The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa 152755743X, 9781527557437

Citation preview

The Luo People in South Sudan

The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa By

Kon K. Madut

The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa By Kon K. Madut This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by Kon K. Madut All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-5743-X ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-5743-7

I would like to dedicate this book to all the Luo People in South Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Author Biography ...................................................................................... ix About this Edition...................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ................................................................................. xiii Chapter One ................................................................................................ 1 The Context Background Theoretical Framework Investigating Luo Groups The Construction of Ethnicity and Language Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 15 The Narratives of Migration Historical Narratives Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 21 Luo Groups in South Sudan The Luo people in the Upper Nile The Luo people in Bahr el Ghazal The Luo people in Equatoria Chapter Four ............................................................................................. 35 The Luo in Central and East Africa The Luo in Uganda The Luo in Congo (DRC) The Luo in Ethiopia The Luo in Kenya Luo in Tanzania

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter Five ............................................................................................. 45 Demographic Analysis Overall Demographic Analysis South Sudan Kenya Tanzania Uganda Congo (DRC) Ethiopia Chapter Six ............................................................................................... 49 People, Clans, and Kinships Prominent Luo Politicians and Technocrats in Sudan Chapter Seven........................................................................................... 63 Socialization and Sociocultural Interactions Spirituality and Divine Beliefs Tradition, Values, and Social Norms Construction of Social Structure Social Institutions and Livelihoods Chapter Eight ............................................................................................ 75 The Luo and South Sudan’s Nationalities South Sudan Nationalities The Construction of National Identity Nationalities and Social Interaction Ethnic Distributions and Representation Social and Communal Interactions Chapter Nine............................................................................................. 87 Summary and Conclusion References ................................................................................................ 99 Index ....................................................................................................... 107

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Kon K. Madut is a part-time Professor at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Social Sciences. He taught multiculturalism and migration in Canada and Quebec; comparative politics courses at the School of Political Studies; the sociology of work and organizations, ethnics and the question of nations, the contemporary analysis of migration, and conflict and development at the School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies and Social Geography, the Faculty of Arts, the Department of Geography, and the Faculty of Global and International Studies. The author has over 15 years of professional experience with the City of Ottawa Municipal Government, the Department of Social Services, and Community Programs in Canada. His major research contributions include a doctoral dissertation on the issues of equity in employment, where he studied migrants’ experiences of unemployment in the City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He has also written and published articles in international peer-reviewed academic journals on migrants’ employability in Ottawa, Canada, and on discourses of ethnic identity, health, and institutional development in South Sudan. While teaching at the University of Ottawa, he has examined Ph.D. theses and assessed degree proposals for cultural, equity, and ethnic studies Masters. He has published and co-authored several peer-reviewed academic articles in the fields of ethnicity, identity issues, immigration, and employment in highly ranked international journals. Dr. Madut was conferred a Ph.D. in Social Science by Tilburg University, Netherlands, in association with Taos Institute, USA, in 2012; a Master’s Degree in Liberal Studies (MLS) from Fort Hays State University, USA, in 2007; a BA in Sociology from Alexandria University, Egypt, in 1994; and is a recipient of Honors as a Social Services Worker (SSW) from Algonquin College in Canada. Dr. Madut is a member of the Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) and the American Sociology Association (ASA), as well as an associate member of the Taos Institute, USA.

ABOUT THIS EDITION

This edition offers an interpretation of both oral and secondary literature reviews written about the Luo ethnic groups in East Africa. This work draws from several interpretations and perceptions of Lou ethnic groups regarding their kinships and lineages; geocultural claims pertaining to the Luo identity; and sociocultural interactions among social groups and communities. Its aim is not to open up new discourses on Luo ethnicity, or to rename the Luo groups in South Sudan or East Africa; instead, it builds on the current literature and oral histories to reaffirm their kinships and establish ethnic lineages methodologically. Most of the contemporary Luo narratives come from Kenya and Uganda, which are in addition to those written by Western anthropologists and missionaries. None of these narratives have changed the content of the oral stories told by both the Luo groups and sub-groups in Africa, especially those related to their lineages, ethnic affiliations, and their path of immigration from South Sudan to Tanzania. Rather, most of these writings have confirmed the history, stories, and mythology of the greater Luo groups in Africa. Further, these narratives have prompted me to write this book, in order to contribute to the South Sudanese Luo’s perspectives of their relationships with their kin in East and Central Africa. In addition, I sensed that this edition would appeal to the intellectual curiosity of both Luo and non-Luo alike, thereby prompting both groups to conduct more research to further our understanding of their ways of life and social interactions, and perhaps their contributions to the sociopolitical and economic development of the countries and regions they inhabit. There is a great need for a better understanding of the causes of ethnic divisions and migration throughout East Africa. It is also worth noting that Central Africa is considered to be a partial home to some Luo ethnic groups because the Luo Alur crossed from Uganda to Central Africa. The origins of the Central African (DRC) Luo lie in the Luo Alur of Uganda in East Africa. The same applies to the Luo that have crossed from Kenya to Tanzania, as they also belong to larger Kenyan Luo groups. In this edition, the various Luo groups’ sociocultural traditions have been omitted. The reasons for their migration have also been left out, even though all the groups have narratives about why the Luo people migrated to South Sudan from their region of origin in Africa. However, their groups, clans, kinships, regions, and countries have been carefully mapped. Subsequent

xii

About This Edition

editions will build on this work to add missing and previously unrecorded clans and sub-clans that have not yet been identified due to the lack of empirical data. In short, the goal of this edition is to present evidence that has been sourced from available literature, which reveals their oral stories and mythologies, alongside past scholarly work to help us understand the origins of the Luo groups and to discuss their ethnic lineages and migration in more depth. Most Luo narratives come from Kenya and Uganda, and they provide ample data that allows us to examine the Luo’s characteristics and composition in East Africa. They also enable us to ascertain how they ended up in Kenya and Tanzania. Finally, there is still a gap in current knowledge with regard to both the Luo groups in South Sudan and the ones scattered all over Africa, especially in terms of their origins.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to my family and friends who have been supportive of the idea of writing a book that will enlighten the younger generation of Luo in Bahr el Ghazal, and South Sudan in general. Mischaracterization and misinformation about the Luo people among South Sudanese have socially and politically misconstrued the identity of Luo ethnic groups; they have also distorted their cultural heritage. I am aware that this book is not a conclusive review of the cultural and ethnographic mapping of the Luo groups in South Sudan, East Africa, and Central Africa. However, it will present a methodological and epistemological narrative that will eliminate the overdependence on the Luo’s mythical history and stories about culture, language, and ethnic lineages. It is hoped that this work will serve as a reference for those who want to gain a better understanding of the ethnology of the Luo people and their environment in Africa. The long tradition of foreign names, such as (Jur) Bahr el Ghazal, instead of the ethnocultural name of Luo, is highlighted and discussed from historical, social, cultural, and political perspectives. Most importantly, we are currently witnessing the emergence of new research about the Luo in South Sudan. This will also further the discourse and cement the narratives of migration and ethnic lineages from South Sudan to Tanzania. My dearest friend and brother, Eng. Francis Donato Mabier, has been one of motivational figures who wanted me to publish this study years ago. He was moved by a presentation I delivered during one of the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal conferences in Memphis, Tennessee, in the presence of Dr. John Ukech Lueth and Ambassador Leon Isdoro on August 30, 2008, before South Sudan’s independence in 2011. Further, I wish to acknowledge my friend and cousin from the Alur of Uganda, Mr. Justin Lochombi, who was fascinated to know that South Sudan has a section of his tribe. He was so supportive of me when I was writing this book, and provided many helpful links to networks and references, especially about the Luo in Uganda. Finally, I am thankful to the University of Ottawa for creating a great research environment and their financial support, without which this work would not have been possible. These abundant resources, from the library to the office space, have helped with data collection, writing, editing, designing, and publishing. At home, I had my team, which comprised of Asham, Rose Akon, Paul Ujuak, Samuel Aleu, and their mom, Maria E. Adhal. Thank you all for being so supportive of me while dealing with your own schooling, work, sports, and fun

xiv

Acknowledgements

activities! I would like to extend my gratitude to Mr. John Achor for his help with the documentation of the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal groups, clans, chiefs, and their environment. I hope that this version will achieve its intended goal, and we will do our best to include areas that have yet to be documented in the next version. In the process of compiling this version, I have noticed that there is a need to document all of the Luo’s lands and villages in Bahr el Ghazal with their original Luo names. Some of these lands were taken from the Luo by displaced local ethnic groups during the war, or intentionally via the land-grabbing process that has been intensified by neighboring communities. I hope this version will help you articulate and discuss the Luo’s history, as well as their sociocultural and ethnic lineages, in Africa from Bahr el Ghazal to Tanzania with great confidence and competence.

CHAPTER ONE THE CONTEXT

Background This book discusses the migration of the Luo ethnic groups in Africa, as well as the sociocultural and regional constructions that have shaped their identity and social interactions. This work illustrates the Luo’s demographics, habitats, and geographical regions in East and Central Africa. It includes the generations-old narratives and mythical oral stories about their perceived origins in South Sudan. The Luo’s peoples’ path of migration from Wau to their current homes in East and Central Africa is also reviewed. The book’saim is to explore the ethnographic lineages of the Luo ethnic groups from South Sudan to their current countries of resettlement in East and Central Africa. The literature reviewed focuses on the ethnic Luo groups’ population, cultural features, ethnic classification, and language as the common determinants of their identity, kinship, and ethnic affiliation, as cited through their oral history, stories, and folklore. The objective of this work is to explore, highlight, and document the major ethnic groups who identify as Luo, even if they are assimilated within other ethnic groups. The classification methods focus on the Luo ethnic groups who have migrated to or from African countries that are currently known as their homes, namely, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Central Africa. The ethnographic map of the Luo ethnic group in Africa will be outlined and highlighted to give us a better understanding of the regions where these groups currently reside, as well as their migration patterns, which begin from Western Bahr el Ghazal (BGR) in the Republic of South Sudan to the above-mentioned six African countries where they currently reside. So far, limited academic attempts have been made to explore the Luo migration from South Sudan. Furthermore, the current era, which has been marked by globalization, technological advancements, and modern transportation, has helped establish the Luo’s path of migration.

2

Chapter One

Additional research on this subject may utilize DNA and other modern technologies to not only determine the Luo’s ethnic lineages, but to also uncover Luo groups that are assimilated within other non-Luo ethnic groups in East Africa: e.g., within the Bantus or other African Nilotics. Indeed, the causes of migration and internal clans’ separation within the Luo groups have thus far remained unclear, even for the Luo people themselves. The available knowledge and extant literature on the ethnic kinships, migration, and affiliation among the Luo are largely based on traditional oral history and mythical stories (Ogot, 1967). From my personal perspective, growing up as a Luo child in South Sudan, Wau, Bhar el Ghazal, and throughout my early adolescence, I was fascinated by the oral stories my elders told me about the separation that happened between the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal, the Luo Shilluk (Shollo) in the Upper Nile, and the Luo Anuak (Anway) in the Equatoria region. Through these stories, I have managed to discover more about the Luo within South Sudan and was later able to expand my understanding of the group to the rest of Africa. Therefore, my interest in this subject started with needing to understand the causes of mythical conflicts, separation, and migrations. However, it is not within the scope of this narrative to discuss the detailed causes of immigration and displacement; rather, the main aim of this work is to map out all the African countries, regions, cities, and villages that currently host various Luo ethnic groups as the starting point for further in-depth research on their sociocultural and ethnic lineages and affiliations. As for the Luo people in Bahr el Ghazal, and South Sudan in general, such knowledge opens up new sociopolitical and economic ties to people with a shared heritage, sociocultural backgrounds, ethnic origins, and common ancestral lineages, thereby allowing them to build a better sense of belonging, while expanding their understanding of their ethnic identity. South Sudan is home to about 64 ethnic groups, and their distribution varies across Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal, and the Upper Nile. In the Equatoria region, there are 36 (55%) different ethnic groups, while the Bahr el Ghazal and the Upper Nile regions are home to 21 (32%) and 8 (13%) ethnic groups, respectively. The 36 ethnic and tribal communities within the Equatoria region have managed to reconstruct their ethnic identities based on a cluster of regional identities, known as “Equatorian,” rather than on tribal affiliation. As such, many people, including local South Sudanese people, have sometimes mistaken this regional “Equatorian” identity for a tribe, rather than a region. The same concept of clustering has been successfully adopted among groups known as the

The Context

3

Fertit in Bahr El Ghazal; this is a cluster of 14 ethnic groups who have managed to socially, culturally, and politically adopt a communally constructed identity, which is known as “Fertit,” rather than relating to their tribes of origin (Madut, 2015). For these reasons, within the local geo-ethnographic discourse, this work is not only an attempt at better understanding these groups’ identities, which were rechristened by other local ethnic groups or by colonizers, but it is also an opportunity to embrace identity and group heritage in a wider universal spectrum. Many of the ethnic groups in South Sudan, and Africa in general, have adopted ethnic names with no links to their cultural heritage. This includes referring to individuals by other ethnic groups’ tribal names, which is a practice commonly found among the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal, who share some names with the Dinka groups in the region. Historically, this was the result of social assimilation, which indicates the ethnic cohesion among the Nilotics in the region. Those who lack knowledge of sociocultural interactions and an understanding of the Luo language and heritage in Bahr el Ghazal, or South Sudan in general, continue to claim that “Luoism” is a political endeavor, and that there are no ethnic groups known as Luo in South Sudan. Ironically, many who share this perspective do not speak the Luo language and perhaps do not know that labels, such as Jur-Chol, Sulluk, and Lagoro, have no cultural relevance to these ethnic communities. These groups do not call themselves by these names within their communities. Many mythical understandings about the Luo and perceptions about their heritage and identity will be discussed in this book as we progress through the chapters. In South Sudan, such debates have created simplistic arguments, sometimes poorly articulated by the Luo and non-Luo groups in the region. Ironically, there are strong forces of resistance from non-Luo ethnic groups; these dominant groups prefer the Luo to identify with their ethnic identities (Luo). Further, in my view, there is no need to polarize the subject, especially when the Luo’s intent is to educate masses about their identity, heritage, and ancestral lineages in Africa, rather than to assert who they have become and what name they have been given by other African ethnic groups. While Luo from all over Africa have claimed South Sudan as their home of origin, their lineages and roots are still deeprooted in their migration, heritage, and the oral legends and stories that are still in circulation. Therefore, it is essential to continue to document the geographical origins of all these Nilo-groups and the reasons behind their migration. Further, we need to understand how the Nilotics, with all their

4

Chapter One

multiethnic groups, ended up occupying the Bantu’s lands in East and Central Africa. These are legitimate questions because the Luo’s migration cannot be separated from similar waves that included other Nilotics, especially the Eastern Sudanic Nilotics in 3000 B.C. (Clark, 1984). Some scholars argue that the imposed colonial borders between groups and so-called countries were the driving force behind the Luo’s division, as it forced them to inhabit different independent states. Their sociocultural and ethnic ties are further complicated by colonial inventions, which were engineered during the European “Scramble for Africa” where they used national powers to arbitrarily divide up Africa based on their own interests without regard for socioeconomic realities or ethnic and group ties (Chamberlain, 2014). This means that people who traditionally see themselves as belonging to a particular ethnic and cultural group found themselves within another group’s boundaries; they, therefore become citizens of one country, but members of a different community. This is certainly the case for the Luo as they have been distributed over several countries. Consequently, the South Sudanese’s oral history and mythical narratives of their lineages and ethnic affiliations have been seemingly culturally and socially disconnected from their counterparts in East and Central Africa, even though the African Luo consider the Luo of Wau, South Sudan, to be their first ancestors and Bahr el Ghazal to be the starting point for their migration to Central and East Africa (Simon, 1992). In addition to oral and mythical stories, contemporary African demographic studies treat the regions and countries where the Luo currently reside as their final destination and home; this supports political citizenship more than ethnic affiliation. Therefore, this is an attempt to explore their ethno-cultural and clan lineages within their current homes and trace those who are assimilated within other ethnic groups to geoethnographically map the Luo people in East and Central Africa. The ethnographic analysis presented in this book focuses on the Luo groups in the Republic of South Sudan, which is their perceived place of origin, as well as Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In order to meet these aims, both qualitative and ethnographic analysis were conducted to frame and develop the storylines that shaped this research. The information was gathered from qualitative and quantitative literature, which was analyzed using the Content Study (CS) method, as well as related data gathering and statistical analysis principles. The literature review included primary and secondary sources, such as

The Context

5

governmental and non-governmental records and statistics, along with oral stories and historical accounts provided by elders and historians. It is also important to point out that, when studying the Luo people, like many other indigenous peoples of the world, the researcher depends heavily on oral history and mythical stories told by elders as the main source of information (Ogot, 1967). These accounts were treated as a primary source of information about their cultural heritage and social solidarity; these stories and oral histories have also been used to maintain the groups’ knowledge about their lineages. This work utilized both an ethnographic approach and qualitative methods, including reviewing contemporary and classical sociological and anthropological literature, whose authors have attempted to observe and record the Luo’s social and ethno-cultural interactions and ethnic characteristics within their various countries, regions, villages, and settlements in East Africa. A quantitative method was only adopted when analyzing statistical records by state authorities, social scientists, and nongovernmental organizations related to the Luo ethnic groups in Africa. It must be noted, however, that the official statistics are not an accurate representation of the Luo people in Africa, but instead mainly serve to highlight the variations in their rough percentages in their areas of residence. My understanding of the relevant Luo ethnic cultural context and how knowledge is preserved and passed along through generations has compelled me to rely on local oral history, stories, and observations obtained during socializing within the Luo group of Southern Sudan, Western Bahr el Ghazal region, which was also where I grew up. Oral history was the only means for many ethnic, or the so-called indigenous, groups to communicate their literature, history, trade, heritage, and life experiences to the next generations (Collins, 1971). I met members of Luo ethnic groups from all over East and Central Africa during my undergraduate studies in Egypt and then later as a migrant in North America; this confirmed the importance of their oral stories and history. For these reasons, the elders and sub-clan leaders provide information about a given ethnic group and how they relate to the Luo. I have shared this manuscript with Luo intellectuals, scholars, and community members, and I have also conducted interviews with members of these groups to validate some of the key narratives and data collected from different sources.

6

Chapter One

The members represent the Luo sub-groups within certain East and Central African countries: Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Central Africa, and Congo. This book has been organized into nine chapters and concludes with some recommendations for further research that would add to the body of knowledge in the social sciences in general, and ethno-cultural research in particular. This work will make it easy for future researchers, as it maps out the Luo groups with their countries, regions, and states. It also maps the major Luo groups, clans, and sub-clans in Africa from South Sudan up to Tanzania. Indeed, the only aim of the first version of this book was to map the Luo’s ethnic lineages, classifications, kinships, clans, regions, and countries. I am hoping that in the second version I will continue to improve on these findings and will be able to incorporate other important data, which will have invariably been overlooked during the writing and publishing of this current edition. This version specifically relates to South Sudan, because the Luo’s oral history, ethnic lineages, and the traces of other Luo groups are embedded within its cultural context.

Theoretical Framework In this work, race or ethnicity is treated as a social construct that is dependent on the mutual agreement and consent of the prevailing groups in society. This collective agreement is eventually accepted as a social norm, which creates a stratification of persons that subsequently determines their limitations in terms of, for example, their economic or political power. Berg (1989) argues that “what people do, how they act and structure their daily lives, and even how people are influenced by certain ideological stances can all be observed in the traces people either purposely or unintentionally leave behind” (85). Similarly, Berger and Thomas suggest that the sociology of knowledge created by people’s dayto-day constructions of reality gives shape to the fabric of society (Berger and Thomas, 1966). Moreover, Berger and Thomas (1966) state that, if people accept a given situation as real, it becomes real for them. For these reasons, ethnicity and ethnic lineages are perceived by group members as real, and they are, therefore, motivated to defend and protect them from outsiders. We have seen how South Sudanese Luo members and other minority ethnic groups started to question their renaming by other regional ethnic groups and colonial powers, who removed the cultural relevance from their names. For example, in Wau, South Sudan, the Luo group dislikes being called Jur-Chol and considers it an offense because it has no

The Context

7

cultural meaning or relevance to their ethnic origins. They refer to themselves as Luo and their language as Dei-Luo. With regard to the concept of race and how it relates to social interactions, Roy (2001) argues that it “was created mainly by Anglo-European, especially English societies in the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.” Thus, race is seen as a useful means of defining human communities based on sociocultural, ethnic, regional, or religious backgrounds (Roy, 2001). Within this debate, Durkheim (1938) views race as a social fact that human societies need to understand and deal with accordingly. However, Weber (1978) argues that race is only the adoption of the social practice of marrying members of the same clan, people, or other kinship group (endogamy). Cultural anthropologist Ruby Garrett (2016) states that human societies are often socially constructed as groups that are defined by either race or skin color, and so people become known as White, Asian, Mexican, Arab, Black, Minority, and so on. These social constructions impact how a group is seen by others and, therefore, affect an individual’s life and their social, political, and economic interactions with others. In the same vein, Foucault (1991, 215) opines that “potential harm in racialethnic categorization outweighs any potential for remedy.” While Gracia (2005, 1) argues that “grouping persons by race, ethnicity, or nationality” is always inappropriate and is usually motivated by “social conflict and abuses.” Gracia’s argument is considered to have hindered the nationbuilding process. In most African countries, people base their social interactions and political participation on ethnicity, tribal, and regional groupings. Most of the prior research examining the socioeconomic and political issues within these groups uncovered significant social issues, such as difficulties in creating a peaceful coexistence, which delayed the process of nationbuilding socially, politically, and economically (Atkinson, 1994). The use of ethnicity as a factor when shaping social policy and sociopolitical and economic participation remains a common practice throughout post-colonial African society. This discourse of ethnic categorization, which is found in the classification of ethno-tribal grouping, prompted a review of the historical development of ethnonationalism and ethnic grouping, and hindered the creation of a mutually agreed upon national identity after independence. Social constructionists’ views on race and ethnicity highlight particular social facts about the Luo’s migration and their ethnic lineages in South Sudan, as well as other Central and East African societies. These facts include the oral stories and

8

Chapter One

myths that have shaped their common identity for decades. Therefore, this discourse can also be used to conceptualize and understand their migration path and the reconstruction of their cultural identity and heritage. In this book, the concepts of race and ethnicity are discussed from both a primordial and an instrumentalist perspective. I think that social constructionists’ views on race and ethnicity highlight the key social facts that have held the Luo groups together for decades and which have shaped their common identity, even though they are scattered across many East African countries. Therefore, this discourse can be used when both conceptualizing and understanding the path to reconstructing meaningful ethnic relations, an inclusive national identity, and better livelihoods.

Investigating the Luo Groups Writing about the Luo groups in Africa has presented many challenges for contemporary African sociologists and anthropologists in particular, and social scientists and scholars in general (Atkinson, 1994). These challenges have manifested as difficulties in gathering the required resources and the inability to cover entire areas of the enormous countries that host these large ethnic groups. In addition, the political instability and occasional civil unrest in these African countries have isolated these groups from social researchers and local scholars interested in investigating their sociocultural and ethnic lineages (Ogot, 1967). Common issues include the politicization of the subject matter, and discouraging any attempt to link Luo groups socially, politically, and nationally in South Sudan or internationally with their kin in the Central and East African countries. For example, the persistence of locals in Bahr el Ghazal in calling the Luo Jur-Chol and the denunciation of the group’s name (Luo) in official government transactions and documents have forced the group to consider undertaking social and political activism to reclaim their traditional name. In South Sudan’s ethnic politics, dominant ethnic groups have always employed the process of social and cultural assimilation at the expense of another group’s autonomy. This can be exemplified by the examples of the Atout (Reel), who are totally assimilated into Dinka; a particular branch of the Luo of Wau, currently known as Jur-Mananger; and the Dinkas, who assimilated into some of the Luo Shilluk clans in the Upper Nile (Santandrea, 1938). This type of social and cultural assimilation is not unique to the Luo groups in South Sudan, as similar practices can be observed in the Kumman and Lango ethnic

The Context

9

groups’ integration and assimilation into the Luo in Uganda (Okech, 1953). However, non-Luo ethnic elites have often misinterpreted work on the Luo’s historic, sociocultural, and ethnic lineages as political mobilization, rather than the pursuit of knowledge and the quest to find a common identity based on ethnic origins. Conversely, this common understanding with regard to the sociocultural analysis of groups may strengthen the social ties between the Luo’s home countries and may help to foster collective social interactions. For the local dominant ethnic groups and the Luo’s traditional political opponents, these retrospectives may redefine ethnic, sociopolitical, and economic boundaries, as well as the perception of national identity and sense of belonging. In this context, the colonial “divide and rule” approach takes precedence over crossnational and international ethnic affiliations (Tosh, 1978). Another factor that makes the study of Luo ethnic groups academically challenging is the fact that they are scattered within their current countries of residence, and are divided between different sovereign countries, local jurisdictions, and national regions (Tosh, 1978). These issues have made it difficult to investigate the causes of immigration and displacement among the Luo groups in Africa. This has led researchers, such as Per Sϥfholm (1973), Ominnde (1975), and Santandrea (1981), to concentrate their investigations on studying separate Luo sub-groups, rather than exploring sociocultural, kinship, and ethnic affiliations among the larger Luo ethnic groups. Some of these authors have studied the Luo of Wau (Santandrea, 1938); other scholars have discussed Luo sub-culture and language, such as Evans (1948) who authored the Divine Kingship of the Shilluk of the Nilotic Sudan; and some local Luo writers have focused on Luo grammar, with an emphasis on the Luo’s ethnic language. Atido (2011) has also written an interesting piece on the “insights from proverbs of the Alur in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, which focuses solely on the Luo Alur groups of Congo and Uganda and their social and cultural folklore. The accounts from the above social scientists have given us a valuable insight into the Luo’s lineages, culture, language, and regions. However, I think that it would still be useful for African social scientists to extend their studies to investigate the actual causes behind the Luo’s massive dispersion across the East African countries, and to elucidate why they considered their current countries, regions, and villages to be the best places to live.

