Namibia. Is it possible for a nation to be held hostage by its own historical narratives? Is it possible for a young independent country like Namibia to be an active participant in its own hostage drama? Are Namibians captives of their own splintered cultural narratives? It appears the answer to all three questions could be 'yes.'
As a new nation (1990) and a unified territory since 1994 (with the incorporation of Walvis Bay), Namibia inherited several historical narratives which have more or less evolved from a violent and not particularly pleasant history (depending on the narrator). For example, take any year in Namibian history prior to independence in 1990, and interestingly, one may find that there are several extant narratives often as many as the cultural groups in the country at that point in time, and that none of these narratives will converge at some point or even appear to vaguely agree. A single historical event in Namibia could be encapsulated by a particular cultural narrative in a certain part of the country and also be completely non-existent in the narratives of another. Herein lies the peculiarity of Namibian historical narratives; they do not correlate, converge nor do they corroborate each other in many instances. The heart of the problem lies not in the existence of divergent narratives but in the hitherto lack of effort and commitment towards the establishment of a constructive collective narrative.
The existence of various cultural narratives could possibly explain why Namibians of diverse cultural backgrounds (there are twelve cultural groupings officially recognised in the country) find it particularly easy to behave and speak as though they have nothing in common with each other and consequently, tend to emphasise differences without simultaneously seeking similarities.
Each cultural experience offers an entirely different (and insulated) narrative; a point of view completely ignorant of historical events of significance for another cultural group. Namibians therefore think, speak and behave today in 2014, exactly as they have for many years under the Apartheid regime of South Africa. A core component of Afrikaner nationalism at the time was to delineate and emphasise differences, establish ‘separateness’, cultural isolation and thereby, claim ‘superiority.’
In contemporary Namibia, it is not uncommon for events like heinous criminal acts perpetrated purely by those with criminal intent and opportunity, to assume a specific cultural identity. There appears an unwillingness to associate and identify with each other on any level; sociopolitical issues, economics, health, education or the environment affects everyone equally and yet, finding national consensus on any of the aforementioned is almost non-existent. Many will instead choose to allocate blame upon 'other' or 'certain' cultural groups and judge as a whole (employing that specialty of Apartheid called ‘generalisation’), using exactly the same language and terms of reference so prevalent and reminiscent of Apartheid Namibia.
In order to function optimally, beyond defensive, angry cultural and linguistic groupings, a multicultural society like Namibia requires a constructive, collective narrative. It requires at the very least, a new kind of language; one with its own set of rules. It also requires a concomitant modification in behaviour and most importantly, an enthusiastic collective willingness to reach at the very least some type of consensus on certain pertinent national questions.
The inherent multiculturalism of Namibia cannot be wished away and must be admitted as the fact that it quite clearly is. Many Namibians feel comfortable within a cultural (tribal) context, and derive a sense of belonging from cultural affiliations (cultural ties may be classified as strong, moderate or weak). There are those also who are uncomfortable associating (culturally disaffected) with a particular cultural grouping and the reasons for their discomfort are myriad. There is a possibility they may view cultural groups as oppressive based on past experience, as ‘exclusive’ (excluding others), as reminiscent of Apartheid discrimination, as ‘divide and rule’ dressed up as ‘culture’ or even as ‘uncivilised’ and ‘backward.’ Both cultural adherence and disaffection are clearly reactive mechanisms to a brutal colonial historical legacy not unique to Namibia, that could be the driver behind the ‘flux’ and variety in public opinion and sentiment on significant social-cohesion indicators like crime.
A constructive, collective narrative would by its very nature, have to be inclusive of all existing Namibian narratives and with time, hopefully, converge at a point (e.g. Independence in 1990); this in turn raises the question: are Namibians willing to do away with defensive, divisive rhetoric in the interest of cohesive dialogue?
A constructive, collective narrative would force Namibians to acknowledge inconvenient / uncomfortable truths and take into account a variety of ‘other experiences’ on exactly the same historical timeline. As brutal as the truth may be it is graceful in that it does not allow for doubt when presented credibly and without bias. A fact cannot be altered by denial or acknowledgement; it stands on its own, regardless. Sadly, to date it is apparent many Namibians also lack the willingness to acknowledge 'uncomfortable' historical facts thereby making it especially difficult to explore something even remotely resembling a 'collective truth'.
The manner in which some they approach each other still remains superficial and is often extremely discriminatory. Let’s be clear, discrimination is necessary in order to establish a functional support network; for example job descriptions are discriminatory, so too are friendships, cliques, cooperatives, professional collaborations within a particular field of expertise. The primary reason an individual will seek for an association with another on a personal level is from the perception of having something in common (familiarity), which could be either a background or shared values. Superficial (prima facie) discrimination on the other hand, originates from discriminatory practices based on unalterable accidental phenomena such as physical appearance (skin tone), sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, gender and may even include differences in pronunciation.
