Given the fact that we are able to agree on a set of categories for the collection of material on early nationalist movements in Africa, it is necessary also to ask whether or not the form in which the material is gathered is important. Our answer would be: it is essential to the secondary analysis of the oral history material that it be put in such a form that “more than” and “less than” questions be answered by its use when material from one or more countries is compared with that from other areas. If in comparing data on early nationalism from one area with those of others we are not interested in saying area A has more of this or that than area B, then quantification serves no useful purpose. However, we would contend that such statements are crucial in several ways. First, they allow us to compare areas more precisely, and, secondly, such data allow us and others the privilege of utilizing them to test theoretical formulations already present in the literature. Thus, if African socialism, as many theorize, denies the usual Marxist statements that socialism originates from the alienation felt by political thinkers and the masses as a result of the industrialization of the society, then early nationalists, many of whom were socialists in orientation, should be compared so as to see whether they were in fact alienated from their society--who were more so, and where were the early natiionalist movements more and where were they less socialistic, and where were they more and less alienated. If the informants who can remember the early nationalist movements are available, then such questions can be answered when researchers are made aware that these data may have, eventually, to be coded into more than, and less than, categories.