Answer the following questions

TALKING ABOUT "TRIBE": MOVING FROM STEREOTYPES TO ANALYSIS highlydeveloped tradenetworks without recourse to elaborate states.

Tribe isalso used forallsorts of smaller units of suchlarger nations, peoples or ethnic groups. The followers of aparticular localleader may becalled atribe. Members of an extended kin-group maybecalled a tribe. People who liveinaparticular area maybecalled atribe. We find tribes within tribes, and cutting across other tribes.Offering no useful distinctions, tribeobscures many. As a description of agroup, tribe means ...

J:­ r- ~ -Z ~ J:­ III o C ... one, Hutu and Tutsi lived interspersed in the same territory. They spoke the same language, married eachother, and shared virtually all aspects of culture. At no point inhistory couldthedistinction be defined bydistinct territories, one of the key assumptions builtinto "tribe." Tribe isused forgroups who trace dleirheritage to great kingdoms. It isapplied to Nigeria's Igbo and other peoples who organized orderly societies composed of hundreds of localcommunities and Benin, who share a language but have an eight-hundred year history of multiple and sometimes warringcity­ states, and of religious diversity evenwithin the same extended families.

Tribe isused for Hutu and Tutsi inthe central African countries of Rwanda andBurundi .

Yet thetwo societies (and regions within them) havedifferent histories. And in each What'sWrongWith"Tribe?" ~Tribe has no coherent meaning. What isatribe? The Zulu in South Africa, whosename and common identity wasforged bythe creation of a powerful statelessthan twocenturies ago, and who are abigger group than French Canadians, arecalled atribe. So are the !Kung hunter-gatherers of Botswana andNamibia, who number in thehundreds. The term isapplied to Kenya's Maasaiherders andKikuyu farmers, and to members of these groups incities and towns when they go dlere to live and work. Tribe isused for millions of Yo rub ain Nigeria and "tribe" does not contribute to understanding theseidentities or the conflicts sometimes tied to them.There are, moreover, manylessloaded and more helpful alternative words to use.

Depending on context, people,ethnic group, nationality, commwlity, village, chiefdom, or kin-group mightbe appropriate. Whatevertheterm one uses, it isessential to understand that identities in Africa are as diverse, ambiguous, complex,modern,and changing as anywhere else in theworld. Most scholars alreadyprefer other terms to "tribe." So, among themedia, does dle British Broadcasting Corporation. But "tribal" and "Afi-ican" arestill virtually synonyms in most media, among policy-makers and among Westernpublics.Clearing away this stereotype, dlispaper argues, isan essential stepforbeginning to understand thediversity andrichness of African realities. II or mostpeople in Western countries, Africaimmediately calls upthe word "tribe." The idea of tribe isingrained, powerful, and expected.Fewreaders question anews story describing anAfrican individual as atribesman or tribeswoman, or the depiction of an African's motives as tribal.ManyAfricans themselves use the word "tribe" when speaking or writing inEnglish about community, ethnicity or identity inAfi'ican states. Yet todaymostscholars who study African statesand societies-both African and non-African-agree that theidea of tribe promotes misleading stereotypes.

The term "tribe" has no consistent meaning. It carries misleading historical and cultural assumptions. It blocks accurate views of Africanrealities. Atbest, any interpretation of African events that relies on theidea of tribe contributes no understanding of specific issuesin specific countries. Atworst, it perpetuates theidea that Afi-ican identities andconflicts are in someway more "primitive" thanthose in other parts of theworld. Such misunderstanding maylead to disastrously inappropriate policies. In thispaper weargue thatanyone concerned withtruth andaccuracy should avoidtheterm "tribe" in characterizing Africanethnicgroups or cultures. This isnot amatter of political correctness. or isit an attempt to deny that cultural identities throughout Africaarepowerful, significant and sometimes linkedtodeadly conflicts. It issimplyto say thatusing· theterm Africa Policy Information Center 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper010(November 1997) Page 1 CASE IN POINT Zambia Zambiaisslightly largerthanthe U.S. state ofTexas. Thecountry hasapproxi­ mately 10million inhabitants andarich cultural diversity. EnglishisZambia's offi­ cial language butitalso boasts 73differ­ ent indigenous languages.Whilethere are many indigenous Zambianwords which translate intonation, people, clan, language, foreigner,vil- lage, orcommunity, there are none thateasily trans­ late into"tribe." Sorting Zambians intoafixed number of "tribes" wasabyproduct ofBritish co­ lonial ruleover Northern Rhodesia (as Zambia wasknown priortoindepen­ dence in1964). TheBritish alsoapplied stereotypes tothe different groups.Thus the Bemba, NgoniandtheLozi were said tobe "strong." TheBemba andthe Ngoni were"warlike" although the Bemba wereconsidered themuch "finer race" because theNgoni hadintertwined with "inferior tribes"andhave been spoiled bycivilization. TheLamba were labelled "lazyandindolent" andthe Lunda considered tohave "aninborn distaste forwork inaregular way." These stereotypes inturnoften deter­ mined access tojobs. TheLunda, forin­ stance, wereconsidered "goodmaterial from which toevolve goodlaborers." After Zambia gaineditsindependence in1964, thechallenge washowtoforge these disparate ethnic groupsintoana­ tion-state inwhich itscitizens wouldiden­ tify asZambians. To alarge extent, this has succeeded. Zambiansidentifywiththe nation aswell aswith individual ethnic almostanything, soitreally means nothing. Ifbytribe wemean asocial group that shares asingle territory, asingle language, asingle political unit,a shared religious tradition, asimilar economic system,and common cultural practices, sucha group israrely found inthe real world. These Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper 010 (November 1997) Page 2 groups.

