If there is to be a “great Karamoja debate”, then it is necessary to keep in focus the leading issues, with the constraints of historiographical and methodological concerns. Since 1990 publications on the Karamojong have in general taken the line expressed in Mirzeler and Young's abstract: “The transformation of local modes of conflict by large-scale infusion of the AK-47 has had far-reaching effects …”. Against this trend I cite the French critic, Alphonse Karr (1808-1890), “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”. My perversity is sustained by studying the Karamojong over 23½ years, living there 1984-86, and returning for fieldwork across Karamoja in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2005. Taking copies of my monograph to deposit for Karamojong literati to read, the dominant impression was that mobile telephones notwithstanding, this was the same Karamoja. I will not have the last word, but history will.
The issue in Mirzeler's paper above is that “Pastoral Politics” has been mis-represented. Of course any part of an article cannot fully represent the whole, but my book cites Mirzeler no less than 49 times, often giving multiple page references. There is therefore no attempt at disguise or misappropriation: readers are invited and enabled to see for themselves. Where I have fallen down is in five sentences in one chapter, which Allen enjoys for its rare antipathy, where I have inverted commas in manifestly the wrong places. Sadly this is merely where my incompetence got the better of my conscientiousness. These five sentences were my précis, which I knew contained phrases it would have been appropriate to quote, so I marked them with inverted commas with the full intention of checking with the original article. Since I did not have it in my study, my intention was never executed, so now Mirzeler has his reward and I a lifetime's chagrin.