Ubuntu: The Indigenous Ethos of Restorative Justice(traum-und-verantwortung.de)
traum-und-verantwortung.de
Ubuntu: The Indigenous Ethos of Restorative Justice
https://www.traum-und-verantwortung.de/zitate/ubuntu/
15 comments
There's also a bit of whitewashing of what it means to give someone to a victim's family. Without having looked deeper into it, it sounds rather like giving them someone to be a slave in recompense.
It's not like trading adult family members is in any way "restorative" emotionally; they certainly won't be pleased to have their lives uprooted. They'll be contributing labor to supplement the victim and that's about it.
It's not like trading adult family members is in any way "restorative" emotionally; they certainly won't be pleased to have their lives uprooted. They'll be contributing labor to supplement the victim and that's about it.
>An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless.
The entire point of reciprocal justice was to prevent tit-for-tat blood feuds; "an eye for an eye" set an upper limit on vengeance, precisely to prevent the whole world from going blind.
The available evidence suggests that modern western societies have vastly lower rates of violent deaths than any indigenous pre-state societies, even factoring in deaths due to war.
The myth of the noble savage is precisely that - a myth.
https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-e...
The entire point of reciprocal justice was to prevent tit-for-tat blood feuds; "an eye for an eye" set an upper limit on vengeance, precisely to prevent the whole world from going blind.
The available evidence suggests that modern western societies have vastly lower rates of violent deaths than any indigenous pre-state societies, even factoring in deaths due to war.
The myth of the noble savage is precisely that - a myth.
https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-e...
This article leans HARD into the noble savage trope. It critiques Western justice for being reductive, then idealizes indigenous systems without asking the same hard questions.
It ends up mirroring the same blind spots it thought it was exposing.
It ends up mirroring the same blind spots it thought it was exposing.
Restorative justice makes a lot of sense to me in a society that has weak or no centralized power. Social hierarchy sure, but not an absolute monarch. Once you have a strong government with a monopoly on violence (police), then you can attempt to enforce retaliatory justice in a controlled and ideally neutral way, by the state. Without a monopoly on violence, then obviously just doling out mob retaliatory violence leads to anarchy.
I'm not sure that you can have a modern large society with millions of strangers that relies only on restorative justice. I think you need strong communal cohesion for that to work by itself, and even in a relatively culturally homogeneous society, I'm not sure that scales beyond the size of towns.
I'm not sure that you can have a modern large society with millions of strangers that relies only on restorative justice. I think you need strong communal cohesion for that to work by itself, and even in a relatively culturally homogeneous society, I'm not sure that scales beyond the size of towns.
[deleted]
The explanation of the concept would have been much more useful if presented as a non-antagonistic narrative, without unnecessary confrontational comparisons with Western justice system. It would be, I dare to say, a more restorative way of showcasing the values of indigenous ethos.
I don't think these are the values of indigenous Africans at all. The comparison to Western justice I would imagine is a way to get like-minded readers onboard, i.e. "The Western system bad, African system good".
While I have not read the quoted book, the first quote "Because European colonialists saw no jails, police, lawyers, judges, or courts in African indigenous societies, they mistakenly concluded these cultures had no way to address social conflict and wrongdoing" is more than odd given that most Europeans didn't have most of those things either until the 1800's. Thus, people would have been alive who remembered days before police and jails (as punishment, not holding before judgement/punishment). The first police force (as we would understand it today) in the world was formed in London in 1829.
The second quote, "In Western culture, we are socialized to believe that the desire to inflict counterviolence upon or retaliate against someone who has hurt us or a loved one is innate and that justice has always been done and will always be done in this way. In fact, far from universal or natural, this adversarial vision of justice is a relatively recent cultural and historical construction, arising around AD 1200 with the dawning of the nation-state and racial capitalism [my emphasis]." is also a strikingly bizarre take. I don't understand how anyone could think this.