Manytracetheirownfamily heri­ tage tomore thanoneZambian group.

Most Zambians livenotonly within butbe­ yond theirethnic boundaries. Identitiesat different levelscoexist andchange.

With an economy focused on copper mining, theurban areasandmines be­ came amagnet forZambians fromacross the country and all ethnic groups seeking employment. By the1990s almost halfofall Zambians lived inurbanareas.

Despite ethnicstereotypes, nogroup had an overwhelming advantage inurbanem­ ployment. Culturaldiversity wascombined with acommon nationalexperience, which was reinforced byseveral factors.

First, Zambia adopted aboarding school system forgrades 7-12.Thissys­ tem brought together childrenfromall ethnic groups tolive and learn together for nine months ofthe year. Along with English, severalZambian languages and social studies alsobecame amajor component ofschool curricula enabling Zambians tolearn about andtocommu­ nicate witheach other. Asaresult ofliv­ ing together, interacting inthetowns and cities, andgoing toschool together, the average Zambian speaksatleast three languages. Second, Zambia's firstpresident, Ken­ neth Kaunda, madeapoint ofestablish­ ing policies andusing toolsthatwould promote nation-building. Forexample, he popularized theslogan "One-Zambia, One Nation". Thisslogan wassupported by the use oftools such asethnic balanc­ ing inthe appointments tocabinet and characteristics almostnevercorrespond precisely witheach other today, nor did they at any time in the past. ~Tribe promotes amyth of primitive Mrican timelessness, obscuring history and change. The general sense of tribe as most peopleunderstand it isassociatedwith otherkeygovernment positions.The intent wastoprovide Zambia's various ethnic groups withrepresentation and hence astake inthe new nation that was being forged. Ethnicbackground has been onlyoneamong manyfactors influencing politicalallegiances.

Third, afterindependence themar­ riage rateamong peopleofdifferent eth­ nic identities increased. Inthesame way that oneshould notimmediately assume that anAmerican calledSyzmanski speaks orunderstands Polish,neither should onenecessarily expectaZambian with thelast name ofChimuka tospeak or understand Tonga.Aswith most Americans, Zambiannamesareincreas­ ingly becoming no more thanoneindica­ tor ofone's ethnic heritage.

Many Zambians douse theword tribe. Itsmeaning, however, isprobably closer tothat of an "ethnic group" ina Western countrythanwhat Westerners understand bya"tribe." Theword does not have negative undertones, orneces­ sary implications ofthe degree ofgroup loyalty, butrefers toone's mother tongue and, tolesser extent, specific cultural traits. Forexample, inthesame waythat Jewish Americans celebrateBarMitzvah as arite ofpassage intoadulthood, various Zambian ethnicgroups have similar ritesofpassage ceremonies, such asSiyomboka amongtheLozi and Mukanda forthe Luvale.

An urban family mayor maynotcelebrate aparticular rite, and may need todecide which branch ofthe family's oldergeneration they should follow. primitiveness. Tobeinau'ibal state is to liveinauncomplicated, u'aditional condition. It isassumed there islittle change. Most African countries are economically poor and often described as lessdeveloped or underdeveloped.

Westerners oftenconclude that they have not changed muchoverthe centuries, and that Africanpoverty AfricaPolicyInformation Center 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 mainlyreflects cultural andsocial conservatism. Interpretingpresentday Mrica through thelens of tribes reinforces theimage of timelessness. Yet the truth isthat Mrica has as much history as anywhere else in theworld. It has undergone momentous changes time andagain, especially inthe twentieth century.WhileMrican poverty ispartly a product of internal dynamics of Mrican societies, ithas also been caused by thehistories of external slavetrades andcolonial rule.

