woah
written by Amir Ibrahim , March 24, 2008

So now, KenyaImagine, the last outpost for the civilised Kenyan finds herself positively besieged with Kikuyu supremacists, seeking to goad and inflame the passions of even those who have not the slightest urging towards Kikuyu-hatred. Do you fools know anything of the connection between causes and effects? How can an educated, middle-class Kenyan writing this be incapable of empathising with his readership and their particular sensibilities given the context? Can the bona fides of these authors be established? Are they not perhaps ODM moles sent to provoke us?

...
written by Amir Ibrahim , March 24, 2008

James Watt, it is you that have proved most incapable of reason, of empathy and of basic comprehension. Ethnicity in Kenya is primarily a political motivator, and it is therefore crippling to Kenya. The Kikuyu comprise fully 25% of all Kenyans. If all, even half of these people see themselves as primarily Gikuyu, then there is no future for Kenya. I'd like you to try and think now what it means to Kenyans to have so large a part of their population with its primary allegiance not to Kenya, but to the House of Mumbi. Think about that, when you have a neighbour who does not see you as a fellow Kenyan, but who sees you primarily as a Luo, Luhya, Somali, etc. Yours and Keguro's opinions may seem trivial, even worthy of praise in a properly secure state where sentiments on ethnicity do not necessarily come across as hubristic, where there is enough to go around, and where there is little opportunity for motivation to ethnic violence. Indeed in such a state, we may even go further and romanticise specific cities, clans and towns, why stop at ethnicities?

I'd like as Manta Ray offers, that you put yourself in the shoes of the Kikuyu civil servant working in Kitale who has to consider the tenders of three or four companies who want to undertake a municipal water project there. I'd like us to imagine that the Gikuyu owned company is the only one qualified to carry out the project. Now imagine a Kenya where your sentiment reigns supreme, that he is seen as owing primary allegiance to the 'Gikuyu nation' and not to Kenya.

Try and put yourself in the shoes of a Gikuyu doctor who makes a mistake in an operation on Raila Odinga or Musalia Mudavadi and see exactly how it plays out given the sentiments you are pushing.

I would like to ask that you all stop at the cultural romanticism. Any attempts, no matter how kindly put across that attempt to make the Kikuyu a political other simply confirm the fears that the ODM has already, very successfully instilled in the Kenyan people about the Gikuyu.

I want to posit that pride in one's ethnicity is not always a bad thing, but forgive me for taking it as an attack on me a non-Gikuyu who has worked for the last one year to defend the Gikuyu against the ODM's calumny. Forgive me too, for seeing such sentiments especially in their present context, as a what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it. So Keguro is I hear a pretty civilised man, but one who chooses to write this article at this of all times?

As Wanyama says, the difficult part to deal with is not the cultural bit, it is the political bit.

I am often seduced by the invitation to identify myself as national, international, or cosmopolitan. I am tempted by the idea that I can and should transcend tribe. I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya. But I believe in this love. I believe in its potential. I want to see where it leads.

So although he can see the benefits possible from coming together as Kenyans, Keguro would much prefer to be wedded to the nine clans that face Mt. Kenya. Although he is compelled by the idea that he would be a better person if....., he still believes in his love for his ethnicity and he wants to see its potential.

...
written by manta ray , March 24, 2008

I am a Kikuyu but i can never support the apparent tribal chauvinism and anachronistic romanticism implied by the article. What is the sense in it? What is the difference in advocating resurgent atavism with mungiki advocacy of neo-pagan subculture in 21st century Kenya? Where is the value?
Why complain then, as some Kikuyus would inevitably do, if the Luo start crying out the romanticism of Lwanda Magere, and the inherent militancy thereof, or the Kalenjin insist Orkoiyot Samoei be conferred elevated national status courtesy of the warrior culture of Nandi's before meinertzhagen?
Wanyama and Amir Ibrahim should be listened to and their views taken very seriously.
This is not the time for Kikuyu chest thumping but the time for reaching out to fellow Kenyans of other ethnicities like Wanyama and Ibrahim, and they are many, and who are willing and ready to reach out too to Kikuyus.
Only incorrigible tribalists cannot see that.

...
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 24, 2008

Keguro, Watt, Matathia, Editor, etc. I will now take a break from posting on this topic. I hope that Waweru, Manta Ray, Ndiangui and others can stand up to defend Kenya. I just want to say that I have lived in Gikuyu hatred, and I know exactly how your sentiments will play out on the streets.

I see James Watt proudly affirming the reasoning behind apartheid and I see that some cannot be persuaded. I do not care at all who or what Keguro is, all I am stating is that sentiments such as his do not at all care for the millions of Kikuyu who cannot make a home or a living in Central Province, those who have to be good neighbours with Kenyans not of the House of Mumbi, Kenyans whose politicians will incite them against the Gikuyu. I am writing for my friends Michael, Sophia, Catherine and John whose families lost some members and everything they had worked close to 60 years to build in Western Kenya, because the locals had been persuaded that these Kikuyu folk, who had lived all their lives alongside them, comprised anOther, one with peculiar and competing interests and goals, one which did not let others build on its land, or marry its daughters, one which did not vote for any but its own, one that was selfish and unsympathetic. I am writing for these people who ideas such as published above precluded from successful integration because somehow, even in the 21st Century, who they were was captured unchangeably in their blood.

So it is with sadness that I see that those people in Western Kenya would find confirmation for their prejudices in the writings of Watt, Macharia, Matathia and company, and in the silence of the thousands of Kikuyu here who allow these to speak in their name. We must build a common Kenyan identity and have it at the top of our hierarchy of identities exactly because we cannot afford to compete on the basis of ethnicity.

Rather than give up in the face of attacks on our ethnicity, the middle class and Kenyan intellectuals must seek to affirm our oneness and the fact that divisions will only lead to greater strife and loss. It is not that we are refusing to think outside some confines, many of us here are even post-national, but the truth is that the consequences of inter-ethnic competition, the consequences of in any way mobilising on the basis of ethnicity are all too real and recent for us to feign ignorance while romanticising what had for the good of all Kenyans better remain purely cultural expressions of identity. Manta Ray, thank you for your support, it was very much needed.

Good Article
written by James Watt , March 24, 2008

Pretty good article. (...edited...)
(Warning to you, too. Ed.) ...
Those so limited in their thought capacities, that it is impossible for them to see than ones pride in ones root does not make them any less Kenyan, but perhaps even more Kenyan.

For what in Kenya without the Agikuyu, th Miji Kenda, the Ameru, the Luo and the rest, to me nothing but an empty shell. Those so shallow in thought that they don't see than tribe gives you a history deeper than what the nation can give you. That it gives you a language and a name,and thus a history. Those who seek to close their eyes to the fact that what transpired in Kenya during the post election time was nothing but an affirmation of what has always been: That tribe is supreme.

Equipped with that knowledge we can now go form a Kenya that is more stable that what was cobbled together by the British and taken over by our forefathers. A state that was bound to fail, for even as our leaders proclaimed, to be Kenyan above all else, they went about being primarily devoted to their own tribemen, to this day and age.

The government of Kenya, cannot gurantee, the right for everyoone to live, own property, marry and settle in any part of this country. Anybody who witnessed the post election saga knows this. We have neither the infrastructure, the security personel or the money to do so. Let the state then be built on a foundation baed on Reality and not a empty promise that the Government of Kenya cannot possibly fulfill.

Kenya
written by James Watt , March 24, 2008

Editor, I'll tone down on the insults. My apologies. I see it fit, to remind the Kenyans what befell us on the period beginning on the 29th of December. In Kibera, Mathare, Huruma and Dandora, the Kikuyus and the Luos went on all out tribal warfare, and up to today this places are segregated along tribal lines. If you really think about it, even poverty is not a good excuse for people who have been living side alongside each other for this places to breakdown along ethnic lines and it certainly should not be happening in a country which has had 45 years to grow together t form what is known as a Kenyan identity.

In Kisumu, there is probably few if any Kikuyus living there, believe me they looked after the Naivasha incident. In Naivasha, 19 people lost their lives for only one reason, because they were Luo. They were burnt to smitheries, the photos shocking.

In Eldoret, Kenyans lost their lives for one reason only, because they were Kikuyu. In Uasin Gishu, the outskirts of Nakuru district, people fled and are now living in the open. Why? Because they are Kikuyu. They were assaulted not by strangers, but by their very own neighbours, with whom they had lived side by side, with whom they frequently visited, whose kids knew each other and grew up together.

In Central, thousands were forced to flee for no other reason than they were Luo, Luhya or Kalenjin, thus losing their only source of income. I heard of folks who had been forcibly circumcised. Lucky they lived. And in Kericho hundreds of Kisii died in the fields for no other reason than they were Kisii.

In Laikipia, recently, people died because they were Kikuyu or Turkana. Kenyans forget too easily, but that ladies and gentlemen is the worst case scenario. It is the worst case scenario for any society that is multi ethnic, no matter how economically stable it is. There is always the chance that the whole house will collapse along those lines. A country that has a robust thoroughly professional security forces can contain this. The USA was able to contain the LA riots in 1992.

A country with an able police force might have been able to contain Eldoret and saved a lot of lives that were lost subsequently as a result. Alas ours is no such country. The Head of state calls on people to go back to their shambas and they are told categorically that they will be harmed.

It would be shocking perhaps if this was the first time it happened. But its not the first time it happened in 1991-2, in 1997, in 1997 in Likoni, and in 2002. It's become a 5 yearly ritual that will as sure as clockwork happen again in 2012 or sooner depending on the life of the present coalition.

That then is the real Kenya not the romantic one that some here profess to belong to. Actions speak louder than words, and they've been speaking for the last 16 years. It is a foolish man indeed who ignores the reality of this tinderbox we live in. The message has certainly gotten down to the peoples in the IDP camps. Most are not going to return, to where they once lived some for as long as 30 years, some who've endured the 5 year ritually burning, but they've said, Not this time. Yet people so divorced from reality as some of the posters on this site are claiming to know Kenya better than those who came face to face with the devil and marched through hell.

William Ruto speaks of historical injustices. How will this historical injustices be addressed other than by taking a shamba from one Kenyan who is Kikuyu, Kisii or Luhya and giving it to another Kenyan who is Kipsigis, Nandi or Tugen? Wanyama, whose apartheid remark is beneath my contempt and a fabrication which should at the very list be backed by links and quotes, speaks of his relatives who ethnic affiliations were manipulated. Don't you see the irony? If we were all Kenyans as you claimed, and identified ourselves primarily as such, would there be any ethnic affiliations to exploit? Would anyone be so easily susceptible? We are 45 years deep into the history of the nation. The same Wanyama speaks of how the Bukusu have not been rewarded since Michael Kijana Wamalwa. Yes, he who is better than us, he who is so very civilised and can sit on his high horse and call us backward and primitive.

John Cardinal Njue was castigated, because of a few statements he made, why, because he is a Kikuyu. The catholic bishops from western were on the other hand behind Raila to the hilt. Nothing in our previous short history confirms that Kenyans identify themselves as such. Not the elections results, not the post election period.

Amir Ibrahim and Manta Ray, if you believe in a principle defend it because you believe in it, not on account of whether Kikuyus are for you or against you. And Manta if you want to advocate for your model Kikuyuness, the good Kikuyu who is so Kenyanised, switch camp and go over to the ODM camp. Stop agitating for GEMA people to vote for Musyoka in 2012.There are others who walk before you, like Maina Kiai and Muthoni Wanyeki, so you won't get lost. Otherwise it's just the case of the kettle calling the pot black. And Mr. Ibrahim, don't seek to be someone who would know how I or anyone else for that matter would act in any given situation or what it is that makes me tick. You spin scenarios that are neither here nor there and are certainly not supported by any statement that anyone has made here.

Finally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this article or Njoroges for that matter. In fact I'd have no issues with the same sentiments carried by an Omondi about his Luoness, or anybody else for that matter. It is only a big issue to the insecure who read in it, things which have not been written in it at all. The points raised above are just to jolt back the people on this site back to reality in case they've forgotten as some seem to have, of what has befallen us on a regular basis since 1991 and have been simmering in the background ever since we got Uhuru.

...
written by aeichener , March 24, 2008

Keguro: what you wrote is lovely.

But, strictly speaking, it is nothing but romanticized necromancy.

Yet I must admit that I somewhat sympathize with its quest.

Alexander

...
written by manta ray , March 24, 2008

And Manta if you want to advocate for your model Kikuyuness, the good Kikuyu who is so Kenyanised, switch camp and go over to the ODM camp. Stop agitating for GEMA people to vote for Musyoka in 2012.There are others who walk before you, like Maina Kiai and Muthoni Wanyeki.....

My model Kikuyuness, as you call it, is something every THINKING Kikuyu should aspire to, because it is broadminded enough to UNDERSTAND,EMPATHISE and AGREE WITH where Amir Ibrahim and Stephen Wanyama are coming from.
In that context i am hardly close to the ODM, and you are in fact the one who is much further in tune with what they espouse, though you do not realise it. Indeed, they are your brothers in arms and you would fit very well within their tribal configuration. You would be in great company for sure, including Wanyeki and Kiai.

(...)

(Keep that personalized insult back until 2012, will you? Consider this a warning shot too. Ed.)

re: Ad leones !
written by aeichener , March 24, 2008

What is the sense in it? What is the difference in advocating resurgent atavism with mungiki advocacy of neo-pagan subculture in 21st century Kenya? Where is the value?

Dear, I'll prefer a neo-pagan subculture any time over the "Christian" unculture that has pervaded Kenya since the 1920s, with all its bigotry, hypocrisy, intolerance and outright brutality.

And I say this as a Catholic Christian, mind you.

Alexander

Superb 1000 words
written by jayawardene , March 24, 2008

A painting is worth a thousand words or something to that effect...

An artist opens an exhibition of her works and the pundits troop in to see the collection making notes and commentaries trying to decipher what the author is saying in different works. All very intelligent stuff. We see what we want to see....

Who has been to see Mau Mau sculpture at the Paa ya Paa gallery, for example? How many stories have been built around that? How many interpretations have you heard?

One may take Keguro's art any way that One likes. And truly, nobody need remind us here of our current National Trauma. It is being lived every day.

Kenya is a mosaic. It will only be held together if its constituent parts have a glue that holds firm. To hold true to what you believe in is more important today than ever before in the history of our Nation.

KI is an open forum where debate is welcomed and incitement is not tolerated. Must we airbrush phrases like "facing Mt Kenya" or "House of Mumbi" just because the Daily papers have rendered them as terms of insult?

ps....."a people without a knowledge of their history is like a tree without roots" Marcus Garvey

context
written by emmo opoti , March 24, 2008

Keguro, Matathia and James Watt could not possibly be more wrong, or more insensitive. While it is possible that their sentiments and understanding of Kenya has been much changed by the events of the last two months, nothing to my mind can be more destructive, more selfish or immoral than any sentiment that seeks to make rivals for the Kenyan state from its constituent ethnicities.

More than that, the Kenyan middle class has no excuses absolutely no excuses for not standing up now and fighting for Kenya, it has no excuses for claiming as James Watt does, that the actions of immoral politicians and the most ignorant backward Kenyans should transform their sensibilities. Anyone waving the flag of any ethnicity at this point (we are in the middle of an emergency!!!) is endangering this country and that is a bare fact, there is nothing lovely about it, there is nothing that any decent person should find in it to be sympathetic with.

There is a vast difference between glorifying culture and the massive leap between that and facilitating ethno-political entities in our midst. To say that one prefers one's ethnic identity over the Kenyan one is really alright, but when expressed on a public forum it does have an effect on others. As others have said, such are romantic allusions we can aspire to when we are a more stable and prosperous country, when Nairobi is grown up enough to wrestle her own place. Not now.

...
written by emmo opoti , March 24, 2008

Alex you are not reading.

I am often seduced by the invitation to identify myself as national, international, or cosmopolitan. I am tempted by the idea that I can and should transcend tribe. I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya. But I believe in this love. I believe in its potential. I want to see where it leads.

Trying to read closely
written by aeichener , March 24, 2008

Good point, Emmo. The Latin-rooted verb "to transcend" was indeed hideously misused here by Keguro. Transcendence exactly means *not* to give up or to refute from where one starts, but just, well, to transcend it. This point was made to me on the phone; I yield to its precise observation.

Alexander

re:
written by aeichener , March 24, 2008

Keguro, Matathia and James Watt could not possibly be more wrong, or more insensitive. While it is possible that their sentiments and understanding of Kenya has been much changed by the events of the last two months, nothing to my mind can be more destructive, more selfish or immoral than any sentiment that seeks to make rivals for the Kenyan state.

More than that, the Kenyan middle class has no excuses absolutely no excuses for not standing up now and fighting for There is a vast difference between glorifying culture and the massive leap between that and facilitating ethno-political entities in our midst.

1. Entities *are*. They cannot be facilitated. They are. Do you mean enmities?

2. I agree with the gist. I would wish that you expand a bit more how you see Keguro's wistful diasporic necromancy of Kikuyu dishes, local brews, down to vegetabile toilet paper (ahem - I like these leaves too) to be(come) facilitators of murder and mayhem?

3. Lest I be asked: If however I were put before the odious choice of rallying under a Kikuyu tent with pangas and torches in it, or a Kalenjin road block with bows and arrows, I would rally behind the national anthem instead, hopefully provided with a secular machine gun (salute to Meinertzhagen!) and some full ammo belts. So much for my loyalty.

Alexander

One Kind of Response
written by Keguro , March 24, 2008

I consider most forms of social collectivities to be incredibly violent, even and especially those often considered to be the most benign and benevolent: family, church, tribe, nation. The specific ways in which these forms of belonging tend to be celebrated continually negate my life, my desires, my forms of pleasure. They inevitably ghost queer people like me.

Over the years, I have struggled with the prospect of ghosting myself, abstracting and detaching myself from such collectivities. But there are unbearable forms of negation and I try, as much as I can, to avoid the unbearable.

And so the task has been to try to mine what is possible from what exists. Does this mean that I delve into the aesthetic when I should address the historical? Yes. Does it mean I work with fantasy over politics? Yes. Does it mean I play in graveyards when I should be plowing shambas? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Do I write from a position of privilege? In many ways, yes. But I also write from a position in which I have been told that I am *not* Kenyan enough, that my kind of queer citizenship does *not* count. And, to be honest, I have stopped trying to prove something that will always elude me.

This writing takes the form it does for very specific reasons. I did not want to write a critique of universalism, cosmopolitanism, or nationalism, and I could have. Nor did I want to engage in that stubborn navet that understands forms of belonging to be worth valuing only when rational

re: Negative Ethnicity
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

I recently read an article in the daily Nation where Philip Ochieng' gave a favorable review of the book Negative Ethnicity - From Bias to Genocide by Koigi Wamwere.

A travesty if there ever was one. The same as if Julius Streicher were to write a "Critique of Anti-Semitism".

Koigi apparently learned from the subject, now being one of the country's most accomplished experts in negative ethnicity and one of her worst hate-mongers.

just like Paul Muite.

Another Kenyan who needs hanging.

Soonest.

Alexander

Id enim tenemus ut credendum..
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

So we are now fully immersed in Secular Kenyan Theology of Identity, are we? The mystery of how to be True Kenyan and True Kikuyu (etc.)?

"Unmixed, unseparated"?

Anybody able and willing to unveil the mysteries of this frail nation's hypostatic union?

Alexander

re: Id enim tenemus ut credend
written by James Watt , March 25, 2008

So we are now fully immersed in Secular Kenyan Theology of Identity, are we? The mystery of how to be True Kenyan and True Kikuyu (etc.)?

"Unmixed, unseparated"?

Anybody able and willing to unveil the mysteries of this frail nation's hypostatic union?
Alexander

It's not hard being a true Kenyan. Pay your taxes regularly, obey the law, and exercise your right to vote. Desist from acts of tribalism, Nepotism or cronysm. (Disclaimer, I do not see any acts of tribalism in the views, expressed by myself and the rest. It is the interpratation of the insecure, lakini haidhuru) If you have any talent, running, engineering, music, film making, football, art etc. put it at the disposal of your fellow citizens.

If you want to go the extra mile buy only Kenyan goods, like Moi used to say in the 80s, Buy Kenya, build Kenya.I actually can't wait for the first Kenyan car, radio, TV, Washing Machine, Mobile phone, Computer....A flag and assorted paraphernalia professing your love for your country are also a good idea. Oh, and some may see it fit, to shout it from the roof tops that they are Kenyan above all else. Different folks, different strokes. Occasionally, tell your country men the bitter truth that they'd rather not hear.

Negative Ethnicity - From Bias
written by benadede , March 25, 2008

I recently read an article in the daily Nation where Phillip Ochieng' gave a favorable review of the book Negative Ethnicity - From Bias to Genocide by Koigi Wamwere. http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781583225769
I got myself a copy from Amazon and it is cheap so I recommend all of you who can to get your hands on a copy. It addresses some of these very questions.

Written before the 2002 elections and published shortly after that, it makes for interesting reading and one can almost say it was a premontion of what was to happen some five short years later.

Koigi takes some hard hitting swipes at Moi, Kibaki, Raila, Uhuru and many others. He talks about why we have ethnic majority and minority elite dictatorships in Africa and the resultant mayhem and Kenya's experience with the two types of dictatorships.

After one reads this book, you find yourself asking yourself if Koigi did enough to avert the problems we are in. Having said that, while I think Koigi has some flaws, at least he is one of those Kenyans I credit for being willing to point out the ills of government even when they were part of it and stood to lose just like Paul Muite.

Get a copy and we can debate his thoughts further.

Trying to be fair...
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

It is my impression (corroborated by a few phone talks) that a number of the critics of the writings of Keguro, Njoroge, James, are attacking not so much what these write, but when they write it:
In other words, that they write it *now*. Wrong kairós.

To a certain extent, I can understand this criticism. The critics' argument is that a validation of ethnicity could or even must be received and understood as divisive, and maybe even as a validation of violence (indirectly). That it endangers the weak and downtrodden, those who already *are* victims, instead of supporting and uplifting them. That it puts oil on the fire, not in the waves.

I can barely follow this line of criticism intellectually, but I fail to resonate emotionally with the expressed fear and loathing. For neither of the three quoted writers has even remotely embraced negative ethnicity (the pet-child of the mshenzi who does not have any positive ethnicity worthy to be proud of). All of the three probably believe that being one conscious and self-assured {...insert your favourite ethnic affiliation here...} is - or should be - the best basis for becoming a proud Kenyan, instead of a rootless and easily manipulated demi-évolué.

The latter word, I am well aware, is an old and trite colonial cliché, and actually a deeply racist notion if one looks closer. And yet, surprise: sometimes clichés are true.

A.

re: On timing
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

I would point out that, albeit in different spaces, I have been writing on ethnicity online for about 4 years. I see continuity rather than temporal rupture.

I see that too, and am more than aware. Sometimes you wrote on ethnicity in soliloquy, sometimes in responsorial psalmody with people like Martin Mbugua Kimani (bah!). But apparently my positive perspective is not shared too widely here.

I would counter, though, with a quotation from infamous conservative commentator William Kristol

Conservative Gileadite commentators (read: far right of Attila the Hun) are as interesting to me as second-rank writers from the "Vlkischer Beobachter" or any opinion pieces from "Radio Mille Collines" - they pass past my mental screen.

