-Khan himself quoted the same source and emphasised how it was a “hellhole.”
Of course I was unable to reason with him on his dogmatic conviction that President Jawara had betrayed the Mandinkas in favor of the Colony Wolofs. I presume that was the only reason why he went ballistics in his Part II. Let’s now take a moment and review those issues Saul selected and tried to make unnecessarily poignant.
“Example #1. In his reply to Suntou Touray, though Sam Sarr stated multiple times that he would get to me separately, he lifted about two pages from my Part I verbatim until he reached the very end where for only God knows why, he decided to tailor-make what I wrote to suit his objectives. He quoted me thus:
“... Even in school, they caught hell from some Aku-speaking teachers. However, that attitude proved to be infectious, because the Banjul Wolofs turned around and treated other Gambians that followed them in worse ways! So in truth, the majority of the Mandinka! Victim of whom?” Here is exactly what I wrote: “What I find very irritating about Sam’s Wolof Nationalist types is the haughty attitude that they somehow have a monopoly on the truth about Gambian history. You see, just because others don’t whine and raise hell doesn’t mean there is only one culprit in Gambia’s socio-political scene. There never has been. Banjul Wolofs themselves were routinely bullied by Akus before others got to the scene. Even in school, they caught hell from some Aku-speaking teachers. However, that attitude proved to be infectious, because the Banjul Wolofs turned around and treated other Gambians that followed them in worse ways! So in truth, the majority of the Mandinka, Fulani, Jola, Manjago, etc were more often than not at the receiving end of Colony Wolof bullying, not the other way around. Yet, it is the Wolof Nationalist who are always crying victim! Victim of whom?”
Why cut off my sentences mid-stream unless if Sam is desperate to score cheap points? (I’ll get to why he is so desperate.) Sam had realized that quoting my full sentence would have gotten in the way of how he is determined to portray me. Therefore, being the dishonest person he is, he has no qualms about cutting and slashing my words to achieve his objectives. Just look at the original and the quotation. The incongruence of the sentence speaks for itself. This is Example #1 of Sam Sarr’s blatant dishonesty."
There was no reason for me to cut off any sentence from Saul’s two-page narrative that was copied and pasted to make the point I needed; in essence, it was to project his mindset as one zealot more extreme than most or anyone I had yet to encounter. The entire text read thus:
Types Sam quotes Prez Eisenhower’s son about his father’s opinion of what he saw in Banjul in 1943. Sam should do more research because Ike went further than what Sam noted. Ike’s summation of Banjul and The Gambia in 1943 was one word: “a Hellhole!” That harsh reality notwithstanding, the residents of this Island which was “ceded” (using Colonial terminology,) to the British in the early 19thc by a MANDINKA Seyfo, were rabidly xenophobic, and tribalist to the core. Prof. Adu Boahen describes the Ashanti King Obiri Yeaboah as a “martial ardor… who enjoyed blood sports.” In the same vein, many Banjul Wolof in that period had a very twisted sense of humor: they enjoyed Humiliation Sports. Despite their own unflattering lives, they openly poured scorn on people from the hinterland. Some people still alive remember walking down streets in Banjul in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, and getting jeered, heckled, and taunted with words like “Santong Ko!”; “Nko!”; “Go back to the farm!”; etc.
Santong KO, especially only means “someone from the countryside,” in Mandinka. But it was said as if it is on a par with “thief”, “murderer,” “rapist,” or something dirty like that. In essence, country people were routinely demeaned and denigrated. But worse than that treatment, one needs not go far to find old men who remember some country person dying in Banjul at that time, and being unable to find help among the local Muslim population to give the deceased a decent farewell. This, despite the fact that the majority Wolof speakers in Banjul were Muslim as well! Sanjally Bojang talked about this in his chat with Foroyaa before he died. As he remembered it, so does my late grandfather, and two other old men I know still alive. Add to this the open discrimination they underwent in finding employment, and you get a picture of what drove various Mandinka groups under the leadership of people like Sanjally Bojang, and Pa Keita to shove aside their differences to form a coalition in order to matter in the post-Colonial period. They were simply terrified by the prospects of mainly Wolof-speaking Banjulians taking over from the Toubabs – given their (the Founders) experience at the hands of those people.
