Maasai gender relations during the colonial period: A patriarchal transformation
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Response to the claims
- The dichotomized debate
- Direct rule and indirect rule
- The colonial policy
- The primary deterrent to Maasai female
- Destruction of female autonomy and power
- Position of women in Maasai society
- Conditions and responsibilities of marriage
- Consequences of colonial law
- The German colonial law
- Economic and legal structures
- The experiences of a Maasai woman
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
SummaryThe imposition of colonial power in Africa disrupted all aspects of indigenous society. Not only were Africans robbed of political independence, but pre-colonial social structures were also destroyed or transformed based on the mercy of certain colonial powers. The Maasai, a pastoral people in eastern Africa, are a prime example of this shifting social organization, specifically the gendered identities and relationships between men and women. Though Maasai society is complex, and gender is thus a necessarily shifting definition, it is clear that through specific colonial policies the rights, status and independence of Maasai women were undermined, overpowered or erased during the period of colonial rule. Through a variety of legal, economic, agricultural, religious and medical policies, Maasai women were devalued and subjugated, removed of their previously equal and valued position in society.
What Durba Ghosh calls the "feminization of imperial history" , has been a recent process in the history of colonialism. A major focus of this branch of study has been a growing debate between historians as to the status of pre-colonial African women. Paul Spencer's arguments form one side of this debate, as he contends that Maasai women and men agreed on the "undisputed right of men to own women as 'possessions'." He goes on to insist that, "the position of Maasai women appears to have remained unchanged throughout the colonial period," and that "there is no clear evidence that women had more rights in the past." Spencer is not alone in these determined arguments regarding the status of pre-colonial African women. Historians such as Melissa Llewelyn-Davies (1978, 1981), and Harold Schneider (1979) join Spencer in attempting to prove female subordination in Maasai society before colonialism. Schneider claims pastoral societies are inherently patriarchal, placing men in control of livestock and women, who were "usually thoroughly subordinated to men and thus unable to establish an independent identity as a productive force
What Durba Ghosh calls the "feminization of imperial history" , has been a recent process in the history of colonialism. A major focus of this branch of study has been a growing debate between historians as to the status of pre-colonial African women. Paul Spencer's arguments form one side of this debate, as he contends that Maasai women and men agreed on the "undisputed right of men to own women as 'possessions'." He goes on to insist that, "the position of Maasai women appears to have remained unchanged throughout the colonial period," and that "there is no clear evidence that women had more rights in the past." Spencer is not alone in these determined arguments regarding the status of pre-colonial African women. Historians such as Melissa Llewelyn-Davies (1978, 1981), and Harold Schneider (1979) join Spencer in attempting to prove female subordination in Maasai society before colonialism. Schneider claims pastoral societies are inherently patriarchal, placing men in control of livestock and women, who were "usually thoroughly subordinated to men and thus unable to establish an independent identity as a productive force
Latest in the category modern history Most downloaded documents over 30 days in modern history
knowledge network
