In part one of the BBC2’s three-part documentary, An African journey with Jonathan Dimbleby, we got a fascinating look at the changing faces of three countries – Mali, Nigeria and Ghana. Jonathan Dimbleby describes the documentary as one that explores “an Africa that is too often forgotten but too important to ignore”.
The first episode of this documentary makes a huge effort to tell a different story. One that tells a story about a new group of émigré’s going back to their home countries from the West to contribute to development, new enterprises springing up and a cultural renaissance that revolves around music and fashion.
Abu Traore, the sand digger from Mali who dives 20 feet below the river Niger to excavate sand for just over $5.00 a day does bring the other part of Africa into sharp focus. This though is swiftly counterbalanced by another Malian, Serpent whose fortunes are a little different. With his brother, they make brisk business importing mopeds from China at considerably cheap prices to sell in Bamako.
Perhaps the most famous of all Malian architectural heritage is the Great Mosque built entirely of mud bricks in the 12th century and located in Djenné. Here, Jonathan joins a 74 year old master mason in mixing mud and straw for a new building.
In Ghana, Jonathan takes a close look at one of Ghana’s traditional chieftaincy systems, the extent to which football has grown and the new wave of brain gain brought on largely by increasing economic opportunities and a strong desire to contribute to Ghana’s development. “Ghana is my home. I can live here in comfort. My future is here. We need jobs and enterprise – and I can help make a difference” Stated Kofi Ansah one of Ghana’s foremost clothing designers and a returnee who has now become a houshold name in Ghana.
Given the controversy generated by a recent BBC documentary “Welcome to Lagos” which showcased the underbelly of Lagos, Nigerians could have been forgiven for rolling their eyes and muttering “…Here we go again….” to yet another BBC documentary. The take on Lagos and on Nigeria as a whole i suspect will be seen in a rather different light. This was the other side of Lagos. The side that features Aliko Dangote, one of only 11 African Billonaires and celebrates arguably the most exciting music industry in Africa.
Overall this was a no frills, unemotional and uncontroversial first-part of a documentary series that promises to go against the grain. Packing 3 countries and 6 or 7 themes into an hour inevitably meant that issues were not explored with intensity and deepness. However, Jonathan Dimbleby’s enthusiasm and passion for Africa shown through, even though his dancing skills in Mali were a little cringing to say the least. Click here to watch the first part in full
Related Article: Part 2
Nii Thompson
yes but … why does even the best meaning BBC documentary have to use the term ‘tribe” to describe African ethnic, social and political formations!? no self-respecting anthropologist is using it anymore (cf. Low et. al. Talking about “Tribe”: Moving from Stereotypes to Analysis which is available here: http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/loc01/index.html) and political scientists only seem to use it when they’re too lazy to consider what’s actually going on …
Kat, I agree. A modern documentary should refrain from the T word. I wonder though if its use plays up to a section of the BBC viewership that the Corporation fears loosing unless it some how gives them some old romanticised tribal Africa
Hi guys,
I don’t entirely understand this argument… what’s wrong with the word tribe? Is it the conotation that comes with the word? Or the litteral translation of the word that is the problem? I guess you never hear the Scots or Cornish reffered to as a tribe but that’s certainly how I would describe them. I’m asking this question to be educated as I genuinely didn’t realise that this word causes offence. I welcome your views, opinions on the above, please school me.
To Kat and Nii – are you aware that Ghanaians themselves use the word ‘Tribe’ to describe their ethnic sub-groups (Ga, Fante, Ashanti, etc.)?
Please try and enjoy this wonderful documentary for what it is, rather than trying to spin this into an evil colonialist plot to discredit Africans. Talk about crying wolf.
Ada, I’m not going to chicken out of an answer but meanwhile let me quickly offer this quote from Achebe’s Home and Exile:
‘The Igbo People of southeastern Nigeria are more than ten million strong and must be accounted one of the major peoples of Africa. Conventional practice would call them a tribe, but I no longer follow that convention. I call them a nation. … My Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines tribe as follows: “group of (esp. primitive) families or communities linked by social, religious or blood ties and usually having a common culture and dialect and a recognized leader.” If we apply the different criteria of this definition to the Igbo people we will come up with the following results:
(a) Igbo people are not primitive, if we were I would not be offering this distinguished lecture, or would I?;
(b) Igbo people are not linked by blood ties, although they may share many cultural traits;
(c) Igbo people do not speak one dialect; they speak one language which has scores of major and minor dialects;
(d) And as for having one recognized leader, Igbo people would regard the absence of such a recognized leader as the very defining principle of their social and political identity.
Therefore, all in all, Igbo people would score poorly on the Oxford dictionary test for tribe. […] the word tribe … was given to me [and is] loaded or derogatory, and there is really no good reason to continue answering a derogatory name simply because somebody has given it to you.’
Hope that satisfies your need for knowledge until I summarized my own view, which is that of metropolitan (i.e. British and, to a lesser extent, German anthropology) … But promised, I’ll get that here as well!
Great stuff. I wonder though if there is any people anywhere on this planet in 2010 to whom the term tribe can be justifiably ascribed to?
Thanks Kat. I see your point, but then it’s hard not to when it’s so well illustrated.