~In the modern West, tribe often implies primitive savagery.

When thegeneral image of tribal timelessness isapplied to situations of social conflict between Africans, a particularly destructivemyth iscreated.

Stereotypes of primitiveness and conservative backwardness arealso linked to images of irrationality and superstition. The combination leads to portrayal of violenceandconflict in Africa as primordial, irrationaland unchanging. Thisimage resonates with traditional Westernracialistideasand can suggest thatirrational violence is inherentandnatural to Mricans. Yet violence anywhere has both rational and irrational components. Just as particularconflictshavereasons and causes elsewhere, theyalsohave them in Mrica. The idea of timeless tribal violence isnot an explanation. Instead it disguises ignorance of realcauses by filling tilevacuum of real knowledge with apopular stereotype. ~Images of timelessness and savagery hide the modern character of Mrican ethnicity, including ethnic conflict. The idea of tribeparticularly shapes Western views of ethnicity and etl1l1ic conflict in Mrica,whichhasbeen highly visibleinrecent years.Overand Africa Policy Information Center 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 overagain, conflicts areinterpreted as "ancient tribalrivalries," atavistic eruptions of irrational violencewhich have always characterized Mrica. In factthey are nothing of the sort. The vastmajority of such conflicts could not havehappened acentury agoin the ways tllatthey do now. Pickalmost any place where ethnic conflict occurs in modern Mrica. Investigate carefully the issues overwhich itoccurs, the forms ittakes, andthemeans by which it isorganized and carried out.

Recent economic developments and politicalrivalries will loommuch larger thanallegedly ancientand traditional hostilities.

Ironically, someAfrican etl1l1ic identities anddivisions nowportrayed as ancient andunchanging actuallywere created inthe colonial period. In other casesearlier distinctions tooknew,more ligid andconflictual formsoverthelast century. The changes came out of communities' interactionswithina colonial or post-colonial context, as well as movement of people to cities to work and live. The identities tlmscreated resemble modernethnicities inotller countries, whicharealso shaped by cities, markets andnational states. ~Tribe substitutes ageneralized illusion for detailed analysis of particular situations. The bottom-line problemwith the idea of tribe isthat itisintellectually lazy. It substitutes the illusion of understanding foranalysis of particular circumstances. Mrica isfaraway from orth America. Accurateinformation about particular Mricanstatesand societies takesmore work to findthan some other sorts of information. Yet both of thosesituations arechanging rapidly. Mrica isincreasingly tied into theglobal economy andinternational politics.

Using the idea of tribeinstead of real,specific information and analysis of Mrican eventshasnever served tile truth well. It alsoserves the public interest badly. If"Tribe" Is So Useless, Why Is it So Common? ~Tribe reflects once widespread but outdated 19th century social theory. As Europeans expandedtheirtrade, settlement andmilitary domination around theworld, theybegan trying to understand thedifferent forms of societyandculture theymet. Intile 19th century, ideasthatsocieties followed apath of evolution through definite stagesbecame prominent. One widespread theorysawaprogression from hunting to herding to agriculture to mechanical industry.City-focused civilization andrelated forms of government wereassociated with agriculture. Forms of-government and social organization saidtoprecede civilization among pastoralists and simple agriculturalists werecalled tribal. Itwas alsobelieved thatcosmopolitan industrial civilization wouldgradually break down older localized identities.

Over thecourse of the 20th century scholars havelearned that such images tried to makemessy reality neater thanitreally is. While markets and technology maybesaid to develop, theyhave no neat correspondence withspecific forms of politics, socialorganization, or culture.

Moreover, humanbeingshaveproven remarkably capable of changingolder identities to fit new conditions, or inventing newidentities (oftenstoutly insisting that the changed or new identities areeternal). Examples close to home includenewhyphenated American identities, newsocial identities (forexample, gay/lesbian), Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper010(November 1997) Page 3 CASE IN POINT Hutu/TUtsi Thedeadly powerofthe split between Hutu andTutsi incentral Africaiswit­ nessed notonly bythe genocide ofmore than halfamillion carried outbyHutu ex­ tremists againstTutsiandmoderate Hutu inRwanda in1994,butalso byalong list of massacres byextremists onboth sides inrecent years, inRwanda, inBurundi, and ineastern Congo.

