In 2010, when I traveled to Uganda for the first time, I made sure my expectations were minimal so that when I arrived in Gulu I could take it for what it was and not for what others had told me or for what I had read about. I wanted most to let those who I came into contact with construct and create this world I would soon make my second home What I experienced was the lived realties of people’s daily struggle to return to a sense of normalcy four years after the ceasefire. I observed as the northern Ugandan community made efforts to transition their fragmented past to suit a much more certain and “peaceful” future. For over four months I conducted research on the emergence of peace education initiatives in the districts of Amuru, Kitgum and Gulu. One of the major themes of my work was the real and false militarism in Acholi society. Real militarism refers to the very evident hostilities that exist in post-conflict northern Uganda and false militarism refers to the portrayal of the north as a budding bed of violence with a military-prone population that is largely inaccurate or exaggerated.
Looking at the history of Uganda will reveal that stereotypes were constructed by colonists portraying the Acholi population of northern Uganda as primitive and inferior to the Baganda of central and southern Uganda. To the British the Acholi had little to contribute to the development of the colony besides their service in the military. In the shared memory of the Ugandan people, this has had lasting psychosocial trauma. It has manifested itself along social and political lines with each new government, following independence, deepening not only the stereotypes about the Acholi, but about other ethnic groups as well. The Acholi maintained heavy numbers in the military throughout the 70s and 80s and for the Ugandan collective memory it was the Acholi who perpetrated the atrocities in the Luwero triangle during the early 1980s. It is this un-reconciled event, coupled with colonial stereotypes that have perpetuated the myth that the Achoil are militaristic and violent.
When conflict erupted between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Ugandan government, it came as no surprise to the country because the Acholi were always seen as violent. However, this is the sort of false militarism that has unfortunately been forced upon the Acholi identity. Looking at the pre-colonial era, though, will reveal that the Acholi are not historically violent. Even before 1986, there have been no notable rebellions in Acholiland. The only such rebellion that took place was against British colonial rule with a few clan conflicts between the Langi and Teso. Otherwise, they were generally known to be hardworking and hospitable people.
There does exist, however, a level of “real” militarism in Acholiland, but not as a result of some innate primitiveness, but the 21 years of violent insurgency and insecurity in the region. Acholi culture, just like any culture, is ever-changing and fluid; and the conflict has left a distinct impression on Acholi cultural values and norms. Honorable Jacob Oulanya, the Deputy Speaker of Ugandan Parliament, spoke of the war creating a generation that is morally disengaged, saying that nowadays when youth have disagreements they will say “I’ll kill you” rather than “I’ll box you.” This statement is just a small example of how militarization through the LRA insurgency has led to a culture of militarism in Acholiland that was not known before. Children playing with toy army tanks and reenacting battle scenes has been injected into the collective psyche of people in this region. For many who were born in the late 1980’s, war and uncertainty is the most familiar and normal existence they know.
Much is being done to reverse this trend, such as cultural restoration and revival that promotes and reinforces traditional ideas of peace and reconciliation. Peace education, on the other hand, serves as the medium between restoring cultural values and bringing in new strategies to deal with the massive trauma and violence that took place during the war. Instead of in the homestead this type of education will be taught in the schools in hopes that it will emanate throughout the community with the youth acting as change agents. It cannot be effective, however, if themes of positive peace are not incorporated into the lessons making the chances of relapsing into conflict that much more unlikely. There is only so much notions of negative peace can bring to a young person that cannot find work or enroll in school, especially when the next best option is to join a rebel movement against the system that is oppressing and marginalizing them presently.
(originally written: July 21, 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment