Uhuru has made Hindu a Kenya 44th tribe

[RV Pundit]

It gives me nothing and takes away nothing. What is unethical about gazettment of kenyan asian as a tribe.  Unless you have your own personal hatred for indians? Obviously somebody cared about this enough to ask it or for the gok to do it on it's own.

What has it given you that you are defending it? I've given my reasons here: ethical. Stop trying to tell me what I should care about.

[Kichwa]

Kadame: I agree with you. This thing was not very well thought through but was done for political expediency.  Some one just came up with the idea, it sounded good and politically advantageous to them and they ran with it.  What about the Indians who do not want to belong to that tribe?  Are we going to force that label on them? Kenyan Indians do not fit neatly into the definition of tribe as we know it.  Its like the USA telling Kenyans living in the USA that we all belong to the Kenyan tribe or a race called Kenyans. Its ridiculous.

tribe
[tr?b]

NOUN
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader:

I don't understand how externally imposing a false identity on a group is better than calling them "others". Just call them what they are. How THEY see themselves/identifg. Does this mean that to be a real Kenyan one must be a member of a tribe?

And just slapping a fake identity on a group cannot prevent future racist/xenophobic attacks on them: HOW will it do that exactly? By convincing haters that these people are originally from Kenya? That's crazy.

I assume something like that would only take place in the context of a breakdown of constitutional order because our constitution and laws DO NOT allow discrimination based on ethnicity or tribe, nor does it base full citizenship on such. So a fake tribe would not prevent a future bigot who doesn't care two cents about the law from attacking ANY group, indegenious or otherwise, for biggoted reasons.

Being indegenious is a matter of FACT, it's not a gift from a government.

Moreover, the assumption that imposing an artificial identity on a group that has not asked for it is in any way morally/ethically ok bothers me. Does this not replace these people's own heritage? The govt must recognize the identity that groups have themselves, it should not just purport to give one to them.

If their identity is not that of a tribe but mere religion, even just broad ethnic or historical ties, it's enough to recognize that and ensure that belonging to a tribe does not give any advantages to anyone.

[Kadame5]

It gives me nothing and takes away nothing. What is unethical about gazettment of kenyan asian as a tribe.  Unless you have your own personal hatred for indians? Obviously somebody cared about this enough to ask it or for the gok to do it on it's own.

What has it given you that you are defending it? I've given my reasons here: ethical. Stop trying to tell me what I should care about.

It is insisting that tribe is a crucial factor of being a 'REAL' Kenyan that is based on hatred. Not everyone worships the almighty tribe like you Pundit. You havent responded to my points. My whole issue is that identity comes from within the group not govts, be they the British mkoloni or the current govt. This kind of issue of identity of minority groups is big in my line of work and so yes, I do give a s***. Its not just a Kenyan issue. But as usual you are turning this into a silly emotional exchange between you and me rather than a discussion of the topic. No, I will not assume that Indians asked for this, where or when did they? Its highly inappropriate and I will continue to say so with or without your permission.

[RV Pundit]

Nobody force you to belong to a tribe. You can choose to say Kenyan. Of course tribe is important. On second thought this is actually a watershed moment for many indians if you know what happen in Uganda and in Kenya in 70s. I bet there are laws in our books that are still anti-indians - one of which was immigration & trade act of 1967 - which forbade indians from trading or doing business in some towns. Now all those laws enacted in 60s and 70s are now null and void.

I don't understand how progressive people can hate what seem like expansion of political freedoms and rights of kenyan asian. Tell me if you won't love if the US recongise kenyan diaspora as a tribe.

Kadame: I agree with you. This thing was not very well thought through but was done for political expediency.  Some one just came up with the idea, it sounded good and politically advantageous to them and they ran with it.  What about the Indians who do not want to belong to that tribe?  Are we going to force that label on them? Kenyan Indians do not fit neatly into the definition of tribe as we know it.  Its like the USA telling Kenyans living in the USA that we all belong to the Kenyan tribe or a race called Kenyans. Its ridiculous.

tribe
[tr?b]

NOUN
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader:

I don't understand how externally imposing a false identity on a group is better than calling them "others". Just call them what they are. How THEY see themselves/identifg. Does this mean that to be a real Kenyan one must be a member of a tribe?