Trying tounderstand thissetofcon­ flicts isas complex astrying tounder­ stand theHolocaust inEurope, orcurrent conflicts inthe Middle Eastorthe Balkans. Nooutside framework oranal­ ogy toanother regioncansubstitute for understanding theparticularities ofthe tangled recenthistory ofthe Great Lakes region. Butone point isclear: thereare few places inAfrica where thecommon concept of"tribe" isso completely inap­ propriate as inthissetofconflicts. Nei­ ther understanding norcoping withcon­ flict ishelped inthe slightest bylabelling the HutufTutsi distinction as"tribal." Before European conquesttheGreat Lakes region included anumber ofcen­ tralized, hierarchical andoften warring kingdoms. Thebattle linesofpre-colonial wars, however, werenotdrawn between geographically andculturally distinct "Hutu" and"Tutsi" peoples.

Furthermore, withineachunit,whether pre-colonial kingdomorthe modern countries definedbycolonial boundaries, Tutsi andHutu speak thesame language and share thesame culture. Stereotypes identify theTutsi as"pastoralists" andthe Hutu as"agriculturalists," theTutsi as"pa­ trons" andtheHutu as"clients," orthe Tutsi as "rulers" andtheHutu as"ruled." Some scholars havetriedtoapply theconcept of "caste." Yet each ofthese frameworks also exaggerates theclarity ofthe distinc­ tion and reads backintohistory the andnew religious identities (for example, New Age). ~ Social theories of tribes resonated with classical and biblical education. Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper 010 (November 1997) Page 4 stereotypes ofcurrent political conflict. Intworespects, suchstereotypes are misleading. First,shared economic, social, and religious practices attest tothefact that interaction wasmuch morefrequent, peacefUl andcooperative thanconflictual.

Second, thehistorical evidence makesitclear that there wasatleast as much conflict among competing Tutsidynasties asbetween Tutsi andHutu polities.

What isclear fromrecent scholarship isthatthedividing linebetween Hutuand Tutsi wasdrawn differently atdifferent times and indifferent places.Thus,lead­ ing Burundi scholarReneLemarchand notes theuse ofthe term "Hutu" tomean social subordinate: "aTutsicast intherole of client vis-a-vis awealthier patronwould be referred toas 'Hutu,' eventhough his cultural identityremained Tutsi" (Burundi:

Ethnic Conflict and Genocide. Cambridge:

Cambridge UniversityPress,1996,10).

But both "clients" and"patrons" couldbe either HutuorTutsi. There wereHutuas well asTutsi whoraised cattle.Afamily could movefromonegroup tothe other over generations asitspolitical andeco­ nomic situation changed.

As historian DavidNewbury notes,the term "Hutu" inpre-colonial timesprobably meant "those notpreviously undertheef­ fective ruleofthe court, andnon­ pastoralist (thoughmany'Hutu' inwest­ ern Rwanda ownedcattle,sometimes in important numbers)" (DavidNewbury, Kings and Clans. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,1991,277).Moregen­ erally, theTutsi/Hutu distinction seemsto have made sense inrelation tothe politi­ cal hierarchy ofakingdom. Itaccordingly differed, andchanged, inaccord withthe political fortunes ofthe different king- Of course, most ordinary Western people were not socialtheorists. But theories of socialevolution spread through schools,newspapers, sermons and other media. The term tribewas doms andwith thedegree ofintegration of different regionsintothose kingdoms.

Under colonial rule,firstbythe Germans and then bythe Belgians, thishierarchical division wasracialized andmade more rigid. Ethnic identity cardswererequired, and thestate discriminated infa­ vorofTutsi, whowere considered to be closer towhites inthe racial hierarchy. Thiswasreinforced by versions ofhistory portraying theTutsi as a separate "Hamitic" peoplemigrating into the region fromthenorth andconquering the Bantu-speaking Hutu. Infact,current historical evidence isinsufficient tocon­ firm towhat extent thedistinction aroseby migration andconquest orsimply bysocial differentiation inresponse tointernal eco­ nomic andpolitical developments. Inthepost-colonial period,forextrem­ ists onboth sides, thedivide hascome to be perceived asaracial division. Political conflicts andinequalities inthecolonial period built on andreinforced stereotypes and separation. Successive traumatic conflicts inboth Burundi andRwanda en­ trenched themevenfurther. Despite the efforts ofmany moderates andtheexist­ ence ofmany extended familiescrossing the HutufTutsi divide,extremist ideologies and fears aredeadly forces.Farfrom be­ ing the product ofancient andimmutable "tribal" distinctions, however,theyare based aboveall inpolitical rivalries and experiences ofcurrent generations. [For acollection ofarticles introducing the complex GreatLakes crisis,seetheAsso­ ciation ofConcerned AfricaScholars GreatLakes Briefing Packet, December 1996 (available forUS$9.00 from ACAS, 326 LincolnHall,702 S.Wright St.,Urbana, IL6810 1;e-mail: acas@ prairienet.org; web:

www.prairienet.org/acas).] tied with classical and biblical images. The word itselfcomes fromLatin. It appears in Roman literature describing early Roman societyitself. The Romans also Llsed itforCeltic and Africa Policy Information Center 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 Germanicsocietieswithwhich many 19th andearly 20th century Europeans andAmericans identified.

