Why is it that people persist in labelling African conflicts “ethnic”?
Virtually any African conflict is immediately labelled “ethnic” (or worse, “tribal”) without any deeper consideration of the actualities involved. The rioting in Kenya following the elections in late 2007 were referred to as ethnic. The Rwandan Genocide is still often referred to as an ethnic conflict, even though there were no ethnic groups involved. But hey, it’s Africans. And they’re fighting. Ergo it must be ethnic/tribal.
It is true, of course, that some people invoke ethnicity as some sort of justification when making decisions (political or otherwise), or when applying simplistic (often post-hoc) explanations to otherwise complex social issues. Politicians are usually guilty of the former, journalists of the latter.
But, the fact that there are ethnic groups in Africa (like anywhere else in the world, incl. Europe) does not justify labelling African conflicts ethnic. Ethnicity is/was not a causing (or even relevant) factor in Rwanda, nor in Kenya, nor in Sudan, nor anywhere else in Africa. When it comes to conflicts, ethnicity is, and always has been, a pseudo-issue.
Conflicts in Africa, just like everywhere else in the world, have their roots in issues dealing with access to power and resources, not people’s ethnicities. It would be much more apt to use labels like “political” or even “social” instead, in as much as any single label can be valid.
Labelling African conflicts ethnic is not only wrong. It is evil. It perpetuates harmful misconceptions about African conflicts in particular, and Africa and Africans in general. It makes most people think of African conflicts as if they are some sort of spontaneous, inexplicable outbursts of violence born out of age-old “ethnic rivalries”. This image stems from old colonial desires to impose “proper” law and order in Africa. Fighting is just something they do down there. They can’t help it. It’s part of their culture. Why else would people refer to the conflicts as “ethnic”?
By comparison, the different sides in the Northern Ireland conflict divide themselves (largely) along religious lines. You have the Protestant on one side, and you have the Catholics on the other. Does that make the Northern Ireland conflict a religious conflict? Is religion a key factor in the conflict? Is religion a causing factor? Does the Northern Ireland conflict become more understandable if we think of it as a religious conflict? No, of course it doesn’t. There are religious components involved, sure, but religion is not causing the conflict, nor is it a particularly important factor. It would be simplistic and irresponsible to reduce the Northern Ireland conflict to a matter of religion.
Similarly, African conflicts cannot be reduced to a matter of ethnicity. Ethnicity is not a causing factor. It’s intellectually irresponsible to single out ethnicity as an all-important factor in African conflicts. It’s not. It’s about politics, power, resources. Referring to African conflicts as ethnic is just as inaccurate and irresponsible as labelling the Northern Ireland conflict religious.
6 responses so far ↓
Rethabile // Friday, June 27, 2008 at 6:36
You’re absolutely right, of course. The Balkan conflicts have never been reduced to something like “ethnicity” either. I guess Europeans go at it for nobler causes than the barbarian “ethnicity”
div // Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 19:38
where can i get more info about african conflicts and civil wars that are scholarly? thanks
jfmaho // Friday, September 5, 2008 at 5:35
(Sorry for the slight delay. This is a slow-moving blog, and I monitor it only sporadically.)
I would actually suggest that you start with a good historical introduction. Understanding pre-colonial Africa is essential for understanding modern Africa, and they usually cover a great deal of information about conflicts in Africa.
There are several good history books around, such as John Iliffe’s “Africans: the history of a continent” (publ. 1995), J.D. Fage’s “A history of Africa” (4th ed., publ. 2001), Leonard Thompson’s “A history of South Africa” (publ. 1995).
If you’re looking for sources on more recent conflicts, I’d suggest Gerard Prunier’s “The Rwanda crisis” (2nd ed., publ. 1998). It gives a good historical background to the Rwanda Genocide.
You could also browse the websites of various African studies centres. They sometimes provide recommendations for readings.
