Kalenjin Bashing-This Emerging Trend Must Be Stopped
From a recent conversation a few truths dawned on us that we wish to share, primarily to our colleagues in Kikuyusforchange, and the Kikuyu community at large, but also to other friends & colleagues who we have met over time.
As a new generation of kikuyus we have been forced to tackle ethnic perceptions that have developed over the years through manipulation of the issues, actions & politics of a few so as to look like these were kikuyu community positions. This led to our community been branded a certain way based on the actions and presentation of a few kikuyus, a branding that played a supporting role in the slaughter of our tribesmen in various parts of the country in 2007/2008, and that has made it extremely complicated to deal with issues of historical injustice, resource allocation inequalities, and community socio-political leadership deficiencies in the kikuyu community. Most of us in this forum know firsthand how frustrating it is to keep trying to explain that we are not like so & so just because we are kikuyus (that we are not rich, arrogant, thieves, etc) or how much unbelief one faces when they try to explain that your rural homes does not have electricity, or water, or tarmacked roads, etc; – or that you have family in areas in Central where there is famine, or that there are poor people in your rural area, or that certain parts of Central are in trouble, or that not all kikuyu youth are mungiki, etc.
As kikuyusforchange we are trying to have internal & inter-ethnic dialogue on these issues, because we know first-hand the effects of ethnic marginalization. A recent survey indicates that kikuyus are amongst the communities in Kenya today that are suffering from a feeling of victimhood, as a community, and we know this is true, epecially after the PEV. However, if we believe that what has happened to us is wrong, then it must be wrong even when it happens to someone else. Friends, if we are sincere that what has happened to our community is wrong, and that negative ethnicity and/or ethnic politics has greatly & adversely affected our community, then we are duty-bound, and must accept that it should not be allowed to happen to any other community in Kenya. This therefore means that if we are to slay the dragon of negative ethnicity, then we must tackle not only what we as kikuyus have to deal with, but anything else from anywhere/anybody else, that seeks to isolate or ‘bastardize’ a community as a whole, as has been done to us. If we are urging others to realize that it is individuals in our community that have given us a bad name, then we must use the same argument when it is done to others.
Now, the hard part where, as they say, the rubber meets the road.
If as kikuyusforchange we believe that we must tackle ethnic stereotyping of kikuyus, then we must also stand up and speak out against the emerging trend that seeks to present the Kalenjin as a community that is a threat to issues of national and/or regional interest. We must speak out when editorials & public sentiment seems to indicate that the Kalenjin, as a community, are the perpetrators of PEV, or that they are the community that is destroying the MAU, or that they are the point of discontent on coalition governance issues;-it has become the new ’sexy’ to portray ‘Kales’ as the new ‘bad’ community, and, especially for most of us kikuyus, it feels ‘wrongly’ nice to actually have another community as the butt of ethnic stereotyping for a change!
But it is wrong good people, and as victims of ethnic stereotypes we know how dangerous it is to a community; we know how destructive it is to our country’s nationhood, & if we want to right this country & build nationhood, we must stand up & speak out against it. If the failures of certain individuals in our community do not represent what we are as a community, then we also must state that the failures of certain individuals from the kalenjin community should not, & must not, be represented as what the Kalenjin community is.
So, my challenge to all of us: those in positions of influence, those with tools of influence (newspaper articles, radio, etc), to those able to reach out & influence, let us resist the temptation to generalize when speaking about issues-as much as its the easier thing to do, but communities cannot & should not be punished, ostracized or isolated, for the sake of individuals-let us deal with & name individuals, and let us use our influence to push this as the message of what needs to be practiced as we tackle impunity.
Then, we will be on the road to building a nation
August 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am
wow where is the Kikuyu bashing post. Nobody should be bashed in any case but charity begins at home Kikuyu4change.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Hi Muigwithania-Its nice to hear from you.
Kikuyu bashing is what we are about so we have not seen the need to have a post for it-we know it exists and one of the responsibilities of the kikuyusforchange platform is for us to engage with each other, & with others, on how to ensure it stops.
Why we put the Kalenjin bashing post up is because its important for Kenyans to realize that what has been done to kikuyus for decades, whether deliberately or by default, can & is sometimes done to other communities, for the same reasons & with the same effect. This awareness by all of us that ethnic bashing is not just when it relates to kikuyus, hopefully will create an environment that allows freer conversations on how to ensure it does not happen to any community at all.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Muigwithania:Very well spoken!I wonder what that tasteless joke on Kikuyus tucked in somewhere in this blog counts as?
