|
|
|
||
On Tribalism, Nationalism and Pan-Africanism By Jaitor Nyenati Williams
Until the Berlin Conference, when arbitrary borders were drawn up by the European colonial powers in their mad scramble for Africa’s riches, the word “tribe” was an alien concept on the continent. It was simply a convenient method of classification for what to them was a bewildering profusion of loosely federated clans speaking more or less the same language, connected by ancestry, and separated only by slight variations in culture produced by successive waves of migration from the interior toward the coast.
The word itself, originally meaning “nation,” once infused with negative connotations of savagery and general backwardness, took on a whole new meaning. It no longer applied to European groups such as the Huns, Angles, Saxons, and Celts, since they had evolved political systems that transcended lineage and “tribe.” Tribalism then, came to apply only to “primitive” cultures that had not yet so evolved, even though one could argue that the recent Balkan conflicts for instance, were nothing less than tribal wars.
But however unfair these concocted, even racist, categorizations may be, and however differently history might have turned out had Africans been left alone to develop their own macro-political systems at their own pace, the fact remains that the continent is faced with only two options left to it by history, fairly or not: Rise above the tribe, or die.
Actually, exchanging tribal identity for a National one is not really such a quantum leap, if tribalism is viewed as nationalism in microcosm. Consider the singular mobilization of Liberia’s Nimba County into a united fighting machine in 1990. Everyone, from pre-teen youngsters to old, graying hunters, single-mindedly focused on one objective: revenge against those who had tried to wipe Nimba off the map.
Of course, two hundred thousand dead people in Liberia and half a million in Rwanda underscore the danger in letting the tribal genie out of the bottle. The power of this genie can be harnessed for the achievement of political objectives, as the Hutu demagogues who sent out the interahamwes (ethnic cleansing death squads) were well aware, and as warlord Charles Taylor also understood. But controlling its lethal power, once unleashed, is something else altogether. Less than one percent of the Tutsis slaughtered in Rwanda had anything to do with the “Tutsi-dominated government,” as the media called it. In describing the government as “Tutsi-dominated,” the international press was actually fanning the flames of ethnic hatred and resentment, whether they realized it or not. Who knows how much of a factor that was in the slow, smoldering buildup over the years, to the eruption in 1994? That the government and economy were dominated by Tutsis was purely an accident of history, arbitrary borders, and the divide-and-conquer tactics of the colonial powers. Both the Hutu demagogues and the international media were well aware of that.
In that light, one can understand the concern over the use of the terms “ethnic Krahn-dominated” to describe the rebel group MODEL in southeastern Liberia, the “Mandingo-dominated LURD,” or “the Americo-Liberian ruling class.” Whatever the individuals in these groups are guilty of, one is hard-pressed to see what relevance their ethnic background has. It’s like American news reports that say, “White cop shoots unarmed black kid,” or “Black mob assaults white motorist.” A crime is a crime. Wrong is wrong, and the ethnicity of the victim or the perpetrator should have no bearing whatsoever.
But in the traditional African worldview, there is no such thing as an individual, whose actions can be divorced from his ethnicity. As Tom Kamara put it, “to disregard ethnicity is fantasy.” It’s true that ethnicity has been and continues to be intertwined with and inseparable from modern African politics. From that perspective, one has to be careful not to scream “Tribalist!” every time a commentator refers to someone’s ethnic background. The depths of resentment over a century and a half of cultural domination and second-class citizenship, real or perceived, has to be taken into account, as well as the deep-seated animosities long existing among the tribal groups sharing the area between Nimba and Grand Gedeh, and among other ethnic groups in Liberia.
Yes, to disregard ethnicity is fantasy. But if tribalism is the underlying problem, be it the de facto tribalism of the True Whig Party manifested in their politics of exclusion, that of Samuel Doe and his clique, or of MODEL’s alleged reign of terror down the coast, is the constant reference to ethnicity the solution? It’s easy to see how that can be construed as tribalism in itself.
Recently I was surprised to see some non-Liberian observers taking notice of the ongoing debate about the dynamics of Liberia’s ethnic makeup. On Africana.com’s Talkback forum, some participants commented on John Dio Williams’ recent article on our ethnic “divide.”
One Talkback forumite said: “Here is a link below which I think highlights the views of many Africans towards African Americans and the entire Diaspora whether they be in Brazil, the Carribean or any body of African descent unfortunate enough to have had their ancestor enslaved… I view the author in this link as engaging in uncivilized dehumanization… He is trying to say that he is Superior to any body of African descent who descends from an African enslaved, because His African heritage, land, culture, etc. was not stolen from him. He is saying that He is a human being, whereas African-Americans are slaves- that is ex-slaves. This to me is a barbarian and uncivilized worldview. It is a worldview that has no room for God and spirituality… …Is there any wonder that People Like this John Dio Williams are not running any African nation that is prosperous, developed, and free of tribalism and racism?
Another forumite said: “Tensions will never die down if Africans have this belief that any one who descends from an African who was enslaved is "inferior" to the native as is revealed in this article: “ I’m willing to bet Mr. Williams never imagined his piece would figure into the emotion-charged debate about tension between Black Americans and Africans, or that African-Americans even visit the New Democrat. And I doubt very strongly that John Dio Williams views Black Americans and their cousins in Liberia as less than human. But one can understand how the Talkback forumites would get that impression from reading his piece, since they don’t understand Liberia’s complex history or that the African worldview does not divorce individual action from ethnicity. Or perhaps they do understand that. And they call it tribalism.
And so we’re faced with an age-old dilemma: Which came first, Africa’s problems, or tribalism? Is the latter the result of the former, or vice versa? I think we all know the answer. As they say in rural Jamaica, “ah fuss-fuss make Guinea nigger come ah Jamaica.” (I trust that needs no translation)
Judging from all this talk about “natives” (which, by the way, applies to all Liberians born in the country), “ethnic Krahn,” “ex slaves,” and “Mandingo foreigners,” one would conclude that Pan-Africanism is dead. Yes, remember Pan-Africanism? What was supposed to be the defining ideology of modern post-colonial Africa? Remember Blyden? Nkrumah? Padmore? Dubois? Toure, Nasser, Keita, Cesaire, and Senghor?
“Pan-Africanism,” says a Nigerian friend of mine, “is a dead ideology.” It sure seems that way, doesn’t it? “I don’t even want a united Nigeria,” he continues, “let alone a united Africa.”
Rise above the tribe or die, we are reminded by our history. The only two options left to us by the legacy of arbitrary borders and divide-and-conquer tactics. Add to that globalization, a world economic system that favors the buyers over the producers and that’s designed to ensure our perpetual under-development and marginalization, the increasing role of expensive, complicated technology and huge outlays of capital in development, HIV/AIDS, constant wars and ethnic strife, and a host of other seemingly insurmountable problems facing us, the philosophies and teachings of Osagyefu, Garvey, and Marley certainly seem more poignant now than ever. If Pan-Africanism is dead, how come their predictions are all coming true right before our eyes?
If they were all a bunch of idealistic dreamers espousing a totally unrealistic utopian ideology, how come the European Union is now poised to challenge the United States as a world power, by simply stealing Nkrumah’s ideas? However serious Mbeki and his colleagues may be about concretizing the AU remains to be seen, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Rise above the tribe or die, history reminds us over and over, forcing us to repeat the class until we learn the lesson it’s trying to teach us. If Pan-Africanism is dead, then what does that mean for the continent? If Pan-Africanism is dead, we may as well call out the war dancers and the grieving women to sit on the mat for Mama Africa. |
|||