Sorry for the cut-off above, it's a well-known software glitch of this Joomla program. Seems to hit Anglo-Saxon keyboards rather than Continental ones. Try replacing the apostrophes and dashes.

Alexander

Ethnicity and Identity
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 25, 2008

(1) These two thoughts are inconsistent (my emphasis in both cases):

I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya.

For me, tribe is Wamuyu, Gikuyu's tenth daughter, mother of an illegitimate child, founder of a hospitable clan

(2) William Charlton (1991), The Analytic Ambition (page 56):

A collection of papers by Heidegger was published in English under the title The Question of Being. When a philosopher asked for a copy at the shop, the shop girl said, 'The question of being what?' Ryle on being told of this incident said, 'That girl should be found and given a PhD'.

One way to think about identity is this: my identity is my set of commitments about what is good (or what the good life is). Generally, these things go better with examples in hand. Let's consider some:

Sylvia Mudegu (The Times of London, January 6 200:

Sylvia Mudegu knew she was in grave danger in the violent aftermath of Kenyas disputed presidential election when there was a tremendous hammering on the door of her home. As she heard the sound of wood breaking, she put her hand over the mouths of her children Esther, 18 months, and Rose, 3, and hid behind a curtain.

Minutes later the 20-year-old woman was begging for her life. Men wielding sticks and machetes poured into her house, a two-room tin-roofed shack in a malodorous slum on the eastern side of Nairobi, grabbed her hair and dragged her outside. All around, she saw homes on fire and people fleeing as arsonists and looters tore through the slum taking vengeance on anyone perceived to have voted for President Mwai Kibaki.
Kibaki is a member of Kenya's largest tribe, the Kikuyu, and the attackers went on the rampage believing he had stolen the election from his challenger, Raila Odinga, in order to stay in power for five more years. Odinga is the leader of the smaller Luo tribe.

Mudegu knew what to expect next. The men from Odinga's Luo tribe would rape her. With other women, she was taken to a stream by the edge of the slum. "They raped even the old women," she said. The screams went on and on. "One girl was 12, and at 12 you know how to scream loudest." Mudegu tried to speak with detachment. But a tear on her cheek gave away the fact that she, too, had been raped.

...Aggrieved at having apparently been cheated out of power, Luos went on the rampage against Kibaki's Kikuyu supporters. Even mobile phone text messages called for violence. "Let's wipe out the Mt Kenya mafia," they read, a reference to Kibaki's power base. "Kill two, get one free."

Hanna Njoki (from the Vigilante Journalist):

Hanna Njoki, a Kikuyu woman who is living in the Mathare IDP camp, was raped by 17 men in her home just a stone's throw from the camp in a raid by men wielding machetes on January 28, 2008. A man by the name of Eric Kioko tried to intervene and lost a hand in the incident. They both now live in the IDP camp after being evicted from their homes.

Gabriel Okelo (Los Angeles Times, January 4 2008.)

When Gabriel Okelo rose early Thursday to join a banned opposition rally, he did not take his machete. But he was sure he would be using it to kill again very soon.

Just the day before, he said, he had slashed two people to death because they were from a rival tribe. "It wasn't hard, he recalled. It was night, about 8, and he was among 50 other members of his Luo tribe who rampaged through a suburb nine miles east of Nairobi, the capital, named Uhuru -- "freedom" in Swahili. "It is the first time I ever killed," said Okelo, who is about 20. "I never imagined it would come to this. It was not a planned thing at all....I was angry. When you are angry, it's easy."

..."It's Kenya versus Kikuyus. We are slaughtering them and we will keep slaughtering them. It will go on and on and on in all parts of the country. It will be war..."

Mungiki in Naivasha (from Ballots to Bullets: Organized Political Violence and Kenya's Crisis of Governance)

"I know them, these jobless boys. I saw two or three people being cut and killed. One old man, Luo, was beaten, but he refused to die like that so they took turns chopping. Then the one who finished him off licked the blood from the blade, then they moved to the next plot.

Mungiki in Nakuru (from Ballots to Bullets: Organised Political Violence and Kenya's Crisis of Governance)

Our group was about 50 people --spread along the road. The Kikuyus then started checking everybody, and circumcising Luos right there. I saw two of these. They grabbed one man, about 30 years old, and told him to remove his pants. He just kept saying, 'What?! What?' Then they forcibly removed his pants. One was holding his penis, and another one was cutting his foreskin with a piece of a broken Fanta bottle. Others were cheering, chanting 'Ohe, ohe' and saying, 'Kill him.' They were saying all Luos should go back to Nyanza...

The other man was 50 or 60 years old. They saw him on the road, and started yelling, 'Luo, Luo.' They seized him, and first removed all his clothes. Then several people lifted him up, and one men grabbed his penis, and another one circumcised him with his panga. They then dropped the old man on the ground and started hacking him, and then cut his head off. Nobody dared to help him.

(3) Depraved persons, barely recognisable as human. Now then, what do you want to make of your ethnicity ? Will it determine your identity? (And hence your idea of the good life, and hence what is good for you?) Then weigh the costs carefully, because this is what happens when ethnicity determines identity.

(Written in a state of paschal refreshment, so perhaps incoherent)

...
written by wake up Mattley; You\'re dream , March 25, 2008

Keguro, you are, for all intents and purposes, an educated fool. Your article has all the hallmarks of intellectual romanticism lacking in any pragmatic and/or situational merit. First off, by virtue of your idealized article, you have by default extended your warped view to reflect that of 5+ million people. But your experiences as a member of the said community - regardless of the utopian views in your head - is hugely divergent to say for instance, that small scale farmer in the Rift Valley who lost it all because of a political rift he had no part in.

The said rift was caused by some powerful educated fools, not too much unlike you, who decided to mask personal ambition and utopian fantasy in the robes of ethnic self-determination. Again much as you are doing right now. Please understand that everything in life eventually comes full circle and in our country, it just did.

See, Kenya is not perfect. And I hate to quote-jack Obama, but we may never have a perfect union. We have issues, angers and concerns that may never be fully resolved, but the truth of it is that as in America we will always be stronger united than as the sum of our parts. The fact that after independence Kenyans from all spheres were solidly behind the creation of the entity instead of ethno-nations is proof positive that this is what we wanted. And Kenya has been good to Kenyans. What went wrong is that we were short-changed however, not by the republic, but by our tribal "leadership" with their corrupt characters and short-sighted vision. I can't help but find irony in the fact that these so called leaders shaped themselves into ethnic representatives; bummer!.

Our other problem lies with us as a people, as was the case with the US civil right era of the 60's, who when confronted with fallacy and injustice only mumble about it under our collective breath but shy away from speaking out and taking action. And thereby being complicit to the wrong.

The author's' view for example will become associated with me eventually, just because of the simple fact that I happen to be Kikuyu also while being no voice to the contrary. At the same rate so will a Kalenjin's act of arson be used to reflect the will of his entire people or the Luo rioter that of his. The cycle will, in earnest, start all over again.

But none of this means a thing to a man disillusioned by a dream. He will still yell out fire in a crowded theater if it inches him closer, oblivious to any ramifications of his actions. That my friend I guess is your prerogative. But here is something for you to ponder, what if you could achieve your wish, but only at the expense of a completely unnecessary and avoidable war that wipes out most, if not all, of your people (and others'). What would it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet loose his soul? Would it still worthy it then! ?

On timing
written by Keguro , March 25, 2008

A, (if I may)

I can certainly see that the timing may seem *off* for certain conversations. I would point out that, albeit in different spaces, I have been writing on ethnicity online for about 4 years. I see continuity rather than temporal rupture.

I would counter, though, with a quotation from infamous conservative commentator William Kristol regarding Obama's speech: "With respect to having a national conversation on race, my recommendation is: Let's not, and say we did."

Last sentence completed. Sorry for the software bug. Ed.)

...
written by Wake up Mattley; U\'re dreamin , March 25, 2008

"I would counter, though, with a quotation from infamous conservative commentator William Kristol..."

Funny that you brought that up, because your views are very much in line with the right wing ideology of the west. Y'all seem to be hang up on some idealized view of the past as some sort of Golden era (like family values), while conviniently ignoring all the injustices that came as part and parcel of that time frame (slavery etc etc). You fevorishly chastize gays claiming the bible, but then conviniently ignore the same books' call of helping the poor instead favoring big business. You Neo-cons just cherry pick parts of the past that work for you, and pray that no one notices the other part that doesn't squarly fit into your lifestyles. Thats why we have people like the Mungiki leader who advocate his followers to go back to living traditional lives, but come night time heads to a sprawling mansion in leafy Karen. Or the Kalenjin politician that incites his constituents to arms over land owned by "foreigners", while owning several hundred acres of land that could confortably settle a whole clan.

May God have mercy on us all.

(...)

...
written by Wake up Mattley , March 25, 2008

You are right about one thing; you are no political guru nor cultural analyst. Buts that's not a prerequisite to genuine understanding. There comes a time when the profound voice of reason is not that of doctorates or Ph.D's but that of people not only in touch with their humanity, but also sensitive to a situation and vulnerable of its outcome. Case in point was the PNU and ODM camps that were filled to the brim with professors, doctors and lawyers and who when push came to shove were just as bad, if not worse, than the panga wielding illiterate.

Before our country unravelled, like most of us I'm sure, I was pretty much indifferent to whatever was happening. I dismissed hate mongers online as quacks with too much free time on their hands, I ignored misguided words and ideas ( such as your post) with snide indignation of not being worthy of recognition in the form of a response. To me all this was normal, something of a requirement every five years.

But then the proverbial hit the fan.

It's then that I realized that we as a people allowed this to happen. We allowed this to happen by accepting wholesale the revisionism of many aspects of history. For example even though land injustices happened and perpetrators never brought to book, many acquired land on a willing buyer, willing seller basis. Even though elites in successive communities took up power and monopolized it, many from their communities worked hard to achieve success and never had anything handed to them. Even though some communities were shut out of power, many of their own walked the corridors of power and while others built up wealth. We happen is that we fell victim to generalization.

We have to relearn our history and how it affects us today. For example, if the British had come to Kenya a few decades earlier, Keguro would have belonged the GEMA tribe, as the Kikuyu as a distinct culture would probably never have evolved. Furthermore, he would have readily understood the Miji-Kenda languages as you do the Embu/Meru. Now assume that it was the Romans who had come earlier still. You this time would have been of the Bantu tribe, a blood relative to a people as far flung as the Zulu. catch my drift?

The reason Kenya has the tribal make up it does today is because we decided to take a "snapshot" if you will of the dynamics of the nation once the oppressors came and assumed that this arrangement was static. But society is anything but static. As someone once rightly noted, the only thing constant in this world is change. Assume for example the British never set foot at the port of Mombasa, chances are that the nine clans of the Kikuyu would have eventually became sub tribes, as per the 9 Kalenjin ones, both groups of which would have been en-route to becoming separate and distinct. The same would be true for the Luhya, the Mijikenda, the Luo and virtually all the others. Our notions on tribal identities are flawed from the gate.

So for us to survive as a people - initially bound not by choice but by happen stance and now united not by chance but by common aspirations and dreams - we have to adapt to the realities of the 21ST century or perish. And that reality is not compatible with ethnic or racial federalism because the stakes are too high and the pay-off too little to justify experimenting in one.

Nice Debate
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

Interesting debate, but as the Germans say so aptly, "die Messe ist gelesen". Everything to write about this subject has been written here. Eichener I disagree, there is no time like the present to raise this issues. Certainly the amount and kind of criticism aroused by a harmless article,that expresses pride and alludes to tribe as the primary Identity (In Njoroge's article asserts), is a bit weird. Overzealous even.

It is the school of thought that says you can't show pride in your Tribe, name it your primary Identity even, which again is the most natural of things to me, and be a good Kenyan. Those things according to the 'higher thinkers' on this site are mutually exclusive. To show pride in your tribe will lead you to being thoroughly corrupt, promote nepotism, cronyism and tribal favouritism. To the 'higher thinkers' of KenyaImagine there is no other possible fathomable way you can serve the interests of your tribe but through this means. They ascribe to us 'backwardness', 'primitivism', less 'civilized', if at all. Children of a lesser god. I strongly disagree and reject this train as being thoroughly racist. Anyone who seeks to judge another human beings traits on account of their professed identity is a racist to me.

They ignore reality that Tribal Pride, I refuse to use the word Tribalism, is part and parcel of the Kenyan Identity, yet the evidence is all around us. It is there when people ask that their own, read tribesmen, be given a fair share in the cabinet, that the cabinet reflects the face of Kenya, and in count less other situations. The thought has been formulated here that it is extremely beneficial for any of the Kenyan Tribes to stay within the union and see that Kenya is the best country it can be.

I'm just as good a Kenyan as anyone here shouting Kenya ueber alles. Furthermore I find this train of thought thoroughly repulsive. Finally, human beings, and especially the Kenyan middle class are much much more complex creatures than some here can comprehend. They are awash with influences from all over the place, from the time one is born, through childhood and into adulthood, and while Tribe is a primary identity to some here it is not the only thing that defines them or regulates their every other move. I know it doesn't in my case.

Wonderful
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

Nice article Keguro. Something that sparks controversy, is certainly something to be proud of, although I fail to see what is so controversial about the article per se. I agree with most of it, although I've never had to "transcend" anything. My primary Identity does not conflict at all with all the other identities I have or prevent me from being a good citizen and a decent human being.

re:
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

We have to relearn our history and how it affects us today. For example, if the british had come to Kenya a few decades earlier, Keguro would have belonged the GEMA tribe, as the Kikuyu as a distinct culture would probably never have evolved. Furthermore, he would have readily understood the MijiKenda languages as you do the Embu/Meru. Now assume that it was the Romans who had come earlier still. You this time would have been of the bantu tribe, a blood relative to a people as far flung as the Zulu. catch my drift?

What if they never came at all? Or if they came now, in their more 'civilized' form exchanged a few gifts with us and moved on? Imagine the endless possibilities of what might have evolved.

The reason Kenya has the tribal make up it does today is because we decided to take a "snapshot" if you will of the dynamics of the nation once the oppressors came and assumed that this arrangement was static. But society is anything but static. As someone once rightly noted, the only thing constant in this world is change. Assume for example the British never set foot at the port of Mombasa, chances are that the nine clans of the Kikuyu would have eventually became sub tribes, as per the 9 Kalenjin ones, both groups of which would have been enroute to becoming separate and distinct. The same would be true for the Luhya, the Mijikenda, the Luo and virtually all the others. Our notions on tribal identities are flawed from the gate.

Or they'd have remained as one group and developed more centralized institutions or not, if they didn't need them? We can spin a thousand yarns on what could have been.

So for us to survive as a people - initially bound not by choice but by happenstance and now united not by chance but by common aspirations and dreams - we have to adapt to the realities of the 21ST century or perish. And that reality is not compatible with ethnic or racial federalism because the stakes are too high and the payoff too little to justify experimenting in one.

No one has talked about this apart from those on the other side of the debate like you. Certainly the ones who prescribe the dosage of wearing an "I'm proud to be Kenyan", a Kenyan flag and cheering Janet Jepkosgei aka Eldoret Express on TV. It's like you are mind and personality readers.

I Speak....
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

So it is with sadness that I see that those people in Western Kenya would find confirmation for their prejudices in the writings of Watt, Macharia, Matathia and company, and in the silence of the thousands of Kikuyu here who allow these to speak in their name. We must build a common Kenyan identity and have it at the top of our hierarchy of identities exactly because we cannot afford to compete on the basis of ethnicity.

Dude I love this site but I'm a bit skeptic that this site has a traffic that is that high. Second, I'm doubtful that anyone here is speaking for anybody but themselves. I doubt if any of us hold any political or leadership office.

I know that I neither hold any political office nor aspire to hold one. It would be ridiculous for me to assume that you Stephen Wanyama are here speaking for all Bukusus or anyone but yourself in your postings here. I know that some of my thoughts coincide not just with my tribes mates but also across tribal lines and so do yours.

However assuming anyone is speaking for anybody let alone a tribe of 8 million people is blowing the individuals here totally out of proportion and anyone claiming that would be exhibiting the height of arrogance. Like Moses was asked, we'd ask, "Who made you Leader?"

I really do wish to offer all those who aim to create a Kenyan Identity my full support. I hope they'll succeed where others have failed for the last 45 years. I however fear that it won't go beyond what we know of nation states. Centre around, sports achievements like winning the world cup (that would send the scala up in terms of national pride), music (we've not been doing badly), art and film and if we apply ourselves technical accomplishment, like sending a man/woman or ape to mars (the Yanks already went to the moon) or creating something better than a TV, a Computer or a mobile phone.

That that will be something bigger than something so rich in history of a tribe. Something akin to family. For me definitely, NOT.

...
written by manta ray , March 25, 2008

Johnny B. Goode wrote:

Anyone who seeks to judge another human beings traits on account of their professed identity is a racist to me.

They ignore reality that Tribal Pride, I refuse to use the word Tribalism, is part and parcel of the Kenyan Identity, yet the evidence is all around us. It is there when people ask that their own, read tribesmen, be given a fair share in the cabinet, that the cabinet reflects the face of Kenya, and in count less other situations. The thought has been formulated here that it is extremely beneficial for any of the Kenyan Tribes to stay within the union and see that Kenya is the best country it can be.

Johnny, i do not for a moment doubt that you are a thoroughly decent human being, and you are entitled to your views, as much as i strongly disagree with them. However, please analyse carefully the above statement.
When you say that people should ask that they be given a fair share of cabinet positions, what are you really saying? Should it matter that the Cabinet should comprise Kikuyus at 25%,the Luhyas 14%, the Luos 12%, and so on? What is the value to you as a Kikuyu or a Luhya if that is so? why is it important? What will you gain, other than a temporary euphoria?
Obviously, the answer to all these questions is that you really gain nothing personally as a Kikuyu except misplaced pride, and which will not add to the sufurias of ugali in your house or stop the Kalenjin neighbour from resenting you. In other words, it is all tribal pride just for the sake of it. It does not make you a better or worse person or add to your knowledge. To be sure, it is of no value whatsoever.
We cannot therefore formulate(your words) a sustainable union of Kenya when the emphasis is on tribal competition for senior public offices which translates into competition for public resources by individuals in the name of their tribes, with their tribesmen cheering them on amidst catcalls and whistles.
Why do you not see that this emphasis on tribe, tribe, tribe, and the rivalry thereof, is what keeps Kenya on a permanently distracted focus from more important national goals like trying to forge a unity that is built on more than competition, which is what has given rise to the current artificial compromise for the sake of peace?

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

...
written by manta ray , March 25, 2008

Johnny B. Goode wrote:

I really do wish to offer all those who aim to create a Kenyan Identity my full support. I hope they'll succeed where others have failed for the last 45 years. I however fear that it won't go beyond what we know of nation states.

Very good Johnny. I can almost sense the epiphany. Now why don't you take that final step to true insight?
After the diabolical events of January-February 2008(See Daniel Waweru above), it is imperative that the way people perceive their identity as Kenyans changes radically, or we shall all be consumed by the next cataclysm.

re: Ethnicity and Identity
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

This is what I call reaching to the bottom of the barrel to make an argument. It is the kind of thinking, that anyone who expresses tribe as the primary identity is a base human being. Any and all that do this are then being attributed certain behavioural traits, like one person is basically the same as the next and would react in a similar way given a similar situation. The very foundation on which racism, prejudice and sexism are built. Traits of people without any moral backbone whatsoever. We are basically being equated to criminals, murderers and rapists, and their acts are being excused in the name of ethnicity. This thoughts are arrived at based on little if any scientific evidence but primarily on a copy and paste basis.

For me this is the height of absurdity. To some extent it is a true picture of what some Kenyans think of their tribes. They've overtaken the colonialists and white supremacists in proclaiming them 'primitive'. For the record, I know few tribes if any of the Kenyan tribes that condoned acts of murder or rape let alone gang rapes (I do not mind being enlightened. I however note that rape has been a permanent feature of warfare through the ages). I doubt any society built on that foundation would even survive on those principles. They'd probably annihilate themselves. Certainly interaction between various tribes might have led to see some of the other tribes as lesser beings, (just like in any meeting of any two different human groupings (based on religion, nationhood etc). Even that precludes that all interaction between this tribes was war-like which is far from the truth and I know you know your history well.

I know for certain that it would take a hell of a lot for me to take a panga and start slashing other human beings, or go on gang raping sprees on whatever basis whatsoever, tribe, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. I really hope never. I know my mother didn't raise me that way. I know for certain I would not do it on the basis of an allegedly rigged election. We are all human beings, though, and I believe we can all be reduced to animals under the right circumstances, irrespective of colour, creed or gender, and irrespective of whether we walk around carrying 3 Kenyan flags or we speak Gikuyu at any given opportunity.

The Principle of Equal Represe
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

Johnny, i do not for a moment doubt that you are a thoroughly decent human being, and you are entitled to your views, as much as i strongly disagree with them. However, please analyze carefully the above statement.

The statement I gave above was based on a spot check of how Kenya views itself and how the people over here, like you Manta, are trying to present Kenya. It is based on watching the Kipsigis demand their fair share in the spoils for ministerial positions, the women demand the deputy PM post, the MPs from central have a heart to heart with the president about guess what and the Meru MPs demand not only to be rewarded for voting for Kibaki but unlike in the last Narc cabinets, that their representation be more regionally balanced. I recall hearing that the people from Tharaka need to be rewarded among others.


Definitely Kenya will have arrived where some of you see it after we go for 5 terms under a complete Luo female leadership, for example. What is the danger of that though? The human being is lazy and tends to generalizations like I'm doing now. So at some time the mentality might fester itself that only the Luo females make excellent leaders and that will be the start of tyranny.

That applies to any other country out there and I have visited four. There was no single country I visited where there was no principle of regional balance and aspirations towards equal gender representation. This is of course as natural as water, because everyone wants to see him or herself represented at the top and forms a bond to those who he thinks have the closest bonds to him or her. Ideally this should be shared views, but it is just as often shared gender, shared race, shared regional origin or shared ethnicity. Folks want to see people who are just like them reflected at the top, or in any other human endevours in which human beings generate lists. Like beauty pagents , richest folks, greatest investors, greatest music artists, greatest business people, most influential folks etc.

When you say that people should ask that they be given a fair share of cabinet positions, what are you really saying? Should it matter that the Cabinet should comprise Kikuyus at 25%,the Luhyas 14%, the Luos 12%, and so on? What is the value to you as a Kikuyu or a Luhya if that is so? why is it important? What will you gain, other than a temporary euphoria?

Seeing someone who shares more with you than the least common denominator, human being, gives you a sense of hope. It says if that guy from my village can make it so can I. Granted, there are those for whom this least common denominator is enough. It won't add any numbers of the proverbial sufurias to me personally but it will get more small kids dreaming. More kids dreaming means to some extent more to choose from when seeking to balance representation.

The best example to underline this is America. For all intents and purposes it's a country that could have continued being ruled by middle aged white men till kingdom come. By any measure they did a good job. Even when there were issues of racism and sexism, America was always relatively prosperous. But other groups wouldn't let them and they agitated for their rights, first to vote and then to be representatives and any milestone achieved by any grouping be they female, blacks or gays means a door has been opened for more little kids in the village or counties dreaming of achieving the same, than would have otherwise been the case.

