Identity
written by The Falcon , March 26, 2008

It's quite hilarious the irritation sparked off by people mainly Kikuyus on this site for choosing their tribe over their country in terms of identity. People are reacting like jilted lovers. There is enough written on this subject to fill a book or two.

To answer the question, no, those who do, do not make too much of ethnic and racial bonds. Tribe has become a curse word apparently that some people would wish to cast as far away from themselves as possible. As far as race is concerned what good is a relation to Dick Cheney when people will still call you N-r? Do people see Dick Cheney when they see you or just another black dude?

As far as tribe is concerned people fail to see the lasting colonial legacy even in those who were born long after colonialism. The Mzungu just came down here and wiped out everything in his wake and declared us primitive. Is it a wonder that the journey of self discovery for some is fueled by is driven by the desire to render this theory wrong? The mzungu succeeded in cutting a lot links to the past, which was easy considering that most of not all Kenyan tribes transported their stories and histories orally, thus when the kids stopped gathering round granny, whole cultures and societies, to me civilizations (love - hate relationship) collapsed. But they didn't take away our Languages and our names. They actually left more than they thought.

Armed with that we can trace back and we can be quite romantic about it. Because of little if any first witness accounts, the white man who writes about us will be prejudiced (whether he really is or not is unimportant) and the Black man will want to put his tribe in the best light. The truth lies somewhere in between.

As Kerugo said though, there is a lot of potential there and it's fascinating. And whats more, the more you learn, the more it becomes a part of you, the more you pick up threads, similarities between ours and other cultures. A Kibbutz becomes Ujamaa. A council of elders the epitome of democracy.

Especially you come face to face with the white man and he is damasked merely just as another mortal, no greater, no lesser. Someone who just took everything from everywhere and made it his own. The guns from China, the writing from, the alphabet with its roots in ancient Egypt, the numbers from Arabia.

Whats more when you discover what input others have put into major inventions, of that which is sold exclusively as a white mans domain, he(the white man) stands declothed, naked. A phony. A PR spinner. They just use the picture of an old graying white man.

It is not really his culture this westernization. It is everyones culture. Some folks are driven by the need to put old pre-colonial Africa on the map. white man to sell it.Instead of Gladiator, why can't Hollywood make the epic story about Luanda Magere? Where are the stories about Maji Maji and thew Mau Mau? Better yet why can't we make them and sell them to the world?

It is my conviction that it is this kind of tribalist, no Ethicist who transverse this sites. This are hardly people bent on building tribal hegemonies or seceding. Take it from me. That charity begins at home should be quite obvious for all.

...
written by Njoroge Matathia , March 27, 2008

Falcon,

I am sorry but I fail to see what point you are trying to make beyond the classic 'blame it on the white man' stance lots of us black people tend towards.

When you say:

Armed with that we can trace back and we can be quite romantic about it. Because of little if any first witness accounts, the white man who writes about us will be prejudiced (whether he really is or not is unimportant) and the Black man will want to put his tribe in the best light. The truth lies somewhere in between.

You are ruling out the place of research - good leg work- in the production of historical records and ethnographies. You are saying that a white man cannot 'go native' and bring out a well balanced portrayal of a black reality. That a tribesman is always 'loyal' to his/her tribe when writing about it and thus sweeps the dirt under the carpet.

Do you realise that in your argument you merely advancing a stereotype of mzungu always on the offensive against negro primitivity and the negro always on the defensive- embellishing and justifying ignorance?

only one Kenya
written by Stephen Wanyama , March 27, 2008

Seeing as many of us are religious, it would be nice and good, once the eternal n****r chip is lifted off our shoulders, to contemplate the Master's words in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Who is your brother? Races, like tribes are entirely unnatural social constructions, that like Obama's case shows are only skin deep. Obama has also been very critical of the monopolization of affirmative action for example by African Americans, Hispanics and so on, noting that many white people, more even perhaps suffer similar disadvantage. What a beautiful world it will be when individuals are judged on their personal merits, when these artificial boundaries we erect between ourselves are dissolved for good.

It cannot be said enough times, how ridiculous anyone claiming to identify themselves primarily on the basis of skin colour, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation is being. On the other hand, we live in democracies and the baser an opinion, the more infused with the blindness of group think, the greater purchase it has with the lemmings. Dive now.

Who is your family
written by twb , March 27, 2008

My family is that of Adam,that of Noah ofother ancestors there between.You are part of that family too which includes Jesus also and those that have gone before us.What is wrong with us human beings? To me we are relatives and that is why we are commanded to love one another.But when we are fighting for scarce resouces we shoutt to one another saying "You mountain or Lake or Ocean TRIBE"

Past, Present, Future
written by Johnny B. Goode , March 27, 2008

Editors, congratulations for offering yet another avenue for some greco-roman mud wrestling.

(We will not tolerate a pankrátion though. Our classicism has its limits. Eds.)

And based on my own thoughts too. Wonderful.

Racial Bonds? Easy, still necessary today as ever. It is the good work that racially based civil rights activists in looking out for equality of civil rights today that allows some to move around exclaiming universal citizenship.

To give another analogy Dick Cheney being a relative, distant or not would have hardly helped Obama if some KKK would have decided to lynch him some 50 years ago or even today for that matter. And no they draw no distinction between bi-racials and other blacks. We are all n****rs.

I live by the maxim Once Bitten Twice Shy. What once was can come back again. This is the maxim that the Jewish state lives by. And like they have extracted apologies and monetary renumerationsfor the holocaust so must Africans get the same for the twin evils of colonialism and Slavery. The Jews will never let the Germans live that one down. Like Kenyatta and Mandela, Forgive but never Forget.

Lest people forget compare the fate of the muslims in virtually all Western countries post 9/11 and that of white people post Timothy McVeigh.

The Human story past and present is based on divisions along all sorts of things. Race and gender are just the most obvious distinctions between individuals, thus in a melt down situation the most dangerous. None have a crystal ball so there is no reason to assume that the future will be any different from the present and the past. This is a purely defensive stance.

For the idealists, march on your goals are certainly worthy. Humanity has always had enough room for idealsists, realists and all other -ists that may be out there. We all have our roles to play. While the idealists play the roles of ordinary citizens, realists are like the police and the army. I have seen some call for the abolition of the army but everyone recognizes the role of the police.

Tribe. We've written volumes about this. All good stuff. For me I'll reduce it to 3 things, why tribal bonds are necessary. In the context of Kenya. If the Kenyan state breaks down, the single indivisible unit is the tribe. That's a fact. We watched enough people be killed, displaced for no other reason.

This has consequences for me on how the state should be organized to avoid coming to this break down. The solution for me is not rallying around a flag. It's all fine and good in times of peace but not in times of war. Identification. The Eternal human search for the self to me is irrevocably tied to the tribe.

Preservation for future generations. Just as it's necessary to preserve the environment so is it necessary to preserve cultural heritage because I'm sure in the future no matter how far, there'll be some other lost soul wishing to clarify where he is coming from in order to find meaning in life and define where it is exactly he or she needs to go. He might find a few answers, certainly not all in his Tribe. This is personal Choice however.

...
written by aeichener , March 27, 2008

The last three paragraphs of Johnny B. Goode's posting now encompass two very different and - in my opinion - actually opposed aspects. Seductive parataxis.

One aspect is the preservation of heritage, and the rooting of identity in history (better yet: in histories). I am all in favour of that, though the Kenyan windows through which I am looking into this complex world of differing and changing ethnicity, are the windows of two smaller ethnia: Ogiek on one side (whose feeling of joint togetherness is a rather recent development only from the 1980s and younger), and (A)Embu on the other side (thanks also to Prof. Mwaniki, that great scholar).

The other aspect is much more problematic to me. The other is the rallying cry, the volburt (Old High German: sound of Germanic weapons being battered on the shields of the warriors, as an assertion of collective political agreement, image taken in order to humour Johnny's frequent comparison with conditions German) of a tribal flocking together, of ganging together (once again, allusion fully intended), as a treacherously illusionary (!) means of collective safety and defence.

This latter aspect is actually the very danger itself, that it pretends to defend from. I guess I might (or should) expound that a bit deeper, but let's stay with this sketched outline for the moment.

Alexander

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

The other aspect is much more problematic to me. The other is the rallying cry, the volburt (Old High German: sound of Germanic weapons being battered on the shields of the warriors, as an assertion of collective political agreement, image taken in order to humour Johnny's frequent comparison with conditions German) of a tribal flocking together, of ganging together (once again, allusion fully intended), as a treacherously illusionary (!) means of collective safety and defense.

Alexander

Alexander, it'd be nice if you quoted the passages, where you draw your arguments from. I can only make assumptions on what your references are. Certainly the greatest real danger of my school of thought is if we had a civil war situation. Like everything else always a possibility. That would however be a very complex situation.

For a long time I thought that was impossible in Kenya but then events that followed the announcement of election results have proved that that is an imminent threat to our national security. And precisely for the reason, that the state was unable to guarantee security.

Understand that we are only at peace because 2 politicians signed a piece of paper. That is not a particularly good place to be at. Especially because violence can now be invoked at any point to hold the state at ramson.

Security is a prime objective of any given state and all other things improve thoroughly in an environment where citizens feel secure. I can only pray the we never come to that although a small door was opened to that.

I do believe however most human beings, however they identify themselves, just want to live in peace, raise their families, pay their bills and pursue their mostly benign goals. If you think about it, it is the only way we can survive whether we live in London, Kericho or Baghdad.

The other thing that is being thrown around on this pages is the corruption/nepotism thing. I firmly believe that a society with the least amount of either will be the most beneficial to everyone. That is also the most beneficial to the house of Mumbi btw. Theres no use being extremely rich while everyone else is poor, they'll run your door down. Just like societies where the disparities between the haves and have nots is least. Only in those kind of societies can the haves enjoy their wealth in peace. The famous Expansion of the middle class. That will however not end all our woes as the land issue is also a parallel very thorny issue.

re:
written by aeichener , March 28, 2008

Alexander, it'd be nice if you quoted the passages, where you draw your arguments from. I can only make assumptions on what your references are.

But I indicated them, didn't I? I wrote "your last three paragraphs". Was that not precise enough?

Alexander

mistake
written by The Falcon , March 29, 2008

Falcon,

I am sorry but I fail to see what point you are trying to make beyond the classic 'blame it on the white man' stance lots of us black people tend towards.

Reading comprehension are basic skills that you can acquire in any reputable education institution. The white man (the institution) not the todays individuals is responsible tangidly for a lot of crimes in the past. They are not fictions of anyones imagination. We went through colonialism and slavery which should be declared crimes against Humanity so that other people never perpetuate them.

You are ruling out the place of research - good leg work- in the production of historical records and ethnographies. You are saying that a white man cannot 'go native' and bring out a well balanced portrayal of a black reality. That a tribesman is always 'loyal' to his/her tribe when writing about it and thus sweeps the dirt under the carpet.

Yes I am. I don't trust the white man or he black man. If any person was there and wrote a real time account, a bit more perhaps. I'm a natural skeptic.

Do you realise that in your argument you merely advancing a stereotype of mzungu always on the offensive against negro primitivity and the negro always on the defensive- embellishing and justifying ignorance?

I'm not advancing anything at all. Even the bible has been interpreted in many ways, so I'm mad at you. The way you interprate things says more about you than me however.