As I noted in the introduction of chapter three, the two chapters had the objective of showing how the Kamba and the Maasai qualify as actors in a coexistence relationship. The case I am trying to make in the two chapters is that ethnic distinction is one of the most basic considerations in interethnic coexistence. I have used ethnic depictions to make sense of difference. Apart from the groups‟ linguistic and historical differences as shown in chapter one, chapter three and four show that the Kamba and the Maasai have a repertoire of distinctions expressed through stereotypes. They range from physical appearances (“tall”,
“short” etc.), ecology (modes of subsistence, i.e., farming and pastoralism), monetary economy (e.g. “they are good in business”), social transformation (e.g. “backward”,
“ignorant” or “modern”), cultural practices (e.g. female circumcision, dress code etc.) to morality (e.g. promiscuity, thievery etc.).
Whereas stereotypes are largely “imagined differences”,215 that is, social constructions of identity, they are not necessarily unfounded. Most of them are based on observed practices, but that are often conveniently exaggerated. Besides, depictions are usually not revised to correspond to the processes of social transformation. They are largely negative and presented as incorrigible, and are therefore useful in trying to fathom the contradictions and subjectivity of everyday life. For a large part, ethnicity is basically about difference and maintenance of social boundaries (Barth, 1969). A group‟s criteria and recognition of others as „different‟
from themselves enables them to make sense of their own identity (Wicker, 1997: 143).
Besides, Werbner notes that essentialism and reification of culture is essential for mobilisation purposes (1998: 226-30).216 On the other hand, Baumann notes that “ethnic divisions are indeed based upon a proliferation of distinctions, all of them mutually independent” (1996:
18). We are also told that the way we act toward others is shaped by the way we imagine them and this becomes even more acute if those „others‟ are strangers (Scarry, 1998: 40). It is safe to say that most ethnic depictions are a reflection of this „imagination‟. Underscoring the ways in which groups depict others, Peil and Oyeneye note that “often, a people‟s name for
215 For a definition of “imagined differences”, see Schlee (2002: 6-7).
216 The Maasai, for instance, have been seeking “indigenous group” status. For more details, see chapter six.
151
themselves means „the people‟; everyone else is somehow less human” (1998: 79). In the same breath, Henrietta Moore (1994) tells us in her book, A Passion for Difference, that
“difference” exerts an uncanny fascination for all people. What I have tried to show in these two chapters is this “passion for difference”.
The point I am trying to make is that ethnic difference is first and foremost what interethnic coexistence is all about. Without ethnic distinctions, there would be no „coexistence‟ to talk about. To say that two groups „coexist‟, is basically to say that they are „different‟; they are distinguishable, internally and externally. But equally important, is that stereotypes serve as indicators of coexistence, that is, they act as evidence that groups have interacted in various ways. To put it differently, ethnic depictions are another way of saying “we know them”. And yet, the “passion for difference”, to maintain ethnic identity, explains why stereotypes are passed from one generation to the next even when they might not reflect actual practices. In other words, as cultural differences become less significant, ethnicity continues to find relevance as part of self-identity. This is why, in spite of the emerging similarities between the Kamba and the Maasai, ethnic depictions continue to paint a dichotomous and „clear cut‟
categories (e.g. “they are backward, we are modern,” “we keep cattle, they are farmers” etc.).
It would be important to point out that ethnic depictions do not just make a statement about difference, they are also about ethnic pride, supremacy, rivalry and competition. I have shown that since stereotypes influence human action, that is, how actors respond toward others, they can easily lead to ethnic tensions and conflict. And yet, on the other hand, the exoticism and uniqueness created by depictions also act as points of „attraction‟ between two groups. An example is Maasai men who seek to marry the “hardworking” Kamba women. Distinctiveness therefore creates an arena in which closer interactions become possible. Moreover, I have also shown that the two groups have commonalities, expressed through shared identities (e.g. “I am Kamba-Maasai”) and economic activities like cattle keeping, places of leisure (e.g.
drinking in bars), vulnerability (through drought and famine), religious membership (where Christianity infuses a sense of community) and social transformation (e.g. more Maasai girls going to school, resisting the practice of female circumcision etc.).
I have shown how groups passionately distinguish themselves. And yet, in as much as coexistence is about distinction and difference, it is also about cross-ethnic transactions. In chapter five therefore, I proceed to discuss another aspect of this multidimensional relationship, i.e., how and why these groups that present each other as different and as rivals engage in complementing and interdependent relationships.
