{UAH} THE WORD TRIBE IS DEROGATORY

Thanks for that posting!

I devote a chapter to that issue in my book "The Hearts of Darkness, How White Writers Created The Racist Image of Africa" (new edition out in a few months)

Below is the chapter.

CHAPTER XV

AFRICANS ARE NOT "TRIBESMEN"

Africa is still viewed in many parts of the world as a collection of "tribal" communities with the atendant negative consequences associated with this characterization including how others see Africa and how some Africans perceive themselves.

Some prominent writers and academics, and some readers as well have in the past complained about the continued use of the terms "tribe," "tribal," and "tribesmen," to refer to Africans or African customs, traditions, and institutions. In an essay, "Inkatha: Notions of the 'Primitive' and 'Tribal' in Reporting on South Africa," in the book Africa's Media Image, Lisa Brock, a professor of African history, analyzed how the word "tribe" had been used as a derogative description in major American newspapers. "I found the words tribe or tribal employed to describe native Americans, Africans, Asians and other peoples of non-European descent in 235 out of a total of 250 times that it was used between January 1989 and April 1990," she wrote. "Thirteen of the other ffeen times it was used to describe the British rock band 'The Tribes.'" Brock had surveyed articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Constitution Journal, The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor, and The Los Angeles Times. "To the term 'tribe' were added notions informed by colonial expansion, social Darwinism, eugenics, biological racism, segregation, and anthropologists' studies of primitive societies," Brock continued, and elsewhere added: "The African as primitive and all people of African descent as inferior became associated with the primordial characteristics of tribes. The primordial societies lacked advanced political systems and were presumed barbarous. Their motives were more instinctual than rational and very litle that they did was perceived as calculated or long range." Brock critiqued the tendency of Western media to describe the confict then occurring between supporters of the African National Congress (ANC) and those of the Apartheid regime-collaborator Chief Ghatsha Buthelezi and his Inkatha party as Black-on-Black. "The recent ideological discord in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were never once, to my knowledge, coined as 'white on white' violence by American media sources," she explained, contrasting the U.S. media coverage of the fghting in South Africa with the reporting on the confict then raging in Europe.

Long before Brock's critique, a Ugandan scholar and author, Okot p'Bitek, had argued against the continued use of the word "tribe" in an enlightening chapter, "What is a tribe?" in his book, African Religions in Western Scholarship. "Western scholarship," p'Bitek wrote, "sees the world as divided into two types of human society: one, their own, civilized, great, developed; the other the non-western peoples, uncivilized, simple, undeveloped. One is modern, the other, tribal." P'Bitek also wrote, "Corrupt practices by government ofcers and others, such as giving employment not through merit but by kinship relations, or concentrating public utilities such as hospitals, schools, etc., in one's own home area, which have been known throughout history and in all corners of the world, are described as 'tribalism' in Africa." P'Bitek continued: "And, even normal demands for equitable distribution of the national wealth, in terms of areas, have been called 'tribalism.'" The word "tribe" in Western scholarship conveyed a distinctly negative characterization about Africa, he argued. "It means people living in primitive or barbaric conditions. And each time it is used, as it is in the sentence, 'I am a Kikuyu by tribe,' the implication is that the speaker is a Kikuyu who lives in a primitive or barbaric condition. And when we read of 'tribal law,' 'tribal economics,' or 'tribal religion,' Western scholars imply that the law, economics or religion under review are those of primitive or barbaric peoples." He concluded: "In my opinion, it is misleading and confusing to analyse the social ills of Africa, which are, in any case universal, in terms of the so-called phenomenon of 'tribalism.'And, for a clearer understanding of our problems, it is suggested that the term 'tribe' ought to be dropped from sociological vocabulary."

It is true that many Africans, whether they are Acholis, Kikuyus, Zulus, or Igbos, also use the word "tribe," when trying to distinguish their ancestral background or ethnicity within their own respective countries. However, when Africans use the word, it is never in a negative context and certainly does not carry the pejorative connotation p'Bitek and Brock discussed.

Milton Bracker, a New York Times reporter sent to Africa, was concerned about how to describe Africans in his news reports without being ofensive, the leters he sent to his editor, found in the newspaper's archival records, reveal. Bracker, who was sent to South Africa by The New York Times in 1959, asked for guidance from Freedman, the foreign news editor. "If it has not been determined already," Bracker wrote in a leter dated April 8, 1959, "I think some style guidance should be furnished on the desired usage of a word to mean African negro." Bracker's leter continued, "In the Congo, such a man is a noir. In parts of French Africa, he is an indigene. In Kenya, Tanganyika and the Federation, he is an African. In the Union of South

Africa, he is a Native. I disregard the contemptuous 'Kafr,' or the racial collective 'Bantu.'" Bracker concluded, "It is curiously difcult for a reporter to handle this one consistently in a paper with none of the taboos that determine the various usages listed above. I would appreciate guidance on this point; and if it is not already a mater of fxed style, I suggest it ought to be." Bracker was seeking counsel from an editor whose racism toward Africans was exceptional as the archival records show.