Likewise theterm wasused inLatin and English bibles to characterize the twelvetribes ofIsrael. Thislink of tribes to prestigious earlierperiods of Western culture contributed to the view that tribehaduniversal validityin social evolution. ~Tribe became acornerstone idea for European colonial rule in Africa.

This background of belief, while mistaken inmany respects, mighthave been relatively benign.However, emerging duringtheage of scientific rationalism, thetheories of social evolution becameintertwined with racial theories. Thesewereused to justif)r firstthelatter stages of the Atlantic slavetrade (originally justified on religiousgrounds), andlater European colonialrule. The ideathat Mricans wereamore primitive, lower order of humanity wassometimes held to be apermanent conditionwhich justified Europeans inenslaving and dominating them. Other versions of thetheory heldthatMricans could develop but needed to be civilized by Europeans. Thiswasalso held to justify dominating themandtaking their labor, landandresources inreturn for civilization. These justif)ring beliefs wereused to support thecolonization of the whole continent of Africaafter 1880, which otherwise mightmoreaccurately have been seen as anaked exercise of power. Itisin theneed to justify colonizing everyone in Mricathatwe finally findthereason why all Afi-icans aresaid to live intribes, whether their ancestors builtlarge trading empires and Muslim universities on theNiger river, densely settledandcultivated Africa Policy Information Center 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 kingdoms around thegreat lakesin east-central Mrica, or livedinmuch smaller-scale communities betweenthe larger political units of thecontinent.

Calling nearly all Mrican social groups tribesandMrican identities tribal inthe era of scientific racism turned theidea of tribe from asocial science category intoaracial stereotype. By definition Mricanswere supposed to live in tribes, preferably with chiefs. The colonizers proposed to governcheaply by adapting tribaland chiefship institutions intoEuropean­ style bureaucratic states. Ifthey didn't findtribes andchiefs, theyencouraged people to identify as tribes, and appointed chiefs. In someplaces, like Rwanda or Nigeria, colonialracial theory led to favoring one ethnic group over another because of supposed racialsuperiority (meaning white ancestry). In other places, emphasis on tribes wassimply atool of divide andrule strategies. The idea of tribe wehave today cannot escape these roots. But Why Not Use"Tribe?" ­ Answers toCommon Arguments ~In the United States no one objects to referring to Indian tribes. Under USlaw, tribe isabureaucratic term. For a community of Native Americans to gain access to programs, and to enforce rights due to them under treaties andlaws, theymust be recognized as a tribe. This is comparable to unincorporated areas applying formunicipal statusunder state laws. Away fromthelaw, Native Americans oftenprefer thewords nation or people overtribe.

Historically, the US government treats all Native American groups as tribesbecause of thesame outdated cultural evolutionary theoriesand colonial viewpoints that ledEuropean colonialists to treat all Mrican groups as tribes. As inMrica, the term obscures widehistorical differences in way of life, political andsocial organization, andculture among Native Americans. When wesee that the same term isapplied indiscrilninately to Native American groups and Mrican groups, the problem of primitive savagery as the implied common denominator only becomes morepronounced. ~Africans themselves talk about tribes.

Commonly whenMricans learn English theyare taught thattribe is the term that English-speakers will recognize. Butwhat underlying meaning intheir ownlanguages are Mricans translating whentheysay tribe? Takethe word isizwe inZulu. In English, writers o.£ten refer to the Zulu tribe, whereas in Zulu theword for the Zulu as agroup would be isizwe. OftenZulu-speakers willusethe English word tribe because that'swhat they think English speakers expect, or whattheywere taught inschool. Yet Zulu linguists say that abetter translation of isizwe isnation or people. The Mrican National Congress called its guerrilla army Umkhonto weSizwe, "Spear of the Nation" not "Spear of theTribe." Isizwe refers both to the multi-ethnic South Mrican nationand to ethno-national peoplesthatform a part of the multi-ethnic nation.When Mricans usethe word tribe ingeneral conversation, they do not meanthe negative connotations of primitivism the word has inWestern countries. ~African leaderssee tribalism asa major problem in their countries. This istrue. But what they mean by Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper 010 (November 1997) Page 5 CASE IN POINT Zulu Identity in South Africa Zuluidentity inSouth Africaishistori­ cal, notstatic. Whatitmeans tobe "Zulu" has changed overtime, andmeans differ­ ent things todifferent peopletoday.Be­ fore thenineteenth century,"Zulu"was the clan name ofthe kings of asmall kingdom, which was tributary to the Mthethwa kingdom.Begin­ ning around 1815,theZulu kingdom displaced the Mthethwa kingdom and conquered dozensofother nearby small kingdoms whichgradually took on Zulu identity on top ofolder localidentities.

