The Loliondo saga has taken a new twist as the Minister responsible for Tourism/Hunting has declared that some of the Maasai there are not Tanzanians. At the same time some of our 'enlightened' friends are furthering the ancient argument that nomadism - or transhumance to put it correctly - is not a 'civilized/developed' way of living in the 'modern' world. Ironically, this argument was advanced by the great African Philosopher of History, Ibn Khaldun (1332 -1406 AD) as the following Mahmood Mamdani's critique shows: But all ignore that the thrust of Ibd Khaldun's remarks is deduced from his general theory about the destructive power of nomads in the history of civilizations; he thus highlights the impact of the Juhayna in Nubia as purely destructive. If we are to follow the logic of his argument, the result would not be conquest but disintegration. Of the Bedouins, says Ibd Khaldun, "their rule was inevitably lacking in statemanship, because of their essential defect, which denied the subordination of one man to another. " As a consequence, "they have been divided to this day and there is no trace of central authority in their part of the country. They remain nomads, following the rainfall like the Bedouins [sic]." "The Bedouins," concludes Ibn Khaldun, "are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and anti-thesis of civilization." If Nomadism is indeed the anti-thesis of civilization how come we have a lot of settled communities that are not that civilized? Could it be that nomadism is the actual thesis of civilization-cum-development as the history of migration and movements of conquest indicate? Why, then, are we singling out nomads when we fail to get civilized/developed?