Fulani, Jola, Manjago, etc were more often than not at the receiving end of Colony Wolof bullying, not the other way around. Yet, it is the Wolof Nationalist who are always crying victim Now people who have been harassed, bullied, or treated these ugly ways for a protracted period could be forgiven for being irrational in looking for anyone who fits the bill (settling for a transplant like Jawara because of his Barajally roots.) Who among us could, in good conscience fault them for their fears? Are these mainly Mandinka-speaking people justified in assuming the worst of the Banjul Wolof? What would Sam Sarr and his have done in their shoes? More importantly, how does Sam’s complaints about Mandinkas compare to what his people did to Country people OVER several DECADES? When some of us mention what was done to Country people in Banjul, we are condemned as bitter and hateful. But the Sam Sarrs never relent in their fabricated tales about what “Mandinka people did to Wolofs in 1960.” And this is used as justification for why they’re kissing up to Yaya Jammeh today. In their mind, they’re “Paying Back what Mandinka people did to them.” Never mind, the truth about what actually happened, or the “others” in our country. How can we ever become a nation with an outlook on things? It’s 2008, yet some are still fighting their parents’ 1960 battle!
To underscore the plight of country people in those days, it is helpful to recall that when a senior British Colonial Official came visiting – in 1958 I believe it was, ABSOLUTELY NONE of the Wolof political leaders of Banjul bothered to seek the representation of country people to get their input. The official came and went without hearing anything from the majority of Gambian people. Country people felt dejected and voiceless. This is a point that both Langley and Dacosta note in their writings. Unlike some people, the two men show integrity. In any case, why should anyone be surprised that these same group of old mainly-Mandinka men rejected the overtures made by some Banjul politicians to lead them a year later (in 1959,) when it became clear to the Banjulians that they stood no chance against the majority rural dwellers? The old Country men did what any rational person would have done: ignore the Banjul politicians’ attempt as insincere and self-serving. Who can blame them? So when Suntou Touray raises the flag of caution, some of us recall these stories, among many others. I won’t even go into what some of the Banjul Wolof merchants in particular were doing to farmers – Mandinka, Fula, Jola, even Fana Fana, in those days. You see Sam, we didn’t start off right. A lot of dirty things happened, and CONTINUE to happen, in that country. And I know with absolute certainty that Colony Wolofs are NOT the victims in most cases! Nine out of ten times, they were the ones doing the victimizing. I don’t believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited on the children, which is why I don’t understand why the Sam Sarrs keep bringing up this 1959-1960 campaign, most of the major participants in which are all DEAD! Ironically, the man that Sam’s own parents supported flipped around, folded his party, and joined the same filthy Mandinka political scam artists after he lost to them at the polls! What does that say about Jahumpa?
... Even in school, they caught hell from some Aku-speaking teachers. However, that attitude proved to be infectious, because the Banjul Wolofs turned around and treated other Gambians that followed them in worse ways! So in truth, the majority of the Mandinka! Victim of whom? End quote.
What I said next was that at last someone with the guts could say it seriously like a landslide. And I went on to add the following: “If what Mr. Khan has narrated as what the PPP founding fathers like Sanjali Bojang and Pa Keita had been instilling in their minds as how the Wolofs brutalized the Mandinkas in those days is behind this prevalent anger and frustration, then going back in time to verify the truth for reconciliation is imperative. Trying to forget the unforgettable would therefore, be like trying to cheat our own conscience. Because without verifying something of this negative magnitude which could be totally a fabrication by politicians in their irresponsible quest for power, the story will continue to hurt both Mandinkas and Wolofs as long as it stays in our minds”.
