6 ms·

Um. It is not a racist term. The major ethnic groups in Ghana are specifically tribes in the same way that the Irish have clans. The tribes have independent l

Um. It is not a racist term. The major ethnic groups in Ghana are specifically tribes in the same way that the Irish have clans. The tribes have independent languages, customs, religions, and most importantly governmental structures. The heads of each tribe are represented in the federal government via the House of Chiefs[1]. A persons tribe is a definitive thing. Your chosen tribe is listed as part of your national ID, and used to open a bank account. Even if you were born outside of its bounds, the most common question is “what is your ancestral village?” (To note, some villages are cities now. And some cities like the capital have multiple villages in them.) Similar to how the US has problems with “race”, Ghana has tribes and the federal government constantly has campaigns against “tribalism”. This isn’t without cause. Ghana was formed after the Fanti confederation, joined with the British to subdue the Ashanti putting to end a long running debate as to who was the “true” leaders of the Alan group (spoiler: no one). The Ewe who had been chased off to the west, united to provide material aide as well so they can be considered part of the war. > I'm Ghanaian myself… Me too. :) > when the same term would not be applied to people in other parts of the world in exactly the same circumstances. Can’t speak about any other part of the world but: the US has tribes which are functionally equivalent to Ghanaian tribes. The UK had tribes too, but the supergroup became dominant and created a “nation”. Wales was 3 tribes, but it was unified under a single throne for so long that the cultural differences waned since they had an external enemy: the British. The Ashanti tried to do the same thing but it failed which is why the Akan supergroup still has dozens of tribes. Ashanti is an absolute monarchy, but all the others have their own systems of succession. The Ewes are unified under a High Chief precisely because they kept losing wars, pressuring them to join for defense. Our tribes aren’t ancient relics. There is a pretty vibrant Akan art scene, and in 2020 a presidential candidate proposed making Twi the national language. When it comes to art there’s a difference between the art that has its cultural roots at the national level, and art that reflecting a local tribes ethos (e.g. Ewe art has very few examples of warrior motifs but Ashanti culture has venerated specific swords). This turned out to be longer than I wanted it to be but if you are ever in Accra, the library near the W.E.B. Dubois centre has great resources for this. The new presidential library in Cape Coast is empty but that’s a rant for another time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_House_of_Chiefs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_House_of_Chiefs

