In April 1982, following my return from Namibia, The University of Lethbridge put out a News Release about my research in that country. It was the first time that a “white” researcher had actually lived in the black township of Katutura. Except for the work of some German scholars and missionaries (Brincker, Buttner, Dannert, Lothar Engel, Hahn, Irle, Lehmann, Krieger, Luttig, Rust, Sundermeier) most previous research in Namibia was based on secondary sources. My work consisted of participant observations, life history interviews, and interviews with students, teachers, medical personnel, politicians, as well as the use of archived documents.
 |
| Namibia 1982 |
At the time of the News Release, I thought that the Namibian condition had some implications for, specifically, Canada’s philosophy of multiculturalism. Namibian “society” was splintered not only between blacks, whites, and so-called “coloreds”, but among blacks themselves. It made for bad psychology. Apartheid was still a force and the north saw some guerrilla warfare.
Namibia had a three-tier government system. It consisted of 11 ethnic governments at the second tier level that in my view contributed to cultural stagnation from which all and certainly the Blacks suffered.
But what interests me now, is what I told the interviewer, namely, that “during my research in Namibia I became increasingly aware of the dangers of ethnicity.” In my view, “Canada’s multiculturalism” was also “potentially dangerous. It’s an informal apartheid.” One can only hope that Canadian politicians will not play to it too much.
 |
| Moses Katjiuongua with Festus Muundjua 1982 Katutura |
Canada shifted from a political philosophy of assimilation to one of multiculturalism, I said at the interview. Assimilation usually meant that the minority (be it ethnic group or women) or the newest arrivals assimilate to the style of thinking and acting of the more powerful majority with both negative and positive consequences. What is positive about assimilation is that new immigrants respect the law of the land, and soon learn to participate in the ongoing changes of the Canadian democratic way of life making for an open society. The negative consequences had to do with the one-sidedness of cultural accommodation.
Multiculturalism went a step further, allowing “minorities” to assert their identity, pride, and dignity. The resemblance of multiculturalism to apartheid or separate development is not, however, accidental. I ask myself now why should pride and identity become dominant values? What actually is meant by them? And what about dignity? It is often not human dignity that we have in mind when we defend it. More often than not it looks like a version of undignified behavior the humanity of which is questionable. Nevertheless, we are pressured to like it.
By contrast, I prefer to see – and that is what I thought then – movement toward a political view of an open or expanded culturalism where, especially in a nation’s art and public life, people from so-called different cultures are put into sustained dialogue with one another to allow their respective assumptions to clash, resulting in an expanded view of themselves and their world. After all, I argued then, "homo sapiens" is one. No new types arose during the course of evolution. Racial and ethnic differences have not changed the essential oneness of humankind. So why, having eliminated racial politics from the public arena, do we replace it with identity or cultural politics? The latter create boundaries not only by way of selection and sight, but stubborn psychological boundaries that close minds and re-introduce political tribalism and cultural niche activities. When we write, for example, we write for a niche -- publishers re-inforce that -- which usually means we write for, or talk to, the converted. What good is that?
 | |||||||||||
| author and Katji...1982...pretense of ongotukiro...freedom |
0 Komentar untuk "Multiculturalism: Namibia, Canada, and Reflections after Fieldwork"