I was greatly offended by Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem's article, which amalgamated complex political and historical situations in different countries into a faulty continuous fabric. I was at first shocked to read the one-sided statement that Kenyans "swore that Raila would never be president, not because of anything other than his being Luo...A 100% Luo is not good enough for them as President of Kenya but they are supporting a 5O% Luo to be president of the USA!"

Abdul-Raheem's statement is grossly skewed and full of contradictions. First, which "Kenyans" does he talk about, since both those who voted for and against Raila are Kenyans? Second, the majority of people celebrating Obama's Democratic party ticket were from Raila Odinga's core support group, not from outside that group as Abdul-Raheem suggests. This means that his accusation of hypocrisy does not hold. Third, many voters also swore not to vote Kibaki for the simple reason that he was Gikuyu, and women and children were burnt in an Eldoret church to reaffirm that promise. Were they not as myopic as those who swore not to vote a Luo president? Abdul-Raheem's condemnation is one sided, implying that evil is evil depending on the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The blame (and heroism) in Kenya during the turbulent period at the beginning of 2008 goes all round; there are no innocent parties but collective responsibility in the form of declining morality, decadent institutions and poor political leadership.

Perhaps the most offensive characteristic of Abdul-Raheem's article is the collapsing of the ordinary African voters with the African politicians. The politics of "ivoirete" in Ivory Coast, for example, was a largely political problem to suppress the candidacy of one candidate. The French government subsequently intervened in the crisis by arming the rebels, destroying the government's air-force fleet, and making a mockery of the country's sovereignty by summoning the principle protagonists like schoolboys to sign a peace deal in France. However, Ivoirians were more perceptive than Abdul-Raheem. They protested the deaths and casualties at the hands of the French army.

The argument that Obama celebrates his heritage which is not an impediment to his campaign lacks concrete evidence. If anything, the most worrying aspect of Obama's achievement is his distancing himself from Black American history. In his memoir "Dreams of my Father" Obama terms black nationalism as sustained by hatred. He makes ceremonial mention of the Civil Rights movement and gives no credit to Black American heroes for paving the way for his candidacy. While Obama has achieved a great feat, it has come at the cost of the moral integrity of African peoples worldwide. But as Kali Akuno has brilliantly argued ("Barack Obama and the New Afrikan Question"), the euphoria and unexpectedness of his victory mean that we have to go back to the drawing board and figure out a theory that still fights for the African poor without alienating them as they celebrate Obama's achievement.

Kali Akuno demonstrates that we need carefully balanced and meticulous reasoning to analyze and articulate a vision for Africans worldwide after Obama's victory. We cannot do this if we collapse history into simplistic formulas that deny the complexity of African societies worldwide. After all, we are the same ones who condemn racism for simplifying our histories and judging what happens in Haiti, the US and Zimbabwe on exactly the same historical schema simply because the people's complexion is similar. We should not do the same by blurring the distinction between Africa's political class and the ordinary voters across different national boundaries and historical peculiarities.