bwesigye

Yesterday was the day many in the feminist movement celebrate 100 years of the movement. My fellow male feminist, Rukidi Mpuga has written a note titled Feminism, Culture and Colonialism in commemoration of the day, http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=134346626635153. For those who can not follow the link, let me reproduce it here in its entirety; he writes;

“It is International Women’s Day today. But it is important to try and reflect on the women’s quest for emancipation.

Many African societies were patriarchal before the advent of colonialism. Then, the position of the woman in society was below the man. Women were forbidden, in many societies, from eating certain foods, most of them high in protein. Female virginity was treasured, a good woman was one who obeyed her husband, got married- to one man.. That said though, the woman’s position was not as badly off as many would have us believe. The woman worked the garden with the man and her work in this regard, was valued.She retained her name upon marriage.The woman had her small garden if she wanted, could even be a priest,and in some societies even fought in war.

Enter Colonialism and disaster sets in. The colonialist, unschooled in the ways of the natives – the word has derogatory connotations- had to find a way to administer and govern them. The local customs become codified to ease administration and these are Christened Customary Law. Problem is culture being dynamic, is suffocated, as it now has to stay static. Also, the negative customs can no longer change. This is music to the ears of the African patriarch. The colonialist, in concert with the missionary, argues the good woman is one who stays home and is submissive to the husband. That is what the Bible says. The Bible says so many good things about women, but those aren’t emphasized. More music to the ears of the African patriarch. At this point the hierarchy is clear: Colonialist/ missionary, chief, man and woman down the ladder. Wage labor sets in, the good woman has to be home as the man goes to work. The woman does not work, home chore is not work, it is not wage labor, after all. The man occupies the public domain, and the woman the domestic one. But it is the public that is more important. Does it not bring in money?

Economic development creeps in, bus transport introduced. The woman has to stay at home because going to town makes her rebellious and her labor is needed in the rural area. Hierarchy unchanged.Now the missionary has set up schools, separate one for boys and girls. The boy has to become a clerk and work for the colonialist, and the girl has to be trained to be a good wife and consume the colonialist’s products. That is what a good wife should be.There she is taught her position in society. Upon marriage, she has to take the husband’s name and remain with her Christian name, a name which, more often than not, has nothing Christian about it. Her Muslim counterpart isn’t any better; she has to get married to a man more than three years her senior, and has cant decide whether or not she wants him. One prominent judicial officer says upon marriage the two become one, the man.In bed, the missionary says the man has to be on top, any other position is bad for the woman. sex is just for procreation, it is not to be enjoyed. And it is bad to disobey the missionary.He is always right. Hitherto she might be allowed to experiment from any other position, but now that is bad for a religious woman.

The voting laws are designed to keep her out and give the man more power, because her Victorian counterpart is not any better, and since the African woman is a beast anyway, it would not be right to give her more rights.

Independence touches down. The legal instrument that ushers it in is conspicuously sexist, and there is nothing wrong with that, she is a woman anyway. The successive one aren’t any better. Successive regimes are even worse.The stereotypical image of the modern woman at the time is one who, if married to a politician has to smile beside him in public.

It is 1986. The woman has fought in the bush and must be part of the NRC. But the Women’s Movement is also active, she is part of the CA and ensures that a number of her issues are put forward in the 1995 constitution. Later Affirmative Action is introduced. Not so much because the regime wants it that way but because of the pressure of this women’s Movement plus the regime has mastered the art of political correctness The woman can do the job that a man can, even become a judge, VP, Deputy Speaker of Parliament.

All positives here. But she still tolerates domestic, sexual violence and still thinks her place is bellow that of the man, her children are the man’s and upon marriage she is proud to drop her name and acquire his she will even discard her name and opt for her father’s- he is more important-, society still dictates the type of man she marries, never mind what she thinks. She will opt for a richer man and leave the one she loves because he is the head of the family, ate what? Upon marriage she will insist that the man pays a lot of bride wealth, giving dignity to the words of an early twentieth judicial officer, words devoid of wisdom, to the effect that there is no such thing as marriage in Africa, that it is wife purchase. Ladies and gentleman, is the African (read Ugandan) woman better off today than she was before Africa fell to the prey that was colonialism?”

Mpuga’s ends here.

From Mpuga’s words, I like this statement more;

“She will opt for a richer man and leave the one she loves because he is the head of the family, ate what? Upon marriage she will insist that the man … pays a lot of bride wealth, giving dignity to the words of an early twentieth judicial officer, words devoid of wisdom, to the effect that there is no such thing as marriage in Africa, that it is wife purchase.”

On that, let us ask ourselves some more questions there, as feminists, male or female, how much can we do when we see more and more women coming in full defence of their opting for a richer man and leaving the one they love mbu because he is the head of the family? What more can we do when educated and “empowered” (they claim) women fully support the humongous amounts of bride wealth, (why spare the price tag), arguing that it gives them dignity when paid for?

Question is, where did we do wrong? Where has the feminist movement lost it? Have you seen them ignoring the negative effects that have come with affirmative action? Have you seen them crying “victim victim” all the time thereby denying us the motivation to struggle and win equality? And bring in the burden that comes with equality, you will hear some women shy away and find solace in patriarchy, and when it is a man telling them, they say, you are weak and lazy, in other words, do we realize that the mind of the oppressed is the biggest asset the oppressor has today?

I personally believe that gender equality favours all of us, men and women. I believe that with gender equality, we share EQUALLY the privileges that patriarchy through colonialism, religion and capitalism has given the man AND in the same breath share EQUALLY the burdens that patriarchy has bestowed onto either sex. In other words, we will not have sayings as “it is the woman who cooks”, I have cooked before and my fingers did not disappear because I am male … neither will we hear excuses as “it is the man to pay school fees for children”, what if she earns more than the man? All I am saying is, what equality do we want? Is it the having the cake and eating it at the same time? Figure a community where both men and women contribute equally to the community economy irrespective of the sex and also equally do the domestic work, how developed will we be? Just as we have house-wives, it should be perfectly normal to have house-husbands and also it should be perfect to have a man on marriage choose his wife’s name and a woman maintain her maiden name … I can go on and on …

Thanks Mpuga for the women’s day message.

“I talked to the Kabale Chief Magistrate on Monday, I had gone to inquire if any ruling regarding the Batwa rights had been delivered in his court, and he gave me a state insight, that the state considered the Batwa as as illegal occupants of the forest they lived in, since the forests had been gazetted during colonial times.

I further asked him to explain why then, they were not compensated and he told me about the laws of time limits etc …

The honorable judge told me in honest brutality that the Government considered the Batwa as wild animals who were just in the forest and deserved no compensation!

I asked about why the Government did not think beyond the colonial period when they were living completely on the providence of the forest, the magistrate gave me a detailed lecture about the Batwa being original occupants of no land! His was the most successful discussion I have had from the government’s point of view … ”

Anthony Ayebare, Executive Director, Global Batwa Outreach.

The Batwa have lived in forests since time immemorial. Their livelihood is complementary to forest life and do not threaten the survival of the forest but sustain it, the same way teh forest sustains their wel-being, culture and livelihood. However, the Batwa of south-western Uganda were later to suffer due to their pride in their culture and heritage when brutal force and outright manuevring all conspired to dehumanise them and deligitimise ther culture, identity, heritage and well-being.

The land that the Batwa have long-known as their home (read forests) was declared as forest reserves in the 1930s by the British colonial government, thereby at law limiting the access to the Batwa ancestral land and life. However, it was in 1991, several decades after independence that the Batwa saw the brutal face of the colonial changes. Government of Uganda designated the Batwa ancestral land as Mgahinga and Bwindi national park and Echuya central forest reserve. This effectively banned the Batwa from their traditional forest activities and displaced them from their traditional homes.

As if that was enough, there was no compensation or anything like that. So, the Batwa became homeless, landless and this added to their already bad state as an extremely poor community, and became increasingly marginalised.

Thus on 13th, February, 2009, fourty one members of the Batwa community from Kabale, Kanungu and Kisoro districts wrote a declaration to the Government of Uganda raising their matters and the violations of their rights guaranteed under the national constitution and international human rights instruments Uganda is party to. (See Declaration here;

http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/rights-land-natural-resources/publication/2010/batwa-declaration-government-uganda-securing-t

It should be apparent that a government that is in control of all corners of Uganda’s territory knows all that is happening in the country. When presenting its first and second periodic state reports to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights during the May 2006 and May 2009 sessions respectively, Uganda however made no reference to the human rights situation of the Batwa people. The African Commission was quick to note the loud silence of the government and promptly expressed concern about the omission, especially regarding; the new land policy and its potential to address the problem of the Batwa but its failure so far to do so; the risk of extinguishment of the culture and language of the Batwa people; the importance of the forest to the Batwa people both in terms of their livelihoods and the strong religious and spiritual value it holds; the Ugandan government’s failure to respect its agreement with the World Bank that it would compensate the Batwa people evicted from their lands when Mgahinga and Bwindi national parks were created; the need for affirmative action towards the Batwa in order to tackle the marginalisation and discrimination that they face and the need for political representation of the Batwa.

In reaction, the government said that it was aware of, and did not deny, the problems of the Batwa and in particular recognised the religious and spiritual importance of land for the Batwa people. The government went on to declare, before the African Commission, that it will look into giving land back to the Batwa people.

We are in 2011 and despite the commitments made by Uganda at international and domestic levels, the Batwa are not yet recognised as indigenous people of Uganda. They are thus denied specific protection and other entitlements to indigenous people and the average human being. Specifically, the Batwa need land and housing, education and adult literacy, income generating activities including agriculture, and forest access and benefit-sharing. No doubt, the Batwa as a people also are entitled to the right to practice their culture like everyone else. What is interesting is the fact that heavy economic activity that leads to the destruction of the forests is allowed while the Batwa who have a unique and complementary relationship with the forest are being hounded out of it. How can one pretend to preserve the forest without the Batwa who are part and parcel of its ecology?

The Global Batwa Outreach, where I volunteer as advocacy officer, formed in 2007 by Anthony Ayebare aims at providing food, housing, medical services, economic empowerment, skills training, cultural preservation and human rights advocacy to the Batwa community of southwest Uganda, Africa. Currently, the Global Batwa outreach runs five programs; Building of a medical centre; Agricultural Development, Education; Housing and Resettlement and Human Rights Advocacy and Research.

More information on the non-profit organisation is available here http://www.globalbatwaoutreach.org/about-us.html. Volunteers are welcome and it is easy to be involved, just follow this link; http://www.globalbatwaoutreach.org/get-involved.html

Author: bwesigye

On the International Women’s day …

Land, Forests, Government and the Batwa “matter”.