Kasangwawo
Were the facts right or wrong?
Em
The Mulindwas communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
----- Original Message -----
From: "jonah kasangwawo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> Mulindwa,
>
> I was not under the illusion that you were forcing me to discuss anything,
> but you are not being truthful yet again ! This is certainly not the norm
on
> the net. When netters post something, they usually indicate where it is
> from. If, for example, Omar or Gook or anyone else posts something, they
> normally tell us it is from New Vision, Monitor or other sources. You
> yourself have normally done this.
>
> This time, you posted something containing opinions, judgements and
> interpretations of Uganda history, but refrained from giving us neither
the
> identity of the author nor the sources of his/her purported facts !
>
> So I ask , even though you did not think it right 'to hide matters
> concerning our nation', why did you find it important to hide this other
> information ?
>
> Kasangwawo
>
>
> >From: "Mulindwa Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:18:46 -0500
> >
> >Kasangwawo
> >Neither you nor any other Ugandan is going to be forced to discuss any
> >thing
> >posted in any forum. So do not fear. I happened to see that writing and
it
> >gave a thinking in my head, so I thought some body out there might like
> >reading it as well, for who ever wrote it, wrote matters concerning
Uganda
> >our nation and I did not think that I would be right to hide matters
> >concerning our nation under the shadow of darkness as Federalists do.
> >If the name of the writer is more important to you than the matters
posted,
> >please by all means delete it. You see I forgot that Ugandans fear
> >discussing, that is why we do not write and we do not leave books, we
> >fight,
> >we support fighters and we promote that. Let us continue with our style,
An
> >old dog will never be taught a new trick, who told you we can change the
> >norm on the net.
> >Be well
> >Em
> > The Mulindwas communication group
> >"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "jonah kasangwawo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 9:14 AM
> >Subject: Re: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> >
> >
> > > Mulindwa,
> > >
> > > before we start looking at this article more closely, wouldn't it have
> >been
> > > a sign of good judgement to tell us who wrote it ? And before we take
> > > everything contained therein to be the naked truth, shouldn't the
> >sources
> > > have been given ?
> > >
> > > Kasangwawo
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Mulindwa Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Subject: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> > > >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:28:18 -0500
> > > >
> > > >(Netters because Ugandanet can not take this whole document, we have
> >spited
> > > >it into 4 parts, this is part one and the rest of them are
following.)
> > > > The question as to what the UPC would do with (to) the Opposition
> >Parties
> > > >if it ever came to power again, should have an obvious answer(s).
Taken
> >at
> > > >face value the answers could be misleading and confusing. I think the
> > > >question is good and fundamental in light of the line of the
discourse
> >we
> > > >are trying to develop regarding democracy and good governance in
> >Uganda.
> > > >Before we could usefully advance probable and reasonable answers,
> > > >therefore, let us first cast our minds on the background that has
> >shaped
> > > >the question.
> > > >
> > > > The mode of debate
> > > >
> > > >I hasten to say that Uganda and its people (approx. 30 million) is
too
> > > >great a stake to play with. In discussing it, therefore, we should be
> > > >rational, broad-minded, sober, intelligent, honest and as factual as
> > > >possible. The discussion should be devoid of rash emotional reaction
> > > >arising from our distorted history, prejudices, ignorance,
> >misinformation,
> > > >or recent tragic events to one or ones person(s). It should also not
be
> >a
> > > >disinterested palaver for its own sake. The mode and style of debates
> > > >should be informed and not be stagnated at the rudimentary level of
> >only
> > > >howling abuse at each other. It would serve no useful purpose. Let
only
> > > >good ideas for the future of our country and people compete and let
the
> > > >better ones prevail. Let the politics we intend to pursue be the
> >politics
> > > >of inclusion rather than of exclusion.
> > > >
> > > >Let us for a moment then put aside the unfortunate deportation
policies
> >of
> > > >the various Uganda communities, which have a bearing on our attitudes
> >and
> > > >prejudices. These were mainly make-belief and told to us by our
> >colonial
> > > >master. The true facts about our origins and the past have yet to be
> > > >answered by our own honest historians, anthropologists and
> >archaeologists.
> > > >Presently historical evidences are scant. All we have at the moment
are
> > > >sketchy and poor or unsubstantiated statements by foreigners, and the
> >word
> > > >of mouth, which is only oral literature. Whether or not Buganda
Kingdom
> >is
> > > >six hundred years old, and without stating how old the other kingdoms
> >are,
> > > >colonial history goes on to assert that the Acoli (Luo/Lwo) are
> >remnants
> >of
> > > >a defeated or decayed Bito Dynasty which moved south (up the Nile)
and
> > > >replicated itself, albeit on smaller scales, in the Babito rulers of
> >the
> > > >'southern' lake kingdoms of Bunyoro Kitara, Tooro, Koki (Koc),
Buganda
> >and
> > > >Bulamogi in Busoga. There is no concrete documentary evidence to
> >support
> > > >the sweeping claims. Even if these were proved either way, should
these
> > > >past things matter now?
