Historicizing Tribe

[Safferz]

The discussion on qabiil reminded me of Mahmood Mamdani's work on the concept of tribe, and how kinship became fixed and politicized during the colonial era as tribe under British indirect rule, their mode of colonial administration (though he deals primarily with British colonialism, indirect rule was practiced by other European powers as well in many colonies). His most recent book Define and Rule (a collection of lectures he delivered a few years ago) is probably the best single volume I've read on the topic. Somalis have the tendency to believe that our clan system is something that has existed in its current form throughout our history, rather than critically interrogating how qabiil itself - at one point a fluid system of kinship/social relations - was transformed under the colonial state and exploited by the post-independence governments to create the concept of qabiil as we know it now. So if you're interested in a historical account of tribe and how it became coupled with political power under the colonial state and inherited by the post-colonial African states, it's definitely worth taking a look at Mamdani's work (Citizen and Subject is his classic). I also linked to a recent talk he gave about his book at CUNY, moderated by Ali Jimale Ahmed:

 

 

"Define and Rule focuses on the turn in late nineteenth-century colonial statecraft when Britain abandoned the attempt to eradicate difference between conqueror and conquered and introduced a new idea of governance, as the definition and management of difference. Mahmood Mamdani explores how lines were drawn between settler and native as distinct political identities, and between natives according to tribe. Out of that colonial experience issued a modern language of pluralism and difference.

 

A mid-nineteenth-century crisis of empire attracted the attention of British intellectuals and led to a reconception of the colonial mission, and to reforms in India, British Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. The new politics, inspired by Sir Henry Maine, established that natives were bound by geography and custom, rather than history and law, and made this the basis of administrative practice.

 

Maine’s theories were later translated into “native administration” in the African colonies. Mamdani takes the case of Sudan to demonstrate how colonial law established tribal identity as the basis for determining access to land and political power, and follows this law’s legacy to contemporary Darfur. He considers the intellectual and political dimensions of African movements toward decolonization by focusing on two key figures: the Nigerian historian Yusuf Bala Usman, who argued for an alternative to colonial historiography, and Tanzania’s first president, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, who realized that colonialism’s political logic was legal and administrative, not military, and could be dismantled through nonviolent reforms."

 

 

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

[SomaliPhilosopher]

Yes, like the British empowering tribal chiefs and strengthening the tribal system to make tax collecting more convenient in countries like Sierra Leone. Tanzania was successful compared to their Kenyan neighbors in mitigating the colonial legacy and creating a national identity. Though many African countries were on this path like Burkina Faso with Thomas Sankara and even Somalia with Siad Barre. During that time period 70's/80's there was a wave of energy to dispel of these colonial legacies. Now, many countries have reverted back and have become very dull in their ambitions involving this matter. What do we do Safferz? No adding clans as a surname you say? Well do we have the energy as a people to lead a campaign to create a national identity? Does this new system of federalism cater to the status quo or can such movement be created under such a system? We reside in different times Safferz. An Africa with visonless leaders.

[Wadani]

Though Mahmouds work on the politicising of Tribes and native identities by the British for British aims is a valuable contribution to works on colonialism, I do have concerns about its generalizability. Yes, no doubt Britain engaged the various Somali clans as independent political bodies, signing treaties with all 4 coastal northern clans seperately in 1884. But I don't believe it would be accurate to extrapolate from this that Britain had a hand in solidifying, making static and giving political agency to Somali clans that were hithero fluid kinship/social systems as u have described them above. Before any white man had ever dreamt of stepping foot in the horn the Somalis were already organized in independent socio-economic and political groupings segmented along clan lines, with a legitimate boqor, ugaas, suldaan, or garaad at the helm of each. In our case, the British just took advantage of age-old divisions, feuds, and bad-blood between the various clans, but had little to do with creating such conditions in the first place.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

I am inclined to agree with Wadani. If you read into Sayyid and poems from the dervish era, there is a lot of evidence of this "qabilism"

[Wadani]

SomaliPhilosopher;941675 wrote:

I am inclined to agree with Wadani. If you read into Sayyid and poems from the dervish era, there is a lot of evidence of this "qabilism"

Yes, i'm basing much of my opinion on my scant knowledge of the poetry of that era. The epic poetic battles (many of which incited actual physical ones) between the best bards of various northern clans in the collection known as 'Silsiladda Guba' is a good example.

[Safferz]

Wadani;941673 wrote:

Though Mahmouds work on the politicising of Tribes and native identities by the British for British aims is a valuable contribution to works on colonialism, I do have concerns about its generalizability. Yes, no doubt Britain engaged the various Somali clans as independent political bodies, signing treaties with all 4 coastal northern clans seperately in 1884. But I don't believe it would be accurate to extrapolate from this that Britain had a hand in solidifying, making static and giving political agency to Somali clans that were hithero fluid kinship/social systems as u have described them above.

Before any white man had ever dreamt of stepping foot in the horn the Somalis were already organized in independent socio-economic and political groupings segmented along clan lines, with a legitimate boqor, ugaas, suldaan, or garaad at the helm of each. In our case, the British just took advantage of age-old divisions, feuds, and bad-blood between the various clans, but had little to do with creating such conditions in the first place.

