Cultural vs national identity

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.