|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 20:50:25 GMT 3
Thanks, you've brilliantly explained the flaw in that survey. There is nothing to add from my side. The guys who carried out that survey are not worth their salt. And Danielwaweru is actually relying fully on those flawed findings!!?? One of the authors of the study recently won a prize for best article from the IIAS, so that's perhaps not a view you want to hold too firmly. You had better listen to Man K. He is more versed in the realm of mathematics/statistics than you. By the way, did I see you adding oranges onto bananas and thereafter going ahead to subtract from them potatoes that had been previously added onto cabbages to get.....what? What result did you actually get or expect to get from that vile concoction? I think it may be sensible to wait for the authors' view. That was the last you heard from me on your misleading statistics. Your lies have been exposed for what they are, but feel free to try again from another front. We SHALL still expose you. We don't sleep on Jukwaa!! You might have noticed the other paper I mentioned in reply to your other message. It shows an even sharper version of the same result, and it's based on the Afrobarometer data, (independent of the data in the paper under discussion). |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 31, 2012 20:53:27 GMT 3
B6K,You are perfectly in order to reclaim your thread! I apologise for having been one of those who contributed in the hijacking of the thread, but I hope you understand that it was necessary. Please go on with your mission, but forgive a brother! Einstein, no worries. Threads meander but the article above can bring it back on subject. If RAO is too polarizing a figure, judging from the Kiambu crowd's reaction, & considering Mudavadi's positive reception at the North Rift (another area that harbors latent hostility to RAO), is it time for ODM to consider changing the flagbearer? If Mudavadi can be accepted in "hostile" territory, would Raila recuse himself for the better of the party & take a back seat (or a junior role)? Mudavadi may not be as charismatic as Agwambo but maybe this is precisely the kind of drab individual KE requires as the 4th president of the republic. A cardboard character to get us through the new constitution's transitional phase without raising too many passions or controversy. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 21:06:32 GMT 3
B6K,You are perfectly in order to reclaim your thread! I apologise for having been one of those who contributed in the hijacking of the thread, but I hope you understand that it was necessary. Please go on with your mission, but forgive a brother! Einstein, no worries. Threads meander but the article above can bring it back on subject. If RAO is too polarizing a figure, judging from the Kiambu crowd's reaction, & considering Mudavadi's positive reception at the North Rift (another area that harbors latent hostility to RAO), is it time for ODM to consider changing the flagbearer? If Mudavadi can be accepted in "hostile" territory, would Raila recuse himself for the better of the party & take a back seat (or a junior role)? Mudavadi may not be as charismatic as Agwambo but maybe this is precisely the kind of drab individual KE requires as the 4th president of the republic. A cardboard character to get us through the new constitution's transitional phase without raising too many passions or controversy. hehehe so many ways to stop RAO from contesting, the soft approach, the hard approach, the middle ground etc the democratic approach is to register as an ODM member get to be one of the delegates and then when that election for candidates, cast your vote for ruto, mudavadi, raila or whoever will be vying. then switch gears register for URP, KANU, KKK or whatever and also vote for your favorite |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 21:13:53 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 31, 2012 21:32:37 GMT 3
hehehe so many ways to stop RAO from contesting, the soft approach, the hard approach, the middle ground etc the democratic approach is to register as an ODM member get to be one of the delegates and then when that election for candidates, cast your vote for ruto, mudavadi, raila or whoever will be vying. then switch gears register for URP, KANU, KKK or whatever and also vote for your favorite  TNK, remember that pesky little law that compels even the public to declare their party? I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing anywhere in the world except in those single party communist nations, most of which have gone the free market way. If that really is enforced, I for one will think really hard before I put my John Hancock on ANY party's register. The thought of having to change parties at some future point is a nightmare. That said, if Mudavadi was the flagbearer I may be tempted to take up an ODM card. The gentle giant doesn't seem like anyone who will make too many waves. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 21:56:21 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 31, 2012 23:04:11 GMT 3