And just slapping a fake identity on a group cannot prevent future racist/xenophobic attacks on them: HOW will it do that exactly? By convincing haters that these people are originally from Kenya? That's crazy.

I assume something like that would only take place in the context of a breakdown of constitutional order because our constitution and laws DO NOT allow discrimination based on ethnicity or tribe, nor does it base full citizenship on such. So a fake tribe would not prevent a future bigot who doesn't care two cents about the law from attacking ANY group, indegenious or otherwise, for biggoted reasons.

Being indegenious is a matter of FACT, it's not a gift from a government.

Moreover, the assumption that imposing an artificial identity on a group that has not asked for it is in any way morally/ethically ok bothers me. Does this not replace these people's own heritage? The govt must recognize the identity that groups have themselves, it should not just purport to give one to them.

If their identity is not that of a tribe but mere religion, even just broad ethnic or historical ties, it's enough to recognize that and ensure that belonging to a tribe does not give any advantages to anyone.

[Kichwa]

Whats wrong with it is because you do not want to define a people without their total consent and unanimous approval.  You want to think this thing very carefully and consider all the legal, social, economic and political implications that may come with it. The Indians may now be entitled to tribal land or some tribal rights that they never had.  Why now and so quickly without a debate of how to treat other communities who may want such designations in the future. You support everything this idiot does and then call yourself objective.

It gives me nothing and takes away nothing. What is unethical about gazettment of kenyan asian as a tribe.  Unless you have your own personal hatred for indians? Obviously somebody cared about this enough to ask it or for the gok to do it on it's own.

What has it given you that you are defending it? I've given my reasons here: ethical. Stop trying to tell me what I should care about.

[RV Pundit]

If adding another tribe taking extra space that you wanted to occupy? Kenyan Asians is what Indians (from many tribes) have come to accept and I am sure this proposal comes from somewhere. I don't know why again you're so angry about this. Omollo whose hatred for Indians & Kikuyus is well known has no issue. In fact I agree with him that we need to recognise more and more tribes. It doesn't taking anything from the other 43 tribes.

And please identity can be formed any day anytime - Kalenjin didn't exist until 1940s - Kenyan Asian is what indians I know refer themselves to - just like blacks now accept the term - african-american for their races. Of course there is no race called African- American.

The more the merrier.

It is insisting that tribe is a crucial factor of being a 'REAL' Kenyan that is based on hatred. Not everyone worships the almighty tribe like you Pundit. You havent responded to my points. My whole issue is that identity comes from within the group not govts, be they the British mkoloni or the current govt. This kind of issue of identity of minority groups is big in my line of work and so yes, I do give a s***. Its not just a Kenyan issue. But as usual you are turning this into a silly emotional exchange between you and me rather than a discussion of the topic. No, I will not assume that Indians asked for this, where or when did they? Its highly inappropriate and I will continue to say so with or without your permission.

[Kadame5]

Whats wrong with it is because you do not want to define a people without their total consent and unanimous approval.  You want to think this thing very carefully and consider all the legal, social, economic and political implications that may come with it. The Indians may now be entitled to tribal land or some tribal rights that they never had.  Why now and so quickly without a debate of how to treat other communities who may want such designations in the future. You support everything this idiot does and then call yourself objective.

It gives me nothing and takes away nothing. What is unethical about gazettment of kenyan asian as a tribe.  Unless you have your own personal hatred for indians? Obviously somebody cared about this enough to ask it or for the gok to do it on it's own.

What has it given you that you are defending it? I've given my reasons here: ethical. Stop trying to tell me what I should care about.

Exactly, Kichwa. My whole point is that identity comes from the groups themselves, not some external entity called a govt. Also, it reinforces a bad mindset that if you dont have a tribe you are a not a full Kenyan.

[RV Pundit]

You can challenge this executive decision otherwise PORK & executive have the mandate to do some of this stuff. They exercise that discretion because he was elected by 50% of kenyan and I believe (unless explicitly made clearly) that GoK has done this for good reasons. Of course the timming could indicate some political reason - but that is what incumbency is all about. Uhuru has to take advantage of incumbecy and Raila has the whole day to accuse gok over everything including drought - that too is the advantage of opposition - coz you can always blame GoK for anything.