Culturally thesecommunities already had much incommon. Similarities ofcul­ ture andmutually intelligible languageex­ tended southtothe Xhosa, Mpondo, Thembu, XesibeandBhaca kingdoms, as well asnorth tomany butnotallofthe political communities inwhatarenow Swaziland andMpumalanga province in SouthAfrica. Ethnicidentities withinthis continuum ofculture andlanguage came mainly frompolitical identification withpo­ litical communities. Theexpansion ofpo­ litical powers, suchasthe Zulu and Swazi kingdoms, creatednewidentities for many people inthe19th century.

White colonization began inthe1830s, when theZulu kingdom wasstillquite new. White conquest tookdecades. Many chiefdoms remained intheindependent Zulu kingdom whileothers cameunder the British colony ofNatal. Manypeople and chiefs onlyrecently conquered by the Zulu kingdom fledintoNatal, rejecting po­ litical Zuluidentity, although retainingcul­ tural affinity. ButasallZulu-speaking people cameunder whiteSouth African rule, andaswhite rulebecame moreop- this isethnic divisiveness, as intensi­ fied bycolonial divide and ruletactics.

Colonial governments told Mricans they came in tribes, and rewarded people who acted interms of ethnic competition. Thus for leaders trying Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper 010 (November 1997) Page 6 pressive, evolvingintoapartheid, theZulu identity andmemories ofthe powerful in­ dependent kingdombecameaunifying fo­ cus ofcultural resistance.

Under SouthAfrican rule,theterm "tribe" referred to an admin­ istrative unitgoverned by a chief under rulesimposed by the white government.

Tribes werethusnotan­ cient andtraditional, but modern bureaucratic ver­ sions ofthe oldsmall kingdoms. Yet the Zulu people ornation wasalso referred to as atribe by whites. ThustheZulu "tribe" was composed ofseveral hundred tribes.

With apartheid, thegovernment fos­ tered ethnic nationalism or tribalism todi­ vide Africans, claimingthatsegregated, impoverished landreserves ("home­ lands") couldbecome independent coun­ tries. Conversely, whentheAfrican Na­ tional Congress (ANC)formed in1912,it saw tribalism -divisive ethnic politics­ asan obstacle tocreating amodern na­ tion. Butitsaw diverse linguistic, cultural and political heritages assources of strength. Thenew nation hadtobe built by extending anduniting historic identi­ ties, not by negating them.

Since the1980s severe conflict be­ tween followers ofthe ANC andfollowers of the largely Zulu-based InkathaFree­ dom Party (IFP)haskilled tensofthou­ sands ofpeople. Sometimes portrayedas reflecting primitivism andancient tribalri­ valries, thisviolence illustrates how"tribe" misleads. Most ofthe conflict hasbeen Zulu people fighting otherZulupeople inthe province ofKwaZulu-Natal. Thereare complicated localcauses relatedtopov- to build multi-ethnic nations, tribal­ ism isan outlook of pursuing political advantage through ethnic discrimina­ tion and chauvinism. The association of nation-building problems with the term "tribe" just reflects the colonial ertyandpatronage politics,butthe fight­ ing isalso about whatZuluethnic orna­ tional identity should be inrelation to South African national identity.Zulu people aredeeply divided overwhat it means to be Zulu. Intheearly 1990s theviolence spread to the Johannesburg areaandoften took the ethnic formofZulu IFPfollowers vs. Xhosa ANCfollowers. Yet thiswas not an ancient tribalconflict either,sincehistori­ cally theindependent ZuluandXhosa na­ tions never fought a war. Rather itwas a modern, urban,politicized ethnicconflict.

On the one side, theIFP has continu­ ally stressed itsversion ofZulu identity.

Also, since theANC hasfollowers inall ethnic groups, asthe 1994 elections showed, neighborhoods withmany Xhosa residents mayhave been specifi­ cally targetted inorder tofalsely portray the ANC asa"Xhosa" organization. On the other side,theANC atthe time tried to isolate theIFP inaway thatmany ordi­ nary Zulu people sawasanti-Zulu, mak­ ing them fearful. Ashas been recently confirmed, theapartheid regime'spolice and military wereactively involved inco­ vert actions toinstigate theconflict.