The second quote, "In Western culture, we are socialized to believe that the desire to inflict counterviolence upon or retaliate against someone who has hurt us or a loved one is innate and that justice has always been done and will always be done in this way. In fact, far from universal or natural, this adversarial vision of justice is a relatively recent cultural and historical construction, arising around AD 1200 with the dawning of the nation-state and racial capitalism [my emphasis]." is also a strikingly bizarre take. I don't understand how anyone could think this.
The Old Testament has entered the chat.
> Indeed, in most indigenous languages, there is no word for prison.
I think it's disingenuous to argue that a certain type of misery did not exist because it doesn't map 1:1 to our label of it. It's at least sloppy.
Noble savages are a fictional creation[0]:
> A large, horticultural population near Lake Victoria, the Gusii lived in clans that were territorially separated from other clan territories by areas of uninhabited bush. Because these clans were exogamous, men had to seek wives from neighboring clans. Many societies have chosen marriage partners in the same way without social conflict, but Gusii clans were so hostile to one another that most had feuded in the past, and animosities continued to run high. A Gusii proverb said, “Those whom we marry are those whom we fight.” This presented the Gusii with a dilema, but instead of attempting to soothe these tensions as other societies with a similar form of marriage have done, the Gusii made matters worse.
> Both before and after marriage, Gusii men were said to have been so frustrated sexually that they resorted to rape. Whether sexual frustration was the cause or not, the fact is that the Gusii committed rape almost four times as often as the average rate in the United States. In 1937, there were so many rapes that the British colonial government had to threaten military action, and in 1950 there were so many convictions for rape that there were not enough prison facilities to hold the offenders. Not surprisingly, married life itself was always distant and often hostile. The antagonism between Gusii men and women clearly caused considerable stress, and if it served any useful social purpose, it has yet to be identified.
[0]: https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-sick-societies-by-robert...
I think it's disingenuous to argue that a certain type of misery did not exist because it doesn't map 1:1 to our label of it. It's at least sloppy.
Noble savages are a fictional creation[0]:
> A large, horticultural population near Lake Victoria, the Gusii lived in clans that were territorially separated from other clan territories by areas of uninhabited bush. Because these clans were exogamous, men had to seek wives from neighboring clans. Many societies have chosen marriage partners in the same way without social conflict, but Gusii clans were so hostile to one another that most had feuded in the past, and animosities continued to run high. A Gusii proverb said, “Those whom we marry are those whom we fight.” This presented the Gusii with a dilema, but instead of attempting to soothe these tensions as other societies with a similar form of marriage have done, the Gusii made matters worse.
> Both before and after marriage, Gusii men were said to have been so frustrated sexually that they resorted to rape. Whether sexual frustration was the cause or not, the fact is that the Gusii committed rape almost four times as often as the average rate in the United States. In 1937, there were so many rapes that the British colonial government had to threaten military action, and in 1950 there were so many convictions for rape that there were not enough prison facilities to hold the offenders. Not surprisingly, married life itself was always distant and often hostile. The antagonism between Gusii men and women clearly caused considerable stress, and if it served any useful social purpose, it has yet to be identified.
[0]: https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-sick-societies-by-robert...
> In Western culture, we are socialized to believe that the desire to inflict counterviolence upon or retaliate against someone who has hurt us or a loved one is innate and that justice has always been done and will always be done in this way. In fact, far from universal or natural, this adversarial vision of justice is a relatively recent cultural and historical construction, arising around AD 1200 with the dawning of the nation-state and racial capitalism.
Socrates was jailed and put to death in ~399BC. The Code of Hammurabi called for "an eye for an eye" nearly 3000 years before the claimed period.
Socrates was jailed and put to death in ~399BC. The Code of Hammurabi called for "an eye for an eye" nearly 3000 years before the claimed period.
> Because European colonialists saw no jails, police, lawyers, judges, or courts in African indigenous societies, they mistakenly concluded these cultures had no way to address social conflict and wrongdoing.
