What's in a tribe?

What's in a tribe?

For centuries, tribes have been defined by their mythical origins; the enclosures that confine their peoples and the cultural practices that bind the people together.

In medieval times these were villages in which people spoke the same language; shared  cultural practices; had similar eating habits and cuisines and were guided by the same rules and taboos.
With these characteristics, one can make a clear distinction between the Welsh and the Irish; the Shona and the Ndebele; the Maasai and the Swahili; the Flemish and the Walloon or the Somali and the Amhara.

If we are to apply the same definitions of tribe to today's context, wouldn't tribe be defined by:

Our abodes: Our furnished-gated and policed estates compared to the desolate tin-roofed slums our house servants live in;

Our languages: the rural or urban dialects we rap by corrupting conventional language as opposed to the drawled twangs articulated by those that have sojourned overseas;

Our food: our sumptuous oily fast-foods versus their high-end à la carte menus; our air-conditioned, reserved-seating, five-star restaurants as opposed to the crumpled polythene-walled food kiosks our casual employees frequent;

Daily living habits: the potholes and insults we collectively endure in public service vehicles on the way home or to work contrasted to the smooth chauffeured rides that our leaders enjoy on paved roads with manicured landscapes and pedestrian walkways; the day-long traffic jams on narrow back roads we frustratingly and obediently sit in as the ruling classes make half-hour trips across town on empty boulevards to their favourite golf clubs;
Our economic status: the haves versus the have nots; the rich versus the poor; the educated compared to the illiterate; the golf players against the football players; the gentlemen versus the hooligans; the elite versus the commoner...

Hopefully, in the very near future, virtual communities shall redefine tribe as we know it. Facebook, Hi5, MySpace, Google+... shall become our modern day tribes. Our languages shall metamorphose into vowelless jumbled consonants to economise on space and time. We shall experience love online with people we have never seen; traditional love-making shall be replaced by flattery and kinky displays of affection and body parts on inter-looping online videos; our eating and buying habits shall be driven by online menus; discrimination shall be premised upon social networks we are (not) wired to.

The outcome is that yesterday's definition of tribe shall ultimately be replaced by a definition that transcends villages, cities, countries and continents.

Inspired by Linda Ochanda...

Wrong approach to a whistler’s story

I recently had an opportunity to read the critically acclaimed book “It’s our turn to eat” by British journalist Michela Wrong. This was after numerous recommendations from my friends.

The book is a gripping and revealing analysis – from the whistle blower’s perspective – of the inner workings of the Kenyan political leadership. In many of the sections, it takes the reader on a roller coaster ride through the corridors of power as well the arrogance and duplicity of politicians away from the public glare. In other sections, it has the reader’s pulse throbbing with scenes reminiscent of the espionage thrillers the late American author Robert Ludlum was famed for.

Had it stopped there, I would have considered it a brilliant and incisive piece of literature. However, Ms. Wrong’s decided to delve into the intricate world of development aid. Her account of the role of the World Bank in "abetting" corruption, the two-facedness of the British government in addition to the issue of corruption and nepotism in Kenya is noticeably biased.

Cases in point; she attempts to cast the whistle blower’s father as a saint in the corruption labyrinth yet it is clear that he – as the Kenya’s first president’s accountant – has been an integral cog in that same system she is vilifying.

Additionally, her onslaught on the policies of the Department for International Development (DFID) on one hand and her defence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (which oversees the British diplomatic missions) on the other hand, is also not representative and only succeeds in bringing to the fore supposed intra-governmental rivalries pitting the two ministries against each other. It is clear that her main sources of information are those that support her chosen storyline whereas the actors on the other side of the divide are cast as betrayers of the reform agenda. Some of her subjects are also emotive lone-rangers who are even given the wide berth by their own governments; this, ultimately, does not give credence to her story.

It does not stop there, Ms. Wrong then again subjectively and botchedly delves into a complex subject that she clearly does not comprehend; tribalism in Kenya. The end result of her analysis is an indiscriminate vilification of one tribe and “their” supposed role in the corrupt and nepotistic nature of the Kenyan society today. In so doing, she casts herself as the typical I-lived-in-Africa western or western-aligned authoritative connoisseur” on Africa matters. To someone residing outside Kenya, her account most likely confirms (from a skewed perspective) the hopelessness of the country (and by extension the African continent) in the face of tribalism.

Living in Kenya by itself does not automatically provide an outsider with a straightforward representation of our ways of life. You have to understand why; most journalists, political commentators and “experts” on Africa assigned to Kenya always end up living in the higher-end, furnished and gated communities with little or no contact with the deprived masses. Their interpretations of the social, economic and political circumstances in Kenya often revolve around age-old, condescending, regurgitated assessments of tribal affiliations (depending on who holds the power reins).