Thanks, you've brilliantly explained the flaw in that survey. There is nothing to add from my side. The guys who carried out that survey are not worth their salt. And Danielwaweru is actually relying fully on those flawed findings!!?? One of the authors of the study recently won a prize for best article from the IIAS, so that's perhaps not a view you want to hold too firmly. I think it may be sensible to wait for the authors' view. That was the last you heard from me on your misleading statistics. Your lies have been exposed for what they are, but feel free to try again from another front. We SHALL still expose you. We don't sleep on Jukwaa!! You might have noticed the other paper I mentioned in reply to your other message. It shows an even sharper version of the same result, and it's based on the Afrobarometer data, (independent of the data in the paper under discussion). DW, It does not matter what prizes the authors have won. It is the work product at hand that we were commenting on. Take my comments to anyone you trust as a statistician or econometrician, and then come tell me what you get from him or her. ... I will not be waiting for these authors to respond to you, for I would be surprised if they do. It is no coincidence that they did not report tests of significance - it is because those tests were crap! So I would not expect them to behave like they even heard the criticism. I do not know what school of statisticians reports parameter estimates without indications of confidence in those parameter values. Its certainly not a school that's likely to help you intimidate me with the number of prizes won by its veterans. I must emphasize that criticism is for the model which you tried to over-apply ... otherwise it is not a general condemnation of the authors work (with which I am not familiar). If the authors also applied that model in explaining differences among ethnicities, then I must question their intentions, because I do not think it is that they did not realize the flaw we have been discussing here. |
|
|
|
Post by Titchaz on Jan 31, 2012 23:56:09 GMT 3
One of the authors of the study recently won a prize for best article from the IIAS, so that's perhaps not a view you want to hold too firmly. I think it may be sensible to wait for the authors' view. You might have noticed the other paper I mentioned in reply to your other message. It shows an even sharper version of the same result, and it's based on the Afrobarometer data, (independent of the data in the paper under discussion). DW, It does not matter what prizes the authors have won. It is the work product at hand that we were commenting on. Take my comments to anyone you trust as a statistician or econometrician, and then come tell me what you get from him or her. ... I will not be waiting for these authors to respond to you, for I would be surprised if they do. It is no coincidence that they did not report tests of significance - it is because those tests were crap! So I would not expect them to behave like they even heard the criticism. I do not know what school of statisticians reports parameter estimates without indications of confidence in those parameter values. Its certainly not a school that's likely to help you intimidate me with the number of prizes won by its veterans. I must emphasize that criticism is for the model which you tried to over-apply ... otherwise it is not a general condemnation of the authors work (with which I am not familiar). If the authors also applied that model in explaining differences among ethnicities, then I must question their intentions, because I do not think it is that they did not realize the flaw we have been discussing here. Oya dready, achana na huyu mtu maana umeshasafisha ukumbi na sura yake kuhusu hio hoja ya ukusanyaji wa tarakwimu. Kwa sasa naomba turudie mada husika maana ishapinda na hili swala la kujadili jinsi data zilivyokusanywa. Siku njema. Respect. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 1, 2012 0:12:11 GMT 3
DW, It does not matter what prizes the authors have won. It is the work product at hand that we were commenting on. Take my comments to anyone you trust as a statistician or econometrician, and then come tell me what you get from him or her. ... I will not be waiting for these authors to respond to you, for I would be surprised if they do. It is no coincidence that they did not report tests of significance - it is because those tests were crap! So I would not expect them to behave like they even heard the criticism. I do not know what school of statisticians reports parameter estimates without indications of confidence in those parameter values. Its certainly not a school that's likely to help you intimidate me with the number of prizes won by its veterans. I must emphasize that criticism is for the model which you tried to over-apply ... otherwise it is not a general condemnation of the authors work (with which I am not familiar). If the authors also applied that model in explaining differences among ethnicities, then I must question their intentions, because I do not think it is that they did not realize the flaw we have been discussing here. Oya dready, achana na huyu mtu maana umeshasafisha ukumbi na sura yake kuhusu hio hoja ya ukusanyaji wa tarakwimu. Kwa sasa naomba turudie mada husika maana ishapinda na hili swala la kujadili jinsi data zilivyokusanywa. Siku njema. Respect.Naam, mkuu Titchaz! Lakini ukumbuke, kwa maana hesabu ni somo lililopewa heshima tele, chochote kisemwacho kwa hesabu huchukuliwa kuwa ni ukweli mtupu. Na je, msemi akiwa hajiwesi hesabuni, kweli tumruhusu aeneze maoni yake kwa kutumia sifa za hesabu na bali anatumia hiyo hesabu vibaya? Hivi ndivyo hawa waandishi walifanya. Lakini yote tushasema sasa. Heshima pia nami nakutolea. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 11, 2012 20:48:22 GMT 3
Man K,
Thanks, you've brilliantly explained the flaw in that survey. There is nothing to add from my side. The guys who carried out that survey are not worth their salt. And Danielwaweru is actually relying fully on those flawed findings!!??