Unless a politician is suicidal, or doesn't need votes anymore like Kibaki, in which case he'll be extremely selfish to those seeking votes based primarily on thei Kikuyuness, he'll make sure that the Kikuyus have their 22%, the Kambas their 11, the Meru their 6% and the rest their share as reflects how they voted for him. I'm sure Raila will do the same, even more so because he'll come seeking votes next time around. They'll also make sure that the whole thing is gender balanced, in as far as it's possible, for that is the nature of politics, and politicians ideally represent their regions or better and bluntly put their tribes and in some cases their genders.

Obviously, the answer to all these questions is that you really gain nothing personally as a Kikuyu except misplaced pride, and which will not add to the sufurias of ugali in your house or stop the Kalenjin neighbour from resenting you. In other words, it is all tribal pride just for the sake of it. It does not make you a better or worse person or add to your knowledge. To be sure, it is of no value whatsoever.
We cannot therefore formulate(your words) a sustainable union of Kenya when the emphasis is on tribal competition for senior public offices which translates into competition for public resources by individuals in the name of their tribes, with their tribesmen cheering them on amidst catcalls and whistles.
Why do you not see that this emphasis on tribe, tribe, tribe, and the rivalry thereof, is what keeps Kenya on a permanently distracted focus from more important national goals like trying to forge a unity that is built on more than competition, which is what has given rise to the current artificial compromise for the sake of peace?

I find my pride hardly misplaced. There are those who dream and achieve based on nothing more than other peoples stories. Then that again is hardly my aim.

I also beg to differ with your last line, in that the union will be much much more unstable if you don't take care of tribal balance. It's the whole basis of our current and prior conflicts. Maybe even all the conflicts that this country has ever had.

I am what I read
written by Keguro , March 25, 2008

Funny that you brought that up, because your views are very much in line with the right wing ideology of the west. Y'all seem to be hang up on some idealized view of the past as some sort of Golden era (like family values), while conviniently ignoring all the injustices that came as part and parcel of that time frame (slavery etc etc). You fevorishly chastize gays claiming the bible, but then conviniently ignore the same books' call of helping the poor instead favoring big business. You Neo-cons just cherry pick parts of the past that work for you, and pray that no one notices the other part that doesn't squarly fit into your lifestyles.

May God have mercy on us all.

(...)

I am quite amused to discover that I am an anti gay neocon.

I am mostly saddened to discover that reading conservative writers makes me conservative. Given that criteria, I am no doubt a racist sexist homophobe because I study literature and have read the known (Shakespeare, Dickens, Hawthorne, Twain) and the less known (Baraka, Dixon, McKay, Plath).

Nowhere have I advocated a return to anything. Please read what I have written, read it carefully.

I would ask that the discussion remain less ad hominem. I find some absurdities interesting, but unproductive.

...
written by Keguro , March 25, 2008

Perhaps I misread the "You Neo-cons" section of his reply?

I teach my students to read everything. I would advise them to quote anything that might be useful.

I'm certainly willing to entertain ideological disagreements. Indeed, I welcome them. But, it seems to me, that many disagreements many have with what I have written turn on assumptions about my political positions, positions that the writing itself complicates in any number of ways.

I need not provide a reading list. I simply pointed to the ideological problems with so called good literature and so called minor literature. Very little of anything worth reading is ideologically innocent. That was my larger point. We do not become complicit in ideological violence simply by naming what we read. Citation is not ideological endorsement. And it's a poor model of knowledge and learning that presumes it is.

I'm not sure this discussion is most useful when framed as competing camps, those who cheer and those who don't. We might be more self conscious about the positions we take.

I understand and sympathize with the position that any kind of positive approach toward ethnicity seems much too contiguous, in time and sentiment, to the ethnonationalisms of the past few months. I take that as a valid and useful critique.

I understand that my position, which is that we have to go through ethnicity, not around it, may grate on many of us who blame the very notion of ethnicity for our current problems. But I hesitate to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I find it somewhat unrealistic to tell my Gikuyu cousins in Muranga to stop being Gikuyu. We can articulate the richness of ethnicity with the potential richness of national identity. I do not claim it is easy. I do think it is necessary.

Seeing the Light
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 25, 2008

Very good Johnny. I can almost sense the epiphany. Now why don't you take that final step to true insight?
After the diabolical events of January-February 2008(See Daniel Waweru above), it is imperative that the way people perceive their identity as Kenyans changes radically, or we shall all be consumed by the next cataclysm.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm one hundred per cent sure that the discourse here will hardly change my views of how I primarily see myself. I also doubt that any person on the other side of the debate will change their views. Can't teach an old dog new tricks they say.

There might however be those out there who might be more objective and not tainted by thoughts on either side of the argument and might be able to draw much more use from this discourse than either you or me, that is especially if you choose to ignore my central point that that which makes Kenya prosper also makes the Kikuyu prosper, in which case we actually agree to some point.

In other words, it is a hopeless exercise of merry go round, but strangely fulfilling in being able to articulate ones thoughts.

My conviction is driven by the fact that my tribe is my family. My opinion is that for me to play a constructive role in society, I neither have to disown my family nor is it fair for any one to ask me to. And neither should anyone else be asked to. The charm of the country called Kenya is its inclusiveness both in ethnic and religious diversity. I muse often times at European countries that prohibit polygamy or even polyandry. Why shouldn't a man or a woman have the right to legally marry as many partners as they wish? Why is it the work of the state to forbid this.

...
written by Keguro , March 25, 2008

To all my respondents: please read what I have written carefully. I will emphasize the carefully once again. I'm willing to entertain interpretations but not careless misreadings. As a side note, I take the rhetoric of "transcending" tribe from similar conversations about "transcending" race." I do not expect my readers to have my reading background,

(That is fair and amiable. We neither expect you to have our classics and theology background. Eds.)

but grant that I rarely use words carelessly, without reason or reasoning.

(Rarely = sometimes. Such as above. Eds.)

Second, please note that I do not presume to know the meaning of ethnicity or tribe. I do not claim an essence or a politics. In fact, I specifically write against people who would judge my politics based on my tribe. And, I would say, quite a bit of that is going on.

Third, I do not advocate any kind of politics or position taking. I rarely discuss policy. I am not a politician nor do I imagine myself to be a policy analyst. I am trained as a literary critic and I believe in contributing to national conversations from that perspective. Those trained in other disciplines might see the world differently. I welcome the diversity of opinion that our relative differences allow.

Fourth, I am interested in "potential." I don't understand why that simple point seems to be lost on so many readers. But for there to be potential, we must start somewhere. Potential suggests not a return to what we already know but a future in which we can create.

Fifth, thinking seriously and intently and creatively about tribe or ethnicity does not mean endorsing violent forms of ethno-nationalism. In fact, I'd say we need to think more seriously and creatively than we have in the past. How else will a queer Gikuyu find a place?

I have no attachment to my good name or character, neither of which I claim to have. But, at least get my given one right.

...
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 25, 2008

Come on Keguro, you brought Kristol here, and no where does Mattley (wow!!) suggest that he dismisses you as a neocon.

(Yes, he did. Quote for proof:
"You Neo-cons just cherry pick parts of the past that work for you,"
Second person plural is clear here. Ed.)

It is evident that you are merely earning the stripes you so richly deserve for quoting Kristol. Oh, and this is really the last place you should be showing off about your reading list. . I really wish you could read and understand the posts of those cheering you on, so you could better understand exactly what your words, the ones you put down and not the ones in your mind, truly mean.

lege
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 25, 2008

Alex, Alex, so naive, so trusting. Has Keguro even once in the comments above declared that he is not talking about political identity? I mean one would expect that he would seek to correct our wrong perceptions, right? Secondly, why did Keguro write this article, why now? Has there been anything in the temporal context that is threatening to Gikuyu culture that he rides out now in compelling armour to save his beloved Mumbi? What exactly is he responding to? Please note also the exact sentiments of those who are in passionate agreement with Keguro, the likes of Watt and Goode, what do you think they are agreeing with? They are certainly making it very clear, as has Matathia elsewhere, why you continue to refuse to see it is really the puzzle.

In his last paragraph Keguro displays an array of choices for self-identification,

I am often seduced by the invitation to identify myself as national, international, or cosmopolitan. I am tempted by the idea that I can and should transcend tribe. I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya. But I believe in this love. I believe in its potential. I want to see where it leads.

Keguro is not so innocent as you would make out, in his responses and in the article he evinces a clear knowledge of exactly where his critics are coming from, and exactly why they oppose his ideas. He does not seek to chastise the repugnant views of those who cheer him on, or to dissociate his from their yearnings. I hope it is nice and cool in the mud-bath, here let me lob this log into the mire so you may properly scratch yourselves. There, there, you likey?

at least give up swimming
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 25, 2008

What a happy family, submerging and then coming up for air (both to breath and to deposit rich flatulent muds on the banks -fartmosis, ala!! ). Johnny B Goode, Keguro na wengine wenye nia mbaya, Kenyan ethnicities view each other as bearing rival aspirations and interests, not just for political, but also for economic and social dominance. There is, okay, wash some mud off your eyes, there now do you see it? This blood here in the water, and on that bank there, this is the blood from assertions of ethnicity, from the struggle for dominance, that head bobbing downstream, that foreskin floating there, this envy of the settlement on this land, the land of the people of the milk, the people of the blood, all this is because Kenyan ethnicities compete, the sated Kikuyu presents a provocation for the Luo, the Kikuyu farmer's bounty fills the Nandi farmer with rage, the promotion of the Kipsigis manager not ten years ago was seen as nepotistic, that is the reality, competing interests.

Mumbi's escutcheon, flown high, especially in this time is a red rag to the bulls in this contest. These bulls may not splash in the mud with you, they cannot submerge in the mud, but they are just as blind as you are.

All we seek is a bit of time, allow us that. That we can persuade all Kenyan people towards a oneness, that we can show them all that they are one people, that the ethnic cleansing of the Rift Valley has ramifications for all Kenyans regardless of their ethnicity. Allow the rest of us a chance to create a lasting identity behind which we can seek solace when the cataclysm- a la Manta comes down on us.

By the way, this reminds me of primary school teachers bullying students in class and insisting that they confess their tribe. I was once similarly interrogated by the police. Imagine that, this is Keguro, 2008, seeking to ensure that next time I am asked that I have an answer at the ready. I cannot just be me, I have to wae my tribe on my sleeve. But damn!! Wewe ni kabila gani? As a friend said to me yesterday, to my shock and horror, when Kenyans have a conference, what do you come to the table as? Without your ethnicity you are nothing? OK, back under, now.

re: Read, and read carefully
written by James Watt , March 25, 2008

I shall go back right to the beginning:

"I am not yet willing to give up on the concept of tribe."

I cannot fathom why *anybody* would oppose such benign a statement, except if it were to ascribe evil meaning, subtext that really is not in it. Keguro here did not postulate "tribe as form of political identity". Nor "tribe as an ordering structure of the Kenyan state", or as "queing matrix for the feeding troughs". No. He just wrote about tribe as ethnic group, and ALL the examples he gave were such ethnic and cultural examples.

I could understand the venom and the acrimony if he were attacked for having been a proponent of political majimbo (Cardinal Njue already warned about the consequences of "majimbo" prophetically, and oh how viciously was the good cleric attacked for his warning: the Cassandra syndrome). But Keguro wrote and said nothing to this effect.

A friend has taken offence at Keguro's last paragraph; the one starting with "I am often seduced by the invitation to identify...". He feels that this last sentence is the foul cornerstone which makes the entire house tumble. Well, I remain doubtful. What Keguro posits is that being a worldly, polyglot, queer Cosmopolitan need not preclude being aware of one's roots and embracing one's heritage.

(This, incidentally, also is true for Japan, which au fond spirituel still remains an agricultural peasant country, with far more "nature" and traditional rootedness than Kenya can claim.)

Isn't it obvious? This site is inhabited by a lot of sophisticated and wanna be sophisticated folk. For them the very concept of anything remotely close to celebrated tribal affiliation is as horrific to them as the concept of female circumcision to early missionaries.

An abomination. Tribe and sophistication don't mix like water and oil. Thats why any allusion to tribe draws such a violent reaction as well as weird, if wholly predictable, horror scenarios.

That's why they look for bigger vessels to be all inclusive. At the end of th day Kenya as a vessel might not be big enough. It's better to argue for the biggest possible vessel that leaves no one behind. The universe. That way you can be as all inclusive as can be including any possible aliens out there.

Read, and read carefully
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

I shall go back right to the beginning:

"I am not yet willing to give up on the concept of tribe."

I cannot fathom why *anybody* would oppose such benign a statement, except if it were to ascribe evil meaning, subtext that really is not in it. Keguro here did not postulate "tribe as form of political identity". Nor "tribe as an ordering structure of the Kenyan state", or as "queing matrix for the feeding troughs". No. He just wrote about tribe as ethnic group, and ALL the examples he gave were such ethnic and cultural examples.

I could understand the venom and the acrimony if he were attacked for having been a proponent of political majimbo (Cardinal Njue already warned about the consequences of "majimbo" prophetically, and oh how viciously was the good cleric attacked for his warning: the Cassandra syndrome). But Keguro wrote and said nothing to this effect.

A friend has taken offence at Keguro's last paragraph; the one starting with "I am often seduced by the invitation to identify...". He feels that this last sentence is the foul cornerstone which makes the entire house tumble. Well, I remain doubtful. What Keguro posits is that being a worldly, polyglot, queer Cosmopolitan need not preclude being aware of one's roots and embracing one's heritage.

(This, incidentally, also is true for Japan, which au fond spirituel still remains an agricultural peasant country, with far more "nature" and traditional rootedness than Kenya can claim.)

-
written by James Watt , March 25, 2008

What the hell does political identity mean, anyway? What does it entail? When is the right time to write such an article Stephen? I suppose according to you, Never. Yours is the first comment on this discussion and it is something akin to a man killing an ant using a a gigantic hammer. Completely out of context just like your rantings about anything concerning ODM.

Of course followed by your partner in arms Amir Ibrahim, the resident arm chair psychiatrist, a man who can map out your whole behavioral patterns on how you chose to identify yourself. Building the rear guard and completing the three Musketeers or Mouseketeers is Daniel Waweru who went on a fishing trip and unearthed the most gruesome tales he could find on the internet to prove how evil ethnicity can be.I think Johnny B. Goode had a fitting enough response.

From the way I understand this article, and correct me if am wrong, its just a discussion on tribe by a person who happens to be Gikuyu bu it could have been written by any other person from any other ethnicity.

I don't seek to know the author but he seeks to intermarry his themes with the culture he knows best. The cultural aspects is more coincidental than an integral part of the whole thing. The details are interchangeable. Besides all the diatribe about the Kenyan identity distracts from the main theme which is the potential value that can be exploited from tribe in terms of realm value like stories, music, theater and film even among many other things, although not specifically named.

As for my own part in this discussion, I'm being accused of all manner of silly things without the benefit of a quite even,, which is against the good traditions of this site. 'Does the culture of the house of Mumbi' need to be under attack for someone to write such an article? This is almost like
McCarthysm, a witch hunt by some possessed folks, who've determined that any mention of tribe is evil. Men on a mission.

The good thing when you've visited any forum is that you know just what to expect from the constituents. It becomes like an old marriage. No surprises at all.

re: -
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

From the way I understand this article, and correct me if am wrong, its just a discussion on tribe by a person who happens to be Gikuyu but it could have been written by any other person from any other ethnicity.

That is a very valid animadversion. I feel that the same lines could come from a Samburu, a Pokot, an El Molo, a Sengwer, a Coastal Arab, an Ogiek. And I doubt that *they* would have been met with the same enmity, if not venom.

So what is the difference? Is it the size of the Agikuyu ethnic compound with its subgroups, the largest of Kenya's ethnia? If so, how small must one be to be allowed to defend one's heritage and identity?
Or is it the facts that the Agikuyu are (undoutably) being victimized by Kenya's brown-shirts, and that victims have no right to assert their own-ness, and thus maybe to provoke even more violence? Must they try to hide, demure and unidentified, while the presumedly harmless Yaaku is allowed to proudly flaunt his (or her banner?

Alexander

...
written by Keguro , March 25, 2008

Yet,

I would step back. I have no desire to be divisive. I offered one possible meditation on how the idea, and please note that I begin with the word concept, of tribe might function.

I understand others might not view it that way. This is fine. I would suggest, then, if we really are to engage in dialogue and not displays of intellect, sophistication, and learning, that we construct something productive.

What are the elements out of which a functioning, ethically responsible, historically grounded idea of nation can be built? What are we to do with the concepts of ethnicity we already have? How can we work with and within our differences?

At this point, I am tired of trying to be right. I have no interest in being right. I would prefer to engender something useful.

...
written by emmo opoti , March 25, 2008

Alex, do not be silly. Amollous you remember was met with quite the same criticism, as were the ODM, the Kalenjin warriors claiming ancestral rights to land and so on. Those you are now insulting took a lot of heat for defending the Agikuyu when they were under fire. Keguro, in a word or two words, individual rights. The greatest and simplest arrangement, rights, which every citizen no matter how many he can get behind him to argue for him will be entitled to. An arrangement that in no way puts the Ogiek at a disadvantage over the Luo, or gives the Gikuyu woman an advantage over the Coastal woman. Not so noxious are we?

...
written by gichangi , March 25, 2008

Stop whining, the editors are actually taking your side, silly. Do those who come here not also read your opinions?

Err, no we are not. Enabling speech does not mean to take the respective speaker's side. We did not take "sides" as to the opposing positions, but we try to facilitate discourse, to edit superfluous (and supercilious) insults, and to discipline unruly children who run around trying to break things. Eds.

re:
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

Amollous you remember was met with quite the same criticism,

I shall look it up.

Those you are now insulting.

Not. To call the murderous brownshirts (slightly darkened orange) by their real name is not an insult. It is simply the truth.

The statement in no way alludes to the brownshirts, but to your reference to the opposition to Keguro as bearing in your words enmity and venom inspired by the fact that the article was written by a Gikuyu. Eds.

Alexander

...
written by manta ray , March 25, 2008

I understand others might not view it that way. This is fine. I would suggest, then, if we really are to engage in dialogue and not displays of intellect, sophistication, and learning, that we construct something productive.

What are the elements out of which a functioning, ethically responsible, historically grounded idea of nation can be built? What are we to do with the concepts of ethnicity we already have? How can we work with and within our differences?

Precisely, Keguro. Excellent questions indeed. You have put it very well. It has been my contention all along, that we need to discuss the elements out of which a functioning, ethically responsible, historically grounded idea of nation can be built to use your words.
In my view, the concept of ethnicity as you call it must change, and ethnicity MUST BE subordinate to NATIONHOOD, which would supercede and suppress all claims to competing tribal rivalries, by force if necessary. Tribal nationalism can be confined to the different regions for those who romanticise it, but it must not be allowed to express itself in a manner where it threatens national cohesion, as it does today.
What would be the effect, for example, if Cabinet positions in Govt were not the subject of the current intense tribal competition, but were instead professional jobs applied for by qualified civilians who have never been politicians but are professionals in their fields? If you want a Minister for health for example, doctors would apply for the job regardless of ethnicity, same for engineers as Ministers for Roads etc. Why not ban MPs from being appointed Cabinet Ministers?
That is the kind of dialogue we should be having.

...
written by benadede , March 25, 2008

I think we need to hang others before them. People like Muite and Koigi as i have pointed have their flaws and are not saints as they want us to believe just like Raila and Nyong'o. However, they at least make an attempt to remind our leaders when they go wrong. I would rather hang the likes of Musikari Kombo and Mungatana first because they hear no evil and see no evil as long as they are in the fold. the same goes for all those Luo MPs who could never see anything wrong with what Raila said or did, all the Luhya MPs who could not see any wrong with Kombo e.t.c Yes, hypocrites may be dangerous but if they even once try to do or say something right, they are better than the hypocrites who see faults but shut up.

...
written by Keguro , March 25, 2008

What strikes me as interesting is that there have been critiques of the nation for as long, if not longer, than there have been critiques of ethnicity.

Take away ethnicity, we are left with class, especially under capitalism. Take away class, we are left with gender. Deal with that, religion rears its head. Take that away, we have sexuality, especially key in forms of hetero-nationality.

I'm not trying to be difficult, simply to point out that difference manifests itself in all sorts of ways even within the form of the nation. The French have tried to subordinate difference, well, we've seen how well that has worked for them. And if one more person raises the U.S. as an example of a society where nation trumps identity, I really will start pasting huge PDF files here.

What is a forcible subordination of ethnicity? Is that like telling Muslim women not to wear the hijab in some European countries? How do you subordinate ethnicity in areas that have 90% of the same ethnic group?

Old clothes?
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

You are presupposing something as God-given which is not exactly the fad in Europe, to say it politely. The nation state.

Supra-national confederations and consociations are en vogue presently; frequently, the Holy Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire are quoted as positive examples of the past. Kissinger's frequent recourse to, and rehabilitation of Metternich may have set the course.

Now, but let's just posit for arguments's sake that the political matumba of Europe are good enough for Africa, as you seem to suggest (or don't you?).
So let's embrace the phased-out nation state. What does it need first and foremost? A common language? Well, that's not the problem; the colonialists left theirs everywhere. Make an exception for Ethiopia.

A strong framework of institutions, staffed by a professional caste of scribes, civil servants (not uncivil leeches)? Mhmm, yes, there is a problem.

A rule of law? Well, exists here and there in Africa. In South Africa, of course (a glowing legal example even for Europeans!); Uganda indeed to some extent. Julie Ssebutinde is just one shining example for the quality of the Ugandan judiciary. In many other states, the courts are stuffed by baboons in robes though. Such as Kenya.

Can any African nation be built upon ethnicity? It hardly can, and certainly shouldn't. Not even successfull, blessed Somaliland is. Upon ideology? Nay, that has been tried, did not work then (African socialism), will not work now (the ideology of laisser-faire, privatization and unbridled, mindless capitalism).

Alexander

re:
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

Come on Keguro, (...) so you could better understand exactly what your words, the ones you put down and not the ones in your mind, truly mean.

The words he put down are absolutely not the problem.

The words in *your* minds (apparently quite symphonic to words in the minds of those ogres whose deeds were described here?) are the problem. Why equate or associate him to them?

True, Keguro has embraced and supported sheer, outright evil in the past, and he lost his intellectual honour and respectability about it; he got infamy in return. But that was time ago. Not now, not here. Be fair.

Alexander

Ethnicity in its place
written by aeichener , March 25, 2008

What is a forcible subordination of ethnicity?

A phrase which in this wording only you have concocted, as a convenient strawman. Manta Ray did not write it this way.

Ah. And learn a bit of Latin. It will really help you in the Big World (sub-ordinare).

Alexander

Primary identity
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 26, 2008

It is the school of thought that says you can't show pride in your Tribe, name it your primary Identity even, which again is the most natural of things to me, and be a good Kenyan. Those things according to the 'higher thinkers' on this site are mutually exclusive. To show pride in your tribe will lead you to being thoroughly corrupt, promote nepotism, cronyism and tribal favouritism. To the 'higher thinkers' of KenyaImagine there is no other possible fathomable way you can serve the interests of your tribe but through this means. They ascribe to us 'backwardness', 'primitivism', less 'civilized', if at all. Children of a lesser god. I strongly disagree and reject this train as being thoroughly racist. Anyone who seeks to judge another human beings traits on account of their professed identity is a racist to me.