Few are wise enough to see the glaring reality; tribalism is but a pretext by the political elite, a lazy conclusion by the media and a scornful judgment by self-proclaimed political specialists on the real reasons for our decadence. It is always the easy explanation, the easy way out.

Social and political elitism rather than tribalism are in reality the valid reasons for this social decay. Only when you have interacted completely at all levels of Kenya’s social structure will you appreciate the disconnection of the masses (tribe notwithstanding) from the political class.

I would have expected Ms. Wrong to focus more on her chief character, John Githongo’s important contribution and personal sacrifice to the fight against corruption in Kenya rather than to add in countless fragmented and uncorroborated angles that left me unable to separate facts from emotions.

As a “member” of the disparaged tribe in the book, I feel insulted and condemned by Ms. Wrong’s condescending and ill-researched assessment of the tribal fabric in Kenya and the supposed role of “my tribe” in the perpetuation of tribal animosity and corruption. If Ms. Wrong had set aside time to talk to me and a group of countless other like-minded “Kenyans”, then she would have perhaps realised that this group is glued together, irrespective of tribal affiliations, by a number things; mutual dislike of the political elite; everyday struggle to survive, one language and similar dreams for our great country.

Kenya: Abortion and Legalese

Original image from - http://www.freakingnews.com/Pregnancy-Pictures-35315.asp

*The following article was previously sent out by email thereby eliciting comments from the addressees. To open up the forum to other interested bloggers, I have reposted the article here. The addressee's comments have been embedded in this post.


I got this article from the New York times (A study done by the World Health Organisation on Abortion).
I have also attached a yet to be published draft of the constitution for your own perusal (Pls. read it).
I don't intend to sway you to any side of the debate on the new constitution, just to let you decide for yourself...
NB: The clause on Abortion is on section 26 (Right to life).

I'd be interested to hear what women have to say about this seeing that the men have been doing all the talking!

Rumba

You can also find the original article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1


Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: October 12, 2007

ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”
The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available, said Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute.
In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe. “In the past we didn’t have this kind of data to draw on,” Ms. Camp said. “Contraception is often the missing element” where abortion rates are high, she said.
Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where the procedure was illegal. “These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington.
He said that the major reason women die in the developing world is that hospitals and health systems lack good doctors and medicines. “They have equated the word ‘safe’ with ‘legal’ and ‘unsafe’ with ‘illegal,’ which gives you the illusion that to deal with serious medical system problems you just make abortion legal,” he said.
The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.
The researchers used national data for 2003 from countries where abortion was legal and therefore tallied. W.H.O. scientists estimated abortion rates from countries where it was outlawed, using data on hospital admissions for abortion complications, interviews with local family planning experts and surveys of women in those countries.
The wealth of information that comes out of the study provides some striking lessons, the researchers said. In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception.
The Bush administration’s multibillion-dollar campaign against H.I.V./AIDS in Africa has directed money to programs that promote abstinence before marriage, and to condoms only as a last resort. It has prohibited the use of American money to support overseas family planning groups that provide abortions or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Worldwide, the annual number of abortions appeared to have declined between 1995, the last year such a broad study was conducted, and 2003, from an estimated 46 million to 42 million, the study concluded. The 1995 study, by the Guttmacher Institute, had far less data on countries where abortion was illegal.
Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found.
Abortion is illegal in most of Africa, though. It is the second-leading cause of death among women admitted to hospitals in Ethiopia, its Health Ministry has said. It is the cause of 13 percent of maternal deaths at hospitals in Nigeria, recent studies have found.
Sign in to Recommend More Articles in World » A version of this article appeared in print on October 12, 2007, on page A8 of the New York edition.


----------------------------------------


------------
in my view i think the women who've procured an abortion whether legal / illegal should lead us in this debate, until we fully understand what they have gone through many will vote by the masses, just a thought.......

CK


--------------
Don't worry you won't be swaying me none. I've always thought (and still do) that abortion should be legalised, I respect the pro-life perspective, but think that a woman (and her partner) should have children at their discretion, when/if they feel ready, psychologically and otherwise, no exclusions, whether it's because the conception was out of a rape incident, or she doesn't feel she can take care of a child etc. etc. No reason should be deemed flimsy but of course pre&post counselling should be necessitated.
I also think prostitution should be legalised to better protect women but that's a story for another day... ;-)

YM


--------------
My view on this is very personal but can only be summarised as- only the wearer of the shoe knows where it fits best, the rest is upto God's mercy!

Judy W.


-----------

The argument on this issue is not about it being in the law or not its about the recognition and determination of what life is. By the way even the bible gives the 10 commandments and there is as much crime in christian countries as there is in non-christian countries. its an epple-apple scenario the difference is the same.
It doesnt mean that if we remove it abortion stops it only means that we recognise life of which 'we' is subject to discussion. Am looking at the constitution not now but in 50 yrs from now will my children detest or love me for the decision i make today regarding their future? How much mediocrity should i accept for waiting for a new constitution? What was i looking for when i thought i needed a new constitution, can i compromise for lack of or substitution of other apparent needs?
I think whatever decision one makes will purely be based on their personal views and conscience am done reading the document

Grace K.


