Behind the Curtain

“Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/. To maintain the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, you need to create the illusion that the hierarchy is both there, and deserved. The reality is, that even if you caste your hereditary privilege eyes wider than the family and eldest son, there are still limited opportunities. Both in time and space. Roles become vacant only when people leave or die. Teams have limited sizes. Team dynamics make it awkward when someone from the outside is picked (loyalty vs meritocracy). Problems are not defined by how many people want to solve them. They are just priced that way. It is well known that there are plenty of diamonds in storage. The price is high because of controlled supply and manipulative marketing. Give them enough to keep them hungry. It becomes a Game of Thrones when there is only one seat at the head of the table. When you fight for opportunity, only because you want that seat. A seat that does not get relinquished. For equal opportunity, you need more opportunities. For that, you need to be genuinely interested in solving problems. Not focused on keeping your throne warm and diamond-encrusted.

Blerrie Complicated

PK and “The Power of One” created a vivid picture of overcoming struggle, and of Oxford and the Rhodes Scholarship, for me. Cecil John Rhodes casts a shadow over South Africa with a bloody complicated legacy (or blerrie complicated, as my Grandfather would say to avoid swearing). Which includes an Oxford-like university in Grahamstown called Rhodes, surrounded by places like King William’s Town, Queenstown (where my Mom was from, with family on both sides of the Anglo-Boer war), Port Elizabeth and East London, in the area where the 1820 Settlers arrived after the Napoleonic Wars. Smack in the middle of a 100-year conflict between the Xhosa Kingdom and earlier European settlers. Rhodes’ statue also used to preside over the Rugby fields, looking with South England ambition towards the mountains, outside my leafy residence at the University of Cape Town. I applied for the Rhodes Scholarship, but didn’t get an interview. I still ended up in Oxfordshire on a different path. Living just outside the city in a small medieval market town called Burford. A Buhr is an old English fortification. A ford is a river. Crossing rivers. Crossing continents. Crossing cultures. Unpacking blerrie complication.

Statue Removed, Shadow Remains

Investment Culture

As part of the 'trial and error' process of building a Community Wealth Fund, I am starting an Investment Stokvel with a few friends here in the UK, and a bigger group in South Africa. The idea of 'team saving' is not uniquely South African. A friend pointed out that 'village savings societies are particularly common particularly common in Bangladesh, Central America and East Africa. Apps now exist for stokvels in Kenya, transfers via Mpesa and the data collected can be used by banks for credit assessment thus allowing small businesses to formalise.'

The advantage of team-effort is the secret relationship sauce that holds it all together. Investing can become part of our culture. When building becomes something that is as normal as a five-day-work-week. As normal as four weeks of leave a year. Church on Sunday. Rugby on Saturday. Breakfast, Lunch, and Supper. Passports and Borders. Monthly paychecks, mortgages and year-end parties. There are various things we do because that is what the people around us do. Gradually over time, patterns become accepted and repeated. Some benefit us. Some need tweaking. Some need starting.

I am a big believe that what you do on any given day isn't that important. What is important is what you do every day. Habits. Patterns. Loops. Defaults. It is in the repetition that actions soak in deep. In the repetition that things of value are built. One brick at a time.

I want it to become a thing for people to separate their identity from their jobs. To separate their ability to survive from their inherited usefulness to society. I believe part of that is in building together. In creating the daily habits, that with time, will create strong foundations, weather-proof walls and a creative space for us to thrive.

Things Fall Apart

Published in 1959, 'Things Fall Apart' was way ahead of its time. It is a poetic and layered telling of both the strengths and weaknesses of traditional cultures without being binary. Conservative cultures build up wisdom for dealing with the waves of life. Rituals, relationships, and religions that try give some sense to the challenges we face. Historically, we haven't been good at opening our eyes and ears to the depth behind our beliefs. We have hurt each other. We have hurt ourselves. The great thing about being human is we can learn from the stories others have lived. They may not mirror ours, but the rhythms that drive us share an underlying beat. Improving the quality of our self-reflection.

Braai Master

Guys get a lot of grief for Mansplaining. It is when someone (normally a man) explains something to someone (normally a woman) in a condescending or patronising way, without first finding out if the explainee knows more than the explainer. A Braai is a big part of masculine South African culture. A Boys' Braai is when there is only meat, beer and rolls. Chicken is the salad. Whether banter or bravado, it is also a place where a lot of man-to-mansplaining goes on. A lot of guys will talk a big game, and then burn the meat. They aren't particularly interested in finding out if the other person knows more, because the rewards are much bigger for the person with the tongs. The person in charge. The same is true for business. Employees get paid somewhere around their cog value. Cog value goes down as efficiency improves. If you can hire someone else (or a machine), there is little incentive to hand over the tongs. Our biggest focus on community building is our workplace. It's the default place we spend most of our time. It's going to be tough to change the culture if it's a Braai.

Decolonisation

As a Soutie, I spend time in (and call home) both South Africa and England. The debate around decolonisation is viscerally real for me when I step off the plane on either end of the pond. 

The discussion around Britain's colonial past is noticeably absent in British politics. Currently, there is far more National than Imperial discussion. The narrative of Brexit is 'taking back control'. Unless you are Scottish, then the talk is against 'divisive Nationalists'.

The driving powers behind the European Project were the former European Colonial powers. Since the second world war (which was largely a European led civil war that spread), with less global clout, focus shifted away from maintaining global hegemony to working together to avoid a repeat of the industrial scale human butchery. In 1917, the House of Windsor changed their name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because of anti-German sentiment. The Emperor of Russia and Germany were first cousins of George. Emperor Nicholas was forced to abdicate in 1917. Emperor Wilhelm abdicated in 1918. The post World War II story had then shifted from the evils of Imperialism to the evils of Fascism, and the new cold war.

The Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

It is worth noting that England itself has a population of around 55 million people (would make it the 9th biggest province in China). That is roughly the same as (the official) population of South Africa. So a true blue believer in one-person, one-vote, democracy should believe that the two countries should have an equal voice on the global stage. You can't push against elites in favour of 'the people' if you want 'your people' to be elites.

The first European global colonial power was Spain. Spain currently has a population of 46 million, and since the 1898 Spanish-American war has had to radically alter its view of its place in the world. This is hard. The former world power China, refers to the period between 1839 and 1949 as the 'Century of Humiliation'. If part of your identity is being a pretty big deal, it is hard when other people start doing well. As America became the world's dominant power, it too developed 'American Exceptionalism'.

Unlike wealth, status is zero-sum. A big part of Britain's narrative, and identity, is that of being leaders. It is a very uncomfortable conversation to start unpicking the less attractive parts of the past. It is far better for self-image to celebrate the good bits. The British aren't the first to have to re-establish a place in the world after being on top. They are some way down the road, and the older generation still have lingering memories of grandeur.  

Perhaps we will one day be able to define ourselves in a way that doesn't require relative comparison.

Britannia

Silk and Mud

People seldom believe what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway. The evil villain doing evil with a cackle while stroking his cat. The architects of Apartheid, and other builders of ethnically based nations, were pushing back on the idea of Empire building. They used self-determination as justification. The builders of Empires in turn had used the civilising mission. Though in direct opposition, both required founding stories to give them back bone. Both were soaked in supremacy. The 'Mud Hut Fallacy' pushes the idea of only one group of people being responsible for progress. One group owning the truth. The others were in Mud Huts. Neither the architects of Empires or Apartheid would have considered themselves evil. Both would have believed deeply they were in the right.

To believe in the Mud Hut Fallacy, you have to have a very superficial knowledge of history. Or make one up. Rome was built off the riches of Egypt after the fall of Cleopatra who picked the wrong strong Roman. When Alexander the Great went on his conquests, he didn't look to the Mud Huts of Western Europe for the greatest learning. He went east. On silk roads. Timbuktu on the trade routes through the Sahara produced the richest man to have ever lived. Mansa Musa was known only in Western Europe in legend, though able to visit Mecca on well travelled paths.

Silk Road

The concept of a grand march of western civilisation as white men past the baton is bonkers. Greece; to Rome; to the Enlightenment; to Spain, Britain and France; to America. This makes for a good patriotic story, but ignores the wide tentacles of knowledge. 

Stories are more enduring when they aren't built on exclusion.  Walls don't last as long as roads.

Assimilation (Tim)

I want to start by taking issue with the tendency of dominant (i.e. white, western and mostly English) cultures to demand assimilation from other cultures, but not to reciprocate when the shoe is on the other foot. Recently, there has been a lot of hand wringing in Europe about the supposed unwillingness of Muslim immigrants to assimilate into the culture of European countries. Observe France’s battle with the burqa. And, the sentiment is much the same for many in the UK, as evidenced by the tabloid press. They make the superficially reasonable argument, ‘If you want to live in Britain, you should embrace British values.’ 