Africans, and American readers of The New York Times, also wrote leters to the newspaper's editors to complain about the use of the word "tribe" and "tribal," to characterize Africans, or when they believed Africans were not taken seriously by the reporters. When The New York Times published an article by Robert Conley under the headline, "Two Leaders in Kenya Boycot Parley that Seeks Tribal Unity," on August 12, 1962, a Kenyan living in the United States, Julius Waiguchu, protested.

The Times article that Waiguchu objected to was published in 1962, the year before Kenya won its independence from Britain. At the time, Jomo Kenyata leader of the Kenya African National Union (KANU) and Ronald Ngala, head of the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU), were jostling for the post of prime minister. Kenyata and Ngala had failed to show up for a unity meeting because of "tribal bickering," Conley had reported in his Times article. KADU wanted "regional governments to insure the autonomy of the tribes and to protect them from domination by the Kikuyu, from whom the Mau Mau terrorism emerged in 1952," Conley wrote, denigrating the liberation fghters as well as the Kikuyus in general. Waiguchu, in his leter dated August 15, 1962, complained that Conley had exaggerated the alleged "tribal" diferences instead of focusing on what were ideological diferences between Kenyata and Ngala. He accused Conley of feeding readers with "cheap propaganda that will do nobody any good."

Waiguchu claimed Western leaders and publications favored Ngala over Kenyata because the former was considered more accommodating to their economic interest. "He does not say that the discord that exists today in Kenya is due to the fact that imperialist subversion has more to do with it than tribal rivalries," Waiguchu wrote, referring to Conley. "The imperialist-built and supported elements with Tshombe-type mentalities are the cause of all that." His reference was to Moise Tshombe, leader of the Belgian-supported secessionists in the mineral-rich Katanga province of the former Belgian Congo. Tshombe had presided over the execution of Congo's independence prime minister Patrice Lumumba in 1960 and was detested by most Africans. "I think he would do some good to his people," Waiguchu's leter continued, "to come back and then report

to us the rivalries of Jim Crow and K.K.K. in Georgia."

Freedman, the Times' foreign news editor, forwarded Waiguchu's leter to Conley, who then responded to his editor in a leter, dated October 3, 1962: "If Mr. Waiguchu thinks there are no tribal difculties in Kenya, he is misinformed. If he denies there are, he is deluded. We did not invent the difculties." Moreover, the "abusive" tone of Waiguchu's leter proved that he was a "crank," Conley wrote. "At least there is one solace," he added. "The Africans call us 'imperialist' and the white setlers say we libel them, which shows that we are in league with neither."

On another occasion, a prominent Columbia University anthropology professor, Marvin Harris, complained about The New York Times' coverage of the war of independence in Portuguese-ruled Mozambique. "Incidentally," Harris wrote in a leter dated November 22, 1966, protesting the manner in which Times' correspondent Lawrence Fellows had characterized the Bakonde people, "…to call these people a 'tribe' is about as accurate as calling the Scots or the English a tribe."

Professor Harris complained that the Portuguese colonial authorities in Mozambique had convinced Fellows that the freedom fghters were mere "savages," who were resisting civilization. Harris observed that Fellows had quoted Portuguese ofcials and setlers on the fctitious cannibal heritage of the guerrilla fghters. Fellows had also willingly conveyed the Portuguese's opinion of the Mozambican freedom fghters as "relatively primitive," "feared," and "detested," Harris continued. Fellows "neglects to state what the guerrillas think of the Portuguese," Harris wrote. Professor Harris asked why Fellows' article had not discussed the United States' role in supporting a discredited colonial system and how the State Department had ignored appeals for help from the U.S.-educated Mozambican guerrilla leader, Dr. Eduardo Mondlane. "We are driving him steadily toward the lef," Harris wrote, referring to Mondlane, "against all his sentiments and learning, for we give him no other alternative."

Moreover, Fellows had not treated Mondlane respectfully in his article, Harris complained. "It is well known that the Portuguese have done everything in their power to prevent the development of an African elite. The odds against Dr. Mondlane obtaining a doctorate can be stated quite precisely: one in six million. On behalf of his many friends and respectful colleagues in the United States," Harris concluded, "I urge Mr. Fellows to take his words more seriously." Mondlane was the frst and only Mozambican with a Ph.D. at the time, having earned it from Northwestern University; he later taught at Syracuse University.

How did The New York Times respond to Professor Harris' observations and complaint? In a leter, dated December 22, 1966,

George Palmer, an assistant to the managing editor, wrote to Fellows, asking whether he wanted to respond directly, based on their "guidance" or for the foreign desk to write on his behalf. "Professor Harris touches so many bases, afer swinging his critical bat, that I feel you should see what he has to say," Palmer wrote. "There is no urgency but I think he deserves more than my bare acknowledgment of his leter."

The Portuguese clearly took Mondlane very seriously—so much so that Portuguese secret agents assassinated him at the age of 48 with a leter bomb on February 3, 1969. At the time he had resigned his teaching position and lived in Tanzania where Mozambique's liberation army, Frente de Libertacao de Mocambique (FRELIMO), was based and had training camps.