Hi Ada,
There are lots of arguments to be made against the use of the ‘T-Word’ (as Nii so eloquently put it). But let’s start with a qualification: Though I do believe that all this is valid independent of who the speaker is, I acknowledge that there is a difference if it is being used by Malians, Ghanaians, Nigerians or anybody else to describe themselves. So, now to a quickly run through the major arguments (though: honestly, check out Low’s article, I think it’s very well explained):
The concept is borrowed from the Bible (i.e. the twelve tribes of Israel – which might lend it some esteem in the eyes of some) and Roman historiography (e.g. Germanic tribes – here, clearly meaning barbarian). Adapted by colonial and immediate post-colonial anthropology it was exclusively used to describe the organization of so-called primitive peoples. This use is deeply rooted in models of social evolution which state(d) that human social organizations developed from its beginnings as bands via clans and tribes to, ultimately, nation states. In this sense the model helped to establish a basic dichotomy between these so-called ‘primitive’ societies and the supposedly superior civilizations of Europe, a dichotomy in which them/us equaled civilized/savage, progressive/static, industrialized/natural and, ultimately, superior/inferior – a distinction that was employed to legitimize ‘their’ colonization. Significantly, the term still carries this connotation of savagery and backwardness, at best romantic simplicity in much of popular discourse in Europe – though admittedly I here can only talk about the UK and Germany from own experience. But I suspect that the alleged self-explanatory quality of ‘tribal conflict’ extends beyond those two countries while, by contrast, my refusal as a Berliner to vote for a Bavarian candidate for chancellorship (to invoke German ‘tribalism’) would usually attract more in-depths explanations simply by virtue of being part of European politics, wouldn’t it?
One of the anthropological arguments against the term is that it designates a one-size-fits-all model for non-European societies (and, admittedly, some European minority societies). Colonial and post-colonial anthropologists have applied it to societies of different size and forms of organization, i.e. societies that had little in common except for the fact that metropolitan discourse considered them ‘primitive.’ As a model it suggested that all these societies shared basic similarities. They all were assumed to represent highly integrated and well-defined social groups in terms of language, culture, and religious system, and ‘traditional’ societies in the sense of only having a relatively simple technology (usually excluding writing and literature) and rather static ‘tribal’ cultures. Very few contemporary anthropologists, art historians etc. would agree that this is an adequate description of the non-European societies they study, describe or originate from. In fact, the model was already criticized in the 1950s by European and American anthropologists who actually went out and engaged with the peoples, societies and cultures they studied. Mention might be made (in case you wanted to continue your own research) of Edmund Leach (1954: Political Systems of Highland Burma).
With specific regard to Africa you might want to check out Aidan Southall’s article ‘The Illusion of Tribe’ (I got a copy I can share with you if you’re interested). Southall, if I recall correctly, argues that most so-called ‘tribes’ in Africa were actually brought into existence only through the colonial administration’s need to clearly define the social and ethnic groups in their respective colonies. I don’t think he (and most others who make this argument) would go as far as to claim that colonial administration actually invented those groups. What they suggest is that pre-colonial concepts of social and ethnic belonging were more flexible and complex. Colonial administration institutionalized one form of social identification at the expense of others. Significantly, these institutionalized ethnic identities were conceptualized along the lines of the contemporary concept of the nation state in Europe. Hence, there is a notion of kinship and shared ancestry as determining of social/cultural belonging. One is born Igbo (to go back to Achebe’s example) or German, for that matter, and there’s no means of becoming or unbecoming Igbo or German. I cannot speak for Igbo identities but as far as being German is concerned I think (outside of rightwing ideologies) this is far more complex – and, yes, to an extent I can choose to identify as German or not, can choose to adapt aspects of German culture (whatever that is) and reject others independently of my birth (and in technical terms one can become German or citizen of most other states anyway). This is not to deny the existence of the social/ethnic/cultural/political identities of being Igbo or German but to say that very few of this is captured by the concept of ‘tribe.’
Ada, I hope that goes some way to explain my objections to the continued use of the term.
As for Dimbley’s African Journey, I’d have to re-watch the documentary to say anything concrete about is use of the term. But I don’t remember getting the impression that a derogatory connation was intended. Though, there are passages when I wonder why he is using this terminology and to which effect. At some point, talking about Ghana for example, he speaks of those ‘tribal men and women’ who still hold ‘modern jobs as lawyers’ etc. So what?
great … of course, Achebe himself would have been sufficient – and of course I cannot compete with his eloquence … lol
@Tano –
Tano thanks for raising what is an important point with regards to the use of the term “tribe” by some Africans themselves. Rather like the N word the underlying meaning ascribed to certain words varies depending on who is using it (bear in mind this does not necessarily make it right). I am pretty certain Africans do not ascribe any thoughts of “primitive” notions when they use that term.
A healthy debate about what i believe is probably an archaic and loaded term “tribe” does not necessarily equate to “crying wolf” neither does it equate to criticism of the documentary. Rather, it helps in providing important fodder for other documentary makers to take into account in future Africa themed documentaries.
I think “Ethnic Groups” would have been a more acceptable term to use. Don’t you think?
hi,these ppl trying to create some arguments where there aint any just make me sick. This is a documentary that’s trying to celebrate the diversity of the african continent and the progress being made as opposed to the usual `poor africans cant do anything for themselves aalways out with a begging bowl` and yet ppl like want to make a big deal out of a small word like tribe which almost every african uses without it connoting any negativity.WHY?get over your petty political corretness and its stupid baggage and let the african ppl move on.yes we have different tribes that share the same counties and continents and there`s nothing negative about it.well done jonathan dimbleby.more of that i say .