This lecture is as hollow as it is hypocritical. K4C: Keep working on the concrete things you’re doing; no need to get sidetracked by….. nonsense.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Lets call a spade a spade K4C.bashing is wrong but reporting facts is just that .Its not bashing . I personally continue to challenge the few kalenjins i know on their silence.
http://muigwithania.com/2009/08/05/kalenjin-tribe-still-on-war-footing/
August 25th, 2009 at 7:18 am
This post is refreshing in as far as it condemns stereotyping of all communities. this trend of labeling some communities has been around with us for a long time. as the writer points it destroys our national fabric and the earlier we confront it the better. but even as we confront it we must be bold enough. i believe by limiting this debate to why it is bad does help but it does not move far enough. we must gather courage and the pseudo-intelligensia propogating it. for example we must be able to tell david makali that when he labeled the kalenjin as the biggest threat to the nation, he foregrounded himself as one of the authors of ethnic hatred. there are no two ways about this. we must be brutal with the truth. when we have isolated the authors of ethnic , we shall be in a better place to begin sewing up the nation we once new as kenya
August 25th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
In complete agreement with you Gitahi. The point on not just limiting this debate to ethnic bashing but moving it further to start holding people accountable for ethnic hatred is especially important. With your permission I have migrated your post to the kikuyusforchange discussion group where I hope we will get ideas on how to do this. Thanks.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Kikuyus for Change have just released a statement. They believe that ethnic stereotypes are harmful. Having experienced the harm resulting from ethnic stereotypes, they’re, understandably, determined to speak out against misrepresentations of other communities as a whole. In their view, there has been serious misrepresentation of Kalenjin as a community — it’s unclear just what this amounts to, but it seems to be a variation on collective responsibility. If Kikuyus for Change are right, it is widely believed that Kalenjin are perpetrators of (significant portions) the PEV; that they are destroying the Mau; and that they are the source of discontent on coalition governance issues. Against this unfortunate state of affairs, Kikuyus for Change argue that Kalenjin are not as a community perpetrators of PEV; and that they are not as a community Mau forest occupiers. We are given exactly one reason for that: those actions – the PEV; the entrance, destruction of and refusal to leave the Mau – are not the responsibility of Kalenjin because they are the actions of individuals.
This is the sort of empty and deceptive moralism that gives advocacy organisations in Kenya a bad name.
First, though, a word about the argument. The structure should be familiar: members of a group have done some terrible things; the group is then accused of collective responsibility for those acts; it is argued, felt, or feared that the members of the accused group will be victims of bigotry. A defender of the group has three options: accept collective responsibility; deny collective responsibility; or deny that collective responsibility has anything to do with it. If he accepts collective responsibility, then the defender has to show that this group doesn’t bear collective responsibility for this act: maybe they didn’t do it, or they knew not what they did, or whatever. If he doesn’t accept collective responsibility, then it makes no odds what the group did: even if the group performed the act, it can’t be held responsible. Alternatively, the defender of the group could simply say that even if the group were collectively responsible, that wouldn’t justify bigotry against it, because ethnic bigotry is just wrong.
Kikuyus for Change supply a desperately inept version of the first, when they should have gone for the third; their moralism lies in telling untruths for (what they suppose to be) good ends. Remember that they said that the actions for which Kalenjin are held communally liable are the actions of individuals. It is clear, I think, that they aren’t denying collective responsibility; rather, their point is that even if there is collective responsibility, it doesn’t apply in this case: Kalenjin aren’t collectively responsible for, say, the PEV. The problem with that move is simple: that the actions were committed by individuals does nothing whatever to show that there’s no communal liability for them. That follows from a very simple fact: groups acts through individuals, so it is entirely possible for a communal act to be performed by an individual. Think about the President’s assent to a bill. It is an act performed by the individual who happens to hold the office at the time; it is also an act by which the state, and therefore the groups of people who constitute the state, promise to obey a certain rule. Think also about a murder, carried out by a group of three men, who jointly plan and bring it off. Roughly speaking, it’s enough, for there to be collective moral responsibility, for a group to deliberately perform an act. The group of murderers is constituted of individuals; it is their actions which constitute the planning and commission of the murder. What makes them jointly responsible is their joint deliberate participation in the joint enterprise. But that joint deliberate participation is composed of individual acts. So the fact that the actions were performed by individuals is entirely consistent with collective responsibility for them; merely noting that the actions in question are the actions of individuals is a hopeless defence to the charge of collective responsibility.