> > > >
> > > > What is critically vital?
> > > >
> > > >What should be critically vital are the now and here, which is our
> >struggle
> > > >to survive in the face of this cruel world of globalisation, and
secure
> >the
> > > >future of our children and thereby our destiny as a people. We are
> >today
> > > >faced with a world of the survival of the fittest, almost in the
> >literal
> > > >Darwinian sense. Against this destiny, we can then line up our
> >modalities,
> > > >priorities and even our personal idiosyncrasies. We seem to waste too
> >much
> > > >time on the trivia and local. Some of us look at events in Uganda in
> >total
> > > >isolation and are incapable of translating the events in terms of
other
> > > >powerful external forces acting on us. Each time we discuss Uganda;
> > > >therefore, we must first and foremost focus our minds at its one
> >destiny
> >in
> > > >the context of the new world as a whole
> > > >
> > > >Uganda is vulnerable to disintegration
> > > >
> > > >Firstly, therefore, we should agree that Uganda is extremely
vulnerable
> >to
> > > >complete disintegration. And if this happened, there will be no
common
> > > >destiny. Each breakaway fragment will be weaker than the present
ragged
> > > >Uganda and each may head to extinction separately. Uganda is likely
to
> > > >break apart than not because Uganda is a construct. It is not exactly
a
> > > >nation in the classical sense and meaning as for instance Britain,
> >France
> > > >and Germany. These nations have already passed through centuries of
> > > >agonizing and tumultuous experiences to be what they are today. They
> >were
> > > >largely forged together by the will, wishes and wars of their people.
> >Have
> > > >we forgotten their history, which they have tried to teach us, which
> >read
> > > >like a catalogue; 'The Thirty Years War', 'The Hundred Years War'?
> >These
> > > >nations now think that they were not man-made but were born or even
> >created
> > > >by their God.
> > > >
> > > >Uganda, on the other hand, is a fledgling fragile construct, a
typical
> > > >colonial state, and a union in its transformation to a nation. The
> >British
> > > >put it together at the turn of the last century, for their own
> >purposes.
> > > >Out of several divergent riparian communities, which lived at the
> >source
> > > >and valley of the Nile, quite independently of each other, the
British,
> > > >like the work of a cobbler, sewed the 'state' of Uganda together. The
> >seams
> > > >can easily rot away or tear apart. Or, if you like, Uganda is likened
> >to
> >a
> > > >wall built of bricks and sandy cement mortar, which is easily chipped
> >away.
> > > >Once the mortar is removed the bricks will crumble to rubbles. We
> >should
> > > >ever be so conscious of this possibility.
> > > >
> > > >Luckily, across-tribe and inter-ethnic organisations such as the
> >religions
> > > >and political parties are some of the mortar that has tried to cement
> > > >Uganda together. Okello and Nsubuga feel a sense of unison and
> >belonging
> > > >alike when they kneel together before the altar during a holy mass.
> >Olupot
> > > >and Rugunda feel a strong sense of togetherness when they are dressed
> >in
> > > >red and blue and are singing and clapping to their popular 'Oh
> > > >Uganda......!' It is this bonding mortar that Museveni has condemned
as
> > > >sectarian and has tried to chip away. The result is sadly clear today
> >as
> > > >more and more Ugandans identify themselves with the individual bricks
> > > >(tribe) rather than with the Uganda wall (the nation).
> > > >
> > > >In this respect, we should acknowledge that the main seam in Uganda
is
> > > >along two distinct areas of political history, the north and the
south.
> >The
> > > >north was surveyed up to river Kafu by a Samuel Baker, 1862, and was
> > > >colonized from Cairo and incorporated into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.
> >The
> > > >south was colonised by the British directly from Zanzibar. Buganda
> >which,
> > > >assisted the British militarily to conquer its neighbours, was the
> >first
> >to
> > > >be declared a British protectorate in 1894. The rest of Uganda was
> > > >incorporated in bits and pieces through eleven years. The Greater
North
> >was
> > > >transferred from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan into an existing Uganda
> >Protectorate
> > > >in 1905. While the South, except for Kigezi, was being ruled
> >'indirectly'
> > > >through their local and indigenous kings, indirect rule had failed in
> >the
> > > >north and was therefore, being ruled 'directly' by colonial District
> > > >Commissioners who appointed their chiefs and reported to the Governor
> >in
> > > >Entebbe. All horizontal social and political intercourse between the
> > > >administrative districts was forbidden. This two-tier or dual-mode
rule
> > > >over Uganda has had profound effect on the peoples' behaviour,
> >political
> > > >perception and understanding of what is a state or nation. The
British
> > > >ruled us together but separately. It is important to understand this
> > > >socio-political and historical situation well. Colonialism emphasized
> >our
> > > >differences rather than the commonalities and the enriching diversity
> >we
> > > >had. Certain negative stigma was attached to our diverse cultures and
> > > >languages, for their own exploitation.
