Kenya has been independent for 50 years. Surely in that time they could have figured out how to live and conduct themselves as a modern country.

"To simplify it as a just a luo kikuyu tribal war is symptomatic of the lazy journalism on anything African that seeks to reduce any story to primitive, tribal, exotic happenings in "that dark continent"."

Don't blame the journalists for painting a picture of Africa as a primitive, tribal, dark continent. Its the action of Africans that make people believe that. If one of the most (previously believed) modern and succesfull countries in Africa can erupt into tribal massacres, then what hope is there for the continent as a whole?

NOTNOW says "And let's not forget our own tribes, like born-again Christians and zionist Jews and capitalists and Republicans. How will we ever make THOSE tribes renounce violence?"

Let's see....I live in a town in America with quite a few churches, synagogues, and every political party known to man, yet I never have been threatened by a Christian, a Jew, a capitalist, or a Republican with a machete, an AK-47, or strapped-on explosives. If that's happening where you live, remind me to avoid that town!

Yes, the USA definitely has its own forms of "tribalism", and definitely has a history of brutality and violence, but let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges before we start throwing out that kind of rhetoric. I doubt NOTNOW or anyone else on this site who lives in the 21st Century America is facing the kind of immiment danger that folks are facing in Kenya, and to compare the two only makes light of the situation Kenyans are facing.

How can a man who lives in the paradise of Dubai say something about the problems of Kenya? Try putting americans and russians to live in the same country to see what will happen.

IMO, most people are bent on making morality a political theory. This is a mistake. In a constitutional republic or a liberal democracy the aim is to institute a political environment that ensures that the rights of people are not infringe on by the state or other people.

Tribalism is a means to subdue the rights of others so that the aggressive tribe seize complete power over all other tribes. The name of tribes are many. But the goal of tribes are the same. That is to gain absolute power by any means.

Unfortunately, this illiberal mindset is running amuck in the US. More emphasis is placed on party rather than policy or principle. It doesn't matter if its Democrats or Republican, liberal or conservative, black, white, red, brown, yellow or tan. Too much energy and focus is on what tribe will come into power at the detriment of others.

All societies are based on conglomerations of individuals, some larger than others. Small conglomerations are dubbed "tribes" and generally have more rigidly shared rules and a more limited number of rulers at the top. Larger conglomerations are called "nations," and beyond that, "cultures," having less rigid rules and a larger number of rulers at the top. Larger conglomerations have larger armies and more dangerous weapons. They generally believe they are superior to smaller conglomerations, whom they tend to dominate and exploit.

The interesting question of the day is: What is the optimum size for a self-governing conglomeration to be so that it can sustain a democratic form of government and provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, education and justice for all its members?

The situation would become easier to understand if you substituted the word ethnic for tribal. Europe has ethnic conflicts -- Croats versus Serbs for example. The tribes of Africa are ethnic groups with a disparaging label.

"although tribal societies in the west have faded away, these (developing world) societies still have these allegiances..."

Sir, tribal societies in North America are very much alive, and are sovereign nations with a trust relationship with the U.S. Government. The Department of the Interior, absorbed the fiduciary trust responsibilities, with the congress, from what was the primary incarnation of the Dept. of Defense, to administer the treaty rights of tribal nations.

Conflicts with the North American tribes always resulted from the violent occupation and settling of native's lands, and the seizure and control of the natural resources on those lands.
Amendments continued well into the 20th century to allow for more control of native "reservations," and the resources reserved by native's at treaty-making times to maintain their culture and sacred places.

One could posit the dominant culture here, has full control of contested lands/resources so violent repression, and self-defense by tribespeople is no longer necessary.

One could posit that North American tribespeople decided to defend their existence and ability to thrive non-violently, and instead in justice sytems (courts) explicitly presided by and for the privileged dominant culture--and the preservation of their rights.

Or, one could posit like you do, that we have "faded away."

We have legal/treaty rights to adequate healthcare, educations, housing, hunting/fishing/gathering rights on our "usual and accustomed" lands, et cetera.

The United States is legally responsible for the administration of these funds that are due in congressional funding. Historically, our congress has not fulfilled it's fiduciary trust responsibilities, has abrogated every treaty, and species and habitat for "usual and accustomed" traditional lands have been decimated in the process of exploiting natural resources for energy, industry and profit for persons, states, and the republic.

Cases in the dominant culture's courts are pending and the results historically favor the them, and privileged private citizens and their corporations.

To do this, systematic and well-documented actions by settlers and the governments/social/religious institutions they formed, have used oppression and violence in the forms of terrorism (by the legal definition,) religious persecution, homicide, torture, propoganda, kidnapping/re-educating the children for assimilation, and since natives live on "trust" lands--they are not able to access the capital for homes that are equal to the dominant culture's--that can be foreclosed, (as so many are now) effectively limiting tribespeople's equal access to capital and equity.

The U.S. vociferously defends it's abrogations, and tactics in it's courts, and has always used law enforcement agents and it's militias and military to enforce its dominance and control.

The media, from 19th & 20th century news to modern television/cinema maintained the stereotype that natives are/were "savages," and other terms that were reinforced in popular culture and lore, to make us seem less than human,
feral, and vicious and demonized, and a mortal threat to their Christian-based "Manifest Destiny" policy.

Historically the "developing world's" tribal people had gifted peoples, and sustaining social structure and highly evolved cultures.

We have to make a choice of ethical development, ethical industries, in regard to the tribespeople in the "developing world," and be morally consumptive.

Pan-tribal unity is a reasonable action that could defend tribespeople--to mediate inter-tribal differences (like Kenya presently,) and reconcile development and consumption at a climate-sustaining rate.

A sort of pan-tribal, international Union of Indigenous Peoples could protect the inalienable human rights of tribespeople to exist and thrive in the 21st century.

I do have an allegiance to tribal people here, because I realize that if I protect the most vulnerable of them, I am realizing an ethos that I choose to live by.
I also realize that if my people, and North American tribes have their treaty rights protected and upheld, it's an automatic legally-binding "failsafe" in regards to climate change, so that if my people and North American tribes have clean air, clean water, all the species to hunt and fish in their "usual and accustomed" manner, that means that climate change won't decimate tribespeople in Africa. Or the Middle East.

Being dismissive of tribespeople in the west, is a dangerous abdication of rights that inherently protect all the world's tribespeople.

We may be concerned by violence in Africa--tribe on tribe violence or as one response put it: people in a hut fighting other people in a hut,
but if we consume their stolen natural resources--minerals, metals, botanical inventories and species without regard to their inalienable human right to exist and thrive, then we are complicit when they desperately vie fo so little with weapons.

We have not "faded away," and are hoping for full congressional funding of our treaty rights, when the congress reconvenes, and hope for fair judgements in important legal matters, and EPA listings of critical species in our traditional food chain.

We are critical populations in many states that can help determine the fates of candidates and parties, and changes we seek to preserve our inherent and legally binding right to exist and thrive--for the sake of all the world's tribespeople and their future generations, too.

Mr. Sher misunderstands the nature of the fighting in Kenya. The inter-tribal violence is not a result of tribes that have hated each other for centuries, and the people most certainly do not blindly follow tribal leaders, as Mr. Sher seems to suggest.

Instead, Kenya's political leadership in the half-century since independence has largely favored one ethnic group. In response, the rest of the ethnic groups have tended to support opposition candidates. This is not a case of ancient hatreds or blind following of leadership - rather, it is the belief by some ethnic groups that scarce resources are being allocated unfairly based on ethnic affiliation.

The problem is not that societies are tribally based. After all, the violence was worst in urban areas, where tribal affiliation tends to be looser. The problem is that Kenyan politicians gain supporters through patronage instead of building coalitions based on issue positions. In a developing country like Kenya, if one ethnic group is allocated more resources than other groups, those resources can literally be a life or death need for the other ethnic groups. The fear of how those scarce resources will be distributed is the people are angry enough about election results to kill other ethnic groups.

The tribalism of the educated Westerner is based on social class, education level, and political identification. The older tribal systems are based on blood lines and clan relationships.

In general, it is easier to change the latter than the former. One could easily become a capitalist after being a socialist. Adopting a new family is far more difficult. However both have the same problem. They judge their own tribal members by different standards than they judge outsiders. Thus injustice reigns in both systems when tribal relationships outweigh ethical principles. The over-riding principle of tribalism is: "I support my group, regardless of who is right or wrong".

Save us from the evils of tribalism whenever and wherever they occur.

The tribalism of the educated Westerner is based on social class, education level, and political identification. The older tribal systems are based on blood lines and clan relationships.

In general, it is easier to change the latter than the former. One could easily become a capitalist after being a socialist. Adopting a new family is far more difficult. However both have the same problem. They judge their own tribal members by different standards than they judge outsiders. Thus injustice reigns in both systems when tribal relationships outweigh ethical principles. The over-riding principle of tribalism is: "I support my group, regardless of who is right or wrong".

Save us from the evils of tribalism whenever and wherever they occur.

Bush is not deranged. Quite a many evangelical Christians are not deranged. The sun rises in the East. Only one of those statements is true.

So then, while any tribal violence can be initially credited to a reaction to an event of a central government, too often there is a prolonged residual violence which is fueled by inter tribal animosities. We of the not so much tribal West have been either too ignorant of tribal societies or too ignorant to take them seriously.

I myself initially ignored the tribes of Iraq as consequential there. I first sighed in frustration for my ignorance and then in despair for my government's ignorance.

Off topic question - Is it not a proof of insatiable - yes, insatiable - incompetence to paralyze the action you desire most [wiretapping] by ignoring a fundamental requirement for the execution of that most desired action[paying the bill]?

Not a sermon, just a thought.

The problem in Kenya is political, not tribal. We didn't see this type of violence until Kibaki was "re-elected" under very shady circumstances. The response by the Luos was abhorrent, but it didn't just come about in an attempt to do away with Kikuyus. This is by and large a political struggle, albeit a violent one.

Let me see if I got this right: the governments of "civilized countries" (which includes the America responsible for decades of murder and opression of Blacks and Native Americans, indiscriminate chemical poisoning in Viet Nam, and the politically-enhanced murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis) are going to be judge and referee of the world's tribal conflicts?

My thought is, let's remove the bunker-buster sized mote from our collective Western eye, and do something about our own propensity for violence. As a rule, civilization has not decreased violence, only improved the technology.

For the past six years, America has justified killing and destruction in the Middle East with the most self-serving, egregious, and in some cases delusional, rationales.

Were America a morally healthy society, she would have sent Bush/Cheney/Rove their warmongering neoconservative support base packing long ago. But America is not well.

She has knelt before King George, bowed her head, and received his Golden Shower. From that position, she has little authority to advise other cultures on violence or any other moral issue.

Or, we could just elect JBE president. He clearly understands the issues and would know how to solve the problems...

"Sitting behind the glazed facade of a heated building in New York, the idea of tribal society and wanton violence as seen in Kenya seems so alien to the human condition."

Oh My Anwer, tribal life "seems so alien" when viewed behind that glazed facade of wealth,privilege and perks. How sad is the polarized perspective of one so blessed with education and power that he cannot see the relevance and dangers of his own tribal afflictions.

Try leaving your chauffeur behind and take a ride on the subway at rush hour to homey land, or perhaps look over the NY Post's popular prejudices of the day. A study of the damage done to our personal and political liberties by that Neo-Con Clan may also be in order. You may even be bold enough to question your turbaned benefactors in the Middle East as to the havoc, death and destruction that have followed them through the millennium.

Remember Pogo's admonition, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

The US fought a bloody tribal civil war, we learned from the stupid futility of it.

There is no excuse for tribal war. Anytime you have a situation where one group of people who number as a bulk amongst them neighbors who live in huts, are off killing other people who also live in huts, something is desperately flawed with their cultural ethos.

Fighting over so little is stupid, and only ensure that there will be little to fight over.

One of the hardest aspects of cultural evolution is coming to the realization when confronted with another way of doing things that works better, that changing could be better. It involves discarding a lot of witless pride, foolish beliefs, and unsupportable biases in the face of new information.

Not easy to do. But Africa, and all the nations and tribes within it need to get a clue and realize that the path to individual success does not begin, end, or contain the use of weapons against their neighbors, or the toleration of seeking behavior which uses these as its primary tools.

And it should be obvious, when they are justifying killing in circumstance other than defense, with religion, that the speakers are evil despoilers of anything truly divine.