This is incorrect. Wolf packs, apes, cats and many other social animals have methods to address social conflict and wrongdoing. What they saw was a resource to be conquered, and then retroactively justified it with with societal infrastructure. An argument could be made that they are better off with these things, but the way it was done was of course wrong.
> In Western culture, we are socialized to believe that the desire to inflict counterviolence upon or retaliate against someone who has hurt us or a loved one is innate and that justice has always been done and will always be done in this way. In fact, far from universal or natural, this adversarial vision of justice is a relatively recent cultural and historical construction, arising around AD 1200 with the dawning of the nation-state and racial capitalism.
Again, wrong. Matthew 5:39: Jesus tells his followers, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also". There was recognition, likely far longer than Jesus, that escalating retaliatory violence is not good. And in common times in Western culture, we do not inflict upon criminals what they themselves did to others. If a man stabs another man to death, he is not sentenced to death by stabbing.
> Though restorative justice is new to Western jurisprudence, it is not at all new in the broader sweep of human history. For most of human history, reconciliation and restitution to victims and their kin took precedence over vengeance. This is because restoring social peace and avoiding blood feuds were paramount social concerns. Restitution and reconciliation, not punishment, were overarching aspirations.
Again, no. Restorative justice takes place all of the time. It's precisely how we have been "avoiding blood feuds" in the West. "Restitution and reconciliation" is not always an option. You and I mostly follow reason, but we do not live in a world of universal humans, and not everyone is born equal. Some people have inherited exceptional anger, spite, vengeance, etc. Some people have an ideology so ingrained into their very being, that they would strap explosives to themselves and kills hundreds of people. The world is not sunshine and rainbows, there is some real evil out there.
> Punishment, the equivalent of officially sanctioned vengeance, is a mere variant of the original harm, replicating and reproducing it, resulting in the destruction of community safety nets and social breakdown.
Wrong. Punishment in a just system is not decided by the victim, and therefore vengeance is not considered. What does result in the destructions of society, though, is when some people believe there is not going to be a consequence to their actions. Then, to destroy a society, just a small group of bad actors have the ability to do whatever they want. In African indigenous societies, the village chief and the warriors/hunters would have punished a bad actor - you are insane to think otherwise.
> It locks us into the past and tethers us to disabling definitions of ourselves and an overidentification with the pain, mistaking it for who we truly are.
Would the person writing this tell this to a person that has been raped? As part of their restorative justice, the victim is forced to reconcile with their attacker. The attacker walks freely without punishment, whilst the victim is told to stop living in the past and to stop identifying with the pain.
Let's see how well that holds up.
> Imprisoned by the pain and the past, the harmed party experiences victimization a second time, but this time, it is self-inflicted. It is scientifically documented that hatred and anger eat away at our well-being, on physical and emotional levels.
"scientifically documented" - proceeds to not cite the science
Hatred and anger are normally present when there is a feeling that justice is not done correctly and quickly.
This is incorrect. Wolf packs, apes, cats and many other social animals have methods to address social conflict and wrongdoing. What they saw was a resource to be conquered, and then retroactively justified it with with societal infrastructure. An argument could be made that they are better off with these things, but the way it was done was of course wrong.
> In Western culture, we are socialized to believe that the desire to inflict counterviolence upon or retaliate against someone who has hurt us or a loved one is innate and that justice has always been done and will always be done in this way. In fact, far from universal or natural, this adversarial vision of justice is a relatively recent cultural and historical construction, arising around AD 1200 with the dawning of the nation-state and racial capitalism.
Again, wrong. Matthew 5:39: Jesus tells his followers, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also". There was recognition, likely far longer than Jesus, that escalating retaliatory violence is not good. And in common times in Western culture, we do not inflict upon criminals what they themselves did to others. If a man stabs another man to death, he is not sentenced to death by stabbing.
> Though restorative justice is new to Western jurisprudence, it is not at all new in the broader sweep of human history. For most of human history, reconciliation and restitution to victims and their kin took precedence over vengeance. This is because restoring social peace and avoiding blood feuds were paramount social concerns. Restitution and reconciliation, not punishment, were overarching aspirations.