Even The New York Times' own correspondents in Africa complained about distortions of their articles, or outright fabrications inserted by editors. When Lloyd Garrison was The New York Times' correspondent in Nigeria during the 1960s, he complained about the published version of one of his articles. "The reference to 'small pagan tribes dressed in leaves' is slightly misleading and could, because of its startling quality, give the reader the impression that there are a lot of tribes running around half-naked," Garrison wrote, rather diplomatically, in a leter to the foreign news editor dated June 5, 1967. The article in question had been published on May 31, 1967 and Garrison's original version had contained no such reference to "small pagan tribes dressed in leaves," according to his leter. However, the foreign news editor, presumably not satisfed with a story set in Africa that lacked "tribal" imagery for the Times' readers, took the liberty of creating it for Garrison.

Garrison in his leter also complained about past numerous insertions of the derogative terms "tribes" and "tribesmen" in his stories. "Tribesmen connote the grass-leaves image," he wrote. "Plus, the word 'tribes' equals primitive, which in a country like Nigeria just doesn't ft, and is ofensive to African readers who know damn well what unwashed American and European readers think when they stumble on the word," he complained. "If it is not enough to say Yorubas or Ibos, as one would the Welch or the Walloons, then use the word tribe," Garrison continued. "But not tribesmen, please. The frst is less ofensive, the second invites the image of savages dancing around the fre." This was, of course, precisely the image that the Times' foreign news desk wanted to create.

Joseph Lelyveld, who was later promoted to the Times' managing editor post, and then the executive editor, also complained while he was a reporter about how some of his own articles dealing with discrimination under the apartheid regime were toned down or distorted by editors in New York, making the system appear less brutal.

Lelyveld was frst sent as a Times correspondent to South Africa in the 1960s, but he was expelled by the regime because they suspected him of having lefist leanings and, presumably, sympathy for the liberation struggle. Lelyveld returned to South Africa as a correspondent in the 1980s. During his second assignment there, Lelyveld once wrote a series of articles about the regime's segregated education system and how it discriminated against Blacks by denying adequate funding to their schools. When the published versions of his articles were neutered by the editing, Lelyveld complained in leters to the foreign news desk. In one leter, dated January 6, 1983, Lelyveld wrote that "virtually all the original reporting" he had conducted over a one-month period had been omited. In one story, the subject of White control and the racial hierarchy in the education system was deleted, he complained. The printed version of the article was like "a salami sandwich without the salami, just slabs of stale bread," Lelyveld wrote, adding, "...if you prefer a baseball image, the wind up without the pitch, in other words a balk."

When Lelyveld felt another article had been distorted, he complained in another leter, dated April 18, 1983, to the foreign news editor, Craig Whitney. "I wrote the following sentence: 'The idea of a referendum among blacks was never considered for the obvious reason that it would be overwhelmingly defeated.' That became: 'ofcials made it clear that the idea of a referendum among blacks... etc.' To what ofcials did the rewrite person talk? How does he or she know they made it clear? This exact phrase has been writen in my copy before. Ofcials make damn litle clear here."

On Sunday, October 11, 2020, 'Afuwa Kasule' via Ugandans at Heart (UAH) Community <ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com> wrote:

THE WORD TRIBE IS DEROGATORY:

The so-called Western media like the BBC, CNN, and also Aljazeera refer to the jungle communities in the Amazon in South America as tribes but never use the same term to refer to urban peoples in South American cities like Rio, Bogotá, La Paz, etc. Does this imply that the word has connotations of backwardness, primitiveness, nudity, animalness, etc?

In Uganda, the word is often used in reference to different ethnic groups in the country. The ethnic groups are even proud to identify themselves as tribes. Yet certainly, the reference has become the ugly mark that serves no positive purpose other than balkanize Ugandan people into different disjointed, and sometimes, hostile groups.

What is even worse is the political zoning of the country along ethnic lines; so you hear of Buganda region, Ankole sub-region, Teso sub-region, Lango, sub-region, Acholi sub-region, etc. 

Now, one wonders whether the use of the word tribe in Uganda should be revised in order to keep away from the negative connotations and to forge unity in the country. In this regard, may be it would be wise to replace the word tribe with ethnicity in bank forms, passport forms, school forms, etc.

--

Allaah gives the best to those who leave the choice to Him."And if Allah touches you with harm, none can remove it but He, and if He touches you with good, then He is Able to do all things." (6:17)

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ugandans at Heart (UAH) Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ugandans-at-heart/CAJqBGGc%3DDhPo%2B%3D-ci7d%2Br1buNq_HAGwThe9zZvQZChkb0%2B%2BrZA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Make Sure To Checkout www.blackstarnews.com 

Follow me @allimadi 

Milton Allimadi, Publisher/CEO
The Black Star News

www.blackstarnews.com

2429 Southern Boulevard Suite 2  

Bronx, New York, 10458

(646) 261-7566

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ugandans at Heart (UAH) Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ugandans-at-heart/CAEqpviqDm7bxfzKeu9mGLL70C9AAOE-JjGoTuwkDhvUBuK9EDg%40mail.gmail.com.