152
CHAPTER FIVE: INTERETHNIC COEXISTENCE AS MUTUAL EXCHANGE (COMPLEMENTARITY)
After a detailed analysis of the actors and how depictions shape ethnic difference and interactions, the first part of this chapter examines patterns of interdependence that sustain the groups‟ livelihoods. This chapter seeks to present the Kamba and the Maasai as intricately interacting groups. In other words, coexistence here is visualised as constituting activities undertaken by groups to meet their daily needs, and that transcend ethnic differences. In this chapter, I am saying: “In spite of difference”, there are interethnic transactions. The phrase brings to mind Galtung‟s Coexistence in spite of Borders (1994).
The argument is that irrespective of ethnic differences and hatred, being juxtaposed together in a common territory, an environment of scarcity, disparities in the distribution of facilities (e.g. schools) and specialisation in different modes of subsistence make it logical for the Kamba and the Maasai to establish cross-ethnic networks to safeguard their livelihoods.
Vulnerability and livelihood needs are what makes even hostile groups to be complementary (see Haaland, 1969). “Livelihood”, to quote Long, (1997, 2000) is not just a matter of
“shelter” and “bread” but also ownership and circulation of information, management of skills and relationships and the affirmation of personal significance/self esteem (citing Wallman, 1982). Long notes that livelihoods “represent patterns of shifting interdependencies” (2000:
197) and could be crucial in the resolution of conflicts. In the study, “livelihood” is used to describe the daily consumption and economic necessities of groups and strategies which they device (e.g. by forging closer links with others) to make a living and cope with uncertainties like drought. Of particular interest in the study is what kind of exchanges take place, who is producing and selling what to whom, and what meanings are attached to these relations. The question of pride referred above is crucial as some of the exchanges, as will be shown, involve what one group refers to as “technology transfer”.
While the chapter borrows some ideas from studies on social exchange and reciprocity (e.g.
Blau, 1964; Polanyi, 1957, 1992; and Baerends, 1994), it examines exchanges at a broader level (interethnic), that involve not only bartering and monetarisation but also schooling opportunities and transfer of labour. Because of this complexity, I have developed my own categories based on my empirical data. While Polanyi‟s (1957) concepts of reciprocity, redistribution and market exchange, make sense, the kind of exchanges I examine here do not fit into these categories. The exchanges discussed here range from each groups‟ specialisation
153
(agricultural and animal products), labour, skills and shopping facilities (where businesses tend to be dominated by one group) to situations where territorial disparities in the distribution of schools is translated into „owners‟ of these facilities (Kamba) and „suppliers‟ of pupils and fees (Maasai).
In the second part of the chapter, I examine other “conditions for coexistence” (e.g. demand for “respect”) and how migrant groups strategize to win acceptance from the host group. The chapter shows that despite the „differences‟ outlined in chapter two, three and four, there is a continuous process of attenuation as ecological, climatic, social, economic and political needs squash together the diverse interests of the two groups. In a nutshell, the chapter seeks to show interethnic coexistence as a complementary process that is shaped by exchanges and compromises.
Although I am using complementarity and interdependence almost interchangeably,
conceptually, distinctions could be drawn in terms of intensity of exchanges between groups and the extent to which resources are shared. In this regard, and in a strict sense,
interdependence would be exchanges at a symbiotic level and where each group is almost
„indispensable‟, while complementarity would be exchanges at lesser level of intensity. In fact, Barth (1969: 18) notes that “complementarity can give rise to interdependence or symbiosis”.
In other words, complementary relations are not necessarily interdependent. Exchanges between the Kamba and the Maasai, I would argue, oscillate between these two levels and depend on what is exchanged and when, i.e., whether there is drought or not (the magnitude of vulnerability).
