Interesting analysis made by the prolific writer Nkemngong John Nkengasong
Fact-checking with Prof. Jean-Emmanuel Pondi on the Anglophone Problem
In a write-up titled “IS THERE AN "ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM" IN CAMEROON OR COULD THIS BE A MERE FANTASY?” posted on his Facebook page on 22 December, Professor Jean-Emmanuel Pondi, the venerated professor posed as an arbiter of the current political crises in the country in which Anglophone Cameroonians are legitimately claiming their right to federation after over 5 decades of a checkered experience in a union with French Cameroon. I congratulate the esteemed Professor for expressing his views on the burning issue, in his attempt to educate the public and to proffer solutions. However, in penning his ideas, he was either deliberately cynical about the Anglophone problem as it is the stock-in-trade with people of his kind or he in earnest put in his intellectual best in examining the problem. Either ways, the write-up is appallingly perfidious and more likely to spur national disintegration. A quick fact check of some of the concerns the Professor raised (in order of appearance) will illustrate this view and possibly alert Cameroonians who look up to him as an opinion leader and who may become victims of crude intellectual chauvinism:
1. “These debates do focus on an issue which, in turn, divides public opinion, arouses passions which were thought to be forgotten, and rekindles antagonisms, believed to have been dealt with in the past.”
To say that the passions “were thought to have been forgotten” and “antagonisms, believed to have been dealt with” is FALSE! Here the Professor is either being hypocritical or duplicitous on a serious problem affecting the nation. The Anglophone problem has been a critical political issue all these years. The AAC 1 and 2, the arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of SCNC leaders and sympathizers, the consistent appeals by Anglophone teachers’ syndicates and the common law lawyers, and the proliferation of Anglophone protest literature could never have escaped the notice of an acclaimed political scientist living in the same country. Also, the professor never explained how the antagonisms “have been dealt with in the past” and by who.
2. “On the other hand, the second group of Cameroonians who feel concerned with this debate is mainly comprised of Anglophones, including a minority of francophones who back their views.”
The statement “a minority of francophones” who back Anglophone views is FALSE! A majority of Francophones are in support of Anglophones. If there is a referendum in this country today to sample whether Francophone Cameroonians would prefer the Anglophone or francophone culture, francophones will overwhelmingly want Anglophone culture. Proof is that more and more francophones are sending their children to Anglophone schools to learn not just the English language but to acquire the cherished Anglophone culture. Proof is also that the Professor himself pursued his graduate studies in universities with Anglophone cultural background which means he found something terribly wrong with his colonial base.
3. “This explains the conviction of some Anglophones who generally sympathize with the SCNC secessionist ideology, that francophones are bent on swallowing up their Anglo-Saxon culture and language.”
By using the expression “swallowing up their anglosaxon culture and language” the Professor is being escapist. And again, such a claim is FALSE! Metaphorical as the expression may sound it does not reveal the real frustrations of Anglophone Cameroonians which are caused by assimilation, a colony colonizing another, subjugation, and humiliation amongst others. “swallowing up” is a cheap cliché.
4. “The violent protest orchestrated by a minority of Anglophones, can be seen as a result of feeling as Second Class citizens in Cameroon.”
Here is where the true test of objectivity can be sampled. Who orchestrated the violence? We have all been following up the crises and except for misjudgment which I think the Professor is most likely to be victim of, perpetrators of violence were those who brutalized, maimed, shot and killed peaceful protesters. The Anglophone lawyers started a peaceful protest march reprimanding the subjugation of the Anglophone legal system in favour of the francophone legal system. They were brutalized, wounded, their garments seized and torn (what could never be expected of any country in its right senses), the teachers staged a sit-in strike and other oppressed Anglophone Cameroonians took advantage to express similar grievances of marginalization and assimilation in a pacific protest and again they were brutalized, maimed, abducted and murdered by the military. The students of the University of Buea marched peacefully to their vice chancellor to lay their grievances but at the request of the administration, these students were arrested, brutalized, maimed, raped, and incarcerated? Therefore, stating that the violent protest was orchestrated by a minority of Anglophones is totally FALSE!
5. “The mere fact that our own brothers feel ill at ease to the point of expressing their frustrations publicly on mass media and elsewhere, is in and of itself a real problem.”