-------------
I thinks the Contitution covers the subject quite well, It just that how this might be interprated is an issue: How do you define "the life or health of the mother is in danger" for instance ?. To what extent can "a trained health professional" esteem that the life or health of mother is in danger : Is for instance economic/practical danger in scop (mother too young/immature, mother already has too may kids, mother has a handicap of some sort that obligates assistance to raise the child) ?.
Another intriguing issue is this "other written law" they are talking about. Doe that mean that if this "other written law" is non-existant, abortion is illegal ?
I think that the fact that abortion already in the constitution is a big step forward. If we look at the issue objectively, there is no big issue. However, if we are driven by our prejudices (religions, beleifs, customs), everything will always be either black or white. Am not saying we abandon our culture, religion etc, what am saying that a human being evolves with time, so does religion, culture etc.

Izo. K


------------
Obama's view on abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_supreme_court

Judy W.


------------
The abortion debate in Kenya is a side show in my opinion led by hypocrites from the church and politicians.IHow come abortion wasnot a contentious issue during bomas and the same leaders were there and now it is .Some church leaders are looking for relevance now after they lost credibitliy during the Post Election Violence.

It conforms to the greater context of patriachy and power over women's bodies by a patriachal system .From a practical point of view every year 60% of the cost of government spending on maternal health care is devoted to post abortion care.For instance ,at the Kenyatta National Hosp Maternity Ward,60% of bed occupany is purerly POOR WOMEN in need of post abortion care.Countries that have implemented Reproductive Health Laws that include safe abortion when the mother's mental and physical health is endangered have recorded reduced abortion cases such as Nepal .Kenya is among the five remaining countries in the world with the worst laws on abortion.Kenya is also a very patriachal state shwing how patriachy and control over women's bodies is interconnected.

Vote Yes !

Njoki Wamai


------------
Hi all,
My simple summary to all these;
GOD GAVE US TEN COMMANDMENTS & NOT TEN SUGGESTIONS!

Frank


------------
Well said Frank, we have to obey God whatever the circumstances. To my opinion, whether everyone is doing it or not; or whether people will do it anyway does not matter. What matters is what does God say about it?
Will you be able to handle this matter when it gets out of hand? And it will. We will be having abortions left, right and centre just because some people will do it because they feel they are not ready for kids.

Sheila


------------
good article I may say. Mind boggling. But as far as I am concerned, Life is priceless and also God gave women the gift of life grow in them. My argument is. women should go for a full medical check up to ensure they are capable of giving birth in order to lower risks of terminated pregnancies due to complications. For example, I have a friend who lost her mother who was pregnant with her little brother due to high blood pressure during pregnancy and she had been forewarned by the doctor not to have any more babies.

I believe measures should be taken before women think about deciding on getting babies, I know it is crazy but better safe than sorry.

on the other hand lets be realistic, nature can take its course, if the worst comes to the worst let it be as long as it will not haunt the mother.

That's my take,

Thank you for this forums they make one think and shield us from conforming to this crazy blubbering lying politicians!!!

Nduta. M



I second Njoki; the Church is being a hypocrite; coz nowadays in many churches how may times do you hear preaching against abortion, ?how many times has the church held anti abortion campaigns in Kenya? Basically what am driving at is, before this whole constitution issue came up ,what has the Church been doing about creating awareness that its wrong to abort so why should they come up now? What is their agenda? Their voting of no coz of abortion won’t solve anything, the back street abortions are so many and most which result to fatalities, and many of theses young girls are people of Humble back ground and these are people whom the Church can reach out to and assist before they venture into the abortion act, I think the Church needs to look at what Role they have played in causing of the abortion before they even decide what to say.

Vote yes

Mwaniga


------------
It is really sad to note that we refer to the Church as something foreign, while indeed we are the Church, and the clergy are God's servants. they are right to take such a stand if they feel it does not comply with the values of our faith. And we should not push our responsibility to them. They are to guide and caution us, but ultimately the road we take is our individual responsibility.

To set the record straight the Church has, at least mine undertaken several steps to ensure that seminars are held as well as other trainings for our youth of all ages, and in areas to do with the biological changes they are undergoing, how to handle them, community responsibility and so on.unfortunately most of us parents are not allowing our children to attend such trainings. I think we should get our facts right, we as parents need to own up to our responsibilities and not to push to other people.

as regards to abortion lets first understand why our sisters got to that point. There are also psychosocial effects to abortion, how are they managing. lets not be quick to get rid of one problem well creating another.

please lets exercise caution in what we say....

CK


------------