# Social Category > South African Politics Forum >  Cultural vs national identity

## Dave A

A discussion in the members area has certainly given me pause for thought.

For members, the starting point is probably here, and a number of responses that followed from that. Nothing too earth shattering for a while, until a link was posted to this piece - Boer, Afrikaner Or White - Which Are You?

Certainly the headline question itself isn't earth shattering in itself - it's only when you have read the first few paragraphs, and absorbed the paradigm behind it, that the real issues this piece raises start to emerge.




> This family history is being repeated by every Boer family in South Africa right now - people are again losing their ethnic identity and confused about what to call themselves - Boers, Afrikaners or whites, which are you?   
> 
> They are losing their ethnic identity - and it's not the first time this tragedy is occurring.   
> 
> So who are these people - first called the Grensboere, then the Voortrekkers, then Boers, then Afrikaners - and who again being degraded to "whites" - people in other words, who have no right to live on the African continent.


So having no claim to be a Boer or an Afrikaner myself, quite clearly the writer would classify me as "only white", and thereby having no right to live on the African continent!
Which certainly is very different to my personal view of myself in the matter.

It's coming face to face with these sharp fractures in paradigms that tend to get me doing some of my deepest thinking. And I've been scurrying down all sorts of rabbit holes for quite a few hours now.

Trying to set out some of those rabbit holes here would certainly make for a long, tedious post. Just the first rabbit hole of "if the writer is right, where do I actually belong then?" could end up with a post of thousands of words on its own. So let's cut to the chase on the question posed at the end of one particular rabbit hole that I think is quite important for the future of South Africa, and perhaps other parts of the world too.

One of the main themes of the piece is the issue of cultural identity, and the author believes that cultural identity defines our right (among other things) as to where we live and "belong" geographically.

True?

Or is the author confusing cultural identity with one's own national identity?

And if you associate yourself with your national identity (in my case, South African), is that enough (to make you a valid South African)?

----------


## tec0

Well my answer is “if my bloodline isn’t good enough to be here” send us home. I am so very tired of all this crap anyhow. I mean our families spilled the same blood in the same mud for over 100 years. See this also just boils down to entitlement. They can call themselves whatever they want. I know my family history so I don't need there approval. 

Don't worry about it Dave, you are as much a South African then what I am.

----------


## vieome

> So having no claim to be a Boer or an Afrikaner myself, quite clearly the writer would classify me as "only white", and thereby having no right to live on the African continent!


I think that the danger is if we remove the classifications, then in a sense it erasers ones history, and that is the point the writer is trying to make. It is ones cultural identity that ties them into the national identity, thus it is better to be classified as say example, a British South African, then to be classified as simply white. The British tag ties you to your culture, and the SA tag ties you to the national identity. However in terms of Africa, a simple classification system such as you are white, will tag you as foreign.

----------


## wynn

My Grandfather on my Fathers side came over to SA from England with the then 'Colonial Post Office' and was just old enough to fight and get wounded in the 'Anglo Boer War'
After the 2nd World War my father joined the South African Navy, and being English Speaking was discriminated against literally his entire career.
So by now as English speaking South Africans, born here second generation, we are quite used to discrimination, (This too will pass) we just need to hang on for another fifty or so years until the 'Born Free's' are in Government before we will see an improvement.

----------


## Blurock

Maybe the problem starts with the narrow minded "little people". Those minorities that feel threatened because they do not have the intellect or education or the will to make a difference in this world. They have always been dependent on the government or the church or a cultural leader to give them guidance and a cause to "fight" for. 

The Nat government warned about the "Swart gevaar, the Rooi (communist) gevaar and even the Catholic church. This covered race, religion and politics and in some cases even the language issue. People put their faith in government who could solve all problems including drought, floods and business disputes. (exactly the same mistake the ANC cadres are making today)

Because people allowed themselves to be manipulated and because they could not think for themselves, their world collapsed when their government collapsed and a new (even more corrupt) government took over. Fortunately this urged a number of threatened, retrenched whites to get off their lazy butts and to start doing something for themselves. The explosion in franchises and entrepreneurs over the past 20 years is evidence of that.  