More to the point, it deliberately overlooks facts which are common knowlege. The PEV in the Rift Valley was carefully-planned, and there was wide communal involvement. (See, for example, the Human Rights Watch report). All sorts of independent evidence suggests that the violence had the consent of a significant proportion of Kalenjin; and the consent, planning and participation of those properly empowered to act in the name of the community (Ashforth, Lynch, Waki). There is pretty good evidence of wide, if not quite universal, Kalenjin approval of the consequences of the violence (Ashforth, Lynch). And, again, there have been well-reported efforts to institutionalise the consequences of the violence: segregated schools, for example. In the example I gave earlier, the consent and particpation of all the members of the group was taken to be sufficient for collective responsibility. So it might be argued that the lack of either rules out collective responsibility in this case. That’s too quick. Collective responsibility can accrue to a group for an action even when not all its members approve or participate. The clearest example is war. It’s often taken to be the case that a duly-elected head of a state or a nation has the power to commit the state or nation to a war, with the collective consequences that that brings. It’s also true that a President, say, need not be elected by the entire nation to gain that power — all that’s necessary is a majority of the vote. Donald Kipkorir’s devotion marks the extent to which the Kalenjin political class is the duly-empowered representative of the Kalenjin nation, It is tolerably clear that the Kalenjin political class arranged the relevant bits of the post-election violence, tolerably clear that they were acting in their capacity as leaders of the Kalenjin nation in doing so, and tolerably clear that there is near-unanimous Kalenjin support for the consequences (if not, perhaps, the means) of PEV. That is why it ought to be conceded that Kalenjin bear collective responsibility for it.
It’s essential at this point to distinguish kinds of collective responsibility. I have in mind the following distinction: there is a kind of collective responsibility in which each member of the community is liable (and may therefore be punished) for the actions of the entire group; and there’s the kind of collective responsibility which does not distribute in this way — where we should say that the community is responsible for the acts, but in which it doesn’t follow that each member of the community can therefore be punished for the communal act. The clearest example of the first is the first example above, the joint-murder case, in which all the deliberately participants agree to kill. The Kalenjin-communal case is of the latter kind, mostly, I think, because while there was a piece of deliberate group activity, it is also clear that this was not unanimous. To recognise collective Kalenjin responsibility is not to call for communal punishment of Kalenjin.
But suppose you don’t agree. You think that there’s no Kalenjin communal responsibility for the PEV. You should still think that the Kikuyus for Change argument is foolish. Think about like this: rape is bad, regardless of the identity of the intended victim. The prohibition against rape isn’t contingent on whether or not the intended victim is, say, a rapist: even rapists ought not to be raped. If you’re looking for reasons not to rape someone, and the best you can come up with is that they’re not a rapist, you need to buy a new moral compass. The Kikuyus for Change argument against anti-Kalenjin bigotry is of exactly this type: instead of saying the simple and true thing — that ethnic bigotry is bad, independent of the identity of its victims — they say the complex and false thing — that anti-Kalenjin ethnic bigotry is bad because Kalenjin aren’t communally responsible for PEV. They seem unable to see the point that anti-Kalenjin bigotry is bad because it is wrong, not because Kalenjin are right.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 am
Let me first start by agreeing fully with the final sentence of your response. Anti-Kalenjin bigotry is bad because ethnic bigotry is bad, period. That actually was the whole point of our press conference, but unfortunately I also realize that we might have lost some part of that message when we got into the aspects of level of responsibility & crimes.
The main part of your response also makes sense, especially as you go through the justification of why the Kalenjin community hold communal responsibility of PEV (though I realize you do not delve into whether the same applies for the Mau Forest excisions, or the perceived brand of the Kikuyus, or the perceived vote rigging allegations).