Again, no. Restorative justice takes place all of the time. It's precisely how we have been "avoiding blood feuds" in the West. "Restitution and reconciliation" is not always an option. You and I mostly follow reason, but we do not live in a world of universal humans, and not everyone is born equal. Some people have inherited exceptional anger, spite, vengeance, etc. Some people have an ideology so ingrained into their very being, that they would strap explosives to themselves and kills hundreds of people. The world is not sunshine and rainbows, there is some real evil out there.
> Punishment, the equivalent of officially sanctioned vengeance, is a mere variant of the original harm, replicating and reproducing it, resulting in the destruction of community safety nets and social breakdown.
Wrong. Punishment in a just system is not decided by the victim, and therefore vengeance is not considered. What does result in the destructions of society, though, is when some people believe there is not going to be a consequence to their actions. Then, to destroy a society, just a small group of bad actors have the ability to do whatever they want. In African indigenous societies, the village chief and the warriors/hunters would have punished a bad actor - you are insane to think otherwise.
> It locks us into the past and tethers us to disabling definitions of ourselves and an overidentification with the pain, mistaking it for who we truly are.
Would the person writing this tell this to a person that has been raped? As part of their restorative justice, the victim is forced to reconcile with their attacker. The attacker walks freely without punishment, whilst the victim is told to stop living in the past and to stop identifying with the pain.
Let's see how well that holds up.
> Imprisoned by the pain and the past, the harmed party experiences victimization a second time, but this time, it is self-inflicted. It is scientifically documented that hatred and anger eat away at our well-being, on physical and emotional levels.
"scientifically documented" - proceeds to not cite the science
Hatred and anger are normally present when there is a feeling that justice is not done correctly and quickly.
> "scientifically documented" - proceeds to not cite the science
It's an excerpt of a book which you can find online, where the citations are in the appendix. 14 pages of them.
It's an excerpt of a book which you can find online, where the citations are in the appendix. 14 pages of them.
> Restorative justice takes place all of the time.
I think you're operating from a different definition of RJ than the author.
> As part of their restorative justice, the victim is forced to reconcile with their attacker. The attacker walks freely without punishment, whilst the victim is told to stop living in the past and to stop identifying with the pain.
And this clearly illustrates it. When you look at the article, she talks about how it is a necessity of the kind of restorative justice she is talking about not to require reconciliation, nor can it operate with any level of force or demand participation. It's even there in the shorter excerpt.
Interview with her and her sister on her personal background stories: https://portside.org/2020-04-06/radical-work-healing-fania-a...
EFRJ Briefing Paper On The Use Of Restorative Justice In Cases Of Violence Against Women: https://www.euforumrj.org/efrj-briefing-paper-use-restorativ...
"The EFRJ drafted a briefing paper aiming to address key aspects of restorative justice and its application in cases of violence against women, such as sexual and domestic violence. It seeks to clarify concerns, highlight evidence-based practices, and emphasise the need for safeguards and high-quality standards to ensure restorative justice processes are safe, voluntary, and empowering for victims."
Keenan, M., Bonini, V., Martin, D., Haarländer, A., & Dev-Halonen, A. (2025). Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: Responding to Feminist Concerns. The International Journal of Restorative Justice. https://doi.org/10.5553/TIJRJ-000228
"This article examines feminist concerns for restorative justice in cases of domestic violence in what is a divided feminist landscape. Primary concerns focus on the potential risks for victim participation, given the power imbalances involved; whether informed consent can ever be reliably given, given the potential for victim manipulation by perpetrators; and whether restorative justice could lead to the re-privatisation of domestic violence, something feminists have long fought to change. […] Having examined the feminist critique of restorative justice in domestic violence we conclude that the risks and concerns identified can be addressed and mitigated by restorative justice practices and processes."