Identities are commitments to some version of what is good: one is a Kalenjin nationalist because one thinks that there is something good about it. Even those who identify as X just because they were born as X must think that it is good for anyone born as an X or a Y or a Z to identify with the community into which they were born.

Identities impose normative requirements. If you identify as a Mugikuyu, there are some things you ought to do (get circumcised, honour your ancestry, stick up for Agikuyu in trouble) and others you ought not to. An identity requires that you do some things and not others. Alll of us have different identities. There is no guarantee that all the requirements of all the identities we hold will always cohere with each other. So, it is possible that there will be a clash between the requirements of one identity and another: one identity might require us to favour our Kalenjin co-ethnics, another might require us to not do so.

We need a way to resolve the clash. When the obligations clash, those of the primary identity take precdence. But that gives us an obviously wrong result: if I'm distributing relief food, it is obvious that Kalenjins and non-Kalenjins need and deserve the food equally. Therefore, ethnicity cannot reasonably be our primary identity when we live in a society made up of diverse ethnicities.

That's a simple, and slightly crude, argument for why ethnic identities should not be primary. Here's another; more dialectical. The controlling premiss of ODM's political activity is that the Agikuyu are the enemy of all Kenya's other ethnicities: they're (genetically predisposed to be) thieves; they've stolen from and oppressed everyone else since independence. If you accept ethnic identity as primary, then your only arguments with ODM are about matters of fact: Are Agikuyu actually predisposed to thievery? Have they actually oppressed everyone else since independence? You can't actually say that what they're doing -- and have done -- is wrong.

...
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 26, 2008

It's late here, and it's also late for you. Thus the over-interpretation; you are ascribing far too much normative force to the humble adjective "primary". Non sequitur. Once again Keguro's opponents try to force-shove meaning into a text that had not been there.

What force, other than normative does it have that is relevant to the discussion? The discussion is (at least implicitly) about what normative force identity has, so it;s natural to presume that primary identities have some normative force.

...
written by aeichener , March 26, 2008

It's late here, and it's also late for you. Thus the over-interpretation; you are ascribing far too much normative force to the humble adjective "primary". Non sequitur. Once again Keguro's opponents try to force-shove meaning into a text that had not been there.

Your primary socialization does not infer that you always stick with your erstwhile kindergarden friends against your, say, university colleagues. Your primary language acquisition does not entail that you be more fluent in, say, Kikuyu than in English; often indeed the contrary.

I see that you have added a last paragraph - thanks for the endeavour. Sorry, but I am unable to understand it; I do not even remotely recognize what you might be trying to express in it. ?

Alexander

re:
written by aeichener , March 26, 2008

What force, other than normative does it have that is relevant to the discussion? The discussion is (at least implicitly) about what normative force identity has, so it;s natural to presume that primary identities have some normative force.

You are persistently repeating the primary (pun permitted) error. The text does NOT posit tribe as what you construe it to be. Blame not Keguro, blame thyself.

I have very clearly and patiently spelled it out above. The text does not ordinate tribe as a corpus politicum etc. etc. Not the least. Its ever so ostentatious stress is in an entirely different camp - and I have said which.

Alexander

Great Debate
written by pndiangui , March 26, 2008

May commend everyone for their contributions on this very worthy debate.

Infact the concept of a tribe as Kegoro frames it is a conversation we need to have and see where it fits in our belonging or our being as part of not only a state or Nation but the universe.

I however think there are some disconnects in how several oppossing minds are seeing the intents and the concept Kegoro is putting forward.

I really think that there are constructs of the Gikuyu culture like female circumcision , that were trashed with no due consideration of their strenghts in meaning to the society. The concept of Adulthood advisory , as covered by this very institution of promoting females into adulthood was wiped through missionaries prescriptions of what was better in christiandom through a diluted understanding of the social harmony that came with the process.

This is the sort of thing that Nationhood without a deeper understanding of ones history, both previously embeded in the ethnicity/tribe at one point in time, might seem hollow. But again as somebody has put it, culture or even the concept of belonging is not static and this is the reason why may be my son might not understand much of the concept of my 'Gikuyu' belonging unless it is continously socialised from a very early age. Whether this will add value to his self-esteem and his future ability to become a better memeber of the community he will belong to is another debate we can have. However if there are values that can impacted through the socialization of being 'Gikuyu' that will end in 'doing good' for what is right , I find nothing wrong with that.

As Kegoro puts it above
I understand others might not view it that way. This is fine. I would suggest, then, if we really are to engage in dialogue and not displays of intellect, sophistication, and learning, that we construct something productive.What are the elements out of which a functioning, ethically responsible, historically grounded idea of nation can be built? What are we to do with the concepts of ethnicity we already have? How can we work with and within our differences
that is the billion dollar question, exactly the sort of conversation we should be having. Those who however approach this from a mindset guided by the efffects of the hatred spilled a few months ago by politicians will see Kegoro , James Watt and Goode very differrently. But I think the root of their conceptual abstractions are very differrent and more so intellectually sound. Conversations which we should have had as far as 1963.

re: at least give up swimming
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 26, 2008

What a happy family, submerging and then coming up for air (both to breath and to deposit rich flatulent muds on the banks -fartmosis, ala!! ). Johnny B Goode, Keguro na wengine wenye nia mbaya, Kenyan ethnicities view each other as bearing rival aspirations and interests, not just for political, but also for economic and social dominance. There is, okay, wash some mud off your eyes, there now do you see it? This blood here in the water, and on that bank there, this is the blood from assertions of ethnicity, from the struggle for dominance, that head bobbing downstream, that foreskin floating there, this envy of the settlement on this land, the land of the people of the milk, the people of the blood, all this is because Kenyan ethnicities compete, the sated Kikuyu presents a provocation for the Luo, the Kikuyu farmer's bounty fills the Nandi farmer with rage, the promotion of the Kipsigis manager not ten years ago was seen as nepotistic, that is the reality, competing interests.

No arguments there as a description of the status quo but some of this things are relatively easy to solve with a completely transparent government.

Definitely a government that works the way one should, that is one which is accountable and displays income, expenditure from the ministerial disbursements down to the very last unit of any county council. CDF while not perfect set a good precedent for how all branches of government should work.

In doing so we are however acknowledging that the country is a tapestry of different ethnic and religious groupings rather than one unit.

You go off on a tangent that is not supported by contributions by any one on this discussion be it the initial Keguro article, my contributions or those of James Watt. The whole premise of your contribution is based on the concept that if you are not for me then you are against me as set forth by Jesus Christ and parroted more lately by George W. Bush. For someone whom I perceive to have non religious tendencies, strange bedfellows.

Beyond of a transparent government, there are matters carrying slogans like historical injustices, ancestral land rights and equitable distribution of resources (although that can be solved by a more transparent government and in which people understand that, it means some paying more than others in order to maintain a minimal level of living conditions throughout the country) that are a bit trickier and that will require more sound and imaginative solutions than everyone waving the flag and screaming Harambee.

I find the idea of forming a permanent council centred on ethnicity not bad at all. That is one way of acknowledging reality. The first step towards self betterment.

Mumbi's escutcheon, flown high, especially in this time is a red rag to the bulls in this contest. These bulls may not splash in the mud with you, they cannot submerge in the mud, but they are just as blind as you are.

Again completely off base. A country where you can't say your primary identity is Gikuyu or Luo or whatever else without it being seen as an act of treason against the Kenyan state by misguided nationalists or being attributed to, the worst social and criminal behavioral traits of the worst of other human beings, is a country that in essence to me is much weaker and fails to capture the diversity of the Kenyan state. My solution is to build the state on the diversity rather than on the basis of a lofty goal of an emerging ONE OVERRIDING KENYAN IDENTITY, that has so far failed to materialize in the last 45 years, where similar solutions to those put forward by my worthy friends on the other side of this debate have been tried, tested and failed.

Incidentally I'd find little if any offense, if the articles at the centre of this debate were written by someone of a different tribe and expressed similar sentiments. For me it's the most natural thing for someone to identify with Tribe rather than country.

All we seek is a bit of time, allow us that. That we can persuade all Kenyan people towards a oneness, that we can show them all that they are one people, that the ethnic cleansing of the Rift Valley has ramifications for all Kenyans regardless of their ethnicity. Allow the rest of us a chance to create a lasting identity behind which we can seek solace when the cataclysm- a la Manta comes down on us.

We need unity, yes. We must define the common purpose we seek indeed. But even in unity Mkikuyu anabaki mkikuyu, na Mjaluo mjaluo. Good luck on the one identity issue (no sarcasm). I hope you succeed where our nation has failed, in the last 45 years. When asked about this identity, you gave me schools and property rights. Those hardly constitute any identity IMHO. I respect the right of everyone to identify themselve the way they choose, though, even if it's with their cats, dogs or goats. I however hope you see the folly in putting all your hope in one idea that you can't guarantee that you'll deliver on. It is a terrible gambler that does this.

By the way, this reminds me of primary school teachers bullying students in class and insisting that they confess their tribe. I was once similarly interrogated by the police. Imagine that, this is Keguro, 2008, seeking to ensure that next time I am asked that I have an answer at the ready. I cannot just be me, I have to wae my tribe on my sleeve. But damn!! Wewe ni kabila gani?

Primary school. Those were fun times. I really wonder what kind of school you went to. I didn't even have one situation centred on ethnicity in primary school, and I went to school in Nairobi. The police is however is understandable, which is why we need a more professional force.

As a friend said to me yesterday, to my shock and horror, when Kenyans have a conference, what do you come to the table as? Without your ethnicity you are nothing? OK, back under, now.

Kenyans are hardly a homogeneous unit. You don't need to go further than this debate to prove that point. We are all Kenyans, yet we have differing views even if most here PROBABLY grew up under the same conditions.Any statements made that group all Kenyans as a unit that will act in a certain manner given a particular situation are gross generalizations that probably bear little if any accuracy.

re:
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 26, 2008

Yet,

I would step back. I have no desire to be divisive. I offered one possible meditation on how the idea, and please note that I begin with the word concept, of tribe might function.

I understand others might not view it that way. This is fine. I would suggest, then, if we really are to engage in dialogue and not displays of intellect, sophistication, and learning, that we construct something productive.

What are the elements out of which a functioning, ethically responsible, historically grounded idea of nation can be built? What are we to do with the concepts of ethnicity we already have? How can we work with and within our differences?

At this point, I am tired of trying to be right. I have no interest in being right. I would prefer to engender something useful.

Homie, you are back tracking so fast you best watch out for that pond, out yonder, lest you fall in and drown. IMO your article is nothing to apologize for but a timely well written piece. Have more of a back bone to stand for your thoughts, and not to run away at the slightest hint of resistance, of those who would prefer to suppress freedom and the right to free speech and thoughts. I gather that you put a lot of thought before you wrote your piece? You can hardly introduce divisiveness that is already there anyway. If you want proof of this check out the Gikuyu journal article or Obamas speech article. Your article is more like a mirror which put before a cross section of Kenyans reflects back the true image its people who quite rightly and naturally have differing world views. It happens in the best of families.

re:Alexander
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 26, 2008

A,

You are persistently repeating the primary (pun permitted) error. The text does NOT posit tribe as what you construe it to be. Blame not Keguro, blame thyself.

Well, it does, at least implicitly.

(1) The present concept of tribe is, at best, a distant relative of the pre-colonial kinship concept. Then, Agikuyu, for one, identified primarily as members of a mbari. And that for good reasons, since it was with reference to that concept that such vitals as the right to use land were determined. Mbari genealogies, as Muriuki has shown, are a much more reliable guide to the history of the Agikuyu than are (other) creation myths. No return to that concept is on the cards.

(2) The colonial concept of tribe was born as (amongst other things) a claim against the state. People ceased to identify primarily as mbari as identified as Agikuyu because so identifying made a difference to one;s wealth, and because it gave a right to claim assistance from others who shared that identity.

(3) What are the innards of the colonial concept? Something like this: a small ethnically and linguistically homogenous group, in a definite territory, with a rudimentary political structure ('chiefs'). Naturally, that concept was not instantiated by many, perhaps most, of the groups in what became Kenya; equally naturally, the assumption that it was created instances of it. The conviction that Africans recognized no authority other than that derived from kinship justified the notion that Africans were divided into tribes. The ideological justification for indirect rule, and for time-limited colonialism was, at least partly, that Africans needed to be taught how to organize states on other than ethnic grounds.

So, the relevant concept of tribe -- the one Keguro is appealing to -- is the product of the conviction that Africans were incapable of participating (at least for the foreseeable future) in the state as anything other than ethnic subjects.

(4) ODM's story is that the Agikuyu are the fount and origin of all that is evil, that they're not even Kenyan at all, and that they're (in virtue of being Gikuyu) worthy objects of hatred. (See this comment by mrembo wa odm at Kumekucha, where she proposes an institute to reintegrate Agikuyu back into Kenyan society and boasts of social boycott of Gikuyu events; see also this blogpost at biikabkutit whose author refers to Agikuyu as 'roaches'). In the face of this sort of hatred, it is certainly not a bad idea to affirm what shouldn't need to be said: that there need be no conflict whatever in identifying both as Gikuyu and as Kenyan. Not that that sort of person will listen. That would be an interesting way to use the notion of Gikuyness: after all, one is hardly going to get a serious discussion about what precisely Gikuyuness (or tribe) means with that sort. But out of the heat of that kind of discussion, then the notion of tribe is suspect.

I think my stand is the opposite of manta's: when the ODMers say that Agikuyu are thieves, it is quite correct to point out that (a) I'm Gikuyu, (b) I'm not a thief, and (c) only a crude and stupid person would say what the ODMer just did. But identifying as a Gikuyu in a situation like that is distinct from identifying primarily as a Gikuyu.

re:
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 26, 2008

In my view, the concept of ethnicity as you call it must change, and ethnicity MUST BE subordinate to NATIONHOOD, which would supercede and suppress all claims to competing tribal rivalries, by force if necessary. Tribal nationalism can be confined to the different regions for those who romanticise it, but it must not be allowed to express itself in a manner where it threatens national cohesion, as it does today.

MUST? Those are very strong words to use? Who is going to FORCE it to be surbordinate and on whose AUTHORITY will he be acting? Why should my freedom or any one elses be curtailed especially by employing means that will worsen the situation rather remedy it? And how are you going to enforce it, go from door to door demanding loyalty first and foremost and detaining those who don't comply?

I repeat that a country that BUILDS on its diversity rather than tries to suppress it will be built on far more solid ground. Also what I have said above. Transparency in government and institutionalization of TRIBES, which would create a conflict solving mechanism.

I know that anyone trying to force me on how I identify myself will have a war on their hands. I might be the only one but a war will be waged. It is not the place of a government to determine or enforce how a people view themselves, and many have tried and failed but like George Bush and Tony Blair people refuse to read on history.

What would be the effect, for example, if Cabinet positions in Govt were not the subject of the current intense tribal competition, but were instead professional jobs applied for by qualified civilians who have never been politicians but are professionals in their fields? If you want a Minister for health for example, doctors would apply for the job regardless of ethnicity, same for engineers as Ministers for Roads etc. Why not ban MPs from being appointed Cabinet Ministers?
That is the kind of dialogue we should be having.

You are so far left with this idea, watch out that you don't fall off a cliff. A minister like it or not is also a public figure with representational functions. Whether he's an MP or not is irrelevant. Appearances play a huge role. Technically all the best qualified people to take up all ministerial posts could come from an extended family in Budalangi. You'd go ahead and appoint them all cabinet ministers and see if you'll know peace over the course of that adminstration.

re: re:
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 26, 2008

Sorry editor. My mistake.

In my view, the concept of ethnicity as you call it must change, and ethnicity MUST BE subordinate to NATIONHOOD, which would supercede and suppress all claims to competing tribal rivalries, by force if necessary. Tribal nationalism can be confined to the different regions for those who romanticise it, but it must not be allowed to express itself in a manner where it threatens national cohesion, as it does today.

MUST? Those are very strong words to use? Who is going to FORCE it to be surbordinate and on whose AUTHORITY will he/she be acting? Why should my freedom or any one elses for that matter be curtailed especially by employing means that will worsen the situation rather remedy it? And how are you going to enforce it, go from door to door demanding loyalty first and foremost and detaining those who don't comply?

I repeat that a country that BUILDS on its diversity rather than tries to suppress it will be built on far more solid ground. Also what I have said above. Transparency in government and institutionalization of TRIBES, which would create a conflict solving mechanism.

I know that anyone trying to force me on how I identify myself will have a war on their hands. I might be the only one but a war will be waged. It is not the place of a government to determine or enforce how a people view themselves, and many have tried and failed but like George Bush and Tony Blair people refuse to read on history.

What would be the effect, for example, if Cabinet positions in Govt were not the subject of the current intense tribal competition, but were instead professional jobs applied for by qualified civilians who have never been politicians but are professionals in their fields? If you want a Minister for health for example, doctors would apply for the job regardless of ethnicity, same for engineers as Ministers for Roads etc. Why not ban MPs from being appointed Cabinet Ministers?
That is the kind of dialogue we should be having.

You are so far left with this idea, watch out that you don't fall off a cliff. A minister like it or not is also a public figure with representational functions. Whether he's an MP or not is irrelevant. Appearances play a huge role. Technically all the best qualified people to take up all ministerial posts could come from an extended family in Budalangi. You'd go ahead and appoint them all cabinet ministers? See if you'll know peace over the course of that administration and look out for whether you'll ever be elected back into the highest office.

And yes, the question of equal representation of all interests not just ethnic or gender or regional affiliations plays a huge role on deciding how you choose a public figure, whether you go vetting all engineers, doctors etc. It's not the fairest process, especially for those better qualified but its better to have disgruntled individuals than whole communities.

Not willing........
written by wan , March 26, 2008

Iam a bit lost what wrongs have some tribes done that have not been done by the others that they are so hated that when one of them coughs and accidentary their name is mentioned everybody turns to spit to the one who has coughed. Why all this hatred? Population explotion that leads to spreading all over? Lovers of trade who then are forced to go to where the customers live? (MUTHURWA LIKE).
Men and breathren why so much hatred.RELAX!!

Ahem..
written by politicalscientist , March 26, 2008

Can I just begin by saying I haven't read all 68 comments and as such I may be repeating what someone else has already said?

Just to counteract the first notion that was introduced in the article; that the colonisers thought that tribe was fluid. Quite the contrary. Colonisers and those who are so inclined today generally fall in the primordialist school of thought of understanding tribal issues. This argues that tribe is an intrinsic part of the society, that tensions predate any form of colonialism or interference and that they are a natural extension of societal interaction.

The colonialists believed that some tribes were better than others, and some worse based on the genetic fallacies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Speke advocated for the Hamitic fallacy - the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth were the forefathers of all tribes today with Ham being the "white" son. As such, they believed that the lighter skinned tribes of Africa were children of Ham - as in Ethiopia, the Tutsi in the Great lakes etc and gave the members of these tribes great favours in terms of plum jobs, access to education and the like. Although the Bantu, Nilote, Cushite distinctions may also be related to linguistic studies, in actual fact, many such distinctions are artificial. The Teso for instance in Kenya were for a long time considered related to the Luhya and thus Bantu, but today are considered to constitute a separate group and more Nilotic. So the argument that tribes are intrinsic and thus cannot be separated from the individual is actually an argument IN FAVOUR of the colonialist position.

re: Ahem..
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 26, 2008

Just to counteract the first notion that was introduced in the article; that the colonisers thought that tribe was fluid. Quite the contrary. Colonisers and those who are so inclined today generally fall in the primordialist school of thought of understanding tribal issues. This argues that tribe is an intrinsic part of the society, that tensions predate any form of colonialism or interference and that they are a natural extension of societal interaction.

The colonialists believed that some tribes were better than others, and some worse based on the genetic fallacies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Speke advocated for the Hamitic fallacy - the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth were the forefathers of all tribes today with Ham being the "white" son. As such, they believed that the lighter skinned tribes of Africa were children of Ham - as in Ethiopia, the Tutsi in the Great lakes etc and gave the members of these tribes great favours in terms of plum jobs, access to education and the like. Although the Bantu, Nilote, Cushite distinctions may also be related to linguistic studies, in actual fact, many such distinctions are artificial. The Teso for instance in Kenya were for a long time considered related to the Luhya and thus Bantu, but today are considered to constitute a separate group and more Nilotic. So the argument that tribes are intrinsic and thus cannot be separated from the individual is actually an argument IN FAVOUR of the colonialist position.

Amen.

(Although I don't know that Teso was ever accounted a Bantu language).

re: Primary identity
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 26, 2008

Identities are commitments to some version of what is good: one is a Kalenjin nationalist because one thinks that there is something good about it. Even those who identify as X just because they were born as X must think that it is good for anyone born as an X or a Y or a Z to identify with the community into which they were born.

That covers the family of course. I identify with tribe as my family.

Identities impose normative requirements. If you identify as a Mugikuyu, there are some things you ought to do (get circumcised, honour your ancestry, stick up for Agikuyu in trouble) and others you ought not to. An identity requires that you do some things and not others. All of us have different identities. There is no guarantee that all the requirements of all the identities we hold will always cohere with each other. So, it is possible that there will be a clash between the requirements of one identity and another: one identity might require us to favour our Kalenjin co-ethnics, another might require us to not do so. But that gives us an obviously wrong result: if I'm distributing relief food, it is obvious that Kalenjins and non-Kalenjins need and deserve the food equally. Therefore, ethnicity cannot reasonably be our primary identity when we live in a society made up of diverse ethnicities.We need a way to resolve the clash. When the obligations clash, those of the primary identity take precedence.

Quite possible yes, but you imply that it's within your sphere of influence to influence how you'll react given an extreme situation, merely by how you choose to define your prime identity. I submit to you that it's not. Neither for you nor for me. I do not seek to predict how you'll react given an extreme situation merely based on your nationalistic proclamations. I however appreciate that the discussion has moved on from rapists and murderers to loaf distribution, though I still find your assessments misguided, as you hardly know me n anyway to make such broad based assessments.

That's a simple, and slightly crude, argument for why ethnic identities should not be primary. Here's another; more dialectical. The controlling premiss of ODM's political activity is that the Agikuyu are the enemy of all Kenya's other ethnicities: they're (genetically predisposed to be) thieves; they've stolen from and oppressed everyone else since independence. If you accept ethnic identity as primary, then your only arguments with ODM are about matters of fact: Are Agikuyu actually predisposed to thievery? Have they actually oppressed everyone else since independence? You can't actually say that what they're doing -- and have done -- is wrong.

I reject that argument on the basis of the one I rejected your first one. Generalizations, which are quite dangerous and on the Kenyan Tribal ethnic context, a bit off for some groups.

The Kikuyu don't get all circumcised together in big festivities, and get initiated on the ways of their tribes like in days past and to the best of my knowledge neither do the Luos have any elaborate initiation practices (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe if they did one could develop some foundation for the sort of generalizations being made. Even then, such a situation would create discipline rather than disorder. Control rather than chaos and clearly defined channels of communication in case of conflict.

Each one today is raised by their parents, and if we are quite honest perhaps mostly by their schools. I'll bet you that no one Luo or Kikuyu parent raises their son or daughter today as the next. My sense of self Identification does not really originate specifically from anything that my parents taught me or told me. The only thing they gave me towards that end was a language, a name, circumcision and blood relatives who also happen to be Kikuyu.

