Haruna, I realize you have more time to expend on this debate than I do. Incidentally, I think that we are running around in circles here. So I lay down my pen and defer to your profound knowledge of African history, though not to the generality of your narrative and arguments. In the final analysis, we may have to agree to disagree. For while I respect your profound knowledge of African and colonial history, I must beg to differ with your general propositions and analyses. Thanks for a great read in your version of colonization and Tuareg history. Yours is a Daily Lift much higher than any Bamba Laye could ever hope to provide us with! Adieu and have a great weekend ! Baba Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 22:50:09 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [G_L] Fwd: Mali’s Struggle: Not Simply of Their Own Making To: [log in to unmask] Galleh, I think I understand your anxiety about colonization: Colonization, either Arab, French, Portuguese, or British, was a gradual process of annexation of whole communities. The Arab colonialists progressed overland while the Europeans proceeded via the coasts. The latter hardly ever ventured in the interior or too far from ports and harbors. They relied on the tribesmen middlemen/women for that. Whatever territory the French controlled along with the peoples of those territories were the only ones France could cede to independence. Likewise Portugal, Britain, Germany, Spain, etcetera. During colonization, France, Portugal, Britain, and all other competing colonists traded and negotiated territories of whole peoples among themselves up to the time of independences. During empire, PRE-colonial period, the various empires grew and fell via annexation and or attrition of whole territories and peoples. Neither the empires nor the colonists actively combined communities or tribes to cohabit the same space. All of them had more of an interest to maintain the separation of the tribes and to nurture tribal hegemonies because that advanced their estrangement from each other. What happened was that at the time the empires ceded territories of peoples to each other, communities of the same tribes found themselves in different empirical domains. That was the result of war and conquest and not an active or voluntary demarcation. It followed that at the time the empires ceded territories of peoples to the colonists, that was also a gradual process resulting from the pace of conquest. The entire continent of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Arabia knew no political boundaries. Only domains of empire. In the aftermath of WWI and II, Europe, Asia, Arabia, began the demarcation of borders. Abyssinia was splintered among the British, French, and the Italians and the rest of Africa was still under colonial occupation and administration (partition of Africa). It was not until after wwII and the advent of the UN that the colonial domains began to acquire political independence. Even then their post-independence borders followed the scale of resistance to colonization. For example, Guinea Bissau used to be part of La-Guinea but one was colonized by France and the other by Portugal. It is the same tribes that inhabit the entire west African subregion in the main. There was a concerted effort between Portugal and France to resist ceding their respective territories to independence but La-Guinea actively assisted the PAIGC in its independence effort against Portugal. WHatever mixing of the tribes there were, had occured during empire. Neither the Portuguese nor the French actively lumped the tribes together. That is not to their benefit. The opposite is more valuable - Separating autonomous tribes and nurturing/continuing whatever rifts there were during empire. The Tuareg on the other hand inhabited the Sahara Desert and by virtue of their nomadic culture, ventured further south to convert and enslave the inhabitants of North Mali, the Songhoi, Peulh, Senufo, Bwa/Bozo, Minianka, and Soninke/Bambara to a smaller extent. The French had minimal if any influence on that area of North Mali because they never ventured far from the coasts and the rivers Nile and Niger. In fact, the Tuarego-Malian resistance to French intrusion was spectacularly effective in keeping the French at bay in the metropolitan areas. In North Mali, the tribes hardly ever mixed except during empirical expeditions (Mali, Songhai, Ghana). In summary, the French colonialists nor the empires lumped any tribes together. Any separation of peoples of the same tribes came as a result of empirical conquest and not as a deliberate lumping of the tribes together. The introduction of Islam by the Arabs created more opportunity for tribal community than the European colonizations did. This is because Religion, as opposed to tribe, became the basis for community, be they Muslims or Christians. The problems between the Tuaregs and Peulhs of North Mali was one of competition for pastoral domain and control in empire. The Peulh and Arab evangelical empires were nomadic empires and based primarily on the razzias (remote management) scheme. They had no ability to involuntarily lump tribes together. Lumping, wherever it existed, was a result of religion because you often find different tribes as Muslims or Christians. And they communed together. This community was a trademark of religious affinity and not colonial orchestration. The borders of the independent nations, sanctioned by the UN, followed the scale and scope of independence movements. That is why the Cape Verde Islands remained under Portuguese control for a while longer even as Bissau gained independence. Separating the tribes was more valuable to the French, Portuguese, and British than lumping them together. Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, and Eritrea demonstrate this idea spectacularly. Galleh you have made me recall a lot of events in this conversation and helped to sharpen my review of the regional histories. I hope you will agree with me that simply because lumping the tribes would prove counterproductive to colonial design, the French had not been suicidal in that expedition. They actively pitted different tribes against each other particularly exploiting the residues of empirical disdains they inherited. Haruna. Back to my original point, however we look at it, colonialism drew boundaries across ethnic lines, disrupted precolonial social and political formations, and thus showed the seeds of the seccessionist movements we see in Africa today. The ongoing MFDC "rebellion" in Casamance is primarily a protest against that territory being lumped with northern Senegal by the French; And so is the Tuareg secessionist movement a statement of protest against being lumped together with the rest of present day Mali. Like the Jola protest, the Tuarag protest stems primarily from their assertion of a historical difference that was forcibly neutralized by colonialism and was institutionalized by the colonially-invented territorial sovereignty of modern day Mali. Secession, wherever it occurs, is predicated on an assumption of difference and a claim to lost past sovereignty that the secessionists try to recover. A yes or no answer was quite adequte for my purposes, but thanks for another brilliant lesson in African history. Baba -----Original Message----- From: Baba Galleh Jallow <[log in to unmask]> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, May 11, 2012 9:38 pm Subject: Re: [G_L] Fwd: Mali’s Struggle: Not Simply of Their Own Making Long response indeed Haruna and one, I must admit, that does not quite answer my question. I am fully aware of the existence of what you call "Maliba" in precolonial Western Sudan. I also know that French West Africa, unlike British West Africa for instance, was one territorial bloc administered by a gOvernor/Governor General based in Saint Louis/Dakar. Indeed, I am aware that what is today the Republic of Mali and the Republic of Senegal were granted independence as one territorial unit in 1960, The Federation of Soudan. It was only after Senegal broke away from the federation a few months later that the Modibo Keita regime adopted the name Republic of Mali. Back to my original point, however we look at it, colonialism drew boundaries across ethnic lines, disrupted precolonial social and political formations, and thus showed the seeds of the seccessionist movements we see in Africa today. The ongoing MFDC "rebellion" in Casamance is primarily a protest against that territory being lumped with northern Senegal by the French; And so is the Tuareg secessionist movement a statement of protest against being lumped together with the rest of present day Mali. Like the Jola protest, the Tuarag protest stems primarily from their assertion of a historical difference that was forcibly neutralized by colonialism and was institutionalized by the colonially-invented territorial sovereignty of modern day Mali. Secession, wherever it occurs, is predicated on an assumption of difference and a claim to lost past sovereignty that the secessionists try to recover. A yes or no answer was quite adequte for my purposes, but thanks for another brilliant lesson in African history. Baba Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 18:09:17 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [G_L] Fwd: Mali’s Struggle: Not Simply of Their Own Making To: [log in to unmask] Indeed Galleh, the tribes existed in their various empires - Mali, Peulh, and Songhai empires immediately prior to the French colonization. The land area that is Mali however remained their domain. In fact the French colonial administration was a territorial administration based in Dakar from where the tribal territories were governed - Niger, Sudan, Mali, Senegal, Burkina, Guinea, Ivory Coast, etc. Their interest did not lie in bringing the tribes together (lumping them together) but keeping them separate and at constant loggerheads. So basically neither the Islamic nor the French colonization abridged tribal territorial integrity because that would cause greater management problems for them. Their main focus was tax, slaves, and resource mining. Sorry Galleh for this long response but it is a bit more complex than a simple Yes because The Republic of Mali is different from Maliba with its empires in that even though the contours of the territory remained virtually the same, the Republic signified political independence along the lines of the French Republics. The empirical territory of Senegal was understood before independence and independent Senegal took on the contours of empirical Senegal. The tribes, of the Mali, Peulh, and Songhai empires changed hands within the same territory. There is a natural and historic border to this territory - The Sahara dessert. The Tamasheq and related tribes (now collectively labelled Tuareg) inhabited the Sahara and its oases. Their movement south is apostrophated by the Senegalo-Mauritanian conflicts and the Salafist secessionist movement (from Algeria). During the French colonization, those who have intermarried with the Africans (to form the Tuareg community) have occasionally joined forces with the other tribes of the South to resist French advance into the interior. The French however had two other influx points from Djibouti/Tchad/Niger and Tunisia/Algeria/Maro/Mauritania in addition to the Atlantic (Saint Louis/Dakar and the rivers). Haruna. -----Original Message----- From: Baba Galleh Jallow <[log in to unmask]> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, May 11, 2012 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [G_L] Fwd: Mali’s Struggle: Not Simply of Their Own Making Thanks for a good lesson in History Haruna. However, I have one small questions for you. You write: "French colonialism did not lump any ethnicities together. The Sonrhai, Peulh, Soninke, Senufo, Bwa/Bozo, and Minianka have been the traditional owners and inhabitants of North Mali for centuries." I certainly do not contest the fact that these peoples lived here from time immemorial. However, my question is: Did these "Sonrhai, Peulh, Soninke, Senufo, Bwa/Bozo, and Minianka" live under a territorial space called the Republic of Mali/Soudan before French Colonialism? If your answer is yes, then forgive my ignorance and futher enlighten me. But if your answer is no, as I strongly suspect it will be, then you get the point of my point that French colonialism lumped different ethnicities together. That said, I learnt a lot of sub-regional history of "Mali" from your post. Thanks for sharing and enlightening us on this complex history. Baba ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