5.1 A history of trade and exchange
Kamba-Maasai conflicts and negative stereotypes are juxtaposed within a history of cross-ethnic trade. Studies show that even for groups that claim to be „pure pastoralists‟ like some sections of the Maasai, they have always supplemented their diet with grains obtained from other groups (Spear, 1993: 8). The Maasai previously acquired these supplements (e.g. beans) through barter trade and today they are procured through a combination of bartering and price market systems. Just like in the olden days, exchanges between the Kamba and the Maasai tend to revolve around their core modes of subsistence, namely farming and cattle keeping respectively. This form of negative complementarity, where insufficiency within a group is met by another, appears to be the premise on which other modes of interdependence (e.g.
political alliances) are based. To illustrate their dependence on the Kamba for agricultural
154
produce (e.g. maize and beans), the Maasai say: “One finger does not kill a flea”. The Kamba on the other hand have a similar proverb: “One finger does not kill a louse”. Although they use different insects, the message is stark, that you cannot be self-sufficient, you need others;
that as neighbours engaged in different trades, the Kamba and the Maasai have to depend on each other. Throughout the generations, whenever the weather has been favourable, interdependence in certain aspects is lessened, for instance, many Maasai may neither need to move their cattle to Ukambani in search of pastures, nor would the Kamba have to migrate to Maasailand in search of farms (near springs) to hire. But, whenever a “flea” stung (i.e. when prolonged drought struck), each group would need another “finger” (the other group) to sustain their lives.
The Kamba and the Maasai have engaged in cross-ethnic trade since the time they have shared borders, which goes way back to the late 18th and early 19th century. The Kamba are said to have been key providers of honey to the Maasai, which was important particularly in marriage ceremonies and in the making of liquor. This appears to have been at a limited scale though, for the chief suppliers of honey to the pastoral Maasai were the „poorer‟ Maa speaking group, the Okiek, who lived in the forests (Spear, 1993: 7). My research partner, Mr Kyuli, told me that his grandfather, who died “at the start of Mau Mau”217 (around 1952) aged about 70 years, used to talk about Kamba-Maasai barter trade in honey, bows and arrows218 and even beer in the exchange of livestock and its related products like milk, meat and hides. The trade in bows and arrows is said to have been done secretly since the Kamba were not comfortable with the idea of their rivals (the Maasai) owning such weapons which were considered superior to the Maasai spear, knife and club. This evidence of old trade links between the Kamba and the Maasai contradicts the findings of Ndolo who, based on an oral interview in Mutomo (Kitui district) concluded that: “It is seen straight away that the Kamba were prepared to trade with everybody and did so except with the hated “Akavi” Maasai whom they fought continuously...”. He notes further that “due to constant feuds, the Maasai and the Kamba did not have much in common with each other” (1989: 51, 57). Ndolo ignores the fact that not having “much in common” could actually be the prerequisite in cross-ethnic trade. In any case, conflicts and hatred do not necessarily act as a trade/exchange barrier. There is also the question of proximity. The Kamba bordering the Maasai (e.g. those in Nzaui and Kilungu) were better placed to trade with the Maasai compared to those in distant areas like Kitui.
217 “Mau Mau” is the revolt that was mounted by African freedom fighters against the British colonial government.
218 The Maasai also obtained bows and arrows from the Torrobo (Dorobo), who, just like the Okiek, were hunters.
155
Besides, as the Kamba specialised in the long-distance-trade with the Arabs along the East African coast in the 19th century, they obtained additional hides from the Maasai, a commodity that was in high demand in the coastal trade.
Prior to and during colonial rule, Kikuyu country acted as the cushion for both drought-prone Kamba and Maasai groups. Both groups however related with the Kikuyu at different levels.
With cattle, the Maasai enjoyed higher status among the Kikuyu compared to the Kamba whose members would often be armed with only labour in exchange for food. This
“dependence” on the Kikuyu for food, noted Kariuki of Loitokitok who migrated from Gachie (Kiambu) in 1967, is the “main reason” why the Kikuyu “find it difficult to respect the Kamba.”219 Among the long list of famines that forced the Kamba to depend on the Kikuyu for food included: Yua ya musele, “the famine of rice” of around 1898-99 which affected both Ukambani and Maasailand among other areas. During this time, there was little to eat except rice distributed by missionaries and the colonial government and then foodstuffs obtained from the Kikuyu; in 1908-09 there was yua ya maalakwe, “the famine of beans”.220 During this famine, the beans in question (which was the main staple food available), were obtained from the better watered Kikuyu country through barter trade; And just within two years, came yua ya ndata, “the famine of the star” which had coincided with the sighting of the Harley‟s Comet in 1910.221 During these famines and other times of food shortages, the Kamba obtained from the Kikuyu sweet potatoes, arrow roots and cereals in exchange for their labour (tilling in the farms), ivory, salt and medicine. Women would also be traded for food. This early links explain why many „Kikuyu‟ in Kirinyaga area trace their descent to Ukambani.