East African Pastoralists Research Articles

The majority of East African pastoralists, unlike the pastoral societies of the Middle East which have been exposed to and have dealt with central state organizations for millennia, have fallen sway to centralized governments only at the beginning of this century. The process of integration and encapsulation of nomadic pastoralists in centralized polities and economies is now well under way in Africa and is given much attention by the local African governments. Historical evidence is showing that, prior to colonial encroachment, East African pastoral societies, commonly depicted as highly resistant to change and strictly bound to tradition and culture, have at times undergone drastic and swift transformations in response to altered ecological conditions and/or to new opportunities. The Turkana, for instance, separated from the Jie to become nearly pure pastoralists; the Maasai, at Njiemps and Arusha, settled down to become farmers; the Pokot and Kamba developed a dual economic sector with heavy reliance on both agriculture and pastoralism (Goldschmidt, 1974: 298). The Nilo-Hamitic Samburu entered an intimate symbiotic (socio-political and economic) relationship with the contiguous Cushitic Rendille (Spencer, 1973). From the beginning of this century, colonial powers by elaborating particular policies and measures and introducing certain development projects have often struck at the very core of pastoral subsistence without regard to or appreciation of the pastoralists' mode of life. In so doing, they have laid down the foundation of far reaching changes in the economic sector, in the social fabric and in the political organization of East African pastoralists. In such a context, the traditional sense of independence, so highly pronounced and adaptive among nomadic pastoralists, has become rather maladaptive in modem situations where pastoral societies have been encapsulated in national states. Rather often central governments, faced with the intractable nomadic independence, have responded by formulating policies of sedentarization without taking into account the hard realities of pastoral nomadism. As a consequence, neither the national economies nor the pastoral nomadic groups have substantially gained from or benefited by the new conditions created

Read full abstract