Talk:Lobolo

No, nothing more I can add here. It's mahadi in Sesotho. Not sure about the link to bride price (with its negative connotations) - no one considers ilobolo itself oppressive. Good luck? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

As some-one once married by paying lobola [a long story!] I have to say - it's a custom that varies from tribe to tribe! 73 tribes in Zambia, hundreds in Africa, enjoy this tradition, each in their own way.

• Lozi - the husband brings cattle to to bride's father - who looks after them, and multiplies them, until his grandchildren are of marriageable age - who then have security, and means to marry well. [It's better than welfare?]
• Bemba - if the young man has no money or resources, he will contract - as lobola - to work for his father-in-law for a specified time - say, two years. He is still obligated to pay lobola - in this case, an axe or hoe, an appropriate token. He will later inherit his wife's father's property?

Other tribes have other customs. It's a matter of concern,in Zambia, that lobola, once a measure of respect, is lately a commercial transaction? 203.59.82.174 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is there no mention in here that YOU ARE BUYING A HUMAN BEING by doing this???--24.29.83.94 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe the customary practice varies from tribe to tribe; nevertheless it might be valuable to include an example of how lobolo is intended to work. Since I am white my experience has been effectively limited to one instance, but I was impressed by the common-sense which drove that application. I attended a black friend's wedding in Bulawayo in 1982. (A Matabele/Shona partnership) What happened here was that he had to pay lobolo to her family before they could go ahead and get married. Once the lobolo was paid, the bride's family arranged - and paid for - the wedding. By a strange co-incidence (not!) the cost of the wedding almost exactly equalled the amount of lobolo... and determined the number of guests present at the reception, which in turn determined the value of wedding gifts received. At the reception, the gift-giving ceremony (which took most of the afternoon) was highly organised, with record being made of who had given what, and to what value. Once again, the value of the wedding gifts, in cash, household gifts and in kind, just about equalled the lobolo amount.

So what we had in this case, was

• a young man who had proved to his prospective in-laws that he could adequately support their daughter (and any children)
  
• a family who had the wedding costs covered in advance
  
• a newlywed couple with a nice economic kick-start to their life together.
  

Notice that the lobolo effectively wound up back with the bridegroom (and his bride!): Nobody bought anyone else.

IF lobolo was consistently practised in this way, who would object?
However, my Zulu and Sotho friends tell me that yes, it is supposed to work something like this, but Western capitalism (or old-fashioned greed) has corrupted lobolo (as well as many other traditional practices), and that now it was more common for families to demand unreasonable lobolo in order to make a profit; or for more desperate, poorer families, to offer give-away prices. (I believe that lobolo in the Free State, among Sotho families, is typically three or four times what it is in the Bergville area of KwaZulu-Natal, among Zulu families)

I am well aware that I am arguing from limited evidence, but, based on the above, and the fact that lobolo is based on several thousand years (at least) of African social development towards what has worked for Africans, I conclude that to discount lobolo as 'selling daughters' would be unfair. On the other hand, the influence of Western/Industrial civilization on African society needs to be taken into account; this may require adjustment, where lifestyles have changed accordingly. The real problem, to my mind, is to find a way to enforce the good traditional practice of lobolo, while preventing its abuse. David FLXD (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the article should be renamed bride price and then get into the culture/tribe specific modalities of bride price. Rather than saying lobola (which in itself is zulu/xhosa/ndebele) say bride price, tag Africa. within this new heading, create pages and links for mohadi, roora and other tribe/culture specific names for bride price then add information because its not the same with each culture neither is the name the same. Others view it as selling a human being; others see it as part of tradition and culture that should be preserved. Also, you cannot compare xhosa tradition with shona tradition, there are similarities and differences. Some groups in Ghana and Malawi see the payment of bride price as engagement whilst other cultures consider it marriage. You cannot compare what happens in South Africa (by citing the court ruling on homosexuality) to what happens in Uganda (see section on the project in Uganda) the countries are so different as are the laws. Its a good effort though, it just needs to be re contextualised so that people get an accurate picture of each group.

Malindi. talk to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.158.53 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have edited the section on titles. In many of our Southern African cultures, we have different titles for the same person depending on the side of the family one comes from (mom or dad's side) and rank, whether you are first, second or third etc so stating that an in-law is referred to as sekuru is wrong because that is what he is referred to by some members of the family. To give an example: if you a 1st born woman, your younger SISTERS children refer to you as amaiguru (older mother) but your BROTHERS children refer to you as tete. If you are not a first born (2nd, 3rd etc), you are referred to as amainini (younger mother) by your older sisters children but amaiguru by your younger sisters children but you are still tete by your brothers children. As tete, your husband is sekuru to your brothers children. Amainini's husband is babamunini and amaiguru's husband is babamukuru. This ranking system extends to cousins BUT again its not done by age but by relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.253.222 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a peculiar piece. While Lobola is indeed the Nguni-group name for the bridal redemption, you would think from this piece that it's unique to southern Africa. The piece as good as says this.

The standard term for this practice is bridal redemption. Bridal redemption has been, over the centuries, and remains an extremely common practice thoughout the world (for example, in Russia and the other countries of the former USSR, thoughout Africa, in many others parts, such as Oceania, etc.).

This article should be renamed Bridal Redemption (or something else that can be agreed), and should provide a generic description of this practice, history, purpose, etc., and then a brief list of the local names and variations (such as Lobola). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.222.44 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This piece has been nicely edited. I particularly like the section on the recognition of customary marriages which brings a legal perspective to what was previously a document lacking in substance. I am suitably impressed with the referencing and the additions to this document have been well thought out and make a big difference to the body of knowledge.(CMkhize (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

ETA: I have just re-read the document as it has been extremely thought provoking and I must add that the document contains gems of information. Nice. (CMkhize (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

What are lobola of Zulu peoples 105.245.12.108 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply