There’s a great article on the ongoing arguments over the news media’s use of the word “tribe” to analyze what’s happening in Kenya at allafrica, which is worth checking out. It includes some quotes from the journalists in question; one of the things that’s most illuminating in all this is the great disregard so many people seem to have in the kind of approach academics tend to take towards, for example, the Kenyan debacle. If you ask me why things are hitting the shit-fan, I’d start talking about Kenyatta’s initial Kenyan government, or the reactions to Moi’s dictatorship and Western complicity in the both of them. I’d talk about how “tribes” are exactly as fictitious and as real as political parties, and would go on at some length about how they get used as political armies. But journalists find all that to be beside the point; in order to tell you what is happening now, apparently, there is no time to talk about anything but right now, and since there’s only so much room and audience attention span to do so (especially for something as foreign as Africa) they practically have to reach for quick quasi-racist structure of feeling like “tribe.” In fact, maybe that’s exactly what they have to do, rather than actually delving into the histories that might make some sense of the chaos. It’s always disappointing to read the same errors over and over again, but I think it should disillusion us too; what, after all, can we really expect from a daily newspaper? The constraints of the medium seem to line up exactly with the symptoms we diagnose, and any doctor knows that identifying the cause of a disease is not the same as eliminating it. We should be as wise.