My brother Ssemakula, I have not gone off anything! Kenneth Ingham was a strawman of your construction, you brought him in, and all I did was point out that the revealations about him were in the very book you mentioned. Now if a reviewer, worth his salt, sidesteps that information and evaluates the book as if Ingham was a disinterested observer, do we fault Ingham or do we fault the reviewer's view? As I said, I have that book but did not make reference to it for such reasons.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/24/03 07:12PM You seem to have gone off the deep-end here, judging from the uncharacteristic amount of fluff in your response. Anyhow, if you re-read my reponse with respect to Kenneth Ingham (whom, for the record, I misremembered as Keith) you'll note that my emphasis was on his impartiality or objectivity as an observer of Uganda's politics by virtue of his being a foreigner. I think it is important to dispell that mirage. By his own admission he is a card-carrying member of the UPC, and also member of the Legico. Thus he can hardly considered a disinterested party, one way or the other.>>>>>>>> I did not disagree with that, see above The relevant passage is (emphasis added): >>>>4. Elsewhere, it has been suggested that Keith Ingham, author/editor of books like: The making of modern Uganda (1958, 1983); A History of East Africa (1967), The kingdom of Toro in Uganda (1975), Obote: A Political Biography (1994), etc, was/is a foreigner and therefore somehow an impartial observer of events in Uganda. Nothing could be further from the truth. >>>>>>> See what I mean by you constructing a strawman for you to subsequently destroy! Ingham never was part of this conversation until you brought him up, and now you want it known that I've gone off the deep end, oh, well.... >>>>>As for Ssekabaka Muteesa II's comments on the London Constitution Conference, you are at liberty to construe whatever comes to your vivid imigination as it compares to what Ibingira wrote. However, the facts remain that: (1) Muteesa II pre-deceased the publication of Ibingira's books; and (2) iy you were to bother to check the original excerpt from Ibingira's book (African Upheavals Since Independence) that I posted, you'll probably see that Ibingira himself noted that Muteesa II recount of events was incomplete and he (GSI) gave reasons for this.>>>>>>> In other words, Ibingira felt free to challenge Sir Edward's writings since the latter was no longer in aposition to dispute the former's account? In Ibingira you really found your Chairman Mao on these issues! Not even The Kabaka's word means ziltch, and yet, "Waliggwa........" You conspicuously omitted to comment on thi section of mine.............. >>>>>>In concluding, Omw Ssemakula, as a scientist, would you ask Ibingira to review a grant proposal submitted by Obote? Would you ask K Ingham to do the same? Would you, given what you know of their relationships? Is it not your rich culture that captures the concept of conflict of interest most aptly in: "Enkima ttesala gwa kibira"? Perhaps what you want to tell us is that the Ibingira-Obote situation is so special that you are prepared to bunk the ancient wisdom of your forefathers. >>>>>>> But I am sure you will address those sentiments when you unveil the substantive issues. I do not plan to re-engage you until you get back to the starting point of our discourse. Best regards, Yoswa.