Interview with the ex-Vice Minister of Justice in Colombia:
"In the context of large-scale and systemic conflict, restorative justice must focus on the experience of victims, not only on their pain, but also on their capacity to process and address that suffering. It is important that these initiatives do not divide society into rigid categories of those who have caused the violence and those who have suffered from it, as there are many sectors that do not fit neatly into these categories. People may have participated in the conflict through their discourses, practices or ideas, or they may have been affected in different ways by the actions of others. There is therefore a need to move beyond this simplistic view and to develop social dialogue systems that allow for a holistic approach to addressing harm."
https://www.euforumrj.org/interview-camilo-eduardo-umana-her...
I think you're operating from a different definition of RJ than the author.
> As part of their restorative justice, the victim is forced to reconcile with their attacker. The attacker walks freely without punishment, whilst the victim is told to stop living in the past and to stop identifying with the pain.
And this clearly illustrates it. When you look at the article, she talks about how it is a necessity of the kind of restorative justice she is talking about not to require reconciliation, nor can it operate with any level of force or demand participation. It's even there in the shorter excerpt.
Interview with her and her sister on her personal background stories: https://portside.org/2020-04-06/radical-work-healing-fania-a...
EFRJ Briefing Paper On The Use Of Restorative Justice In Cases Of Violence Against Women: https://www.euforumrj.org/efrj-briefing-paper-use-restorativ...
"The EFRJ drafted a briefing paper aiming to address key aspects of restorative justice and its application in cases of violence against women, such as sexual and domestic violence. It seeks to clarify concerns, highlight evidence-based practices, and emphasise the need for safeguards and high-quality standards to ensure restorative justice processes are safe, voluntary, and empowering for victims."
Keenan, M., Bonini, V., Martin, D., Haarländer, A., & Dev-Halonen, A. (2025). Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: Responding to Feminist Concerns. The International Journal of Restorative Justice. https://doi.org/10.5553/TIJRJ-000228
"This article examines feminist concerns for restorative justice in cases of domestic violence in what is a divided feminist landscape. Primary concerns focus on the potential risks for victim participation, given the power imbalances involved; whether informed consent can ever be reliably given, given the potential for victim manipulation by perpetrators; and whether restorative justice could lead to the re-privatisation of domestic violence, something feminists have long fought to change. […] Having examined the feminist critique of restorative justice in domestic violence we conclude that the risks and concerns identified can be addressed and mitigated by restorative justice practices and processes."
Interview with the ex-Vice Minister of Justice in Colombia:
"In the context of large-scale and systemic conflict, restorative justice must focus on the experience of victims, not only on their pain, but also on their capacity to process and address that suffering. It is important that these initiatives do not divide society into rigid categories of those who have caused the violence and those who have suffered from it, as there are many sectors that do not fit neatly into these categories. People may have participated in the conflict through their discourses, practices or ideas, or they may have been affected in different ways by the actions of others. There is therefore a need to move beyond this simplistic view and to develop social dialogue systems that allow for a holistic approach to addressing harm."
https://www.euforumrj.org/interview-camilo-eduardo-umana-her...
While I don't think that we can make a definitive statement that justice in "Africa" was nonexistent, the very idea of considering "Africa" as a single homogeneous environment or domain of policy is incredibly reductive at best.
Even the specific examples given of "restorative justice" are pretty much identical but less formal than the Roman Law counterparts.
> For instance, in ancient Zimbabwe, if you killed someone, you would pay 109 goats. If you had no goats, you would offer one of your children to the victim’s family. If you did not have a child, an adult from your family would go live with the dead person’s family.
I find this nearly impossible to believe that all of the hundreds of clans spanning tens of ethnicities that resided in what is present day Zimbabwe had "109 goats" encoded in their traditions, much less that oral traditions had sufficient stability over generations that this is even a sensical statement. If we accept the dubious idea that this was codified in a uniform way then the question is how does this differ from other traditions? Restitution for murder to avoid blood feuds was an essential part of both Roman and Germanic law traditions, as is subjugation and slavery (in the non-chattel sense used in the book).