Blood Oaths, Boundaries and Brothers (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2014
Gat's motivation for writing this important book was his "deep dissatisfaction" with the portrayal of nations and nationalism in much scholarly literature as "recent and superªcial" results of modern "processes of social integration and political mobilization, which have welded together large populations hitherto scattered among parochial and loosely connected small rural communities" (1). While acknowledging modernity's huge impact on the political expression of ethnic and national identity, Gat begs to differ in important respects with the modernist consensus. Drawing extensively on ethnonational histories and on theories ranging from evolutionary biology to the social organization of kinship relations, Gat shows convincingly that the nation as a kin-and-culture-based unit of mass political allegiance appeared early and frequently in history, certainly well before the emergence of the economic and institutional arrangements that characterize modernity (2-3). In Gat's view, ethnicity, deªned as "a population of shared kinship (real or perceived) and culture," played a major role in all forms of the state, including premodern city-states and multiethnic empires (3). "Desperate" popular resistance to alien rule was the norm (13-14). Gat straddles the positions of two other important scholars who have emphasized the premodern roots of the nation and of politicized ethnicity. On one hand, Connor emphasizes the ties of descent that underpin the political solidarity of ethnic groups, modern or otherwise. 1 But Gat points out that evolutionary biology per se cannot support a hypothesis based solely on literal kinship of a large, genetically diverse nation (5-6). On the other hand, Smith argues in a more socialconstructivist vein that premodern "ethnie" often developed a sense of political solidarity based on myths of promised lands, golden ages, distinctive virtues, and great battles against perennial foes (9). 2 But Gat also notes that solidarity was not built by cultural meanings out of thin air; such ideas were anchored in nested alliances of lineages, clans, and tribes that underpinned early states (3, 21, 44-66). Gat produces a highly plausible synthesis of these two perspectives, showing the interaction of the social organization of extended kin ties and the development of national culture in many, if not all, proto-nations. In stressing the historically dominant role of kin-based patrimonial organization, Gat echoes a broader argument in Fukuyama's excellent, The Origins of Political Order.
The Resolution of Conflict: Traditional African Ancestors, Kinship, and Rituals of Reconciliation
African Conflict & Peacebuilding Review, 2013
Although debates continue over the type and frequency of conflict in human societies, it is clear that some amount of conflict has been common. As conflict can damage the social relationships that have been important to human survival and well-being, it is important to identify methods that have been shown to be effective across cultures in protecting important social relationships and mending them when broken.In this paper, we focus on conflicts that were localized and internal, as were those found in precolonial Africa, and on traditions used across centuries and perhaps millennia for reconciliation. These traditions were established upon and bound by complex and intertwined ties of religion, shared ancestry, and kinship. We discuss this social system and explain how the key elements worked together to end conflict. We conclude by arguing that as these traditions were widespread, found in many parts of the world, and lasted for many hundreds and possibly thousands of years, they may yield insights and approaches that can be useful today.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2008
It does not always happen that academic debates result in an agreed victory or a tidy consensus. As often as not, the protagonists lose interest, or the terrain itself shifts. For that reason, it is worth remarking on the fact that after around two decades of debating the roots of ethnicity in Africa, something like a consensus has in fact emerged. The colonial thesis that Africans were born into “tribes” that were rooted in a timeless past has been effectively critiqued by historians and social scientists alike. Arguably beginning with John Iliffe, revisionists advanced a challenging antithesis, namely that colonial administrative practices generated the very identities that officials and missionaries took for granted. In Iliffe's famous formulation: “The British wrongly believed that Tanganyikans belonged to tribes; Tanganyikans created tribes to function within the colonial framework.” Although Iliffe coined the term “the creation of tribes,” it was Terence Ranger's contr...
In 1921 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the final court of appeal for all legal disputes within the British Empire, passed judgement in a landmark case that was to reverberate across the empire. The appeal was brought by an African chief, Amoudu Tijani, 1 against the colonial government in Nigeria demanding compensation for the expropriation of his land. At the heart of the matter was the Treaty of Cession signed between Britain and one of Tijani's forebears, King Docemo of Lagos in 1861. The colonial government claimed that under the terms of that treaty, the British crown acquired ownership of all lands in the colony of Lagos including that claimed by Amodu Tijani. Indeed, Article 1 of the treaty stated: I, Docemo, do with the consent and advise of my Council, give, transfer, and by these presents grant and confirm unto the Queen of Great Britain, her heirs and successors for ever, the Port and Island of Lagos, with all the rights, profits, territories and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging…freely, fully, entirely and absolutely…. 2 However, although the wording of the treaty unambiguously attests to the transfer of "legal rights" over Lagos lands from King Docemo to the British Crown, the interpretation of this treaty provision was problematic from the beginning. The British officer negotiating the treaty faced a revolt by other chiefs who argued that King Docemo did not have absolute customary or legal authority over "all the lands in Lagos" that he had supposedly ceded to the Queen. 3 Even in his capacity as King of Lagos, Docemo had neither feudal authority nor seigniorial rights over his chiefs, nor absolute rights over the land held in trust by them. Thus, in spite of treaty provisions, Tijani's case hinged on the position that King Docemo really had "nothing to transfer." 4 In the end, the Privy Council ruled that Tijani would have to be compensated as a "trustee" of the lands of his native community. Whatever concessions King Ibhawoh: Cultural Negotiations and Treaty Making IJH 6, 1 (2013) 2 Docemo may have made to the British crown concerning sovereignty was "made on the footing that the rights of property of the inhabitants were to be fully respected." 5 This judgement had significant ramifications for imperial jurisprudence, setting a legal precedent that extended well beyond the African continent. It was held as authoritative on two particular issues in British colonial administration: the effect of treaties ceding overseas territories to the British Crown, and the nature of customary land tenures in Africa. 6 In Canada, both federal and provincial governments became increasingly concerned about the prospects of Indians pressing land claims before the Privy Council and made attempts to prevent this. 7 One contemporary Canadian historian captures this concern:
De-settle the settler in Afrika and meet the man: Dispatches from Untimely Notes of a native son.
"How can he be considered great, since he has been a philosopher for so long and has never yet disturbed anybody? (Nietzsche in Untimely Meditations, p 194) "…it is only by means of the common characteristic of being German that we can avert the downfall of our nation which is threatened by its fusion with foreign people and win back again an individuality that is self-supporting and quite incapable of any dependence upon others" (Fichte in Addresses to the German Nation, p 4) A brief explanation regarding the seemingly clumsy title of these "notes"; this title is informed by a Garveyite attempt to marry Lorenzo Veracini's postulation (in a "radically" revised form)