Tim embracing British Values

However, they seem to have forgotten that when our forefathers were living in foreign lands, they never assimilated at all. In the days of the British Raj, those Brits who lived in India merely transplanted their British culture to a new continent – tealeaves, cricket stumps and all.

You might think that such chauvinistic attitudes are all in the past, but as someone who has lived in an expat bubble for fifteen years, I can tell you that you’d be dead wrong. This is how it works. Fifteen years ago I moved to Taiwan to teach English. I answered an English job advert, my interview was conducted in English, my training was in English and if ever I had a practical problem, the bilingual staff at my school would translate on my behalf. If I didn’t feel like eating Chinese food, I had a range of western fast food to choose from, or if I was feeling picky, I could go to one of several expat-owned restaurants in the area. Since my school was staffed by other foreign English teachers, I could socialise exclusively with them if I felt so inclined. 

I’m happy to say that I didn’t totally isolate myself from Taiwanese culture, and neither did my friends. Most of us enjoyed a mix of Chinese and western food, and we got along great with our Taiwanese co-teachers. In fact, a lot of us dated or married Taiwanese people. In my case, I also chose to study Chinese, and after a couple of years, I could deal with most issues myself. Not a bubble at all, then? In fact, it was a very real bubble – a semi-permeable membrane, through which I allowed only comfortable and familiar elements to pass. I might have spoken reasonably fluent Chinese, but I couldn’t read the newspaper or watch local TV, and that didn’t bother me a bit. My life remained largely westernised and English speaking in substance, with the addition of selected Taiwanese elements. 

This isn’t some kind of Stalinist self-criticism session. In fact, I think it’s okay to live like this. I’m doing the same thing in Korea right now. We all want to stay mostly within our cultural comfort zone, and it’s fine to do so as long as we’re respectful and open-minded. In my years in Asia, I’ve had plenty of opportunity to criticise other cultures, but I’ve just as often been humbled by their brilliance. So, I’d say that wherever you are, you should stay open minded and curious about other cultures. Otherwise, you’re going to miss a great opportunity for learning.

Bulgaria

I spent a night on the Bulgarian beaches of the Black Sea when I was 19. It was the year before the Euro was born, and 8 years before Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007. The visa was so ridiculously expensive for a single day pass through, I was determined to make it memorable. I have long hair now. I had long hair then. Back then long-haired Trev was brave enough with some duty free Vodka to hop over beach fires with my Anzac Contiki bus-mates exploring 17 countries over 45 days in tents. 

Beaches to Mountains

Intents Europe

Bulgar tribes started to form Kingdoms in around 680 CE. They were variously harassed by competing Hungarian, Byzantine and Mongol empire builders, eventually coming under control of the Ottoman Empire for 5 centuries. Part of the Balkan Wars of independence, it shed Ottoman dominance to later shift between the Axis Powers and Allied Powers and eventually came under Soviet influence until the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989. 

Identity is a single day pass through. Make it memorable if you like, but it won't last.

Black Sea

Familiar Oppression (Rich)

This post is in response to Tim's guest post on Cultural Appropriation. Rich is a friend from university in Cape Town, South Africa who now lives in Sydney, Australia. Rich has written before on Happier Cities and Oozing. His own blog which focuses on sustainability is called 'The Pointy End'.

There is no doubt that cultural appropriation has happened throughout human history. It might not even be such a stretch to say that cultural appropriation is human history. That it has often been painful is probably beyond question. Conquest, migration, language, art…

We white africans are a mish-mash of afro-european weave that carries with it a lot of pain and a lot of extraordinary creativity. Over our shared colonial history there have been brilliant exponents of sensitive appropriation; of putting on the clothes and language of the other to tell better stories, to make better music, to taste better food. That there are creative cross-cultural pioneers that forge a way forward for us; in other words that cultural appropriation can be done right; is self-evident.

But let’s get real.

Most cultural appropriation is not sensitive. Most cultural appropriation is a game that is played by the powerful on those with less agency. It is often an act of taking without permission, without consultation. It is blackface. It is ‘knowing Africa’ after just a visit to Morocco.

A white Dutch woman in a Zwarte Piet costume

There is a social currency, social legitimacy, to familiarity with once-oppressed people. There is a power in being acceptable to the people our ancestors royally fucked over and on whose backs our privilege was built. I think we all leverage this to our advantage.

I think that the authenticity of cultural appropriation is the degree to which it is freely given, rather than taken. Were someone of Zulu heritage to take exception to a son of apartheid using their language, their song, their dance (especially commercially), they would be entirely entitled in that view.