10

Chapter One

In order to clearly identify these groups as Luo and to eliminate others from the list, I have mapped them based on their ethnic classification, nicknames, and original names. I have also traced their clans and examined how some groups’ names might have changed during the course of migration, displacement, or assimilation. The rationale for this approach is to further understand why and how some Luo clans have been assimilated into other local tribes, as well as to explore other non-Luo ethnic groups that have adopted Luo culture and assimilated into the larger Luo groups in Africa. The analyzed literature sources were supported by statistical data gathered from the available primary sources, but the official figures, as noted earlier, do not necessarily reflect the accurate number of Luo in Africa, or even within their current countries of resettlement. I understand that finding accurate statistics has been one of the major challenges that researchers who conduct population studies in Africa have faced. Statistical data and literature sources are analyzed in this book to estimate the number of Luo ethnic groups in Africa, and to identify the countries that host the largest number of Luo people. This process will also include an outline of the percentage of the Luo population in Africa by their country, region, village, ethnic links, and language. The aim is to look for an explanation that will help the South Sudanese Luo groups understand their mythical references to common ancestors, oral histories about their place of origin, and the findings reported about the Luo in neighboring East and Central Africa countries. It is fair to state that any social scientist who wants to study so-called indigenous peoples will find that Luo ethnic groups are not an exceptional case in the pursuit of rich historical knowledge. Indeed, many ethnic groups, in both the world in general and Africa in particular, are considered to lack history, as far as social science and its post-positivist methods of investigation are concerned. The requirements placed on the documentation of social research methods, as defined by positivist Western scholars, have made it difficult to encourage social scientists to study peoples without history, except through ethnographic studies that mainly focus on observing social interactions within a cultural or ethnic group. This has led Burton (1952, 1) to state the following: “for a number of decades, anthropologists interested in the field of Nilotic studies have struggled with questions concerning ethnogenesis as well as the nature of contemporary social relations between named ethnic groups.” The issues of ethnogenesis, as discussed by Burton, is also one of the core discourses among many Luo ethnic groups, who are trying to rigorously study their

The Context

11

social, cultural, and ethnic lineages in terms of their ethnicity, place, and ancestral origin. However, the geopolitics, social interactions, intermarriages, boundaries, climate, destinations, and lack of resources have made it difficult for sociologists, anthropologists, and archaeologists to continue studying these large ethnic Luo groups within the African continent. Hence, most ethnologists who have attempted to study them have focused on a limited scope of geographical spaces, with the emphasis on a Luo sub-group, rather than their broader ethno-cultural interrelations. Targeted populations were invariably a clan or a section of a group within one of the countries that are currently known as home for the Luo (Crazzolara, 1950). Many believe that this study would be more feasible if it focused on subgroups or a section within one country. Furthermore, the history of the ethnic Luo groups’ migration and their ethnographic distribution across six African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, and Ethiopia) has left most social scientists, including the Luo themselves, with many unanswered questions related to the causes of their migration and disintegration (Murdock, 1959). The available data about the causes of the groups’ migration has been shaped by oral history, myths, and elder accounts. In addition, colonial biases are inevitable when studying people with no history or references in social sciences, which makes it even harder to explore social facts about not only the Luo, but also many other similar ethnic groups within the continent.

The Construction of Ethnicity and Language The Luo have socially and ethnically reconstructed themselves as independent groups and clans, assimilated within other ethnic groups, such as with the Lango and Kumam in Uganda, and the Dinka in South Sudan, who in turn are assimilated into the larger Luo Chollo ethnic group’s kingdom. The process of tracing the Luo’s ethnic ancestry is still a major task and challenge for ethnologists. Furthermore, with the continuation of the social assimilation process among the various ethnic groups in Africa, it is presumed that the question of tracing the ancestries of these groups would be further complicated by the factors of time, urbanization, and intermarriages (Pace, 1990). However, ethnographers, such as Santandrea (1938), Ogot (1967), and Gilley (1992), concur that the ethnic Luo groups’ country of origin is South Sudan. Moreover, the oral history, stories, and myths refer to Niykango, Dimo/Dumo, and Geilo as the first three

12

Chapter One

ancestors in the history of the Luo ethnic groups and their origins in South Sudan. For the purpose of this research, all of the Luo groups across Africa have been treated as one major ethnic group to further encourage social scientists to investigate their ethnicity, origins, and classifications, as well as the causes of migration and group disintegration within the stated framework. My statements and observations are therefore bounded by the fact that I am a member of the Luo ethnic group of Western Bahr el Ghazal in South Sudan. This observation is supported by a literature review to resolve any doubt of group ethnicity, ethnic classification, and the impact of social assimilation on the languages spoken within the countries that have Luo citizenship. In addition, the factors that have facilitated their resettlement, as well as the question of how they have managed to live in peace with non-Luo ethnic groups as neighbors, will be explored and discussed in order to provide a clear understanding of their current sociocultural context.

Figure 1: Luo woman in a traditional Costume—Luo Jo-Pa Dimo-Wau, South Sudan (2013)

The Context

13

Within these ethnic groupings, the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal came to be known as Jur Chol, regardless of the group’s countless attempts to be called by their original name of Luo. The name Jur Chol is culturally and linguistically alien to the Luo of the Bahr el Ghazal region, as they do not refer to themselves as “Jur Chol” when speaking Luo (Santadrea, 1968). Almost every ethnic group in South Sudan has been stigmatized or renamed by either colonialists or dominant local cultural groups. In many cases, these stigmatized names are imposed and enforced by local and national authorities, regardless of what the groups socially and culturally perceive their identity to be or how they refer to themselves. The Jiieng, for example, became known as Dinka, the Nath as Nuer, the Luo Chaolo as Shilluk, the Luo Jo-Pari as Logoro and so on. Further, it became the norm among many African ethnic groups for people to attribute loyalty to their own ethnic groupings, sub-groups, tribes, kinships, and clans (Seligman and Seligman, 1965). This sociocultural divide has, in many cases, overshadowed the quest for social cohesion and mutual understanding among the groups and has thus created difficulties for the construction of national identity in most parts of post-colonial Africa. Therefore, gaining a communal understanding about the groups’ ethnic constructions and their origins may reduce myths and misconceptions about them, and this could also encourage a broader sense of belonging and sociocultural cohesion beyond individual regions, states, and countries. Conceptually, the narratives and the discourse of the Luo groups have been long neglected by indigenous social scientists due to geopolitical issues and the regional polarization of ethnic relations motivated by political competition and power sharing. Therefore, it is evident that most of the current discourse and literature on the Luo groups was produced by classical anthropologists, sociologists, and missionaries. Still, there have been some excellent contributions to Luo literature and ethno-cultural lineage by Luo writers, such as the work of Asiwaju (1985), who sensed that the lack of consistency in investigations and ongoing research on socioeconomics, livelihood, migration, social structure, and ethnicity has created a knowledge gap among the Luo people, which has resulted in confusion and simplification of their communal and group identities. The discourses and narratives on the Luo’s ethnic lineages, migration, and current regions are presented in the next eight chapters of this book. Chapter One provides the Luo’s background with regard to their ethnicity and sociocultural ties. Chapter Two discusses their narratives and paths of immigration from South Sudan to Tanzania. Chapter Three focuses on the

14

Chapter One

Luo groups in South Sudan, while the regions, habitats, and settlements where they are found throughout East Africa are the topic of Chapter Four. Chapter Five examines their demographic representation. The statistics used do not represent an accurate sampling of the population within their respective groups, regions, or countries. Instead, they are used as a representation of the population variations in the areas that host the Luo. In Chapter Six, ethnic lineages are discussed in detail, along with the kinships and clans from Bahr el Ghazal to Tanzania. The number of clans recorded in this book may not be inclusive, as not all of the groups were able to be contacted. Chapter Seven discusses the Luo who live among other ethnic groups within South Sudan. 5 of the 64 nationalities in the Republic of South Sudan identify as Luo. Chapter Eight provides a general analysis of the main findings, which is followed by recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER TWO THE NARRATIVES OF MIGRATION

Historical Narratives This chapter provides an overview of the historical background of the Luo ethnic groups through the work of the scholars who have attempted to write about them. For example, Ogot (1967) dated the separation of the Luo ethnic group from the East Sudanic family of “Nilotic” groups to around 3000 years ago. The Nilotics, according to Hamly (1970), are classified according to their languages, which also show a varying degree of similarity. According to Atkinson (1994), this linguistic divergence is a result of the Luo migration southward that led them to settle in many parts of East Africa. The Nilotic ethnic groups include Dinka, Shilluk, Acholi, Bari, Latuka, Pari, Anuak, Luo of Bahr el Ghazal and its sub-groups, SukTurkana, Nandi, Lumbwa, and South Kevirondo. Contrary to the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal’s (South Sudan) mythology and oral history, Ogot (1967) has attributed their demographic redistribution and migration across the 6 African countries to population explosions. The Luo ethnic groups in Africa are the only ethnic groups distributed over 6 African countries in the form of independent kinship groups and clans. Their oral history and myths refer to Sudan as their country of origin and, specifically, to the Greater Bahr el Ghazal region, Republic of South Sudan (Ogot, 1967). Atikson (1994) dated the migration of Luo ethnic groups to Central Uganda between 1500 and 1800, suggesting that some subsequently crossed to Kenya, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Luo assimilated into other ethnic groups and vice versa during their migration. For example, the Luo Kuman (Bantus) and Lango (Nilotics) in Uganda have adopted the Luo’s culture and language, and the Dinka (Nilotic) in Southern Sudan became a major part of the Luo Chollo, who are known as Shilluk in the Upper Nile region, South Sudan (Atkinson, 1994).

16

Chapter Two

The records of the peoples who assimilated within the larger Luo groups in South Sudan, as well as the rest of the African countries, were kept intact by elders through mystical oral stories. The distance and lack of communication among groups did not prevent them from understanding their roots and place of origin. Some Luo clans in South Sudan used to think that Kenya was their original home, whereas some Luo in Kenya consider it to be Sudan. The perception of the Luo in Kenya is closer to the view presented in current literature, where their migration path from Sudan to Tanzania is documented.

Figure 2: Luo man from Kenya blowing a gourd-horn instrument (oporo) (Missioni della Consolata, c. 1920)

South Sudan still remains a home to about 7 independent Luo ethnic groups: 1. Shilluk (Arabic pronunciation for shaulla), 2. Jo-Luo also known as Jur (a local term which means “strangers” in other South Sudanese groups’ languages), 3. Anuak or Anwaye, 4. Baland Bor (Bori), 5. Thuri (Chatt), 6. Pari (Lokoro), and 7. Achuli (Shuli). These Luo groups in Sudan are further divided into clans, sub-clans, and kinships. The Luo ethnic groups in Sudan are found in South Sudan, regions of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria, and the Upper Nile states. I will explore their

The Narratives of Migration

17

geography and locations in detail within the chapters that follow. The territory occupied by the Anuuak ethnic group shares borders with Sudan and Ethiopia, and its members are also found within these countries. The same applies to Acholis, who are found in both Sudan and Uganda. These ethnic groups move freely across the borders and rarely recognize the state boundaries of their respective countries, which were imposed on them by colonial rule (Eisei and Seligman, 1965). Kenya and Tanzania host the largest numbers of Luo groups in Africa. The Luo ethnic groups in these two countries are divided into sub-groups and clans, which are mostly still homogeneous and located around Lake Victoria. Most of the Luo groups in Kenya and Tanzania migrated from Central Uganda roughly between 1550 and 1800. Uganda still hosts the following Luo ethnic groups: Adolha, Acholi, Alur, assimilated Luo of Kowumam, and Lango (Ogot, 1967). The Acholi are currently located in Eastern and Northern Uganda.

Figure 3: Luo Kavirondo in Kenya in 1932 (Masgada, African Online Community)

According to Tosh (1978), the Democratic Republic of the Congo hosts the “Alur” Luo ethnic group, who are known for their love of peace and music. The migration of the Luo to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

18

Chapter Two

was dated to the early 16th century. During the same period, Chief Adhola arrived with the Luo Jo-Padhola group in Padama, Eastern Uganda, and settled there. Tosh (1978, 252) dated the first migration of the Luo from Southern Sudan (Nimule area) to approximately the 15th century. He stated the following: Most groups followed the valley of the Nile until they reach Pubungu at the north end of Lake Albert. Here dispersion occurred. Some entered Bunyoro, where they established the Bito dynasty and became a dominant element in eastern Bunyoro in Uganda. Some remained on the right bank of the Victoria Nile, and slowly expanded into Luo Acholi. Others later crossed into what is now Alur country in the West Nile district. Meanwhile a smaller section of southern Luo had stayed behind in the Nimule area, and from there they gradually spread over north Acholi.

Tosh (1978) has estimated the periods of these cycles, as well as the Luo’s patterns of migration for over two centuries. In addition, his account has further illuminated their migration from Southern Sudan to neighboring African countries, such as Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Congo, which took place around 1500í1800. Wild (1954) gave an account of Father Grazzolara, who stated that the Lwoo (Luo) started their migrations from the Eastern Bahr el Ghazal province, Republic of South Sudan, around 1600í1650. Father Grazzolara (1954, 6) mapped the direction of the larger Luo ethnic group’s internal emigration from the “Eastern Bahr el Ghazal province of Nyikang, on Bhar el Ghazal River, then through the present Shilluk, Anywah (Anuak), and Bari countries to Mount Kilak, Wat Latong (Pakwach), and Bunyoro to their final settlement” (East African Countries). In theory, the two accounts provided by Wild (1954) and Tosh (1978) support the Luo groups’ mythology and oral history as it pertains to the direction of their ancestors’ migration, specifically from Niykango, Dimo, and Geilo (Eastern Bahr el Ghazal) to their current settlements in the Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria. In order to continue this discourse, as well as to offer support to this historical review, I have started a mapping process by exploring the Luo people through their presumed place of origin and the mythical kinship of their common ancestors (South Sudan). In the following chapter, I will discuss the Luo groups in South Sudan in detail in order to establish their ethnic lineages and paths of migration.

The Narratives of Migration

19

Figure 4: Luo Shilluk, 1932, Republic of South Sudan (Masgada, African Online Community)

CHAPTER THREE LUO GROUPS IN SOUTH SUDAN

The Luo in the Republic of South Sudan have the same predicaments that are faced by all Luo ethnic groups in East African countries: the question of migration and origin, and the myth of common ancestral African roots. The major work on the discourse of ethnicity and kinships has mostly centered on conflicts and break-ups within the Luo family. Among the Luo ethnic groups in Sudan, there is a common belief that all of their groups are part of a larger ethnic family, which is comprised of all the Luo in Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia (Santandrea, 1938). The Jo-Luo of Wau in South Sudan link themselves to their great ancestor Dimo, who was perceived to be a brother of Niykango, the great ancestor of the Luo Shilluk in the Upper Nile, Southern Sudan, and the founder of the Luo Shilluk Kingdom. Some Luo in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, such as the Luo Dimie, directly link themselves to their great Luo ancestor, Niykango. According to Gray (1961), the Luo-Shilluk represent the largest Luo ethnic subgroup in South Sudan. Luo mythology and oral history state that “Geilo” is Dimo and Niykango’s youngest brother. This account is shared by the Luo groups in Southern Sudan, who refer to Niykango as the middle of the three brothers, and the most autocratic one in the family. This mythical assumption implies that Niykango’s autocratic personality caused a rift in the family, which subsequently caused the brothers to break-up. According to Santandrea (1938), the group’s disintegration was due to a family dispute, which subsequently led to social disintegration among the Luo of Sudan. This dispute mostly involved Niykango and Dimo, with limited participation by Geilo, their third brother, who was the Anyuak Luo group’s great ancestor and the founder of Anyuak Kingdom in Upper Nile, Southern Sudan. According to Luo culture, there is a moral expectation and line of respect that governs family members according to their birth order; this means that older siblings cannot be questioned or confronted, even if they are wrong. This may explain why Geilo was not mentioned in the dispute between

22

Chapter Three

Dimo and Niykango. Niykango determined the resolution of the dispute. This may be the reason why Geilo migrated west with Niykango to the current Luo settlement in the Upper Nile region, Southern Sudan. As an adult, Geilo decided to break away with his group, the Anuak, and form a separate kingdom. Apparently, the Luo Anuak of the Upper Nile, Southern Sudan, consider Geilo to be their great ancestor. Geilo formed his kingdom in a similar style to the one adopted by Niykango and moved to the current settlement on the border between Sudan and Ethiopia. The Anuak maintained the same strict line of lineage as their cousins, the Shilluk, as an indication of his older brother’s influence on his style of leadership (Santandrea, 1938). In this context, the Luo of Equatoria in South Sudan, e.g., the Acholi and Parri, were later linked to their great ancestors through this narrative of immigration, while the Luo Acholi were linked to Chied Ulom, and the Jo Pari to Dimo. These include the Luo ethnic groups that migrated to Kenya and Uganda that are clearly cited in extant accounts of ancestral lineages. Therefore, most of these Luo ethnic groups are descendants of Dimo, Geilo, or Niykango (Gilley, 1992). Ancestral lineages are highly important to the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal’s culture and customs. Their understanding of ancestry through oral history, which has been passed along the generations, has enabled them to trace their lineages to other Luo groups. In addition, they managed to preserve their language and Luo ethnic names, such as Dimo, Kang, Ukeilo, and Gielo, which were given after their great ancestors. Ancestry, as Borer (1963) found, is important in the African Bantu’s religion, as it helps maintain the well-being of the family and groups even after death. The Luo of Bahr el Ghazal also value their ancestral heritage and believe in life after death. This facilitated their acceptance of Christianity during the colonial era, which resulted in church-building and missionaries within the Luo areas, such as the Cathedral of St. Mary in Wau in 1905 (Santandrea, 1968). In South Sudan, there are Luo Shilluk and Anyuak in the Upper Nile region; Acholi and Jo-Pariri in the Equatoria region; and Jo-Luo, Thurri and Bor in the Eastern and Western Bahr el Ghazal region. I will discuss these Luo ethnic groups’ places and spaces in Southern Sudan in detail to further explore and highlight their social geography, regions, cities, populations, and ethnic classifications. I will start with the Luo Shilluk (Solla), who will be followed by the Luo Anuak (Anwayh), the Jo-Luo

Luo Groups in South Sudan

23

(Jo-Pa Dimo), the Luo Bori (Balanda Bor), the Luo Thuri (Boodh/Chat), the Acholi (Choli), and the Jo-Pari, who are also known as Logoro.

[1] The Luo in the Upper Nile Region The Luo Shilluk/Sholla: As noted earlier, the Luo Shilluk/Sholla are cited as the descendants of the great Luo ancestor, Niykango, who was the first founder of the Luo kingdom in Africa. Most Luo oral histories and myths acknowledge Niykango to be the second son, who caused disunity, disintegration, and family breakdown within the greater Luo ethnic group in Sudan before their migration into other parts of Africa. These series of disputes subsequently led to further displacements and migrations both internally within South Sudan (Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria, and Upper Nile) and externally to the surrounding African countries (Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Tanzania). According to Seligman and Seligman (1965), after the dispute between Niykango and his brother Dimo, Niykango managed to create the first Luo kingdom in the Upper Nile region in Southern Sudan due to his charismatic leadership style; this kingdom has been sustained by his descendants (Sholla group) to the present day. Kings in Luo Shilluk are traditionally known as Ruth. The Ruth are selected according to bloodline (Seligman, 1965). The Luo Shilluk link their first ancestral origins before the kingdom to the great father Dhangaduk, who was followed by Omaro wad Dhangaduk, Kolo wad Omaro, Mouol wad Kolo, and Okwa wad Muol. The kingdom’s history started with Nyikango wad Okwa (1545í1575), who was followed by Cal wad Nyikango (1575í1590) (Seligman and Seligman, 1965). The Luo Shilluk, or the Shollo Kingdom, existed from 1590 to 1992, and it was ruled by 34 kings during this time: Dak wad Nykang, Nyadoro was Nyikango, Ocol was Dak, Diwat wad Ocol, Bwoc wad Diwat, Abudhok Nya Bwoc, Dhokoth wad Bwoc, Tugo wad Dhokoth, Okon wad Tugo, Nyadway wad Tugo, Mugo wad Nyadway, Wak wad Nyadway, Dyelguth wad Nyadway, Kudit wad Okon, Yor Nyakwac wad Kudit, Anay wad Yor Nyakwac, Akwot wad Yor Nyakwac, Awin wad Nyakwac, Akoc wad Nyakwac, Nyidhok wad Yor Nyakwac, Kwathker wad Akwot, Ajang wad Nyidhok, Kwckon wad Kwathker, Omer Yor wad Akwoc, Kur Abdhlfathil wad Nyidhok, Padiet wad Kwathker, Padiet (Gwang) wad Yor Akwoc, Anay wad Kur wad Nyidhok, John Dak wad Padiet, Joseph Kur wad Padiet, Ayang (Tibo) wad Anay Kur, and Kwong wad John Dak Padiet (Fortune of Africa, 2019).

24

Chapter Three

Figure 5: His Majesty King Anay Kur of Shilluk and British District Commissioner Thompson1

According to Gilley (1992), the Luo Shilluk group live in the Southern Sudan region, Upper Nile State, and occupy the land between the River Nile and the fringes of the Kurdofan Province, from latitude 11 in the north to about 80 miles west of Tonga, as well as the east bank of the River Nile around the Sobat River junction for about 20 miles. The Shilluk population is often cited as the largest Luo ethnic group in Sudan. The Shilluk are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, and Nilotic. The Shilluk are also known as Colo, or Shulla, which means “black” in the Luo language. Gilley (1992) states that the majority of Shilluk practice African religions alongside Christianity.

1 The picture of His Majesty King Anei Kur of Shilluk talking with British District Commissioner Thompson was retrieved on January 23, 2012, from http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Shilluk-Tribal-King-Anei-Kur-Talking-withBritish-District-Commissioner-Thompson-Posters_i5298913_.htm

Luo Groups in South Sudan

25

The Luo Anyuak: The Anyuak are the second largest Luo subgroup in the Upper Nile region in Southern Sudan. The Anyuak live across the Ethiopian and Sudanese border. According to the 1991 Census, the population of Anyuak in South Sudan numbered about 52,000, with a total of 97,646 in both countries (Ethiopia and South Sudan) (Gordon, 2005). The Luo Anyuak groups in Ethiopia and South Sudan do not officially recognize the borders imposed by the colonial powers, and continue to celebrate their common sociocultural and ethnic norms and traditions in both countries. The concept of political boundaries has caused considerable legal and national loyalty issues within these Luo subgroups (Gordon, 2005). The Anyuak are descendants of Geilo, the youngest brother of Niykango and Dimo, who are regarded as the Luo’s great ancestors; Niykango and Dimo migrated from Bahr el Ghazal to the Upper Nile region. The Luo of Bahr el Ghazal have an oral mythical story, which states that Geilo migrated with his brother Niykango, leaving Dimo and his descendants in Eastern and Western Bahr el Ghazal. Geilo and his descendants subsequently separated from Niykango to found a separate kingdom, which is still sustained by his people (the Anyuak). The Luo Anyuak are found in Pibor’s villages and along the lower Akobo River. The Anyuak are also known as Anywa, Yambo, Jambo, Nuro, and Anyuak. The Anyuak are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotics, and Luo (Collins, 1971).