prmph 5y ago
Ummm, I think you’re rather making my point for me: if, as you acknowledge, other groups in western countries are functionally equivalent to “tribes”, why are they not referred to as such? You also make a number of wrong statements (not sure if you actually live in Ghana, I do): > The heads of each tribe are represented in the federal government via the House of Chiefs[1]. Ghana does not have a federal system of government. The House of Chiefs is just a nod to traditional ways, with no real power. > Your chosen tribe is listed as part of your national ID, and used to open a bank account. This statement is definitely incorrect. I have a national ID of the recent type, and there is no reference to a tribe. There is also no requirement to declare a tribe to open a bank account. The rest of your arguments expose the core of the issue: > The UK had tribes too, but the supergroup became dominant and created a “nation”. Wales was 3 tribes, but it was unified under a single throne for so long that the cultural differences waned since they had an external enemy: the British. So why would the grouping of three welsh tribes themselves not form a tribe? Don’t you see by that deceiving a group as a tribe rather than a nation is arbitrary? > The Ashanti tried to do the same thing but it failed which is why the Akan supergroup still has dozens of tribes. Note that the Akans are called a tribe, and sub-divisions within the Akan are also called tribes. The Ewes you refer to can also be divided into many smaller groups that can also be called tribes. > When it comes to art there’s a difference between the art that has its cultural roots at the national level, and art that reflecting a local tribes ethos (e.g. Ewe art has very few examples of warrior motifs but Ashanti culture has venerated specific swords). Of course art from anywhere is going to be influenced by its origin. And notice the circular argument being made: Ewe and Ashanti art are tribal because they reflect a tribal ethos. So far you haven’t addressed my point. You have simply asserted that there is a concept of tribe. My point is that concept is entirely arbitrary, and not applied to other groups exhibiting similar characteristics. That points to the real reason for using it: to other non western local cultures
- dismantlethesun 5y ago
  > if you actually live in Ghana, I do Me too, since COVID. East Legon, near Blue House (if you know Accra, you know what I mean.) I also, had the good luck to be able to go primary school in Ghana despite being foreign born. > Ghana does not have a federal system of government. This is sort of true, sort of not true. Ghana's government wasn't created de novo like some other colonial systems. The US has a 'perfect' federal system since it was created out of whole cloth: states have independent powers, and the central government has different powers. Outside of the US, the question of if a government is federal or not is pretty murky since all governments have to decentralize in someway, and have to at a minimum identify regions within their control. The Ghanian system was originally modeled after that of the UK, during a time when the UK hadn't devolved any much authority away from the central government. However, what exists today is different in many important ways. First a little background... The 1957 constitution created the parliament as a mirror image of what the UK has, and included the house of chiefs as a counterpart to the house of lords (and since chiefs play a spiritual role too, you don't need to save any seats for the Lords Spiritual). At the time, chiefs had varying levels of authority depending on how much the Brits liked them, and how far they were from British control. The Ashanti chieftaincy for example was being suppressed heavily. What should have happened is that a further convention would clarify how exactly chiefs fit into the new system. However, the 1960 constitution came along and neutered the entire parliament. Kwame Nkrumah became the first president, and the post of prime minister was done away with. At the same time, zero authority was given to the chiefs (despite the fact that chiefs continued to own most of the land). The structure of parliament itself was neglected for many years. Thus, parliament itself has issues that aren't found elsewhere. Remember 2020? Parliament was going to be divided 50/50 with no ruling party. In a true parliamentary system, the parties negotiate and form a ruling government. However in Ghana's parliament that's impossible; the rules state that 1 party must win! With all that can we really say that Ghana is a 'perfect' parliamentary system? It's not. > This statement is definitely incorrect. I have a national ID of the recent type, and there is no reference to a tribe. The Ghana card requires it. It's called 'HOMETOWN' vs 'place of birth'. If you are a Fanti, and try to say Accra is your hometown they won't accept it. [1] While it's possible that I'm misremembering the specifics, I just moved here so I had to fill out forms for: 1. Driver’s Licence 2. Voter ID Card 3. SSNIT Biometric Card 4. National Health Insurance Card 5. Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 6. Bank Account 7. Passport As someone who has recently gone through the application process, I know that tribal discussion comes up quite a lot when confirming your identity. > There is also no requirement to declare a tribe to open a bank account. As far as I know, it's part of KYC. It's not essential, but some banks will ask for it. Fidelity asks. Ecobank doesn't. Though they do have your TIN and ID card so they can just look it up. Anyways lets get to the meat of the discussion. > So why would the grouping of three welsh tribes themselves not form a tribe? Previous to unification, the various groups had different customs, leadership, and their languages were similar but not the same. For a living example, let's take the Akan supergroup. There are various tribes within the supergroup, and in general each speaks a language that is mutually intelligible with tribes that they border. However, the further you get away from your hometown, the less likely that you can easily understand what's being spoken even though it's an 'Akan' language. It wasn't until unification that they became a single tribe. Because of the war, the dominant group enforced its language and customs upon everyone else. If we look at the UK in general, we can agree that there are at least three tribes: Welsh, Scots, Britons. The concept of tribe and government aren't identical. You can have a government rule over many tribes. And you can have a tribe split between into two governments (e.g. Ewe in Togo). However, they are interrelated since without a unifying government, there is more cultural and linguistic drift leading to the eventual division of the tribe. > Note that the Akans are called a tribe... As per above, the Akan aren't a tribe. I call them a supergroup. Others call them a meta-ethnicity. The basic agreement is that the Akan aren't atomic and the subparts have significant differences. The classification of the Ewe is a whole other discussion. Because they were previously unified, and have the concept of 'Eweland'. Additionally, the largest sublanguages Anlo and Mina are mutually understandable, and I can't find anyone who speaks a form of Ewe who can't understand these. The only division is in government (chieftaincy) and some spiritual practices. So, there are a lot of reasons to argue the Ewe are a single tribe. > My point is that concept is entirely arbitrary, and not applied to other groups exhibiting similar characteristics. What would you call it instead? I think you may be reacting to the word 'tribe' because it connotes inferiority, not because it actually means inferiority. The connotation is natural because as nations emerged, it benefited them to squash tribal divisions and thus the idea of 'tribalism' is tainted as being something out-of-date, or inferior to the nation. The word 'ethnicity' doesn't have the same problems even though but it means the same thing. [1] https://nia.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/application_form.pdf https://nia.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/application_fo...

prmph 5y ago

Ummm, I think you’re rather making my point for me: if, as you acknowledge, other groups in western countries are functionally equivalent to “tribes”, why are they not referred to as such? You also make a number of wrong statements (not sure if you actually live in Ghana, I do): > The heads of each tribe are represented in the federal government via the House of Chiefs[1]. Ghana does not have a federal system of government. The House of Chiefs is just a nod to traditional ways, with no real power. > Your chosen tribe is listed as part of your national ID, and used to open a bank account. This statement is definitely incorrect. I have a national ID of the recent type, and there is no reference to a tribe. There is also no requirement to declare a tribe to open a bank account. The rest of your arguments expose the core of the issue: > The UK had tribes too, but the supergroup became dominant and created a “nation”. Wales was 3 tribes, but it was unified under a single throne for so long that the cultural differences waned since they had an external enemy: the British. So why would the grouping of three welsh tribes themselves not form a tribe? Don’t you see by that deceiving a group as a tribe rather than a nation is arbitrary? > The Ashanti tried to do the same thing but it failed which is why the Akan supergroup still has dozens of tribes. Note that the Akans are called a tribe, and sub-divisions within the Akan are also called tribes. The Ewes you refer to can also be divided into many smaller groups that can also be called tribes. > When it comes to art there’s a difference between the art that has its cultural roots at the national level, and art that reflecting a local tribes ethos (e.g. Ewe art has very few examples of warrior motifs but Ashanti culture has venerated specific swords). Of course art from anywhere is going to be influenced by its origin. And notice the circular argument being made: Ewe and Ashanti art are tribal because they reflect a tribal ethos. So far you haven’t addressed my point. You have simply asserted that there is a concept of tribe. My point is that concept is entirely arbitrary, and not applied to other groups exhibiting similar characteristics. That points to the real reason for using it: to other non western local cultures

