Ducking and Diving: the question of identity

Ducking and Diving: the question of identity

In order to fit in, how much of your identity are you willing to give up? In order to effect change, how much of your identity are you willing to give up?

How much of this identity sacrifice can be demanded by others of you and how much are you expected to give up?

Human Identity:

As a human, can you be antagonistic to your own species in order for other non-human species to have space to survive? How much should you dislike being human in order to help save the planet form the destruction of mankind? It is perhaps not a zero-sum question, yes or no, black or white, at least not in the beginning. In the beginning advocacy for change can start from the inside and from inside the human group, a dialogue in society for change in behavior: for curbing the birthrate of the global human population, for the “humane” treatment of animals, for the ethical disposal of waste material, for a lessening of our dependency on fossil fuels. But, seeing that this is not effective and change is not happening quickly enough, would humans not be forced to turn on themselves as adversaries, adversaries against a common, overwhelming enemy (humans) for the good of the rest of the planet?

Afrikaner Identity:

As an Afrikaner in South Africa, political independence and cultural aspects such as language, flag and other facets of the Afrikaner identity had to be done away with or minimized in order for a greater ethical question to be answered, a question that had to be answered in reality. Many Afrikaners turned morally and psychologically against their own people, indeed nearly all Afrikaners turned against themselves politically at the polls during the referendum for change in South Africa in 1992. This was done because cultural and language and self-rule imperatives could no longer outweigh the moral/humanistic importance of universal human rights – this brought about especially after the Two World Wars – that was not accorded to the now majority of blacks living in South Africa.

When the government changed and all South Africans were placed under a one nation umbrella, the old Afrikaner identity was not only under pressure to be put away, or at least placed on the back burner…a new South Africa-type identity had to be picked-up, a situation other groups and nationalities in South Africa also faced. This identity included a new flag, new constitution, “a rainbow nation” identity ideal, one president, one people and so on.

White person:

As a white person my ancestors for one or two generations benefitted from the laws of Apartheid and before that a generation or two suffered and gained under colonial rule: they had privileged labor practices benefitting them as whites, but many upper echelon jobs were again reserved for the English.

Now, both in South Africa and globally an accusatory finger is pointed at whites as having benefitted from colonialism and therefore sins of the forefathers must be carried by today’s whites. This antagonism many times move people to view being white as a sin or something wrong. This creates a problem for the accusers (blacks and muslims for the most part) and sometimes creates an identity problem for certain whites. This flows out into various tributaries in the following manner: being white means always privileged, being proudly white is racist and being proudly black is a good thing. Many whites feel that they then have to underplay their white identity, and many even turn against their own kind, actively seeking to substantiate a negative narrative about whiteness.

Being a Man:

From the transgender and women’s empowerment groups to those, as mentioned above, that are racist against whites and most of the time white men, the identity of being a man is also under pressure.

This might flow from a patriarchal, colonial past and one based on strength and even intellectual justification.

The redress of past injustices (in the eyes of those advocating for it) has also brought with it imbalance and a never ending shifting of the goal posts for conformity, or change, or whatever is desired, with no end in sight.

For a white man this has clear and present pressures which he must negotiate, but men in other parts of the world will also be confronted with it (or has already) and how they will react should be interesting. It is clear that the Qur’an heightens manhood above that of the woman and their (the muslim world’s) reaction might be as it is now, repression, beatings, executions of women and so on. What Africa’s men will do is unclear, but that Africa remains very patriarchal is a fact and women abuse is in South Africa off the charts.

Negation of Identity:

Substituting, minimizing or subordinating one’s identity for a global good might seem the right thing to do and an answer to the concerns above about identity loss. I mean what is a flag, or language, or a change in cultural practice when humanity as a whole stands to benefit?

Why beat your wife if the rest of the world does not do it and says it is outdated and wrong;
Why execute, when the rest of the world says incarcerate;
Why your language only, especially if you can communicate in a one world language;
Why persecute gays and transgender people if the rest of the world acknowledges more than one gender;
Why your religion’s laws in the face of secularity protecting all religions;

If the world is going to give up it identity, it will have to be a monumental agreement by all to shift these and other boundaries or identities to fit together into one global family – and this will have to come not only from the West – otherwise the breakdown of this globalizing effort will be war, chaos and genocide.

• Written by Omar Daniel Fourie, Orania on 21 November 2018.