....DW, have you heard anything from the authors? I went into the original paper (from the link you gave), and perused through for a model with tests of significance. That took me to their Table 9. Complete nonsense! Einstein was so right. These folks should not be running any regression models. They just know how to push stories into whatever numbers they generate, but their models are garbage generators. Their Table 9 reports results of a logistic model with this structure: Probability of voting for Kibaki = Some Constant + beta0 X Ethnic Variable + betaMatrix X Matrix of Economy and Political Environment I am compressing the model here, so you would have to look at their table for an exact statement. This model is so poorly specified, it is eager to tell us so by itself. Look at their Model 4: Look at the significance of the ethnic variables ... the test of significance suggests that the ethnic influence in GEMA territory is without statistical error, and is also near perfect for Luo and Kamba. Likewise tests of significance suggest that (1) living standards, (2) corruption and (3) anti-majimbo stance, are perfect determinants of the probability of voting Kibaki in. Only being Kalenjin or being Luhya seems not to tell us anything of significance as to the likelihood of voting for Kibaki. Rarely do we see models where the majority parameters are this good at explaining the likelihood of something worth inquiring into! So we should be glorifying this study? Absolutely not! We should throw it into trash, and here is why: With all that explanatory power of individual variables, the whole model fit is only 64.8% as measured by the R squared! So individual variables explain the voting pattern (or so the modelers think), but the model in general is a terrible fit! The problem here is that just about all the explanatory variables are deterministic (not random), and there is no control for the modeled probability (of voting Kibaki) to stay within the mathematical space of probability (0-1)[/b]. Within any ethnic group, the applicable ethnic variable has a value of 1, while all other variables of ethnicity have the value of 0. Since the economic variables are commonly shared, they are also fixed. So the random term is only the "Majimbo" stance. This is a nonsense model! I have cancelled out parts of my comments after reading the text and seeing that the data on the economic variables was not macro data as I had presumed. Still the model is perfect "GIGO" - Garbage In, Garbage Out. A correct specification of the model would have included at least one variable on the right hand side that varies with the likelihood of voting for Kibaki, i.e. a control variable. They should have had a variable for "voting for Raila", for example. Even better, they would have put dummy variables for all candidates they expected ethnicity to relate to. In that case the probability of voting Kibaki would be revealed relative to that of voting Raila (and other candidates) within and across ethnic groups. In their case I cannot fathom even what the parameter results could actually be interpreted to mean. But I know the model itself confesses its nonsensical nature. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 11, 2012 22:04:50 GMT 3
You could say that again! DW, have you heard anything from the authors?
Autoreply email, saying they're out of office till 15/ii. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 11, 2012 23:45:56 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 12, 2012 1:12:59 GMT 3
Had they endorsed Raila though? They claim they never did. |
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Feb 12, 2012 2:33:10 GMT 3
Had they endorsed Raila though? They claim they never did. I watched Ngunjiri Wambugu of Change Associates being interviewed by Jeff Koinange and my conclusion was clear: they have not endorsed Raila Odinga. Make up own your mind. It is an excellent interview. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 12, 2012 10:24:40 GMT 3
Thanks Furaha. Clearly the guy never endorse anyone.
