It has been about a week since I returned from South Africa, and yet even one day in it felt like the trip was ages ago. Home is so familiar it took just one day of being at work to fall right back into my typical activities. I was worried that would happen, and on the flight back I had spend some time talking about how I would deal with this, and how to keep the experiences and knowledge of those three weeks with me into the US.
As comfortable as it is to be home, as much as it seems to be falling back into habit, I am noticing content from our course in various places. Just yesterday while riding the bus I saw a sign outside a church about reconciling our lives with God’s wishes and spend the rest of the ride considering if this was the same nature of reconciliation that we discussed in our course.
Just one month ago I had no concept of what reconciliation was. It was a word that clearly sounded like a good thing, involved moving past conflict, but that was pretty much all I understood of it. Because of the positive connotations of the word, I thought it would be so simple to apply to any sort of disturbance. Now thinking about the framework from which we are speaking, dealing with intractable conflicts and changes in attitudes in beliefs, engaging in a process of change and working towards lasting peace, I actually have more trouble seeing how to apply these concepts in situations here.
I am trying to stay open to what I learned and how it can apply to situations I witness. I read the news and think first of if reconciliation could be applied in that particular situation. Often the answer is no. And after all our jokes, I am actually noticing and naming pretty regularly. Hopefully by continuing this, I will start to get a feel for possibilities of applying the concept of reconciliation here at home.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
History
I never really had a sense of the value of history. Studying history always frustrated me because there was such a sense of powerlessness. There were so many injustices in history, and as students we had to sit there and learn about it, not being able to do a damn thing to change what happened.
I have never enjoyed a single history class. While I do realize that American history is relevant to shaping the culture today, there are many aspects of it that I don’t feel a connection to or any particular pride about. There is so much hypocrisy in America’s ideals of “freedom” and how they relate to America’s rise in power in the world. How do we celebrate Andrew Jackson when he was responsible for the Trial of Tears? I keep on getting told that I need to take pride in these events because these were people, though they may have had flaws, were only products of their time and did great things for our nation. I imagine what role a woman of color would play in the times of the founding fathers that we adore oh so much, and wonder how I am supposed to identify these white men on horses as heroes in my history?
As a first generation American, I’ve had a special awareness of my unique American identity. I often get identified as an American when I travel, and am certainly proud of many aspects of the culture which I grew up in. I do have pride in certain figures that fought for freedom, truly, not through military means or the oppression of others. Not those who fought for America by stealing from Mexico, enslaving Black people, and the genocide of Native Americans. I admire those like King and Milk, who fought for inclusion and humanity.
Being in South Africa, I cannot deny the importance of history, on all fronts. Every person we have met has told us the history of the country, each having a different angle piece of the story, depending on who we are hearing from. There is a sense of pride in knowing what the nation was able to come out of, the freedom they fought for. There is an appreciation for engagement that is still visible in the many community organizations that formed from civil society. The sense history, knowledge of past struggles, informs the action that the people take in current times.
I don’t know if I really identify with “our nation.” I acknowledge that identity is important, but there are also so many problems that arise from strong alignment with one identity OVER another identity. The idea of nation, both in the US and here in South Africa, seem to create this sense of pride, but that pride easily translates into arrogance or violence towards those that are seen as other. In South Africa it was the Xenophobic, or rather Afrophobic events that occurred last May, and in the US the examples of our imperialism are countless.
So when is memorialization of figures, peoples, or ideas in history valuable, and when is it damaging? How do we take pride in the struggles for freedom without the othering of identities that weren’t part of that particular struggle?
I have never enjoyed a single history class. While I do realize that American history is relevant to shaping the culture today, there are many aspects of it that I don’t feel a connection to or any particular pride about. There is so much hypocrisy in America’s ideals of “freedom” and how they relate to America’s rise in power in the world. How do we celebrate Andrew Jackson when he was responsible for the Trial of Tears? I keep on getting told that I need to take pride in these events because these were people, though they may have had flaws, were only products of their time and did great things for our nation. I imagine what role a woman of color would play in the times of the founding fathers that we adore oh so much, and wonder how I am supposed to identify these white men on horses as heroes in my history?
As a first generation American, I’ve had a special awareness of my unique American identity. I often get identified as an American when I travel, and am certainly proud of many aspects of the culture which I grew up in. I do have pride in certain figures that fought for freedom, truly, not through military means or the oppression of others. Not those who fought for America by stealing from Mexico, enslaving Black people, and the genocide of Native Americans. I admire those like King and Milk, who fought for inclusion and humanity.