Namibians must therefore make doubly the effort to acknowledge the existence of superficial discrimination and how persuasive it is in the Namibian context to lend the worst type of bias and prejudice to commonplace events, thereby rendering them artificially significant. A lexicon devoid of ‘trigger’ words, phrases and sentences in this context seems ideal. Cultural names, expressions, phrases and practices particular to all groups with reference to 'other' cultural groups deemed discriminatory would effectively be removed from every lexicon, and may initially appear as a form of censorship. It is an approach though with an existing social precedent; parents who wish to discourage the use of expletives / vulgar language will omit selected words from their vocabulary accordingly or simply forbid the use of specific words. Should a child use such a forbidden word, s/he is punished, accordingly. The child is thus sensitised to a system of behaviour modification with built-in rewards and punishments for a specific environment (presence of her/his parents). It does not change the fact that those words exist in a broader vocabulary.
Namibia adopted English as its official language and a mere twenty-four years after independence, the language has made tremendous inroads. The country currently has an estimated 87% literacy rate and the rate is determined by proficiency in English (reading, writing, speaking). The English language is rich, dynamic and widely spoken, but is contaminated with discriminatory expressions, words, phrases and because it is so widely spoken and accessible, makes for easy incorporation of prejudicial terms. Dynamic enough to express bias and prejudice without employing direct references, the language can be manipulated to convey exactly the same meaning via insinuations and innuendos.
Should we have a concise and precise list of ‘forbidden’ words, sentences, phrases in Namibia? How would a list of ‘forbidden words’ contribute towards a constructive, collective narrative? It goes without saying that due to the legitimised practice of racism under Apartheid, the majority of Namibians have a heightened sensitivity for anything remotely resembling 'racism.' It is a collective, linguistic pet peeves that words directly or indirectly referring to skin tone and physical appearance elicit the worst of negative responses from the majority of Namibians. Here are a few words considered 'loaded' in the this context; ‘black’, ‘coloured’ / 'baster' (mixed heritage), ‘boer’ (‘white’ also), ‘gook’ or ‘chinko’ (Chinese, Japanese, Korean collectively), ‘Angolan’. A non-Namibian would find all of the above innocuous.
In an effort to move away from an unpleasant historical experience that witnessed physical appearances and skin tones used as yardsticks to denigrate, ridicule and deprive talented, promising individuals of reaching their potential or contributing to society in a meaningful manner, Namibians appear to be moving away from a narrative based on skin tone to one of complete acceptance with every passing year. Clearly, a constructive, collective narrative still eludes the nation as a whole and with so many specific cultural narratives in existence, it also appears a daunting task. A few years from now it may be possible to identify and add to the list of collective pet peeves thereby tentatively shaping a collective identity and narrative; hopefully, both will sprout and be rooted in shared experiences and similarities.
The existence of various cultural narratives could possibly explain why Namibians of diverse cultural backgrounds (there are twelve cultural groupings officially recognised in the country) find it particularly easy to behave and speak as though they have nothing in common with each other and consequently, tend to emphasise differences without simultaneously seeking similarities.
Each cultural experience offers an entirely different (and insulated) narrative; a point of view completely ignorant of historical events of significance for another cultural group. Namibians therefore think, speak and behave today in 2014, exactly as they have for many years under the Apartheid regime of South Africa. A core component of Afrikaner nationalism at the time was to delineate and emphasise differences, establish ‘separateness’, cultural isolation and thereby, claim ‘superiority.’
In contemporary Namibia, it is not uncommon for events like heinous criminal acts perpetrated purely by those with criminal intent and opportunity, to assume a specific cultural identity. There appears an unwillingness to associate and identify with each other on any level; sociopolitical issues, economics, health, education or the environment affects everyone equally and yet, finding national consensus on any of the aforementioned is almost non-existent. Many will instead choose to allocate blame upon 'other' or 'certain' cultural groups and judge as a whole (employing that specialty of Apartheid called ‘generalisation’), using exactly the same language and terms of reference so prevalent and reminiscent of Apartheid Namibia.
In order to function optimally, beyond defensive, angry cultural and linguistic groupings, a multicultural society like Namibia requires a constructive, collective narrative. It requires at the very least, a new kind of language; one with its own set of rules. It also requires a concomitant modification in behaviour and most importantly, an enthusiastic collective willingness to reach at the very least some type of consensus on certain pertinent national questions.