Over the years I have had many friends from minority groups including Jews, Muslims, Italians, Swiss and Germans etc. While some of them complained and even went "back home", most of them returned to South Africa where the sun shines on everyone. They do speak their native tongues in addition to English or even Afrikaans. They do indulge in their cultural festivals but they are not exclusive, they fit into their communities. They share their food, language and culture with anyone interested. That is how we picked up recipes, art and music. I love my samoosas, pizza, eisbein, spatzle, spiced lamb and all the wonderful things I have picked up from other cultures.   

I have learnt from them that I am firstly a South African and then a proud Afrikaner. I will not die if I speak English, I do not have to live in a Boerestaat. I am not dependant on government or a political party to think for me. I am free to practice my own religion and don't have to listen to dogma. I have learnt that I am a child of the Universe and that I have a duty to care for God's creation. I have learnt to do my part to earn a living on this earth. I have learnt that I must put back more that I am taking out. 

Hopefully I will overcome my failings and will try to leave this place in a better state than I found it.

----------

wynn (02-Dec-13)

----------


## Dave A

> I think that the danger is if we remove the classifications, then in a sense it erasers ones history, and that is the point the writer is trying to make.


Perhaps. But she also attaches consequences to the point. Which I guess is where this line of enquiry is heading.




> It is ones cultural identity that ties them into the national identity, thus it is better to be classified as say example, a British South African, then to be classified as simply white. The British tag ties you to your culture, and the SA tag ties you to the national identity.


Well there's my "apparent" issue right there, which is what some replies have picked on. 

I am (to my mind anyway) quite simply an urban, English speaking South African (who by virtue of inherited genetic code is white). I have absolutely no affinity or sense of connection to my "British ancestry", which lies so far back in history it certainly has no bearing on how I feel I should be defined today.

I've even visited the UK, and I had absolutely no sense of connection with the people or the place whatsoever. A foreign land, with foreign people. In fact all it did was strengthen my identity as an African (who happens to be white), much like my visits to other parts of the world too.

In essence, my cultural identity that I associate myself with is a South African one. It doesn't exist anywhere else - it has evolved here. 

Thus probably easier for me to say than for others, I guess - but *ultimately* it seems to me this emotional attachment to historical cultural heritage and trying to use it to justify one's presence in a country etc. just creates problems. What we should be dealing with is the current situation - the here and now.

Society evolves.
Culture evolves too.
And as it evolves, it doesn't necessarily wipe out the history of that culture.

Most of all, we can't allow really old history to define and dictate our present or future.

----------

Blurock (07-Dec-13)

----------


## pmbguy

In a 1000 years from now we will all be “coloured” A mix of Caucasian, African, Asian and Other races. We can then call ourselves the Wordian race :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## desA

This discussion is incredibly disturbing.

We have no control over where we are born. The nation in which we are born, determines our birth rights. We are the fruit of that nation's loins, so to speak.

Should we try to superimpose the historical baggage & bondage of our forefathers/fore-mothers onto our future lives?

Would it not perhaps, be simpler to walk our own road, free from hindrance & bondage?

----------

Blurock (07-Dec-13)

----------


## tec0

My bloodline defines my genetics. My mind defines me for who I am. If people want to elevate their importance trough historical backgrounds and there social standing not to mention income then they already lost t the plot.  

They must also remember without us the “little people” there is no “them”

----------


## pmbguy

One thing is for sure, I will never call myself “African”, as some white South Africans do. Although I am South African I don’t have an African worldview I have a European/Western worldview. I am more similar to my ancestors than I am to the indigenous people of Africa. 

I identify myself as a proud South African, who views the world through the Western paradigm.

----------


## ians

I am a "European African" in other words like the minority African American, I am in the same situation here, only difference is here I am discriminated against because of the colour of my skin cant get government contracts, cant even get a job at Macdonalds  :Frown:

----------

tec0 (02-Dec-13)

----------


## tec0

> I am a "European African" in other words like the minority African American, I am in the same situation here, only difference is here I am discriminated against because of the colour of my skin cant get government contracts, cant even get a job at Macdonalds


Not to mention the countless red tape in owning operating a business...

----------


## adrianh

South Africa is a baby in terms of national identity. How long have different nations lived here. Think about the Chinese, it is said that they have been living in China for over 10,000 years. Look at Europe, they have a very long national / cultural history. 