This is FALSE and it illustrates the falsehoods with which the Professor addresses the matter. He reduces the problem to “our own brothers feel ill at ease…expressing their frustrations publicly”. This again is a clear mark of cynicism that infuriates rather than soothe. If on the other hand, he is sincere that he doesn’t know what the Anglophone problem is all about, let him read the article on the following web page:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/17449855.2010.542068?journalCod
e=rjpw20
6. “….it is safer for the French-speaking demographic majority, to do everything to understand the twists and turns, the nature and depth of the frustrations experienced by a group of Cameroonians whose historic past is uniquely different.”
For once, the professor makes an objective statement “Cameroonians whose historic past is uniquely different” admitting that there is a huge cultural difference between Anglophone Cameroon (if at all it is the group Cameroonians he is referring to) and Francophone Cameroon. This is TRUE! He overtly contradicts some of his academic peers who are of the opinion that all Anglophones should be churned in a French colonial mould to define what they call “national unity”.
7. “It is worth recalling that Resolution 1352 (XIV) of the UN General Assembly of 16th October 1959 as regards the Plebiscite provided TWO alternatives for the populations under British administration attached to Nigeria: either to link with Nigeria or to join francophone Cameroon.”
The Professor did not state that the major term of the union consisted in the formation of a two-state federation which guaranteed the rights of the minority Anglophone peoples. This is the condition that has long been thwarted without the consent of the UN. To think that joining the French Cameroon was a life bond or that there can never be a third option is totally FALSE! Why doesn’t the Professor think that because the terms of the union have been abrogated a third option is possible? In providing the two alternatives did the UN insist that joining Nigeria or French Cameroon was a life bond? History makes and unmakes and Mr. Professor should know this better than anyone else.
8. “Introduce the teaching of English to francophones and French to anglophones as from the age of five to free young Cameroonians of linguistic imprisonment and make them open to the stimulating horizons offered by all the cultures of their common heritage: Cameroon.”
This implies that the teaching of English as early as the age of 5 is not being done already. This is FALSE. I am surprised that the Professor should bring this up. Isn’t teaching both languages from the kindergarten already a national policy? Besides, the average educated Anglophone speaks at least 3 languages including English, Pidgin, an indigenous language and French. It is therefore, not certain what he meant here by “linguistic imprisonment”. Whatever the case, it is the state to release itself from linguistic imprisonment by ensuring that all political speeches are rendered in both languages, that all administrators, the military, national security, etc are well versed in both languages.
9. “Renovate and upgrade the Reunification Monument located in Yaounde.”
That renovating or upgrading the reunification monument can be a solution to this problem is FALSE! The Professor could be more serious in proposing a lasting solution to a severe political crisis which requires going back to drawing board of the federation as it was crafted in 1961 and to see where we have gone wrong since then and try to mend things. What have monuments got to do with a people who are complaining of marginalization by their Francophone compatriots? This is dismally ridiculous! A big, big joke when the unity of our dear fatherland is at stake!
10. “Recall also that the official languages that we speak and defend so passionately today are not a choice made by our Cameroonian ancestors. Indeed, before the 14th November 1884, NOBODY in Cameroon spoke French or English. That is an irrefutable fact.”
This implies that the Anglophone problem is a problem of language. This is again FALSE! Anglophone Cameroonians are defending a history, a heritage and a culture which emerged from their being under the control of the British, values which are being systematically eroded by the francophone administration, values which are paradoxically very highly cherished by the francophone compatriots. Anglophone are protesting against marginalization, subjugation, assimilation by their francophone brothers not language! Also, the statement “before the 14th November 1884, NOBODY in Cameroon spoke French or English” is ridiculously FALSE. Before 1884 Cameroon did not exist as a defined polity, consequently, the issue of speaking English or French does not even arise. The emphatic “irrefutable fact” is irrefutably irrelevant.
11. “To conclude, what concrete proposals?”
The Professor in his conclusion, takes the reader to a number of perfidious, insidious, insipid and irritating “fairytales” he considered “proposals. He talks of renovating monuments, reviewing curricular, introducing the teaching of English, identifying civil and religious institutions and some other phantasmagoria the esteemed Professor is desperately uncertain about. If this is what he calls “concrete proposals” they are completely, totally, absolutely FALSE, a veritable scorn for science.
These are just the few of the irregularities I found in the write-up which are apparently an affront to the frank dialogue and objectivity Anglophones are soliciting. If we genuinely love humanity, then it is important for genuine intellectuals to be truly intellectually honest.