The inherent multiculturalism of Namibia cannot be wished away and must be admitted as the fact that it quite clearly is. Many Namibians feel comfortable within a cultural (tribal) context, and derive a sense of belonging from cultural affiliations (cultural ties may be classified as strong, moderate or weak). There are those also who are uncomfortable associating (culturally disaffected) with a particular cultural grouping and the reasons for their discomfort are myriad. There is a possibility they may view cultural groups as oppressive based on past experience, as ‘exclusive’ (excluding others), as reminiscent of Apartheid discrimination, as ‘divide and rule’ dressed up as ‘culture’ or even as ‘uncivilised’ and ‘backward.’ Both cultural adherence and disaffection are clearly reactive mechanisms to a brutal colonial historical legacy not unique to Namibia, that could be the driver behind the ‘flux’ and variety in public opinion and sentiment on significant social-cohesion indicators like crime.
A constructive, collective narrative would by its very nature, have to be inclusive of all existing Namibian narratives and with time, hopefully, converge at a point (e.g. Independence in 1990); this in turn raises the question: are Namibians willing to do away with defensive, divisive rhetoric in the interest of cohesive dialogue?
A constructive, collective narrative would force Namibians to acknowledge inconvenient / uncomfortable truths and take into account a variety of ‘other experiences’ on exactly the same historical timeline. As brutal as the truth may be it is graceful in that it does not allow for doubt when presented credibly and without bias. A fact cannot be altered by denial or acknowledgement; it stands on its own, regardless. Sadly, to date it is apparent many Namibians also lack the willingness to acknowledge 'uncomfortable' historical facts thereby making it especially difficult to explore something even remotely resembling a 'collective truth'.
The manner in which some they approach each other still remains superficial and is often extremely discriminatory. Let’s be clear, discrimination is necessary in order to establish a functional support network; for example job descriptions are discriminatory, so too are friendships, cliques, cooperatives, professional collaborations within a particular field of expertise. The primary reason an individual will seek for an association with another on a personal level is from the perception of having something in common (familiarity), which could be either a background or shared values. Superficial (prima facie) discrimination on the other hand, originates from discriminatory practices based on unalterable accidental phenomena such as physical appearance (skin tone), sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, gender and may even include differences in pronunciation.
Namibians must therefore make doubly the effort to acknowledge the existence of superficial discrimination and how persuasive it is in the Namibian context to lend the worst type of bias and prejudice to commonplace events, thereby rendering them artificially significant. A lexicon devoid of ‘trigger’ words, phrases and sentences in this context seems ideal. Cultural names, expressions, phrases and practices particular to all groups with reference to 'other' cultural groups deemed discriminatory would effectively be removed from every lexicon, and may initially appear as a form of censorship. It is an approach though with an existing social precedent; parents who wish to discourage the use of expletives / vulgar language will omit selected words from their vocabulary accordingly or simply forbid the use of specific words. Should a child use such a forbidden word, s/he is punished, accordingly. The child is thus sensitised to a system of behaviour modification with built-in rewards and punishments for a specific environment (presence of her/his parents). It does not change the fact that those words exist in a broader vocabulary.
Namibia adopted English as its official language and a mere twenty-four years after independence, the language has made tremendous inroads. The country currently has an estimated 87% literacy rate and the rate is determined by proficiency in English (reading, writing, speaking). The English language is rich, dynamic and widely spoken, but is contaminated with discriminatory expressions, words, phrases and because it is so widely spoken and accessible, makes for easy incorporation of prejudicial terms. Dynamic enough to express bias and prejudice without employing direct references, the language can be manipulated to convey exactly the same meaning via insinuations and innuendos.
Should we have a concise and precise list of ‘forbidden’ words, sentences, phrases in Namibia? How would a list of ‘forbidden words’ contribute towards a constructive, collective narrative? It goes without saying that due to the legitimised practice of racism under Apartheid, the majority of Namibians have a heightened sensitivity for anything remotely resembling 'racism.' It is a collective, linguistic pet peeves that words directly or indirectly referring to skin tone and physical appearance elicit the worst of negative responses from the majority of Namibians. Here are a few words considered 'loaded' in the this context; ‘black’, ‘coloured’ / 'baster' (mixed heritage), ‘boer’ (‘white’ also), ‘gook’ or ‘chinko’ (Chinese, Japanese, Korean collectively), ‘Angolan’. A non-Namibian would find all of the above innocuous.
In an effort to move away from an unpleasant historical experience that witnessed physical appearances and skin tones used as yardsticks to denigrate, ridicule and deprive talented, promising individuals of reaching their potential or contributing to society in a meaningful manner, Namibians appear to be moving away from a narrative based on skin tone to one of complete acceptance with every passing year. Clearly, a constructive, collective narrative still eludes the nation as a whole and with so many specific cultural narratives in existence, it also appears a daunting task. A few years from now it may be possible to identify and add to the list of collective pet peeves thereby tentatively shaping a collective identity and narrative; hopefully, both will sprout and be rooted in shared experiences and similarities.
Comments
Post a Comment