'Prophet' Owuor is a hypocrite

[vooke]

Owuor because he is quite vocal on witchcraft, Negro's innovation.  By why stop at that? Come to think of it, he is killing creativity in the Cradle of man

Note, I said he should preach against all Unchristian primitivity, wife inheritance was an example.

Am least bothered by male circumcision because it is harmless. Not so with FGM.

When you look at wife inheritance, men are the beneficiaries; they get free sex without paying a dime all in the name of 'protecting' the widow. Do me a favor and aks women if they are cool with it and whether they have options. The men here and out there will in all likelihood be for it.

vooke, I said "Owuor's duty alone" because you have singled him out as bearing some kind of special duty, for which reason he is a hypocrite. Is there a reason you have picked on Owuor if, as you say, it is not his duty alone? Aren't all pastors in Kenya hypocrites, then? I have never heard a single person preaching about this, ever.

Secondly, I am not sure I buy your "procured with force" argument. Women are basically forced to marry to have some land (or "public face") in basically all Black cultures. No male in Kenya who is not a Luo has any choice in remaining uncircumcised. They basically have to chop off their skins to survive the social pressure that will follow them everywhere, as assuredly as taxes. Why doesnt that kind of "force" bother you, and why aren't you equally calling preachers to task for not being bothered by it?

About the "not a marriage" only sex, sounds like what the Gusii used to do back when wife inheritence was still a norm (not that long ago, my grandmother was "inherited"). I am not sure it happens exactly that way any more or as prevalently as you made it sound. Hence my wonderment as to why you think Owuor has a special duty to go an a crusade about it.

[Little Bella]

Owuor is in good company, every church condemns witch-craft in no uncertain terms. They also condemn a visit to the sangoma (mganga). They dont seem to care about wife inheritence all that much.

Also, witch-craft and widow inheritence are not at par. I am surprised you're comparing them so matter-of-factly as if they go together/are equal. For one, only one of those has received a divine sanction at least at on point in History. 

Reading around the net on it, I don't see what was so different between what God commanded Jews and what Luos (and many Africans) commanded their men. He basically asked them to sire kids for the dead Jew, have sex with the widow. Neither did he give the widow an option of opting out. It was the brother that could opt out. After that, she could marry someone else, but not before. In the African context, the inheritence is the shamba. The children inherit the deceased's property ( their "dad") but not the brother's property, while in the Jewish context, the brother takes the whole of the deceased's inheritence and takes care of the kids he sires for him with it. Either way, the aim and means seems to be the same. The only difference seems to be the Jewish property system compared to the African communal property system. But most of all, I am not convinced it is as prevalent as may be believed. Just seems like another African cultural practice that is on its death-bed like all others (including polygamy).

If heavy cultural pressure is bad, I think that goes for male circumcision as well. After all, sex is not harmful, but we dont want people being pressured into it. It cannot be right for men to have absolutely no choice in today's social context regarding whethertheir foreskins stay. That is, if the undue social pressure for people to do things is really the big concern.

[bryan275]

All good points raised and these are my two cents. 

A few years ago I took a shine to a friend's single sister in law.  He seemed receptive to the idea but delivered a veiled warning that led to an interesting conversation about the legacy of a deceased parent.  Basically amongst the Shona if a wife departs her family are technically obligated to provide a replacement wife and mother to the children.  I am not sure whether this obligation then leads the family to compel/forcibly marry off one of their daughters.  Against this background my friend made it clear that taking his sister in law into consideration would involve a 100% commitment on my part or quits.  No hanky panky and scooting off.  Seeing as "she was ear marked as the replacememnt wife were his missus to depart".  The arrangement was designed to maintain continuity for the kids and also keep the families together.  This arrangement put me off the whole idea (maybe it was a ruse?)

I think I understand vooke's point in terms of compulsion to be inherited by the widow.  How do we protect those that have been roped/brainwashed into thinking that it was ok, even if it meant being inherited by an abusive in law or worse a serial inheritor.  Also, how can the widows be protected from the learing brother in law waiting in the wings for his brother to drop dead so that he can move in on the missus?

The only contradiction to vooke's position is that being the bible believing Christian that he is, then he must have come across Ruth....and her inheritance woes.

[Little Bella]

I think I understand vooke's point in terms of compulsion to be inherited by the widow.  How do we protect those that have been roped/brainwashed into thinking that it was ok, even if it meant being inherited by an abusive in law or worse a serial inheritor.  Also, how can the widows be protected from the learing brother in law waiting in the wings for his brother to drop dead so that he can move in on the missus?
The only contradiction to vooke's position is that being the bible believing Christian that he is, then he must have come across Ruth....and her inheritance woes.

Bryan,

Indeed. From what I read yesterday, these concerns over less-than-noble intentions of the "inheriting" brother have led to a gradual abandonment (by Jews) of yibum (widow "inheritence") in favour of the practice of the "rejection" of the widow by the inheriting brother---apparently an elaborate ritual involving spittle and a weird shoe

I don't think we need be concerned about "the brain-washed"...How do you know your own view of life is not the product of brain-washing? Lets be concerned about forced marriages (or rape). That's it. Otherwise, culture is always a "compelling" force in many ways, determining things we think are optional, good, bad, unacceptable.  Modern or European culture is no less coercive in this manner. It is just coercive about issues differing from issues that the various traditional cultures are concerned with. What can we say? We humans are group creatures. The threat of exclusion, symbolic or otherwise, will get us doing just about anything, given enough time.

This particular practice obviously does not "fit" 21st century life and like many others, is undergoing a natural death. I don't think it requires much more concern than various cultural practices besides the coersion factor (not always the case). The more modernized all our regions get, the more such will be abandoned. Such is life. In 50 years, I doubt anyone will be having a debate about this.