Geographical Territory and Ethnicity

The Highlands versus the Coast

Among Malagasy, distinctions are made in reference to geographical areas and their corresponding ethnic groups, which in turn are relevant to the development of political power in Madagascar. There are, first, the peoples of the high plateaux. The most important group here is the Merina. The Betsileo, who live to the south of the Merina, occupy an ambiguous position in the minds of other Malagasy, since they are of the plateaux but are non-Merina people. I know of no general term in common usage that is applied collectively to Merina and Betsileo. Instead, more specific ethnic labels are used. Contrasted to these two highland groups are the côtiers (“peoples of the coast”), a term coined during the colonial era by the French to label all other Malagasy groups, many of whom Covell (1987: 13) points out live nowhere near the coast. The term côtiers is used most frequently by highland peoples and carries somewhat derogatory connotations.

These two general geographical categories have evolved out of politically defined divisions as a result of Merina expansion and subsequent French occupation of the island. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Merina conquered much of the island and established a powerful kingdom. By the early 1900s Merina royalty in Antananarivo established an alliance with the British against the French, but this alliance ended when the French conquered the island. Throughout the twentieth century the distinction between Merina and all other peoples has remained significant. With Independence, President Tsiranana (who himself was from the coast) and his party members “tried to mobilize support by portraying themselves as defenders against ‘Merina domination’ ” (Covell 1987: 13). Today, this tension persists. As Covell states, “The conflict cannot be reduced either to ethnic or class competition, but has elements of both” (1987: 13; she in turn cites Tronchon 1975).

Relations between members of these two major geographical groups are characterized by mistrust and racist attitudes. African versus Austronesian origins are a subject of important debate in Madagascar. Merina and Betsileo claim to be the most “Polynesian” of the Malagasy (see Bloch 1971: 1–5) and look disdainfully on coastal peoples, whom they often refer to as being “more African.” These comments are made most often in reference to skin color and hair texture. For example, the term Makoa (which often appears on censuses as an ethnic category, see figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) is used as a descriptive (and somewhat derogatory) term for people who have dark skin and kinky hair. Makoa were originally brought to Madagascar as slaves from an area in the interior of Africa that is now part of Mozambique (see Lombard 1988: 88 and Smith 1963 on the “Makua,” especially pp. 257 and 273). Highlanders in general view côtiers as backward and uneducated. Coastal peoples, in turn, express resentment of Merina who were once favored by the French and who form the majority of the population in the capital city. Merina continue to dominate the national political arena and maintain access to the best education, health care, and other services and facilities, and they fill many of the country’s civil service jobs. (For a discussion of these trends after Independence, especially in reference to education, see LaPierre 1966.) Ideas shared by members of each of these groups toward one another also include notions of uncleanliness; concepts of physical beauty, especially in regard to skin color (“white/black”: HP: fotsy/mainty; SAK: fotsy/joby); and a reluctance to intermarry (cf. Bloch 1971: 1–5, 198–201; J. Ramamonjisoa 1984).

The Tanindrazana or Ancestral Land

The most important concept used to define personal and group identity is that of the ancestral land (HP: tanindrazana; SAK: tanindrazan̂a). This may not necessarily be the locality where one lives or even grew up; it is where one’s ancestors are located and, ultimately, where one will be entombed. For all Malagasy, identity is intrinsically linked to the ancestral land. Although it is considered rude to ask what one’s ethnicity is, asking the question “where is your ancestral land” (HP: “aiza ny tanindrazanao?”) will generally provide the same information (see Bloch 1968 and 1971, especially chapter 4).

Even when Malagasy migrate to other parts of Madagascar, the notion of the ancestral land continues to tie them to a particular locale. It is not simply the geographical space, but the ancestors themselves that serve as the locus of identity and that define an individual’s point of origin. As a result, as one moves about the island, one continues to have a strong sense of ethnic identity that is geographically defined. As Keenan states of the Vakinankaratra (a group that is culturally considered to be Merina), “The worst fear of a villager is to travel far from the tanindrazana and fall sick and, perhaps, die alone” (Keenan 1974). The same may be said for the majority of Malagasy, regardless of origin.^[4] Migrants and their children, who are born far from their ancestral land, may continue to invest money in a family tomb that is hundreds of miles away, so that they can be placed there when they are dead.