Yes, the “traditional lifestyle” of studying at UL and being president of an entire nation…
Sigh
I’m not questioning the existence of tribal groupings, so that was soooo much wasted verbiage.
I’m questioning the need to tack the word “tribal” in front of every third noun when talking about Africa. Like Jomo Kenyatta - ‘tribal leader’. Nelson Mandela - ‘tribal leader’.
That paragraph only speaks of one definition for Central Africa as a geographic region, then mentions analogous political groupings…none of which include Kenya…
I think it’s got a lot more to do with colonialism and racism.
What European countries do? Poland is a special case (and like you noted, it took a Holocaust and total war to do it). France isn’t like that. Spain. Italy. The UK.
ETA. Ukraine. Balkans…
“People” works for most uses, and you’d have to actively work real hard to give it the same loaded meaning as “tribe”, IMO.
This is a pitiable response and excuse making. all of the various definitions of the geographic concept of central africa used by any body which anyone cares about besides some obscure american christian church are including a core set of states and NONE include Kenya.
the rest of the excuse making and denialism is not interesting.
The Most Reverend Mr. Chama is not an American and his church is not an obscure American church; which of the nations within his “Central Africa” are part of the “core set of states”?
Answer: None. So I guess you would refer to that Zambian as an excuse-maker and a denialist, right? He lives in sub-Saharan Africa; according to your previous posts you don’t, but you know much better than he does and his opinions are “not interesting.” Right, got it.
Most of them, anymore. Yugoslavia famously broke apart to create nation-states. Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia–even most of the Balkan states are now predominantly (80%+) of one ethnicity. France has one official language, which is the home language of the overwhelming majority of French citizens, and most identify as French first, with Occitan or Breton or Catalan only second. The same with the Brits and the Italians. In Spain you do have some stronger regional identities and politics (see, e.g., Basque or Catalan separatism), and Belgium is perhaps the textbook case of a state that is not a nation-state. The Scandinavian countries are pretty much textbook nation-states, though, and the breakup of the multi-ethnic empires post-1918 and the post-WWII ethnic cleansing created a whole continent of states in which the vast majority of the population share a common language and culture.
As soon as you start talking about “the Luo people” or “the Hutu people,” though, you are right back at that loaded meaning. What do you mean by “Luo”? It’s an ethnic group (or set of related groups) that is separate and distinct from the Maasai or the Kikuyu or other groups, and I think that notion of “separate and distinct” is what carries the loading.
But it’s not that simple. The Fulbe, for example, are a large and influential West African ethnic group. They are very “separate and distinct”. Except that in some places you can become Fulbe by doing Fulbe stuff and identifying as such. Except you’ll also be whatever you were before. It’s kind of like how you can “become” American, but you may or may not also be considered something else. It’s complicated.
The famous Hutus and Tutsis don’t really follow any of the things that typically mark people as different ethnicities. They lived together, intermarried, spoke the same language, followed the same religions…an anthropologist looking in would make them as different.
Ethnic identity is not straightforward anywhere. It’s not straightforward in America. It’s not straightforward in Europe. And it’s not straightforward in Africa.
Probably the best thing to do is to avoid speculating about tribes and ethnicities unless you have some idea what you are talking about (and I’m not saying that you don’t.)
Just like Poland: after several truly brutal wars and ethnic cleansing. That’s not a great argument for Europe being better at nation-states, it just means they’re way more successful at the tribalism game.
And this is all only true in the last few decades. How long had nation-states of some form existed in the Balkans, vs how long in Africa?
Tell that to the ARB, FLNC or Bloc Català
You’re aware that many regions of Italy practically speak a different language, right? And that nearly half of Scotland don’t want to be part of the UK. You may have heard about a little referendum they had recently to that end…
True.
So are you saying Africans just don’t cleanse hard enough? I’m failing to see how the European tendency to ethnic cleansing is somehow an indication that Africans are more tribal. If anything, they’re clearly less so - they mostly don’t create ethnostates.
No. It’s the word “tribal” itself that carries the loading, with all its associations: primitive, savage, uncivilized.
I’d prefer that there was no need to include meaningless fluff like “tribal”, but if actual ethnic groups are under discussion, “people” is more humanizing.
I’m not making any argument for the moral superiority of Europe, or being “better” at anything. I’m saying that most European states have a fairly cohesive national identity that is lacking in many or most Sub-Saharan African states because of the different ways in which the states came to be.
The idea of a Bulgarian political entity in which most people shared a common language, religion, culture, and ethnic identity dates back probably a thousand years. Serbia as a nation-state is likewise a medieval innovation. The histories of these regions are very complicated, and they rose and fell, lost and gained independence, but they retained national identity and emerged as modern states.
Which African nations have similar national identities?