That led to a shared cultural heritage, shared history. I understand anyone who says that I'm of my Tribe before I'm Kenyan because I was of my tribe before I was Kenyan.

I have watched football games in Germany on TV, where Germans of Turkish decent were more than the other Germans in the stadium and the German team was at times booed in their own home soil. The Turkish cheered more. Yet sports is not an insignificant part of what forms a national Identity and particularly not in Germany where winning the 1954 world cup was a watershed moment for a broken nation.

Does that mean that those Turkish Germans will go out there and be less constructive members of the German society? Hardly. They go out there do their jobs, run their businesses, create employment, supply labour and pay their taxes just like everyone else. Does that mean that were it to come to a war between Turkey and Germany, they wouldn't have a serious conflict of interests? Probably. Does that mean by extension that every single Turkish German will fight on the side of the Turks. Some, might decide that their interests eg. economic are best served by being on the German side depending on the genesis of the war of course. The secret to a working multi-ethnic society is just not to let it come to that breakdown. Germany however does not demand that the Turks lay down their languages, their cultural customs (only those in serious conflict with the German constitution. A bit of conformity and tolerance is necessary in a multi-ethnic setting) or their religion. They do however demand that you learn the German language however.

I don't think the solution of Kenya's problems lie in a false nationalism rather than in defining a common purpose and goals as a country, defining means to achieve them, increasing economic empowerment amongst all our people and rebuilding our institutions especially the Judiciary, The ECK, and the Police. My observation of our 'betters' in the USA and Europe is that it is not really how they define themselves that makes them so stable but rather, that the citizenry has achieved a high level of social and economic security. Were that to fail, I'm almost certain that quite a few there would also turn into savages, just like anyone else. That's why any government worth its salt will guard the economy and left no stone unturned in ensuring its stability. Also our "betters" have also come to embrace the modern concept of 'Dual Citizenship'.

in re:Johnny B. Goode
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 26, 2008

That covers the family of course. I identify with tribe as my family.

(1) No chance. Finding out that X is related to you would compel you to consider them family; finding that X is related to you doesn't guarantee shared ethnicity -- X might be unable to speak your language at all, might be a different race (not all of Obama's relatives, for example, share his ethnicity).

The example is ill-chosen.

(2) I'm struggling to see howe the rest of your response defuses the worry I raised. If your primary identity is ethnic, then your arguments with ODM are about matters of fact. On what ground can you argue that their program is wrong?

...
written by manta ray , March 26, 2008

MUST? Those are very strong words to use? Who is going to FORCE it to be surbordinate and on whose AUTHORITY will he/she be acting? Why should my freedom or any one elses for that matter be curtailed especially by employing means that will worsen the situation rather remedy it? And how are you going to enforce it, go from door to door demanding loyalty first and foremost and detaining those who don't comply?

To clarify, i meant that individual tribal interests MUST be subordinate to those of the collective Nation. That is the difference. Tribal authority and interests can never be allowed to supercede that of the Nation. For your information, that is not what has been going on for 45 years, but it is what you support.
What has been going on is overt tribal competition for public resources, precisely because the rulers have never attempted to instill any sense of Kenyan nationalism and because it was never in their interest to do so. It was easier to mobilise ones tribesmen for support and here we are, 45 years later, slaughtering one another like chickens every five years, until next time.

You are so far left with this idea, watch out that you don't fall off a cliff. A minister like it or not is also a public figure with representational functions. Whether he's an MP or not is irrelevant. Appearances play a huge role. Technically all the best qualified people to take up all ministerial posts could come from an extended family in Budalangi. You'd go ahead and appoint them all cabinet ministers? See if you'll know peace over the course of that administration and look out for whether you'll ever be elected back into the highest office.

And yes, the question of equal representation of all interests not just ethnic or gender or regional affiliations plays a huge role on deciding how you choose a public figure, whether you go vetting all engineers, doctors etc. It's not the fairest process, especially for those better qualified but its better to have disgruntled individuals than whole communities.

It is hardly a leftist idea, and is in fact borrowed from what is practised by the US, from the Cabinet to the Supreme court. Since when was the US leftist?
It must be made clear that such important appointments cannot be symbolic of tribal representation. Ordinary Kenyans are not like politicians and neither are they stupid. Just listen to the likes of Citizen Radio's "Jambo Kenya" programme every morning.
They will therefore understand the need for new ways of doing things, as long as you don't preach it and then go behind their backs and do precisely the opposite. That is what they don't like and they must have faith that it won't happen. They appreciate honesty.
You must therefore also have faith in them to rise to the occasion when the call of Nationalism beckons them.

More on tribe and self-concept
written by aeichener , March 26, 2008

Just to counteract the first notion that was introduced in the article; that the colonisers thought that tribe was fluid. Quite the contrary. Colonisers and those who are so inclined today generally fall in the primordialist school of thought of understanding tribal issues. This argues that tribe is an intrinsic part of the society, that tensions predate any form of colonialism or interference and that they are a natural extension of societal interaction.

This statement in its generalization is actually not correct, once you go to the sources and shun secondary literature. At least not correct for Kenya. While I shall concede for many settlers being racist dunces, this derision cannot be extended to the colonial administration. In "Kenya" (i.e. throughout the territories that today form the statal frail entity called Kenya), the British administration almost from the outset was very much aware of the fickle and often floating nature of tribal adherence and tribal allegiance. Even pre-colonial Krapf probably knew that already.

The British colonial officers knew very well about patterns of intermarriage, and about changing self-identification of their subordinates (the English term "subject" is beautifully ambiguous and in this very ambiguity most fitting here).
Yes, they did purposely encourage tribalization (as in the case of the hunter-gatherer groups called ndorobo by the others), not the least in a spirit of divide et impera. On the other hand, the black subjects retained a remarkable degree of agency in accepting, choosing and using (!!) the partially foreign and superimposed concept of tribe when and where and inasfar as it suited their purposes, and was felt to work for their benfit.

Even the lowly and bottom-of-the-ladder Yaaku in the 1930s and 1940s - a time when most of them did not even understand Kiswahili - knew how to very ably and deftly play on colonial sentiments and prejudices, trying to use them to their favour.

The colonialists believed that some tribes were better than others, and some worse based on the genetic fallacies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Certainly true for the cases you gave above. The romanticized "noble warrior" Maasai racist self-image was embraced by the Brits and lives forth even into our times e.g. in touristry (which imagery did not preclude the British to handle the Maasai brutally and callously whenever this suited their landed interests).

Although the Bantu, Nilote, Cushite distinctions may also be related to linguistic studies, in actual fact, many such distinctions are artificial. The Teso for instance in Kenya were for a long time considered related to the Luhya and thus Bantu, but today are considered to constitute a separate group and more Nilotic.

Good point. I very much recommend to you Lee Cronk; his short but very rich monography "From Mukogodo to Maasai" is one of the best anthropological works on ethnicity, self-identification, adaption, and change I have ever come across, and all that in a purposefully student-friendly and didactic form. A masterpiece.

Here, because I deem it of interest with this thread, is the short and mouth-watering abstract of a preceding work of Cronk:

"Between 1925 and 1936, the Mukogodo of Kenya changed from Cushitic-speaking foragers to Maa-speaking pastoralists. This rapid transition took place in the midst of competing views of Mukogodo ethnic identity. To Maa-speakers, Mukogodo were low-status il-torrobo. To British colonialists, Mukogodo were true Dorobo, victims of more powerful agricultural and pastoralist groups. Although British administrators fashioned a set of policies designed to protect Mukogodo from such groups, other British policies inadvertently contributed to the Mukogodo acquisition of Maasai subsistence patterns, language, and culture. Mukogodo themselves strategically used a Dorobo identity to manipulate the British while striving to lose the stigma of the il-torrobo label and achieve acceptance among Maa-speakers as true Maasai."

So the argument that tribes are intrinsic and thus cannot be separated from the individual is actually an argument IN FAVOUR of the colonialist position.

Mhhm, I am inclined to agree, with some caution.

Alexander

-
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 26, 2008

(1) No chance. Finding out that X is related to you would compel you to consider them family; finding that X is related to you doesn't guarantee shared ethnicity -- X might be unable to speak your language at all, might be a different race (not all of Obama's relatives, for example, share his ethnicity).

From what I entangle from your complicated example is that shared ethnicity does not imply shared relations and shared relations do not imply shared ethnicity.

I'm sure you are quite familiar with the concept of naming children by the Kikuyu which does imply shared lineage and origin. I know special provisions were made for women who came from other communities, specifically the Maasai. Nyokabi.

I don't know how much intermarriages there was between Kikuyus and other communities or if you married a Kamba, she also got a special name. The same goes for people who came into the tribal fold as POWs for example.

THEORETICALLY most if not all Kikuyus should be able to trace their lineage back to the nine (some say 10) daughters. If there is any doubt we can take all the Njeris, Cikus or Cirus and see how much genetic make up they share. Of course the results might be distorted by all the wife sharing that was going on as well as all the polygamy.

I'm a firm believer in the story of Adam and Eve and all its thousands derivatives including Gikuyu and Mumbi, science aside, and the theory that all human migrations originated from one point.

(2) I'm struggling to see how the rest of your response defuses the worry I raised. If your primary identity is ethnic, then your arguments with ODM are about matters of fact. On what ground can you argue that their program is wrong?

And I fail to see the connection between saying my primary identity is my ethnic one and the litany of ODM and/or YOUR generalizations. I mean even if I said my primary Identity is Kenyan and a Tanzanian came out and said all Kenyans are thieves, lazy, liars, fornicators, murderers, slow in thought processes, tribalists, HIV infested, as a Nigerian friend once told me etc.

That my friend is called stupidity, nothing and more nothing else as indeed are all generalizations. What is the link between my statement about primary identity and the generalizations? Please explain. One shoe can hardly fit all Kenyans, all blacks, all Christians, all Muslims, all Asians, all lawyers, taxi drivers etc. or all Kikuyu for that matter. You answered your own question quite nicely at the bottom, of your previous post.

I don't know why this discussion reminds me of these lines:

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

Donald Kipkorir
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 27, 2008

That High Priest of the ODM once wrote, in solidarity with Keguro and company, one supposes,

As we come out of this perilous moment, in resolving the negative ethnicity, Kenya must embrace ethnicity. We have had stunted development because the national leadership has always been locked up in a powerful presidency that, in turn, is captive to the president’s tribe. For instance, employment in the top echelons of the public service and parastatals as well as regional development is based more on tribe than any other criterion.

In adopting the German model, we must give the 45 tribes autonomy. The tribes must come together into a bigger group that shares common heritage and affinities. Examples are that although there are nine Miji Kenda tribes, they will be given one autonomous region to be as near as possible to current Coast Province, while Kambas will form their own province, Gikuyu-Embu-Meru another and Kalenjin-Maasai-Turkana the other.

These tribal subdivisions will end up creating about 10 tribal provinces, but Nairobi will remain a city-state and the federal seat. Creating tribal regions does not mean balkanisation or the exclusion of other tribes, but that each tribal community will have a defined territory in which to grow and nurture its culture and history.

As in Germany, the central government will cede to the tribal regions powers relating to administration, finance, legislation, transport and judicial services as long as they do not cause conflict with other regions, and with residual federal powers that will remain in Nairobi. The federal government in Nairobi will retain powers to sign international treaties, protect the national borders and be in charge of foreign trade and policy.

Kenya can only mature into a nation-state once we admit that we are a hodge-podge of 45 nations. Once each tribe realises it has to develop its region, but within shared national borders, we will have a great future.

I did not realise how persuasive his words were until I saw them being published here as reason!

re: Donald Kipkorir
written by a guest , March 27, 2008

That High Priest of the ODM once wrote,

I failed to find a linkable source. Allegedly, this was a "Nation" opinion piece from 1st March 2008, republished in allAfrica, but the latter links usually vanish aftersome time. Can you help us with a direct Nation link, maybe?

As to Donald Kikorir, I am sure that this good chap really means well (one more of the bien-pensants), but oh, if he only had at least a rudimentary knowledge of what he writes about, namely his completely ignorant "German example".
(No, that is not a request for Johnny B. Goode to jump into the fray: we already know that you know Germany. But maybe someone could send the scribe an email and educate him friendly? Germany is a lot of things, but one thing it is not: tribal).

Alexander

re: Donald Kipkorir
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 27, 2008

As in Germany, the central government will cede to the tribal regions powers relating to administration, finance, legislation, transport and judicial services as long as they do not cause conflict with other regions, and with residual federal powers that will remain in Nairobi.

I did read that article.

The Central government in Germany doesn't entirely cede all powers as regarding some issues, eg. Finance as is being implied here. Its a rather very strongly enmeshed system, where the central and regional governments share responsibility.

Ceding all powers to the regional governments would lead to a lot of disparities between individual regions and by extension to destabilization of the German state.

There are some nice articles on the net about the German system but I'm too lazy to look them up.

Theres a lot of consultation between the central and regional governments in the German system. The proclaimed aim is to achieve as an equal standard of living as is possible in all regions.

Forward Movement
written by rateng , March 27, 2008

One of the problems with Kenya may well lie in the fact that some of us are unable to make the leap and pick out the positive aspects of an idea. In my opinion, Keguro did no wrong in celebrating tribe. There is a place for that, even now. I, too, am not yet willing to completely give up tribe, even though my children may never know tribe as I do due to the endless possibilities of intermarriage. And I think that this is the right time to discuss this issue (the celebration of tribe). Indeed, this is the time to discuss all sentiments that lie hidden in the shadows so that we can move forward with structures that work better than those of the past.

We have to find a way to make room for ethnicity and nationhood to stand side by side without affecting each other negatively. We do. Why can't they both be on the same level? Why should we have to choose nationhood and relinquish ethnicity? Why can't one come to the fore at certain times and take a back seat at others? In and of itself, ethnicity is not negative. It has been imbued with a negative connotation by the acts of some in history. So why can't we rewrite history by rewriting the future? Why can't we imbue ethnicity with a positive connotation?

Let's be the ones to make a change instead of waiting for someone else to do it. We can start by seeing the positive aspect of the celebration of ethnicity. We can start by using Keguro's piece as one aspect of the new structure we are trying to raise up from the ashes of history. We can start by making room to work with each other, even when we disagree. Our MPs often attack each other over disagreements; why should we follow in their footsteps. We can be a different breed of people; a generation that turns things around. True, it is complex, but not impossible, if we are willing and committed. Are we?

re: Nationalism
written by politicalscientist , March 27, 2008

Kikuyu nationalism is not a threat to Kenya. We can be many nations in one. I don't understand how you can read what keguro is saying and get it all twisted. Something is very wrong with the intellectual capacity of kenyans. I have tangled with Keguro before on other issues but to read that he is now a right wing conspirator now thats funny. Kikuyu Nationalism is here to stay. The way we react to it will determine how it affects us all. When people refuse to reason they give extremists the ammunition to take over a cause. A proud Kikuyu can be a proud Kenyan its that simple.

I take issue with this on two points. Nationalism, Kikuyu or otherwise is an affront to the construction of stable nation states, more so where the states in question are floundering in terms of structure. It is shallow and short sighted to argue otherwise. Consider the implications of strong national identities on Kenya's border regions. In the 70's we endured an irridentist movement from the Somali community seeking to unite the Somali nation - a milder version of the current Kurdish stance in Iraq, Syria and Turkey. There are more Oromo in Ethiopia than there are in Kenya, more Teso in Uganda than in Kenya; not to mention the frequent crossing and counter crossings of the Maasai into Tanzania. If each of these nations sought to assert their identity with as much vigour and conviction as you have advocated here, and then turned around to claim that their primary loyalty was to their nation and not to their country, where would that leave the territorial integrity of East Africa? Should Kenya then hand over North Eastern to Somalia? Northern Eastern province to Ethiopia? Western to Uganda? Southern Rift Valley to Tanzania?

Already the remote regions of Kenya are like frontier towns where the rule of law is light on the ground. Should we add to this volatile mix the notion that people's primary loyalty is to their local chief and not to the central administration of the country in question?

Secondly, can a proud Kikuyu be a proud Kenyan? Absolutely, but the main argument - maybe not on this strand but on the other exchanges - is what comes first? You don't pay different taxes for being of a certain nation, you don't (shouldn't) recieve extra police protection or other privileges. In short being of a specific nationality/ethnicity, like love and other equally emotive concepts, does not pay the bills. To take from Kenya on one hand and then relegate the state to tier two loyalty on the other is an insult to the state and literally biting the hand that feeds you. Like I've said, nationalistic ideals are great and romantic, and its wonderful for you to get all warm and fuzzy inside at the notion of random people being close relatives. But its not practical, its not realistic and above all else, it is dangerous.

...
written by manta ray , March 27, 2008

Well said, Political scientist.

Let me just add, one more time. We are all agreed that invoking tribal passions is the Kenyan politician's strategy of choice in order to get into public office. His intentions here are not to SERVE the people but to get at "the steak, not the bones", to quote ODM chief whip Midiwo in todays Daily Nation.
It is also a fact that Kenya's failure to achieve the much vaunted Malaysian or South Korean standard of development has to do with the poor quality of leadership offered by Kenyan politicians, precisely because of their evil motives as described above.
Now, when one insists that there is nothing wrong with asserting tribal nationalism in lockstep with Kenyan nationalism, or even tribal identity as primary, what do you really think you are doing? Well, you are giving the Kenyan Political animal precisely the easy ride and tools he desires to manipulate the system to his advantage and to consequently make the lives of millions a misery.

...
written by Shiro , March 27, 2008

Are we saying being Kenyan is mutually exclusive to being of "whatever" tribe? So the two cannot coexist? A kenyan cannot appreciate the culture endowed by their tribe and also be a productive member of the Kenyan society? So, we must denounce our tribe to peacefully coexist with others? Are some advocating that a homogenous Kenya is the answer? What a fairy tale!!! How about we correct the real source of the problem before you go abandoning part of who you are?!?!? You are who you are. And nothing will ever change that. But you don't have to get special favors, oppress, kill, maime, rape or destroy anybody in the name of tribe. People who use tribe to destroy and kill will find another label even when you take the tribe one away.

Please let's talk about the source of the problem. The prescription by some on this board is to abandon tribal cultures because of those who have taken advantage of political ignorance and used it to kill, destroy and advance their political agendas.

One must not feel forced to stop appreciating their tribal culture to be nationalistic. I believe both can coextist in peace. You can embrace different cultures and tribes while you enjoy your own. Yes, you can chew gum and walk at the same time! We need to be worrying about those who prey on the ignorant and commit such atrocities in the name of tribe. You don't need to divorce your tribe to be a moral and decent Kenyan national. You can be proud of both. Correct the problems that allow politicians to use the tribal tool every 5 yrs to advance or their political agendas or oppress others!

The key is to find a way to render tribal politics irrelevant. When the politics of tribal identity are neutralized, it will be easier to embrace our tribal uniqueness and diversity. It will not be a threat to be proud of who you are in totality. Nobody will need to defend anybody because of there tribe. The empty vessels will probably have to talk about real issues for a change. I refuse to allow those who have used tribe to create division and hatred to go a step further and force us to divorce our tribes in the pretense that is the solution to our problem. We are already imprisoned in tribal-phobic cages, and that's not because of the fact that we have so many tribes, it's because we misuse and abuse tribe when it suits us. The problem isn't the tribe; it's what we do with tribe!!!

...
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 27, 2008

Rateng', welcome to the discussion, late in the day as it is. Having been chastised , on the phone at least for my tone, let me be clear. We are all bonkers about culture, just nuts, about it. I would like very much for Joe and Keguro to serve me with some mutura and to teach me about Mugithi and the history of the Agikuyu. I would like to attend Gikuyu events and declare my pride in this Gikuyu culture. There will be a day when we can have Nairobi subservient to our ethnicities, when we can hold high our ethnic nations, but that day is not today. As they say in ki-slopes, Geterero ti kinaino; that day is coming.
Let's say it clearly so anyone who puts up a post alleging he is being asked to give up his tribe feels appropriately stupid. No one has urged the end of Gikuyu culture, no one has asked that the Gikuyu people cease to exist, no one has asked that the Gikuyu give up anything. What we insist is that no rivals are raised against the Kenyan state, those putting up sign posts announcing entry into the Rift Valley were serving similar sentiments, those policemen and soldiers who refused to help their fellow countrymen were choosing exactly that, they listed their loyalties and chose to serve their ethnicities before Kenya. That this is dangerous to the state must be clear to all who care at all about this country, now even a dunce could understand that.

re: Forward Movement
written by aeichener , March 27, 2008

I think I may first comment on Rateng, ere I go to Shiro's fine posting.

One of the problems with Kenya may well lie in the fact that some of us are unable to make the leap and pick out the positive aspects of an idea.

Maybe. There are certainly some concepts that are so deeply and fundamentally wrong that it seems illicit to try to sieve out the "positive aspects" of it (as. exempli gratia, antisemitism or white supremacism). But the concept of a traditionally or regionally rooted identity, of an ethnic foundation of one's self (quite different from the strawmen of ethnic allegiance or ethnic loyalty), this concept does certainly not belong to the intrinsically flawed and poisonous ones.

In my opinion, Keguro did no wrong in celebrating tribe.

Yes, no, both. Firstly, the word suggests a coherence and a demarcation that isn't there in historic reality, as Daniel Waweru had sagely pointed out (and copiously proven). And secondly, Keguro did NOT "celebrate" the superiority of the house of Mumbi, or the racial arrogance of the Maasai whom a presumably two-horned God ordained to rule over all other lowly human animals. He rather cherished (can you differentiate these verbs: cherish /-/ celebrate ?) deep cultural roots that he feels to be his.

There is a place for that, even now.

The contention of some of the critics was the "now", indeed. Now that at least is a debatable and tenable stance. If one feels that on one hand ethnicity has become contesting (rather than contested), and on the other hand the dangerous leap from the assertion of the individual self, towards the collective aggression against the Other, is just too easily made by the Kenyan zon politikn (a carnivore for sure), then one could indeed argue against the responsibility of such a public statement, in view of its potential consequences.

And I think that this is the right time to discuss this issue (the celebration of tribe). Indeed, this is the time to discuss all sentiments that lie hidden in the shadows so that we can move forward with structures that work better than those of the past.

Hm. Maybe you are right here, too. It's a two edged blade, and apparently the hilt is slippery.

We have to find a way to make room for ethnicity and nationhood to stand side by side without affecting each other negatively. (...) Why should we have to choose nationhood and relinquish ethnicity? Why can't one come to the fore at certain times and take a back seat at others?

This piercing and pertinent question has always been purposely shunned and circumvented by the critics of Keguro. It is very good that you ask it.

In and of itself, ethnicity is not negative. It has been imbued with a negative connotation by the acts of some in history. So why can't we rewrite history by rewriting the future? Why can't we imbue ethnicity with a positive connotation?

These are rhetoric questions, aren't they?

We can start by using Keguro's piece as one aspect of the new structure we are trying to raise up from the ashes of history.

Good proposal. Thanks, Rateng.