> > > >
> > > >The British, in1937, divided us farther in clusters of clans or
ethnic
> > > >groups so that we are more malleable to colonisation. Those living
> >north
> >of
> > > >Karuma Falls and Lake Kioga were classified by geographical location
as
> > > >Nilotics (people who live by the Nile), and those south of
Karuma/Kioga
> > > >were classified by language root (-ntu) as the Bantu, (which,
> >incidentally
> > > >officially in Western history and in dictionaries means black people
of
> > > >South Africa). The words 'nilotic' and 'bantu' did not come into
> >currency
> > > >in Eastern Africa until after the World War 2. Why should a Muganda
at
> > > >Njeru or Galilaya, a Musoga at Bujagali, an Acoli at Paraa, a
Sudanese
> >Arab
> > > >at Omdurman, a black Egyptian on the Nile Delta not all be called
> >Nilotics?
> > > >Why should a Jaluo in the island of Homa Bay be called a nilotic? The
> >Zande
> > > >of the Great Kingdom of Avangara who belong to the '-ntu' group of
> > > >languages, and happen to be in Southern Sudan, DRC and Central
African
> > > >Republic, but north of Northern Uganda, are called Nilotics! You can
> >see
> > > >that the usage of words coined by our colonizers alone defeats common
> > > >logics. We must be wary of using and believing some of the words and
> > > >political expressions that now abound.
> > > >
> > > >Uganda nationalism
> > > >
> > > >There is no doubt that Uganda is a geo-political entity of great
> >complexity
> > > >of our own diversities and contradictions, and is compounded and
> >confounded
> > > >by the vulgarity of the teaching and language of colonisation. But is
> >this
> > > >important what ethnic or language groups we had belonged to? Why do
we
> >not
> > > >deal with what is vitally important and common to us all, here and
now,
> >and
> > > >work towards guaranteeing our continuity through building a safe
future
> >for
> > > >our children? Some of us do strongly believe that a strong, vibrant,
> >viable
> > > >and sustainable nation and state can be built out of that great
> >complexity.
> > > >That complexity should be a blessing and an advantage. (Look at the
> >USA,
> > > >which is trying to artificially build its own complex society by
> > > >encouraging immigration from all over the world, called ' the Quota
> >system'
> > > >or 'the Green Card'). Our distorted past should not be allowed to
limit
> >the
> > > >future rather it should enrich and broaden it. What then is Uganda's
> > > >status?
> > > >
> > > >We Ugandans tend to call Uganda a nation-state. What does this mean?
> >The
> > > >Nation-State of Uganda is merely an ardent expression of great hope
by
> > > >those who believe in the one destiny for Uganda. It means that
sometime
> >in
> > > >the foreseeable future Uganda will attain the stature and status of a
> > > >Nation and state. It is that blind belief to build that Nation, that
> >state,
> > > >which has held Uganda together since the British left. Why not build
a
> > > >nation? After all a nation and the state that encases it, are at
first
> > > >fragile, born of myth and imagination, allegory and ambition of its
> >people.
> > > >The ideas that were once metaphors solidify into supposed facts.
> >Whenever
> > > >we discuss Uganda issues, therefore, we must be wary and not lose
sight
> >of
> > > >the transitional aspect of the 'nation' of Uganda. If we share in the
> >great
> > > >hope, and promise to uphold the aspirations of our people then our
> >measures
> > > >of Uganda's problems, judgement of the key players, and
> >conceptualisation
> > > >and visualization of a political party and its opposition must
> >necessarily
> > > >be distinctly different from that as understood in the West. If we
must
> > > >take necessary precautions and such steps that will foil attempts to
> >renege
> > > >or abort our long march towards that goal of nationhood, then that
step
> > > >will define and shape our meaning of good governance and constructive
> > > >democratic opposition.
> > > >
> > > >Both Party in government and Political Opposition should, therefore,
> >take
> > > >cognisance of the fact of Uganda's fragile transitional circumstance.
> >Since
> > > >1962 we have had the great opportunity to foster our own ambitions.
> >Those
> > > >who have embarked on that dream, that long march to nationhood are
> >called
> > > >'nationalists'. Uganda nationalism is that feeling to achieve the
> >Uganda
> > > >nation. The nationalists would then ask what opposition might be
> >regarded
> > > >as a legitimate opposition? How far can political opposition go
before
> >it
> > > >can be accused for disrupting or even slowing down the march to
> >nationhood?
> > > >At what point in the debates would opposition be accused for
infringing
> >on
> > > >Uganda sovereignty?
> > > >
> > > >Part two to continue.........
> > > >
> > > > The Mulindwas communication group
> > > >"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