dismantlethesun 5y ago
> if you actually live in Ghana, I do Me too, since COVID. East Legon, near Blue House (if you know Accra, you know what I mean.) I also, had the good luck to be able to go primary school in Ghana despite being foreign born. > Ghana does not have a federal system of government. This is sort of true, sort of not true. Ghana's government wasn't created de novo like some other colonial systems. The US has a 'perfect' federal system since it was created out of whole cloth: states have independent powers, and the central government has different powers. Outside of the US, the question of if a government is federal or not is pretty murky since all governments have to decentralize in someway, and have to at a minimum identify regions within their control. The Ghanian system was originally modeled after that of the UK, during a time when the UK hadn't devolved any much authority away from the central government. However, what exists today is different in many important ways. First a little background... The 1957 constitution created the parliament as a mirror image of what the UK has, and included the house of chiefs as a counterpart to the house of lords (and since chiefs play a spiritual role too, you don't need to save any seats for the Lords Spiritual). At the time, chiefs had varying levels of authority depending on how much the Brits liked them, and how far they were from British control. The Ashanti chieftaincy for example was being suppressed heavily. What should have happened is that a further convention would clarify how exactly chiefs fit into the new system. However, the 1960 constitution came along and neutered the entire parliament. Kwame Nkrumah became the first president, and the post of prime minister was done away with. At the same time, zero authority was given to the chiefs (despite the fact that chiefs continued to own most of the land). The structure of parliament itself was neglected for many years. Thus, parliament itself has issues that aren't found elsewhere. Remember 2020? Parliament was going to be divided 50/50 with no ruling party. In a true parliamentary system, the parties negotiate and form a ruling government. However in Ghana's parliament that's impossible; the rules state that 1 party must win! With all that can we really say that Ghana is a 'perfect' parliamentary system? It's not. > This statement is definitely incorrect. I have a national ID of the recent type, and there is no reference to a tribe. The Ghana card requires it. It's called 'HOMETOWN' vs 'place of birth'. If you are a Fanti, and try to say Accra is your hometown they won't accept it. [1] While it's possible that I'm misremembering the specifics, I just moved here so I had to fill out forms for: 1. Driver’s Licence 2. Voter ID Card 3. SSNIT Biometric Card 4. National Health Insurance Card 5. Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 6. Bank Account 7. Passport As someone who has recently gone through the application process, I know that tribal discussion comes up quite a lot when confirming your identity. > There is also no requirement to declare a tribe to open a bank account. As far as I know, it's part of KYC. It's not essential, but some banks will ask for it. Fidelity asks. Ecobank doesn't. Though they do have your TIN and ID card so they can just look it up. Anyways lets get to the meat of the discussion. > So why would the grouping of three welsh tribes themselves not form a tribe? Previous to unification, the various groups had different customs, leadership, and their languages were similar but not the same. For a living example, let's take the Akan supergroup. There are various tribes within the supergroup, and in general each speaks a language that is mutually intelligible with tribes that they border. However, the further you get away from your hometown, the less likely that you can easily understand what's being spoken even though it's an 'Akan' language. It wasn't until unification that they became a single tribe. Because of the war, the dominant group enforced its language and customs upon everyone else. If we look at the UK in general, we can agree that there are at least three tribes: Welsh, Scots, Britons. The concept of tribe and government aren't identical. You can have a government rule over many tribes. And you can have a tribe split between into two governments (e.g. Ewe in Togo). However, they are interrelated since without a unifying government, there is more cultural and linguistic drift leading to the eventual division of the tribe. > Note that the Akans are called a tribe... As per above, the Akan aren't a tribe. I call them a supergroup. Others call them a meta-ethnicity. The basic agreement is that the Akan aren't atomic and the subparts have significant differences. The classification of the Ewe is a whole other discussion. Because they were previously unified, and have the concept of 'Eweland'. Additionally, the largest sublanguages Anlo and Mina are mutually understandable, and I can't find anyone who speaks a form of Ewe who can't understand these. The only division is in government (chieftaincy) and some spiritual practices. So, there are a lot of reasons to argue the Ewe are a single tribe. > My point is that concept is entirely arbitrary, and not applied to other groups exhibiting similar characteristics. What would you call it instead? I think you may be reacting to the word 'tribe' because it connotes inferiority, not because it actually means inferiority. The connotation is natural because as nations emerged, it benefited them to squash tribal divisions and thus the idea of 'tribalism' is tainted as being something out-of-date, or inferior to the nation. The word 'ethnicity' doesn't have the same problems even though but it means the same thing. [1] https://nia.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/application_form.pdf https://nia.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/application_fo...