The only problem I have with this line of argument is the level of intellectualism required for it to hold water. If you follow this route, then you also need to determine what percentage of a population determines that the particular people in power are the ones mandated to make community decisions. You also have to show whether how how these positions were acquired is pertinent (what of those attained through coercion by manipulation of information/resources/power etc) and whether how it affects the communal responsibility for wrongs done by this ‘elite’. It also begs such questions as; Since the Kikuyu have always had a small clique running their community, does it mean that the community are communally responsible for the historical injustices to the Mau Mau, or going further afield, were the Germans communally liable for the atrocities of Hitler & the Nazi’s, or, should we judge all the Russians liable for the extremities of Mussolini & his Red Shirts, or blame the American people for Iraq, muslims for the heightened terrorist activities?, etc. Using your positions, you would have to say YES to all those questions (including, did the Jews kill Jesus?).
I could go even further. Does your line of reasoning stand up on the scales of justice? Is there not a fundamental flaw in your logic, e.g. how do you hold the whole Kalenjin community, or the Kikuyus, or the Jews, or the Russians, Germans, etc, responsible in court? how do you punish them? What happens to the rule of law & how do you apply it? I actually think that what you have done is reverse the rule of mob justice, where rather than the mob punishing one thief, in your case, one person should punish the mob! & even mob justice we have a problem with all round am sure. Isn’t this line of argument what has been used to justify ’state-santioned’ mass murders throughout history (eg burning heretics, by the various religions, genocide by various people whether its in Rwanda or the early Americas in the case of the red Indian). We also need to ask – then what? How do you move forward? Do you condemn each whole society whenever it is determined that they could have been communally liable for something?
This this afternoon I met a senior member of government who explained to me why it is imperative that someone(s) goes to the Hague for PEV. It is actually more for the message it will send than for the punishment (which as someone once said, could take 90 years). The international ridicule of having a case against a major national political player in Kenya will send such a strong message that come 2012, each politician will take personal responsibility to ensure that their supporters behave, even if it means climbing the back of the campaign pick-up to confirm that they are not carrying weapons behind his back! That’s what happens when personal liability is apportioned.
Your route on the other hand indirectly propagates impunity because it prevents accountability. When a mob commits a crime, they usually do not get arrested because-who did it? In addition to the lesson above, we also want a situation where if a mob commits a crime, any crime, then whichever individuals identified as part of that mob must get arrested, even if they are arrested together, charged, even if its jointly, then, when being sentenced, each person’s name is read out & the respective sentence. (which is actually what happens). That’s the law my friend & if this is applied, & seen to be applied, then you will not be part of the Mob the next time they go out to do something stupid.
In conclusion, do you realize how long as well as intellectually challenging this line of argument & discourse actually is? Or how wide the circle of questions can grow into? One wonders whether we can really provide solutions to our country’s problems if we take this route, especially in atime when Kenya is in as precarious a position as its at right now
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Daniel i couldnt have said it better . Email me joeinmd@hotmail.com
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
As always, there will be moments when we will choose to disagree, & on this one, our take-off point is miles apart with Daniel/Joe, at least as per now. Maybe there is information we dont have that you do, or vice versa & maybe with time one party could shift. However, as much as democracy is a trait we are learning late as kikuyus, we want to believe that we can disagree on this issue but still continue our conversations.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
I don’t know about Daniel but I am a firm believer in full disclosure.What information is this that you have that we don’t have.By the way its ok to disagree(even when it seems to be on almost all issues)
Ps Kikuyus have a very long history in democracy.In fact our whole traditional political system unlike others was based on a system of community participation and representation all all levels of society.You should visit muigwithania.com more we have covered the traditional political system .
January 6th, 2010 at 9:33 am
hi secretariat,
I hope it is not too late to say that your response is mere obfuscation of Daniel’s very clear point/s. For the records, the jews were punished communally for killing Jesus and wholly went into exile for the next 2000 years. Destruction of Jerusalem by gen titus in AD 70.
Simply put 1. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY/GUILT 2. REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
January 6th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Oh yes, whole communities have been punished on account of a few. Why are you hiding your head in the sand? cant you see that the kikuyu peasants in rift valley or the slums have been punished collectively on account of the president?
Men can do it, and even God does it by sending collective calamities, or your hating neighbours!!!!
The long and shot of that thought is that if Kikuyus got it coming, then the Luos and the Kalenjins have it coming for repaying evil with evil. We all better sober up and seek a new direction.