I like his thinking ... but in the forth clip, he comes across as naive and assuming.
Why does he think that the the culture of questioning arises from Moi's 844? And who told him that US does not have identity politics? Why is Obama, a very successful president (who got elected at US's most desperate moment in our times), an attraction of so much damnation? Why are so many people ready to accept someones faked identity as a conservative presidential candidate, except for the fact that they put much capital into the "conservative" identity (even when it is not genuine)?
Let's be fair to ourselves. We are trying to create a nation where none exists. So we are coining a culture that's at war with our cultures. The only history what we call Kenya shares is the history of colonization ... not enough to break the many unique histories of nations within, which are held together by language and ways of doing things. Let's be fair to ourselves - lets try to create our future without insulting ourselves by pretending that we are idiots for not following someone Else's national track.
Our children are more Kenyan than we are .. . because they are being brought up more Kenyan than we were. When I was little, born few years after the union jack came down, we were still talking about ourselves as "Africans" more often than as Kenyans! Lets create Kenya for ourselves without damning our fundamental nations. I am Meru and Proud!
I hate the time when there are no Kikuyus, Luos, Kales, Giryamas, etc etc, ati because we dismantled all these to build Kenya. Lets build a Kenya that is made of these nations. That's my wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 12, 2012 11:48:43 GMT 3
Let's be fair to ourselves. We are trying to create a nation where none exists. So we are coining a culture that's at war with our cultures. The only history what we call Kenya shares is the history of colonization ... not enough to break the many unique histories of nations within, which are held together by language and ways of doing things. Let's be fair to ourselves - lets try to create our future without insulting ourselves by pretending that we are idiots for not following someone Else's national track.
This is a very ODM view: nations are ethnic nations, and the state—or some similar juridical power—can't make states by that juridical power. Unfortunately, both parts of the view are false; given Kenya's history the're also inconsistent.
(1) Sharing the history of a state is often sufficient to make a nation (England is a reasonable example of a nation created by a state).
(2) If being caused to exist by the colonial state makes a nation not a nation, then Gikuyu, Kalenjin, Luhya and Luo—more or less every single one of the five largest ethnic groups in Kenya—aren't really nations, since all, without exception, are creations of the colonial order. If you accept that nations are ethnic, you can't deny that the state can make nations, since Kenya is filled with ethnic nations made by the colonial state.
(3) People forget the example of Somalia, which shows that ethnicity—even common ethnicity joined to a common religion and a long common history—isn't sufficient to make a nation. Ethnicity, then is neither necessary nor sufficient.
(4) You can tell that Kenya is a nation by spotting the expansion of ethnic groups. Ogiek (or large numbers of them anyway), Marakwet, Sebei, Terik—all of whom themselves came into existence as separate groups not that long agoi—are all now Kalenjin. Embu, Mbeere, Gichugu, Ndia are now Gikuyu for all practical purposes. Years from now, neither Gikuyu nor Kalenjin will exist: Gikuyu will have been replaced by GEMA—which will become an ethnic group in its own right, rather than an alliance of separate groups—and Kalenjin by KAMATUSA (which will then very likely fold into a Nilotic Alliance). This aggregation of groups is happening because you need troops to fight national elections. People are willing to change their very identities for national politics, which is your proof we have a nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 12, 2012 11:52:26 GMT 3
Had they endorsed Raila though? They claim they never did. I watched Ngunjiri Wambugu of Change Associates being interviewed by Jeff Koinange and my conclusion was clear: they have not endorsed Raila Odinga. Make up own your mind. It is an excellent interview. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 12, 2012 13:42:28 GMT 3
Let's be fair to ourselves. We are trying to create a nation where none exists. So we are coining a culture that's at war with our cultures. The only history what we call Kenya shares is the history of colonization ... not enough to break the many unique histories of nations within, which are held together by language and ways of doing things. Let's be fair to ourselves - lets try to create our future without insulting ourselves by pretending that we are idiots for not following someone Else's national track.
