Re: Africa -Reply

A new book which may be germane to this discussion (though I'm not
sure how much it pertains to Africa ) is:

Varieties of environmentalism. Essays from North and South challenge
Green myths.
contributor(s): Ramachandra Guha and J. Martinez-Alier - Earthscan
Publications Ltd

Since the 1960s, when environmentalism took root in the industrialised
global North, it was assumed to be a phenomenon of affluence. People in
the South were too poor or too preoccupied with daily survival to worry
about ecology. They wanted more development, not less. But is it fair to
blame the poor for environmental damage? Do people in the South care
less about the environment than their counterparts in the North? A new
book by Ramachandra Guha and J.Martinez-Alier draws on archival and
field sources to show the faultlines in these assumptions. Some of the
strongest environmental movements have emerged in the poorest
countries.
But their impetus and vision differ fundamentally from Northern
movements. 

More details on the book are at:
http://www.id21.org/static/2ctn8.htm

Bill Walker
>>> "Jeffrey L. Beatty" <Beatty.4@osu.edu> 10/February/1999 09:29pm
>>>
My post concerning Julius Nyerere's comments on traditional life in Africa
appears to have caused some controversy on this list.  I regret that I
was
unable to supply citations when I wrote my original post, and relied upon
my memory of a conversation.  In the interests of verifying my
recollections and preventing any misunderstanding on the list, let me
mention some passages from Nyerere's _Ujamaa:  Essays on Socialism_
(Nairobi, London, and New York:  Oxford University Press, 1968).  The
book
itself is a collection of speeches and policy papers written between
1962
and 1968.

On page 171 of the book, Nyerere writes, "In traditional African life the
people were equal, they co-operated together, and they participated in all
the decision which affected their lives.  But the equality was an equality
of poverty; the co-operation was on small things; and their government
was
only the government of their own family unit, and of their clan, or at most
of their tribe."  The extended family, then, was the basis of traditional
African society (pp. 11-12--and yes, Nyerere _does_ usually generalize
about "African" society, not "Tanzanian," or "West African" or any other
sort of society on the continent).  These comments support my original
statement that Nyerere believed that the
nation-state based upon territory is an idea foreign to African culture.

Whether or not Nyerere considered the traditional way of life of African
people to be "nomadic" or not, as I originally said, appears to be more in
doubt from what he says in the book.  He refers to the Masai in Tanzania
as
"traditionally a nomadic cattle people", but describes the Wanyakyusa as
"traditionally agricultural" (p. 122).  Furthermore, earlier in the book,
he writes, "[C]ommunal ownership of land is traditional in our country--it
was the concept of freehold which had been foreign to them.  In tribal
tradition an individual or family secured rights in land for _as long as
they were using it_.  It became the family land when it was cleared and
planted; for the rest of the time it was tribal land, and it reverted to
tribal land _if the family stopped working it_" (pp. 84-85; italics added).
 Note that there may be some suggestion in the italicized passages that
Nyerere thought particular _families_ were not completely sedentary,
although it appears he believed _tribes_ stayed in one place, relatively
speaking.  

There's a similar hint that Nyerere believed traditional Tanzanian farmers
were not completely sedentary in a passage from his policy paper on
education.  "The traditional systems may have been appropriate for the
economy which existed when they were worked out and for the
technical
knowledge then available.  But different tools and different land tenure
systems are being used now; land should no longer be used for a year
or two
and then abandoned for up to 20 years to give time for natural
regeneration
to take place" (p. 58).   Note here the suggestion, following Kay
Moseley's
original response to me and contrary to my original post, that traditional
agricultural practices did indeed respect nature.

Even so, Nyerere's writings, at least as of the 1960s, give somewhat
ambiguous comfort to those who wish to view traditional African society
as
particularly conscious of environmental concerns.  He clearly considered
that traditional African society viewed land as something to be used to
earn a living and maintain life, rather than a marketable commodity
providing a source of income to absentee owners.  This latter idea he
believed "the foreigner" brought to Africa (p.7).

The conclusion I come to is that I must stand by my original statement that
Nyerere considered the territorial state foreign to traditional African
ways.  However, my original statement that he considered Africa's
traditional ways to be nomadic appears to be at best only partly and
ambiguously supported by the text.  Furthermore, my suggestion that
traditional African ways as I believed them described by Nyerere
conduced
to a disrespect for nature does not appear to be clearly supported by his
writings. 

Interestingly enough, from the point of view of the larger questions being
addressed by this thread, Nyerere's texts indicate, that his own policy
views, again as of the 1960s, are, perhaps unsurprisingly, rather
ambivalent about environmental issues.  He clearly wished to avoid the
underutilization of land he considered the absentee owners of Europe to
have brought to Africa.  "We must not allow the growth of parasites here
in
Tanganyika [Tanzania].  The TANU Government must go back to the
traditional
African custom of land-holding.  That is to say a member of society will
be
entitled to a piece of land _on condition that he uses it_" (p. 8, italics
in original).  Nevertheless, he does seem aware of some of the "public
goods" dilemmas associated with preservation of the environment.  He
writes, "For there are some things of which the nation as a whole has
great
need, but which might not be in the particular interests of any one
locality or any particular group of farmers.  Thus, for example, it may be
necessary for purposes of water control to have forests at the
headlands of
rivers, and to prevent cultivation or animal herding there. . . .  Or, to
take another example, tourism brings important foreign exchange into the
country, but any individual farmer would prefer to kill off wild beasts
which might eat his produce rather than protect them for other people to
look at" (p. 122).   

Hopefully this corrects any errors in my original post and places the
conversation on a more secure factual footing.


--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567
Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
___________________________________________________
Sapere aude!--"Have courage to use your own reason"
            Immanuel Kant, "What Is Enlightenment?"