Alexander

...
written by manta ray , March 28, 2008

Are we saying being Kenyan is mutually exclusive to being of "whatever" tribe? So the two cannot coexist? A kenyan cannot appreciate the culture endowed by their tribe and also be a productive member of the Kenyan society? So, we must denounce our tribe to peacefully coexist with others? Are some advocating that a homogenous Kenya is the answer? What a fairy tale!!! How about we correct the real source of the problem before you go abandoning part of who you are?!?!? You are who you are. And nothing will ever change that. But you don't have to get special favors, oppress, kill, maime, rape or destroy anybody in the name of tribe. People who use tribe to destroy and kill will find another label even when you take the tribe one away.

Please let's talk about the source of the problem. The prescription by some on this board is to abandon tribal cultures because of those who have taken advantage of political ignorance and used it to kill, destroy and advance their political agendas.

One must not feel forced to stop appreciating their tribal culture to be nationalistic. I believe both can coextist in peace.

Nobody has said that being of a particular tribe means that you cannot identify yourself as Kenyan at the same time. Nobody has said that anyone should abandon their culture!
However, if Kenya will ever cohere into a Nation, there has to be a binding overriding loyalty to a commitment that relegates tribe into second place and which every citizen can identify with, and that commitment is to a Nation of people from different ethnicities called Kenya. What i have a beef with is those who are insisting that your commitment should be to your tribe first, NOT your country! They even gloat that it has not worked for 45 years and there is therefore no further use in pursuing the idea. I say: So bloody what?!! Does it mean that you give up? That is just cowardly and unpatriotic, a disease that afflicts a great number of those who claim Kenyan citizenship.
Many Kenyans, including some on KI, have given up the idea of us being one Nation, and are victims of Kenya's avaricious political class, which has in turn given rise to the same culture amongst the population. Instead of trying to understand this circumstance, the reaction is to retreat into various tribal cocoons as a solution, PRECISELY what the political hyena in our midst desires in order to continue destroying the country's nationalist fabric while looting it blind. Has it occurred to these people that you can actually fight back and reclaim your manhood and pride?
What is really sad is that some of the so-called intellectuals in this forum cannot see that.

Cabinet Dynamics
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 28, 2008

To clarify, i meant that individual tribal interests MUST be subordinate to those of the collective Nation. That is the difference. Tribal authority and interests can never be allowed to supersede that of the Nation.

I'm not arguing against that? A far cry from your first post though.
IMO, I see the tribal nation at least the Gikuyu one, and the Kenyan state fulfilling different functions anyway.

Their interests colliding only in 2 crucial points. In case of a civil war. We all agree that it's should never some to that. In the case of economic empowerment. That's a catch 22.

Take a situation where 2 applicants apply for the same job. Both with equal qualifications. Both strangers obviously. One of your tribe, and we all have them whether we want to acknowledge them or not. Do you pick your tribesman because of tribal royalty or do you pick someone not of your tribe to show all how Kenyan you are. Whichever way you go you'll be discriminating someone because of their Tribe. Of course in a case where one applicant is more qualified than the other, the choice is crystal clear. It's in your best selfish interests to pick the more qualified one, if we want to reduce it to a very personal level.

There are of course other spheres of life like friendships etc. but having grown up in a cosmopolitan environment, hardly relevant to me. The only social context where it will play a role is marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

For your information, that is not what has been going on for 45 years, but it is what you support.

I disagree. The policy of the Kenyan state is more in line with your side of the argument than mine. That's why, I think it is you who said earlier, no one will be crazy enough and say he is running for president as a Luo. They'll all say they are Kenyans. You won't help be a Luo candidate though just like Hillary Clinton can't help but be a white female candidate, or Edwards another white male, or Obama a black one. Bi-raciality and one drop rule aside. Why doesn't the central bureau of statisticsnot put the ethnic breakdown of Kenyan population on its website? Of course it could be sheer incompetence. On the other hand if tribe was that high on the governments agenda then that info would have been there.

Why do Newspapers speak of members of a certain communities (probably helpful and well meant but in the age of the internet and the sms hardly of any value as the international press will tell you exactly which community it is and who is affiliated to either Raila or Kibakis tribe. Also the accents and the names give everything away on local TV channels and in newspaper reports)? The official government policy of any of the 3 governments we've had, was to say 'we are all Kenyans, of one tribe'. We aren't though.

That individual politicians have preached water and been drinking wine is an entirely different issue.

That the institution of tribe is far greater than people are willing to concede is also another big issue. I don't really know why, If we have been going to the same schools, sharing 2 common languages, intermarrying and intermingling and your neighbour still comes to slaughter you based on ethnic affiliation, then that to me sends a clear message.

If a cosmopolitan city like Nairobi has ghettorised areas where only particular tribes stay, then that is also a clear message, poverty is a poor excuse. That everything is blamed on politicians an even more damning excuse on our society. That is if the whole thing was such that the politicians give and the people take. I believe though that the politicians are only working with what is hidden there.

What I propose is for a state based on reality state. The state has to find a way to enter into a mutual beneficial relationship with the tribe. A win-win situation for both. How exactly they do this are details that our great Kenyan minds can come up with. Someone suggested seeing the country as a company in which we all have shares in. Great analogy. In this relationship, tribe is acknowledged constituent of the republic of Kenya.

For a clear and what I consider balanced account of where Kenya has been, please read this article. It's more the description of the Kenyan reality in a historical context. Note that it was written in 1997. Aint nothing changed.
citizenship and Ethnicity

What has been going on is overt tribal competition for public resources, precisely because the rulers have never attempted to instill any sense of Kenyan nationalism and because it was never in their interest to do so. It was easier to mobilize ones tribesmen for support and here we are, 45 years later, slaughtering one another like chickens every five years, until next time.

Nationalism would maybe help but a fair, mature distribution of resources would help more. I see it more as a question of economics rather than patriotism. Harder to solve, and I have no illusions about it is the land question. Those to me are the twin themes leading to the current crisis. Well apart from the elections situation which I found poorly handled, from a PR point of view by both the PNU side and the ECK.

It is hardly a leftist idea, and is in fact borrowed from what is practiced by the US, from the Cabinet to the Supreme court. Since when was the US leftist?
It must be made clear that such important appointments cannot be symbolic of tribal representation. Ordinary Kenyans are not like politicians and neither are they stupid. Just listen to the likes of Citizen Radio's "Jambo Kenya" programme every morning.

Define an ordinary Kenyan. Kenya is not a homogeneous entity, everyone knows that. Are you the ordinary Kenyan or am I or are we both? As such, replace ordinary with most, if you have any credible poll.

I don't know how what considerations the US presidents makes, but looking at
Bushs current cabinet I see the main electoral constituents represented.
white males, blacks, latino, asians and women. The only nice little touch, would have been adding a native American in there.

The somewhat romantic notion that the US president only considers qualifications in dishing out cabinet posts is not realistic. There also intangibles like loyalty and trust, questions of character and moral integrity (Bill Clinton is the big exception that proves the rule), in as far as one can judge that. So you'll also find a couple of folks from the 1st Bush (Bush senior) administration in G.W. Bushs cabinet, like Colin Powell who retired, Condi Rice and **** Cheney. JFK instilled his own brother as the attorney general in his presidency. Are you absolutely sure there wasn't anyone more qualified? In that position he felt he needed absolute loyalty and where better to get it than from the family, qualifications aside.

He might also want to show that he is a uniter like George Walker Bush, who turned out to be the great divider, in which case all the best to Obama, by reaching out across the aisle and picking up some Democrats

Personally I approach things from the vantage point that other folks are just like us. Thus I expect the US President does the same juggling as any other president does. I know for certain that he wouldn't get away with appointing an all male white cabinet. Not in this day and age. I also know that gender balance plays a critical role in appointing any cabinet in any western European nation.Thats is also representation.

However ethnic/gender balancing does not have to be an issue if all communities are brought at par in terms of qualifications, they'll be/are enough of the brightest from all Kenyan communities to present both an ethnically/gender balanced cabinet which is also very highly qualified in the chosen areas.

re: re: Nationalism
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 28, 2008

I take issue with this on two points. Nationalism, Kikuyu or otherwise is an affront to the construction of stable nation states, more so where the states in question are floundering in terms of structure. It is shallow and short sighted to argue otherwise. Consider the implications of strong national identities on Kenya's border regions. In the 70's we endured an irridentist movement from the Somali community seeking to unite the Somali nation - a milder version of the current Kurdish stance in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of dual citizenship? Living in the West? Speaking of the Kurds in Turkey, I'm sure the situation would be a bit easier if Turkey didn't try to suppress kurdish language and culture. They'll always be people who will push for the Kurdish state, no matter what but you give them unnecessary fodder when you try and
suppress cultural links. If any one had any illusions about the effect of just a common language in creating stronger links than whatever the Kenyan statehood can offer, let them learn. The right to language and culture should be a basic common right, if it's not one by now.

There are more Oromo in Ethiopia than there are in Kenya, more Teso in Uganda than in Kenya; not to mention the frequent crossing and counter crossings of the Maasai into Tanzania. If each of these nations sought to assert their identity with as much vigour and conviction as you have advocated here, and then turned around to claim that their primary loyalty was to their nation and not to their country, where would that leave the territorial integrity of East Africa? Should Kenya then hand over North Eastern to Somalia? Northern Eastern province to Ethiopia? Western to Uganda? Southern Rift Valley to Tanzania?

Gikuyu nationlism specifically, IMO, and I can hardly speak for others 'nationalisms' is not about secession. Far from it. In fact I'd even put my money that if it came to protecting Kenyan territorial integrity, we'd be at the fore front. I mean what use is served by the Gikuyu nation not being part of Kenya? We are intertwined and Kenya is a great vehicle. Our destinies are irrevocably linked, just like Samuel Kivuitus fate with Kenya. " If it burns, I'll burn with it......"

Already the remote regions of Kenya are like frontier towns where the rule of law is light on the ground. Should we add to this volatile mix the notion that people's primary loyalty is to their local chief and not to the central administration of the country in question?

Primary loyalty is a very vague concept on which to build a nation (look at the responses here) and it's hardly a one way street where the King bellows and the Subjects follow. A modern state must also do some PR (Economics is a concept that is more tangible and also factually more discernable.) and show why it's more in the interests of folks to stay in rather than out.

Secondly, can a proud Kikuyu be a proud Kenyan? Absolutely, but the main argument - maybe not on this strand but on the other exchanges - is what comes first? You don't pay different taxes for being of a certain nation, you don't (shouldn't) recieve extra police protection or other privileges. In short being of a specific nationality/ethnicity, like love and other equally emotive concepts, does not pay the bills. To take from Kenya on one hand and then relegate the state to tier two loyalty on the other is an insult to the state and literally biting the hand that feeds you. Like I've said, nationalistic ideals are great and romantic, and its wonderful for you to get all warm and fuzzy inside at the notion of random people being close relatives. But its not practical, its not realistic and above all else, it is dangerous.

That's where you are wrong. There are people who get jobs, houses exclusively on tribal affiliations. Hell, if there was one lesson learned from the post election saga is that tribla affiliation is everything. The PNU guys shipped all their help to their Kikuyu affiliates, and the ODM guys to their Luo ones. Not just in Kenya either. A couple of towns that I've been to in Europe have area where only or mostly same ethnicities or nationalities reside. Birds of a feather flock together. The state cannot assume dictatorial role over the tribes, which for all intents are older entities and have much stronger cultural state. If it demands that then it will probably self-destruct. Who demands anything any more anyway? Parents can't demand anything from their children and if they try vibokos like back in they'll end up in jail for child abuse. A parent must no convince and use soft punishments. Spare the rod and spoil the Child indeed.

re:
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 28, 2008

What i have a beef with is those who are
insisting that your commitment should be to your tribe first, NOT your country!

Who's insisting? Not Njoroge Matathia, all he said was his, Njoroge Matathias, primary Identity is the Gikuyu nation. Not Keguro. He has not insisted that anyone be anything. Not Me as far as I can recall but correct if I'm wrong.
I'm personally very democratic about it, each should pick their loyalties as best as they see them.

As far as I'm concerned it can be the Arsenal football club if it most represents who you are.

If you are looking to build that nation, you'll have to look elsewhere other than loyalty. History is not on your side. Not now, not at independence. Do we have to be members of the 700 club?

They even gloat that it has not worked for 45 years and there is therefore no further use in pursuing the idea. I say: So bloody what?!! Does it mean that you give up? That is just cowardly and unpatriotic, a disease that afflicts a great number of those who claim Kenyan citizenship.

If I have alluded anywhere that someone should cease in pursuit of what is essentially a noble goal, then my apologies. My opinion is just to restructure the system so that it works better for all of us no matter where their primary identities or loyalties lie. I have said that it would be better to go from the assertion that we are nation out of 45 nations in doing this. From the article I posted above an evergreen in Kenyan politics, even before independence. To summarize, if the system aint working for you change it. It's needless to lose lives and property every 5 years out of stubbornness.

Many Kenyans, including some on KI, have given up the idea of us being one Nation, and are victims of Kenya's avaricious political class, which has in turn given rise to the same culture amongst the population.

Not me personally. Just saying the nation has to accommodate the tribe as best as possible. That would lead to a lot of diffusion of tensions.

Instead of trying to understand this circumstance, the reaction is to retreat into various tribal cocoons as a solution, PRECISELY what the political hyena in our midst desires in order to continue destroying the country's nationalist fabric while looting it blind.

I understand the circumstances completely and it can be reduced to this two themes. Equitable distribution of resources and Ancestral land rights and historical injustices. Certainly having a long heart to heart about what those two things exactly mean and what solution is will propel the nation of Kenya much further forward than standing attention and singing Ee Mungu Nguvu Yetu.....

The political hyena has no effect on me. I'm my own person.

ODM can be faulted on several faults, but they can't be faulted for hitting the jack pot with their themes well. They in turn offer horrible not really well thought out solutions that do look good in paper though.

re: re: Nationalism
written by joe , March 28, 2008

can a proud Kikuyu be a proud Kenyan? Absolutely, but the main argument - maybe not on this strand but on the other exchanges - is what comes first? You don't pay different taxes for being of a certain nation, you don't (shouldn't) receive extra police protection or other privileges. In short being of a specific nationality/ethnicity, like love and other equally emotive concepts, does not pay the bills. To take from Kenya on one hand and then relegate the state to tier two loyalty on the other is an insult to the state and literally biting the hand that feeds you. Like I've said, nationalistic ideals are great and romantic, and its wonderful for you to get all warm and fuzzy inside at the notion of random people being close relatives. But its not practical, its not realistic and above all else, it is dangerous.

I know i am accustomed to feeling all fuzzy inside especially being related to a superb mind like Keguro's ,but don't you think that this so called dangerous idea is one that We members of "the house"/Lesotho have to resolve for ourselves.If Keguro, Mwangi Mwihaki or myself pledge our loyalty to tribe then nation what is wrong with that.Isn't freedom of association guaranteed within the laws of natural justice.Does it really matter which I pledge to first as long as I am a good citizen and a good tribes man or woman.The only dangerous thing about this are the limits we are trying to place on each other.If you don't want your tribe let those who want theirs have it.

I am sure Keguro wasn't taking as far as I am but hey its a free country

Nationalism
written by joe , March 28, 2008

Kikuyu nationalism is not a threat to Kenya. We can be many nations in one. I don't understand how you can read what Keguro is saying and get it all twisted. Something is very wrong with the intellectual capacity of Kenyans. I have tangled with Keguro before on other issues but to read that he is now a right wing conspirator now thats funny. Read the article again with an open mind and heart if you want replace Kikuyu with your own ethnic identity.

Kikuyu Nationalism is here to stay. The way we react to it will determine how it affects us all. When people refuse to reason they give extremists the ammunition to take over a cause. A proud Kikuyu can be a proud Kenyan its that simple.

Joe, no one has called Keguro a "neo-con"; please stop trolling. Eds.

En, clara vox redarguit...!
written by aeichener , March 28, 2008

Shiro's posting was, I must express this my heartfelt impression, one of the very best and soundest comments, in a thread not devoid of many thoughtful (and some acrimonious and venemous) contributions. Thus my hymnally praising subject header.

Are we saying being Kenyan is mutually exclusive to being of "whatever" tribe? So the two cannot coexist? A Kenyan cannot appreciate the culture endowed by their tribe and also be a productive member of the Kenyan society? So, we must denounce our tribe to peacefully coexist with others? Are some advocating that a homogenous Kenya is the answer?

Yes, some here say so indeed. They may be well-meaning (at least superficially so, and they certainly tell themselves that they only mean well and are righteous), but they seem stuck in a mistaken, very narrow interpretation of the nation state. A nation state that is defined by little more of commonality than by waving and bearing a flag, saluting a certain national anthem (and booing at another), maybe by a joint ideology if there were one, and by denouncing all other kinds of affiliations, traditioins, roots, emotional attachments. I do not think that such a Kulturkampf or sécularisme mentality can help Kenya much in this moment, though. It will not help to denounce any regionalist as a Traitor Against tThe State, in best stalinist mentality, just as it will not help to cane pupils and students who dare speak their lowly vernacular, instead of embracing The Language of The State, and only that.

In fact, the factual negation of Kenya's multi-ethnicity by the spectre of the "official" state (an officialdom defined by peculiar English, and by clumsy Kiswahili in Kibaki-style), the neglect of native and primary language education (primary - oh the ever-dreaded word!), these shortcomings are what may rather endanger the frail jumelage of The Kenya Colony and The Protectorate, together with a few later-amassed border territories.

A nation can be defined by a joint history, but the Republic of Kenya has none to speak of; she and her peoples have many histories, parts of them shared, parts not, parts even averse.

A nation can be defined by a joint language and culture, but sheng and matatu hooliganism do neither constitute the one, nor the other. And neither does the quaffing of Tusker (that national excuse in lieu of a good beer), nor the munching of the well-received colonial white men's import (!) called "ugali".

A nation can be defined by an imposed and ordained ideology, be it an ideology of politics or of race (both dangerous, very very dangerous, and murderous: see the Franch Revolution, see Htler, see Stalin, see Mao, see Pol Pot). All of ideology that Kenya ever had was the word "harambee", and only old people (over 60) will remember that it once, in the distant mist of time, was something inspiring and honourable, and not the sight of a pot-bellied politician forced to draw out his checkbook and pay upfront, in order to coax others.

People who use tribe to destroy and kill will find another label even when you take the tribe one away.

This is compellingly true. One could try to save at least a part of the original critical admonitions, by stating that public assertion of tribe has become a dangerous thing (at least when the state is s weak and cowardly as it presently shows itself to be), and it is indeed not advisable to stroll through a gunpowder factory with a burning torch, but I have not seen any of such trolling or hate-mongering here. The editors, resp. the former editors, have seen after that, in notable contrast to many other Kenyan online venues.

Please let's talk about the source of the problem. The prescription by some on this board is to abandon tribal cultures because of those who have taken advantage of political ignorance and used it to kill, destroy and advance their political agendas.

Exactly that was the prescription - various times repeated and defended by its followers against the imminent challenges, so the above picture is indeed not a misinterpretation of yours, but a truthful rendering -, and exactly with this prescription I soundly disagree.

One must not feel forced to stop appreciating their tribal culture to be nationalistic. I believe both can coexist in peace. You can embrace different cultures and tribes while you enjoy your own.

Yet, there are those who do not believe it is possible. I sense a narrow and spiritual Kulturkampf attitude at the ground of their position.
One does not NEED to have such ethnic ("tribal") rooting to be a good Kenyan, absolutely not. Exempli gratia, the late Imre Loeffler - may he now be seeing the eternal glory of the Lord - was far more of a Kenyan, and a far, far better Kenyan patriot than 99,5 % of all black "indigenous" Kenyans. Though his roots and his heritage definitely were not here.

You don't need to divorce your tribe to be a moral and decent Kenyan national. You can be proud of both.

Let us take up a word that was contested in some postings upwards in this stream of consciousnesses. The word was "to transcend". To transcend tribe, properly used, does not entail to despise, to refuse, to abnegate, to jettison tribe. To transcend it, means: that one's ethnic roots, language, shared histories, affiliations, even loyalties if there were, that they be embraced and encompassed within a higher and less fettered, less limited order. Just as to "transcend reason" does not mean to become a dunce, does not mean to abdicate to logic and stringency. It means to open a venue to grater reality that is more than just mere reason. Fides quaerens intellectum.

This my last citing allusion (to Anselm of Canterbury) also serves to underline that tribe has a place, an important place, within the framework of national identity. I shall cease, fittingly, with a metaphor, namely with a quoted prayer that those of us who have prayed the Liturgy of the Hours must have spoken countless time:
"The stone whom the builders despised, it has become the corner-stone."

May the paschal jopy of the resurrected Lord be with you. And for the otherly faithful ;-), just enjoy commencing spring now.

The key is to find a way to render tribal politics irrelevant. When the politics of tribal identity are neutralized, it will be easier to embrace our tribal uniqueness and diversity. It will not be a threat to be proud of who you are in totality.

Brilliant, Shiro!

I refuse to allow those who have used tribe to create division and hatred to go a step further and force us to divorce our tribes in the pretense that is the solution to our problem. We are already imprisoned in tribal-phobic cages, and that's not because of the fact that we have so many tribes, it's because we misuse and abuse tribe when it suits us. The problem isn't the tribe; it's what we do with tribe!!!

A-men.

Alexander
(mixed and not belonging to any specific tribe, either)

Projectionism running rampant
written by aeichener , March 28, 2008

Politicalscientist, I am afriad that you really did not pay any attention at all to what Johnny actually wrote, instead of what he think he *should* have written in order to be duly impeachable. "He is a Kikuyu, so he can only have written and stated this-and-that, so I do not have to even read what he stated." No no; not so.

All the quacking about alleged primary loyalty and primary (even exclusionary) commitment, and similar charge of Divisive Unpatriotism (doubleplusungood!), are just little straw puppets that you have built in effigie; made from straws that were leftover from the last arsons. Since you made it in the first place, you may of course feel to burn such a straw puppet subsequently, but then please be aware that such intellectual voodooism neither makes you an Erzulie, nor does it even remotely do justice to the differentiated discussion above.

Alexander
(not a Kyuk, not a Jeng, not a kaburu, not a nigger...)

re: re: re: Nationalism
written by politicalscientist , March 28, 2008

Primary loyalty is a very vague concept on which to build a nation (look at the responses here) and it's hardly a one way street where the King bellows and the Subjects follow. A modern state must also do some PR (Economics is a concept that is more tangible and also factually more discernable.) and show why it's more in the interests of folks to stay in rather than out.

That's where you are wrong. There are people who get jobs, houses exclusively on tribal affiliations. Hell, if there was one lesson learned from the post election saga is that tribla affiliation is everything. The PNU guys shipped all their help to their Kikuyu affiliates, and the ODM guys to their Luo ones. Not just in Kenya either. A couple of towns that I've been to in Europe have area where only or mostly same ethnicities or nationalities reside. Birds of a feather flock together. The state cannot assume dictatorial role over the tribes, which for all intents are older entities and have much stronger cultural state. If it demands that then it will probably self-destruct. Who demands anything any more anyway? Parents can't demand anything from their children and if they try vibokos like back in they'll end up in jail for child abuse. A parent must no convince and use soft punishments. Spare the rod and spoil the Child indeed.

Johnny, I believe what you have just described in this last paragraph is called tribalism, or its derivative nepotism. And it is the bane of the existance of the nation of Kenya, and other nations where ethnic loyalties take precedence over national or other considerations.

