For centuries, Africa’s been known as the “Dark Continent”—filled with a supposed mysterious, piteous, primitive people in need of civilizing and evangelizing. As 2011 drew to a close and a new year arrived, it became apparent that a new perception of Africa had not come with it.
While efforts to help Africans have historically been shrouded attempts to exploit the continent’s resources, indifference (when involvement doesn’t benefit us) has been justified through the use of discriminatory stereotypes.
Westerners are fond of the word “tribe” when referring to groups of Africans, especially when conflict is involved. In the West, “tribe” denotes a primeval society whose members roam grasslands and jungles, settling scores with spears and blowguns. The implication is that Africans are inherently violent and attempts to broker peace among them are futile. Thus, our apathy towards conflicts in Africa is legitimized.
For several months, the media has reported on one such conflict in South Sudan. In August 2011, members of the Murle group attacked the Lou Nuer clan. They burned homes, abducted women and children, and killed more than 600 people in disputes over cattle which, it’s alleged, has been taking place for centuries.
By year-end, more than 1,000 people from both groups were dead. Tens of thousands more sought safety in the bush. Reuters, Al Jazeera and Agence France Press labelled the violence “tribal turmoil,” “tribal conflict” and “tribal clashes.”
On Dec. 26, the newly-formed Lou Nuer Youth White Army, armed with AK-47s, stated its intention to “wipe out” the Murle “as the only solution to guarantee long-term security of Nuer cattle.” In a Jan. 2 statement, the Lou Nuer Youth claimed they were acting in self-defence since the government of South Sudan failed to disarm the Murle.
The U.N. warned the conflict could “become a major tragedy.”
Because this is being stereotyped as another intractable tribal battle, it’s not likely that the U.N. alarm will illicit meaningful attention worldwide.
In 1994, this same tribal stereotype allowed horrified global spectators to simply wag their heads in pity as Hutus butchered Tutsis in Rwanda. Yet these two groups shared a language, religion and culture; their differences were political. In early 2008, violence broke out in Kenya after a disputed election further entrenched the monopoly over business, land and politics held by the Kikuyu group since 1963. Of course, the L.A. Times called the uprising “savage tribal killings;” CBS explained that it was “a tribal situation;” and the New York Times warned: “A tribal war is shaping up.”
While their actions are lamentable, South Sudan’s Lou Nuer are attempting to protect themselves and their way of life in response to what they believe are terrorist acts perpetrated against them. How is this any different than the “war on terror” launched by the U.S. in 2001?
Cattle are a precious resource to Lou Nuer and Murle societies, no less valuable to them than oil is to the West. Yet when the West invades a nation like Iraq to secure access to oil, the aggressors aren’t branded hopelessly backward and barbaric, even when the invasion leads to the deaths of approximately one million civilians.
Africa is unique from the West in many ways, but there are a few glaring similarities that can no longer be ignored: The things that provoke Africa’s conflicts are no different than those that provoke the West’s (access to resources, territory, power, or security). The solutions to African wars are no more complicated than the solutions to the wars the West becomes involved in. And Africans threatened by violence are as deserving of protection as are the rest of us.
It’s time to stop pointing fingers and clucking our tongues at the “primitive” nature of African conflicts and recognize that killing others for personal gain is a barbaric act, no matter which continent the killers reside.
