Have you gotten your DNA done?

[UGAalum94]

Centaur, are you sure you mean the tribes weren't there or that colonial powers pushed tribes together into the geographic spaces they wanted them in?

Rwanda is a good example. There were tribes before colonization, I'm pretty sure. The problems may have resulted from external powers trying to make one country out of distinct tribes.

ETA: I stand corrected on Rwanda, at least according to what wikipedia has to say. The two two major "tribes" don't seem distinct at all as far as genetics and language. Interesting.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Centaur, are you sure you mean the tribes weren't there or that colonial powers pushed tribes together into the geographic spaces they wanted them in?

Rwanda is a good example. There were tribes before colonization, I'm pretty sure. The problems may have resulted from external powers trying to make one country out of distinct tribes.

ETA: I stand corrected on Rwanda, at least according to what wikipedia has to say. The two two major "tribes" don't seem distinct at all as far as genetics and language. Interesting.

There were no 'tribes', just groups of people who lived together. There was relative peace among these groups. It was when the colonialists pushed these little societies together and called them a tribe that the problems started. For a modern day example, let's say we take one half of a state such as Florida, and say, "you all live near each other even though you have entirely separate cultures. Now you're a tribe; act like it." No sane person will react kindly to that.
Another key issue is classism. The colonialists would pick a city and build that city up, making an industrial epi-center. Now, think of this like a bulls-eye, with the city in the middle. If you live in or around that city, you're going to get a decent job. The further away you are, the less likely it is that you'll get a job and you're probably neglected by the governing body. When we couple that with the geographically based tribes created by the colonialists, you can see another fine example of a catalyzing conflict. Those who live far away from the city are made into a tribe; they don't get along because they're not the same, so there's already tension. Then the colonialists create another tribe from the people living close to the city. Now this new tribe has more money, and a better position in society. They're higher up in the class system. This was how it was for the Hutus and Tutsis. The Tutsis lived close to the big city, while the Hutus lived a lot further away. The system put in place by the colonialists made it very hard for someone to move up the financial ladder, so the resentment starts and tension builds. The Tutsis were basically told that they were better than the Hutus. Why? Arbitrary grouping.
Wow, that was long-winded.

[Drolefille]

GC, I learn things here.

/thanks centaur

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, me too.

So are you saying that there aren't ANY culturally distinct groups prior to colonization or just that in certain places the tribal stuff was overblown by colonial powers?

How do you explain like the Zulus, Ebo, and stuff?

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

GC, I learn things here.

/thanks centaur

I am a wealth of useful/less information! I'll try and find the link where all this is written (a book called 'How Europe Underdeveloped Africa' or something like that. Really interesting!).

EDIT: Found it! http://www.marxists.org/subject/afri...rope/index.htm

Pay no heed to the website it's hosted on. I really don't know why people dismiss historical fact because of political leanings. The guy who wrote this was a socialist...big deal!

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Yeah, me too.

So are you saying that there aren't ANY culturally distinct groups prior to colonization or just that in certain places the tribal stuff was overblown by colonial powers?

How do you explain like the Zulus, Ebo, and stuff?

I think you might be missing my point...maybe I'm just not clear enough. I can ramble sometimes.
Before there were tribes as we know them, Africans lived in culturally distinct groups and societies, separate from each other, perhaps sharing a geographical area but remaining unique with their own customs and traditions. When the colonialists rolled in (yes, the brits were infamous for screwing up countries the world over!) they put these smaller societies together and made them into a tribe, such as the Hutus or the Zulus, all because they lived in the same area. The colonialists had no respect whatsoever for Africa's cultural diversity. So I am saying the colonialists MADE the Zulu tribe-before that, they co-existed in the same area peacefully but had nothing in common other than their geographical location.
Another example-England and France share the English Channel. Let's say Denmark invades, starts conquering Europe all over the place and says, "England and France are close. They share common water. It's easier for us if we make them one country." The cultures are entirely different from one another but now the former countries are expected to unify under one name, even if there was hostility prior to this grouping.
Does that make sense? There were always culturally distinct groups, but not the tribes we know today.