Whats wrong with it is because you do not want to define a people without their total consent and unanimous approval.  You want to think this thing very carefully and consider all the legal, social, economic and political implications that may come with it. The Indians may now be entitled to tribal land or some tribal rights that they never had.  Why now and so quickly without a debate of how to treat other communities who may want such designations in the future. You support everything this idiot does and then call yourself objective.

[Kadame5]

I dont know why you think I am 'angry', if anything I was annoyed by how you started personalising this debate. I am DISAGREEING with this move and stating my reasons for disagreeing. There is a difference between that and being angry, Pundit.

[Kichwa]

Indians were already full citizens of Kenya with all the rights that all Kenyans have.  Indians in Kenya do not fit the definition of a tribe because of their diversity including language and culture.  The only thing some of them have in common is because they come from a land called India.

Nobody force you to belong to a tribe. You can choose to say Kenyan. Of course tribe is important. On second thought this is actually a watershed moment for many indians if you know what happen in Uganda and in Kenya in 70s. I bet there are laws in our books that are still anti-indians - one of which was immigration & trade act of 1967 - which forbade indians from trading or doing business in some towns. Now all those laws enacted in 60s and 70s are now null and void.

I don't understand how progressive people can hate what seem like expansion of political freedoms and rights of kenyan asian. Tell me if you won't love if the US recongise kenyan diaspora as a tribe.

Kadame: I agree with you. This thing was not very well thought through but was done for political expediency.  Some one just came up with the idea, it sounded good and politically advantageous to them and they ran with it.  What about the Indians who do not want to belong to that tribe?  Are we going to force that label on them? Kenyan Indians do not fit neatly into the definition of tribe as we know it.  Its like the USA telling Kenyans living in the USA that we all belong to the Kenyan tribe or a race called Kenyans. Its ridiculous.

tribe
[tr?b]

NOUN
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader:

I don't understand how externally imposing a false identity on a group is better than calling them "others". Just call them what they are. How THEY see themselves/identifg. Does this mean that to be a real Kenyan one must be a member of a tribe?

And just slapping a fake identity on a group cannot prevent future racist/xenophobic attacks on them: HOW will it do that exactly? By convincing haters that these people are originally from Kenya? That's crazy.

I assume something like that would only take place in the context of a breakdown of constitutional order because our constitution and laws DO NOT allow discrimination based on ethnicity or tribe, nor does it base full citizenship on such. So a fake tribe would not prevent a future bigot who doesn't care two cents about the law from attacking ANY group, indegenious or otherwise, for biggoted reasons.

Being indegenious is a matter of FACT, it's not a gift from a government.

Moreover, the assumption that imposing an artificial identity on a group that has not asked for it is in any way morally/ethically ok bothers me. Does this not replace these people's own heritage? The govt must recognize the identity that groups have themselves, it should not just purport to give one to them.

If their identity is not that of a tribe but mere religion, even just broad ethnic or historical ties, it's enough to recognize that and ensure that belonging to a tribe does not give any advantages to anyone.

[RV Pundit]

Identity most of the times come outside. Most people call themselves "people" in their own language . Most of the tribes in kenya are idenity given to them by others. For example Nandi - has no meaning in Kalenjin or Nandi - and was identity imposed by Arabs slave trades. Nandi is a foreign word and so are many of kenya tribes - I even suspect Gikuyu is foreign word to Gikuyu and was probably maasai name meaning parakuyo. GoK can decide to refer to all indians as Kenyan Asian - the same way blacks in US - are African-American - and unless it's offensive I don't see why again you're getting hot under the collar - unless you have issues with Indians.

I believe strongly that kenyan indians - having stayed here for generation - deserve the recognition and integration to make them more than paper citizen. This is big step that we should laud.

Exactly, Kichwa. My whole point is that identity comes from the groups themselves, not some external entity called a govt. Also, it reinforces a bad mindset that if you dont have a tribe you are a not a full Kenyan.