It doesn’t really mean much for the takers of another’s culture to build narratives that support their taking.

Perhaps most importantly, like racism and sexism, it only really works one way on the power spectrum. We know reverse racism is a bullshit concept, because of the history of racial exclusion. We know reverse sexism is a bullshit concept because of the history of women’s exclusion from the workforce and power structures of society.

So too here.

Which makes consultation the cornerstone of authenticity. If you are the current end-game of a powerplay that has caused pain to people, best to engage with them before assuming aspects of their identity and culture.

That cultural appropriation can be done sensitively is not to say that it cannot be done insensitively. Our only hope at understanding the difference is to ask.

And not to take offence if someone calls us out on it.

Cultural Appropriation (Tim)

On the most basic and general level, cultural appropriation happens when one culture adopts or borrows aspects of another. Since there has been a more or less continuous exchange of cultural artefacts and ideas throughout human history, it’s hard to imagine why this has become a contentious issue in recent times. No one has a problem with the fact that our alphabet has been ‘borrowed’ in successive stages from the ancient Phoenicians, via Greece and then Rome. There are countless examples from tea to tracksuits that don’t upset anyone. The problem arises where the cultural artefact is appropriated by a dominant culture from an oppressed culture, with the result that the benefits of the appropriation accrue only to the dominant culture, or offensive stereotypes about the oppressed culture are perpetuated. Disney’s Pocahontas is a classic example.

The question is; can cultural appropriation be done right? From a South African perspective, the answer is a resounding yes, and the best example would be Johnny Clegg. The way that Clegg has adopted and incorporated aspects of Zulu culture into his art actually gives a near perfect example of how cultural appropriation should be done. Firstly, Clegg has always been enthusiastic and sincere about his embrace of Zulu culture. As a teenager, Clegg crossed the colour bar and became a member of a Zulu dance troupe, while also learning the Zulu folk guitar style known as Maskandi. For his troubles, Clegg was arrested at the age of 15 for violating the Apartheid laws that sought to keep the races separate. At the age of 17 he met Sipho Mchunu, with whom he formed the bilingual and cross-cultural pop group Juluka. Not content to be fluent in Zulu language, dance and music, Clegg dove deeper by studying Anthropology at university. The mere existence of the bi-racial Juluka was enough to irk the Apartheid authorities in the late seventies and early eighties, but Clegg and Mchunu’s music also encoded political messages about human rights, and when they played to audiences at home and abroad, they raised awareness about the injustice of Apartheid.

Sure, Johnny Clegg is a white guy who got famous for singing in Zulu and for doing a Zulu dance routine as part of his stage act. However, in the final analysis, Clegg’s devotion to Zulu culture has been deep and respectful, and the net effect of his work has been to promote respect not only for Zulu culture but also for multiculturalism and human rights for all South Africans. I suspect that the current objection to cultural appropriation often has to do with the mistaken view that it’s a zero-sum game. When I adopt something from your culture, it doesn’t have to mean that there is less available for you. The example of Johnny Clegg shows that if I’m respectful and sincere about borrowing from your culture, we can both benefit.

---

Other posts by Tim Casteling

88 Keys

Two ideas I am very passionate about are Global Citizenship and a Universal Basic Income. 

Globalisation and Global Citizenship aren't the same thing, but they are connected. I love local flavour, but I am also not opposed to the standardisation of the boring. A piano has 88 keys, but allows for a wide variety of music to be played. There are also a number of musical instruments. The instrument we pick up, or the music we choose to play should be free from the privileges and prejudices of the past. I want us to be able to celebrate similarities and differences. I want us to be able to create communities and share common goals. To be free to be a part of something bigger than ourselves that gives our lives meaning.

We are just waking up. We are becoming conscious of our bits and pieces like a baby learning to use its various limbs. Our past is a mess of mistreatment of each other that is very hard to unravel. The victors and losers in the past were based on geography and family. We have started picking apart the hereditary privilege and prejudice, but still overvalue the idea of meritocracy, and take too much credit for our successes. Life is very random, and much of our real wealth is shared. I believe a Universal Basic Income is the simplest way to ensure that we share in our common wealth, and from that firm base can choose paths and ladders to suit.