People have always and will always identify with their own kind, why, well why do you identify with your family and they with theirs in turn. All of us are related in some way or another, the difference between us and older cultures is that their families trace back for hundreds and thousands of years within the same culture and nation. 

Us, the American Australians and many others are the bastard children of our parent cultures and nations. If one looks at it in that sense then the black cultures have a longer history than that of the white bastard children. 

Food for thought....my own train of thought sometimes bewilders me too....

----------


## flumpty

> This discussion is incredibly disturbing.
> 
> We have no control over where we are born. The nation in which we are born, determines our birth rights. We are the fruit of that nation's loins, so to speak.
> 
> Should we try to superimpose the historical baggage & bondage of our forefathers/fore-mothers onto our future lives?
> 
> Would it not perhaps, be simpler to walk our own road, free from hindrance & bondage?


You got it right. It's a political weapon, used with incredible hypocrisy. 

I notice that there is a problem with identity with white south africans. As soon as they emigrate they quickly become "south-African born" Americans, Australians or Brits who happened to grow up in ZA, etc. etc. (and by implication, lived here as foreigners). Their identity is attacked in a pincer movement - from themselves, by being absolutely fed up to death with the country and not wanting anything to do with it, and also by the world who feel that whites cannot be African. I'd be interested to know how their children feel. I mean would they have any affiliation to ZA at all?

----------


## tec0

I have a feeling we are moving towards an end of something. The first world will soon demand the shutdown of our power-stations now you can thank the green movement for that and there pollution BS. But I digress.

If I am not South African enough to be called a South African then screw it. Give me back my international  identity and I will go back to my “home country” A first world country where there are no discriminating laws and people screaming about who has more entitlement.  There I will be able to live get a good job and contribute to my so called “home country” I will do this gladly. 

If I am not good enough then that is there decision not mine. But once they make that decision they damn well better stick with it because I will not be accepting any apologies  and I will not be a part of anything they do, I will not help in any way or form. 

Is this what you want?

----------


## cyppokagain

I don't know my view on my identity goes far deeper than what you have here. In Russia there was an association with ones region and or city/oblast/krai + ethnic lineage. Ergo a person could be your land kin neighbor because they are from the same city/region as you its' not really that close but more like an icebreaker where you know your from the same place. Here in the states everyone has their little ethnic anchors and feels a little different.

I actually like this it makes everyone feel a bit special.

My guess is there really isn't that much regionalization in SA yet nobody feels Capey or Capetownie or Gautengy to most people its just a name or a landscape without underlying people or networks. Even in the states there is some regionalization Southerner, Midwesterner, New Englander ergo these people are like this those are like that behavioral patterns etc... even New Yorkers and Bostonians etc...

----------


## Blurock

The problem that I have with culture is that it encourages elitism. My culture is better than yours. My language or my religion is superior to yours etc etc. I have no problem with people observing their cultural traditions though, as long as it is not exclusive and offensive to other cultures.

I would rather identify with the community in which I am staying and assimilate and blend into that "culture". For instance if I lived in Jeffreys Bay, I would associate with the surfing culture and become part of it. If I had to live in Pofadder or Put-Sonder-Water I would probably blend into the agri culture and learn how to make biltong.

The problem with some immigrants all over the world is that they do not blend into the local community and become part of it. If you want to go live in Australia (God forbid) you have to become an Australian. You must speak the language, embrace their culture and support their sports teams. Don't go live in another country and then critisize them for being who they are. We see that all over Europe; immigrants fleeing from their own countries, but then not wanting to become proper citizens of their host country. They try to establish a mini Honduras or Pakistan or homeland in their adopted country. That is where the conflict starts.

----------

Dave A (07-Dec-13)

----------


## Justloadit

Got to agree with Blurock. There has even been demand to change the local religion, and in some cases immigrants have been successful.
This is my house, if you wanna live here, you abide by my rules, if you don't like it, then f~ck off and go back to where you came from, don't try and preach to me.

