Dr. Mark Faulkner contributes an unusual point of view towards the understanding of Kenya’s current woes. He reminds us of some of John Reader’s ideas concerning the history of Kenya. This view holds that Tribalism was a motif advanced by the British colonial authorities in their attempt to control the population of Kenya through a policy of divide and rule. Before the colonial era, we are told, “boundaries had been porous and languages and identities shaded into each other.” Communities “had a long history of trade, intermarriage and shared social and religious practice.” The colonial authorities imposed new identities on them, of being sworn enemies.
Since my first arrival in East Africa in 1957 I have seen this theory pop up intermittently in academic circles. But it does not sound convincing, it is contrived. Their promoters must have a low esteem of Africans if they think that one can so easily manipulate their minds and attitudes. The theory also seems to fly in the face of the facts. Tribes are as old as recorded history. The 12 tribes of Israel had their tribal conflicts. The Germanic tribes turned Europe into a cauldron of tribal wars and migrations. All East African tribes have fought their way to the places where they are now: Nilotes from the Sudan, Bantu from the Congo, Hamites from Egypt (?). There was little love lost between them. They described each other with names of contempt and stereotypes of barbarism. Even in living memory the names are known of some that died in the battles by which the Luo wrested Kajulu from the Nandi and chased them up Nyagbondo escarpment. The British spoke more of “pacification” than of “control”. “Trade” was rarely more than the exchange of superfluous artifacts in markets where the tribal boundaries touched, like Nairobi, Kisumu, Sondu, Bumala. Intermarriage was the exception, except where it was due to slave-raiders capturing young women; the Luo of Kisumu still have stories of the Baganda coming across the Lake; up to this day the Luo accuse the Kalenjin of stealing little girls. “Shared social and religious practices” between the tribes seems to me a figment of the imagination.
When you read Mungo Park’s account of his walks through the interior of West Africa in the years 1795, 1796 and 1797, long before the white colonialists arrived, tribalism in those regions was much the same. There is no reason to think that it was different in any other part of Africa. As for the British, rather than tying the tribal people down to one place, they promoted mobility. Before independence Luo people had spread throughout Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, not only where they could catch fish, but also because of the government services, railways, postal services, shipping. And so it was with the other tribal communities.
What happened in East Africa in colonial times had been happening all over the globe for centuries: tribal communities had to be forged together into nations. That is a painful process.
Dr. Faulkner thinks that the Church and the bishops fell into the colonialists’ trap. It is fairer to say that even the bishops find it hard to make the conversion from Tribe to Nation. The church can be a good nation builder. Our parish of St. Joseph is an example. Every Sunday morning we have three Masses: the first in dhoLuo, the second in English, the third in Kiswahili. All of them are full, in all of them the Luo, the Luya, the Teso, the Kisii, the Nandi, the Kikuyu and the Kamba mix, singing each others’ songs, and having their children dance together in the processions. Or, that is how it was. Now the “strangers” have been chased away with extreme violence. Not because of a pernicious colonial legacy, but because the strangers were better traders, or because they occupied “our” land.
Talking of pernicious legacies, Mark Faulkner should know that one of the most pernicious features of East African cultures is the scape goat mechanism: blame others as much as you can, never yourself. It is very tempting for the Kenyans to accept his theory: it means that they have been victims of the wickedness of the British; they themselves are not to be blamed, they do not have to carry responsibility for the disaster, they don’t have to change their ways; instead, the British should really pay compensation. By promoting this view Mark Faulkner has done Kenya a real disservice.
Hans Burgman MHM Ph.D.St. Joseph’s Church
P.O.Box 795,
40100 Kisumu
Kenya
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