[2] The Luo in Bahr el Ghazal The Jo-Luo (Jur): The Jo-Luo from the Bahr el Ghazal region in South Sudan are linked to the Dimo’s descendants, who was Niykango’s second brother (Santandrea, 1938). According to the myths and oral history of the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal, Dimo was very direct and would engage in confrontations with Niykango over royal spears that were, according to the Luo custom, only carried by the head of the family, who was designated as a chief or a king. The chief or the king recommends one of his family members to take over the royal spears after his death (Santandrea, 1938). The Luo in Bahr el Ghazal still practice this custom. The confrontations between Dimo and Niykango subsequently led to the separation and migration of Niykango and Geilo to the Upper Nile region, Southern Sudan. Among the Jo-Luo (Jur) of Bahr el Ghazal, there is an assumption that Dimo left his two brothers (Niykango and Geilo) and migrated to their current residence in the Northern and Western Bahr el Ghazal regions of

26

Chapter Three

Southern Sudan. There is a general consensus among the Luo groups in Bahr el Ghazal that a family dispute and power struggle caused their separation, which is supported by other Luo groups’ oral histories and mythologies (Santandrea, 1938). According to the 1983 Census, the Jo-Luo population in the Bahr el Ghazal region was in the range of 80,000í100,000. Such numbers are typically disputed by the South Sudanese political elite and other authority figures due to the long history of misrepresentation from a central government who was biased towards South Sudan before its independence in 2011. The Jo-Luo in South Sudan are found north of Wau, as far as Gaite, Kiango, Udici, Gana, Barmayen, Fongo up to Aweil, and to the southeast of Wau, which includes the following suburbs: Waadlyiela, Barwoul, Pambili (Mbili), Aya Kwajina, Mapel, and Bar Urood up to Tonj (Santandrea, 1938). Local tribes in the Bhar el Ghazal region, Southern Sudan, refer to the Jo-Luo as Jur Chol—a nickname which means “black stranger” (Santandrea, 1938). The Jo-Luo also refer to themselves as Luwo or Jo-Luoi, and are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic Nilotic, Western, Luo, Northern, and Jur. The Luo are also known for their positive attitudes toward learning different languages and regional dialects, as well as for intermingling and intermarriage with almost all of the ethnic groups in the Bahr el Ghazal region. Most Jo-Luo speak Arabic, Dinka, Bongo, Balanda, and English. The Jo-Luo are primarily forest agriculturists, hunters, and iron miners, even though during English rule (1855í1956) producing or mining iron was forbidden and punishable by incarceration or even execution (Santandrea, 1981). After the colonialists left Sudan and the country had become independent in 1956, the Luo that had abandoned mining to farm, hunt, and fish returned to their original profession. Atkinson (1994) has dated the Luo Achuli’s ironworking techniques to as early as 1000 BC. Hence, my working hypothesis that the Luo migration and separation centers on the practice of ironwork, which could be one of the factors in their decision to always settle around rivers and lakes. It would also be fair to say that further archaeological work and genetic analysis could reveal evidence of both ethnicity and ethnic relationships among the Nilotics in general, and the Luo groups in particular. Most importantly, migration routes can reveal the causes of separations.

Luo Groups in South Sudan

27

The Luo of Bahr el Ghazal: Kinship and Clans The Luo kinships and clans are distributed along the Eastern Bank (Logo), the Western Bank (Kwac), the banks of the Jur River, and Northern Bahr el Ghazal. They are distributed over four areas in the Eastern Bank, as will be discussed below.

The Luo in the Eastern Bank The Luo people in the Eastern Bank consist of Mur/Alur, who are led by Paramount Chief Madut and Abdala Lual Uchala. The Alur area hosts the following clans: Piva, Demaw Utung, Pan Makur, Pakana, Koj, Pujaango, Piny Kwawa, Pan Machar, and Paakahna. This includes the Athirro/Kwajiieno area, which is run by Chief Issac Uchala Yuok and Darious Kuot Deng. The Luo in this area consist of clustered groups known as the Athuro Douhung and Athuro Thun clans and kinships. The Athuro Douhung groups consist of the following clans and kinships: Mevuo, Dhemaw, Pedoohr, Gohlo Pajulo, Piny Riemo, Royeo, and Gohlo Pakiir. These include Athuro Thun, which consists of Pujieno, Petino, and Panadho. The Eastern Bank also covers the Abad Mbili area under Chief Chol Bwola, Velantino Mawien, Andrea Jal and, currently, Kon Aleu. The area hosts two clusters of Abadh Duohng and Abadh Thiin clans and kinships. The Abadh Duohng clans consist of Pa Bar Juog, Pu Gweero, Pu Bool, Piny Nyilewo, Piny Weelhni, and Pe Cweeh. The Abadh Thiin consists of Piny Dwaahy, Bada, Pa Kahba, and Gunduohng. It also includes the Akweer Thuur/Waadh Leelo area under Paramount Chief Elia Bwola Ukel and Andrea Jal. This area hosts the following clans and kinships: Gham, Piny Dihmo, Pu Meenyeo, Akaa, and Piny Kwaahy (Interview, 2015). The Eastern Bank also extends to the Yaw (Acoht, Nyegooro) area under Paramount Chief Nyiyuo Madut and consists of the following clans and kinships: Boodho, Pu Ngeero, Piny Kiir, Nyiwaaro, Maeyuo Yaw, and Nyimaahy, as well as the Pingiem (Roohj Doohng) area under Paramount Chief Mario Wayo Uecewiir and Abraham Akol Ucaahn. This area hosts the following clans and kinships: Pa Laahm, Pu Ngoohro, Pukaang, Pu Rowohdh, and Purum (Interview, 2015).

The Luo in the Western Bank The Luo in the Western Bank, which is known as Kwac, includes the Abihm, which consists of the Atido, Gette, Bar Akol, Kotongo, and Kanyi

28

Chapter Three

areas under Paramount Chief Hillario Ayuro Akol and Karlo Gabriel Utuol, and hosts the following clans and kinships: Piny Will, Pu Ukuuno (Akaa), Nyiwaaro Pu Uewiir, Pe Caam, Pe Leero, Piny Julo, Piny Kiir, Pa Bwolo, Pe Ngeyeo, Nyipouj, Pujoohl, and Thure. This includes the Amahj Duohng, which consists of the Udici, Kayango, Ganja, and Ajugo areas under Chief Back Acho Apad and Micheal Ula. It consists of the following clans: Pu Moohl, Pa Yaany, Nyipuoj Pa Tugo, Nyipahbi, Pu Ukuuno (Akaa), Piny Will, Piny Kwaalay, Pa Pio, Pu Nyiengo, Nyiwaaro, Puduno, Piny Liny, Piny Caam, and Piny Belo (Interview, 2015). The Western Bank also covers the Pa Kangi, which consists of the Kangi, Meel Thoohny, and Acoohl Guod areas under the Paramount Chief Achom Makwac Kangi and Velantino Abal Unguec. The area hosts clans and kinships under the following two clusters: Dhe Kwahngo and Dhe Rub. It extends as far as the Dhe Kwahngo, which hosts the Dhe Kwahngo, Nyipuoj, Pu Nogor, Tubo, Pu Ngodho, Pu Tongo, Pu Jwaahdhi, Pu Jwaah, Pu Ujieth, Pu Tongo, and Piny Boro clans. It also includes the Dhe Rub, which consists of the following clans and kinships: Abadh, Aciig, Pa Buur, Pu Ukuuno (Akaa), Pu Bio, Thure, Piny Kaj, Atongo, Pa Luwo, Pu Kwaahy, and Pu Thudhi (Interview, 2015).

The Luo in Northern Bahr el Ghazal The Luo in Northern Bahr el Ghazal can be found in Dembp (Dihmo), which includes the Bar Mayan, Mondit, and Kpango areas under Paramount Chief Mawut Unguec Ajongo. The area consists of the following clans and kinships: Pa math Koongo, Kweelo, De Maahy, Yaw, Atuul, Bungo, Meyuo, Pa Liny, Aciig Kwahnyeo, Nyipabo, Paany, Ubo, and Boodho. The Thuri (Boodho/Shatt) are referred to as the Shilluk of Bahr el Ghazal, as Santandrea (1938) opined that they are part of the Niykango/Shilluk group who were left behind when the Niykangos migrated to the Upper Nile region. In Bahr el Ghazal, locals refer to the Luo Thurri group as Jur-Shatt, Boodho, or Jur-Chol. The Luo Thurri groups are found in the areas between Wau and Aweil in Northern and Western Bahr el Ghazal. The Luo Thurri are also located between the Jur and Lol rivers, on the Raja Nyamlell Road, and up to the Wau-Deim Zubeir Road. The Luo Thurri population was estimated to be about 16,720 according to the 2000 WCD Census. The Luo Thurri are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Luo, and Thuri (Santandrea, 1938).

Luo Groups in South Sudan

29

A section of Luo Thurri known as Jur-Manangeer have completely assimilated with their neighboring Dinka, who border the Luo villages in Western Bahr el Ghazal. This assimilation occurred through sociocultural interactions and intermarriages between the Dinkas and the Luo. This section of Luo Thurri no longer refers to themselves as Luo or Thurri, and its members do not speak the Luo Thuri language (De Boodho) (Santandrea, 1938). The Luo Thuri’s main economic activities include agriculture, fishing, hunting, and honey production (Gilley, 2004). The Luo Thuri are best known as professional hunters and cross-country long-distance walkers. The Luo’s (Jur) main sources of sustenance are blacksmithing, agriculture, hunting, honey production, and fishing. They have perfected these trades over centuries and have shared their knowledge with neighboring ethnic groups. Their knowledge of geology and nature has helped them survive migration and settle in new territories. Their trades have also helped them coexist with and assimilate into other Luo groups in East Africa. The Luo used to mainly believe in traditional African religions, but later adopted Christianity. The Luo believe in prophets, and they use them as a link to the Most Highest (god). The Luo acknowledge their own being in relation to their deceased ancestors, as they believe in the concept of afterlife; they also believe that they receive blessings from their deceased ancestors (Pace, 1990).

30

Chapter Three

Figure 6: Young Luo Men of Bahr el Ghazal, Wau, in traditional costumes

The Bahr el Ghazal region is also home to the Luo Bori, who are known as the Belanda-Bor. The Luo Bori ethnic group, or Pa-Bor, were actually part of the larger Luo clan or the Luwo ethnic group of Bahr el Ghazal at some point. Their great-grandfather, who was named Utho, according to Santandrea (1938), left his group (Luo Dimo Group) in Wau, Eastern Bank, for an undocumented reason and moved to live around Belanda Bviri in Zandi Land in Western Bahr el Ghazal. The Luo Bori became known as “Belanda Bori”, as they were named after a section of the Bantu ethnic group in Western Bahr el Ghazal, South Sudan. However, the Luo Bori managed to keep their language and retain their traditional names (Pace, 1990). The Luo Bori have traditionally intermarried with Belanda Bviri and speak Belanda Pivri in addition to Luo. The Luo Bori are linked to their great ancestor “Utho”—Dimo’s great-grandfather. The Luo Bori are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Luo, and Bor (Santandrea, 1938). The Luo Bor group has about 8,000 members according to the 1983 SIL Census. They are found in the Western Bahr el Ghazal region, in the following villages: Raffil, Tirga, Bazia, Ayo, Gitten, and Taban. The Luo Bori are also found in the Western Equatoria region of Southern Sudan in the Komai, Bangazegion, and Tumbra villages (Santandrea, 1938).

Luo Groups in South Sudan

31

[3] The Luo in the Equatoria Region The Luo in the Equatoria region in South Sudan are comprised of two major groups: Acholi and Jo-Parri (Logoro). Many of the Luo’s mythical stories link the Acholi to their great female ancestor, Achol. However, anthropologists have traced the origin of the Luo Acholi (Choli) group to Chief “Olum”, who at some point led a major Luo tribe around Rumbek (the Lakes region in South Sudan). The great Chief Olum appeared in Luo history after the separation of Dimo, Nyikango, and Geilo. Chief Olum subsequently moved southward along the River Nile and settled at Pubungu near Pakwach in Eastern Equatoria, South Sudan. Chief Olum had three children: Gapiir (Nyapir), Labongo (Kyebambi), and Tiful (Ogot, 1997). These three brothers later branched out and formed the Luo groups: Alur and Acholi. Ethnologists have failed to record or follow the third brother’s migration pattern; however, Tiful Gabiir (Nyapir) was cited as Luo Alur’s great ancestor, and Labongo (Kyebambi) as a great grandancestor of the Acholis (Wild, 1954). This narrative indicates that it is possible that the Luo’s second wave of migration included the Acholis. The Acholis are the descendants of Labongo, the son of Olum, who led the Luo groups from South Sudan to Pubungo along the River Nile. The Acholi in South Sudan are found in the Equatoria region, the Opari District, and Acholi Hill, with a population of 45,000 (2000 Census), and in Uganda, with a population of 746,796 (1991 Census). The Acholi are classified as Nilo-Saharan Eastern Sudanic, Luo, Southern, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Lango-Acholi. They are also known as Acoli, Shuli, Gang, and Lwo. The Acholi are primarily professional agriculturists, hunters, and fishermen. In addition, the Luo Acholi groups have been good at ironworking and mining for centuries (Wild, 1954).

32

Chapter Three

Figure 7: Chief Oliab-Luo Acholi, 19302

The Jo-Parri (Logoro): The Jo-Parri are the second largest Luo ethnic group in Eastern Equatoria, Republic of South Sudan. They live in the Bura, Pucwaa, Pugari, Kor, Angulumeere, and Wiattuo villages (Gilley, 2004). Their population is estimated to be around 28,000, according to the 1987 Census. The Jo-Parri are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, and Luo. They are known to their neighbors as Logoro or Lokoro (Gilley, 2004). In the extant literature on Luo history and mythology, the Jo-Parri are cited as the direct decedents of Dimo, who is also identified by the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal as their great ancestor (Santandrea, 1938). Moreover, there is a strong belief among the Jo-Parri that Lipul Hill is the location where Dimo and his elder brother Nyikango separated, and subsequently formed the two groups of Jo-Dimo and Jo-Nykango (Santandrea, 1938). According to this account, Dimo moved towards Pugeri Village and settled there with his group (the Jo-Parri). Another group continued south toward Uganda and formed the Adhola. This was the start of the migration, which facilitated ways for other Luo groups to merge and cross over to Kenya and Tanzania. The Jo-Parri named the first

2

Chief Oliab-Luo Acholi, 1930. “Discover ideas about African History”, retrieved from https://www.pinterest.it/pin/753790056353090753/

Luo Groups in South Sudan

33

party to separate from the main Luo group “Wi-Pach”; they were located in Eastern Bhar el Ghazal, South Sudan (Tosh, 1978). The Jo-Parri are known as professional agriculturists, hunters, fishers, and one of the few Luo sections that continue to keep cattle and goats (Tosh, 1978). They cultivate sorghum, cowpeas, pumpkin, okra, and tobacco as their main source of income. The Jo-Parri still maintain their original Luo ethnic group language, which is easily understood by other Luo groups in Africa; it is close to that of the Luo Anuak and the Jo-Luo of Bhar el Ghazal (Murrdock, 1959). This narrative has taken us all the way from Bahr el Ghazal to the first Luo ethnic groups who crossed over to Uganda. In short, this chapter has mapped the Luo ethnic groups in South Sudan but, unfortunately, this was limited, due to the lack of detailed ethnographic data available. This section has focused on the Luo’s ethnic relations, as well as common origin and ancestry myths. Therefore, the next chapter will focus on the groups who have crossed over to Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. We will continue to use mapping to explore the Luo’s sociocultural and ethnic lineages within the region, as well as their migration path.

CHAPTER FOUR THE LUO IN CENTRAL AND EAST AFRICA

This chapter focuses on the Luo settlements in Central and East Africa after the group crossed from South Sudan to Uganda, Congo, and Ethiopia, and from Kenya to Tanzania. Following their path of migration, this chapter will first discuss geography, which will be followed by the environment, regions, clans, and the ethnographic mapping of the Luo ethnic groups in their current settlements. We will begin with Uganda.

[1] The Luo of Uganda Uganda is located in East Africa, west of Kenya, between the 1 00 N and 32 00 E coordinates. The country occupies an area of about 236,040 sq. km, with a total population of 27,269,482, which includes approximately 994,373 ethnic Luo. The climate is classified as tropical and rainy, with two dry seasons: December to February, and June to August (Atlas of the World, 2007). Uganda is home to the (1) Acholi and (2) Adhola Luo ethnic groups, and the assimilated Luo groups, (3) Lango and (4) Kumam. Uganda is also believed to be the first point from which the Sudanese Luo migrated to Kenya, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ogot, 1997). According to the 1991 Census, Uganda is home to 746,796 Luo. The Luo Acholi are found in the north-central Acholi district, and 12,089 of them speak Chopi. According to the 1986 Census, this also includes 247,577 Luo Adhola in the Maple District (Government of Uganda, 1967). Both Luo Acholi and Adhola are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotics, Luo, and Lwo. In addition to Acholi and Adhola in Uganda, there are also Alur, Jo-Nam, Thur, Lango, and Kumam. It has been noted that Lango and Kumam are not Luo by origin; instead, they have assimilated through intermarriages and socio-cultural interaction. According to Hayley (1947), the Lango were in close contact with the Nilo-Hamitic peoples, such as the Shilluk, Luo, Anuak, Alur and Jopaluo. These groups seem to have occupied the areas north of Lake Rudolph;

36

Chapter Four

they have crossed to the north of Lake Albert. The groups split up, and migrated both northwest and southwest to form what is known today as the Nilotic group of Eastern Africa, which was the result of inter-ethnic conflict between the BariíMadi alliance and the Acholi (Hayley, 1947). The Lango continued its migration to settle southwest along the River Nile around 1700 (Hayley, 1947, 37). Still, it should be noted that the Lango ethnic group is culturally closer to the Luo Acholi group, as far as Luo ethno-cultural links are concerned. The Lango are found in the extensive north-central area north of Lake Kyoga, in the Apac, Lira, Oyam, Amolatar, Dokolo, Alebtong, Otuke, Abim, Moroto, Kotido, Kamuli, and Kayunga districts. They number 1,490,000 individuals, according to the 2002 Census (Government of Uganda, 1967). They are also known as Langi, Leb-Lango, Lwo, and Lwoo. They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Western, Luo, Southern, Luo-Acholi, AlurAcholi, and Lango-Acholi. According to this, the Lango fits the Luo ethnic groups’ classification. The Lango adopted Christianity in addition to their traditional religion (Crazzolara, 1938). The Luo Alur in Uganda: The Luo Alur are part of the same group that extend up to Congo and they have the same name as the Alur of South Sudan, who are found in the Mapel area, which is in the Bahr el Ghazal region. They are also found in Uganda and Congo. According to the Luo Alur’s oral history, they migrated from South Sudan alongside other Luo groups following the Nile’s riverbanks. Their original homeland is said to have been Rumbek in the Lakes State at the confluence of the River Nile and the Bahr-el-Ghazel River. They are part of the Acholi, in terms of their history and migration path; also, Chief Olum’s sons are cited as both groups’ greatest ancestors (Tosh, 1978). The Alur moved with the rest of the Luo group southward along the Nile to Pubungu, and then the group scattered, with some moving onto Bunyoro and others to Acholi; some groups went to Eastern Uganda and on to the Nyanza Province of Kenya, and the Alur moved westwards to West Nile (Ogot, 1997). This migration path ended in Tanzania. Similar to many Luo groups, the Alur people have assimilated and intermarried with the local ethnic groups in Lendu and Okebu. However, the Alur people have maintained both the Luo’s language and customs (Ogot, 1997). The Alur are found in the northwest districts of Nebbi, Zombo, Arua, Nyadri, and Yumbe, which is north of Lake Albert. According to the 2002 Census, they numbered about 617,000 in Uganda and, based on their tribal affiliation, about 86,700 identified as Jonam (Government of Uganda,

The Luo in Central and East Africa

37

1967). The Alur are also called Aloro, Alua, Alulu, Dho Alur, Jo Alur, Lur, and Luri. They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Western, Luo, Southern, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Alur. They adopted the Christian (Roman Catholic) religion in addition their traditional rituals and beliefs. The mythical oral history account narrated below explains how Nyapiri (the Alur’s great ancestor) and Labongo (the Acholi’s great ancestor) separated from King Atira’s family (Ogot, 1997): The Alur legend of origin says that there once lived a great King called Atira. He is said to have been a direct decent of God and when he died, his son Otira succeeded him. Otira is said to have in turn been succeeded by Opobo. Opobo ruled from a place called Nyraka in Lango County. When Opobo died, he left three sons Tiful, Nyapiri and Labongo. One day, Nyapir borrowed Labongo’s spear intending to spear an Elephant. Unfortunately, the elephant went away with the spear. When the news reached Labongo, he was very annoyed, and he insisted on having his own spear back despite Nyapiri’s pledges to offer him a substitute. Therefore, Nyapiri decided to go follow the elephant and, having crossed a big river, he found himself in a cool beautiful land. During his wandering in this land, Nyapiri encountered an old woman. The old woman is said to have taken him to a place where, among other spears, Nyapiri was able to recognize Labongo’s spear. The old woman gave him a bead. When he reached home, he called all his brothers and presented the spear. Everyone was amazed at Nyapiri’s story, more especially, at the bead. The bead was handed over for everyone to see and, in the process, an infant son of Labongo accidentally swallowed it. Nyapiri got his revenge. He also demanded that his own bead be given back. He refused all possible substitutes. Left with no alternative, Labongo handed over the child to Nyapiri to open her stomach and retrieve his bead. Nyapiri killed the child and got out the bead. (U.T.G., 2019, para 7)

This account is very similar to the mythical story narrated by the elders in South Sudan, which relates the cause Dimo and Nykango’s rift and explains why the two brothers separated. Again, we can see the struggle for power between two brothers (Tiful and Nyapiri) in the Alur’s stories, which is similar to the narrative of Dimo and Niykango in South Sudan. The separation between Tiful and Nyapiri was therefore attributed to this rift, which forced Tiful to move with his followers, Lendu and Okebu, to the highlands in the west. Tiful’s descendants are directly linked to the Alur people in Congo. Nyapiri later followed Tiful along the west bank of the Victoria Nile, and settled with his group in an area opposite Pakwach (Southall, 2004). Nyapiri and his group later proceeded to the West Nile highlands, due to the lack of grazing pastures; he left his son, Dosha,

38

Chapter Four

behind to rule Pakwach (Atkinson, 1994). When they entered West Nile, they are said to have mixed with the Lendu and Okebu, as well as with the Sudanic Madi in the north, and then later with the Nyali, the Bendi, and the Bira in the southwest (Southall, 2004). However, historians believe that the story of the Alur’s entry into the West Nile was due to the two brothers’ struggle for power over the spear, which was part of their chiefly regalia and the traditional process of claiming chiefdom. The Acholi: The Luo Acholi of Uganda are found in the north around the Kitgum, Amuru, Pader, Gulu, Abim, Oyam, Kotido, Kaabong, and Lira districts. Their total population in Uganda is estimated to be 1,170,000, according to the 2002 Census (Government of Uganda, 1967). They are also known as Acoli, Acooli, Akoli, Atscholi, Dok Acoli, Gang, Lëbacoli, Log Acoli, Lwo, and Lwoo. They speak Shuli dialects including Dhopaluo (Chope, Chopi), and Nyakwai. It is said to be similar to Lango [laj], Kumam [kdi], and Dhopadhola [adh]. It also has a lexical similarity with Lango [laj], Kumam [kdi], and Dhopadhola [adh] (Ogot, 1967). They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Western, Luo, Southern, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Lango-Acholi. They are Christian (Roman Catholic). The Acholi can be found in both South Sudan and Uganda, while ample evidence based on their family tree and genogram analysis suggests that the Acholi are the Alur’s direct cousins (Nazita and Niwamba, 1998). The Jopadhola: The Luo Jopadhola groups can be found in Eastern Uganda among the various Bantu ethnic groups; they are similar to the Luo in Western Bahr el Ghazal in South Sudan, who also intermingled and peacefully coexisted with the various Bantu ethnic groups in the region. The Japadhola have had settlements in the area since the middle of the 16th century (Owor, 2012). They have settled in the east, around Lake Victoria, in Tororo, and the Butaleja, Busia, and Bugiri districts. Their total population is estimated to be 360,000, according to the 2002 Census (Government of Uganda, 1967). This Luo group is known in the area as Dhopadhola and Ludama. They kept their Luo language and cultural norms. They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Western, Luo, Southern, and Adhola. Their Bantu neighbors refer to them as Badama (Ogot, 1967). The Japadhola share many traditions with the Alur, the Acholi, and the Joluo of Kenya. They were part of the biggest Luo migration into western Kenya. The first group of Luo migrants settled in Kaberamaido Peninsula. They were later joined by other Luo groups from Pawir in Bunyoro. More