How Saul Khan could interpret this as a way of trying to portray him differently, by not bothering to add one or two more lines in a 10-page narrative beats my imagination. My objective as I said was to compare and contrast his unrestrained approach to that of Suntou’s moderate demeanor. Unless he wanted me to portray him otherwise, his argument in Example #1 above is fatally flawed. Was that little thing after all significant to the main ideas being discussed? I don’t think so. Saidykhan went on to say: “I shall revisit some of the rubbish Sam wrote about me in that “unfinished business” with Suntou Touray but in his direct reply to me, here is another deliberate Bait and Switch:
#2… “I have no doubt in my mind that this Mandinka hatred has to do with the fact that they’re (Dr. Manneh and Sheriff Dibba) the only people in The Gambia who consistently stand up to Wolof Nationalism.” Here is exactly what I wrote (note the preceding subtext): “… The horrible Mandinka tribalist people call PPP did exactly what Pierre Njie, or JC Fye, or Garba Jahumpa would have done! ALL the new institutions were headed by mainly Wolof-speaking Banjul people! Every single one of them! So where is the Tribalism beef? Methinks, this is a great deal for any people who lost an election. You got everything else you would have had you won. Isn’t that consolation enough? Is there any concession Mandinka people can make to Wolof Nationalists that would assuage their resentment? What’s this hatred about? Must you have people wrapped around your fingers to feel relevant? I have no doubt in my mind that this Mandinka hatred has to do with the fact that, they’re the only people in The Gambia who consistently stand up to Wolof Nationalists.”
Anyone can see that the subject here is Mandinka in general (standing up to Wolof Nationalists, not Wolof Nationalism –as Sam wrote.) But more importantly, why did Sam Sarr interpret this statement of mine as referring to Dr. Manneh and Sheriff Dibba specifically? Nothing in that paragraph had anything to do with either gentleman. This is Example #2.” End quote.
To be honest, I was somewhat naïve to assume that Khan was capable of understanding why I named Dr. Manneh and Sheriff Dibba without further elaborating. It was meant to once again highlight my point that those were the very politicians and not every Mandinka as Saul Khan keeps on repeating throughout. I had in fact, on similar paragraphs cautioned him about the misrepresentation including the following he had
written, “Mandinka people turned against Jawara because they hate Wolof”. And I cautioned him: No Saul I meant few ineffective Mandinka politicians campaigning on the false ticket of “Jawara not Mandinka enough”. If the Mandinka people had seriously turned against Jawara because they hated Wolofs, I told him, then he, Jawara would have been long gone. The evidence therefore, showed that the majority of the Mandinkas maintained their loyalty to President Jawara up to July 22nd 1994 a reality changed by the coup. And despite what anybody may say about Jawara myself inclusive, his personality was and is still more preferable than anyone’s so far known. However, Saul Saidykhan then added, “Sheriff Dibba broke away because he hates Wolof”. Once again that was Saul saying what I said differently. I started with Sheriff Ceesay before Sheriff Dibba, the PPP pioneers symbolic of some of those same politicians who tried new parties to remove Jawara on the same reason I gave above. My aim was to exemplify the mindset of those politicians who had in the past tried to once again lure the gullible masses into believing things that may not necessarily have been true.
I had intended to interpolate the two names in two places within the sentence, after Mandinka and after they’re; I believe that would have rung the reminder bell to Khan louder. Instead, it became another listed crime committed by Sam Sarr tagged Example #2. In fact, this too was like the rest of his listed complaints rather too trivial to be considered pivotal to the underlying circumstances. In addition, the concept emphasizing Mandinka hatred and those who stood against Wolof Nationalists also became another incitement for skepticism when I alternated Nationalists for Nationalism. The dictionary meaning of the noun nationalist is: “a person who believes in or advocates nationalism”. Hence I saw nothing wrong in using either in this context. The fuss therefore, was simply a futile exercise in demagoguery.
Let’s go to Saul Khan’s next complain Example #3. “In another desperate attempt to project his mindset onto me, Sam wrote thus:
“In the climax of his excitement, Saul Saidykhan shamelessly came up with another divisive statement frequently made by his type to undermine those great families built on inter tribal marriages. For him to say that for the “last forty years the two groups of people who cannot stay away from each other in The Gambia are Mandinka men and Wolof women” reminded me of those political misfits who relentlessly campaign against a cardinal unifying factor among polarized ethnic groups…”
Here is my entire paragraph:
“So enough of this Western Artist-style neurotic, self-analytical, and narcissistic behavior: “Mandinka people turned against Jawara because they hate Wolof;” “Sheriff Dibba broke away because he hates Wolof;” “they don’t speak Wolof because they hate Wolof people;” etc. There is something incredibly prepubescent about this mindset. It makes George Bush look like a genius. Who said Mandinka lives revolve around Wolof hatred? What is to gain from that? The one thing that we can all agree on about the last forty years is that the two groups of people who cannot stay away from each other in The Gambia are Mandinka men and Wolof women. Some hatred it must be.”
Again, note the subtle deliberate misquote. Any fair-minded person can see that I’m deriding the idiotic notion that Mandinka people are consumed by Wolof hatred as being parroted by the likes of Sam Sarr. My very last sentence “Some hatred it must be” is meant to rubbish such claims. It’s men who make the final move to marry women in Gambian society. Now if the Mandinka are so hateful towards Wolof people, why do we have so many Mandinka-Wolof marriages? That is my point! Yet Ajantala Sam, the Gambian Prince of Mendacity is using this sentence to attack imaginary “political misfits who relentlessly campaign against” inter-ethnic marriages. I have never heard of any Gambian politician do any such thing. Sam should name such people.” End quote.
The familiar clause frequently made by his kind should have been enough for Saul to know that I was talking about a familiar subject of inter ethnic-marriages disapproved by zealots or do we call them ethnic purists? So no matter how well he ciphered it, the facts remained the same. For such folks all they hate is to witness Mandinka men in successful marriage with Wolof women and never bothered to search for a positive reason only because it is supposed to be negative in their minds. That was my main reason for discussing it from a more tenable perspective, which must have angered all those prophets of doom about the institution. I could see through what he was talking about. You see, Saul Saidykhan’s craftiness often disguised in ridiculous arrogance tilted with a colour-changing brilliance to harmonize his agenda too often catches up with him and why? Simply put, his is a fatally flawed game of no rules. I would again tell him that I have been around long enough to see Gambians like him. This is not the first time I heard folks like him assaulting the institution of inter-tribal marriage between Mandinka men and Wolof women. And after saying so much now during this short period of this debate, even morons could figure out how he must abhor that wonderful phenomenon. Let us read what Saidykhan said here in one of his unedited paragraphs on his perceived sub-human tribes in The Gambia: “Why am I noting these facts? Because in Gambian parlance, we see Mandinka people as we do the Wolof or Jola or Manjago. Nothing could be more erroneous. It’s therefore little wonder that we wallow in ineffable misconception because the very premise from which we start is WRONG. The Manden are unlike any other group” End of Quote.
My fellow countrymen, If the above statement by Saul Saidykhan is not a candid way of someone claiming some form of ethnic superiority over others, in whatever angle one might want to look at it, then I must be brain dead. How could anyone calling himself a Mandinka with such thoughts accept marriage of his superior tribesmen to women from those tribes he consider inferior? I only hope he is not going to come back again trying to distance himself from this statement with his usual trick of hiding behind romanticized semantics. With this statement alone Saul SaidyKhan has finally exposed his true tribal disposition, an inferno that was certainly burning in his chest waiting to explode and thank God, now it has. There is no other way I could see him differently again.
I am however amazed that with all those vilifying me as the Wolof insulting Mandinkas which I am not, not a single person could get the courage to at least caution Saidykhan about the danger behind that unreasonable remark. Why the Wolofs, Jolas and Manjago? And what about the Fulas, Sarahulehs and Akus/Creoles in the scheme of his ethnic index? As the nobleman historian that he claims to be, one would have expected Saidykhan to give his readers a doze of the epic battle of Kansala between the Fulas and Mandinkas. Or did the Jaliba for obvious reasons fail you on this one?
Having said that, I’ll take a moment to register my respect for Mathew K. Jallow for coming out to warn Saidykhan for his outrageous tribal declaration and for the time he took to read and understand my paper in a different way from the protesting horde. At least, someone has been courageous enough to say it right. Thanks Bro. And that reminds me of Captain Ebou Jallow’s educative piece especially, on the entry David Kwesi Jawara, I am puzzled!
I only hope Saul Saidykhan will start rethinking about how Wolofs he identified as being better people than Sam Sarr, like Ousainou Mbenga, will seriously trust him after his scathing commentary. He might also have forgotten that he had said Shingle Nyassi and other Jolas were determined to fight Jammeh for a better Gambia. Now how do you reconcile the ethnic superiority issue with these selected individuals?
It’s sad to note that Saidykhan’s superiority demeanor seemed to have originated from his perceived historical consanguinity with hypothetical warriors of Africa’s pre-colonial empires, dismantled and wiped out long ago by foreign forces or adventurers. Yet Saul in this Twenty-First Century is still delusional about that distant past. But I am glad he also knows that after his invincible ancestors conquered almost every territory of fellow African tribes within the reach of their brave fighter, they crumbled primarily because the Moroccans with superior firepower gave it to them in the rear end. Then he went on to add this:
“The Arabs were said to be so impressed by the bravery of the Manden that they opted not to pursue them back to their base in a place called Kangkaba.”
I have a different take on historical encounter. I could attest that the Arabs were more stunned by their running speed in an escape that must have been the dustiest stampede in the history of tribal defeat in the Savanna. Perhaps that was what spared them from being completely obliterated and for that, we all have to thank God.
Khan had almost choked me with laughter when in his epic imaginary narrative he crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the days of slavery to glorify his so-called Mandens tribesmen he believed were behind some few plantation rebellions conducted by African slaves. Out of over the thirty million or more slaves forced into slavery by the Europeans, the man believes those rebellions were caused by Mandens. I wish he could help us with the statistics of those African Americans he now thinks are Mandens, who should perhaps bear the special characteristics distinguishing them from the rest of Africa’s sub-human tribes. One thing I am sure of though, Barack Obama couldn’t be one of his Manden offshoots.
Amazingly, Saidykhan’s reference to the movie Amistad by Steven Spielberg based on a successful mutiny by slaves being shipped from West Africa in 1839 as a ship carrying Manden warriors made him sound very nutty to me. These slave movies apart from being romanticized to make them sell better, are usually written with the perception that all those captured into slavery from the West Coast of Africa originated from the Mandingo tribe including of course, US, his sub-humans-Wolofs, Jolas and Manjagos.
It was in fact the same freed slaves sent back to Liberia after the abolition of slavery who Saul Khan also recognized as the dominating occupants of that country resisted by his indigenous superior Mandens. Was it not possible that those freed slaves were descendants of his Manden Knights? One wonders what kind of world this man has been living in and how realistic that world really is? Anyway, let’s go to his fourth example of Sam Sarr’s fabrications.
Sam seems to be in a race to outdo himself in this one on OJ. His entire write-up was thus:
Example #4 ”He quoted former Agriculture Minister Omar Amadou Jallow (OJ) in an incident where he said that the Serrekunda East politician had said something to the effect of reducing the importance of the Wolofs in The Gambia because of their insignificant numbers. I was born and grew up in the same neighborhood with OJ and certainly have my doubts over him making such statements when he comes from a Wolof-speaking-Fula family in Serekunda and for over forty years was married to one of the most beautiful and respected Wolof ladies there. He was however a politician and I therefore, wouldn’t outright say that he didn’t utter the remarks. But, knowing what I now know, if I were a politician wanting to make Saul Khan happy, I would feed him with tales of horrors concerning Wolof bigotry and their imminent doom. However, knowing OJ very well, I will leave the allegation at that until later.”
Here is exactly what I wrote and the entire paragraph:
“As OJ once told me, Colony Wolof ought to “tone down their criticism of the PPP because of what we did for them.” He was talking about a people who constitute less than 10% of the Gambia’s population, yet constituted the majority of ALL IMPORTANT positions in the various PPP governments. Yet, some continue to cry victim. Victims of Mandinka tribalists. Sometimes, one can’t help but feel sick at what one hears, or reads. A little gratitude would be in order. If truth be told, Mandinka people helped Colony Wolof tremendously. What the Sam Sarrs call a “Wolof hegemony” was allowed to flourish during the PPP era, NOT BEFORE. Before the PPP era, Aku speakers were fully in charge. It was in fact the “tribalist” PPP Mandinka folks who put Colony Wolof on top! This was one area where Jawara should be extolled.”
So where in the world did Sam Sarr get his interpretation of what I quoted OJ as telling me? Where did I even suggest that OJ said “…something to the effect of reducing the importance of the Wolofs in The Gambia because of their insignificant numbers?”
