In reflecting on the rights of indigenous people in Africa, Angela N. Khaminwa remembers the story of a young man taken from the Belgian Congo in 1904 and placed on display at a US zoo. Unless traditional communities are recognized as an inherent part of national identity, she warns, modern day society risks a continuation of the gawking of a century ago.

Recently, I was half-surprised to learn about Ota Benga, one of the many twisted stories that characterize attitudes that Europeans held of Africans in the early 1900s. In 1904, Ota Benga, a young Twa, was taken from then Belgian Congo to the United States by an enthusiastic explorer. Treated as sub-human and a biological curiosity, he was ‘displayed’ at the St. Louis World Fair and later placed in the Bronx Zoo in a cage together with a parrot and an orangutan.

The image of a man caged and gawked at by children and adults is painful to visualize. However, despite the cultural changes embedded in the last 100 years, it seems that this gawking still occurs, albeit in less stark forms. People behave in strange ways when they think, or are convinced, that they are more culturally (and this is almost always equated with morally) advanced than others. The view of the traditional from the modern generates narratives wrapped up in generalizations, paternalism, and prejudice. The rush to modernization inspires a collective vision of a modern culture that pushes those who can’t - or won’t - assimilate to the margins of the national milieu.

An example of this marginalized existence can be gleaned from the Twa, the community from which Benga came. Today, many Twa are forced to self-exploit by relying on the gaze of others to survive financially. “An estimated 80% of Batwa earned capital from begging. Batwa are most able to support themselves when they mold themselves into the stereotypes expected of them. To remain docile, submissive and animal-like reaffirms the social hierarchies to which other groups have assigned them” (Refugees International, 2004).

Surviving socially is also problematic. Twa negotiate prejudice daily. “Many Ugandans … will not sit or eat with Batwas or allow inter-marriage. Batwas are often banned from collecting water from wells used by other groups. … Batwas are forced to remain in the margins of public places, and when selling goods must sit on the outskirts of markets, away from other vendors” (The Defender, 2002).

These types of experiences are not unique to the Twa. To various degrees, indigenous communities are subject to bias and discrimination which affects access to social services, inhibits chances at employment, and restricts participation in politics.

This exclusion replays the story of Ota Benga. In this redux, many are the gawking (and sometimes disinterested) observers barely recognizing, valuing, or protecting cultural worth. Core claims to land and natural resources have been muffled by reframing or misrepresentation. This leads to escalating social tension that pits modern and seemingly suave communities against traditional communities viewed as ill-equipped to handle modernity.

There are numerous basic questions that come to mind when considering the conditions of indigenous people. Firstly, are current definitions of indigenity appropriate to the African context? The ILO Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
in Independent Countries defines indigenous communities as: tribal communities in independent countries whose socio-cultural conditions distinguish them and who are regulated by “customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations” and/or communities who occupied a country or region at the time of colonization or present boundaries and who retain their socio-political institutions.

The latter definition allows us to differentiate between black and non-black Africans but is an inappropriate fit in the context of minority and indigenous peoples’ rights. The former definition emerges as the most fitting for the continent (including groups such as the Pokot in Kenya and Uganda, the Barabaig pastoralists in Tanzania, the San in Southern Africa, and the Hadzabe in Ethiopia). But there are still significant levels of ambiguity surrounding the term.

Secondly, is there pressure on indigenous groups to assimilate? There appears to be tension around the idea of the wholly traditional (read historic) and the partially traditional (read contemporary) world. Despite the fact that many cultures in Africa have evolved into distinctly modern cultures, their nature is to assimilate. Social pressures focus on conformity to a generalized idea of modernity. This leads to a strong in-group dynamic which views the outsiders (the indigenous communities) and their agendas suspiciously.

Thirdly, does the action of recognizing an indigenous group jeopardize national cohesion? The hesitancy of governments to address the issue of internal difference full-force may be due to a need to promote national cohesion because it may result in giving a community additional protection and thus be perceived as politically favouring a community.

Fourthly, does recognizing a group as indigenous narrow development? Indigenous groups are entitled to certain rights under international law including access to ancestral land and attendant natural resources. (For example, the rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources.) These claims may be in direct collision with government (or special interest) plans.

These questions are key points to consider, and return to, when considering indigenity on the continent.

We may not all agree in the definition of indigenous or the categorization of communities as indigenous. Regardless of what label we place on ethnic communities that maintain traditional lifestyles and livelihoods, there is no doubt that many of these communities are vulnerable to labour and sexual exploitation. Dispossession, poor access to health services and appropriate education systems, exclusion from participation in development, denial of cultural and language rights, and extinction as areas in which indigenous groups are vulnerable are some of the results (African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, Working Group Report, 2002).

In addition, as a 2004 report by the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples’ states, “Indigenous peoples bear a disproportionate share of the social and human costs of resource-intensive and resource-extractive industries, large dams and other infrastructure projects, logging and plantations, bio-prospecting, industrial fishing and farming, and also eco-tourism…”

It is clear that they require some form of government recognition of their disenfranchised position and subsequent protection and remediation. Indigenous communities must also play a role by proactively engaging with the government, realizing that changes on their part will be necessary to avoid chronic economic marginalization and underdevelopment.

The reverberations of engagement between the old and the new will never diminish. Modernity will continue to clash with the traditional as long as life progresses. We must recognize traditional communities as a valuable cultural resource that forms an inherent part of the national identity and should be promoted and preserved. If not, we will continue to gawk, uncaring, and in the process lose our humanity.

* Angela N. Khaminwa is a consultant based in Nairobi. Her area of interest is social inclusion, coexistence, and conflict.

* Please send comments to