The Luo in Central and East Africa

39

Luo groups came from Busoga, Teso, and Bugwere to the Kaberamaido Peninsula. Unlike the Bito-Luo, who assimilated into Bunto ethnic groups in Bunyoro, the Japadhola people were able to maintain their distinct Luo culture and social norms, and to coexist with the various Bantu and NiloHamitic ethnic groups in the area (Okech, 1953; Ogot, 1967). The Kumam: The Kumam belong to the Atekerin group, which also includes the Langi, Iteso, and Karimojong. This Luo ethnic group is found in the central-northern areas of Uganda and in the southeast of the Lango district, as well as on the northwestern shores of Lake Kyoga. They speak the Nilotic language and belong to the Nilo-Hamites group. Historians claim that the Luo Kumam ethnic group migrated from the northeastern part of Ethiopia around the 16th century. They state that their language derived from the Ateso dialect (Dum) and they later adapted the Luo dialect (Lwo) when they came in contact with the Luo from around Mt. Otukei and Wila, which are in today's Karamoja. Before they adopted the Luo’s culture and traditions, the Kumam were known as Leno (Ogot, 1967). Socially, they share some common characteristics with the Iteso and the Langi tribes, such as birth rituals, social customs, and hunting practices. They are considered to be a mixed ethnic group, which resulted from intermarriages between the Luo and the Atekerin tribes (Vincent, 1977). The Luo encountered the Atekerin ethnic groups in Northern Uganda during their early migration into the area. The Atekerin people also moved from the northeast during the same period, and they established settlements in the northeastern parts of Uganda. The Kumam ethnic group’s social and political structure consists of clan-based leaders known as Wegi Atekerin, who are the leaders of the dancing groups (Wegi Ikodeta Cel) and the Asonya’s homes (Wengi Cel). The Wengi Cel are the clan’s heads and they influence the group’s social and political affairs (Vincent, 1977). The Kumam ethnic groups were originally pastoralists who lived in cattle camps. They later adopted agriculture, and are known for growing sorghum, potatoes, and beans. They settled around the Lake Kwania region, in the Kaberamaido, Amuria, and Soroti districts, and in small areas in the Kamuli, Amolatar, Lira, and Dokolo districts. Their population was estimated to be 174,000 according to the 2002 Census (Government of Uganda, 1967). The Kumam are also known as Akokolemu, Akum, Ikokolemu, Ikumama, Kuman, and Kumum. They speak Luo, which linguists consider to be similar to Acholi and Lango. This group is

40

Chapter Four

classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Western, Luo, Southern, and Kuman (Nzita, 1995). Their social norms and values are influenced by both the traditional Langi and Iteso cultures. In practice, they seem to have adopted more of the Iteso culture than that of the Langi. This variation in social assimilation is due to the Luo’s greater proximity to the Langhi’s social and cultural influences, whereas the Iteso were closer to the Kumam ethnic group. The Lango/Langi: The Luo Langi’s oral stories and myths suggest that the group was originally from Mountain Otukei, which is also known as Mountain Awil. Their oral myths describe them as the Mountains of Rains (Nzita, 1995). However, their original homeland is said to be north of Lake Turkana, which is the same region that was inhabited by the Jie and the Karimojong ethnic groups (Tosh, 1978). Therefore, researchers have hypothesized that they could be related to the Dodoth, Lotuko, Topsa, and Turkana in Kenya and South Sudan. These groups include the Iteso, Kumam, and Karimojong: i.e., the groups known as the Atekerin family in Uganda (Tosh, 1978).

[2] The Luo in Congo (DRC) The Democratic Republic of Congo—also known as DR Congo, the DRC, or simply Congo—is located in Central Africa. It is sometimes anachronistically referred to as Zaire, which was its official name between 1971 and 1997. The DRC is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the south, and it lies between Angola and Gabon. It also falls between the 1 00 S, 15 00 E coordinates. Congo covers an area of 342,000 sq. km, with a population of about 3,039,126 people (approximately 750,000 are Luo Alur). It has a tropical climate, which consists of a rainy season (March to June) and a dry season (June to October); it also has constantly high temperatures and humidity (Atlas of the World, 2007). The DRC is one of the Central African countries that host a large a number of Luo ethnic tribe members known as Jo-Alur. The Alur are found in the Oriental Province, the Mahagi territory, and northwest towards the Djalasiga area (Hayley, 1947). The Luo Alur in Congo are also known as Lur, Aloro, Alua, Alulu, Luri, Dho Alur, and Jo-Alur. They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotics, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Alur. The Luo Alur in Congo were the pioneers of African Music, which was later adopted by most African countries (Atikson, 1994). According to Murdock (1959), the Luo Alur primarily depend on agriculture, which is a profession that many Luo groups have mastered over the centuries. The Luo Alur inhabit

The Luo in Central and East Africa

41

Northern Uganda and extend into Belgian Congo and Kenya. According to Atikson (1994), their ancestors were part of the larger migration of Luospeaking people from Southern Sudan to Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania.

[3] The Luo in Ethiopia Ethiopia is a country in Eastern Africa, west of Somalia, which is located between the 8 00 N and 38 00 E coordinates. Ethiopia covers an area of 1,127,127 sq. km and it has a population of 73,053,286. The Luo ethnic group in Ethiopia consists of about 45,646 people, according to the 1991 Census (Gilley, 2004). Its climate is classified as tropical monsoon with wide topography-induced variations (Atlas of the World, 2007). The Luo in Ethiopia are known as Anuak and they are similar to the Anuak from the Upper Nile in Sudan. Indeed, the Luo Anuak in Ethiopia are the continuation of the Anuak of the Upper Nile region in South Sudan. They are the descendants of Geilo, who was the younger brother of Niykango and Dimo (Ogot, 1967). The Anuak Luo are found in the Gambella region of southwestern Ethiopia. This group is classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Luo, and Anuak. Their main sources of income are fishing, agriculture, mining, and hunting, which links them to the Luo groups in South Sudan and its neighboring countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, the DRC, Uganda, and Tanzania).

[4] The Luo in Kenya Kenya is a country in Eastern Africa, which borders the Indian Ocean between Somalia and Tanzania; it is located on the 1 00 N, 38 00 E coordinates. Kenya covers about 582,650 sq. km; it has a population of 33,829,590, and about 3,185,000 are members of the Luo ethnic group. Its climate varies from tropical along the coast to arid in the interior (Atlas of the World, 2007). The Luo ethnic groups in Kenya were formed because of migration and cannot be treated as a separate ethnic group from the rest of the African Luo groups. As discussed earlier, some of the Luo’s mythical and oral history in Sudan refers to Kenya as their home of origin before their migration to Sudan and other parts of Eastern Africa. However, the Kenyan Luo assume that South Sudan is their central point of migration and, therefore, their home of origin. These perceptions have

42

Chapter Four

been proved to be correct by many ethnologists and historians (AtienoOdhiambo, 1999). Most ethnologists and scholars who have tried to study the Luo ethnic groups in the 21st century refer to South Sudan as their home. Furthermore, Kenya still has the largest Luo ethnic population in Africa. Kenya is also unique in the sense that the Luo tribe has maintained its culture and language; it has also retained its unity, as there has been no further separation and migration beyond Lake Victoria (Atieno-Odhiambo, 1999). According to Adamson (1967), the Luo’s migration to Kenya began about 150 years ago. Adamson also states that the Luo are the only Nilotic group in Kenya, as far as Kenyan ethnic classification is concerned. Adamson hypothesized that the Luo crossed Lake Victoria after expelling its first inhabitants, the Bantu ethnic population. The Luo chose the Nyanza province on the banks of Lake Victoria to be their home. They migrated to Kenya from Eastern Uganda in four waves: (1) the Joka-Jok were the first group to arrive from Acholiland, which was the largest recorded Luo migration to Kenya; (2) the Alur migration; (3) the Owiny migration, who are actually part of the Padhola; and (4) the Jok’omolo migration from Pawir (Ogot, 1967). Currently, there are about 12 Luo clans in Kenya: Jo-Alego, Jo-Gem (Gum), Jo-Ugenya, Jo-Seme, Jo-Karachuonyo, Jo-Nnyakach, Jo-Kabundo, Jo-Kisumo, Jo-Kano, JoAsembo, Jo-Uyoma, Jo-Sakwa, and Jo-Kajulu. The term “Jo” in the Luo language means “people of” (Ogot, 1967). These main Luo groups in Kenya consist of 27 subgroups, each of which is composed of various clans and sub-clans. These 27 subgroups are as follows: Jo-Gem, Jo-Yimbo, Jo-Ugenya, Jo-Seme, Jo-Kajulu, JoKarachuonyo, Jo-Nyakach, Jo-Mumbo (including Jo-Kasipul and JoKabondo––both descendants of Rachuonyo), Jo-Kisumo, Jo-Kano, JoAsembo, Jo-Alego, Jo-Uyoma, Jo-Sakwa, Jo-Kanyamkago, Jo-Kadem, JoKwabwai (a group that apparently originates from a Bganda family called Bwayi), Jo-Suba/Abasuba (comprised of several sub-clans––some are invariably called Jo-Chula to mean “islanders”), Jo Suba (from the Mfangano, Rusinga, Remba, and Takawiri islands) Jo-Gwassi, JoKaksingri, Jo-Muhuru, Jo-Suna (a group that was formerly Bantu but has fully assimilated into the Luo, but some people still classify them under the Luo Suba clan), Jo-Kasgunga, Jo-Kanyamwa, Jo-Kanyada, JoKanyidoto, Jo-Kamgundho, Jo-Kamagambo, Jo-Ramogi, and Jo-Karungu. These include the following Tanzanian clans: Kiseru, Kowak, Kagwa, Bugire, Kamageta, Buturi, Wasweta, Shirati, Suba, Rieri, and Buganjo

The Luo in Central and East Africa

43

(Ogot, 1997). However, it is important to note that this list is not exhaustive due to the lack of information available. The Luo ethnic tribe is considered to be the third largest group in Kenya (11% of the total population), after the non-Luo Bantu of Kikuyu (21%) and the Luhya (14%). However, the Luo language has been adopted by the majority of the non-Luo Kenyan tribes as their second language. In 1994, the Luo population was estimated to be 3,185,000 (CIA, 2019). The Kenyan Luo are called Nilotic Kavirondo, and are classified as Nilo-Saharan and Eastern Sudanic. The Luo, however, simply refer to themselves as Jo-Luo, which means “the people of Luo” (Ogot, 1997). The Kenyan Luo, like the Luo all over Africa, depend on agriculture, fishing, and mining for sustenance. They have adopted Christianity and Islam, while still preserving their traditional religion. They also believe in the afterlife and in the sprits of their ancestors (Gray, 1961).

Figure 8: Kenyan Luo Warriors, 1800s (Masgada, African Online Community)

[5] The Luo in Tanzania Tanzania is a country in East Africa, which borders the Indian Ocean between Kenya and Mozambique, and it is located between the 6 00 S and 35 00 E coordinates. Tanzania covers about 945,087 sq. km, and it has a population of about 36,766,356 people, approximately 280,000 of this number are Luo. Its climate varies from tropical along the coast to

44

Chapter Four

temperate in the highlands (CIA, 2019). There are similarities between the Tanzanian and Kenyan Luo ethnic groups. Both are classified as Nilotic Kavirondo, Nilo-Saharan, Luo, and Eastern Sudanic. It is evident that the same Kenyan Luo tribe also travelled up to the eastern bank of Lake Victoria, and crossed the border between Tanzania and Kenya. The Tanzanian Luo are found in the Mara region (Ogot, 1997). The Luo migrated to Tanzania around 1800. The Tanzanian Luo ethnic group crossed over from Kenya, and so they are no different from the Kenyan Luo. The Tanzanian Luo group are also known as Luo Keverindo; this name is also applied to the Kenyan Luo groups (Wild, 1954). The Luo population and its variations will be discussed in detail in Chapter Five, which will primarily focus on a demographic population analysis. The discussion will be based on the available statistical data provided by the government and various agencies, which may not be accurate or inclusive. However, this data is helpful for highlighting demographic variations in the Luo ethnic group in Central and East Africa. Researchers who are interested in further demographic analysis will need to consult more recent and comprehensive statistics.

CHAPTER FIVE DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

This chapter provides a demographic analysis of the Luo ethnic group in Africa in terms of the countries that host the most Luo people. It will outline their numbers and percentages, as well as the total population in each country. Emphasis has been placed on the demographic distribution of the Luo ethnic groups in Africa, with a focus on ethnicity, languages, classifications, regions, and provinces. This narrative version, as in previous chapters, aims to provide further understanding of the Luo groups in the Republic of South Sudan, as well as to strengthen the available literature on their counterparts in Central and Eastern Africa. This chapter also helps to inform the Luo in surrounding countries about myths and oral stories with regard to how they relate to the Luo people in South Sudan. Even though the narratives of their lineages are discussed orally among the Luo people all over Africa, their sense of belonging and ethno-centric attachments have remained high. In this chapter, the processes of urban transformation and social integration are also discussed; it will also outline the Luo’s contributions to their current regions or residence. In conclusion, recommendations will be made for future studies about the most prominent and notable Luo in civic and political activities in urban settings based on their own accounts. This chapter starts with an analysis of the Luo’s overall demographic and ethnic distribution in Africa. The statistical data cited here is outdated and not comprehensive; therefore, it has only been used for the purpose of analysis.

Overall Demographic Representation Government authorities, international organizations, and scholars have reported some statistical figures on the Luo population within their current countries and regions in Africa. However, the majority of Luo intellectuals dispute their accuracy, as these records are either old, incomplete, or only reflect the Luo populations in the largest urban cities. Nevertheless, regardless of disputes and disagreements over the correct number of Luo ethnic group members within their native countries, they are used here because they are the only available statistics at this time. Nonetheless,

46

Chapter Five

these figures may also reflect a fair percentage of the Luo groups in terms of the fact that they are shown to make up the largest groups within their regions or their countries. For example, it is difficult to dispute that the Luo ethnic groups are overrepresented in Kenya compared to any other East African country, or that the Kenyan Luo form the largest Luo ethnic group in Africa. This discussion, therefore, starts with South Sudan, which many Luo groups and researchers cite as the Luo’s home of origin. It will also include Kenya (which is home for the majority), Tanzania as their destination, and Uganda as the central point, as well as Ethiopia and Congo. The figures below highlight the ethnic distribution of the Luo in South Sudan by their region of residence. As discussed above, the aim of this book is mapping these large ethnic groups in Africa to facilitate further research on their ethnicity, and their socioeconomic and political attributes. It is also intended to provide a quick review of the Luo’s history, lineages, countries, regions, and related elements that might pave the way for further research. As Atido (2011) states, it is time for African social scientists to start investigating the rich history of socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic relations within the African continent. This first version of this book is thus intended for policy development or change, if it is indirectly understood and found useful. The figures below reflect the available data on the Luo ethnic groups in the Republic of South Sudan (clans, subgroups, and kinships are not included), followed by an analysis of the Luo groups in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Congo, and Ethiopia.

[1] Estimated Figures in South Sudan The total Luo population in Sudan is estimated to be 416, 720, which is about 7% of the total Luo in Africa. Even though only 7% of the Luo population in Africa has remained in South Sudan, the country accommodates 7 independent Luo groups and several clans within these groups. The exact number of clans and subgroups has not yet been established. However, it is expected to exceed the 26 known subgroups recorded in Kenya and the 12 clans in Uganda. These variants are observed in the total number of ethnic groups in Kenya compared to the number of clans and subgroups.

Demographic Analysis

47

[2] Estimated Figures in Kenya In the historic narrative of the path of Luo ethnic groups’ migration to Lake Victoria, Kenya and Tanzania appear to be their final destinations, as Lake Victoria is often cited as their last identified settlement. However, the reasons and motives behind the Luo group’s settlement around Lake Victoria remain unknown. Further investigations are therefore needed. In Kenya, according to the statistics pertaining to 1994, there were 3,185,000 Luo, which is about 57% of the Luo population in Africa.

[3] Estimated Figures in Tanzania The Luo are treated as an independent group in Tanzania because of the sovereign border that divides them along Lake Victoria. Otherwise, they are the same as the Luo Koveriando found in Kenya as far as language, tradition, origins, and ethnic classification are concerned. In 2001, the Luo ethnic group in Tanzania numbered about 280,000 people (CIA, 2019), which is about 6% of the total number of Luo in Eastern and Central Africa. As far as the lineages and line of migration are concerned, the entire Luo ethnic group in Kenya and Tanzania migrated from Uganda (Ogot, 1967). Even though all have assimilated under one larger group in Kenya and Tanzania, Uganda continues to resemble South Sudan in terms of the Luo group’s diversity and distribution across different regions and provinces.

[4] Estimated Figures in Uganda In Uganda, according to the 1991 Census, there were about 994,373 Luo individuals, which is equal to 17% of the Luo ethnic population in Africa (CIA, 2019). They were identified by their ethnic classification, alternate names, languages, and regions. According to the available data, the Acholi seem to represent the highest proportion of the Luo group in Uganda, with a population of 746,796, followed by Adhola with 247,577, and finally the Alur with a population of 750,000 (CIA, 2019). It is worth noting that the figures provided here do not reflect the actual Luo population in Uganda, as there are other groups that are not included in this count.

[5] Estimated Figures in Congo The total Luo population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to the 2001 Census was 750,000, or 13% of the total Luo

48

Chapter Five

population in Africa. They are also identified by their original name, as well as their alternate names, languages, classification, and regions in Africa.

[6] Estimated Figures in Ethiopia According to the 2001 Census, the Luo ethnic group in Ethiopia numbered 45,646, which is equal to 8% of the total Luo ethnic population in Africa. The main features for identification included the original name of the group, their alternate names, languages, classification, and region. In short, about 7% of the Luo population remain in South Sudan. The majority (about 57%) of Luo people currently live in Kenya, followed by Uganda (17%), Congo (13%), Ethiopia (8%), and Tanzania (6%). Chapter Six will focus on the characteristics of the Luo people, as well as their clans and kinships in Eastern and Central Africa.

CHAPTER SIX PEOPLE, CLANS, AND KINSHIP

The statistical figures retrieved from official documents related to the countries that host Luo ethnic groups, as discussed in Chapter Five, indicate that 5,671,739 Luo reside in Africa. The majority of them are settled in Kenya (3,185,000 or 57%), followed by Uganda (994,373 or 17%), Congo (750,000 or 13%), Ethiopia (45,647 or 8%), South Sudan (416,720 or 7%), and Tanzania (416, 720 or 6%). Figure 9 shows the Luo population variations in Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Congo, and Ethiopia. These variations will be discussed further in the following narratives.

Figure 9: Luo ethnic groups by country of settlement in Africa (Ethiopia and Central Africa)

50

Chapter Six

The aim of this statistical analysis of the Luo population in Africa is to record their demographic distribution according to their total population and percentages across the six aforementioned African countries. This analysis clearly identifies the countries and regions that host the largest number of Luo and their percentages within these countries, as determined by their regions, groups, and clans. Therefore, the emphasis is placed on the demographic distributions of the Luo ethnic groups in Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. Kenya and Tanzania have the highest percentages of Luo in Africa. However, the reasons behind this huge ethnic migration from Sudan to Kenya remains unclear and requires further research (Seligman and Seligman, 1965). Moreover, the location of the ethnic settlement also needs more research, as it is unclear why they chose the Nyanza Province around Lake Victoria as an ideal place to settle and why they have remained there for centuries. It appears that as there is a correlation between the Luo’s migration and their resettlement around lakes and river valleys. This correlation is observed in all of the groups, including the Lakes area in Southern Sudan, Lake Victoria in Kenya, Lake Albert in Uganda, Lake Tana in Ethiopia, and Lake Tanganyika in Congo (Gray, 1961). Kenya and Tanzania have an estimated 3,465,000 Luo in total: about 3,185,000 live in Kenya, and 280,000 reside in Tanzania. The Luo population in these two countries represents about 63% of their total population in Africa. Uganda is in the second place in terms of the number of Luo in Africa. It is also known as the gateway for their migration from Sudan, and a center for the redistribution of the Luo groups who emigrated towards Kenya, Tanzania, Congo, and Ethiopia. Uganda still hosts about 746,796 Luo Acholi in the north-central region, and about 247,577 Luo Pedema, Alur, and Adhola in the Eastern Mapel District, with a total Luo population of 994,373, which represents about 17% of the figure reported for Africa. Congo is the third country in terms of the number of Luo in Africa. Most of the Luo ethnic groups in Congo have emigrated from Uganda. About 750,000 Luo currently live in Congo, which represents about 13% of the total Luo population in Africa. South Sudan comes in fourth place. It is known as the Luo’s native African home and is the place where the migrations began. Although Sudan only hosts about 416,720 ethnic Luo people, South Sudan has the highest number of Luo ethnic divisions, sections, and clans in Africa. The major Luo groups in Sudan consist of (1) Luo Shilluk, or Shoula, about

People, Clans, and Kinships

51

175,000 people in the Upper Nile region; (2) Jo-Luo (Jur), about 100,000 people in Western and Eastern Bahr el Ghazal; (3) Luo Anuak in the Upper Nile, about 52,000 people; (4) Luo Acholi, about 45,000 people in the Equatoria region, Southern Sudan; (5) Luo Parri (Logoro), about 28,000 people; (6) Luo Thori (Chaat), about 16,000 people; and (7) Luo Borri (Belenda Bor), about 10,000 people. The Jur-Mananger in Western Bahr el Ghazal are fully assimilated into the Dinka ethnic group. Currently, there is no statistical data pertaining to the Jur Manager (Hamly, 1970). The Luo Borri, or Belenda Bor, are assimilated among the Bantu groups known as Belenda Peveri in Western Bahr el Ghazal. However, they have preserved their Luo languages and names, with some language inflections that have resulted from cultural and social assimilation with the Belenda Biviri group. This group speaks Belenda Peverri fluently. The Luo residing in Sudan represent about 7% of the total Luo population in Africa. Ethiopia is one of the African countries that became home to thousands of Luo Anuak. The Luo Anuak group that currently lives in Ethiopia are in fact an extension of the Luo Anuak who reside in the Upper Nile region in Southern Sudan. The Luo Anuak in Ethiopia number about 45,646 people, which represents about 0.08% of the total Luo population in Africa (5,671,739). However, these figures are only based on each country’s statistical census. Historians have agreed that the only common factor that makes studying the Luo possible is their preservation of their cultural features, language, and traditions. The Luo groups from South Sudan up to Tanzania still practice farming, mining, and hunting as their main professions (Borer, 1963). The Luo have also managed to preserve the names of their great ancestors, such as Dimo, Nyikango, Ukelo, and Geilo. Many Luo can still be identified from their names. Another factor is the Luo language, which many Luo groups have preserved, even though there are some variations among groups (Gilley, 1992). However, they still understand the meanings and names of almost everything. The Luo language has been impacted by social interactions with surrounding ethnic and cultural groups. The Luo are documented as Nilo-Saharan Eastern Sudanic groups. Furthermore, regardless of language variations and intonation, the Luo have managed to sustain their language, which has further maintained their unique culture (Gilley, 1992). The anthropologist, J.V. Wild (1954, 4í5) has listed the following 12 major Luo ethnic groups and their locations in Africa:

52

Chapter Six

[1] Jo-Luo of Kavirondo; northeastern shore of Lake Victoria, Kenya, and Tanzania [2] Jo-Padhola; northwest of Kavirondo in the Budama District, Uganda [3] Kumam, or Akum; northeast of Lake Kioga, Lira, Uganda [4] Lango; northwest of Lake Kioga, Lira, Uganda [5] Jo-pa-Lwoo; northern Bunyoro, Masindi, Uganda [6] Acholi; west of the Lango (Toci River) and between the Somerset Nile and the Agoro mountain group, Uganda [7] Alur and Jonamm; north of Lake Albert, and west of the Nile in Uganda and Belgian Congo [8] Pari (who are known as the Lokooro by their neighbors); on and around Lepfool, which is also called Lafon Hill, Southern Sudan [9] Anywaah (known as Anuak); upper Sobat in Sudan, and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) [10] Collo (or Shilluk); White Nile, Malakal, Southern Sudan [11] Jo Lwoo-Jo-Luo (Jur); three major sections of Thuri (Chat), Demen, and Boode, as well as east and northwest of Wau Bahr el Ghazal, Southern Sudan [12] Boor (Belane or Belanda); south of Wau on the Sue River in Southern Sudan In short, the provinces, regions, and states where Luo currently reside could provide further evidence of the causes of their internal migrations in Africa. It is apparent from this work that the largest number of Luo ethnic groups live around lakes and in river valleys all over Africa. The choice to live in this environment is not likely to be coincidental, as it provides socioeconomic advantages, which ensure the group’s wellbeing. For centuries, the Luo have been known as professional miners (Hayley, 1947). The Luo of South Sudan have been producing iron and using it to make agricultural, hunting, and traditional tools years before the industrial revolution. British colonialists in Southern Sudan disapproved of this practice, however, and those who continued to produce iron were severely punished (Atkinson, 1994). The correlation between mining and Luo culture could potentially help to explain their preference for settling by lakes. For example, in Kenya and Tanzania, the Luo can be found in Nyanza Province around Lake Victoria. In Uganda, the Luo Acholi are found in the north-central region, and the Adhola in the Eastern-Mapel District. The Luo of Alour or Jo-Alur are found in the Mahagi territory around Lake Albert. In South Sudan, they are found in the southern part of the country,

People, Clans, and Kinships

53

and are distributed over three regions: (1) the Upper Nile, which also includes the Luo Shilluk and Anuak; (2) the Equatoria region, which includes the Acholi and Jo-Parri (Logoro); and (3) the Bahr el Ghazal region, which includes the Jo-Luo (Jur), Thuri, and Belanda Bor. The Luo Anuak are found in both Sudan and Ethiopia, around Lake Tana. The above regions and provinces are either around lakes or along river valleys (Wild, 1954). The Luo are known for their love of their local environment, as well as their culture and traditions. Even today, the majority, including the most educated, live in villages. With the rise of nation-building and urbanization in Africa, the Luo have proven their loyalty to their home states, and have fully participated in the liberation movement to end colonial rule where they live (Gilley, 1992). The Luo took full advantage of residential schools and managed to educate many of their people. Moreover, the majority of the Luo ethnic groups in Africa have adopted Christianity due to a common belief in life after death and the presence of God (Juwak). Professionally, many urban Luo work as teachers, administrators, or are engaged in politics. Some Luo have been able to attain the highest political positions within their home countries (Ogot, 1997). The Lakes area in Southern Sudan has been cited as their first home. Chapter Seven will focus on the Luo’s country of origin (South Sudan), as well as the other nationalities that make up South Sudanese society.