Nkemngong Nkengasong
Fact-checking with Prof. Jean-Emmanuel Pondi on the Anglophone Problem
In a write-up titled “IS THERE AN "ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM" IN CAMEROON OR COULD THIS BE A MERE FANTASY?” posted on his Facebook page on 22 December, Professor Jean-Emmanuel Pondi, the venerated professor posed as an arbiter of the current political crises in the country in which Anglophone Cameroonians are legitimately claiming their right to federation after over 5 decades of a checkered experience in a union with French Cameroon. I congratulate the esteemed Professor for expressing his views on the burning issue, in his attempt to educate the public and to proffer solutions. However, in penning his ideas, he was either deliberately cynical about the Anglophone problem as it is the stock-in-trade with people of his kind or he in earnest put in his intellectual best in examining the problem. Either ways, the write-up is appallingly perfidious and more likely to spur national disintegration. A quick fact check of some of the concerns the Professor raised (in order of appearance) will illustrate this view and possibly alert Cameroonians who look up to him as an opinion leader and who may become victims of crude intellectual chauvinism:
1. “These debates do focus on an issue which, in turn, divides public opinion, arouses passions which were thought to be forgotten, and rekindles antagonisms, believed to have been dealt with in the past.”
To say that the passions “were thought to have been forgotten” and “antagonisms, believed to have been dealt with” is FALSE! Here the Professor is either being hypocritical or duplicitous on a serious problem affecting the nation. The Anglophone problem has been a critical political issue all these years. The AAC 1 and 2, the arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of SCNC leaders and sympathizers, the consistent appeals by Anglophone teachers’ syndicates and the common law lawyers, and the proliferation of Anglophone protest literature could never have escaped the notice of an acclaimed political scientist living in the same country. Also, the professor never explained how the antagonisms “have been dealt with in the past” and by who.
2. “On the other hand, the second group of Cameroonians who feel concerned with this debate is mainly comprised of Anglophones, including a minority of francophones who back their views.”
The statement “a minority of francophones” who back Anglophone views is FALSE! A majority of Francophones are in support of Anglophones. If there is a referendum in this country today to sample whether Francophone Cameroonians would prefer the Anglophone or francophone culture, francophones will overwhelmingly want Anglophone culture. Proof is that more and more francophones are sending their children to Anglophone schools to learn not just the English language but to acquire the cherished Anglophone culture. Proof is also that the Professor himself pursued his graduate studies in universities with Anglophone cultural background which means he found something terribly wrong with his colonial base.
3. “This explains the conviction of some Anglophones who generally sympathize with the SCNC secessionist ideology, that francophones are bent on swallowing up their Anglo-Saxon culture and language.”
By using the expression “swallowing up their anglosaxon culture and language” the Professor is being escapist. And again, such a claim is FALSE! Metaphorical as the expression may sound it does not reveal the real frustrations of Anglophone Cameroonians which are caused by assimilation, a colony colonizing another, subjugation, and humiliation amongst others. “swallowing up” is a cheap cliché.
4. “The violent protest orchestrated by a minority of Anglophones, can be seen as a result of feeling as Second Class citizens in Cameroon.”
Here is where the true test of objectivity can be sampled. Who orchestrated the violence? We have all been following up the crises and except for misjudgment which I think the Professor is most likely to be victim of, perpetrators of violence were those who brutalized, maimed, shot and killed peaceful protesters. The Anglophone lawyers started a peaceful protest march reprimanding the subjugation of the Anglophone legal system in favour of the francophone legal system. They were brutalized, wounded, their garments seized and torn (what could never be expected of any country in its right senses), the teachers staged a sit-in strike and other oppressed Anglophone Cameroonians took advantage to express similar grievances of marginalization and assimilation in a pacific protest and again they were brutalized, maimed, abducted and murdered by the military. The students of the University of Buea marched peacefully to their vice chancellor to lay their grievances but at the request of the administration, these students were arrested, brutalized, maimed, raped, and incarcerated? Therefore, stating that the violent protest was orchestrated by a minority of Anglophones is totally FALSE!
5. “The mere fact that our own brothers feel ill at ease to the point of expressing their frustrations publicly on mass media and elsewhere, is in and of itself a real problem.”