The IFPrelies heavily onsymbols of "tradition." Buttosee that asmaking Zulu identity "tribal"obscures otherreali­ ties: theIFP's modern conservative mar­ ket-oriented economicpolicy;thedeep involvement ofall Zulu inan urban-fo­ cused economy, withhalfliving perma­ nently incities andtowns; themodern weapons, locationsandmethods ofthe violence, andthefact that even asthe IFP won therural vote inthemost recent elections, astrong majority ofurban Zulu-speakers votedANC. heritage andtranslation issuealready mentioned. Mrican ethnicdivisions arequite real, but have little to do withancient or primitive forms of identity or conflict.Rather,ethnicdivisiveness in AfricaPolicy Information Center 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 Mricatakesintensely modern forms. It takesplace most often inurban settings, or in relations of rural com­ munities to national states. It relies on bureaucratic identity documents, technologies likewriting and radio, and modern techniques of organiza­ tion andmobilization.

Like ethnic divisions elsewhere, African ethnic divisions call on images of heritage and ancestry. In thissense, when journalists refer to the ethnic conflicts so prominent all across the modern world - as in Bosnia or Belgium -astribalism, the implied resemblance to Africa is not wrong. The problem isthat in all these cases what issimilar isvery modern, not primitive or atavistic.

Calling itprimitive will not helpin understanding or changing it. ~Avoiding the term tribe isjust political correctness. No, itisn't. Avoiding the term tribe is saying that ideasmatter. Iftheterm tribe accurately conveyed and clarified truths better than other words,even if theywere hard and unpleasant truths, we should useit. But the term tribe is vague, contradictory andconfusing, not clarifying. For themost part itdoes not convey truths but myths, stereotypes andprejudices. Whenit does express u'uths,thereare other words whichexpress thesame truths more clearly, without the additional distortions. Givenachoice between words that express truths clearly and precisely, andwords whichconvey partial truths murkily and distortedly, we should choose theformer overthe CASE IN POINT There are20million ormore people who speak Yoruba astheir mother tongue. Some19million ofthem live in Nigeria, butagrowing diaspora aredis­ persed around Africaandaround the world. Yoruba-speaking communities have lived inother West African coun­ tries forcenturies. Yorubacultureand religion haveprofoundly influenced the African diaspora in Brazil,Cuba and other NewWorld countries, even among communities wherethelanguage itself iscompletely orpartially forgotten.

Taking aquick lookatlinguistic orna­ tional communities ofsimilar size,one can seethat this isroughly equivalent to the total numbers ofDutch speakers (21 million, including Flemishspeakers in Belgium). It ismorethanthetotal popula­ tion ofAustralia (18million) orthe total number ofspeakers ofHungarian (14 million) orGreek (12million).

Like parallel communities of 19bo­ speakers (16 million)andHausa-speak­ ers (35 million), situated largelywithinbut also beyond theborders ofthe state of Nigeria, theYoruba peoplehas along and complex historywhichishard toen­ compass within"tribal" images. There isa long artistic tradition, withterra-cotta sculpture flourishing inthelIe-lfe city state athousand yearsago.There isa common mutuallyunderstandable lan- AfricaPolicy Information Center 110 MarylandAvenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002 guage, despite manydialects andcentu­ ries ofpolitical andmilitary contention among distinct city-states andkingdoms.

There isa tradition ofcommon origin inthe city ofIle-lfe andofdescent fromOduduwa, the mythical founderofthe Yoruba people. TheYoruba People Notably, Yorubacommon language and culture predate anyofthe modern "nations" ofNorth orSouth America. In the17th and18th centuries, theOyo kingdom ruledovermost ofYorubaland, but included non-Yoruba speakers as well. Today thatterritory iswithin thena­ tion ofNigeria, withborders created by European conquest.Yorubaidentity does notcoincide, then,withthebound­ aries ofamodern nation-state. Itshis­ torical depthandcomplexity, however,is fully comparable tothat ofEuropean na­ tions orother identities elsewhere inthe world thatdo.

Among Yorubas, areligious pluralism of traditional religion,IslamandChris­ tianity hasprevailed formore thanacen­ tury, withpolitical disputes rarelycoincid­ ing with religious divisions. Ancestral cit­ ies orpolities (ilu, comparable tothe Greek polis) are afar more important source ofpolitical identity,alongwith modern politicaldivisions. Inshort,Yoruba identity isreal, with substantial historicalroots.But itcorre­ sponds neithertoamodern nation-state nor tosome simple version ofatradi­ tional "tribe." Itcoexists withloyalty tothe nation (Nigeria formost, butmany are fullcitizens of -Other nations), and with "home-town" loyaltiesto ancestral cities. Indetermining whattermtouse in English, onecannot resorttothe Yoruba language, whichhas no realequivalent for the English word"tribe." Theclosest are thewords eniyan or eya, with literal translations inEnglish as"part" and "portion." Theterm mayrefer tothe Yoruba themselves, subgroupsorother groups. InYoruba, Hausa-speakers would bereferred toas awon eniyan Hausa or awon Hausa, meaning "Hausa people." Non-Yoruba- speaking Nigeri­ ans ofwhatever originmay be referred to as "ti ara i1u kannaa" - "thoseofthe same country." In English, noterm actually fills inthe complexity that isinthehistory and present realitysothat outsiders under­ stand itas do the people themselves.