Prominent Luo Politicians and Technocrats in Sudan When the Christian missionaries settled in the Luo villages in the early 1900s and established church and literacy schools in their main town of Wau, local families had an opportunity to educate their children for the first time. The early adoption of Christianity and their colonizer’s culture influenced the Luo’s character and sociocultural norms, which were the things that made them unique. They became known as a peaceful social group in Bahr el Ghazal, as well as trustworthy early bureaucrats. Some of the children who were sent to these early schools later assumed important political and bureaucratic positions within local and national institutions. Over time, they started supplying Wau and its surrounding villages with teachers, medical and agricultural technicians, doctors, and judges. Mr. Joseph Ukel Garang Will was among these prominent political and bureaucratic cadres who managed to climb the leadership ladder up to the national level in the newly united Sudan.

54

Chapter Six

Mr. Joseph Garang Ukel was born in Kayango, which is a village located northwest of Wau, Bahr el Ghazal—the same village where his father Garang Will was born and raised among the Luo Pabio clans. Mr. Joseph Ukel attended Catholic school in Kayango, before moving to St. Antony's Bussere (1944í1948) and later Rumbek Secondary School (1949í1953). Upon graduation, Mr. Joseph Ukel Garang enrolled at the University of Khartoum and was considered to be the first South Sudanese individual to study Law in Sudan. In 1958, he gained his BSc in Law from London University, which was the “degree-conferring” institution (Interview, Cyril Joseph Garang).3 He started his law career as a District Attorney in Khartoum, the capital city of Sudan, but later resigned and worked as a trial lawyer for a few years. He entered politics in 1969 and became a Minister of Commerce and Supply in the national government and was later appointed as the Minister of Southern Affairs. In this role, he was tasked by the national government to address what was perceived as the South Sudan problem, which had been initiated by the Anya Nya rebellion led by the marginalized people of South Sudan against the Khartoum government.4

Figure 10: Joseph Garang Ukel with President Niemeri in 1971

3

Interview with Cyril Joseph Garang, the eldest son of Mr. Joseph Ukel Garang, on May 2, 2020, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4 Ibid.

People, Clans, and Kinships

55

The legacy of Mr. Joseph Ukel Garang is manifested in what is known as the July Declaration, which ended the 17-years-long civil war in Sudan. He authored the blueprint of this historic political declaration that was later adopted as the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972. As a law student, Mr. Joseph Ukel Garang joined the Sudan Communist Party. Given that Sudan is a strong Islamic country, his political beliefs have caused him to endure harassment and incarceration during its dictatorship, as well as throughout subsequent governments.5 Throughout his life, Mr. Joseph Ukel Garang remained a prolific writer, who focused on social justice and ensuring that the marginalized communities in Sudan’s sociopolitical and economic rights were preserved. His conceptual theories of a united Sudan have influenced the Sudan People’s Liberation Army Movement (SPLA/M), which brought together all of Sudan’s marginalized people to fight against their socioeconomic and political marginalization.6 For many South Sudanese, this visionary leader was perceived to be the architect of the Affirmative Action Act which, for the first time, enabled marginalized and disadvantaged students from South Sudan to attend Khartoum University. He was also responsible for securing places for South Sudanese students at universities in Europe and the Soviet Union. Joseph Ukel Garang was killed in July 1971 in Khartoum by the members of the Jafar Niemeri regime following their fallout with the Communist Party. The narrative of the Luo leadership cannot be complete without mentioning the prominent role of Mr. Jervase Yak in Sudan’s political and bureaucratic leadership. Jervase Yak comes from the Akaa section of the Luo tribe in the Western Bahr el Ghazal region. The Akaa occupy an area called Thuur, which is between two waterways on the western side of the Jur River and a branch called the Nyinaam. The inhabitants of Thuur mainly reside in the villages of Wadhallelo, Aturo, and Te Riit Akaa. The Thuur area is bordered on the western side by the Balandas and southwards by the Azandes.7 Jervase Yak’s father, Ubanyo Ulango Dimo was a powerful chief, known as “Ruoth Pala” in Luo, which means “the knife-edge chief”. The vested powers given to the chieftainship by the colonial administration were equivalent to that of a traditional magistrate. The Chief was chosen by his 5

Ibid. Ibid. 7 Interview with Professor Joseph Ayok Jervase, Mr. Jervase Yak Ubanyo’s son. 6

56

Chapter Six

people and then endorsed by colonial administrators. The chief’s main function was to settle cases, both social and criminal, based on tribal customs and traditions. Some of these cases were referred to them by the colonial administrators. Usually, the final word on any case rested on what the “Ruoth Pala” decided was the just course of action.8 Chief Ubanyo Ulango’s wife was from the Gunduong within the Abat, who are another large Luo tribe that occupy the eastern side of the Jur River. At a certain point, the Chief requested his in-laws to allow him to settle in their area, and they accepted. He then crossed the Jur River with his family and some other relatives before settling alongside his in-laws: first in Bar Malith, then later in Nyiduk, and finally in Bar Aganya where he eventually died and was buried.9 It was in these modest village surroundings that Jervase Yak Ubanyo was born and brought up in the typical Luo traditional ways. He later got married at an early age, to the daughter of the Sub-Chief Costantino Lual Dut Akot from the “Bekabo” clan within the Abat section of the Luo tribe. The Sub-Chief had by then inherited the chieftainship from his father, Dut Akot. Dut Akot was a Sub-Chief (Alaam chol) in the Bekabo clan, who welcomed the first Comboniani missionaries who set foot in the area in the 1890s, thereupon establishing the Catholic Mission of MBILI, which was then known as “Kakanga”. Jervase Yak started his education in the missionary established basic schools, first at Mbili and then later at Bussere. His outstanding performance paid off almost immediately. He joined the civil service as an administrator in 1941 at the age of 21, where he acted as a clerk during the British colonial rule of Sudan (1896–1955). After nine years of service, he was sent in 1950 to the Gordon Memorial College, School of Public Administration in Khartoum to complete further studies. He graduated in 1952 as an administrative officer.10

8

Ibid. Ibid. 10 Ibid. 9

People, Clans, and Kinships

57

Figure 11: Mr. Jervas Yak in the Supreme Council with Prime Minister Ismail alAzhari

1967–1969 Jervase Yak served in five of the nine provinces of then-Sudan: Bahr El Ghazal Equatoria, Upper Nile, Blue Nile, and Khartoum. Due to his meritorious service and professional development, which included attending advanced courses on public administration within Sudan and in the UK, he progressively moved up the civil service ladder of the Ministry of Local Government. He was eventually promoted to Governor of Khartoum Province, the capital of Sudan, in 1965. He is the only Southern Sudanese person to hold that position. As an administrator, he was renowned for his integrity. Due to this attribute and because he was not affiliated to any political party, which is a requirement of being a civil servant, he was called upon twice to assume political positions in the central government.11 He was appointed Minister of Irrigation from 1966– 67 and was one of sixteen ministers, as well as the second South Sudanese minister to serve in Prime Minister El Sadiq Al-Mahdi’s government. In 1967, he was selected as a member of the five-member Supreme Council, the sovereign body of the Republic of Sudan, which was then headed by 11

Ibid.

58

Chapter Six

Ismail al-Azhari. His acceptance of these political appointments was conditional on being able to return to active duty as a civil servant. After the government was overthrown by a military coup in 1969, which was led by Colonel Gaafar al-Numeiri, he was reinstated in 1970 as a senior civil servant in the Ministry of Local Government. He served until he reached the mandatory retirement age of 55 in 1975. He passed away three years later in Khartoum, on April 16, 1978, and was buried in the Luo town of Wau, Western Bahr el Ghazal. Mr. Joseph Ukel Abango’s contribution to contemporary Sudanese and South Sudanese politics is also noteworthy. Joseph Ukel Abango was born in January 1939 in the Achot group of Bahr el Ghazal. From 1950 to 1954, he attended the Catholic Elementary School in Mbili, southeast of Wau; afterwards he moved to the town of Maridi in the Equatoria region, where he attended intermediate school. After graduating in 1958, he completed teacher training in Maridi, and secured a teaching post in the town of Kapoeta in 1962, where he received a BA in English in 1972.12 The Addis Ababa Agreement ended the Anyanya rebellion, and the new Southern Sudanese autonomy brought about a relative peace. As a result, Mr. Joseph Ukel moved back to Bahr el Ghazal, where he continued to work as English teacher in Rumbek Secondary School. In 1975, he moved to Scotland to pursue graduate studies at the University of Edinburgh, where he obtained a postgraduate diploma in teaching English as a foreign language (TESL). Upon his return to the Luo area, he served as a headmaster for the Mbili Girls Secondary School until 1977.13 Joseph Ukel Abango joined politics in 1978 when he contested and won his home constituency of Wau East and became a member of the People’s Regional Assembly in Juba. He was re-elected in 1980 and was appointed as a Regional Minister of Culture and Information when Abel Alier became the President of the High Executive Council. The fall of President Gaafar Nimeryri’s regime provided an opportunity for the formation of Southern Sudan Political Association (SSPA) and, in 1988, Joseph Ukel become its Parliamentary Group leader. The SSPA and Nuba parties later formed the United Sudan African Party (USAP), and appointed Joseph

12

Joseph Ukel Abango, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ukel_Abango 13 Ibid.

People, Clans, and Kinships

59

Ukel Abango as the Minister for Local Government in Prime Minister Sadiq al Mahdi’s final coalition government (25 April–30 June 1989).14

Figure 12: Mr. Joseph Ukel Abango

Mr. Joseph Ukel Abango started to navigate the political challenges that had occurred following the Muslim Brotherhood’s assent to power through the June 1989 coup, which meant that his party, the USAP, was banned from operating as a political entity in Sudan. Therefore, Joseph Ukel and others formed the internal wing of the exiled National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in order to continue engaging in political life and leading the struggle against General Omar al-Bashir’s regime; this is an umbrella organization that brought all the parties and forces opposed to the “National Salvation Revolution” rule together. In 1972, Joseph Ukel became the NDA Secretary General and, in 1998, he took over the chairmanship of the USAP after the passing of Hilary Logali. Throughout his career, he challenged President Omar al-Bashir’s rule and advocated for the rights of marginalized people in Sudan and South Sudan at a national level. As a result, he was repeatedly detained by the regime and 14

Ibid.

60

Chapter Six

faced several serious politically motivated charges of treason and sedition.15 Most importantly, Mr. Joseph Ukel participated as a mediator in the peace talks between the SPLM and al-Bashir's government in Naivasha, Kenya, which led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. Subsequently, Mr. Joseph Ukel was appointed Minister of Parliamentary Affairs in the Government of National Unity under the power-sharing agreement, which granted the USAP ten seats in the National Assembly. In 2010, he was appointed Minister of Higher Education with the Government of South Sudan and, after independence, he assumed the role of Minster for General Education, which he held from 2011 to 2013. It also important to acknowledge Mr. Joseph Wol Modesto Ukelo as one of the prominent South Sudanese political leaders; he was in the South Sudan Communist Party and he became the Minister for Education in the Southern Council in 1989. Mr. Joseph Wol Ukelo was a member of the Sudanese Communist Party’s Central Committee before South Sudan became independent in 2011.16 This historical list of the Luo of Wau in politics and bureaucratic leadership also includes Mr. Alfred Barjowaj Ulodo, the late Vito Akwar Titkwai, and the late Mr. Moris Abal. During the decades of liberation, traditional cultural ethnic groups transformed into politicized organized informal armed forces under the umbrella of the SPLA/M. According to the SPLA/M Manifesto, the abused and marginalized people of Sudan should liberate themselves socially, politically, and economically from the minority Arab ethnic elites in Khartoum, who controlled national affairs.17 The SPLA/M movement was based on the premise that empowering marginalized groups through organized armed struggle will end Sudan’s unjust system, and will set the stage for the re-establishment of a just, equitable, and inclusive democratic system, which would become known as the “New Sudan”. The SPLA/M movement used this slogan to mobilize the armed majority ethnic groups in Sudan, especially those in South

15

Ibid. Interview with Cyril Joseph Garang, May 2020, Ottawa, Canada. 17 See Øystein H. Rolandsen, “Another civil war in South Sudan: The failure of guerrilla government?” Journal of Eastern African Studies, 2015, 9(1): 163–74. Accessed Feb 22, 2019 16

People, Clans, and Kinships

61

Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, the Blue Nile, and the Ingassana Hills all the way up to Eastern Sudan.18 The SPLA/M movement has recorded the significant contributions of the Luo people. Mr. Mark Neybouc also contributed to the people of Sudan’s long struggle, which led to liberation and independence in 2011. He moved through the army’s ranks before entering politics. He has acted as Western Bahr el Ghazal’s Governor, been a Member of the National Legislative Assembly, and been the Deputy Speaker in the same house. It is also worth noting the military and political contributions of Mr. Efision Kon Uguak and Mr. Ajongo Unguec Ajongo, who was the SPLA/M Chief of Staff until he died in 2018. Mr. Elias Waya Neytpoc was a member of the same group and has also assumed several strategic military posts that safeguarded the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). He was born in 1958 in Wau, Bahr el Ghazal. Mr. Elias Waya graduated with a Master’s Degree in Military Strategy from Khartoum High Academy Military Sciences in 1992. After completing his secondary school in 1977, he pursued undergraduate studies at the University of Cairo, Khartoum Branch. He also completed military college and was awarded a Diploma in Military Science in 1981. In addition, he completed professional military training in the UK, the USA, and Switzerland. Mr. Elias Waya performed numerous military posts in the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), including in the Eastern Command, Kassala and Gadaraf, Kapoeta Garrison and the Northern Command, the 3rd Division in Shendi, and the Nasir Garrison Command. After South Sudan’s independence, he held several prominent political posts at the Wau State’s Govenor’s office, but his career ended due to a fallout with the President over the protection of civilian and ethnic rights.19

18

Ibid. President Kiir fires the Wau state governor, available at https://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article59397

19

CHAPTER SEVEN SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTIONS

This chapter focuses on the socialization and sociocultural interactions between the Luo people of South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Central Africa, Kenya, and Tanzania. The narrative draws upon the work of the late G. Bal Apai (2007), which is titled Sudanese Luo Traditional Culture, as well as Bethwell Ogot (1967), who wrote about the history of the southern Luo and discussed their migration and settlement during 1500í1900. Some of the findings are obtained from the works of Skoggard (2002), as well as Gordon and Raymond (2005). In addition, Luo online discussion groups and websites were carefully reviewed in order to provide a comprehensive picture of Luo culture and social interactions. It is worth noting that this sociocultural analysis is broad in scope, rather than focusing on Luo from a particular region or living in one of the countries in Central and East Africa. The goal is to highlight cultural commonalities among the Luo groups. According to these historical records, oral histories, and elder accounts, the process of socialization and adoption of cultural norms begins with a child’s birth, which is a tradition that is still practiced and preserved by Luo families, clans, and groups. Childbirth is considered a special family event and is therefore marked by a special ceremony involving a naming ritual, where the child and his/her mother are introduced to the community (Ogot, 1997). In this process, the newborn baby’s sex determines the course of the events and the type of rituals to be performed. The sex also determines the length of time for their initiation into the community: 4 days for a baby boy and 3 days for a baby girl (Ogot, 1997; Apai, 2007). For the Luo of Wau in Bahr el Ghazal, the naming and introduction take place on the same day, which is often scheduled by the child’s parents. The Luo name their children after dead relatives, as well as the season when the child was born. In some cases, the relation between the time of conception and the mother’s monthly period is also considered. In this context, if childbirth coincides with an important event, such as war,

64

Chapter Seven

famine, death of a father, etc., this can also affect the name given to the child (Apai, 2007). In South Sudan, the Luo are often intermixed with other Nilotic groups through intermarriage and cultural assimilations, which is also reflected in their names. However, pure Luo names, such as Ushalla/Ashalla, Uchan/Achan, Ukel/Akelo, Ubor/Abor, Agula/Ugula, Unam/Nienam, and Udom/Adom remain common. There are original names throughout East Africa, such as Atieno/Otieno, Akoth/Okoth, and Akumu/Okumu. Traditionally, naming children after dead relatives was meant to preserve the family tree, as well as clan and tribal lineage. Some groups name their children after living relatives, such as parents and siblings (Ogot, 1997; Apai, 2007).

Spirituality and Divine Beliefs The sense of spirituality and belief in divine power is traditionally embedded in Luo culture. For example, the Luo people in Bahr el Ghazal traditionally believed in the afterlife, and they still see their ancestral sprits as holy messengers that carry their prayers to a divine power in heaven in their time of need. Therefore, when Christianity with its philosophy of divinity and life after death was introduced by the colonialists, it resonated with Luo traditions and beliefs. Christianity then influenced the Luo’s religious practices and beliefs, especially those living in towns and urban cities (Ogot, 1967; Herbich and Ingrid, 2002; Apai, 2007). The Luo people adopted Christianity in the early 1900s, alongside their traditional religious practices. It has been observed that both Christian and Luo traditional rituals are reflected in marriage, childbirth, and death ceremonies. Among the Luo in Bahr el Ghazal and, along with the majority of Luo societies, the Roman Catholic Church has gained significant status within Wau communities in Central and East Africa (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). Practicing Christians include the late Wien Dud, who was born in 1912; he was also Dud Akot’s, son (Luo chief in Bahr el Ghazal). According to Francesco Pierli (n.d.), his father was the first Southern chief to open up the Mbili area to missionaries. This was where his son, Wien, began his Christian journey by joining the catechumenate at Mbili parish; he received the baptism sacrament on June 8th 1923. He was later ordained as a priest and started his own ministry in the Raffili Mission. In 1947, he established a new mission in Mayen and became a bishop in 1955. Archbishop Dud submitted his resignation to the Pope in 1982 due to poor health and he returned to his hometown, Wau, where he

Socialization and Sociocultural Interactions

65

spent the last 6 years of his life. He was buried in Wau Cathedral in April 1988. The early missionaries’ interest in Luo villages and towns introduced the Luo communities to Christianity, which aligned with their indigenous spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, Christian rituals continue to be practiced when addressing the ancestral sprits and the heavenly father. The Luo’s traditional beliefs proclaim that their ancestors’ sprits are underground in their graves, and heavenly God (Jouak) is in heaven (Ogot, 1967; Herbich and Ingrid, 2002). Juok is also used as a synonym for “shadow” (Atiebei) or “the spirits.” It also means God or heavenly divinity. In this context, the sprit can be characterized as good or bad. The Luo people also believe in “totems”, such as birds, animals, snakes, or trees, which are the spiritual symbols of certain families or clans. These totems are respected and preserved; therefore, clan members cannot cut trees, or slaughter animals they perceive to be their family or clan’s totem (Apai, 2007).

Figure 13: Bishop Irneneo Dud, 1912–1988

It is worth mentioning that the late Bishop Irneneo was born in 1912 and that this year also marked the beginning of Christian teaching in the Luo areas in South Sudan and the commencement of the Luo’s Nomiya Church. The Nomiya Church was the first independent Luo community church in Kenya. It was founded by Johanwa Owalo (Ogot, 1967). The

66

Chapter Seven

Luo’s traditional spiritual rituals have found a place in Christianity, as it is a religion where people who are in dire need seek divine intervention for emotional support and physical healing. Divine beliefs are also supplemented with traditional healers, such as rainmakers or medicine men. Their responsibilities depend on both community and individual needs, which can include religious services, healing rituals using herbs, and making rain during a dry season (Ogot, 1997). These rituals are retained in the family as they are passed along from one generation to the next. There are also diviners who can perform magic healings and practice indigenous medicine. They are perceived as superhuman beings who can predict, treat, and diagnose ailments that healers, and even contemporary medicine, find difficult to understand or treat. However, diviners can also invoke bad sprits or medicine (Ranga) to make people sick (Ogot, 1967). Most rituals last for several days, during which sacrifices are made in the form of goats, cows, and chicken that are offered to the sprits so that healing can take place. The outcomes of the rituals and healings build the healer’s reputation and give them recognition in society. Among the Luo in Kenya, however, a diviner is perceived to be effective when the inquirer brings along a present (chiwo) (Ogot, 1997; Apai, 2007). For the southern Luo, mainly those residing in Bahr el Ghazal, the main ritual tool used in the healing process is the healer’s ability to connect with the sprits of relatives or ancestors that have passed on. A designated spear, water, and an offering (e.g., cow, goat, or chicken) are often used during the performance, which usually takes place in the early morning or late at night. The northern Luo diviners often use “two wooden blocks that are rubbed against each other seeking spiritual healing” (Ogot, 1997; Apai, 2007). For the larger Luo groups, such as the Shoulla or the Shilluk, the king holds the absolute divine power in society.