----------

Blurock (07-Dec-13)

----------


## cyppokagain

> The problem with some immigrants all over the world is that they do not blend into the local community and become part of it. If you want to go live in Australia (God forbid) you have to become an Australian. You must speak the language, embrace their culture and support their sports teams. Don't go live in another country and then critisize them for being who they are. We see that all over Europe; immigrants fleeing from their own countries, but then not wanting to become proper citizens of their host country. They try to establish a mini Honduras or Pakistan or homeland in their adopted country. That is where the conflict starts.


the problem is the host country gov't from local level up may want non-assimilation for a whole host of reasons from political electorate splits (Democrats vs Republicans) to the general divide and rule. You also have 'ethnic diversity' encouragement and basically squashing of discussion on the issue in certain countries. 

also drive for cheap labor by companies trumps some of what you say as well.

in US every major city has their own little enclaves of similar people doesn't really matter if you think about the whole country being made by immigrants.

----------


## dix

> Perhaps. But she also attaches consequences to the point. Which I guess is where this line of enquiry is heading.
> 
> 
> Well there's my "apparent" issue right there, which is what some replies have picked on. 
> 
> I am (to my mind anyway) quite simply an urban, English speaking South African (who by virtue of inherited genetic code is white). I have absolutely no affinity or sense of connection to my "British ancestry", which lies so far back in history it certainly has no bearing on how I feel I should be defined today.
> 
> I've even visited the UK, and I had absolutely no sense of connection with the people or the place whatsoever. A foreign land, with foreign people. In fact all it did was strengthen my identity as an African (who happens to be white), much like my visits to other parts of the world too.
> 
> ...



So if I was born in Europe I can be an English man who happens to be black? Please man, Africa refer to the continent and Africans refers to Black people as much as Europe refers to the Continent and Ueropeans to english people.

We could well say African people need to awake and fix their legislation so that your mother doesn't come here for birth so that you can claim belonging.

Altogether it would be rude for black people to claim land and cultural rights in Europe because the mother gave birth right there

----------


## adrianh

> So if I was born in Europe I can be an English man who happens to be black? Please man, Africa refer to the continent and Africans refers to Black people as much as Europe refers to the Continent and Ueropeans to english people.
> 
> We could well say African people need to awake and fix their legislation so that your mother doesn't come here for birth so that you can claim belonging.
> 
> Altogether it would be rude for black people to claim land and cultural rights in Europe because the mother gave birth right there


So you are saying that you should go back to wherever your forefathers came from because Africa is only for black people. Interesting...

Another point, how many African Americans do you see flocking home to Africa....Here is another thought, if the while man was such a terrible slave master how come the Africans in Africa didn't go and fetch the slaves from wherever they were taken?

----------


## vieome

> So if I was born in Europe I can be an English man who happens to be black?


.  if you ever visit the United Kingdom you find that most British Blacks generally define their roots and culture as being West Indian not African but their identity as British blacks. 




> Please man, Africa refer to the continent and Africans refers to Black people as much as Europe refers to the Continent and Ueropeans to english people.


  European refers to the many diverse groups on the continent of Europe not just English people. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe

    the Russians (ca. 95 million residing in Europe),[a]
    the Germans (ca. 82 million),[b]
    the French (ca. 65 million)[c][3]
    the Italians (5661 million)[d]
    the British (5561 million)[e]
    the Spanish (4143 million),[f]
    the Ukrainians (3855 million),
    the Poles (ca. 38 million).




> We could well say African people need to awake and fix their legislation so that your mother doesn't come here for birth so that you can claim belonging.


 What is your position on mixed race people then? What is your position on a Nigerian who is African but claims the right to be South African?




> Altogether it would be rude for black people to claim land and cultural rights in Europe because the mother gave birth right there


 Why would you think that, the Son of a African Black Kenyan claims cultural rights in American and holds the highest office on planet earth. Where do you stop or start argument for who has right to African, the birth place of all of mankind.

----------


## adrianh

What about white Australians and Americans...where do they really belong?

----------


## Justloadit

> So if I was born in Europe I can be an English man who happens to be black? Please man, Africa refer to the continent and Africans refers to Black people as much as Europe refers to the Continent and Ueropeans to english people.


So according to you, all Europeans are English?
So all people that are born in the USA are Europeans not Americans?
What a load of rubbish, you are obviously trying to create animosity here.
Europe is made up of many cultures and languages, the fact that many Europeans speak English, does not make them English.