And the ARB and FLNC and Bloc Catala are/were tiny groups–I think the Bloc received something rather less than one half of one percent of the vote in the last election they contested. The Scottish Nationalist Party is somewhat larger, but the UK has 64 million people; the Yes vote in the referendum was 1.6 million, and the referendum failed. The varying dialects of Italian don’t really impinge on an “Italian” national identity (there’s a north-south split in Italy, but it has more to do with economics than ethnicity).
In Sub-Saharan Africa today, residents are still more likely to think of themselves as Kikuyu or Hutu or Mongo first and Kenyan or Congolese or Rwandan second. (Do you dispute this?) Whether that’s good or bad, that’s reality.
In most of Europe, the reverse is the case. Somebody may be Saxon or Bavarian or Thuringian, but they are also German, and every German I’ve ever met identifies first as German, then as Saxon/Bavarian/etc. Most people in Hungary are ethnic Magyar who share a common ethnic identity and language. Most citizens of Sweden identify first and foremost as Swedes. (Do you dispute this?)
Because Europe has mostly developed as a series of nation-states with cohesive national identities, there aren’t many European countries where the political parties and political activities, and indeed many economic/educational/social activities, are organized primarily along ethnic lines. In Kenya, e.g., much of Daniel arap Moi’s long tenure as president came from his ability to play various ethnic groups off against each other.
You are making an argument for Europeans being “better” at being in nation-states, and that nation-states are the opposite of tribalism - and I’m saying that’s only true because they tend to ethically cleanse those states first, so this is not an argument that nation-states are the opposite of tribalism. In fact, ethno-states like the Balkans or Poland are more tribalistic than most any African state.
Quite a lot of them have national identities that *aren’t *tied to ethnicity but have those other things - while the precise borders are different, many modern African states have roots in medieval kingdoms. Most of those were multi-ethnic. This refutes the “tribal > national” idea quite handily - if Africans favoured tribe over state, this continuity would have dissolved with independence.
Good thing I didn’t say these groups were majorities - just that ethnic preference over existing national lines is not a vanished concern in Western Europe. IMO, it’s actually on the rise.
Have you spent much time in Italy? In my very limited experience (the Veneto and Piedmont), Italians are regional first, Italian second.
And calling them “dialects” is begging the question, because they’re not - Venetian, Piedmontese, Lombard, Sicilian, etc. are not dialects, they are widely recognized as distinct native languages. It’s the government that doesn’t officially recognize them as such, and for obvious reasons.
I do, in fact.
At least, while there is an awareness of ethnic groupings, in my (African resident) experience, it doesn’t trump national identity - people introduce themselves as Congolese, Zimbabwean, Mozambican, Ethiopian and identify as such in all the same ways as Europeans - support the national soccer team, hang out at the Uni Nation-X club, etc. Now, it’s possible that only highly-nationalized Africans come to South Africa to live or study, but I doubt it. My Zimbabwean colleagues at work identify as Zimbos first, Shona/Ndebele second. In fact, the Shona girl and the Ndebele girl are looking to rent a flat together right now…
Not for those examples - but what about Finnish Swedes? Swiss Germans, Venetians? Corsicans? Catalans? Walloons? The Welsh?
Again - a recent phenomenon mostly achieved by the kind of ethnic conflict that gets labelled “tribal” when Africans do it. But is “ethnic” or “national” in Europe. That’s kind of my point.
Hell, I’m changing my answer to that question - replace “tribe” with “nation” in all commentary on Africa, see if the primitivism persists…
Define “many”, please? And “primarily” is a bit of a weasel-word, isn’t it? Which African countries have “primarily” ethnic parties? Is it “many”? And certainly many economic/educational/social activities are organized on ethnic lines - especially if we toss immigrants into the mix (and why wouldn’t we?).
Kenyan ethnic politics doesn’t make Kenya not a real nation-state anymore than Ferguson and the Southern Strategy makes the US not one.
It’s also a completely unconnected Welsh name. Idris Elba has it because of his family’s origins in Africa, nothing to do with Wales, but he has had people assume he was part Welsh because of his name.
/sidetrack from the interesting discussion about Africa.
Married to daughter of chief? Lobbied for tribal concerns in London? Active secretary of the KCA?
Sounds very much to be that the words “tribal” and “leader” apply to him, along with his university education and political success.
While he may have been western-educated, the people he was a leader for involved many who still lived the traditional lifestyle. Calling someone a “tribal leader” at least from my view does not at all imply he is a backward bumpkin - I’m sure anyone the least bit familiar with African history and politics is aware of that.
If you take offense to the word “tribal”, my apologies. However, the way the world is laid out, there is no simple answer. Offense is in the eye of the beholder. (Native Americans take offense to “redskin” while black people in the USA prefer it seems to be called “black”, not “coloured” or “negro”, which is Spanish for black. Native Americans themselves use the term “tribal chief”, and nobody thinks the less of them.)
However, I don’t know of an alternate but precise word.
Consider, for example “sheik”. It essentially means a leader in a middle-eastern clan or tribe. Unless you have a certain backward American point of view, it is by no means derogatory. the leaders of Scottish clans are, I believe, referred to as “chief”, as are the leaders of native American tribes.
I’m not making any argument for better or worse; I’m saying that in Europe today, most countries are overwhelmingly of one ethnicity, and that’s not true in Sub-Saharan Africa. They have differing histories and they’ve developed along different lines, but no value judgment is implied.
No, nation-states are the opposite of multi-ethnic conglomerations without a cohesive national identity, places where ethnicity and polity don’t coincide.
And a number of African countries have had ethnically based civil wars (Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, and Nigeria are some of the obvious ones). What are you trying to prove here?
I didn’t say it was vanished, but ethnic violence and ethnic warfare isn’t a problem in Europe today the way it is in some other parts of the world. Swiss Germans aren’t hunting down and eating their countrymen from a different ethnicity, but that happened during the Congo wars.
“Daniel arap Moi, while President of Kenya, removed Kikuyu ministers and replaced them with ministers from his own Kalenjin nation.” Sorry, no, what happened to the Kenyan nation here? Doesn’t replacing the word tribe with nation make Kenya seem even more fractured and primitive? Now they can’t even agree on what country they’re in!
How so? While Ferguson and the southern strategy are not insignificant, they’re not the driving force. When a new president comes into office and replaces various officials, the replacements are members of the new guy/gal’s political party, who are not necessarily members of the same ethnic or racial group as the new president. However, most narratives of President Moi’s tenure in Kenya focus on his replacing ministers with members of his own ethnic group, with their ethnicity being the major reason for the changes. We’ve got problems in the U.S., but not that particular problem.
This is true only if by “ethnicity” you mean “white”
Then Europe is not a region of nation-states by this measure, given the role ethic identity plays in European national politics - or are you unfamiliar with UKIP, *Front national *, etc?
That usage of the specific term “tribal” for African but not European ethnic issues is a racist signifier. I thought I made that quite clear. But in this instance, the notion that tribe usually trumps nation in Africa is wrong. My thesis is that it’s bleedingly obvious Africa has no more ethnic-based conflict than Europe, but Africans gets the “tribal” tag and Europeans don’t, because of racist cultural retention of antiquated narratives of primitiveness and savagery. Not that there isn’t primitiveness and savagery in Africa, but if you look at outsider reports, that’s all there is, even when discussing a cosmopolitan, highly-educated Pan-Africanist. But European ethnic politics doesn’t constantly attract the same “tribal” tag - c’mon, where is its repeated usage in discussing the very-much ethnic Ukraine/Russian conflict in Ukraine?
Ha Ha…wait, are you serious? Or just conveniently focusing on now rather than the last few decades? And is Ukraine not happening now? Chechnya? etc… Never mind the immigrant thing.
It did. And equally barbaric things happened in recent European conflicts.
But the tribal rhetoric isn’t just about acts of barbarism - it’s about everyday living getting the “tribal” tag in Africa, but the “regional” or “ethnic” tag in Europe, when it’s the same fucking thing.
Words can have more than one meaning? Heresy!
I dunno, did the use of “First Nations” suddenly make Canada “more fractured and primitive”?
Only for people who are blind to context.
So Reagan never won the presidency? Oh good, the 80s was just a bad dream after all…quote]However, most narratives of President Moi’s tenure in Kenya focus on his replacing ministers with members of his own ethnic group
[/QUOTE]
Funny, that. Almost like there was an effort to emphasise that bit…naah, of course there’d be no bias in reporting on African leaders, subconscious or not…
Perhaps more than the impression that people from “tribal” connections are backward bumpkins, is the joke that people who think this are stupid. Most recently, the other day, I was watching “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” when the older American Indian father says to his daughter “we have come a long way in big iron eagle… I’m kidding, I was in the air force, I know what a plane is.” This is the same as the joke 50 years ago, where the white man says to the Indian “How! Me good fellow. Me no speakum with forked tongue.” The native turns to his companion and says “Hey, Joe! get a load of this idiot!” Or the American journalist in the original “Crocodile Dundee” who is trying to take pictures of an aboriginal ceremony. The one painted individual says “You can’t take my picture”. She asks “Why, are you afraid the camera will steal your soul?” He replies “No, you forgot to take the lens cap off.” (Note in this movie, the white guy was the bumpkin)
I would suggest the trope that less aware white people mistakenly assume rural, or tribal, or adhering to a different culture makes a person less worldly and wise - is as old a trope as the racist counterpoint.
It’s not just a “trope”, it’s a very real and significant observation about how loaded language like “tribal” negatively impacts perceptions. That white people then make self-deprecating jokes about it (and I bet anything it’s white people writing most of those examples) just means (some) whites have an inkling of awareness about the wrongness of the practice, it doesn’t make it any better. What would make it better is to stop doing it.
I think this discussion is getting rather off track from the original OP. If you want to discuss this, it would be better to open another thread in Great Debates.
While I have quoted this post as the most recent, this goes for other posters as well.