[RV Pundit]

It not enough to be paper citizen. I mean indian who recently immigrated from Indian and Kenyan Asian should be distinguished. These are folks who have been here for 100 plus years. They deserve recognition. They can become a race or a tribe - I don't care - but I am generally progressive and liberal dude who don't see how this is 1) bad 2) negatively affect anybody.

I bet most Kenyan Asians (who've been here for generations) want this as way to distinguish themselves from Indians (In Kenya).

Indians were already full citizens of Kenya with all the rights that all Kenyans have.  Indians in Kenya do not fit the definition of a tribe because of their diversity including language and culture.  The only thing some of them have in common is because they come from a land called India.

[/quote]

[Kichwa]

At this time I am not even thinking of his authority to designate Indians a tribe, I am just thinking of the rational.  The question of authority will come up if there is a litigation. The president does not have plenary powers just because he is elected by a f --ing 51% of the people. If Indians go to court to claim some tribal rights, then the government of the day may at that time argue that Ouru never had the powers to designate them a tribe or that they do not fit the definition of a tribe.  We are not there yet.  Right now we are just trying to figure out the rational other than the political advantage Ouru is seeking.

You can challenge this executive decision otherwise PORK & executive have the mandate to do some of this stuff. They exercise that discretion because he was elected by 50% of kenyan and I believe (unless explicitly made clearly) that GoK has done this for good reasons. Of course the timming could indicate some political reason - but that is what incumbency is all about. Uhuru has to take advantage of incumbecy and Raila has the whole day to accuse gok over everything including drought - that too is the advantage of opposition - coz you can always blame GoK for anything.

Whats wrong with it is because you do not want to define a people without their total consent and unanimous approval.  You want to think this thing very carefully and consider all the legal, social, economic and political implications that may come with it. The Indians may now be entitled to tribal land or some tribal rights that they never had.  Why now and so quickly without a debate of how to treat other communities who may want such designations in the future. You support everything this idiot does and then call yourself objective.

[RV Pundit]

I guess you just emigrated to Kenya? And have been living in mars all along? You honestly don't know why Kenyan Asians would want this? Why not do some research for some context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Kenya

I believe Kenyan Asian is a term they want to call themselves - coz they are from Indian, Pakistani, Bangaldesh etc) and it make sense for them to have this brand new identity - they've been here for many generations.

At this time I am not even thinking of his authority to designate Indians a tribe, I am just thinking of the rational.  The question of authority will come up if there is a litigation. The president does not have plenary powers just because he is elected by a f --ing 51% of the people. If Indians go to court to claim some tribal rights, then the government of the day may at that time argue that Ouru never had the powers to designate them a tribe or that they do not fit the definition of a tribe.  We are not there yet.  Right now we are just trying to figure out the rational other than the political advantage Ouru is seeking.

[Kichwa]

You seem to think that having your own tribe make you more legitimate Kenyan than just being  a "mere" citizen.  Any Indian can get membership in any Kenyan tribe they wish to belong to or just remain Kenyan citizens.

It not enough to be paper citizen. I mean indian who recently immigrated from Indian and Kenyan Asian should be distinguished. These are folks who have been here for 100 plus years. They deserve recognition. They can become a race or a tribe - I don't care - but I am generally progressive and liberal dude who don't see how this is 1) bad 2) negatively affect anybody.

I bet most Kenyan Asians (who've been here for generations) want this as way to distinguish themselves from Indians (In Kenya).

Indians were already full citizens of Kenya with all the rights that all Kenyans have.  Indians in Kenya do not fit the definition of a tribe because of their diversity including language and culture.  The only thing some of them have in common is because they come from a land called India.

[/quote]

[Kichwa]

They can call themselves whatever they want.  They do not need ouru for that.

I guess you just emigrated to Kenya? And have been living in mars all along? You honestly don't know why Kenyan Asians would want this? Why not do some research for some context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indians_in_Kenya

I believe Kenyan Asian is a term they want to call themselves - coz they are from Indian, Pakistani, Bangaldesh etc) and it make sense for them to have this brand new identity.

