The claim to reason or rationality is the ultimate validation of the affirmation and assertion of the human condition. Aristotle’s definition of man as "a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and the Amerindian. Little did he realise that his definition of "man" laid down the foundation for the struggle for reason between colonialists and colonized peoples.

        Aristotle’s definition of man was deeply inscribed in the social ethos of those communities and societies which undertook the so-called voyages of discovery apparently driven by innocent curiosity. It seems then that the entire process of decolonisation has upheld and not jettisoned the questionable belief that "man is a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and of the Amerindian.

        The term African philosophy renders the idea that history repeats itself easy to believe. The term tends to revive innate skepticism on the one hand and to stimulate ingrained condescension on the other. The skeptic, unswervingly committed to the will to remain ignorant, is simply dismissive of any possibility let alone the probability of African philosophy. Impelled by the will to dominate, the condescendor is often ready to entertain the probability of African philosophy provided the judgement pertaining to the experience, knowledge and truth about African philosophy is recognised as the sole and exclusive right of the condescendor. The self-appointed heirs to the right to reason have thus established themselves as the producers of all knowledge and the only holders of the truth.

Mogobe B. Ramose. African philosophy through Ubuntu.

Harare, Zimbabwe: Mond Books Publishers, 2005, pp. 5-6 (adapted).

        The claim to reason or rationality is the ultimate validation of the affirmation and assertion of the human condition. Aristotle’s definition of man as "a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and the Amerindian. Little did he realise that his definition of "man" laid down the foundation for the struggle for reason between colonialists and colonized peoples.

        Aristotle’s definition of man was deeply inscribed in the social ethos of those communities and societies which undertook the so-called voyages of discovery apparently driven by innocent curiosity. It seems then that the entire process of decolonisation has upheld and not jettisoned the questionable belief that "man is a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and of the Amerindian.

        The term African philosophy renders the idea that history repeats itself easy to believe. The term tends to revive innate skepticism on the one hand and to stimulate ingrained condescension on the other. The skeptic, unswervingly committed to the will to remain ignorant, is simply dismissive of any possibility let alone the probability of African philosophy. Impelled by the will to dominate, the condescendor is often ready to entertain the probability of African philosophy provided the judgement pertaining to the experience, knowledge and truth about African philosophy is recognised as the sole and exclusive right of the condescendor. The self-appointed heirs to the right to reason have thus established themselves as the producers of all knowledge and the only holders of the truth.

Mogobe B. Ramose. African philosophy through Ubuntu.

Harare, Zimbabwe: Mond Books Publishers, 2005, pp. 5-6 (adapted).

        The claim to reason or rationality is the ultimate validation of the affirmation and assertion of the human condition. Aristotle’s definition of man as "a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and the Amerindian. Little did he realise that his definition of "man" laid down the foundation for the struggle for reason between colonialists and colonized peoples.

        Aristotle’s definition of man was deeply inscribed in the social ethos of those communities and societies which undertook the so-called voyages of discovery apparently driven by innocent curiosity. It seems then that the entire process of decolonisation has upheld and not jettisoned the questionable belief that "man is a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and of the Amerindian.

        The term African philosophy renders the idea that history repeats itself easy to believe. The term tends to revive innate skepticism on the one hand and to stimulate ingrained condescension on the other. The skeptic, unswervingly committed to the will to remain ignorant, is simply dismissive of any possibility let alone the probability of African philosophy. Impelled by the will to dominate, the condescendor is often ready to entertain the probability of African philosophy provided the judgement pertaining to the experience, knowledge and truth about African philosophy is recognised as the sole and exclusive right of the condescendor. The self-appointed heirs to the right to reason have thus established themselves as the producers of all knowledge and the only holders of the truth.

Mogobe B. Ramose. African philosophy through Ubuntu.

Harare, Zimbabwe: Mond Books Publishers, 2005, pp. 5-6 (adapted).

        The claim to reason or rationality is the ultimate validation of the affirmation and assertion of the human condition. Aristotle’s definition of man as "a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and the Amerindian. Little did he realise that his definition of "man" laid down the foundation for the struggle for reason between colonialists and colonized peoples.

        Aristotle’s definition of man was deeply inscribed in the social ethos of those communities and societies which undertook the so-called voyages of discovery apparently driven by innocent curiosity. It seems then that the entire process of decolonisation has upheld and not jettisoned the questionable belief that "man is a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and of the Amerindian.

        The term African philosophy renders the idea that history repeats itself easy to believe. The term tends to revive innate skepticism on the one hand and to stimulate ingrained condescension on the other. The skeptic, unswervingly committed to the will to remain ignorant, is simply dismissive of any possibility let alone the probability of African philosophy. Impelled by the will to dominate, the condescendor is often ready to entertain the probability of African philosophy provided the judgement pertaining to the experience, knowledge and truth about African philosophy is recognised as the sole and exclusive right of the condescendor. The self-appointed heirs to the right to reason have thus established themselves as the producers of all knowledge and the only holders of the truth.

Mogobe B. Ramose. African philosophy through Ubuntu.

Harare, Zimbabwe: Mond Books Publishers, 2005, pp. 5-6 (adapted).

        In 1977, during his first official visit abroad as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was betrayed by the language barrier and the choices of his translator. In the course of meeting his Polish counterpart, Edward Gierek, the translator was on hand to provide a translation of his president’s words into Polish. Unfortunately, his translations could, perhaps, have not been farther from the truth of what Carter said.

        Announcing that he was extremely glad to be in Poland for his first trip abroad, the translator somehow managed to mistranslate the friendly statement into the announcement of seeming defection by the American President, turning "I left the United States this morning" into "I left the United States, never to return". Furthermore, Carter’s warm statement of his visit to the nation was bizarrely mistranslated into the comment that President Carter "was happy to grasp at Poland’s private parts". Following up this colossal mistake, the interpreter then successively translated Carter’s expression of a hope to learn more about the Polish people’s "desires for the future" into "I desire the Poles carnally". Adding insult to injury, during Carter’s toast at a state banquet later during the same trip, a different interpreter providing a translation could not understand the American President’s Georgia accent and consequently chose to simply not translate his words at all rather than offer an inaccurate depiction. In hindsight, the latter interpreter opted for the better path in the face of confusion.

17 Mishandled International Events Throughout History. 

Internet: <historycollection.com> (adapted).

        In 1977, during his first official visit abroad as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was betrayed by the language barrier and the choices of his translator. In the course of meeting his Polish counterpart, Edward Gierek, the translator was on hand to provide a translation of his president’s words into Polish. Unfortunately, his translations could, perhaps, have not been farther from the truth of what Carter said.

        Announcing that he was extremely glad to be in Poland for his first trip abroad, the translator somehow managed to mistranslate the friendly statement into the announcement of seeming defection by the American President, turning "I left the United States this morning" into "I left the United States, never to return". Furthermore, Carter’s warm statement of his visit to the nation was bizarrely mistranslated into the comment that President Carter "was happy to grasp at Poland’s private parts". Following up this colossal mistake, the interpreter then successively translated Carter’s expression of a hope to learn more about the Polish people’s "desires for the future" into "I desire the Poles carnally". Adding insult to injury, during Carter’s toast at a state banquet later during the same trip, a different interpreter providing a translation could not understand the American President’s Georgia accent and consequently chose to simply not translate his words at all rather than offer an inaccurate depiction. In hindsight, the latter interpreter opted for the better path in the face of confusion.

17 Mishandled International Events Throughout History. 

Internet: <historycollection.com> (adapted).

        In 1977, during his first official visit abroad as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was betrayed by the language barrier and the choices of his translator. In the course of meeting his Polish counterpart, Edward Gierek, the translator was on hand to provide a translation of his president’s words into Polish. Unfortunately, his translations could, perhaps, have not been farther from the truth of what Carter said.

        Announcing that he was extremely glad to be in Poland for his first trip abroad, the translator somehow managed to mistranslate the friendly statement into the announcement of seeming defection by the American President, turning "I left the United States this morning" into "I left the United States, never to return". Furthermore, Carter’s warm statement of his visit to the nation was bizarrely mistranslated into the comment that President Carter "was happy to grasp at Poland’s private parts". Following up this colossal mistake, the interpreter then successively translated Carter’s expression of a hope to learn more about the Polish people’s "desires for the future" into "I desire the Poles carnally". Adding insult to injury, during Carter’s toast at a state banquet later during the same trip, a different interpreter providing a translation could not understand the American President’s Georgia accent and consequently chose to simply not translate his words at all rather than offer an inaccurate depiction. In hindsight, the latter interpreter opted for the better path in the face of confusion.

17 Mishandled International Events Throughout History. 

Internet: <historycollection.com> (adapted).

        In 1977, during his first official visit abroad as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was betrayed by the language barrier and the choices of his translator. In the course of meeting his Polish counterpart, Edward Gierek, the translator was on hand to provide a translation of his president’s words into Polish. Unfortunately, his translations could, perhaps, have not been farther from the truth of what Carter said.

        Announcing that he was extremely glad to be in Poland for his first trip abroad, the translator somehow managed to mistranslate the friendly statement into the announcement of seeming defection by the American President, turning "I left the United States this morning" into "I left the United States, never to return". Furthermore, Carter’s warm statement of his visit to the nation was bizarrely mistranslated into the comment that President Carter "was happy to grasp at Poland’s private parts". Following up this colossal mistake, the interpreter then successively translated Carter’s expression of a hope to learn more about the Polish people’s "desires for the future" into "I desire the Poles carnally". Adding insult to injury, during Carter’s toast at a state banquet later during the same trip, a different interpreter providing a translation could not understand the American President’s Georgia accent and consequently chose to simply not translate his words at all rather than offer an inaccurate depiction. In hindsight, the latter interpreter opted for the better path in the face of confusion.

17 Mishandled International Events Throughout History. 

Internet: <historycollection.com> (adapted).

        Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.

        The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.

Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy.

In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).

        Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.

        The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.

Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy.

In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).

        Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.

        The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.

Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy.

In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).

        Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.

        The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.

Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy.

In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).

        Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.

        The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.

        A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.

        We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life ⸺ the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning ⸺ the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.

        Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.

Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. 

Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. 

London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).

        Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.

        The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.

        A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.

        We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life ⸺ the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning ⸺ the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.

        Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.

Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. 

Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. 

London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).

        Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.

        The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.

        A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.

        We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life ⸺ the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning ⸺ the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.

        Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.

Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. 

Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. 

London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).