> Altogether it would be rude for black people to claim land and cultural rights in Europe because the mother gave birth right there


If you are born in any country in Europe, or USA, you are then a national of the country you are born in, and enjoy all the benefits that this brings you, however if you chose to disown your nationality, you can do this too, and return to the land of your parents. That is what being part of democracy brings you.

----------


## Citizen X

I support a national identity as a South African, funny enough the word  Afrikaner, come from African.
The preamble to the Constitution supports this national identity as it reads:

We, the people of South Africa, 
Recognise the injustices of our past; 
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; 
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and 
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity

----------


## dix

> So you are saying that you should go back to wherever your forefathers came from because Africa is only for black people. Interesting...
> 
> Another point, how many African Americans do you see flocking home to Africa....Here is another thought, if the while man was such a terrible slave master how come the Africans in Africa didn't go and fetch the slaves from wherever they were taken?


Man the constitution might entitle you to all the rights but the African people know that the land was their forefathers and for their children forever and for that reason you can't be at peace in their land if you claim belonging.

Concerning the American issue, in America I know there are White Americans and Black Americans all because of the privilege they obtained through the war, the land was first occupied by other people whom the land was taken from.

It is therefore improper to compare America and Africa because Africans (Black) people are still here in their land, and you can compare Europe and Africa.

Concerning the Black slavery, it happed because of disunity among Black people and they are only starting to realise unity and need not to fetch the people from France for instance, because of the stregth they derive from other Blacks through unity.

Just like I said, slavery among the black people happened because of disunity and it was not because white people were terrible slave masters, the fault was on Black people, they were not organised.

Let me say it again Black people were at fault frist because of disunity and all that happened to them, was for them to realise their weeknesses but not because whites were terrible people.

----------


## vieome

So would you classify the following Africans as black ? Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia . You cant start history at a place that conveniently gives land to a certain group. The Europeans themselves migrated from Africa meaning their fore fathers were African. Or do we just start history from the point for the Bantu migrations?  There are Over 7400 African Tribes in Africa, and they all feel they have claims to certain parts of Africa.

----------


## adrianh

> Man the constitution might entitle you to all the rights but the African people know that the land was their forefathers and for their children forever and for that reason you can't be at peace in their land if you claim belonging.
> 
> Concerning the American issue, in America I know there are White Americans and Black Americans all because of the privilege they obtained through the war, the land was first occupied by other people whom the land was taken from.
> 
> It is therefore improper to compare America and Africa because Africans (Black) people are still here in their land, and you can compare Europe and Africa.
> 
> Concerning the Black slavery, it happed because of disunity among Black people and they are only starting to realise unity and need not to fetch the people from France for instance, because of the stregth they derive from other Blacks through unity.
> 
> Just like I said, slavery among the black people happened because of disunity and it was not because white people were terrible slave masters, the fault was on Black people, they were not organised.
> ...



Dude, you sure are a funny guy, are you related to Trevor Noah?

----------


## wynn

I was watching 'National Geographic' on Islands and Zanzibar was a featured Island, they have a long history of trading in slaves and 'Europeans' did not feature for the first five hundred years of slave trading, only for a period of about one hundred years before European countries banned slavery. interesting that it continued in Zanzibar for many years after that.

----------


## cyppokagain

Land belongs to those whom conquer it and enforce their rule upon it. That is the reality of the world.

Nations can choose to accept all groups that toil within them or not that is also a reality.

Native Americans in US took land from other Native Americans through war in the end the Earth belongs to itself. Iroquois fought the Mohawk and others long before any Europeans came to North America. 
The Navajo expelled the Aztec forefathers from their plains and took that land for themselves. ETC ETC ETC... Same thing in Africa.

Now the spoils belong to the victors and their postmortem Sovereign economic systems. Creating a bifurcation of one segment of a nation versus another because they deserve something more is simply an excuse to rob Peter for the benefit of Paul via the hand of the gov't because it can get votes and power from the Pauls that outnumber Peters. The problem with this is that once you rob every Peter not only did you shift production from those whom have no experience but outsiders don't want to bring money in for risk of being treated the same or worse. Because at least Pauls were nationals of that country but these foreigners won't even be that why risk money at all.

----------

