Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)
The two tribes are the Pokot (About 700,000 people), mostly farmers but include some Pastoralists and the Turkana (About 850,000 people), who are semi-nomadic pastoralists. Both follow traditional African Tribal Religion AND Christianity. Islam is NOT reported to have made much inroads with either tribe.
Since time immemorial, the Turkana and Pokot ethnic groups have organized cattle raids against each other. Conflict began as a result of livestock theft. The two groups have since been through numerous periods of war and peace. The poaching of elephants for ivory, plus the killing of them for no other reason than that they are wild animals, is common place amongst both Pokot and Turkana, which takes a heavy toll of any elephants passing through Pokot country, as they have over millennia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokot_peopleLivestock is an important aspect of Turkana culture. Goats, camels, donkeys and zebu are the primary herd stock utilized by the Turkana people. In this society, livestock functions not only as a milk and meat producer, but as form of currency used for bride-price negotiations and dowries. Often, a young man will be given a single goat with which to start a herd, and he will accumulate more via animal husbandry. In turn, once he has accumulated sufficient livestock, these animals will be used to negotiate for wives. It is not uncommon for Turkana men to lead polygynous lifestyles, since livestock wealth will determine the number of wives each can negotiate for and support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_peopleThese two tribes have lived next and among each other for thousands of years. That the Pakot are mostly farmers and the Turkana are more into grazing cattle on the same ground seems to be the heart of the dispute, but it has been a dispute both tribes have had for the last 2000 years. That 22 Police Officers were killed meant something got out of hand, what no one knows, but the tribal leaders said they will comply provided the Government gives them two weeks to comply. Given the nature of tribal society that is NOT unreasonable.
Mow, some disputes tend to be viewed as religious, when one side is a different religion then the other, but the reason for the difference in religion is often the reason the two groups are fighting. For example in Ireland, most farmers remain Catholic, while those Irish who were into ship building and industry embraced Presbyterianism (and the real money, the landlords tended to be Church of Ireland, an off shoot of the Church Of England). As northern Ireland industrialize in the 1800s, the need for workers lead to higher wagers which brought in Rural Catholics to fill in the lowest paying jobs. This lead to a division of the country into its "Catholic" and "Protestant" groups. i.e. what we call the upper middle class was almost all Protestant, while what we would call the poor and working class almost all Catholic. Thus you had a class division that was also divided on religious lines. It was the class divisions that lead to the protest marches of the 1960s (which were suppressed) and the "Troubles" of the 1970.
Thus the dispute in Northern Ireland was expressed in religious terms, when the real cause was class. It was resolution of the Class dispute that ended that conflict NOT a religious deal.
I mention Northern Ireland as an example of a dispute that on the surface was religious, but once you look into the actual cause, religion had nothing to do with the issue EXCEPT that it was a way to distinguish the sides of the dispute (and in many cases people embrace a religion that support their position, in Ireland the Catholic Church had evolved since the Middle Ages to support the rights of peasants within a society, this was upset by the raise of the Middle Class, who in the reformation embraced the Reform Church/Congregationalists/Presbyterians/Puritan Church. The poor tend to follow their 'Leaders' when it came to religion, thus the poor in the cities of Northern Ireland embraced the same religion as the growing middle class, i.e. eform Church/Congregationalists/Presbyterians/Puritan Church. The peasants of Ireland tended to stay Catholic for that church had a better record of balancing the rights of the Nobility with the rights of the Peasants (and with much of the Irish Nobility, embracing the Church of Ireland, the Catholic Church became even more pro-peasant).
In the Middle East, a similar pattern developed. Farmers were known to stay Christian, long after the Cities had turn Moslem. When the farmers did embrace Islam (and that appears only have occur after the Crusades) it was do to pressure from the rulers to embrace Islam or lose their lands (Islamic Nations, right after the Crusades, adopted a policy later adopted in Catholic Spain AND Protestant Ireland, all lands were divided equally among the children of the owner at his death UNLESS one of them turn Islamic in the Mid East, Catholic in Spain, Church of Ireland in Ireland, then that child received ALL of the land. In Ireland where we have record of how this actually worked, Ireland went from 90% of the land OWNED by NON members of the Church of Ireland around 1700, right after the time when the law was adopted, to 90% owned by people who were members of the Church of England by 1800.
Side note; Irish members of the Reform Church/Congregationalists/Presbyterians/Puritan came under the above rule as did the Catholics. Thus the 90% rule in 1700, when up to 1/3 of Ireland was owned by such Reform Church/Congregationalists/Presbyterians/Puritans. They were so hit by this law that most moved in the American Colonies after 1700, so that by 1800 the population of Ireland was almost 90% Catholics. Irish Catholics, as a general rule, NOT permitted to immigrate during the 1700s. These laws while religious in nature, reflected the desire of England to Rule Ireland, thus were tools of imperialism not religion.
I use Ireland for it is a good example of Religion being the Label for something else. Religion is often use as such a cover, other times as a way to define the opposition other then by class, tribe or other subgroup that one side does not even want to say exists (Class and Tribe are the two biggest such sub group where Religion is use rather then being a member of such sub group).
Just remember the above when Religion comes up. Religion is often used by commentators to describe groups that they oppose but do NOT want to use Tribe or Class. Also remember under this analysis "Communism" is a type of Religion. Communism, like other religions is often embraced by a class or tribe (or other sub group) and then being used as the actual issue of dispute rather then Tribe or Class (or other sub-group).
One of the best example of this was in Vietnam. In Vietnam the Peasants embraced Communism for the Communists were at least trying to address their needs, thus Vietnam was CALLED a War against Communism NOT against the peasants of Vietnam i.e the US could claim it was fighting for the Rights of the Peasants, even while killing such peasants for supporting the Communists i.e. "We burned the Village in an effort to save it".
Just a comment on Religion and when NOT to jump to it being the cause of a dispute for in most cases something else is the actual cause, religion is just one way to put a name on the dispute without having to discuss class or tribe (or similar sub group that the elite do not even want to acknowledge to exist, let alone be who is opposing what the elite want).
= new reply since forum marked as read