Reading my statement here, one could notice that I was more suggestive than definitive as such. Because of the volume of materials I read and write weekly I sometimes simply brows through some articles to get the gist of the main ideas. In this particular paragraph, I was however sure that the remark Saul Khan said was made by OJ was certainly not favorable to Wolofs. I also could remember that it had to do with their relative lower number, percentage wise, in the Gambia. Factoring that with this man’s concept of Wolofs in general, I thought my statement was not as terrible as he tried to project it. What concerned me more was his liberty to use O.J’s name and personality where I was sure Jallow wouldn’t applaud. That was why I focused on doubting any such negative utterance from him targeted to the Wolofs where his wife came from. May be a more accurate paraphrasing should have simply read “OJ making an unfavorable remark about Gambian Wolofs who constitute 10% of the population”. Because in whatever way we look at that also, Wolofs hearing that from OJ, including his wife Awa wouldn’t be pleased about it. And I felt knowing OJ the way I did I could say the words I said about him. But Saul made it look like I was disrespecting both OJ and his wife by totally misquoting him. What did he want me to say? That OJ made some kind remarks about Wolofs in the Gambia who constituted 10% of the population? Or was this just another moment to change colors in his game of no rules? If I hadn’t said something like that then, Saul in his Part II gave me the reason to say a similar thing from there when he again quoted O.J’s so-called observation during Jawara’s 1992 “Non-retirement Retirement announcement: “One of the things OJ said in that conversation was that with the exception of BB Darbo and Dr. Ablie Bojang, almost all of the PPP Ambassadors were Colony Wolof/Banjulians for the longest time.”
I think I can interpret that, as “OJ making another unfavorable statement about Wolof/Banjulians, can’t I?
But for Saul to vindicate himself from my comments about OJ and his wife Awa, he had all this to say: Goodness gracious! OJ never said any such thing, and I never even suggested that he did! I know Omar Jallow and his beautiful wife Awa Jobe. I like them both. OJ is my friend. Part of the reasons I love OJ is that he speaks his mind. When Jawara announced his Non-Retirement Retirement Plan in Jarra in 1992, OJ was one of the few PPP leaders who urged him to retire as he promised. One of the things OJ said in that conversation was that with the exception of BB Darbo and Dr. Ablie Bojang, almost all of the PPP Ambassadors were Colony Wolof/Banjulians for the longest time. Which is true! In short, despite what we hear now from the likes of Sam Sarr, Colony Wolof, or Banjulians held a disproportionate percentage of very prominent positions in the various PPP governments. Thus, like everyone else who cares for integrity, OJ was just saying that they (Colony Wolofs) should “tone down” their criticism of the PPP because of YESTERDAY! This I agree with entirely. So if Sam Sarr wants to knock down Omar Jallow, he should do so without trying to hide behind me! I NEVER wrote what Sam is shamelessly attributing to me. Sam Sarr is indeed a class act as a Master Conjurer. Thank god, this exchange is through letters not voice. (End quote for Example#4.)
I could continue wasting my precious time over this series of complaints up to Example # 7 and in all cases show how irrelevant or baseless they are to the main topic or demonstrate how this funny man is trying to wriggle out of some quicksand he has hurriedly jumped himself into. This is what usually happens to chest-pounding folks dressed in some self-proclaimed warrior mask to represent an entire civilization with the sole motivation of attracting notoriety or fame. There was another interesting one about Wolofs kissing up to Jammeh which is also a too familiar remark made by Khan’s kinds since they lost hope on how to depose him. When I gave him a graphic breakdown of who might be kissing up to Jammeh more with the view not too favorable to the Mandens, he snapped again. I had all over again misquoted him on the reason he gave about Wolofs kissing up to Jammeh. The reason being, humiliated Wolofs for the defeat they suffered in the 1960 election and still being angry about it. Yet this was the same person who for about a month now has been arguing that after that election victory, President Jawara more or less became a servant of the Wolofs and gave them more than what they wanted to the expense of those who voted him in office. Going by his relentless protests, I think only Saul and those who think alike could be the only ones with the cause to be upset with Jawara for the past 40+ years and not the Banjul Wolofs. As far as I was concerned, he was simply invoking his sarcastic wits again because not for once did I believe that he actually expected me to believe in his absurd allegation. That’s why I came up with some tangible reasons on what some people might be so angry with the Wolofs under Jammeh’s rule. They have since been free from nightmares of Saul Saidykhans walking in the heart of their residences questioning their rights not to speak their language. Everybody in Banjul was aware of those days and the torments suffered.