At this time I am not even thinking of his authority to designate Indians a tribe, I am just thinking of the rational.  The question of authority will come up if there is a litigation. The president does not have plenary powers just because he is elected by a f --ing 51% of the people. If Indians go to court to claim some tribal rights, then the government of the day may at that time argue that Ouru never had the powers to designate them a tribe or that they do not fit the definition of a tribe.  We are not there yet.  Right now we are just trying to figure out the rational other than the political advantage Ouru is seeking.

[RV Pundit]

And what exactly is your problem. Still struggling to understand.

They can call themselves whatever they want.  They do not need ouru for that.

[Kadame5]

Identity most of the times come outside. Most people call themselves "people" in their own language . Most of the tribes in kenya are idenity given to them by others. For example Nandi - has no meaning in Kalenjin or Nandi - and was identity imposed by Arabs slave trades. Nandi is a foreign word and so are many of kenya tribes - I even suspect Gikuyu is foreign word to Gikuyu and was probably maasai name meaning parakuyo. GoK can decide to refer to all indians as Kenyan Asian - the same way blacks in US - are African-American - and unless it's offensive I don't see why again you're getting hot under the collar - unless you have issues with Indians.

I believe strongly that kenyan indians - having stayed here for generation - deserve the recognition and integration to make them more than paper citizen. This is big step that we should laud.

Exactly, Kichwa. My whole point is that identity comes from the groups themselves, not some external entity called a govt. Also, it reinforces a bad mindset that if you dont have a tribe you are a not a full Kenyan.

Please stop trying to insist on a fake motive for my objections, ati hatred of Indians, when I have stated all of mine here in writing. The difference here is that I do not agree that having an African tribe is crucial to being a Kenyan. How you cinceptualize being a Kenyan is the whole issue. Kenya houses peoples of diverse backgrounds and heritage, some African, others not, and that is worthy of celebration without trying to make one group like the others. Integration does not happen by trying to make a small group like the larger group(s) but by recognizing and appreciating all groups as they are. I have no idea why Uhuru has done this, Im not a heart reader but like you saw with my response to Omollo, I'd feel the same whether its NASA or Jubilee that does this. It's such a colonial move. There are countries still suffering the impacts of these external impositions by colonists and other kinds of govt. I disagree with the whole affair whether its happening in Kenya or the U.S.A.

[Kichwa]

The problem is that Ouru is not a tribal leader to confer tribal rights or create tribes like Moi used to create districts willy nilly.  Ouru is the constitutional president of Kenya and the constitution is tribe neutral. An Indian group who considers themselves an Indian tribe of Kenya can make Ouru the leader of their tribe and Ouru can arrange for some individual Indians to become members of Kikuyu tribe but Ouru should not try to use his presidency to confer tribes or create new tribes.  We are trying to get away from roadside pronouncement presidency.

And what exactly is your problem. Still struggling to understand.

They can call themselves whatever they want.  They do not need ouru for that.

[RV Pundit]

Apologies.Now I get you. You prefer Kagame kind of thing where tribe is outlawed and people are recognized just as Kenyans. I of ocurse disagree. I think tribe is reality that we will not ran away from or wish away from. I think it's impossible to grant rights without recognizing them. You can say the same about women rights - which I support 100%. I think we can only recognise the rights of 5th generation indians (before it split to pakistan, india & bangladesh) by accepting them as tribe of their own. They have been here long enough to form an identity. GoK is just recognise that. After which we can say where Kenyan Asians are discriminated or are favoured - and we can work such historical injustices.

I believe strongly that Kenyan of indian & pakistani & such place badly want this and are excited about it.

Please stop trying to insist on a fake motive for my objections, ati hatred of Indians, when I have stated all of mine here in writing. The difference here is that I do not agree that having an African tribe is crucial to being a Kenyan. How you cinceptualize being a Kenyan is the whole issue. Kenya houses peoples of diverse backgrounds and heritage, some African, others not, and that is worthy of celebration without trying to make one group like the others. Integration does not happen by trying to make a small group like the larger group(s) but by recognizing and appreciating all groups as they are. I have no idea why Uhuru has done this, Im not a heart reader but like you saw with my response to Omollo, I'd feel the same whether its NASA or Jubilee that does this. It's such a colonial move. There are countries still suffering the impacts of these external impositions by colonists and other kinds of govt. I disagree with the whole affair whether its happening in Kenya or the U.S.A.