That's precisely the point of indirect rule -- rule through already existing indigenous political structures, which had the effect of entrenching and intensifying tribe for political power and rule. Where there was no recognizable political hierarchy, they created one and appointed "warrant chiefs." The traditional Somali political structure - the segmentary lineage system - is a more horizontal form of social organization than many African societies, so I would not be surprised at all to find that some of the clans that currently have a boqor/ugaas/suldaan/garaad did not have one prior to the 19th century. I know the British certainly appointed native courts and judges (qadi) in British Somaliland, but I haven't done much digging in the archives on this topic yet.

 

That said, I am not saying colonialism is the origin of qabyalad or the reason for our current issues, but it is certainly an important part and it is a legacy of rule that our leaders inherited and intensified in the postcolony. I just think it's important to place everything in its historical context.

[Safferz]

SomaliPhilosopher;941672 wrote:

What do we do Safferz? No adding clans as a surname you say?

Well do we have the energy as a people to lead a campaign to create a national identity?

Does this new system of federalism cater to the status quo or can such movement be created under such a system? We reside in different times Safferz. An Africa with visonless leaders.

Do we have the energy for the alternative, the endorsement and continuation of the very ideology that destroyed us?

[SomaliPhilosopher]

Safferz, similar to how this "clan" structure we have today is more or less an imported system, the idea of a national identity is imported as well

[Wadani]

Safferz;941677 wrote:

That's precisely the point of indirect rule -- rule through already existing indigenous political structures, which had the effect of entrenching and intensifying tribe for political power and rule. Where there was no recognizable political hierarchy, they created one and appointed "warrant chiefs."

The traditional Somali political structure - the segmentary lineage system - is a more horizontal form of social organization than many African societies, so I would not be surprised at all to find that some of the clans that currently have a boqor/ugaas/suldaan/garaad did not have one prior to the 19th century.

I know the British certainly appointed native courts and judges (qadi) in British Somaliland, but I haven't done much digging in the archives on this topic yet.

 

That said, I am not saying colonialism is the origin of qabyalad or the reason for our current issues, but it is certainly an important part and it is a legacy of rule that our leaders inherited and intensified in the postcolony. I just think it's important to place everything in its historical context.

Even though the Somali political structure was much more horizontol and diffuse in nature compared to many other African societies, being describe as a 'Pastoral Democracy' long ago by I.M . Lewis, I do believe almost all of the clans had a figurhead, even if only symbolic in nature. As for everything else u wrote, I concede lool.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

^^Well the argument being made by these african academics such as mandami is that these figureheads were transformed into something greater though colonial policies

[Wadani]

SomaliPhilosopher;941679 wrote:

Safferz, similar to how this "clan" structure we have today is more or less an imported system, the idea of a national identity is imported as well

The latter being much much more alien to us than the former loool.

[Wadani]

SomaliPhilosopher;941682 wrote:

^^Well the argument being made by these african academics such as mandami is that these figureheads were transformed into something greater though colonial policies

That's y conceded lol. I was only objecting to her assumption that some clans had no figureheads to begin with.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

Wadani;941683 wrote:

The latter being much much more alien to us than the former loool.

lol true that

[Safferz]

SomaliPhilosopher;941679 wrote:

Safferz, similar to how this "clan" structure we have today is more or less an imported system, the idea of a national identity is imported as well

I had such thoughtful response to this but then my browser crashed and I lost it So an abridged version lol:

 

I don't completely agree with that. Everything I've seen or read from the precolonial period suggests a recognition and understanding of some sort of shared Somali (and Muslim) identity -- for instance in Sayyid Mohamed's case, it was one that could be invoked and harnessed in opposition to foreign power. We had a kinship system (qabiil) that operated as a form of social organization, at times used in conflicts with other groups over resources but other times used to mediate and forge political and social alliances between tribes (marriage was one important institution of exchange and alliance building between tribes, since Somalis traditionally practiced something anthropologists call exogamy - marriage outside of your kinship group - for this reason). We did not have a nation-state until 1960, but we certainly had a nation. The question is when and how did qabiil transform into the primary form of political identification we see today, to the extent that shared Somali identity is almost impossible for us to imagine politically in the ways they did so easily just decades ago.

[Wadani]

Safferz;941689 wrote:

I had such thoughtful response to this but then my browser crashed and I lost it

So an abridged version lol:

 

I don't completely agree with that. Everything I've seen or read from the precolonial period suggests a recognition and understanding of some sort of shared Somali (and Muslim) identity -- for instance in

Sayyid Mohamed's case

, it was one that could be invoked and harnessed in opposition to foreign power. We had a kinship system (qabiil) that operated as a form of social organization, at times used in conflicts with other groups over resources but other times used to mediate and forge political and social alliances between tribes (marriage was one important institution of exchange and alliance building between tribes, since Somalis traditionally practiced something anthropologists call exogamy - marriage outside of your kinship group - for this reason). We did not have a nation-state until 1960, but we certainly had a nation. The question is when and how did qabiil transform into the primary form of political identification we see today, to the extent that shared Somali identity is almost impossible for us to imagine politically in the ways they did so easily just decades ago.

The answer to ur question in a nutshell I believe is when the deepseated mistrust took root among the clans post civil war. There can be no restoration of trust until there is wholesale restitution of rights, first and foremost among these being the right of all victim groups to a sincere apology and acceptance of guilt by those responsible. Somalis will remain insular and continue to seek refuge and solace in their clans until a legitimate national reconciliation takes place. If that happens waa la bogson doonaa dawladna waa loo bislaaan. It sounds simplistic but I think its our only hope.