Luo Traditions, Values, and Social Structure The Luo traditions, values, and norms are acquired from a strong spiritual traditional belief in the afterlife and a supreme creator (Nyasaye for northern Luo, and Jouak for southern Luo) with a link to a strong ancestral sprit. This gives the Luo elders a special social status in society, as they pass prayer requests to their ancestors in times of need, such as sickness, marriage, childbirth, or harvest, and sorrow, such as death and war (Ogot, 1997; Apai, 2007). These norms and customs also influence the Luo’s marriage and gender relations. A 2019 study carried out on men’s perception of women’s sexual reproductive health in Luo areas showed

Socialization and Sociocultural Interactions

67

that polygamy is still widely practiced (Makandweire et al., 2019). Bride selection comes in different forms, which include recommendations from relatives and personal initiations, where men demonstrate their interest in a girl. In this case, girls can negotiate with the men who are interested in them until one man wins their heart. Even though elders, the community, and clans prefer their sons and daughters to marry within their ethnic group, modern Luo increasingly choose to marry outside it (Apai, 2007). Most importantly, marriage will not take place if there is a blood relationship on either the maternal or paternal side. The Luo dowry includes goats and/or cows, which can be also be paid in the form of money; this is especially common in urban cities where there is no access to livestock. The marriage ceremony is performed in two stages: it begins with a traditional ceremony, which normally takes place at the bride’s home, and this is then followed by a ceremony that takes place in church (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). Obviously, the second stage is influenced by Christian values and rituals. All over Africa the Luo are known for their love of music, folklore, and dance. Northern Luo use music in all aspects of political, religious, and social life. Southern Luo perform traditional dances mostly at special social events, such as marriages, births, and funerals. Luo art and culture reflect group members’ sociocultural status. The uniqueness of the Luo cultural art and folklore has helped them retain their distinct social lifestyle in Eastern and Central Africa (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). Art and culture often interpret social interactions within a given society. These social norms are a means of regulating behaviors and social interactions among members (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). In this context, social stability and livelihood is maintained through the effectiveness of its social structure. Sociocultural theory suggests that there is a relationship between the development of higher individual mental functioning and the cultural, institutional, and historical contexts in which an individual is immersed (Scott and Palincsar, 2013). This interaction is influenced by social construction, which is where individuals assume roles that guide their development throughout the course of their lives (Scott and Palincsar, 2013). These learned behaviors shape the construction of social expectations and social interaction norms; they have become a social contract that has been adopted over the course of social development (Wertsch, 2009). These assertions are also confirmed by ecological human development theory, which postulates that human development takes place through interactions

68

Chapter Seven

between people within their groups, regions, or personal spaces; these different interactions have been constructed by all of the elements (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Traditionally, most Luo homes were built around farms and most women lived in the same home as their husband. In the cities, however, some women have separate places than their man; these homes are named after their husband. These women cooperate and help each other, and do not object if their husband decides to add another wife into an already large family. Some of these social norms and values related to age, gender, and kinship are observed by both northern and southern Luo, and they clearly set social expectations and govern all interactions. A family’s, as well as the clan’s lineage, are traced through the male line, which is used to determine kinship. Collaboration among clan members is mainly for the purpose of political alliances, defense, and marriage, as well as the group’s social and psychological support. Luo customs are constructed around patriarchism; therefore, the male family line governs all aspects of socioeconomic life in society. These traditional socioeconomic practices influence the construction of gender relations and shape social interactions between all of the members of this ethno-cultural society. Gender roles and decision-making processes are constructed by groups’ norms, values, and social expectations. Patriarchal norms and values significantly influence all aspects of gender inequality and relationships, which has profound effects both socially and economically (Obbo 1990). In this context, the dominant culture grants all decision-making processes to males and father figures in the family, group, and society. This includes decisions pertaining to marriage and accepted norms that govern gender relations and social interactions. For centuries, marriage rituals and the formation of the family have been considered to be the first step in the formation of social units, which allows social and cultural norms to be preserved and passed from one generation to another (Gracia 2005). For the Luo people, marriage and the formation of the family unit are not only based on couple’s preferences, but they also require the approval of their family, relatives, and clans. Moreover, the gender roles and decision-making processes that govern spousal relationships and family members’ behaviors are defined by cultural norms, values, and social expectations (Duffy 2005). These social practices therefore influence the balance of both gender relations and interactions. In this context, it is the family who decides which member should marry next.

Socialization and Sociocultural Interactions

69

For most Luo in South Sudan, social, economic, and livelihood matters are still based on a traditional “mechanical society,” where all aspects of social interactions are defined by the community’s size, as well as its ability to protect and provide. Consequently, male figures are looked upon as the driving force of economic and occupational progress, and female roles are limited to domestic work and giving birth to ensure the continuation of the family line (Duffy 2005). As a result, polygamy and polyamory are accepted practices in many communities. In this context, polygamy is a culturally normalized and socially accepted practice among the Luo. Polygamy is also seen as a sign of pride, manhood, and social status. It is thought that having more than one wife would not only ensure a greater number of offspring, and therefore a stronger workforce, but would also engender a stronger sense of social security within the family, the clan, and the community in general. Furthermore, social, economic, and livelihood norms are based on a traditional “mechanical society” where all aspects of social interactions are defined by the size of the community and its ability to protect and provide. Hence, male figures are looked upon as the engine of all economic, livelihood, and security matters, and female roles are limited to domestic labor. Nonetheless, gender roles and decision-making processes are shaped by cultural norms, values, and social expectations. These norms consequently influence all aspects of social and economic interactions in society.

Social Institutions and Livelihoods Luo society is structured around sections, clans, kinships, and families. The society’s social structure is at the core of its social and economic organization. It offers a sense of belonging and protection, and everlasting psychosocial wellbeing. A kinship’s order of authority depends on their level of informal governance. The immediate primary family structure is a nuclear family, which is headed by a man, followed by his wife or wives, and then his children; unmarried daughters are at the bottom of this hierarchy (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). The Luo place emphasis on the family as the cornerstone of their social structure. The nuclear family system is where all aspects of social and cultural norms are passed from one generation to the next. It is considered to be central to their education, as it is used to teach children common values, customs, and practices. It also raises, nurtures, and protects children (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). The nuclear family is also known in sociology as the elementary family. This

70

Chapter Seven

type of family is described as a group of people who are united by partnership and parenthood ties; they consist of a pair of married adults and their socially recognized children. This nuclear family does not operate in isolation from the larger societal structure. Rather, it is a part of an extended family circle that forms clans and sub-clans. The extended family within the clan consists of uncles, aunts, grandparents, relatives, children, and spouses. The clan is the main unit of social structure and forms the basic elements of social and communal identity. Luo people identify themselves by their clan and the totems that their clan members respect (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). Even though some of their common identifiers, such as language, have started to vanish from Luo society, kinship continues to play a large role in the construction of a group or an individual identity. In these kinship settings, the emphasis is placed on a male figure in the family. Similarly, the decision-making process resides with the males: e.g., the father as the head of the family and the eldest male sons. In this context, females are the responsibility of mothers and aunties, who educate them to become good mothers and who also teach them their cultural values and societal norms. Gender defines the Luo social structure. The emphasis is often placed on a male as the family leader, as females will get married to other families and clans. Males are also considered to be protectors (army) and farm workers, as the family depends on them as their source of livelihood. This has been reflected in their practice of polygamy as a means to increase the number of children within the family, and their strong appreciation for women who give birth to boys over those who have girls. Ironically, it is women who carry their family names to other clans. For example, the Luo allows women to name their first child, which means they can name their child after their mother or father (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). Male dominance is gradually disappearing in Luo society, especially among the Luo of Wau in Bahr el Ghazal. The constant call for human rights and a society where women have equal rights has influenced Luo communities in urban cities. This has given women greater opportunities to attend schools, work in more types of professions, and become productive members of society. Even in rural areas, women have taken advantage of income generation through small-scale businesses, such as selling farm produce, wild fruit, vegetables, handcraft, pots, and costumes (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). This, however, is an additional workload, as women and girls are still expected to perform all domestic duties, such as

Socialization and Sociocultural Interactions

71

cooking and cleaning, and have to walk for miles every day to collect firewood and water for the family. Men’s duties start at an early age, with boys taking care of livestock if they are members of groups that still maintain the culture of cattle and goat keeping, as many Luo have now completely moved to agriculture and farming. They spend most of their time as family laborers. Men also engage in fishing and hunting, especially in the villages. Luo society thinks less of men that leave their villages and move to towns to work in menial jobs. They consider them to be losers or lazy people who are unable to support their families. Men are considered to be the backbone of the family, which means that they cannot abandon their families and move elsewhere. Their society depends on men for all aspects of social and economic wellbeing. Men’s activities include home construction, farming, fishing, hunting, and making tools. They also assume responsibility for orphans and widows, as Luo men practice wife inheritance after the death of a woman’s husband (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). In Luo culture, both decision-making processes and the determination of wisdom and maturity are heavily age-dependent. In this context, elders are considered to be wiser and more mature than youths and are, therefore, empowered to guide their families and clans, as well as to make decisions on their behalf. An individual’s age governs all aspects of socialization and social interaction. For example, young men do not hang out with elders and have to always be respectful of them. Similarly, elders are not expected to act like young men, and they must proclaim their place in the society as guides and role models (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). Consequently, no one who is considered to be underage, and this includes young adults, has a say in settling family disputes or deciding on marriage affairs; they are also not able to conduct important spiritual events. They are perceived as lacking in maturity, as not having a good understanding of rituals, and as missing the knowledge required for social processes. Similarly, the age divide influences aspects of leadership, and, therefore, the appointment of chiefs, rainmakers, and spiritual leaders. This insistence on seniority is justified by the fact that it takes a long period of time for a young person to gain a cumulative experience, knowledge, and hands-on expertise because their training is provided orally or inherited. This age-based divide has started to fade with the influence of modern education and its associated social and economic system that does not utilize cultural knowledge. Nonetheless, the Luo in urban cities are still respectful to their elders both socially and politically. A space has also opened up for a dialogue between elders and young adults, albeit with

72

Chapter Seven

some reservations, as youths still perceive that elders control social and political domains. A common young adult grievance, especially among the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal, relates to the rituals of marriage, as young adults think that elders make it culturally complicated and unaffordable for most young men. They also sense that non-Luo men from other ethnic groups do not face the same level of difficulty when they elope with a Luo lady. Nonetheless, the social and age divide continue to be a cornerstone that shapes individual behaviors towards elders in all social aspects, as all community members must be respectful to their elders and parents (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). The values and norms of family, clan, home, and village shape the Luo people’s identity and character. Therefore, they prefer to be buried in their home village alongside family members and ancestral graves. All Luo members are expected to have a sound knowledge of their village and to be able to identify themselves with their section, family, clan, and totem. The Luo do not practice marriage among blood relatives; therefore, this knowledge helps them to avoid marrying a close relation. Through these identifications, the Luo can clarify the line of lineage on both their maternal and paternal sides (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). It also gives them a sense of pride. In recent years, some members of the Luo groups started to associate these practices with biased judgment and exclusionary perceptions, as they believe that they are used by people in powerful positions to discriminate against members of other families or clans. They are a proud people on both a personal and a societal level, and they will strive to achieve the best social status possible. This means that they often compete to become better than others. This attitude has given them a unique sense of independence and self-reliance, but it has also hindered their ability to work together for the common good. Individuals are, therefore, encouraged to work hard to support themselves and their families. The Luo regard laziness as shameful and believe that it has no place in their society. This means that an individuals’ success depends on their hard work, rather than the community’s support. However, this does not mean that the community has no role to play in supporting individuals and their families, but this help must be initiated by individuals and should be on a larger scale, such asking members of the community to help with farming or house building. If help is requested, the initiator will cover the cost of food and traditional beer for all of the volunteers involved (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007).

Socialization and Sociocultural Interactions

73

Sociologically, the Luo can be classified as farmers and hunters, which gives them a unique sense of land ownership, stability, pride, and belonging. Owning lands, farm size, and the number of animals they possess are indicators of success and social status. Historically, an individual’s prestige was deep-rooted in the values of hard work, respect, and communal relations. However, the influence of colonialism and the introduction of the capitalist market system have affected Luo social and economic behaviors, as they have now extended their interests to include material needs. In comparative perspectives, the Luo in South Sudan still retain access to communal land and therefore respect traditional cultural practices. They value hard work and this has remained one of the key determinants of social status (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). As this is still a patriarchal society, land ownership is still given to the male head of the family, and is then passed along to his married sons. Women do not receive property as they are expected to marry into other families and clans. When a family does not have a son to inherit their lands, then the rights of inheritance are passed to male figures within the extended family. In this case, nephews, especially from the paternal side, will take precedence over biological daughters. It is therefore perceived that the practice of polygamy is linked to property ownership and inheritance. The Luo believe that multiple wives will produce lots of children that can support their parents when they grow old and ensure that property remains within the family. There has always been a heavy emphasis on strong women who are able to work hard, raise children, and guide them to be successful members of the clan (Ogot, 1967; Apai, 2007). In conclusion, this brief sociocultural analysis of the Luo’s social structure highlights some aspects of their culture that are influenced by the practices of the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal. This provides an opportunity for the many scholars who are interested in the Luo people to review the evolution of their culture, their socioeconomic practices post-migration, and how their interactions with other groups have influenced some of their behaviors. However, for the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal, this narrative is not conclusive and a detailed study of their families and clans’ social and cultural practices is still needed. Luo society has rich sociocultural and economic traditions that cannot be covered in one section of a single book chapter. There is still much work to be done with regard to their iron mining, medicine, farm work, fishing, hunting tools, and weapons. However, the goal of this work, as stated earlier, is to highlight the presence of the Luo groups in Bahr el Ghazal, and South Sudan in general, as well as their ancestral lineage in East Africa. Therefore, this research is meant to be a starting point for further studies.

CHAPTER EIGHT THE LUO AND SOUTH SUDAN’S NATIONALITIES

This chapter explores the complex social construction of ethnicity, identity, and sociopolitical interactions within and between South Sudanese ethnic groups. The discussion will focus on the interplay between social interactions and the construction of ethnic identity, as this affects understandings of human interactions and communal relations. These narratives are based on South Sudan’s ethno-cultural sociology after its independence from Sudan, as well as the challenges endured in the process of a social transformation that aims to reconstruct the national identity and ensure a peaceful coexistence. This discourse gives meaning to visible and invisible ethno-cultural constructions that have both shaped the social and political interactions between various ethnic groups in the country and affected how they relate to Luo groups socially, politically, and economically. South Sudanese society is socially, politically, and culturally constructed along ethnicized communities with diverse group and regional identities based on both primordial ties and certain perceptions. As sociologist Emile Durkheim aptly observed, in all human societies a transition from ethno-centric society or from “mechanical society to a more of civic society, or organic society” can only be realized via a complete transformation into an industrialized economy with more specialized division of labor and greater freedom of social and political consciousness (1938, 247í9). This includes the establishment of institutions, the rule of law, and moral guidance as an alternative set of cultural and ethnic norms. In order to better understand these concepts within the context of South Sudan, I will first discuss the characteristics of its people before presenting the regional narratives that have shaped the current socioeconomic and spatial organization within its society.

76

Chapter Eight

South Sudan’s Nationalities South Sudan is home to about 64 different ethnic groups but, as previously noted, the actual number of groups is not accurately recorded (Nyaba, 1997). 5 of these groups are classified as Luo by their ancestry, ethnicity, language, and traditions. There has been an ongoing dispute about the accuracy and reliability of the statistical data on the size of the Luo population in the country due to political unrest and the central government’s politics of marginalization since Sudan’s independence in 1956. Therefore, data gathered under the central government before South Sudan’s independence in 2011 was not considered to be accurate or reliable. The assumption is that data collected before independence was not meant for any strategic sociopolitical or economic development in South Sudan. Before independence, the central government’s emphasis was on social engineering and the reconstruction of peoples’ cultures and communities through the introduction of the Arabic language and Islam. Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, the effectiveness of government policies has been measured by the level of Arabization, Islamization, and cultural assimilation, regardless of social and economic outcomes or community well-being. The Fifth Census of Population and Housing (FCPH) conducted in 2008 included South Sudan within Sudan for the first time. Its results were announced by the central government in Khartoum but they were rejected by South Sudan’s government (NBOSS, 2015). According to this initial census, South Sudan has a population of 8,260,490, which is about 21% of the national average. The census recorded that about 520,000 of the South Sudanese population were living in North Sudan, which is currently known as Sudan (NBOSS, 2015). It also revealed a population growth from 5,329,267 in 1983, to 8,260,490 in 2008. However, no references were made to the displaced refugees and South Sudanese migrants in the surrounding countries or abroad (e.g., Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia). Nonetheless, the 67% population growth in the country from 1993 to 2008 has not been reflected in the 2008 Southern Sudan Census. For example, unlike Southern Sudan, the population of Darfur reportedly increased from about 3 million in 1993 to 7.2 million in 2008; this projection made the South Sudanese dispute and question the authenticity of the FCPH results for 2008 (NBOSS, 2015). However, regardless of these disputed numbers, the South Sudan Government conducted its own census to obtain an

The Luo and South Sudan’s Nationalities

77

accurate projection of its population in order to allocate services and ensure that there was an equitable distribution of resources and that the power was shared.

Regions South Sudanese society can be clustered into three main regional groups with the following unique sociocultural, political, and economic characteristics: (1) Bahr el Ghazal: Located in northwest South Sudan, the Bahr el Ghazal region was divided into four major areas based on its administrative, socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural characteristics. In 2010, 4 regions were made into political and administrative states. The Northern Bahr el Ghazal (NBG) region has a population of about 820,834, which is mainly composed of the Dinka and Luo ethnic groups. Western Bahr el Ghazal (WBG) has a population of about 358,692; it is the least populated and the most diverse region. WBG is inhabited by the Aja, Balanda-Boor (Luo), Balanda-Bviri, Banda, Bongo, Feroghe, Gollo, Luo, Ndogo, Ngulngule, Sere, Shatt, Yulu, Kara, Binga, Indri, and Mangayat ethnic groups. The Lakes region has a population of 782,504, which is mainly comprised of Dinka, Atout (Reel), and Jur (Beli and Modo). The fourth region is Warrap, which has a population of about 1,044,217, and is mainly comprised of the Dinka and Bongo ethnic groups (Madut, 2015). The Bahr el Ghazal region hosts 21 ethnic groups, which is about 32% of the country’s total. (2) Equatoria: The Equatoria region is in the southern part of South Sudan and it is divided into three regions, which are recognized as its main states. These states were later divided into Western Equatoria which is comprised of several political and administrative area, with a total population of about 658,863, while Central Equatoria has a population of about 1,193,130, and Eastern Equatoria about 962,719. It is worth noting that Juba in Central Equatoria served as South Sudan’s headquarters during 1976í1983 and was recognized as the capital of the new independent South Sudan (Madut, 2015). The Equatoria region is host to the ethnic groups of Adio (Makaraka), Acholi, Avukaya, Azande, Bai, Baka, Bari, Dongotona, Didinga, Ifoto, Kakwa, Lokoya, Lopit, Lotuka (Otuho), Larim (Boya), Kuku, Lango, Logir, Lulubo, Madi, Moro, Mundari, Pari, Pojulu, Nyangwara, Suri (Kachipo), Toposa, Imatong, Keliku, Lugbwara, Moru Mundu, Nyangatom, Tenet, Tid, and Woro. It

78

Chapter Eight

also hosts 35 ethnic groups, which is about 55% of the total number of ethnic groups in the country (Madut, 2015). (3) The Upper Nile: The Upper Nile region spans northern and eastern South Sudan and is divided into three main regions that were also recognized as political and administrative states before and after South Sudan’s independence. These regions include Jonglei State, which has a total population of 1,443,500. According to the 2008 Census, Jonglei State is the largest and most populous in the country; it is followed by the Upper Nile State, which has a total population of 1,013,629, and then Unity State, which has a total population of about 645,465. The Upper Nile region hosts only 8 ethnic groups––Murle, Nuer (Naath), Dinka, Shilluk (Chollo), Anyuak (Anyuaa), Jiye, Maban, and Uduk—which is about 13% of the total number of ethnic groups in the country (Madut, 2015).

Figure 14: Map of South Sudan’s Major Regions (Worldmap, 2017)

The Luo and South Sudan’s Nationalities

79

The Construction of a National Identity Contemporary South Sudanese identity was shaped by a shared history of the struggle to survive and preserve culture from the eras of enslavement by Turko-Egyptians in 1822, colonialism under British and Egyptian rule in 1899, to the Arabization and Islamization employed by central governments after the independence of Sudan in 1956 (Beshir, 1984). Historically, South Sudanese people of African descent have made several attempts during these foreign interferences to preserve their ethno-cultural and tribal identities (Frahm, 2012). One of the earliest examples is the rebellion of the Nuer and Azande ethnic groups against colonial rule, which resulted in the assassination of British officers and the Governor of Bahr el Ghazal in 1901 (Robertshaw, 1987). In 1930, the colonial rulers acknowledged South Sudan as an ethnically and culturally distinct society, which should be treated accordingly (Deng, 1987). By 1940, this concept led to the total elimination of Arab influence and interests in South Sudan (Khalid, 1990). This paradigm shift in colonial politics and policies continued until 1946, when it was finally revised because of the growing Arab influence in the North and resistance against colonial policies towards South Sudan (Deng, 1987). However, the South Sudanese continued to pursue several options to gain an autonomous self-rule. This led to the Juba Conference in 1947, which discussed the fate of South Sudan and considered options such as unity and separation. This was followed by the formation of a Liberal Party in 1955 who called for federation in Sudan, Torit resistance, the Anya-Nya movement in 1963, and the SPLM movement that led to the final settlement, as well as the successful independence of South Sudan on July 9, 2011, after decades of war (Markakis, 1987). However, the separation of South Sudan did not put an end to the internal ethno-tribal clashes or the external border conflicts with the new Sudan. There are still several unresolved post-independence issues, such as border demarcation and pending security arrangements (Johnson, 2016). These unresolved political issues between the two countries remain one of the challenges faced by the newly created state; this is coupled with internal socioeconomic and political problems which can also be better classified as by-products of past civil wars. Even today, South Sudan continues to experience cycles of violence in the form of political grievances, ethnic rivalry, distrust between the government and the people, an undisciplined national army, armed militias, inter-communal violence, and grave human rights issues. These conditions have earned South Sudan

80

Chapter Eight

a top place in the world’s failed and fragile states index (The Book, 2015). Many of the minority ethnic groups within the Upper Nile, the Equatoria, and the Bahr el Ghazal regions are affected, regardless of their re-division into several states. Further, due to the lack of national cohesion, public and private institutions are ethnically influenced. This includes the ruling political party, the Sudanese People Liberation Armed Movement (SPLM), and the armed forces, in which the ethnic majority and allied minority tribes are overrepresented (Nyaba, 1997). Current systemic sociocultural feuds have been shaped by ethnic composition, tribal contributions, and alliances with the movement during the civil war between the SPLA and the central government in Khartoum during 1983í2005 (Hutchinson and Jok, 2002). Other minority ethnic groups that were supported by Khartoum in the counter-insurgency against the SPLM have also managed to join the government through negotiated peace settlements after South Sudan’s independence. Some ethnic minority groups, who have completely rejected the new SPLM system, have either formed opposition parties or taken up arms against the government in Juba (Nyaba, 1997). These historical synopses of social and political events illustrate the background geopolitical factors that have fostered a unity of purpose and constructed the common identity adopted by mostly indigenous African Christians, who are currently known as South Sudanese. However, among the South Sudanese, the socialization and perception of identity are primarily shaped by individual and group ethnicity, and then their region. These spatially structured identities are evident in the construction of social and political interactions, which can be seen in contemporary South Sudan’s political power-sharing and ethnotribal conflicts.

Nationalities and Social Interactions Historically, the Sudanese elite have heavily relied on primordial ties as the basis for defining their national character. Before independence, the South Sudanese elite used an instrumentalist approach (Muslims Arab in the North vs. Christian African in the South) to define South Sudanese identity throughout the history of their social and political development. This “divide and conquer” concept has been used by Sudan’s political elites as a basis for ethnic, religious, and political manipulation and rallying in order to gain access to socioeconomic and political power (Deng, 1995).

The Luo and South Sudan’s Nationalities

81

In many cases, the ethno-political elite have capitalized on the fact that individuals from different groups dislike "mixing" across ethnic lines, which hinders collective socioeconomic outcomes and the prospect of nation building, especially in a multi-ethnic society (Vigdor, 2001). It has been also observed that individuals prefer to contribute to public projects that benefit their own ethnic group; therefore, ethnic elites tend to treat public institutions as ethnic-owned organizations that can be manipulated and controlled to serve the interests of the ethnic elite in power (Vigdor, 2001). However, social scientists do not seem to have any theories that would more accurately explain where ethnic consciousness comes from and how it affects individuals’ tastes and differences (Vigdor, 2001). Some argue that South Sudan’s consciousness is shaped by its systemic policies of assimilation and divide-and-rule principles, which were first introduced by colonial regimes and later used by Arabized Muslim rulers in Sudan after its independence. For these reasons, the South Sudanese have continuously sought to create a locally constructed identity that links a person or a group to specific ethnic groups, tribes, and regions of origin (Eriksen, 1999). Consequently, they came to be known as South Sudanese, which is a constructed identity that has long been used as a political means of resisting colonialization, as well as preserving their ethnic identity. According to Grimes (1996), most people in South Sudan are classified as Nilotics or Nilo-Saharan, and only a few identify as Bantu. In this narrative of ethnicity and tribal grouping in South Sudan, anthropologists and biologists opine that Nilo-Saharan ethnic groups are biologically related by race and ethnic lineages, which is an assumption that is yet to be verified by advanced DNA tests (Grimes, 1996).