Furthermore, and I say this with all due respect, the fact that regardless of how many openings I have given with respect to introducing other ethnic identities to the debate, your response still remains focused on the Kikuyu Identity and the Kikuyu nationality speaks to a certain closed-mindedness on your part. Which is my, and I would think a few other people's, issue with this. You're understanding of ethnicity and its effects on the national psyche is based almost entirely from your standing as a member of the largest group in the country. You have the privilege of size, proximity to the capital etc and things that you view as opportunities that smaller communities may view as a threat. Your inability to emphathise is a problem, because where people disagree with you it comes across as a threat and not a genuine grievance, and this is the problem with politics in Kenya today. That a young educated, and I assume middle class Kenyan, can argue for tribalism without batting an eyelid.

Sad
written by mkosakabila , March 28, 2008

A very sad article indeed.
God bless Kenya.
Where I am standing from today, right now, people are too scared to even mention their second names.
Live with that!

re: Projectionism running ramp
written by politicalscientist , March 28, 2008

Politicalscientist, I am afriad that you really did not pay any attention at all to what Johnny actually wrote, instead of what he think he *should* have written in order to be duly impeachable. "He is a Kikuyu, so he can only have written and stated this-and-that, so I do not have to even read what he stated." No no; not so.

All the quacking about alleged primary loyalty and primary (even exclusionary) commitment, and similar charge of Divisive Unpatriotism (doubleplusungood!), are just little straw puppets that you have built in effigie; made from straws that were leftover from the last arsons. Since you made it in the first place, you may of course feel to burn such a straw puppet subsequently, but then please be aware that such intellectual voodooism neither makes you an Erzulie, nor does it even remotely do justice to the differentiated discussion above.

Alexander
(not a Kyuk, not a Jeng, not a kaburu, not a n****r...)

If I had the foggiest idea what you were on about I would respond. Lets not be pretentious about this whole debate which from where I'm standing is one of the most important questions that we as a nation have to address to determine the course of our future.

And as for the last statement, je ne peux pas - ou bien, je ne veux pas - vous disputer au sujet de quoi vous tes, seulement que vous dites.

Projectionism running rampant
written by aeichener , March 28, 2008

And as for the last statement, je ne peux pas - ou bien, je ne veux pas - vous disputer au sujet de quoi vous tes, seulement que vous dites.

But that exactly - indeed - is the crucial problem of communication within this entire thread.

That's why I had countered you. Because you - as well as many others - did not follow this rule. I am nevertheless relieved that this rule at least is formally recognized, though not abided. Thanks for the former half.

Alexander

re: re: re: re: Nationalism
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 28, 2008

Johnny, I believe what you have just described in this last paragraph is called tribalism, or its derivative nepotism. And it is the bane of the existence of the nation of Kenya, and other nations where ethnic loyalties take precedence over national or other considerations.

What I described was the reality of the Kenyan nation. Just like in any other nation with multi ethnic make up, there exists what is known in the west parallel societies.

Take the life of the Pakistani community in Britain for example. I'm almost sure that they are a close bunch that they watch out for their own when it comes to getting jobs, housing etc. That they even probably have several organizations which bring Pakistanis together in England and eventually world wide.

Take the Indonesians in Germany or the Koreans. A very well organized group who pray together, hold festivals every other time and watch out for each other when it comes to looking for jobs, houses. Take the Kenyan community in Germany. Relatively poorly organized but still if I I was told of a job somewhere the first people who'd come into my head were my Kenyan brethren.In countries where ethnicity doesn't play such a big role, then regionalism plays a big role. You watch out for the folks you grew up with, they introduce you to other folks who grew up around the same place. Trying to dictate Human relationships so as to fester nationalism is mighty dangerous.

And so it is for the Kenyan communities.People have dual citizenship in Kenya and that is a fact.

People live in Nairobi and when they need a maid where do they look? They call a few folks up country. Should they now be compelled to look around the slums surrounding most of our estates and fish out those not of their tribe to be able to fully embrace the Kenyan spirit? When a young man travels to Nairobi, where does he go. To so and so from the same village, who looks after them and makes sure they get their leg up in the City. There are a lot of people employed in the informal sector. And this is one huge avenue of how people get jobs. Is this now Evil?

Without the Existence of this bonds would Kenya now be a first world country? Should we now tell folks to shun their families and close friends so as not to perpetuate tribalism? Should they now not help their family and friends back home so as to maintain a nationalistic veneer? Being from a tribe probably means a big circle of your family are of your tribe. Should we now be asked to place country before family too? And finally country before self too. Definitely if you hire someone
because they are from your family and they are not in the least qualified to do a job then you are mostly harming yourself. And yet in another thread they were lamenting why we don't have family ran businesses and how family ran businesses helped China grow. The Irony.

What are the general concerns of the city folk? My fathers generation? That the school back at home is well stocked, that they do a harambee to buy books, that, that they build that classroom? And who are all the contributers at this function? Other people who are probably from the same village.

It's actually possible to do so. You can just tie it to the licensing process. An average Matatu only has 3 people so I don't know how you'd cover 42 tribes. The other way of doing it, if you accept that people have an inclination to hire from their own tribes, is to make sure so many matatus are owned by Kikuyus, so many by Luos, so many by Kambas etc. Institutionalizing TRIBE basically. You'll be starting to introduce serious quotas into a free market economy. You'd probably get in a situation where a Kenyan can't buy a matatu, or a house or own a shop because all the Kikuyu slots are taken or all the Kamba slots are taken. What then happens to his right to own property and transact in any part of the country? Reminds me of the story of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem being turned away from every other inn because there was no room. You'll also be creating slowly but surely an army of very disgruntled individuals, who could form a tidal wave bigger than anything Kenya can handle.

There is another circle of friends created by people of my generation. It is that formed while attending school in Nairobi. It is multi-ethnic. It is even in my case multi-national. So when I was desperately looking for a place to stay in Germany who helped me out? My Luo friend. And when an opening for a job came up who was the first person I called? him. Were there no other Kikuyus living in that town needing jobs?
There were. Plenty. Is this man who helped me in my hour of need a very very close friend. 100%. If I were to start a business now who would probably be my partner, my kisii friend because we've traded ideas ever so often.

Thus there are bonds parallel to the tribal ones that exist, that have been nurtured, in the school settings, in the estates in urban work places, in government offices of the few cosmopolitan towns we have and between those who've gone to strange and foreign lands. IMO both bonds need to run and they'll run concurrently for as long as tribes exist. Their percentages will vary over time though.

So a way to ensure less that ethnicity plays a lesser role in day to day dealings is more urbanization, more ethnically mixed settings. So instead of getting a maid from my village, a work colleague from another tribe might just know someone from her village. A friend of my fathers from a different tribe might invite me to go for a harambee for his former school in his own village or to contribute towards his son who is going for further studies in the US or all the folks who went to Lenana High School for example will get together to raise funds to buy books for that schools library. Unlike my father, I'll probably be more attached to the schools I went to here in Nairobi which didn't know any Tribe. Those are also parallel networks that exist in our society, so I might get a job not because my friend is from the same tribe as me, but I'll be favoured because we went to the same school, grew up in the same estate, played marbles together. Is that also nepotism? Should it be killed too?

Furthermore, and I say this with all due respect, the fact that regardless of how many openings I have given with respect to introducing other ethnic identities to the debate, your response still remains focused on the Kikuyu Identity and the Kikuyu nationality speaks to a certain closed-mindedness on your part. Which is my, and I would think a few other people's, issue with this. You're understanding of ethnicity and its effects on the national psyche is based almost entirely from your standing as a member of the largest group in the country. You have the privilege of size, proximity to the capital etc and things that you view as opportunities that smaller communities may view as a threat. Your inability to emphathise is a problem, because where people disagree with you it comes across as a threat and not a genuine grievance, and this is the problem with politics in Kenya today. That a young educated, and I assume middle class Kenyan, can argue for tribalism without batting an eyelid.

You are getting very personal, but haidhuru. You've introduced arguments that were flawed and I showed you why they were flawed. The Kurds are suppressed in Turkey, I assume by people who follow your line of thought that's why secessionism is so strong there. If allowed to have more of their culture then there will still be secessionists but ther will also people who'll say we hacve a good thing going there, I think we are better off staying.

I said that banking on something you can't govern is flawed, I offered something more tangible, more quantifiable, more grounded on facts like economics. Where does Kikuyu nationalism figure in all these, I wonder? When I call on anti-Kikuyu slogans like deciphering what equitable distribution of resources means? When I say anti-Kikuyu stuff like we have to have a serious discussion on what is meant by ancestral land rights. When I've been persistently been argued that I am pro-ODM who have been revealed to be Anti-Kikuyu on this very site? Wanyama alone has written volumes on that topic.

I'm personally very aware of who I am. I know what I will do and what I won't do in most normal day to day situations. I'm I proud of my cultural heritage? Absolutely and I offer no apologies for that and neither should anyone. Do I place it top of the ladder when it comes to identification. Yes. And I've said why. Does that now mean that armed with this knowledge people like you political scientist, Waweru and Amir Ibrahim can now decipher exactly who I am, what all my actions would be. Not even Freud would show such an audacity.

I have not argued for tribalism. I have argued that Tribe as an integral and identifiable unit of the Nation of Kenya has to be considered when designing the new Kenyan nation. I've said that the new nation has to be grounded on facts , which IMO will give time and space for all and any other identities to emerge.

I'm sympathetic to your opinions but this personal attacks do not sit you well.

re: re: re: re: re: Nationalis
written by politicalscientist , March 28, 2008

I'm sympathetic to your opinions but this personal attacks do not sit you well.

Was there a personal attack in my message? It was not my intention. After a series of defensive responses I felt that it was time to go on the offensive and put something else out there for people to debate - would your understanding of ethnicity be different if you weren't a member of the largest tribe in the country? I'm not one to tread on eggshells and from where I was standing it was the big Central province shaped elephant in the room. Apologies for the tone, not the content.

Kibakinomics
written by James Watt , March 29, 2008

Whoa! This topic has grown into a monster!

Allow me then to define tribe in todays Kenyan context. A socio-economic-political entity tied together by a common language, cultural heritage and history.

Johnny in his illustration above has crystallized two kinds of bonds that exist and that run concurrently. Ethnic links ( Mr. Ndegwa in his IMO excellent article, puts it even better. A must read for any person debating on this topic)and interethnic links formed especially in urban centres through schools, estates and work places.

Unlike his detractors he offers clear path of enhancing interethnic links nurtured in schools, estates and work places without affecting freedom of association which includes who your friends, who your family is or even who you choose to employ (there are limits though and these will be governed by the size of the enterprise and its location).

This have run and will continue to run concurrently in our nation. I'm also sure there are more networks outside this two. I do however believe successive generations, the links nurtured especially in secondary schools where especially the boarding experience provides something akin to an initiation of yester years inter ethnic links are becoming more frequent and just as strong as the ethno-regional ones as our nation progresses.

Johnny touches on the Matatu industry which in Nairobi is dominated by Kikuyus. The matatu industry is a private enterprise with one private person employing no more than 4 people. That there is a high probability that they are all his tribes mate is obvious. The job is very informal and requires relatively little training.

The same goes for shops employing no more than 3-4 people. In their accumulation though this can add up to a lot of folks. The solution is not to to kill this bonds which are really the most natural but to promote entrepreneurship as well as creating other forms of employment. The government alone should be actually have jobs for up to 1 000 000 (teachers, police men, soldiers and civil servants) people and a government must be compelled to observe gender and ethnic balance in its policies, and here I differ completely with Manta Ray.

This guy or gal here offers the way http://www.tengeza.blogspot.com]public transport can be organized into a public owned company and thus take into from the realm of small enterprise. The proposal though would reduce the workforce by my rough estimation to about 10% of what it is now.

in re PS
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 29, 2008

politicalscientist,

Furthermore, and I say this with all due respect, the fact that regardless of how many openings I have given with respect to introducing other ethnic identities to the debate, your response still remains focused on the Kikuyu Identity and the Kikuyu nationality speaks to a certain closed-mindedness on your part. Which is my, and I would think a few other people's, issue with this. You're understanding of ethnicity and its effects on the national psyche is based almost entirely from your standing as a member of the largest group in the country. You have the privilege of size, proximity to the capital etc and things that you view as opportunities that smaller communities may view as a threat. Your inability to emphathise is a problem, because where people disagree with you it comes across as a threat and not a genuine grievance, and this is the problem with politics in Kenya today. That a young educated, and I assume middle class Kenyan, can argue for tribalism without batting an eyelid.

Was there a personal attack in my message? It was not my intention. After a series of defensive responses I felt that it was time to go on the offensive and put something else out there for people to debate - would your understanding of ethnicity be different if you weren't a member of the largest tribe in the country? I'm not one to tread on eggshells and from where I was standing it was the big Central province shaped elephant in the room. Apologies for the tone, not the content.

Well, I think the question was wildly disingenuous.

You appear to believe that identifying with the largest ethnic group in the country brings with it a certain responsibility. So, for example, a Gikuyu ought not to overtly identify with the Agikuyu, in public or in private, since doing so might intimidate or otherwise make uncomfortable those who identify with other ethnicities. That's certainly a position worth thinking about, and one I have some sympathy for. So, for example, I found Uhuru's speaking Gikuyu at the opening of parliament grating.

But consider these facts.

(1) A girl I know lived in Kisumu; her mother was Luo and her father Gikuyu. She was born in Nyanza, lived all her life there, considered herself Luo, and had a child with a Luo friend of mine; she spoke Dholuo perfectly well, and Gikuyu not at all well. She was assaulted and beheaded after the election, because her last name indicated Gikuyu descent.

(2) Or Fidelis Wainaina's story. She spent 15 years helping small-scale farmers in Nyanza. After the election, she was expelled; two of her aunts in Nakuru were burnt to death in their houses, by people they had gone to church with. She died of cancer soon after.

(3) ODM's MPs released a statement offering Agikuyu the following choice:

If there is any community in Kenya unwilling to co-exist with other Kenyans in a manner that reflects the popular will of Kenyans; then that community is at liberty to exercise the principle of self-determination as is well-enunciated in the U.N. Charter and other international legal instruments," the statement said.

or, as Najib Balala recommended in less high-flown language, the Agikuyu ought to be confined to a Bantustan of their own.

Both the high and the low politics of ODM are violently hostile to Agikuyu as such; that hostility has led to violent death and displacement for rather a large number of people.

It is right to show solidarity with those treated unjustly because of the Gikuyu identity they bear. Note, for example, that Eichener, Ibrahim, Ogot, Opoti, Oyudo and Wanyama among others have done so; indeed, Oyudo claimed we were all Kikuyus now. Gikuyu people have also shown solidarity with the victims, by overtly identifying with the Gikuyuness they share with them. Suppose there's an obligation not to overtly identify with Gikuyuness in the presence of members of other ethnicities. Does that obligation survive the aftermath of these events? No. To show solidarity with those unjustly accused is a superior value to avoiding offence.

The only argument worth having is over the nature of this idenitification. As I've argued here and elsewhere, it is a bad idea to to identify primarily with one's ethnicity. And it would be a very bad idea for Gikuyu to identify with Gikuyuness in a way that excluded those -- such as Eichener, Ogot, Opoti, Oyudo, Wanyama, and many others -- who've shown solidarity with them at this difficult time. But that is quite compatible with identifying -- even overtly -- as a Gikuyu.

Why do I accuse you of disingenuity? The events mentioned earlier, or similar, were, or ought to have been known to you; they don't appear to have entered your consideration. Aichener is vindicated.

too wordy
written by joe , March 29, 2008

This debate has become so flowery.Lets review a pre and post keguro debate -Kikuyu nationalism is here ,kikuyu nationalism is still here.Beautiful use of the english language i must say .Our English teachers Ms Masime and Mrs Mwangi would be proud

...
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 29, 2008

He is hardly vindicated, he bats for and defends the new hate-mongers, those who even if we must sympathise with for the injury and loss they feel at this moment, choose to spit on the Kenyan people with the Gikuyu as primary identity spiel. On another thread, Amollous spoke in similar reverence about her Luo identity and was met with just as much resistance. When signs went up in the Rift Valley proclaiming a fresh republic they were met with similar passion, and we were all devastated that the military could not be called upon to defend Kenyans because they decided like some here to defend their primary identity- to be wedded to the local, idiosyncratic idea of the so many clans of the 'people of the milk', and not their Kenyan one. In case we have forgotten, the very same cultural and political reel was played in the Rift Valley, to vigorous effect. Lest we forget, the Mungiki started in much the same fashion, as an assertion of cultural identity.

It is a good diversionary tactic to make this about the Gikuyu, but all the posters, whether Gikuyu or not, who have rejected the primacy of ethnic identity say only one thing, that to build a cohesive and harmonious Kenya, especially given our history of tribalism, we must put aside the idea that our primary allegiance -allegiance Keguro's word not mine- is to our ethnicity, it is clear that this idea is rotten and even though we must sympathise with the events that have brought it around, and justified it to properly middle-class educated Kenyans, it is our duty, every Kenyans duty, to resist it and not to encourage or defend it, or go so far as to malign its opponents as others would.

Yet people so divorced from reality as some of the posters on this site are claiming to know Kenya better than those who came face to face with the devil and marched through hell.

We marched with you James Watt, and we will march with you again. Will you march with us, that is the question.

And Manta if you want to advocate for your model Kikuyuness, the good Kikuyu who is so Kenyanised, switch camp and go over to the ODM camp.

A sad and sorry attack, most people of good conscience rejected the ODM, some of them happened to be Gikuyu, big deal. Not everyone is a tribalist like you. Universal rights for every Kenyan citizen and equal access, those must remain our goals, even if the present reality indicates that this sometimes remains an aspiration. When a Gikuyu bleeds I bleed, when a Luo dies I die with him, hell many of us do not know, I do not have a single Bukusu friend!

...
written by politicalscientist , March 29, 2008

Do you know what's disingenous? For people to pretend that the size of the community that one is from has no influence whatsoever on their perspective on the issue of tribal relations. Look, read what you will into my comments, heaven knows that's been the general trend here, but until we come face to face with the whole ugly truth of ethnic relations in our country then we're going to be stuck doing exactly what we've been doing for the last 102 posts - going round and round in circles.

The fact is coming from the largest community offers a certain sense of security, regardless of what way you decide to go - pro or con nationalistic identities. And that sense of security can afford you the luxury of a sense of pride, understanding or whatever that people from a smaller community do not have. A sense that may give you the confidence to make insinuations like the ones Johnny made in the name of national pride, which smacks of arrogance to people who may not have that same sense of security. Just like being white tints a persons perspective on racism, even if they themselves may not be racist. You get the people who are so afraid of causing offence that they never use the word black, or African in the company of black people, for fear of causing "offence" and you get the people who are just blatant racists. All reactions that you will not get with black people because a black person calling a black person black is no more offensive than a woman calling another woman a woman. Its like suggesting that being the prettiest girl in school has no influence whatsoever on how the boys treat you, which anyone whose ever been to high school will tell you is not true. Its not revolutionary, its not nuclear physics, its psychology 101.

The level of hypocrisy in the responses to my comments is ridiculous. So Johnny B Goode can defend people getting jobs on the basis of tribe and I get censured for pointing out that this is tribalist but when the cabinet does the same thing we all beat our chests in sorrow and criticise the government for ...what? Doing exactly the same thing? Its ok to talk about the fluff stuff but heaven forbid someone should hold up a mirror and shine a spotlight on the ugly bits of our society, the bits that led our country to the hell hole that it was in for the last few months - oh no, lets deal with it the Kenyan way and pretend that nothing was wrong to begin with, or point fingers at a convinient scapegoat - the politicians, rather than look at what we as individuals did to make things turn out the way they did.

I choose to believe that those that responded did not read my comments in full or in context, or have never read any of my other comments to catch a drift of the kind of person that I am. Or maybe its just the sign of the times that we're all baying for someone's blood and its my turn to play scapegoat. I suggest read what Johnny wrote, and then read what I wrote before you sharpen your stakes.

In re:politicalscientist
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 30, 2008

politicalscientist,

The fact is coming from the largest community offers a certain sense of security, regardless of what way you decide to go - pro or con nationalistic identities. And that sense of security can afford you the luxury of a sense of pride, understanding or whatever that people from a smaller community do not have. A sense that may give you the confidence to make insinuations like the ones Johnny made in the name of national pride, which smacks of arrogance to people who may not have that same sense of security. Just like being white tints a persons perspective on racism, even if they themselves may not be racist. You get the people who are so afraid of causing offence that they never use the word black, or African in the company of black people, for fear of causing "offence" and you get the people who are just blatant racists. All reactions that you will not get with black people because a black person calling a black person black is no more offensive than a woman calling another woman a woman. Its like suggesting that being the prettiest girl in school has no influence whatsoever on how the boys treat you, which anyone whose ever been to high school will tell you is not true. Its not revolutionary, its not nuclear physics, its psychology 101.

You claim that identifying with other than the numerically-dominant ethnic group leads to insecurity; the example you give attributes insecurity to a member of the dominant ethnic group. It's not easy to see how this helps your case. But you're right to point out that coming from the largest -- or a large -- community certainly can make one's identification with one's ethnicity more secure. Without further argument, it doesn't quite follow that all those who do identify with the largest group ought to be sensitive to the concerns of those who identify with other ethnicities.

There is, all the same, a good case to be made that those who know that they belong to the (in the relevant sense) largest (or a large) ethnic group have an obligation to be sensitive to the feelings of those outside their group. A friend of mine once advised relatives of hers not to give their child a Luo baptismal name. Instead, she recommended what seemed to me to be an absurdly English one. I was slightly annoyed, and even mildly contemptuous: didn't she realise it's now OK to give kids African baptismal names? Patiently, she explained that her sister had been brutally bullied at school for her Luo names; she didn't want anyone else to go through that. It was horrifying and painful to recall that I had teased a boy at my school for much the same reason: thoughtless cruelty, but eased by the fact that there were fewer Luo than Gikuyu kids. That was quite the learning moment. No doubt thousands of similar things happen. In a country like Kenya, ethnicity matters. It is reasonable to think that members of the larger ethnic groups ought to be extra-sensitive sensitive to the feelings of those who aren't.

But even if we grant the point, it doesn't follow that any identification with one's ethnicity -- even if one is a member of a numerically-dominant group -- is, or ought to be a threat to others. And that because, even if you have correctly identified the obligation you claim to, there's no reason to think that it has superior force to the one I picked out.

...
written by manta ray , March 30, 2008

Stephen wrote:

Universal rights for every Kenyan citizen and equal access, those must remain our goals, even if the present reality indicates that this sometimes remains an aspiration. When a Gikuyu bleeds I bleed, when a Luo dies I die with him, hell many of us do not know, I do not have a single Bukusu friend!