This is a very ODM view: nations are ethnic nations, and the state—or some similar juridical power—can't make states by that juridical power. Unfortunately, both parts of the view are false; given Kenya's history the're also inconsistent.
Didn't know this is the ODM view.  But if every ethnic-nation had to within her territory erect her minature state, we will start talking about balkanization, where that concept is understood to be a historical aberration. But when you are as big as the Yoruba in Nigeria, and have a leadership capable of conducting your liberation or secessionist war to sucess, then surely even this historically late, you can have your nation conforming to a homogenous ethnic collective!
[(1) Sharing the history of a state is often sufficient to make a nation (England is a reasonable example of a nation created by a state).
Are you sure you do not mean United Kingdom? Since within the British nation, ethnic identities have always been strong. The scotts, the english, the welsh and the irish. But ever since the legendary Union treaty between Scotland and England, one of the most formidable and dynamic nations was created. The British nation, ruling the world as the state United Kingdom, under the Union Jack. Now, part of Scottish nationalism wants to withdraw from the British nation but amalgamate into the wider European nation/union [basically because the english identity which is the most powerful in the UK union, is rejectionist of the European assimilation, which the scotts view to be in their 'national' interest].
[(2) If being caused to exist by the colonial state makes a nation not a nation, then Gikuyu, Kalenjin, Luhya and Luo—more or less every single one of the five largest ethnic groups in Kenya—aren't really nations, since all, without exception, are creations of the colonial order. If you accept that nations are ethnic, you can't deny that the state can make nations, since Kenya is filled with ethnic nations made by the colonial state.
That they were created by the colonial order is not enough reason to deny their nationhood. No less than we would deny the Irish their nationhood because they were created by english colonial order. The chief factor in nationhood is the conciousness. Even without immidiate territory, like the Jews for over 2 millenia, if the conciousness exists in diaspora, it is the most potent symbol of nation. An idea. An illusion. Like God and his eternal Kingdom of heaven. Once it grabs hold of a people, this false conciousness or pure supersitition or opium of the people, you have yourself a nation.
[(3) People forget the example of Somalia, which shows that ethnicity—even common ethnicity joined to a common religion and a long common history—isn't sufficient to make a nation. Ethnicity, then is neither necessary nor sufficient.
True, a study of scottish clanism --the McGregors, Mackenzies, Mackotienos, Mackonyangos ! shows that they too had to be merged into we are Scotts. This merger is sometimes an evolution, but mostly in history, the ruthless amalgamation by the fire and sword of some tyrant like Tshaka Zulu or Emperor Gaido the Shogun of ONE Japan! I therefore find it historically thinkable that a tyrant can emerge the caliber of the above, and forge us all into one undisputed Kenya!
[(4) You can tell that Kenya is a nation by spotting the expansion of ethnic groups. Ogiek (or large numbers of them anyway), Marakwet, Sebei, Terik—all of whom themselves came into existence as separate groups not that long agoi—are all now Kalenjin. Embu, Mbeere, Gichugu, Ndia are now Gikuyu for all practical purposes. Years from now, neither Gikuyu nor Kalenjin will exist:
I do not think we are a nation yet. When a crisis puts us to the test, our natural organisational form is the ethnic-nation. This partisan conciousness immidiately overrides the collective Kenya narrative. Even without a crisis I think. The competition for scarce resources can create a realisation that, if Kenya wont be efficiently run and deliver, then perhaps folks are better off on their own. 2 million Slovenes managing their affairs well, outcompete 40 million incompetent Kenyans.
[ Gikuyu will have been replaced by GEMA—which will become an ethnic group in its own right, rather than an alliance of separate groups—and Kalenjin by KAMATUSA (which will then very likely fold into a Nilotic Alliance). This aggregation of groups is happening because you need troops to fight national elections. People are willing to change their very identities for national politics, which is your proof we have a nation.
I like this picture of evolution. But I think it is forced, rather than choice. And I am FORCED by knowledge of earlier Dalmatian pitch, to further contemplate the whole of east africa as a nation, consisting of only two ethnicities/nations: Bantus and non bantus!
