Ethnicity, nationhood can exist in harmony
May 28, 2007
When the twentieth century was born there was a lot of optimism for the triumph of a rational and universal order. but to the disappointment of many, the century ended in increased interest in the power of race, religion and ethnicity as the quest for the specific ethnic and group set the parameters
PETER MULIRA
A LEARNED FRIEND WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
When the twentieth century was born there was a lot of optimism for the triumph of a rational and universal order. but to the disappointment of many, the century ended in increased interest in the power of race, religion and ethnicity as the quest for the specific ethnic and group set the parameters of the new age.
The horrors of the last war gave rise to most of the developments which marked the end of the last century. This upsurge in the quest for past memory and spirit forced a leading scholar, Harold Isaacs, to remark about the century that “science advanced, knowledge grew, nature was mastered, but reason did not conquer and tribalism did not go awayâ€, a statement which aptly described a period which saw the rise of the excesses of Islamic fundamentalism, chaos in the former Soviet Union, racial strife in American cities as well as emphasis on religion and ethnicity.
Whereas the endtail of the century saw the collapse of the world’s most well-organised form of racial discrimination in the name of apartheid in South Africa it also witnessed the ascendancy of the worst type of racial strife especially as played out in some of the American cities as people’s prejudice in the sense of the kind of the racial picture individuals draw of themselves as against others led to collisions all over the world.
In this kind of picture individuals hold the feeling that the subordinate race to theirs is intrinsically different and alien which results in the belief of a proprietory claim in areas of privilege which must be protected against the designs of other groups.
This belief in the need to protect proprietory rights is best illustrated by the incidence of racialism in the United States. Before the emancipation of slaves in the southern states of that country, laws were put in place by the dominant white race to prevent people of colour from invading its space which in some cases led to a complete dichortomy between whites and blacks in public services. After emancipation, the former slaves fought for equal social and legal rights until both federal and state laws were passed to impose equality.
The post-civil rights period, while producing positive results for the black people, has in turn made the white community to feel that it is they who are now being disciminated against by state policies. Secondly, the civil rights movement has produced a new group description that of “American Asians†as people who previously saw themselves as Filipino, Japanes, Chines or Koreans now prefer to be officially known by that term.
All this has had an impact on governance as political demands are now made by invoking numbers of particular groups which enables the state to manage claims by responding to large groups as opposed to dealing with numerous groups. This development in the United States should be of special interest to us in Uganda where people previously referred to as Pakistanis, Indians or Bengalis and others are presently campaigning to be recognised as the “Asian tribe†of Uganda.
From a historical perspective, such a claim should have merit if we are to follow one of the leading authorities on the subject, Max Weber, who defined a tribe as “being delimited when it is a subdivision of a polity. . .The tribe is here a political artifact, even though it soon adopts the whole symbolism of blood-relationship.†Weber’s definition is also applicable to the term “ethnicity†which has, like racialism, impacted on the way we govern ourselves during the last stages of the twentieth century.
Here again the American example provides us with an apt case study. In its early history, American society strove to overcome ethnicity through the assimilation of immigrants to Anglo-Saxon norms, values and cultural styles. Due to various pressures and changes in outlook, immigrants to the states during the last 60 years have had the option to preserve their ethnic heritage while still being able to claim acceptance as true Americans.
The American experience has also spread to other parts of the world where governments which had discouraged ethinicity in governance discovered that people are best governed through units which share the the same cultural, geographical and economic features. In this way the Scots, who centuries ago, settled from Ireland in the area of Great Britain previously known as caledonia gained its autonomy from London followed by French Quebec in canada the Basques and Flemish in Spain and Belgium repectively.
The trend of returning autonomy to culturally autonomous units had gained pace almost everywhere in the world although here in Africa apart from South Africa and Nigeria Uganda is the only country which has taken the bold step to return autonomy from the centre to the regions.
It is important to note, which many people fail to do, that the Uganda constitution of 1995 is a unitary document with all the federal features although there is still room for equitable sharing of resources and power between the centre and the regions. If we were to conclude these thoughts we would say that in a roundabout way we have argued for the creation of an “Asian tribe†of Uganda and the removal from our psyches the fear of ethnicity when considering issues of governance.
