The most special thing about a kingdom in western Uganda, Tooro, may be the 11 “pet names” they exclusively use when showing respect, gratitude, praise. The 12th name is booked for somebody important.
These empaako actually do not mean anything in the local language – they have been brought to the Batooro by Luo invaders. Solomon Akugizibwe has the details.
Video of Toro King on a tour of the American State of Texas
What makes the Batooro of western Uganda special? Is it their young king Oyo, the escapades of their Queen Mother Kemigisa, their closeness to the famous snow-caped Rwenzori montains or their western jazz style? Or is the most special thing their “pet names”?
The pet names are so much embeded in the Tooro culture that everyone born or married in Tooro adopts them. Among children it is punishable to call an elder by their religious or traditional name because it is a sign of disrespect and indiscpline. Batooro use pet names to greet, praise, show gratitude or ask for favors from people.
The first eleven pet names or empaako are Bbala, Abbooki, Abwooli, Acaali, Adyeeri, Akiiki, Amooti, Apuuli, Araali, Ateenyi, Atwooki. However, the 12th pet name Okaali is reserved for the king only. He is the only Mutooro with two pet names. Upon becoming a king, no matter what his pet name was before, he takes Amooti used to greet him on an everyday basis and Okaali used only on special ocassions, traditional ceremonies and rituals.
Surprisingly, the pet names do not mean anything in Tooro culture! They originated from the Luo who invaded Bunyoro – which Toro was part of – and assimilated them into their language. Empaako were tagged with special Luo meanings, for instance Akiiki means saviour of nations, Abwooli is a cat, Apuuli is a bitch and Ateenyi is the legendary serpent of River Muziizi – which separates today’s Bunyoro and Toro Kingdoms.
The Batooro share many cultural traits with Banyoro, including pet names, because Tooro Kingdom was originally a province of Bunyoro-Kitara until 1830 when Prince Kaboyo rebelled and declared Tooro independent.
Map of Toro main Town of Fort Portal
View Toro main town of Fort Portal in a larger map
First published in Studio Edirisa on 21 January 2010
Apuuli
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Radio could transform rural Ugandan farmers
There is no doubt, FM radios are the most accessed channel of communication in Uganda, thanks to the liberalisation of the broadcast sector in the early 1990’s which led to its rapid growth.
Rural people are increasingly accessing more information from the many rural FM stations spread throughout the country because of the enormous advantages they provide, leading to better decision making. Radios easily transcend barriers caused by isolation as a result of illiteracy, distance to urban centres, lack of power connectivity and general poverty.
In addition, rural FM radio’s easily adapt to local language and culture, rural folks can listen to radio in privacy of their homes in a language they are comfortable with, requiring no special skills. But what type of information do they provide to the rural folk? The former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela once said, “Bad media is better than no media at all.” Yes, rural FM stations are doing a great work to empower the citizens through access to information but questions abound about quality.
What is the quality of the information accessed? Are they contributing to the improvement of the household incomes of their target audiences? Do they carry out on-the-job training to their journalists? Do they involve their target audiences in programme design? What percentage of their time do they use for development messages in comparison to foreign broadcasts and music?
Uganda being a predominantly agricultural country with over 80 per cent of the population directly or indirectly employed in the sector – majority in the rural areas, appropriate use of radio to sensitise rural farmers on market information, seeds and access to loans can easily turn around their fortunes.
Rural FM radio’s indeed have the potential to address all these challenges if equitable access to information and better knowledge sharing to enable the rural people exploit the available resources is ensured. A lot of agricultural sensitisation funds are invested in buying airtime and calling experts the usual way; to teach people what to do, the likes of NAADS. Yes, it is good but is it sustainable?
Government agencies, donors and civil society involved in agricultural sensitisation should know that there is need to more than just sensitise (buying airtime and calling experts to teach rural farmers what to do.) Rural FM stations, more than any other media, influence the opinion of rural folk but continue to employ untrained journalists because of the increased commercialisation of the sector. Journalists and radio presenters continue to receive peanuts because to the radio owners, profits are at the forefront of anything to do with professional journalism and the information needs of poor rural folk.
I have been in the villages of Kabarole District in Western Uganda and listened to their radio stations, the topic is always who is going to win in the elections, which player Ferguson bought the other day, how Bobi Wine is pirating Kafeero’s music, etc but not which agricultural products are available for sale in a given village, low interest farmer loans in a given financial institution, improved seeds in a given shop in town.
Imagine what difference it would make for a radio programme that connects buyers and sellers of agricultural products, giving the contact phone of the seller/buyer, place, amount and products needed or available.