Being in South Africa, I cannot deny the importance of history, on all fronts. Every person we have met has told us the history of the country, each having a different angle piece of the story, depending on who we are hearing from. There is a sense of pride in knowing what the nation was able to come out of, the freedom they fought for. There is an appreciation for engagement that is still visible in the many community organizations that formed from civil society. The sense history, knowledge of past struggles, informs the action that the people take in current times.
I don’t know if I really identify with “our nation.” I acknowledge that identity is important, but there are also so many problems that arise from strong alignment with one identity OVER another identity. The idea of nation, both in the US and here in South Africa, seem to create this sense of pride, but that pride easily translates into arrogance or violence towards those that are seen as other. In South Africa it was the Xenophobic, or rather Afrophobic events that occurred last May, and in the US the examples of our imperialism are countless.
So when is memorialization of figures, peoples, or ideas in history valuable, and when is it damaging? How do we take pride in the struggles for freedom without the othering of identities that weren’t part of that particular struggle?
Transitional Justice
At UCT we heard from Zwelethu Jolobe about Transitional Justice. Transitional justice is about dealing with something in the past, something specific. In South Africa it was to deal with the excesses of the Apartheid government, and to promote a human rights environment. Its particularly important when “regular” forms of justice are not available for a variety of reasons. The TRC is applauded and criticized for many things, but one thing to keep in mind was that its purpose was not to facilitate the entire transition, but to deal with the human rights violations that had occurred.
Unfortunately, these human rights violations were limited to violence committed by the government and resistance organizations. It didn’t include things like the Bantu Education that disempowered generations of people, forced removals that completely disorganized society, and other structural violence, those policy makers were never brought in front of the commission to face the damage they had done.
Jolobe asked us whether reconciliation was really the role of the government. Or is the role of the government to provide for equity, health, water, education? And can that be considered a part of reconciliation since that is what is to be expected of any government. In 2004-2006 there was the highest amount of public protest in South Africa about the delivery of basic resources such as water and housing. And to keep things in perspective, the South African Government is working through bureaucracy and a change of power every 5 years because of the democracy. He also spoke about the many NGOs, CBOs, and other organizations had come up in order to promote reconciliation. Even during the TRC the lawyers were doing pro bono work since Mbeki didn’t support the TRC.
This idea was inspiring that the community could come together for the goal of reconciliation. However, I wonder how this can then translate to the US. There seem to be some key differences that may impact how it looks. First of all, the fact that the Apartheid government is so recent has kept the civic spirit high. Even still, people talk about how the younger generation in South Africa is less aware of the history, and surveys show they are more pessimistic towards issues of reconciliation. How does that then look in the US where the Civil Rights Movement was longer ago? Overall there seems to be less engagement, just one example being the number of people that actually show up to vote. Another key difference is the fact that the oppressed group is the majority in South Africa, and is the minority in the US. There is such a larger sense of community around identities, as well as around the South African identity in the US. So how would reconciliation adapt to these differences in the States?
Unfortunately, these human rights violations were limited to violence committed by the government and resistance organizations. It didn’t include things like the Bantu Education that disempowered generations of people, forced removals that completely disorganized society, and other structural violence, those policy makers were never brought in front of the commission to face the damage they had done.
Jolobe asked us whether reconciliation was really the role of the government. Or is the role of the government to provide for equity, health, water, education? And can that be considered a part of reconciliation since that is what is to be expected of any government. In 2004-2006 there was the highest amount of public protest in South Africa about the delivery of basic resources such as water and housing. And to keep things in perspective, the South African Government is working through bureaucracy and a change of power every 5 years because of the democracy. He also spoke about the many NGOs, CBOs, and other organizations had come up in order to promote reconciliation. Even during the TRC the lawyers were doing pro bono work since Mbeki didn’t support the TRC.
This idea was inspiring that the community could come together for the goal of reconciliation. However, I wonder how this can then translate to the US. There seem to be some key differences that may impact how it looks. First of all, the fact that the Apartheid government is so recent has kept the civic spirit high. Even still, people talk about how the younger generation in South Africa is less aware of the history, and surveys show they are more pessimistic towards issues of reconciliation. How does that then look in the US where the Civil Rights Movement was longer ago? Overall there seems to be less engagement, just one example being the number of people that actually show up to vote. Another key difference is the fact that the oppressed group is the majority in South Africa, and is the minority in the US. There is such a larger sense of community around identities, as well as around the South African identity in the US. So how would reconciliation adapt to these differences in the States?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