I have a collected a few links here:
http://goto.glocalnet.net/maho/webresources/institutes.html
jfmaho // Monday, October 6, 2008 at 22:36
I just found a great article about this issue in Extra!, the magazine of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), an American media watch group.
It’s titled
‘Tribal’ label distorts African conflicts: ethnic framing may obscure political contexts, and is written by Julie Holler. The article offers a wide-sweeping survey and critique of the media’s misuse of the label ‘ethnic’ and ‘tribal’. I strongly recommend Holler’s article for anyone inteterested in current African affairs.
MB // Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 17:46
Read this and let me know what you think….
Political corruption, lack of respect for rule of law, human rights violations are all common reasons heard for some of the causes of Africa’s problems. Although, not the only reasons, some often overlooked root causes also include the following:
European colonialism had a devastating impact on Africa.
The artificial boundaries created by colonial rulers as they ruled and finally left Africa had the effect of bringing together many different ethnic people within a nation that did not reflect, nor have (in such a short period of time) the ability to accommodate or provide for, the cultural and ethnic diversity. The freedom from imperial powers was, and is still, not a smooth transition. The natural struggle to rebuild is proving difficult.
In the 1870s European nations were bickering over themselves about the spoils of Africa. In order to prevent further conflict between them, they convened at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to lay down the rules on how they would partition up Africa between themselves.
Between 1870 and World War I alone, the European scramble for Africa resulted in the adding of around one-fifth of the land area of the globe to its overseas colonial possessions.
Colonial administrations started to take hold. In some areas, Europeans were encouraged to settle, thus creating dominant minority societies. France even planned to incorporate Algeria into the French state, such was the dominance and confidence of colonial rulers at the time. In other cases, the classic “divide and conquer” techniques had to be used to get local people to help administer colonial administrations. Some were only too willing to help for their own ends.
jfmaho // Friday, April 10, 2009 at 17:11
Great comment (and sorry it took a few days to respond).
Let me just start by pointing out that my major (actually only) point was/is to try to deflect attention away from the pseudo-issue of ethnicity in conflicts. I’m not saying conflicts don’t exist. Nor am I claiming to understand their roots and causes. I only know that ethnicity is not one of them.
The colonial period has undoubtedly played a large part in how Africa functions today. However, it’s worth emphasising that colonialism is about politics and economics, not ethnicity. Also, the “uniqueness” of colonialism should not be overplayed. It was a major and devastating period in the history of Africa, yes, but it wasn’t something new.
Throughout known history, the African continent has seen many major empires, most of them imperialistic and dominant, e.g. Ghana, Mali (neither of which should be confused the current countries), Luba, not to forget Shaka’s Zulu Empire, and many others. They all expanded, conquered, subjugated and dominated their neighbours, for political and economic reasons. European colonialism was the same, albeit on a grander scale and perhaps operating along slightly different mechanisms.
One of the major consequences of colonialism is, of course, that they fixed the current national borders of most African countries, which (as you say) brought together many diverse groups of people in any given nation. (Although I think a more devastating consequence of arbitrarily fixed borders is that it restricts the natural mobility of people, but that’s another issue.)
Having several ethnic groups living within one nation is not in itself a cause for conflicts. Lots of African countries function normally even when housing many ethnic groups, such as Tanzania, Namibia, Gambia, and so on. And let’s not forget, Rwanda and Somalia are both ethnically homogenous, which didn’t/hasn’t stopped conflicts in those countries — conflicts that for many observers look “ethnic”.
If anything, fixed borders have created more purely political conflicts, as different groups fight for their share in power and resources within national borders. What may cause people to misinterpret such conflicts is that groups often mobilise according to ethnic lines, simply because ethnicity is an important social organisational principle. But the conflicts are still not about ethnicity. They’re about power and money.
Anyhoo, I don’t have anything to object in your comment. It’s worth stressing, though, that trying to understand social conditions, whether they are about conflicts or something else, is never going to be simple. They can never be reduced to single factors, especially not “ethnicity” (or even “tribalism”).