Ethnic Distributions and Regional Representation As noted previously, South Sudan is comprised 64 ethnic groups. The percentages presented below are based on this figure: A. The Equatoria region accommodates 55% (36/64) of the ethnic groups in the country. B. The Bahr el Ghazal region accommodates 32% (21/64) of the ethnic groups in the country. C. The Upper Nile region accommodates 13% (8/64) of the ethnic groups in the country. In the Equatoria region, ethnic groups have managed to reconstruct their ethnic identities based on a cluster of regional identities, which are known

82

Chapter Eight

as Equatorian rather than referring to their ethnicity of origin or spaces of origin. However, many people, including local South Sudanese citizens, have sometimes mistaken this regional identity for a tribe, rather than a region. In short, unlike other regions, the concept of Equatorian as an identity is based on a cluster of 36 regional ethnic groups. The same concept of clustering has been successfully adopted by groups known as Fertit in Bahr el Ghazal. The Fertit are a cluster of 14 ethnic groups who have managed to socially, culturally, and politically adopt a communally constructed identity. They are also known as Fertit rather than by their tribes of origin. The Greater Equatoria region hosts most of the ethnic groups in South Sudan and has established a more peaceful co-existence through a mutually agreed upon socially constructed sense of identity that links groups to a region rather than their ethnicity. The Bahr el Ghazal region is ranked second in terms of diversity and is also host to the most Dinka ethnic group members in South Sudan. The Upper Nile hosts eight ethnic groups and is known as home to most of the Nuer ethnic group. Nevertheless, the Upper Nile region is the most severely affected by ethnic feuds and challenges to peaceful coexistence among various ethnic and tribal groups (Human Rights Watch, 1999). In this context, Miguel and Gugerty (2005, 6) agree that it is often “difficult to sustain cooperation across ethnic groups in areas where members of different groups tend not to have frequent social interactions or personal affinity.” Thus, enacting public policies that encourage social interaction, power and information sharing, and coordination across groups can help resolve ethnic bias, preferences, and grievances associated with diversity (Miguel and Gugerty, 2005). Regardless of the narrow research focus on specific types of public policies that promote inclusion and reduce division, many experts agree that institutional reform through the promotion of power sharing across groups, as well as within government organizations, would be an ideal approach to equitable ethnic representation (Byman, 2002). This will be effective because minority groups will be granted minimum representation in government and, therefore, have a voice when policies are created that may affect their living conditions. Practically, it is worth noting that power-sharing structures may create competition among ethnic groups in the political space and may also institutionalize existing divisions across groups, rather than promoting coexistence (Byman, 2002). Consequently, it may hinder the construction of new national identity and multi-ethnic

The Luo and South Sudan’s Nationalities

83

political coalitions with a universal platform that cuts across ethnic places and spaces.

Social and Communal Interactions Inter-ethnic, tribal, sociopolitical, and cultural constructions vary within the three main regions of South Sudan: Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria, and the Upper Nile regions. The ethnic and tribal communities within the Equatoria region were able to construct an ethno-group identity under a unified regional identity, which was known as “Equatorian” rather than being named after their tribes. The dynamics of ethnic relations and political interactions in Equatoria are an exceptional model of ethnic clustering within South Sudanese society. The same concept of clustering is also found among the Fertit groups in Western Bahr el Ghazal. These groups were formed by clusters of tribes, who have managed to socially, culturally, and politically reconstruct their identity, which means they are known as Fertit rather than by their tribes of origin (Madut, 2015, 3í4). The process of reconstructing ethno-tribal identities and the adoption of an inclusive national identity remains a major challenge in South Sudan. Ethnocentrism and its effects have so far remained the main factor that hinders socioeconomic and political development in the newly created state. Post-independence in 2011, ethnicity and tribal affiliations have been cited as an underlying cause of several inter-ethnic and political conflicts, both locally and at the national level (UNMISS, 2014). These cycles of conflicts, regardless of their causes, are later adopted as lifestyles, group cultures, and livelihoods within groups that remain trapped in historical cycles of revenge. These historical ethnic feuds are subsequently transformed and understood as political rivalry in the quest for ethnic power and socioeconomic domination. In South Sudan, political mobilization and participation is influenced by tribal and ethnic dynamics, whereby political elites within the majority’s tribes are allowed to manipulate or determine the outcomes of the minority ethnic groups’ political representation and economic opportunities. As such, ethnic majority groups often insist on controlling all aspects of the country’s sociopolitical and economic institutions because of their size. In this context, the Dinka is ranked first with a population of 1.5 million. The Dinka are found in both Bahr el Ghazal and the Upper Nile region. The Nuer ethnic group, who live in the Upper Nile region, is the second largest ethnic group with 800,000 people, followed by the Luo Shilluk (Madut, 2015).

84

Chapter Eight

Equatoria’s ethnic groups often pursue political and economic opportunities under the Equatorian cluster, rather than via their ethnic or tribal affiliations. Historically, this socially constructed identity (Equatorian) has played a significant role in shaping sociopolitical and economic development. It is also responsible for minimizing ethnic tensions in the region, and South Sudan in general, from 1956 to 2011 (Crisis Group, 2016). In short, South Sudan’s independence was perceived by the majority of South Sudanese, in both the country and abroad, as the end of a longlasting war with the North (Sudan) and the beginning of a new era of peace, reconciliation, and socioeconomic development. The shared history of marginalization and brutality, coupled with the quest for national and religious identity, has paved the way for the endorsement of separation, leading to 99% of South Sudanese voting for a separate country (United States Institute of Peace, 2017). Unfortunately, the current SPLA/M ruling party has failed to capitalize on people’s desires and has, instead, became preoccupied with internal power struggles and redefining the movement’s goals and objectives (Nyaba, 2016). Post-independence leadership should have promoted dialogue and interaction among the heads of the distinct ethnic communities because they are better able to coordinate responses to violations of intergroup cooperation and make equal contributions in the process of nation-building. In their study, “Explaining inter-group corporation,” Fearon and Laitin (1996) asserted that group leaders are capable of punishing violators from within their own ethnic group through so-called in-group policing. This approach was effectively utilized during the colonial period in Sudan, especially in the context of social control, conflict resolution, and taxation. The colonial administration and the subsequent governments in Khartoum have been dependent on traditional ethnic chiefs in all aspects of communal, political, and economic administration (Badal, 2005). This approach has been undermined by the post-independence rulers, who instead empowered ethnic army generals and favored them over their traditional ethnic leaders (Badal, 2006; Leonardi et al., 2005). Indeed, respect for traditional rule and cooperation from ethnic elite is, in many cases, proof of better ethnic relations; however, it is difficult to demonstrate how this cooperation affects relations among groups and individuals (Miguel, 2004). Still, South Sudan is not only lacking in ethnic coordination among ethnic elites, but it is also challenged with the problems of national identity and language. In Tanzania, the potential for ethnic conflict and politics has been reduced by the universal use of the

The Luo and South Sudan’s Nationalities

85

Kiswahili language, which replaced English as the official language in the 1960s. After its independence in 1962, the Tanzanian regime adopted Swahili as the government’s administrative language and established the National Swahili Council to promote its use in all public spaces (Miguel, 2004). Kiswahili is an indigenous African language originating on the Indian Ocean coast of East Africa and is seen as largely ethnically neutral in both countries. Kiswahili was also spoken in Kenya for decades; however, it was not used in national projects, as in the case of Tanzania, but it has been utilized in official settings along with English and Kikuyu (Miguel, 2004). After its independence, Kenya adopted ethno-tribal politics similar to those in South Sudan and has, therefore, developed a different model of ethnic politics than Tanzania. The everlasting wars over identity, economic, and political marginalization were ended by the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006. However, South Sudan’s independence did not address the core reasons behind the rebellion against the central government in Khartoum, such as the ethno-centric politics of Arabization, marginalization, equitable distribution of wealth, and socioeconomic and political development across the regions. In addition, this newly created state has failed to preserve the unity of purpose developed during the war against the regime in thenSudan. It is also unable to reconstruct a coherent national identity and has failed to establish a national language that can be adopted by all of the country’s 64 ethnic groups. Most political and technical contributions yielded little in terms of moving South Sudan towards a viable nation state with sustainable social and political institutions because of its unresolved history of ethnic rivalry, as well as the rise of ethnic nationalism in public and political institutions. The style of governance and the political system in South Sudan are built on ethno-nationalism and tribal alliances that cannot be sustained. Most important is the lack of coordination among the ethnic elites and their unwillingness to promote peaceful coexistence. A way forward requires sensitivity to equity and inclusivity in all aspects of the country’s socioeconomic and political participation, regardless of ethnic or regional affiliation. Additionally, it is important that the ethnic elites find a way of rebuilding trust and that they work towards establishing a common national language. Chapter Nine provides the book’s summary and conclusion, and also outlines future research directions that could address the current gap in scholarship on the Luo’s socioeconomic and political interactions, and their livelihoods in Central and East Africa.

CHAPTER NINE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This chapter provides an overall summary of the book, with a particular focus on ethnographic mapping and tracing the ethnic lineages of the Luo groups found in Central and East Africa. In this context, researchers have agreed that the only common factor that has made tracing the Luo people possible is their preservation of their main cultural features, language, traditions, mythical legends, and stories. There has not been a drastic change in the Luo’s socioeconomic practices. Luo groups from South Sudan up to Tanzania still practice farming, mining, fishing, and hunting as their main professions. The Luo groups have also managed to preserve their great ancestors’ names, which include Dimo, Nyikango, Ukelo, and Geilo. Therefore, many individuals can be identified as Luo from their names. The Luo language also needs to be considered, as it has been preserved to the present day. Even though the Luo still speak their own language, they can still understand other dialects. There are also variations in their language. Their language has been affected by social interactions with other ethnic and cultural groups. The Luo ethnic groups are documented as Nilo-Saharan Eastern Sudanic groups. Furthermore, regardless of their language and intonation variations, the Luo groups have managed to sustain the Luo language as a means of communication, which has helped to maintain their unique culture and identity. In total, there are about 12 major Luo ethnic groups in Africa: A. The Jo-Luo of Kavirondo; on the northeastern shore of Lake Victoria, Kenya, and Tanzania B. The Jo-Padhola; northwest of Kavirondo in the Budama district, Uganda C. The Kumam (Akum); northeast of Lake Kioga, Lira, Uganda D. The Lango; northwest of Lake Kioga, Lira, Uganda E. The Jo-pa-Lwoo; northern Bunyoro, Masindi, Uganda F. The Acholi; west of the Lango (Toci River) and between the Somerset Nile and the Agoro mountain group, Uganda G. The Alur and Jonamm; north of Lake Albert and west of the Nile in Uganda and Belgian Congo

Chapter Nine

88

H. The Pari (Lokooro); on and around Lepfool (Lafon Hill), South Sudan I. The Anywaah (Anuak); Upper Sobat, Sudan, and Abyssinian in Ethiopia J. The Collo (Shilluk); White Nile, Malakal, South Sudan K. The Jo Lwoo-Jo-Luo (Jur), which includes the Thuri (Chat), Demen, and Boode; east and northwest of Wau Bahr el Ghazal, South Sudan L. The Boor (Belane or Belanda); south of Wau on the Sue River, South Sudan These major groups, along with their clans and sub-clans, are found in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Congo, and South Sudan. Some of the Luo’s oral history refers to Kenya as their home of origin before the Luo migration to Sudan and other parts of Eastern Africa. However, the Kenyan Luo assume that South Sudan is their central point of migration and home of origin. The perceptions of the Luo in Kenya have been proved to be correct by many ethnologists and historians. Most ethnologists and scholars who have tried to study the Luo ethnic groups in the 21st century refer to South Sudan as their home. Furthermore, Kenya remains the most populated country in Africa in terms of the number of Luo. The Luo’s migration to Kenya started some 150 years ago. The Luo crossed Lake Victoria after pushing out the Bantu population, who were the region’s first inhabitants. The Luo have chosen the Nyanza province on the banks of Lake Victoria to be their home. They have migrated to Kenya from Eastern Uganda in the following four waves: (1) The Joka-Jok were the first group to arrive from the Acholiland, and the largest recorded Luo migration to Kenya (2) Migration from Alur (3) The Owiny migration, who are part of the Padhola (4) The Jok’omolo migration from Pawir There are about 13 Luo clans in Kenya: (1) Jo-Alego (2) Jo-Gem (Gum) (3) Jo-Ugenya (4) Jo-Seme (5) Jo-Karachuonyo (6) Jo-Nnyakach

Summary and Conclusion

89

(7) Jo-Kabundo (8) Jo-Kisumo (9) Jo-Kano (10) Jo-Asembo (11) Jo-Uyoma (12) Jo-Sakwa (13) Jo-Kajulu The main Kenyan Luo groups consist of 27 subgroups, each in turn composed of various clans and sub-clans. In the Luo language, "Jo-" means "people of." Accordingly, the 27 subgroups consist of the following: Jo-Gem, Jo-Yimbo, Jo-Ugenya, Jo-Seme, Jo-Kajulu, JoKarachuonyo, Jo-Nyakach, Jo-Mumbo (including the Jo-Kasipul and JoKabondo, both descendants of Rachuonyo), Jo-Kisumo, Jo-Kano, JoAsembo, Jo-Alego, Jo-Uyoma, Jo-Sakwa, Jo-Kanyamkago, Jo-Kadem, JoKwabwai (a group that is said to have originated from a Bganda family called Bwayi), Jo-Suba/ Abasuba (has its own sub-clans, some of which are called Jo-Chula, which means “islanders”; the Jo-Suba people are from the Mfangano, Rusinga, Remba, and Takawiri islands), Jo-Gwassi, JoKaksingri, Jo-Muhuru, Jo-Suna (a group that was formerly Bantu but has assimilated fully into Luo; some people classify them under the Luo Suba clan), Jo-Kasgunga, Jo-Kanyamwa, Jo-Kanyada, Jo-Kanyidoto, JoKamgundho, Jo-Kamagambo, Jo-Ramogi, and Jo-Karungu. These include the extension of the clans in Tanzania (Kiseru, Kowak, Kagwa, Bugire, Kamageta, Buturi, Wasweta, Shirati, Suba, Rieri, and Buganjo, etc.) but the list is not inclusive due to a lack of sufficient information. The Luo are considered to be the third largest group in Kenya (11% of the total population) after the non-Luo Bantu of Kikuyu (21%) and Luhya (14%). The Luo language has been adopted by the majority of non-Luo tribes in Kenya, who speak it as a second language. The Luo in Kenya are known as Nilotic Kavirondo, and are classified as Nilo-Saharan and Eastern Sudanic. The Luo, however, simply refer to themselves as Jo-Luo, which literally means “the people of Luo.” The Luo of Kenya, as in the case of the Luo all over Africa, depend on agriculture, fishing, and mining. They have adopted Christianity and Islam alongside their traditional religion. They also believe in the sprits of their ancestors and life after death. There are similarities between the Luo ethnic groups in Tanzania and the Kenyan Luo. Both are classified as Nilotic Kavirondo, Nilo-Saharan, Luo, and Eastern Sudanic. However, the Luo settlement around Lake Victoria

90

Chapter Nine

in Kenya indicates that the same Kenyan Luo tribe crossed the Tanzanian and Kenyan border. The Luo in Tanzania are found in the Mara region. The Luo migration to Tanzania occurred around 1800. The Luo ethnic group in Tanzania crossed over from Kenya; therefore, they are no different from the Kenyan Luo. The Luo group in Tanzania are also known as Luo Keverindo, which is a name that is also applied to the Luo groups in Kenya. The Kenyan Luo crossed over from Uganda, west of Kenya. Uganda is home to the Acholi, Adhola, and Alur, and the assimilated Luo groups, Lango and Kumam. It is also assumed that Uganda was used as the point from which the Luo migrated to Kenya, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Both the Luo Acholi and Adhola are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotics, Luo, and Lwo. In addition to Acholi and Adhola in Uganda, there are also the Alur, Jo-Nam, Thur, Lango, and Kumam. In this context, it was noted that Lango and Kumam are not Luo by origin; instead, they have been assimilated through intermarriages and sociocultural interactions. The Lango were in close contact with the Nilotics, including the Shilluk, Luo, Anuak, Alur, and Jopaluo. These groups seem to have occupied the areas round the north of Lake Rudolph and have crossed to the north of Lake Albert. The groups split up, and migrated both northwest and southwest to form what is known today as the Nilotic group of Eastern Africa, which emerged as a result of interethnic conflicts between the Bari, the Madi, and the Acholi. The Lango continued their migration to settle southwest towards the Nile around 1700. Still, it should be noted that the Lango are culturally closer to the Luo Acholi group, as far as their ethno-cultural lineage is concerned. The Lango are found in the extensive area north of Lake Kyoga, in the Apac, Lira, Oyam, Amolatar, Dokolo, Alebtong, Otuke, Abim, Moroto, Kotido, Kamuli, and Kayunga districts. They are also known as Langi, Leb-Lango, Lwo, and Lwoo. They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Western, Luo, Southern, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Lango-Acholi. This means that the Lango meet the Luo’s monocular classification. The Lango adopted Christianity in addition to their traditional religion. Further, the migration trajectory of the Luo Alur of Congo is also linked to the Alur of Uganda. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is one of Central African countries that hosts a large number of Luo ethnic tribes

Summary and Conclusion

91

known as Jo-Alur. The Alur are found in the Oriental Province, the Mahagi territory, and northwest towards the Djalasiga area. The Luo Alur in Congo are also known as Lur, Aloro, Alua, Alulu, Luri, Dho Alur, and Jo-Alur. They are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotics, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Alur. The Luo Alur in the Congo were the pioneers of African music, which was later adopted by most African countries. The Luo Alur depend primarily on agriculture, which is a profession that many Luo groups have mastered over the centuries. The Luo Alur inhabited Northern Uganda before extending into Belgian Congo and Kenya. The Anuak were one of the groups that were arbitrarily separated by the imposed colonial borders. The Luo in Ethiopia are known as Anuak and are the same group as the ones who reside in the Upper Nile in Sudan. Moreover, the Luo Anuak in Ethiopia are the continuation of the Anuak in the Upper Nile region in South Sudan; both groups are formed of Geilo’s descendants. The Anuak Luo are found in the Gambella region of southwestern Ethiopia. The group is classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Luo, and Anuak. The group’s main sources of economy are fishing, agriculture, mining, and hunting, which links them to their counterpart Luo groups in South Sudan and its neighboring countries. The Luo in the Republic of South Sudan have the same issues as the other Luo ethnic groups in the East African countries: the question of migration and origin, and the myth of common ancestral roots. Most work on the discourse of ethnicity and kinships has centered on conflicts and break-ups within the Luo family. There is a common belief that all of the Luo groups are part of a larger Luo ethnic family comprised of all the Luo in Sudan, as well as those in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia. The Jo-Luo of Wau in South Sudan link themselves to their great ancestor, Dimo. Dimo was Niykango’s brother. Niykango was the great ancestor of the Luo Shilluk in the Upper Nile, Southern Sudan, and the founder of the Luo Shilluk Kingdom. Some of the Northern Bahr el Ghazal Luo, such as the Luo Dimie, directly link themselves to Niykango. The Luo-Shilluk are the largest Luo ethnic subgroup in South Sudan. Luo mythology and oral history state that “Geilo” is the youngest brother of Dimo and Niykango. They also say that Niykango is the middle of the three brothers, and the most autocratic one in the family. This mythical

92

Chapter Nine

assumption implies that Niykango’s autocratic personality caused a rift in the family, which subsequently caused the three brothers to separate. The group’s disintegration is attributed to a family dispute, which subsequently led to the Sudanese Luo’s social disintegration. This dispute mostly involved Niykango and Dimo, with occasional participation from Geilo, who was the great ancestor of the Anyuak Luo group, and the founder of the Anyuak kingdom in Upper Nile, Southern Sudan. In Luo culture, there is a line of respect that positions family members according to their order of birth, which means that older siblings cannot be questioned or confronted, even if they are wrong. This may explain why Geilo was not mentioned in the dispute between Dimo and Niykango. As such, Niykango determined how the dispute should be resolved. This may be the reason why Geilo migrated with Niykango westward to the current Luo settlement in the Upper Nile region, Southern Sudan. As an adult, Geilo decided to break away with his group, the Anuak, and form a separate kingdom. Apparently, the Luo Anuak of Upper Nile, Southern Sudan, link themselves to “Geilo”. Geilo formed his kingdom in a similar style to the one adopted by Niykango when he moved to their current settlement on the border between Sudan and Ethiopia. The Anuak maintained the same strict line of lineage as their cousins, the Shilluk, which gives an indication of the older brother’s influence on the younger one’s style of leadership. In this context, the Luo from the Equatoria region in South Sudan, such as the Acholi and Parri, were later linked to their great ancestors through the narrative of immigration: the Luo Acholi were linked to Chied Ulom, and Jo Pari to Dimo. This includes Luo ethnic groups that migrated to Kenya and Uganda, who are clearly cited in the extant accounts of ancestral lineages. Hence, most of these Luo ethnic groups are descendants of Dimo, Geilo, or Niykango. Ancestral lineages are highly important to the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal’s culture and customs. They gain their understanding of ancestry through oral history, which is passed down through the generations; this has enabled them to trace their lineages to other Luo groups. In addition, they managed to preserve their language and ethnic names, such as Dimo, Kang, Ukeilo, and Gielo, which are given after their great ancestors. This ancestry is important in the Bantu people’s religion, as it means that the family and group’s well-being is maintained after death. The Luo of Bahr el Ghazal also value their ancestral heritage, and believe in life after death. This practice facilitated their acceptance of Christianity during the colonial

Summary and Conclusion

93

era, which resulted in the building of churches and missionaries within Luo areas, such as the Cathedral of St. Mary in Wau in 1905. As far as South Sudan is concerned, there are Luo Shilluk and Anyuak in the Upper Nile region; Acholi and Jo-Pariri in the Equatoria region; and Jo-Luo, Thurri, and Bor in Eastern and Western Bahr el Ghazal region. In Bahr el Ghazal, the Luo kinships and clans are distributed along the Eastern Bank (Logo), the Western Bank (Kwac) of the Jur River, and Northern Bahr el Ghazal. The Luo people in the Eastern Bank consist of the Mur/Alur, who are led by Paramount Chief Madut and Abdala Lual Uchala. The Alur area hosts the following clans: Piva, Demaw Utung, Pan Makur, Pakana, Koj, Pujaango, Piny Kwawa, Pan Machar, and Paakahna. This includes the Athirro/Kwajiieno area under Chief Issac Uchala Yuok and Darious Kuot Deng. The groups in this area consist of two clusters known as the Athuro Douhung and the Athuro Thun clans and kinships. The Athuro Douhung groups consist of the following clans and kinships: Mevuo, Dhemaw, Pedoohr, Gohlo Pajulo, Piny Riemo, Royeo, and Gohlo Pakiir. These include the Athuro Thun, which consists of Pujieno, Petino, and Panadho. The Eastern Bank also covers the Abad Mbili area under Chief Chol Bwola, Velantino Mawien, Andrea Jal, and Kon Aleu. The area hosts two clusters of Abadh Duohng and Abadh Thiin clans and kinships. The Abadh Duohng clans consist of the following groups: x x x x x x

Pa Bar Juog Pu Gweero Pu Bool Piny Nyilewo Piny Weelhni Pe Cweeh

The Abadh Thiin clan consists of Piny Dwaahy, Bada, Pa Kahba, and Gunduohng. It also includes the Akweer Thuur/Waadh Leelo area under Paramount Chief Elia Bwola Ukel and Andrea Jal. The area hosts the following clans and kinships: x x x x

