E. Africa: Use of vernacular not to blame

[Harold Schiffman]

Use of vernacular not to blame

Story by ISAAC AYUMA
Publication Date: 4/23/2008

THE OTHER DAY, A FRIEND observed that ethnic chauvinism and vernacular
languages are the root causes of Africa's problems. To him,
disintegration of the very fabric of society rests squarely on
vernacular. He has statistics to back up his case. Sudan, Liberia,
Burundi, and DR Congo among others, have had trouble in stark contrast
to Tanzania, which largely uses one language.  He is not alone. An MP
was on TV claiming that vernaculars should be banned. Countless others
wish the same could happen. I agree with them that ethnic chauvinism
is a big problem, but a blanket condemnation of languages misses the
point.

My defence of vernacular languages, should not be construed to mean I
support their (mis)use in office. That is clearly specified in our
language policy, which states that English shall be the language of
official communication and Kiswahili shall be the national language.
Language is a vehicle through which we convey our thoughts, fears,
aspirations, and even prejudices. If our thoughts are well-intended,
so will be the language we use, be it Dholuo, Giriama, Gikuyu, or
Kiswahili. To pick Tanzania and claim that it is ''united'' because it
is monolingual is wrong. Tanzania is what it is because of the mindset
put in place by the Ujamaa philosophy it adopted at independence.

Ujamaa encouraged Tanzanians to treat each other as kinsmen. It did
not matter whether one was a Chagga from the slopes of Mt Kilimanjaro,
Sukuma from the lake region, or Hehe from southern Tanzania. Ujamaa
failed in many ways, but it ensured that Tanzania's over 100 ethnic
groups coalesced into one, both in terms of identity, and national
psyche.  Kenya, on the other hand, went the capitalistic way. Ours
became a man-eat-man society where all avenues were exploited to reach
the money kingdom.

THE ETHNIC CARD WAS ONE SUCH cheap route. The elite recoiled into
their ethnic cocoons, blinding the masses that their problems were
caused by the other group. Politicians have perfected it. Granted, a
number of African countries that have (almost) failed are
multilingual, but that is just a coincidence. External factors and
players have contributed to their problems. For instance, as long as
the Congo remains mineral-rich, the search for a permanent solution
will be like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. We also
have monolingual countries that have gone the same way. The prime
examples are Somalia and Rwanda.  Somalia has not had a stable
government in almost two decades despite being not only monolingual,
but also boasting one religion.

They are divided into clans and their ability to use one language has
not helped them to forge ahead as one nation. Many Kenyans think that
Rwandans used Kihutu versus Kitutsi to instigate the horrific
genocide. That is wrong. All Rwandans use Kinyarwanda. They have even
intermarried and do not live in purely mono-ethnic zones. What
happened is that the very Kinyarwanda was coded to carry catastrophic
messages. Tutsis were called inyenze — cockroaches. Thus a seemingly
harmless statement like ''let us fumigate all inyenze'' had horrific
consequences.  Thus language per se is not to blame. It is merely a
resource which can be used or abused to fit the whims of a user. The
recent spate of hate-mail can attest to this. Over 90 per cent of the
hate-mail was in languages that we all understand — English and
Kiswahili.

Does that make English and Kiswahili dangerous?

http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=121684

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************