NB: In another thread I mention the KAMETUSA of Moi in passing, and I was very desperate to avoid the name of Otieno Dalmas's theoritical proposition then.
But now danielwaweru has fished the cat out of the bag. yes, Otieno Dalmas proposed to Moi, shaken by the demands of multi-party politics, that he divide Kenya into only two tribes, BANTUS AND NON-BANTUS! [The dichotomous cleaveage of ethnic lineage]. Given that I was in the civil war in Rwanda, any talk of ethnic cleavages sounded to me like genocidal musings! From there that I did not even want to pronounce those words! |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 13, 2012 1:43:59 GMT 3
Let's be fair to ourselves. We are trying to create a nation where none exists. So we are coining a culture that's at war with our cultures. The only history what we call Kenya shares is the history of colonization ... not enough to break the many unique histories of nations within, which are held together by language and ways of doing things. Let's be fair to ourselves - lets try to create our future without insulting ourselves by pretending that we are idiots for not following someone Else's national track.
This is a very ODM view: nations are ethnic nations, and the state—or some similar juridical power—can't make states by that juridical power. Unfortunately, both parts of the view are false; given Kenya's history the're also inconsistent.
(1) Sharing the history of a state is often sufficient to make a nation (England is a reasonable example of a nation created by a state).
(2) If being caused to exist by the colonial state makes a nation not a nation, then Gikuyu, Kalenjin, Luhya and Luo—more or less every single one of the five largest ethnic groups in Kenya—aren't really nations, since all, without exception, are creations of the colonial order. If you accept that nations are ethnic, you can't deny that the state can make nations, since Kenya is filled with ethnic nations made by the colonial state.
(3) People forget the example of Somalia, which shows that ethnicity—even common ethnicity joined to a common religion and a long common history—isn't sufficient to make a nation. Ethnicity, then is neither necessary nor sufficient.
(4) You can tell that Kenya is a nation by spotting the expansion of ethnic groups. Ogiek (or large numbers of them anyway), Marakwet, Sebei, Terik—all of whom themselves came into existence as separate groups not that long agoi—are all now Kalenjin. Embu, Mbeere, Gichugu, Ndia are now Gikuyu for all practical purposes. Years from now, neither Gikuyu nor Kalenjin will exist: Gikuyu will have been replaced by GEMA—which will become an ethnic group in its own right, rather than an alliance of separate groups—and Kalenjin by KAMATUSA (which will then very likely fold into a Nilotic Alliance). This aggregation of groups is happening because you need troops to fight national elections. People are willing to change their very identities for national politics, which is your proof we have a nation.
[/size][/quote] DW, I have observed that you like creating debates in which you have the material rather than engaging the debate that is actually on the table. Now you make it sound like I was making a case against building a Kenyan nation. I think you should read mine again. This time do not form a reaction till you have finished reading the post. Nowhere did I suggest that a nation "Kenya" cannot arise. Nowhere did I suggest that a colonial history cannot provide impetus for coining out one nation. My point was that we do not have to cast our Kikuyuness, Luoness, Kalenjininess (and all else that we are) negatively so to erect one nation that does not take pride in these truths that make us. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 13, 2012 1:53:11 GMT 3
On a different note, please enlighten me on this: ....
(2) If being caused to exist by the colonial state makes a nation not a nation, then Gikuyu, Kalenjin, Luhya and Luo—more or less every single one of the five largest ethnic groups in Kenya—aren't really nations, since all, without exception, are creations of the colonial order. ..... In what way did colonialists create our tribes? How far back can we trace the colonial foot print? Are our tribal nations that recent? |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 14, 2012 13:58:25 GMT 3
DW, I have observed that you like creating debates in which you have the material rather than engaging the debate that is actually on the table. Now you make it sound like I was making a case against building a Kenyan nation. I think you should read mine again. This time do not form a reaction till you have finished reading the post.