Saidykhan however is someone who has been hysterically cataloging the Wolofs as some form of demons hell bent to make the lives of the Mandinkas miserable in Colonial Gambia even worse than the heckling I tried to give reasons for such occurrence at the time. The narration about the mysterious “Boroboro” migrants in The Gambia was in fact meant to tag reasons for the prevalence of those ignorant behaviors. Nonetheless, in his Part II, instead of standing by his allegations, he tried to crawl out of them with new ones condemning Sam Sarr for misquoting almost everything he uttered. That attitude of parading the provincial Wolofs, Fulas, Jolas, etc, when he is cornered in his brutal crusade for ethnocentric agenda, is now busted. I have seen the types of Saul Khan before on the same battle uniforms, but never have I ever seen a provincial Fula, Jola or Wolof in such a toxic temperament against Colony Wolofs. They may be there, but I can’t even remember anyone remotely telling me that he or she has run into one.
It’s unfortunate and more so scary that in this modern era people like Saul Khan are still living in that dangerous world where humans are judged not by their potentials, character make ups or what they could or could not do but by tribe.
He even had to challenge me to come up with similar research results about “my people”:
“I’ll be really interested in reading Sam’s take on the history of the Serere/Wolof provinces of Kayor, Baol, Waalo, Sine, and Saloum which all reported to the Burba Jolof. Perhaps that would help me understand the basis for this haughtiness, and Superiority Complex that is the hallmark of Sam Sarr’s writing.”
Is this guy not out of his mind? No wonder in his comfort zone he thinks he could even threaten or intimidate me with laughable threats. Quite frankly, the most laughable part of Saidykhan’s theatrics was the threats.
If he wants to know about the history of the descendants of Burba Jolof, let him go to Senegal. I am a Gambian wishing that people like him would start looking at the African continent along the realistic borders we live in as The Gambia, Senegal, Guinea, Mali, etc., and not as a land of imagined tribal kingdoms or empires whose contours have long been erased by stronger European conquerors.
As this is going to be the last time I am going to discuss this topic ever again, I will conclude by saying this. The purpose of initiating this topic was primarily to engage all Gambians in a healthy political debate that I believe most African countries now need to undertake in the wake of the December Kenyan elections crisis. As I piece this reply, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to broker a peace deal between Kenya’s political leaders, Odinga and Kibaki. An estimated 1000 people have lost their precious lives all because of tribalism and yet Gambians feel that we are an island entire and to itself where tribalism has never been and will never be (amen!). So many African countries once thought to have risen above the possibility of such political conflicts have in recent times succumbed to hostilities initiated by tribal politics. Yes, tribal intolerance among people sharing the same nations partitioned by those same Europeans but often fermented by politicians has been globally accepted to be the major cause of such problems.
After suffering centuries of foreign domination, exploitation, slavery and finally colonialism, the last thing Africa needs after independence are internal discords created in the name of tribal superiority. These conflicts are never winnable. They only end up taking the countries affected decades backwards with countless lives lost, private and public properties wasted and in all cases cause the poor people-women and children mainly- to flee as refugees to deplorable conditions never imagined.
Nonetheless, living with the false sense of hope that such conflicts as seen in countries like Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo and now Kenya cannot happen in the nations we live in seem to be the childish conventional wisdom. I am almost made to feel wrong about initiating this discussion, but I have to be frank; it was overwhelmingly educative given the many things about Gambians that I never knew before. And my gut feeling still tells me that these are the sort of discussions we need in Africa to reorganize and forge a more dynamic and progressive future.
It is embarrassing to especially our African brothers and sisters in the Western world whose prides by identifying with their roots in Africa are frequently bruised by meaningless conflicts inflamed by tribal disputes.
How many of us in the West especially, those of us now living in the USA look at Barack Obama’s achievement and wonder what the heck is wrong with his father’s countrymen at a time when one of their sons has drawn the entire attention of the world to what Kenyans possibly look like? If for nothing, the Kenyans should have considered how to cohere as one people to give Senator Obama the national respect and pride he duly deserves from Kenya of all Kenyans and not Kenya of Kikuyus, Lous, etc.
In the case of The Gambia, I believe all of us numbered under two million people only are the same and would have been far better off working towards genuine unity than some of us thinking that we are superior to others. It’s a dangerous premise that has caused wars with all its destructiveness and without a single benefit to the belligerents.
I wish everybody the best. And I wish to apologize to everyone offended especially my good brothers Suntou Touray and of course Saul Saidy Khan. I rest my case regardless of what.