If nothing is done, many people especially in the rural areas will continue to produce crops but continue to sell them at a low price to exploitative middle men, hence gaining little from months of hard work and the vicious cycle of poverty shall continue.
Rural people are increasingly accessing more information from the many rural FM stations spread throughout the country because of the enormous advantages they provide, leading to better decision making. Radios easily transcend barriers caused by isolation as a result of illiteracy, distance to urban centres, lack of power connectivity and general poverty.
In addition, rural FM radio’s easily adapt to local language and culture, rural folks can listen to radio in privacy of their homes in a language they are comfortable with, requiring no special skills. But what type of information do they provide to the rural folk? The former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela once said, “Bad media is better than no media at all.” Yes, rural FM stations are doing a great work to empower the citizens through access to information but questions abound about quality.
What is the quality of the information accessed? Are they contributing to the improvement of the household incomes of their target audiences? Do they carry out on-the-job training to their journalists? Do they involve their target audiences in programme design? What percentage of their time do they use for development messages in comparison to foreign broadcasts and music?
 |
| Training of a radio listernership Club in Fort Portal by Toro Development Network |
Rural FM radio’s indeed have the potential to address all these challenges if equitable access to information and better knowledge sharing to enable the rural people exploit the available resources is ensured. A lot of agricultural sensitisation funds are invested in buying airtime and calling experts the usual way; to teach people what to do, the likes of NAADS. Yes, it is good but is it sustainable?
Government agencies, donors and civil society involved in agricultural sensitisation should know that there is need to more than just sensitise (buying airtime and calling experts to teach rural farmers what to do.) Rural FM stations, more than any other media, influence the opinion of rural folk but continue to employ untrained journalists because of the increased commercialisation of the sector. Journalists and radio presenters continue to receive peanuts because to the radio owners, profits are at the forefront of anything to do with professional journalism and the information needs of poor rural folk.
I have been in the villages of Kabarole District in Western Uganda and listened to their radio stations, the topic is always who is going to win in the elections, which player Ferguson bought the other day, how Bobi Wine is pirating Kafeero’s music, etc but not which agricultural products are available for sale in a given village, low interest farmer loans in a given financial institution, improved seeds in a given shop in town.
Imagine what difference it would make for a radio programme that connects buyers and sellers of agricultural products, giving the contact phone of the seller/buyer, place, amount and products needed or available.
If nothing is done, many people especially in the rural areas will continue to produce crops but continue to sell them at a low price to exploitative middle men, hence gaining little from months of hard work and the vicious cycle of poverty shall continue.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
More money spent on Ugandans than Rwandese but better services for Rwandese than Ugandans.
Every Rwandese uses UGX70, 000 a year with better roads, education and health services while every Ugandan uses UGX23million a year with poor quality education, potholes and no medicine in hospitals according to the annual national budgets of the two countries. If we are to break it down further, Uganda government spends 328 times more money on its citizens than Rwanda government but who gets better government services?
Rwanda has a total national budget is UGX800billion with a population of 11 million people while Uganda with a population of 32 million people has a total national budget of UGX7.5 trillion. Uganda’s population is three times bigger than Rwanda. If Kagame government was managing Uganda; he would use a total budget of UGX 2.4 trillion instead of UGX7.5 trillions our Uganda government uses with better roads, quality healthcare and quality education assuming we are going by Rwanda’s rates.
Rwanda uses less money but provides better education, better roads, better health care, etc. In fact, Uganda’s ministry of health budget alone is almost equal to the whole Rwanda government national budget but there is no medicine in Uganda hospitals. Our doctors are also running to Rwanda coz of poor pay here. Our roads budget is almost as twice as the total budget of Rwanda but more and more potholes!!!
Rwanda has a total national budget is UGX800billion with a population of 11 million people while Uganda with a population of 32 million people has a total national budget of UGX7.5 trillion. Uganda’s population is three times bigger than Rwanda. If Kagame government was managing Uganda; he would use a total budget of UGX 2.4 trillion instead of UGX7.5 trillions our Uganda government uses with better roads, quality healthcare and quality education assuming we are going by Rwanda’s rates.
Rwanda uses less money but provides better education, better roads, better health care, etc. In fact, Uganda’s ministry of health budget alone is almost equal to the whole Rwanda government national budget but there is no medicine in Uganda hospitals. Our doctors are also running to Rwanda coz of poor pay here. Our roads budget is almost as twice as the total budget of Rwanda but more and more potholes!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)