The twentieth century has bequeathed to us the realisation that ethnicity and nationhood can exist in harmony and will lead to people’s contentment.
A LEARNED FRIEND WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
When the twentieth century was born there was a lot of optimism for the triumph of a rational and universal order. but to the disappointment of many, the century ended in increased interest in the power of race, religion and ethnicity as the quest for the specific ethnic and group set the parameters of the new age.
The horrors of the last war gave rise to most of the developments which marked the end of the last century. This upsurge in the quest for past memory and spirit forced a leading scholar, Harold Isaacs, to remark about the century that “science advanced, knowledge grew, nature was mastered, but reason did not conquer and tribalism did not go awayâ€, a statement which aptly described a period which saw the rise of the excesses of Islamic fundamentalism, chaos in the former Soviet Union, racial strife in American cities as well as emphasis on religion and ethnicity.
Whereas the endtail of the century saw the collapse of the world’s most well-organised form of racial discrimination in the name of apartheid in South Africa it also witnessed the ascendancy of the worst type of racial strife especially as played out in some of the American cities as people’s prejudice in the sense of the kind of the racial picture individuals draw of themselves as against others led to collisions all over the world.
In this kind of picture individuals hold the feeling that the subordinate race to theirs is intrinsically different and alien which results in the belief of a proprietory claim in areas of privilege which must be protected against the designs of other groups.
This belief in the need to protect proprietory rights is best illustrated by the incidence of racialism in the United States. Before the emancipation of slaves in the southern states of that country, laws were put in place by the dominant white race to prevent people of colour from invading its space which in some cases led to a complete dichortomy between whites and blacks in public services. After emancipation, the former slaves fought for equal social and legal rights until both federal and state laws were passed to impose equality.
The post-civil rights period, while producing positive results for the black people, has in turn made the white community to feel that it is they who are now being disciminated against by state policies. Secondly, the civil rights movement has produced a new group description that of “American Asians†as people who previously saw themselves as Filipino, Japanes, Chines or Koreans now prefer to be officially known by that term.
All this has had an impact on governance as political demands are now made by invoking numbers of particular groups which enables the state to manage claims by responding to large groups as opposed to dealing with numerous groups. This development in the United States should be of special interest to us in Uganda where people previously referred to as Pakistanis, Indians or Bengalis and others are presently campaigning to be recognised as the “Asian tribe†of Uganda.
From a historical perspective, such a claim should have merit if we are to follow one of the leading authorities on the subject, Max Weber, who defined a tribe as “being delimited when it is a subdivision of a polity. . .The tribe is here a political artifact, even though it soon adopts the whole symbolism of blood-relationship.†Weber’s definition is also applicable to the term “ethnicity†which has, like racialism, impacted on the way we govern ourselves during the last stages of the twentieth century.
Here again the American example provides us with an apt case study. In its early history, American society strove to overcome ethnicity through the assimilation of immigrants to Anglo-Saxon norms, values and cultural styles. Due to various pressures and changes in outlook, immigrants to the states during the last 60 years have had the option to preserve their ethnic heritage while still being able to claim acceptance as true Americans.
The American experience has also spread to other parts of the world where governments which had discouraged ethinicity in governance discovered that people are best governed through units which share the the same cultural, geographical and economic features. In this way the Scots, who centuries ago, settled from Ireland in the area of Great Britain previously known as caledonia gained its autonomy from London followed by French Quebec in canada the Basques and Flemish in Spain and Belgium repectively.
The trend of returning autonomy to culturally autonomous units had gained pace almost everywhere in the world although here in Africa apart from South Africa and Nigeria Uganda is the only country which has taken the bold step to return autonomy from the centre to the regions.
It is important to note, which many people fail to do, that the Uganda constitution of 1995 is a unitary document with all the federal features although there is still room for equitable sharing of resources and power between the centre and the regions. If we were to conclude these thoughts we would say that in a roundabout way we have argued for the creation of an “Asian tribe†of Uganda and the removal from our psyches the fear of ethnicity when considering issues of governance.
The twentieth century has bequeathed to us the realisation that ethnicity and nationhood can exist in harmony and will lead to people’s contentment.