Political scientist wrote that coming from a large tribe like the Kikuyu gives a sense of security to anyone coming from the said community. That may or may not be true, but it is in fact a false sense of security as so poignantly and vividly demonstrated by the ODM supporting Kalenjin "warriors" from the Rift Valley in the immediate aftermath of the General Election and in the run up to it in Molo, Kuresoi and so on. One may therefore be as arrogant as they like in the aspect of having big numbers, but it is only a very foolish Kikuyu who can think that there is safety in numbers when your kinsmen are scattered all over the country, meaning that when the killers mean to come for you, they will eventually, whether you like it or not.
Kikuyu safety, and every other Kenyan's safety, will only be guaranteed if we aspire to goals as described by Stephen above. There are those who claim that this cannot be achieved given Kenyans and their attachments and affinity to so called tribal culture, which is just nonsense and an excuse to practice bigotry because it is easy and is the familiar way of doing things.
I lived in Tanzania for a whole year and not once did i hear the issue of tribe in political discussions. As a matter of fact, Tanzanians find it perplexing that we are so obsessed with tribe and tribalism. The issue of tribe never crops up during Presidential elections unlike in Kenya, regardless of their 120 ethnic groups. If Tanzanians can achieve National cohesion irrespective of ethnicity, why can't Kenyans do the same?

A long time ago ...
written by Ernest Maina , March 30, 2008

I read the debate and remember...

When JM Kariuki died I was still in primary school. I only understood that he had been murdered brutally. I did not understand why he was so famous and wildly popular.

I have since learnt there is a lot to learn from him as we elect to "personally" elevate our ethnic affiliation to supremacy identity. I have learnt that lot of sins have been committed in the name of ethnic primacy long before any crooks in one community lifted a panga against another for the same reasons. Enough to wonder what took so long for strife to happen. Sins by the elite crooks who surely knew the true value a strong cohesive Nation as they are supposed have "fought" for it a little over a decade earlier, when JM Kariuki made very memorable speeches in parliament.

Could it be that "Elite ethnic primacy + Elite crooks" is what failed us for ages. So much so that, eventually, we get recurrent "snapshots" as pain as the "others" are unable to hold it inside. Pain slowly trickling up from the grassroots, telling us the Nation wont just happen automatically.

I wonder why ugly reality keeps messing with our right to limit boundaries of "free" goodwill, this warm and fuzzy tribal feeling.

...
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 30, 2008

Waweru, I really do not know where you are going with this. . To pick on PoliticalScientist, when there are odious ideas floating around, for something you in the end agree with seems to me quite odd, and given that she is being attacked for what she has not even said, quite unfair even.

It really is all about context, these assertions of group solidarity and pride. When a Kenyan after what we have just been through declares that having surveyed all that is around him, he finds that in spite of all the inherent disadvantages he would much rather ally himself with those of his ethnicity (please please these are his words not mine). He is writing in a period of intense political competition for political power and no it would naive, even foolish to read his article without taking that into consideration.

Do numbers count? Of course they do, and that is why these sentiments are so selfish, they do not as previous posters have shown, take into account even the welfare of Gikuyu people whose well-being depends on the Kenyan nation, for example those scattered across the country. These sentiments confirm (and that is why they are so odious) the position pushed by the ODM at the last election, and even after that, namely, that the Gikuyu constitute a separate entity than the Kenyan people, one with different malevolent interests, and one which prospers as other Kenyans wither.

I know you do not subscribe to these ideas, and this is why even as we insist that we are all Kenyans and equal, it also behoves us to be sensitive to the situation of other Kenyans. When Gikuyu are under attack, then must we rally behind them, and similar sensitivity on the part of the Gikuyu is not too much to ask for. PoliticalScientist is not the problem, plenty odious views flying about unchallenged.

re:
written by James Watt , March 30, 2008

You would be in great company for sure, including Wanyeki and Kiai.

Easy now, Kiai and Wanyeki are the true citizens of Kenya. They are the Anti-Tribe. They are like Stephen Wanyama. No shades of grey, just black and white. And in these case they are white. Completely embracing it and loving it. Kiai goes so far in espousing the principles you proclaim, that he denies that any ethnic cleansing took place at all.

It works they embraced him in Kisumu although they almost lynched him in Eldoret. You can't win. They do this for the good of all Kenyans of course. Put them on every poster that says my tribe is Kenyan, you'll get no better 2 specimina for it.

(We would like to know why you so easily equate Lynne Muthoni Wanyeki and Maina Kiai? Ed.)

how sad
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 30, 2008

A most narcissistic and petulant world-view probably penned by a man with a fat income coming to him in an air-conditioned NGO office in Nairobi
where he cares not a bit for all his tribesmen as they seek their sustenance across the country, met every day with exactly this sentiment, that they are dis-loyal to their neighbours, that they represent a fifth column that must be cut down for the prosperity of Kenya.

Written so soon after the crisis we have just faced, I am sure the author is either bone-headed or the most insensitive prick anywhere on God's earth. Again, Raila Odinga, Anyang' Nyong'o and company must be collecting, and everyone of these articles makes it that much more difficult for the Kikuyu IDPs to return to their farms, or indeed to own businesses outside of the Central Kenya region.

I find it most interesting how bigotry first presents itself as an expression of cultural love, inviting one to share in the beauty of the freedom and the self-expression before you are hit with the author's immodest proposal,

I am often seduced by the invitation to identify myself as national, international, or cosmopolitan. I am tempted by the idea that I can and should transcend tribe. I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya. But I believe in this love. I believe in its potential. I want to see where it leads.

We know where it leads, to Kiambaa, Eldoret, Taita, Ukunda, Kisumu, Kapenguria, Kitale, Kericho and other such places where innocent people suffered the ultimate loss so Keguro and other selfish Kenyans could posture as Concerned Kenyan Writers and write articles on the romanticism of ethno-nationalism.

a precis
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 30, 2008

I am unwilling to grant that colonizers were right in their claims that tribe was a limited concept that had no place in the modern world.

Our valiant hero starts of with a line that even those with the most basic education would recognise as a falsehood. But it allows him then to claim that he is defending a concept that is under attack.

Against all logic, against all sense, I am in love with the concept of tribe.

Keguro, at least, is no hypocrite. He knows exactly what he is talking about, what tribe has meant in Kenya's history, and more importantly, what it has meant in the last two months. He knows that logic and sense require a more careful attitude about ethnicity.

At times I want to scream at what seem to be the limitations of tribal identification, the ways I am called upon to perform tribe: to sing, dance, or act in a certain way. I chafe at the constrictions that ask me to speak my language to gain certain favours. I worry that my positions are taken for granted, that my identity may be said to dictate my politics.

Again, Keguro shows that he is hardly naive, and neither is he penning an ode to pastoral life and assorted bucolia. He is fully aware that ethnicity in Kenyan society is wholly political, mostly violent and prejudiced, that our ethnicities were actually formed by the Kenyan political struggle may be lost on him, but the consequences of that he displays full knowledge of.

I am often seduced by the invitation to identify myself as national, international, or cosmopolitan. I am tempted by the idea that I can and should transcend tribe. I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya. But I believe in this love. I believe in its potential. I want to see where it leads.

Let's all acknowledge that the writer is hardly an imbecilic corn-poke, and neither do his views spring up out of nowhere, as Joe and his link show, as Njoroge Matathia's article shows, as the posts of Watt and Goode (who at least declare themselves from the get-go) these views are taking hold, even in the middle-classes because of the hatred of the recent past. The writer knows full well the meaning of his very English words, even if many here do not. His refusal to transcend an identity, his love for an identity, one that in his own words demands he speak a certain language to get certain favours, demands he act a certain way, takes his positions for granted and that pre-ordains, even against his will, his political proclivities; can be read in only one way. He did not need, like Matathia or Watt or Goode to declare that it was his primary identity, the fact that he knows so much is wrong with self-identification after this fashion, and yet persists with it, shows that it is his primary identity, the one he cannot let himself get away from, the one he cannot let himself even transcend, one he jealously holds dear even as his better sense urges him against it. The writer and his fellow travellers propose a world in which we exist first and foremost as members of our ethnicities, as though foregoing ethnicity undermines who we are. The article suggests, even in these times, that there is something morally sound about holding on to oppressive, stifling, restrictive identities, something heroic about refraining from taking on a wider, more cosmopolitan, more humanistic identity. His argument is that identities that were only very recently formed, and formed to control, more than anything, should now define who we are. I fail to see that such self-confessed narrow-mindedness should not attract the ire of those who understand the consequences if such became nationally accepted and practised, and where would those of us with no such identity take shelter?

re: re: re: re: re: re: Nation
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 31, 2008

Was there a personal attack in my message? It was not my intention. After a series of defensive responses I felt that it was time to go on the offensive and put something else out there for people to debate - would your understanding of ethnicity be different if you weren't a member of the largest tribe in the country? I'm not one to tread on eggshells and from where I was standing it was the big Central province shaped elephant in the room. Apologies for the tone, not the content.

You went on the 'offensive' because you couldn't argue on fact. Your arguments, include that the world is becoming ever more homogeneous ignores the fact that information technology and related inventions like the DVD, the digicam, film, and traditional books offer infinite possibilities for both recording, preserving and transmitting any culture or language. This becomes a purely academic exercise for most people anyway in trying to find who we are, where we are coming from. Plus homogeneous culture will induce people to look for something to identify themselves with.

Your argument about the primacy of the nation-state is superseded by the idea of dual citizenship and the fact that most countries let the people be. If someone consistently talks of black-America, they are not taken through endless debates of why they should be only American. Some of the examples you gave concerning conflict of interests involve oppressive regimes like Turkey which seek to deny a people the right to speak their language and practice their customs. I*t is also superseded by the intra-nation state like the European union which is progressively acquiring all the instruments of a nation-state ala the United States of America.

The last argument you give is dangerous, tribal bonds are familial in nature. Just take most families in Kenya which are of one tribe. The modern day extended family including uncles, aunts, parents, siblings and 1st cousins contains about 35 people. That's assuming a modest family size of 3 kids per family.

For someone who grew up in village X, consisting of one tribe, there are close friends whom person X went to school with assume a modest number of 4 friends, that is now 140 people who you might not all know, I mean I don't expect someone to know all their friends aunts, uncles and cousins, but with whom you now share some kind of link on account of them being friends families.

Then assume that you grew in a village where your family was linked closely with 5 other families. That's another 175 people who are now more or less loosely linked. So you now have an association of 315 people probably of the same tribe linked by virtue of being family, friends and neighbors. Each individual in turn has their own friends and relations outside this group. Your father and mother have their own friends and their own cousins. Your sister will marry and introduce new relations into the whole equation on top of which she has her own circle of friends independent of yours. So you now have a combination of very close and loose connections with thousands of people on account of being so and so to so and so. This are not only social but also economic ties. However there is a multi ethnic element in it because not all individuals will have all friends of their ethnicity or not all will marry within their ethnicity.

At any one point any one of this individuals can ask for a favour in terms of employing someone, helping someone find accommodation, especially if it's someone coming abroad or in terms of raising funds for this or that. In turn you might also find yourself in a position where you need help and those who you are going to ask will be those close to you.

The multi ethnic bonds will be formed at the school especially at secondary, particularly boarding school, at the universities and just like above through in the neighborhood. That doesn't exclude some of your friends and neighbours from being of your ethnicity.
This to my best understanding is how human beings interact and it is true whether they live in Nairobi or Lithuania or London. This might affect the make up of certain industries, where little to no formal training is required. It will also affect people in the formal sector, but here you can't just be giving people jobs on account of relations or friendships but qualification has to reign supreme. If you want your enterprise to succeed, anyway. The 2 sectors of the economy including the public sector will always exist. That's why you'll find most enterprises in the highly formal sector will probably have multi-ethnic staff, if located in Nairobi or Mombasa anyway, and if we are talking of a company with its headquarters in Nairobi also in the provinces.

Beyond that there are situations where you are dealing with two total strangers one who is of your tribe and one who is not. For example in presidential politics, or if your in a position of power when you are hiring and beyond that when you are a landlord.This might show tribalism tendencies because the human being tends to generilise for purely defensive reasons, which then leads to prejudices. That's why almost lost a house in Germany because the Kenyan tenant before me had made a mess of things.

Solutions that go out from people disowning their families and friends are exceedingly sstupid to me, no offense.

To answer your question, the close link to the tribe has nothing to do with the size of it or as Wanyama said with the post election violence. It has always been there but more so after spending some time in Europe and observing these folks from up close and generally contemplating the role of the African in the general scheme of things, ironically that is also where the strongest multi-ethnic links are formed. People are your friends purely because they are Kenyan and you help each other out as the case may be. Those are also links that last a life time because of shared experiences.

politicalscientist
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 31, 2008

PS: If I were from a smaller tribe I'd probably be very radicalized.

re: re:Alexander
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 31, 2008

(1) The present concept of tribe is, at best, a distant relative of the pre-colonial kinship concept. Then, Agikuyu, for one, identified primarily as members of a mbari. And that for good reasons, since it was with reference to that concept that such vitals as the right to use land were determined. Mbari genealogies, as Muriuki has shown, are a much more reliable guide to the history of the Agikuyu than are (other) creation myths. No return to that concept is on the cards.

Incidentally if you take the Gikuyu creation story literally, and go from the 20 people who first started the tribe. The nine daughters, their husbands and their parents, it is quite possible to go from that to the present population of just over 7 million in exactly 450 years.

With 2 assumptions though, monogamy and each Kikuyu couple gets 4 kids. I've not read Muriukis book, it's sadly out of print but from the title, and if it puts the emergence of the Agikuyu at about year 1500 AD then the 2 dates are not that far apart.

Correct if I'm wrong but wasn't there also the concept of Moherega, clan, which joined family groups said to have a common ancestor? You'd be shocked at how many descendants one person can produce given a reasonable passage of time.

Small Tribe
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 31, 2008

Johnny, I just wish you had a bit more specifically countered the argument of Politicalscientist that Daniel Waweru has already described - with good reason - as disingenuous, the one about the size of ethnic groups (sort of a "small tribes good, big tribes bad"?).
Actually, the same argument had already been dispelled before by aeichner, if I remember the discussion correctly, but the thread has become very long by now.

To be honest my feelings would hardly change if I was a member of a smaller tribe. In fact if you visit the link I gave on the article by Stephen Ndegwa you'll see that it's the big tribes that have always been 'nationalistic' because as Ndegwa the cynic puts it, they have more to gain. My feelings is that members of a small tribe will even be more strongly bound than those of a big one. In Europe, If you go to a city where there are 3-4 black guys, there's a likelihood of being greeted by all those guys, where as in cities with relatively big black population black folks won't feel that strongly linked. You have no need to greet every black dude you meet.

PS\'s last word
written by politicalscientist , March 31, 2008

History is littered with situations where a protracted difference of opinion results in people hardening their position to the point where reconciliation becomes impossible. Rather than continue to engage in a debate where one is more and more misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood and ultimately forced into defending a position that one does not neccesarily subscribe to, wisdom dictates that the world would be better served if one would step aside. Johnny, I fundamentally disagree with everything that you've said regarding this topic, but you and I both know how rapidly these online forums can degenerate into tribal bashing, ethnic mudslinging and general stupidity. Rather than drag KI down that route, I suggest that you and I (and I can't say that I speak for everyone) agree to disagree, lest we be accused of being something that I'm sure neither of us is.

one Angels, we're now Demons
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 31, 2008

When my dearest friends Eichener, Ndiangui and Waweru decide that they could take the side of the likes of Watt and Goode, or that they could start attacking those of us who are defending Kenya (consider the vindication of Eichener above, or that they could see the beauty of both sides, etc, while letting people quote myths as fact, while letting people rationalise their exclusionism, while letting people spew racist bile and construct even bigger chips on their shoulders (really Johnny B Goode is a walking-talking tragedy of a man) then yes, it does seem very futile continuing debate. One can feel besieged on all sides by the lack of reason, and the lack of empathy. I have written a comment about loving all Kenyans regardless of ethnic identity and it gets rated as though it was an insult! We are living in the hate itself, I too have given up. Perhaps all Kenyans should now partake of the beauty of their ethnicities and let's see where that will get us.

In re Wanyama and polisci
written by Daniel.Waweru , March 31, 2008

Stevo,

You're quite right that the discussion threatens to become unmanageable. So, we need some sort of framework to constrain it. Offline, I recommended The Ethics of Identity to you. Have a look at Chapter 3 and 4 -- extracts from which are available online. Appiah makes some nice distinctions: it's OK to bear and conform to these types of social identities (other things being equal); what isn't OK is state recognition or privileging of them. More to our point, he's happy to acknowldge that (i) identities can be created by oppressive classification, and (ii) it is OK for those who bear those sorts of identities to use them to oppose oppression (cf. p. 112). That seems to show that identifying as a Gikuyu in solidarity with those who have lately been attacked for being Gikuyu is not inherently wrong. And note that that identiifcation is not closed to those who would not previously have identified as Gikuyu -- see Oyudo, for example. (For a more distant example: remember the French and Italian papers that declared 'We're All Ameicans Now' after 9/11?)

From which it doesn't follow that you should take Johnny at all seriously: anyone who genuinely thinks that there's some chance that all those who now identify as Agikuyu are descendants of Mumbi is not worth listening to on the matter. (Plus, I did tell you about Ambler's Kenyan Communities in the Age of Imperialism: The Central Region in the Late Nineteenth Century, which should show that Johny doesn't know what he's talking about (e.g. clans which spanned both Agikuyu and Kamba), and is basically a permanent prophylaxis against Gikuyu nationalism.)

Rather than continue to engage in a debate where one is more and more misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood and ultimately forced into defending a position that one does not neccesarily subscribe to, wisdom dictates that the world would be better served if one would step aside. Johnny, I fundamentally disagree with everything that you've said regarding this topic, but you and I both know how rapidly these online forums can degenerate into tribal bashing, ethnic mudslinging and general stupidity.

Well, I hardly think that the possibility of rational discussion is lost. I think I've pointed out at least one serious difficulty with your claim, quite independently of Johnny's point. (But I would say that.) It seems reasonable to respond to the best argument (yes, I'm immodest) against your claim, no tthe worst. But I'm sorry if anything I've said has been hurtful.

The Great Debate
written by Johnny B. Goode , April 01, 2008

Politicalscientist, I wish you well. Agree to disagree. However I urge you to keep debates factual. A parting shot, we should not build a nation based on ideologies but rather on elements that can be factually approved or disapproved. I see Kenya no more than a mere vessel that holds peoples of different origins and religions. If the vessel is primarily built of weak cloth like mere ideology it will tear and spill all its contents on the ground.

Wanyama I'm honored that the old sage of this forum keeps me in his mind. The fascinating thing about what you call 'myths' is that they can no more be disapproved than proven. For one some lay behind the beginning of the written word. Even when they coincide with periods of written word, people will still be skeptical. Todays folks can only disapprove them on points of the fact that people don't normally appear from nowhere all of a sudden etc. The red sea being parted suddenly letting the children of Israel pass to freedom and exterminating the Egyptian army, is not within the realms of our everyday experience or even fathomable to us, a man doesn't walk everyday on water or rise from the dead and go to heaven and manna doesn't fall from haven every other day.

I guarantee you though that men and women more well read than anyone here are trying to establish some factual basis for certain events in history. People have spent years examining the shroud of Turin. Like Thomas they want to place their hands on the wounds. The written word is not enough for them. The extra human courage of the apostles and early Christians, most of whom died for the sole reason that they believed in Christ, and under gruesome conditions including our own backyard in Uganda is not enough. The human faith is resilient and is one of the most enduring characters of the human spirit.

Being a questioning man, though in regards to the Bible or even the stories about our tribes, I've always wondered under what circumstances men or women came up with these stories. Of course there are only 2 conclusions that they are based on nothing but fabrications once again proving evolution a lie. If evolution is really true, then how could the folks as far back as 4000 years ago have such fantastic imaginations, not evident in todays men and women? How could people like the apostle Paul, who lived 2000 years ago, give or take, be even wiser than most of todays people? And if they are based on some fact then evolution is again a lie.

There is the question of the lineal time line, that places all those who came before as closer to the beginning of time than us. I say then, live and let live. Let the Gikuyu believe he is a directy descendant of Gikuyu and Mumbi, let the Maasai believe that he came from the sky and let the Luo believe that Lwanda Magere was killed by his shadow being pierced and that he turned to stone thereafter. Or let any Kenyan or any human being believe in all of them, if they so wish. Let whoever who so choses try and establish if there is actually any factual basis for this 'myths' or why it was necessary to construct them and what clever human brains were actually behind them and what their purpose is for creating them was.

The human race through formal education has been led to such a one sided school of thought that it will be impossible to find another Isaac Newton who explains physics by merely asking why does the apple fall down and not up?

At the end of the day one can no more prove their existance than their inexistance. I gurantee you even normal things that we all witnessed like the events of 11th of September 2001 would appear like myths and legends a few years later, especially in absence of running cameras and written historical accounts. It's my firm believe that some are at least grounded on some fact.

Daniel Waweru, you have a severe advantage over me. You are inpocession of books that I found out are out are since out of print. Nevertheless I note that you have not confronted my central arguments which are based on mere observations head on, but choose to go off on a targent in making your counter claims. But pray tell me, how is it that Muriuki traced the origins of the Agikuyu to the year 1500 or thereabouts? What methods did he use to get to that answer? What are the great records he dug up to do this or was it just a heart to heart with granny and her pals?

Mathematics as a science is indisputable and although I take great liberties with my a assumptions it is certainly possible for 1 person to be the ancestor of 500 000 given a few generations. The exponential increase of human population is a testament to that. That's a question of simple observation. My own grandparents now have about 36 people related to them by blood, and I hope that number increases to 100 within their life time. Think of all the possibilities that cloning gives us to raise that number to even more.

Obviously there are ways people came into the tribal fold other than by birth. That is no secret. But to take the great USA, the intermixing that goes on usually means some lineage with the original ancestors is maintained. So even if 2 couples not of the tribe were adopted into the tribe, through intermarriage, their descendants will maintain lineage with the tribe at least by the 3rd generation if their intermarry within their adopted tribe. If it is only a wife who comes into the fold,then her immediate seed will have direct lineage of the tribe. That's why some people claim that all blacks have Indian in them, or all blacks have some white in them . This does not happen as a result of some massive rape action by the communion of all white men slave owners. They just happened to rape a few, but by the progeny intermixing with the rest of the black population. It's also quite possible that some of folks in Kenya have a bit of English in them. The great Legacy of colonialism. Of Brutality, cold blooded murder, rape, thievery and continued enslavement.

The old adage that some see the glass half full while others see it half empty is true and the existence of both breeds has served the human race well.

This discussion has been very useful in as far that I see three kinds of Kenyans. Those who see the Tribe as the source of all evil, and therefore seek to eradicate, some by force if need be. Even "mythologies" are coming under attack now. And those who believe that tribe is an intergral part of Kenya and thus any Kenya that has to be rebuilt has to take that into serious account and those who Keguro which are harmless but are intreprated to mean the great affront to the Kenyan state.

re: The Great Debate
written by aeichener , April 01, 2008

It's also quite possible that some of folks in Kenya have a bit of English in them. The great Legacy of colonialism. Of Brutality, cold blooded murder, rape, thievery and continued enslavement.

Of all that.

And of love.

Too.

Alexander

...
written by AustinWW , May 07, 2008

It's all well and good when you stereotype groups positively, but when stereotypes turn negative, therein lays the problem. When we start classifying tribes as lazy, elitists, corrupt etc we get into the mode of thinking a particular 'tribe' is inherently evil. We all know what happens then. Tribe, as it is now, is harmful towards the society. The notion of tribe, the way Kenyans understand it, needs to be modified. It CAN be beneficial, but right now it isn't.