Terms suchas"ethnic group"orsimply "people," however, carrylessbaggage than "tribe," andleave roomopenforthat complexity.

Talking About "Tribe" Background Paper 010 (November 1997) Page 7 latter. That meanschoosing nation, people, community, chiefdom,kin­ group, village or another appopriate word overtribe, when writing or talking about Africa. The question is not political correctness but empirical accuracy and intellectual honesty. ~ Rejecting tribe isjust an attempt to deny the reality of ethnic divisions. On thecontrary, it isan attempt to facethereality of ethnic divisions by taking them seriously. It isusing the word tribeanditsimplications of primitive, ancient,timelessidentities and conflicts whichtries to denyreality.

Since "we" are modern, saying ethnic divisions areprimitive, ancient and timeless(tribal)says"we are not like that, those people aredifferent from us, we do not need to be concerned." That isthe real wishful thinking, the real euphemism. It istaking theeasy way out. It fills in ignorance of what is happening and why with afamiliar and comfortable image. The image, moreover, happens to befalse. The harder, but more honest course, and the only course whichwill allow good policy or the possibility of finding solutions (although it guarantees neither) isto try to recognize,understand and dealwith the complexities. To sayAfrican groups are not tribes, andAfrican identities are not tribal,inthe common -sense meanings of those words, isnot to deny that African ethnic divisions exist. It isto open up questions: what istheir true nature? How do theywork? How canthey be prevented fromtaking destructive forms? It is, moreover, to link the search forthose answers inAfrica to the search foranswers to the similar questions that press on humanity everywhere in the worldtoday. ForFurther Reading There isan abundant academic literature on "tribe" and ethnicity, much availableonlyinspecialized academicpublications. The following areafew shorter sources whichdiscuss theissue ingeneral termsandprovide references to other sources. In The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World editedbyJoel Krieger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), the articlesby A. B. M. Mafeje on "Tribalism" and Okwudiba Nnoli on "Ethnicity" are short essayswith additional literaturereferences.

A short statement fromastandard textbook inAfrican Studies, "On the Concept of Tribe" canbefound inJohn N.Paden andEdward W. Soja, The African Experience (Evanston: Northwestern UniversityPress,1970), Volume II, 20-22. This isfollowed byasection on the "Nature of Ethnic Community." An often-cited early statement bya prominent anthropologist rejectingthe term isAidan Southall, "The Illusion of Tribe," in Peter Gutkind, ed., The Passing of Tribal Man in Africa (Leiden:Brill, 1970),28-51. CarolynFluehr-Lobban, Richard Lobban and LindaZangari, "'Tribe': A Socio-Political Analysis,"writingin UCLA's UfahamuVII: 1(1976), 143­ 165, alsoargue thecase fordiscontinuing theuse of theterm. "IfIt's Africa, This Must beaTribe," originally published inaspecial 1990 issue of Africa News, "Capturing the Continent: U.S.Media Coverage of Africa," isavailable on-lineatwww.africanews.org/info/tribe.html. In the H-Africa discussion group of Africanist historians and other scholars, there havebeen tworecent discussions of theuse of the word "tribe," as well as other related discussions of Western stereotypes of Africa.See http://h-net2.msu.edu/logs. Then choose the H-Africa discussion, and check thelogs for June 1995 and October 1997 inparticular. The main text of this paper was drafted by Chris La-we (Boston University). The final version also reflects contributions fromTunde Brimah (University of Denver), Pearl­ Alice Marsh (APIC), William Minter (APIC), and Monde Muyangwa (National Summit on Africa). Additional copies available at$2 ea., $1.60 ea. for 20 or more. Add 15% for postage andhandling. Maybefreely reproduced withattribution to AP1C. Produced bythe Africa PolicyInformation Center 110 Maryland Ave. NE #509 Phone: (202) 546-7961 Fax: (202) 546-1545 E-mail:[email protected] Web: www.africapolicy.org Thisseries of background papers is part of aprogram of public education funded bythe Carnegie Corporation of New Yorkand The Ford Foundation. Talking About"Tribe" Background Paper010(November 1997) Page 8 Africa Policy Information Center 110 MarylandAvenue, NE, #509 Washington, DC 20002