Gham Piny Dihmo Pu Meenyeo Akaa and Piny Kwaahy

Chapter Nine

94

The Eastern Bank also extends to include the Yaw (Acoht, Nyegooro) area under Paramount Chief Nyiyuo Madut and consists of the Boodho, Pu Ngeero, Piny Kiir, Nyiwaaro, Maeyuo Yaw, and Nyimaahy clans and kinships, as well as the Pingiem (Roohj Roohj Doohng) area under Paramount Chief Mario Wayo Uecewiir and Abraham Akol Ucaahn. The area hosts the Pa Laahm, Pu Ngoohro, Pukaang, Pu Rowohdh, and Purum clans and kinships. In this context, the Luo in the Western Bank, who are known as Kwac, include the Abihm, which consist of the Atido, Gette, Bar Akol, Kotongo, and Kanyi areas under Paramount Chief Hillario Ayuro Akol and Karlo Gabriel Utuol. It also hosts the following clans and kinships: x x x x x x x x x x x

Piny Will Pu Ukuuno (Akaa) Nyiwaaro Pu Uewiir Pe Caam Pe Leero Piny Julo Piny Kiir Pa Bwolo Pe Ngeyeo Nyipouj Pujoohl and Thure

This includes the Amahj Duohng, which consists of the Udici, Kayango, Ganja, and Ajugo areas under Chief Back Acho Apad and Micheal Ula. It is comprised of the following clans: x x x x x x x x x x x x

Pu Moohl Pa Yaany Nyipuoj Pa Tugo Nyipahbi Pu Ukuuno (Akaa) Piny Will Piny Kwaalay Pa Pio Pu Nyiengo Nyiwaaro Puduno Piny Liny

Summary and Conclusion

95

x Piny Caam and Piny Belo The Western Bank also covers the Pa Kangi, which consists of the Kangi, Meel Thoohny, and Acoohl Guod areas under Paramount Chief Achom Makwac Kangi and Velantino Abal Unguec. The area hosts clans and kinships under two clusters: Dhe Kwahngo and Dhe Rub. It extends as far as the Dhe Kwahngo, which hosts the following clans: x x x x x x x x x x

Dhe Kwahngo Nyipuoj Pu Nogor Tubo Pu Ngodho Pu Tongo Pu Jwaahdhi Pu Jwaah Pu Ujieth Pu Tongo and Piny Boro

The Dhe Rub consists of the following clans and kinships: x x x x x x x x x x

Abadh Aciig Pa Buur Pu Ukuuno (Akaa) Pu Bio Thure Piny Kaj Atongo Pa Luwo Pu Kwaahy and Pu Thudhi

The Luo in Northern Bahr el Ghazal are found in Dembp (Dihmo), which includes the Bar Mayan, Mondit, and Kpango areas under Paramount Chief Mawut Unguec Ajongo. The area is home to the following clans and kinships: x Pa math Koongo x Kweelo x De Maahy

Chapter Nine

96

x x x x x x x x x x

Yaw Atuul Bungo Meyuo Pa Liny Aciig Kwahnyeo Nyipabo Paany Ubo and Boodho

The Thuri (Boodho/Shatt) Thurri are referred to as the Shilluk of Bahr el Ghazal, as Santandrea (1938) opined that they are part of the Niykango/Shilluk group who were left behind when the Niykango group migrated to the Upper Nile region. In Bahr el Ghazal, locals refer to the Luo Thurri group as Jur-Shatt, Boodho, or Jur-Chol. The Luo Thurri groups are found in the areas between Wau and Aweil in Northern and Western Bahr el Ghazal. The Luo Thurri are also located between the Jur and Lol Rivers, on the Raja Nyamlell Road, and up as far as the WauDeim Zubeir Road. A section of Luo Thurri known as Jur-Manangeer have completely assimilated with their neighbors, the Dinkas, who share the Luo’s villages in Western Bahr el Ghazal. This assimilation process was possible through sociocultural interactions and intermarriages between the Dinkas and the Luos. This section of Luo Thurri no longer refer to themselves as Luo or Thurri, and do not speak the Luo Thuri language (De Boodho). The Luo Thuri’s main economic activities include agriculture, fishing, hunting, and honey production. The Luo Thuri are best known as professional hunters and cross-country long-distance walkers. The Bahr el Ghazal region is also home to the Luo Bori, who are known as the Belanda-Bor. The Luo Bori ethnic group, or Pa-Bor, were actually part of the larger Luo clan or the Luwo ethnic group of Bahr el Ghazal at some point. According to Santandrea (1938), their great-grandfather was named Utho, who left his group (Luo Dimo Group) in Wau, Eastern Bank, for an undocumented reason and moved to live near Belanda Bviri in Zandi Land in Western Bahr el Ghazal. Accordingly, the Luo Bori became known as “Belanda Bori”; they were named after a section of the Bantu ethnic group in Western Bahr el Ghazal, South Sudan. Nonetheless, the Luo Bori

Summary and Conclusion

97

managed to keep their Luo language and retain their traditional ethnic names. The Luo Bori have traditionally intermarried with the Belanda Bviri and speak the Belanda Pivri language in addition to Luo. The Luo Bori’s great ancestor is “Utho”, who is a descendent of Dimo. The Luo Bori are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, Luo, and Bor. The Luo in the Equatoria region in South Sudan are comprised of two major groups: Acholi and Jo-Parri (Logoro). Many of the Luo’s mythical stories, including the Acholi’s, link this Luo group to a female great ancestor named Achol. However, anthropologists have linked the Luo Acholi (Choli) group to chief “Olum” as their great ancestor who, at some point, led a major Luo tribe around Rumbek (the Lakes region in South Sudan). The great Chief Olum appeared in Luo history after the separation of Dimo, Nyikango, and Geilo. Chief Olum subsequently moved southward along the River Nile and resettled at Pubungu near Pakwach in Eastern Equatoria, South Sudan. Chief Olum has been cited as having three children—Gapiir (Nyapir), Labongo (Kyebambi), and Tiful (Ogot, 1997). These three brothers later branched out and formed the Luo groups that are currently known as Alur and Acholi. Ethnologists have failed to record or follow the migration pattern of the third brother; however, Tiful Gabiir (Nyapir) was cited in this process as the great ancestor of Luo Alur, and Labongo (Kyebambi) as the great grand-ancestor of the Acholis. This narrative means that it is possible that the Luo’s second migration included the Acholis, who are the descendants of Labongo, the son of Olum, who led the Luo groups from South Sudan to Pubungo along the River Nile. The Acholi in South Sudan are found in the Equatoria region, the Opari District, Acholi Hill, and in Uganda. The Acholi are classified as Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic, Luo, Southern, Luo-Acholi, Alur-Acholi, and Lango-Acholi. They are also known as Acoli, Shuli, Gang, and Lwo. The Equatoria region also hosts the Luo Jo-Parri (Logoro). The Jo-Parri are the second largest Luo ethnic group in Eastern Equatoria, Republic of Southern Sudan; they inhabit the Bura, Pucwaa, Pugari, Kor, Angulumeere, and Wiattuo villages. The Jo-Parri are classified as NiloSaharan, Eastern Sudanic, Nilotic, and Luo. They are known to their neighbors as Logoro or Lokoro (Gilley, 2004). In the extant literature on the Luo’s history and mythology, the Jo-Parri are cited as the direct decedents of the Luo’s great ancestor Dimo, who is also identified by the Luo of Bahr el Ghazal as their great ancestor. Moreover, there is a strong

98

Chapter Nine

belief among the Jo-Parri that Lipul Hill is the location were Dimo and his elder brother Nyikango separated, and then subsequently formed the two separate groups of Jo-Dimo and Jo-Nyikango. According this account, Dimo moved towards Pugeri Village and settled there with his group (the Jo-Parri). Another group continued south toward Uganda and formed the Adhola. This began the migration and later facilitated a way for other Luo groups to merge and cross over to Kenya and Tanzania. The Jo-Parri named the Luo’s first point of the division and separation “Wi-Pach,” which is located in Eastern Bahr el Ghazal, South Sudan. This narrative has taken us all the way from Bahr el Ghazal to the first group of Luo ethnic tribes who crossed over to Uganda. In short, this chapter has concluded the mapping of the Luo ethnic groups in South Sudan, but the scope of this process was limited, due to the lack of detailed ethnographic data that would have allowed for a conclusive discussion about the Luo’s social and cultural lineages in South Sudan. If anything, the path of ethnic relations, common myths of origin, and the myth of common ancestry among the Luo groups have now become more obvious and clearer, at least from a critical social science perspective. Therefore, the next edition will focus on the sociocultural and economic livelihoods of the Luo groups who have crossed over to Uganda and then later to Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. This mapping will continue to explore the Luo’s ethnic lineages in South Sudan and the rest of the region to further document the clans and kinships mentioned in this edition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamson, Joy. 1967. The People of Kenya. New York: Brace and World, Inc. Apai, G. 2007. Our Inheritance for New Horizons: Sudanese Luo traditional cultures as told by Gabiel Apai. Queensland: TAFE. Asiwaju, A. I. 1985. Partitioned Africans, Ethnic Relations Across African International Boundaries. London: C. Hurst & Company. Atido, G. P. 2011. Insights from Proverbs of the Alur in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Collaboration with African Proverb Saying and Stories, www.afriprov.org. Nairobi, Kenya. Atieno-Odhiambo, Eisha Stephen. 1999. Ethnicity and Democracy in Kenya. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Atikson, Raymond. 1994. The Roots of Ethnicity: The Origin of Acholi of Uganda before 1800. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Atlas of the World. 2007. CIA website. http://geography.about.com/library/cia. Badal, Rafael. "Local Traditional Structures in Sudan." Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala (2005). Berg, L. Bruce. "Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science: Introduction to Qualitative Research." Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons Press (1989). Beshir, Mohamed Omer, Mohamed AR Mohamed-Salih, and Musa Adam Abdul-Jalil. "The Sudan: Ethnicity and National Cohesion." (1984) Berger, Peter L., Thomas Luckmann, and Dariuš Zifonun. "The Social Construction of Reality." (1967). Borer, Cathcart Mary. 1963. Africa: A Short History of the People of Africa. London: Museum Press Limited.

100

Bibliography

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Ecological Models of Human Development." Readings on the development of children 2, no. 1 (1994): 37–43. Burton, John W. 1952. A Nilotic World, The Atuot-Speaking People of the Southern Sudan. New York: Greenwood Press. Byman, Daniel. Keeping the Peace: Lasting Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts. JHU Press, 2002. Chamberlain, Muriel Evelyn. The Scramble for Africa. Routledge, 2014. CIA. 2019. “Kenya. World Fact.” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-worldfactbook/attachments/summaries/KE-summary.pdf. Clark, J. Desmond. From Hunters to Farmers: The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa. University of California Press, 1984. Collins, Robert O. 1971. Land beyond the Rivers, the Southern Sudan. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Crazzolara, Joseph Pasquale. 1938. A Study of the Acooli Language. London: Oxford University Press. Crazzolara, Joseph Pasquale. 1950. The Lwoo. Verona, Italy: Verona Fathers. Crisis Group. 2016. “South Sudan’s South: Conflict in Equatoria.” https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/236-south-sudan-s-south-conflictin-the-equatorias.pdf. Duffy, Lynne. "Culture and context of HIV prevention in rural Zimbabwe: the influence of gender inequality." Journal of Transcultural Nursing 16, no. 1 (2005): 23-31. Deng, Francis. M. 1995. War of Visions, Conflict of Identities in the Sudan. Washington, DC: Brookings. Deng, Francis Mading, and Prosser Gifford. "The Search for Peace and Unity in the Sudan." (1987).

The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa

101

Durkheim, Emile. 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. "A Non-Ethnic State for Africa? A Life-World Approach to the Imagining of Communities." In Ethnicity and Nationalism in Africa, pp. 45–64. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1999. Ethnologue. 2019. “A Language of the Democratic Republic of Congo.” https://www.ethnologue.com/language/alz. Fearon, James D., and David D. Laitin. 1996 “Explaining Inter-ethnic Cooperation.” The American Political Science Review 90 (4): 715í35. Fortune of Africa. 2019. “The List of Shilluk Reth.” https://fortuneofafrica.com/southsudan/list-of-the-shilluk-reths-kings/. Frahm, Ole. "Defining the Nation: National Identity in South Sudanese Media Discourse." Africa Spectrum 47, no. 1 (2012): 21–49. Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. University of Chicago Press, 1991. Garrett, Ruby. "Assessing the Constitution’s Role as a Protector of Minorities: A Comparative Examination of Japan’s Homogenous Approach and the United States’ ‘Acceptance’ of Heterogeneity." (2016). Gracia, Jorge JE. Surviving race, ethnicity, and nationality: A challenge for the 21st century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Gilley, Leoma. 1992. An Auto Segmental Approach to Shilluk Phonology. Arlington: University of Texas. Gilley, Leoma G. "The Lwoian family." Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages 9 (2004): 165-174. Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. 2005. Ethnologies: Language of the World. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Government of Uganda. 1967. Atlas of Uganda. Kampala: Department of Lands and Surveys. Gracia, Jorge J. E. Surviving Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality: A Challenge for the 21st Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

102

Bibliography

Gray, Richard. 1961. A History of the Southern Sudan. London: Oxford University Press. Grimes, J. E., and B. F. Grimes. "Ethnologue Language Family Index to the 13th Edition." Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dallas, USA. Electronic version [http:/www.sil.org/ethnologue] (1996). Gulliver, Pamela, and Philip Hugh Gulliver. The Central Nilo-Hamites: East Central Africa Part VII. Routledge, 2017. Hamly, Wilfrid D. 1970. Ethnology of Africa. Westport, CT: Negro Universities Press. Hayley, Thomas Theodore Steiger. The Anatomy of the Lango Religion and Groups. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Human Rights Watch. 1999. Famine in Sudan, 1998, The Human Rights Causes. New York: Human Rights Watch. Hutchinson, Sharon Elaine, Jok Madut Jok, and R. Werbner. "Gendered violence and the Militarization of Ethnicity." Postcolonial Subjectivities in Africa (2002): 84–108. Johnson, Douglas H. "Abyei: Sudan’s West Bank." The Enough Project 4 (2011): 363–85. Khalid, Mansour. 1990. The Government they Deserve: The Role of the Elite in Sudan’s Political Evolution. London: Kegan Paul. Leonardi, Cherry. "Violence, Sacrifice and Chiefship in Central Equatoria, Southern Sudan." Africa 77, no. 4 (2007): 535–558. Mkandawire, Paul, Katie MacPherson, Kon Madut, Odwa D. Atari, Andrea Rishworth, and Isaac Luginaah. "Men's Perceptions of Women's Reproductive Health in South Sudan." Health & place 58 (2019): 102157. Madut, Kon. 2015. “Institutional Development, Governance, and Ethnic Politics in South Sudan.” Journal of Global Economy 3: 147. Markakis, John. "Conflict in the Horn of Africa." Environment and Conflict in Africa (1980): 54. Miguel, Edward. "Tribe or Nation? Nation Building and Public Goods in Kenya versus Tanzania." World Politics 56, no. 3 (2004): 327–362.

The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa

103

Miguel, Edward, and Mary Kay Gugerty. "Ethnic Diversity, Social Sanctions, and Public Goods in Kenya." Journal of public Economics 89, no. 11-12 (2005): 2325–2368. Murrdock, Peter George. 1959. Africa: Its People and Their Culture History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. NBOSS. 2015. “National Bureau of Statistics, Republic of South Sudan.” http://ssnbs.org/ Nyaba, Peter. 1997. The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publisher. Nzita, Richard. Peoples and Cultures of Uganda. Fountain Publishers Limited, 1995. Obbo, Christine. "East African women, work, and the articulation of dominance." (1990): 210-222. Ogot, Bathwell. 1967. History of Southern Luo, Migration and Settlement 1500í1900, Volume 1. Nairobi, Kenya: East African Publishing House. Ogot, Bathwell 1997. Construction of Luo identity and history, Bellago, Mimeo. Okech, Lacito. 1953. History and Kingship of West Acholi (translated). Kampala: East African Literature Bureau. Ominnde, Simeon. 1975. The Population of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya Litho Ltd. Owor, Maureen. "Creating an Independent Traditional Court: A Study of Jopadhola Clan Courts in Uganda." Journal of African Law 56, no. 2 (2012): 215–242. Pace, Wanda Jane. "Syllables, Tone and Verb Paradigms, Chap." Comaltepec Chinantec verb Inflection (1990): 21–62. Per Sϥfholm. 1973. The River-Lake Nilotes––Politics of an African Tribal Group. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Sociologica Upsaliensia.

104

Bibliography

Pierli, Francesco. “African Witness: Bishop Ireneo Wien Dud.” Retrieved March, 18, 2020, From http://www.combonimissionaries.co.uk Robertshaw, Peter. "Prehistory in the Upper Nile basin." The Journal of African History 28, no. 2 (1987): 177–189. Roy, William G. Making Societies: The Historical Construction of our World. Vol. 474. Pine Forge Press, 2001. Skoggard, Ian, Carol R. Ember, and Melvin Ember. Encyclopedia of World Cultures: Supplement. Gale Group, 2002. Santandrea, Stefano S. "Minor Shilluk Sections in the Bahr el Ghazal." Sudan Notes and Records 21 (1938): 267–289. Santandrea, Stefano. 1938. The Luo of Bahr El-Ghazal. Dell Mission African di Verona Combonian. Santandrea, Stefano. 1981. Ethnography of Bahr el-Ghazal. Bolongna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana Scott, Sarah, and Annemarie Palincsar. "Sociocultural Theory." Education. com (2013). Seligman, Charles Gabriel, and Brenda Z. Seligman. "Pagan Tribes of the Nilotic Sudan." (1965). Simonse, Simon. Kings of Disaster: Dualism, Centralism and the Scapegoat King in Southeastern Sudan. Fountain Publishers, 2017. Southall, Aidan William. Alur Society: A Study in Processes and Types of Domination. LIT Verlag Münster, 2004. Stafford, Roy Lawrence. "An Elementary Luo Grammar: With Vocabularies." (1967). The Book. 2015. “Fragile States Index.” http://library.fundforpeace.org/fsi15-report. Tosh, John. 1978. Clan Leaders and Colonial Chiefs in Lango, the Political History of an East African Stateless Society 1800í1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa

105

United States Institute of Peace. 2017. “Supporting a Peaceful Transition to an Independent South Sudan.” https://www.usip.org/programs/supporting-peaceful-transitionindependent-south-sudan. UNMISS. 2014. “Conflict in South Sudan: A human Rights Report.” https://unmiss.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unmiss_conflict_in_south _sudan_-_a_human_rights_report.pdf. U.T.G. 2017. “Uganda Culture.” http://www.ugandatravelguide.com/luomigration-effects.html. Vigdor, Jacob L. "Community composition and collective action: Analyzing Initial Mail Response to the 2000 census." Review of Economics and Statistics 86, no. 1 (2004): 303–312. Vincent, Joan. "Colonial Chiefs and the Making of Class: A Case Study from Teso, Eastern Uganda." Africa 47, no. 2 (1977): 140–159. Weber, Max. "Economy and Society Vol. 1 Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds.). Berkeley." (1978). Wertsch, James V., and James V. Wertsch. Voices of the Mind: Sociocultural Approaches to Mediated Action. Harvard University Press, 2009. Wild, John Vernon. Early Travelers in Acholi. Vol. 6. Nelson, 1954.

INDEX

A Activism, 8 Adolescence, 2 Adoption, 7 Affiliation, 1–2, 4 Africa, 1–6, 8–10 African, 1–4, 6–9 Agreement, 6 Alur, 9 America, 5 Ancestors, 4, 10 Ancestral, 2–3 Anglo, 7 Anthropologists, 7–8, 10 Anuak, 2 Anway, 2 Arab, 7 Asian, 7 Assimilation, 3, 8–10 Atido, 9 Atkinson, 7–8 Authorities, 5 Autonomy, 8 B Bahr, 1–5, 8 Bantu, 4 Berger, 6 Bhar, 2 Black, 7 Borders, 4 Burton, 10 C Categorization, 7 Chamberlain, 4 Characteristics, 5 Citizens, 4 Citizenship, 4 Civil, 8 Clan, 4–5, 7 Clans, 2, 6, 8, 10

Clark, 4 Classical, 5 Classification, 1, 7, 10 Cluster, 2–3 Coexistence, 7 Cohesion, 3 Collective, 6, 9 Colonial, 4, 6–7, 9 Communities, 2–3, 7 Community, 4–5 Concept, 2, 7 Conflict, 7 Congo, 1, 4, 6, 9 Constructions, 1, 6–7 Crossnational, 9 Culture, 1, 3, 7, 9–10 D Data, 4–6, 10 Democratic, 1, 4, 6, 9 Demographic, 1–4 Determinants, 1 Development, 7 Dinka, 3, 8 Displacement, 2, 9–10 Divine, 9 DNA, 2 Document, 1, 3 Dominant, 3, 8–9 Durkheim, 7 E Earlier, 10 East, 1–2, 4–10 Eastern, 4 Economic, 2, 6–7, 9 Egypt, 5 Elites, 9 Equatoria, 2 Equatorian, 2 Ethiopia, 1, 4, 6 Ethnic, 1–10

108 Ethnicity, 6–8 Ethnogenesis, 10 Ethnographic, 1, 3–5, 10 Ethnonationalism, 7 European, 4, 7 F Fertit, 3 Folklore, 1, 9 Foucault, 7 G Generations, 1, 5 geoethnographically, 4 geographical, 1, 3 Globalization, 1 Government, 5–8 Gracia, 7 Groups, 8 H Habitats, 1 Heritage, 2–3, 5, 8 History, 1–2, 4–6, 10 Human, 7 I Identity, 1–3, 7–9 Ideological, 6 Immigration, 2, 9 Indigenous, 5, 10 Individual, 3–7 Information, 4–5 Instability, 8 Instrumentalist, 8 Integration, 9 Intellectuals, 5 Interactions, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9–10 International, 9 Investigation, 10 J Jur, 3, 6, 8 K Kenya, 1, 4, 6 Kinship, 1, 7, 9 Kumman, 9 L Lagoro, 3 Lango, 9 Legends, 3

Index Lineages, 1–9 Literature, 1–2, 4–5, 10 Livelihoods, 8 Luo, 1–10 Luoism, 3 M Madut, 3 Method, 4–5 Mexican, 7 Migration, 1–4, 7–8, 10 Minority, 7 minority, 6 mobilization, 9 Modern, 1–2 Multiethnic, 4 Myth, 8 N Name, 3, 6, 10 Narrative, 1, 4–5 National, 4, 7–9 Nationality, 7 Nationbuilding, 7 Nature, 10 Nile, 2, 8 Nilo, 3 Nilotic, 9–10 Nilotics, 2–4 Norm, 6 O Observations, 5 Ogot, 2, 5, 8 Okech, 9 Ominnde, 9 Oral, 5 Organizations, 5 Origin, 3–4, 10 P People, 2–7, 10 Place, 4, 10 Political, 3–4, 6–9 Powers, 4, 6 Primordial, 8 Q Quantitative, 4–5 R Race, 6–8

The Luo People in South Sudan: Ethnological Heredities of East Africa Reel, 8 Regions, 1–2, 4–6, 9 Relations, 8, 10 Religious, 7 Representation, 5 Republic, 1, 4, 6, 9 Research, 2, 4, 6–7, 10 Resettlement, 1, 10 Resources, 8 Roots, 3 S Santandrea, 8–9 Scholars, 4–5, 8–10 Sciences, 6 Scientists, 5, 8–10 Separated, 1–4 Settlements, 5 Shilluk, 2, 8–9 Shollo, 2 Social, 1, 3, 5, 7–10 Socializing, 5 Societies, 7 Sociocultural, 1–4, 7–9 Socioeconomic, 4, 7 Sociology, 6 Sociopolitical, 2, 7, 9 Solidarity, 5 South, 1–4, 6–8, 10 Southern, 5

Sovereign, 9 State, 5–6, 10 Statistical, 10 Stratification, 6 Structure, 6 Struggled, 10 Sudan, 1–9 Sudanese, 2, 4, 6, 10 Sudanic, 4 Sulluk, 3 S ϥfholm, 9 T Tanzania, 1, 4, 6 Technologies, 2 Theoretical, 6 Thomas, 6 Ties, 2, 4, 9 Tradition, 2, 8–9 Tribe, 2 U Uganda, 1, 4, 6, 9 V Village, 10 W Wau, 1–2, 4, 6, 8–9 Western, 1, 5, 10 Work, 1–3, 5–6, 9 World, 5, 10

109