Yes, I read the original post. This para. in particular:
Let's be fair to ourselves. We are trying to create a nation where none exists. So we are coining a culture that's at war with our cultures. The only history what we call Kenya shares is the history of colonization ... not enough to break the many unique histories of nations within, which are held together by language and ways of doing things. Let's be fair to ourselves - lets try to create our future without insulting ourselves by pretending that we are idiots for not following someone Else's national track.
which contains the two key claims: that there's no Kenyan nation ('none exists'), only ethnic ones; and that all we share is colonial history which is not enough to make a nation.
Both claims are false, and anyway inconsistent. There is a Kenyan nation. Interaction with the colonial state was sufficient to make ethnic nations; it follows that interaction with states can make nations. Since you take interaction with the colonial state to be insufficient for the making of nations, this is a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 14, 2012 14:08:47 GMT 3
On a different note, please enlighten me on this: ....
(2) If being caused to exist by the colonial state makes a nation not a nation, then Gikuyu, Kalenjin, Luhya and Luo—more or less every single one of the five largest ethnic groups in Kenya—aren't really nations, since all, without exception, are creations of the colonial order. ..... In what way did colonialists create our tribes? How far back can we trace the colonial foot print? Are our tribal nations that recent?
Several. A non-exhaustive list: creating and enforcing administrative boundaries (central for the creation of Gikuyu ethnicity); creating incentives for ethnic mobilisation (no cross-district parties); creating alternative ethnicities to counterbalance those created by earlier stages of this process (Kalenjin). For examples, Charles Ambler's Central Kenya in the Nineteenth Century, Ogot on the formation of the Luo as a political project of Jaramogi, Lynch's Ethnic Politics and the Kalenjin. For a general story, Berman's Ethnicity, Patronage and the African State
For recentness: Ben Kipkorir claims, quite plausibly, that the Marakwet became a tribe—as opposed to a set of proximate clans—in the very recent past, during his lifetime. They're already on their way to being completely absorbed by the Kalenjin.
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 18, 2012 6:12:01 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 18, 2012 8:19:55 GMT 3
DW, I have observed that you like creating debates in which you have the material rather than engaging the debate that is actually on the table. Now you make it sound like I was making a case against building a Kenyan nation. I think you should read mine again. This time do not form a reaction till you have finished reading the post.
Yes, I read the original post. This para. in particular:
Let's be fair to ourselves. We are trying to create a nation where none exists. So we are coining a culture that's at war with our cultures. The only history what we call Kenya shares is the history of colonization ... not enough to break the many unique histories of nations within, which are held together by language and ways of doing things. Let's be fair to ourselves - lets try to create our future without insulting ourselves by pretending that we are idiots for not following someone Else's national track.
which contains the two key claims: that there's no Kenyan nation ('none exists'), only ethnic ones; and that all we share is colonial history which is not enough to make a nation.
Both claims are false, and anyway inconsistent. There is a Kenyan nation. Interaction with the colonial state was sufficient to make ethnic nations; it follows that interaction with states can make nations. Since you take interaction with the colonial state to be insufficient for the making of nations, this is a problem.Waweru, I wrote quite a number of sentences, and you insist only the one you pluck out of context brings out my message? If you really believe that I was making the point you allege, wouldn't you wonder how it fits with all else I said? Anyway, how could I debate with you when you keep insisting that I was saying something different from what I claim to have been saying? On the other subject, colonialism did not form our ethnic nations. Colonialism was an element these nations met on their time path and had to cope with ... in other words the nations already existed, and they would have continued to exist. Whether each would be exactly what it is now, if colonialism did not come about, is a different issue. To influence a process is a different concept from causing a process. |
|
TNK, remember that pesky little law that compels even the public to declare their party? I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing anywhere in the world except in those single party communist nations, most of which have gone the free market way.
But if every ethnic-nation had to within her territory erect her minature state, we will start talking about balkanization, where that concept is understood to be a historical aberration. But when you are as big as the Yoruba in Nigeria, and have a leadership capable of conducting your liberation or secessionist war to sucess, then surely even this historically late, you can have your nation conforming to a homogenous ethnic collective!