Defensive much Robert? I did not even mention Xtianity in my post, so I can only assume it's a personal agenda of yours. Xtians in this country seem bent on turning it into another Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan. Huckabee has even stated he intends to take the country back for Christ. How are those of other 'faiths' supposed to react? With glee at the impending restrictions on their rights, or requirements to involve the Xtian God in places it has no business, schools courts etc? I rather think the framers of the Constitution had precisely the opposite in mind, and so did every schoolteacher I ever met. We've already had the Pledge of Allegiance changed to suit the Xtians, would you abide a reference to Ganesh in the Pledge? Buddha? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Instead of attempting a logical discourse, your first and primary form of debate is name-calling and finger pointing. Very impressive.

In fact, I had been disgusted by the Afghani treatment of women for the latter part of the 90's, after the Soviet Union left and the Taliban rise to power. Their disallowment of women to learn, work etc under Sharia law was a horrendous offense to any decent persons sense of propriety. Not that you bothered to ask. Your precious Xtianity was under attack, or so you thought.

And I believe you misundertstand BDS. The true diagnosis is a person who is so sycophantic and obeisant to the dullest man on Earth, that they cannot even abide the idea that Bush could do wrong. He could not lie, he would not misconstrue, he would not spy on his people without permission. He certainly wouldn't let a city go a week without helping it after a major disaster right? He wouldn't bring back 'interrogation techniques' virtually identical to those used on John McCain would he? Certainly not, he's a good man. Although every one of the things I have listed, HE HAS DONE. And you refuse to hold him accountable. What you'll do if he has sex with an intern though, leaves me quaking in my boots.

Just because the enemy is bad, is no reason enough for us to become so as well.

Such a point, Fred Evil.
It's official. EDS (Evangelical Derangement Syndrome) will replace BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) by 2009 as the malady most plaguing liberals. Symptoms are inability to understand global economic factors or even recognize freedom of speech, religion, assembly as basic human rights (quite pitiful as these values used to be define by their name - liberal democracy).

This dementia leads to blaming others for their problem, such as those finding an ultimate authority beyond themselves, people of faith. Now blaming poltical Islam would be politically incorrect (also dangerous in some circumstances) so good old Christians come in handy.

Interesting point JBE, curiously enough, I am of the opinion the same can be said of a country that allows religion to be a part of it's government, as evidenced by the last 7 years in this country.

Tribalism isn't all bad, it helps small groups of people to band together and survive in hostile country, especially without such niceties as plumbing, sanitation, safe food storage etc.

Unfortunately, once the group progresses to a certain point, be it numerically or technologically, tribalism and religio, both begin to hold the peoples back, as they cling to outdated ideas, practices and beliefs.

Strange, NOTNOW that no mention of Islamic radicals, Putin's revival of Byzantine tsardom (he's a pal of the Metropole of Moscow), communists (yeah the party in control of Olympics and leaded toys) as POSSIBLE problems in our world today. You can't be all of those, your just an ignorant progressive in denial of the real world.

And let's not forget our own tribes, like born-again Christians and zionist Jews and capitalists and Republicans. How will we ever make THOSE tribes renounce violence?

Is the following the forgery?

http://www.eakenya.org/AAEAKUpdate/RAILA_MUSLIM_MOU.pdf

If it is real, this discussion about tribalism is rather moot. A newly elected President in a multi-confessional state that started to impose Sharia nationally would precipitate civil war and / or military coup.

Just when you were thinking, Kenya WASN'T another front of the Islamic radical terror campaign!!

Anwer,
This is not simply a tribal luo-kikuyu problem as you and others in the media have chosen to characterize.
Yes, the clashes have taken a tribal turn with Kikuyus being chased out of Rift Valley Province, Nyanza province, Western province and some coastal areas. Even then, majority of kikuyu deaths have occured in the Kalenjin heartland and not Luo Nyanza. Indeed majority of the deaths in Luo nyanza have been due to gunshot wounds from security forces and not tribal clashes.
It is a rejection by a majority of the country of rule by a few: in this case a small coterie surrounding Kibaki.
To simplify it as a just a luo kikuyu tribal war is symptomatic of the lazy journalism on anything African that seeks to reduce any story to primitive, tribal, exotic happenings in "that dark continent".

ALL tribalism is BAD. ALL tribalism is a remnant of CAVE DWELLING. Tribalism guarantees limited success for ALL in a tribal society. Tribalism limits science, economics, truth, justice, economic growth, societal growth, justice, and wisdom.