This is FALSE and it illustrates the falsehoods with which the Professor addresses the matter. He reduces the problem to “our own brothers feel ill at ease…expressing their frustrations publicly”. This again is a clear mark of cynicism that infuriates rather than soothe. If on the other hand, he is sincere that he doesn’t know what the Anglophone problem is all about, let him read the article on the following web page:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/17449855.2010.542068?journalCod
e=rjpw20
6. “….it is safer for the French-speaking demographic majority, to do everything to understand the twists and turns, the nature and depth of the frustrations experienced by a group of Cameroonians whose historic past is uniquely different.”
For once, the professor makes an objective statement “Cameroonians whose historic past is uniquely different” admitting that there is a huge cultural difference between Anglophone Cameroon (if at all it is the group Cameroonians he is referring to) and Francophone Cameroon. This is TRUE! He overtly contradicts some of his academic peers who are of the opinion that all Anglophones should be churned in a French colonial mould to define what they call “national unity”.
7. “It is worth recalling that Resolution 1352 (XIV) of the UN General Assembly of 16th October 1959 as regards the Plebiscite provided TWO alternatives for the populations under British administration attached to Nigeria: either to link with Nigeria or to join francophone Cameroon.”
The Professor did not state that the major term of the union consisted in the formation of a two-state federation which guaranteed the rights of the minority Anglophone peoples. This is the condition that has long been thwarted without the consent of the UN. To think that joining the French Cameroon was a life bond or that there can never be a third option is totally FALSE! Why doesn’t the Professor think that because the terms of the union have been abrogated a third option is possible? In providing the two alternatives did the UN insist that joining Nigeria or French Cameroon was a life bond? History makes and unmakes and Mr. Professor should know this better than anyone else.
8. “Introduce the teaching of English to francophones and French to anglophones as from the age of five to free young Cameroonians of linguistic imprisonment and make them open to the stimulating horizons offered by all the cultures of their common heritage: Cameroon.”
This implies that the teaching of English as early as the age of 5 is not being done already. This is FALSE. I am surprised that the Professor should bring this up. Isn’t teaching both languages from the kindergarten already a national policy? Besides, the average educated Anglophone speaks at least 3 languages including English, Pidgin, an indigenous language and French. It is therefore, not certain what he meant here by “linguistic imprisonment”. Whatever the case, it is the state to release itself from linguistic imprisonment by ensuring that all political speeches are rendered in both languages, that all administrators, the military, national security, etc are well versed in both languages.
9. “Renovate and upgrade the Reunification Monument located in Yaounde.”
That renovating or upgrading the reunification monument can be a solution to this problem is FALSE! The Professor could be more serious in proposing a lasting solution to a severe political crisis which requires going back to drawing board of the federation as it was crafted in 1961 and to see where we have gone wrong since then and try to mend things. What have monuments got to do with a people who are complaining of marginalization by their Francophone compatriots? This is dismally ridiculous! A big, big joke when the unity of our dear fatherland is at stake!
10. “Recall also that the official languages that we speak and defend so passionately today are not a choice made by our Cameroonian ancestors. Indeed, before the 14th November 1884, NOBODY in Cameroon spoke French or English. That is an irrefutable fact.”
This implies that the Anglophone problem is a problem of language. This is again FALSE! Anglophone Cameroonians are defending a history, a heritage and a culture which emerged from their being under the control of the British, values which are being systematically eroded by the francophone administration, values which are paradoxically very highly cherished by the francophone compatriots. Anglophone are protesting against marginalization, subjugation, assimilation by their francophone brothers not language! Also, the statement “before the 14th November 1884, NOBODY in Cameroon spoke French or English” is ridiculously FALSE. Before 1884 Cameroon did not exist as a defined polity, consequently, the issue of speaking English or French does not even arise. The emphatic “irrefutable fact” is irrefutably irrelevant.
11. “To conclude, what concrete proposals?”
The Professor in his conclusion, takes the reader to a number of perfidious, insidious, insipid and irritating “fairytales” he considered “proposals. He talks of renovating monuments, reviewing curricular, introducing the teaching of English, identifying civil and religious institutions and some other phantasmagoria the esteemed Professor is desperately uncertain about. If this is what he calls “concrete proposals” they are completely, totally, absolutely FALSE, a veritable scorn for science.
These are just the few of the irregularities I found in the write-up which are apparently an affront to the frank dialogue and objectivity Anglophones are soliciting. If we genuinely love humanity, then it is important for genuine intellectuals to be truly intellectually honest.
Nkemngong Nkengasong
No comments:
Post a Comment