Political Globalisation

I am not a believer in the Nation State. Like money, businesses, languages and various other tools we use to communicate in bigger groups, they can help people connect to strangers. The problem is the outgroup. By definition, Nation States are exclusionary and the post-Empire systems of the last 100 years after the World Wars have created a system of Global Apartheid. I don't think it is okay to look out for 'your kind' without taking consideration of the interconnected world we live in. I will continue to cheer on the weakening of National sovereignty as various global institutions become more entwined in effective Global Constitutions (e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights). At the same time I would like to see smaller areas, Cities and their surrounding areas, empowered to reflect the more specific tastes and agreements of their local communities.

Uniting

Economic Globalisation

Part of why poverty has been hammered over the last few decades has been the increasingly interconnected world economy. The ability for goods, services, technology and capital to move around the world to where it is most needed is an incredibly powerful engine of global wealth creation. We have however learnt some massive, painful lessons over a century from the wolves of creative destruction. We need strong buffers to allow people to make long term decisions rather than being focused on living hand to mouth. The birth of Industrialisation saw Hut Taxes which forced people out of subsistence life styles because their labour was needed. I see a Universal Basic Income as the reverse. It provides the guaranteed buffer that permits the freedom to explore. Wolves at the door may be a great motivator, but the only thing you think about is escaping the wolves. That is no way to live.

There are better motivators than Wolves

Cultural Globalisation

The spread of culture is the most challenging form of Globalisation. We have completely butchered it in the past. Civilising Missions and entrenched ideas of supremacy showed very little respect for, or understanding of the subtleties or nuance of hundreds and thousands of years of learning to approach life from completely different perspectives. We are getting better, but I think this is going to be our biggest and most divisive challenge of the next 100 years. Developing the empathy and emotional intelligence required to challenge the way we see things. In the battle of Globalism v Nationalism, walls are going to come up whenever our 'Us v Them' wiring kicks in.

Overcoming Supremacy

We exist through our relationships. We do not live in isolation. How we experience, create and act as custodians of the world we have have inherited and will pass on, all depends on how we treat each other. Get that right, and a world of music exists inside 88 keys.

Nationalism v Globalism (Group Discussion)

Other Guest Posts by the Cast of Characters
Shivani - Connecting Deep and Wide
Stu - My Fellow Americans, The Revolution, Admiration and Reward, To Ooze
Phil - To Ooze
Nick - On debut - a friend from Smuts Hall at the University of Cape Town. Now lectures at Wits University.
Brett - NotOnOurWatch, Listening Better, Hearing the Listeners, Finding the Words, Words to Life, Breaking Bread

Trev:

I am very much someone who values cosmopolitanism. I don't much care for trying to protect my identity. I like the idea of breaking it down by adding the best bits of ideas I come across. Jon Haidt, one of my favourite authors, recently wrote an essay looking at some of the recent divisions in politics from the perspective of 'globalism v nationalism'. The idea of protecting identity vs simply being racist/anti-immigrant. It does provide a more empathetic way of looking at some of the views that seem so contrary to the world I would like to work towards.

When and Why Nationalism beats Globalism
Jonathan Haidt

Shivani:

I feel as if I carry both a globalist and a nationalist inside of me. I'm wildly appreciative of travel, I believe in being open and welcoming and love the rich diversity of being human. But I also value mythology, language, history, community. The idea of the world being one doesn't make sense to me if it means losing the variation in culture. 

Who assimilates and who is assimilated? Do these ideas even make sense if we acknowledge that culture is a living, evolving thing that cannot be controlled? It seems equally problematic to expect those migrating to your country to assimilate as it does to refuse to give up any aspect of the culture you come from. As with most things, the middle way makes more sense. A little give, a little take. 

I am a fourth generation South African, of Indian descent. Indian culture still reverberates through me. A love of the food, the music, the mythology, the clothing, yoga. But there are aspects I've chosen to leave behind: language, religious practice, norms about who I marry. I don't think I could describe myself as a global citizen. I have sunk deep roots in South Africa. Does that make me a nationalist?

Trev:

I think the Nationalists are more those who feel intense discomfort with the pace of change, and don't have a foot in both camps. The issue with open borders is it does shine a big light on just how different some of our cultural and moral responses are to certain issues. Not necessarily in big ideological ways, but ways that make us feel less at home. Language, food, music, and other comfort factors get thrown on their head. 

I remember the clashes at school as we were coming out of Apartheid on issues as simple as noise levels. Natal was quite British. Think someone shouting across the tube in London, and you can see the response to shouting across the playground. Is this potentially just a teething issue that older generations struggle with? Will younger people be more used to variety? Or do we need to start making allowance somehow for more aggressive assimilation in *some* places to allow bubbles of comfort for those who are struggling with the change.

The New Political Divide

The Economist

Stu:

This is such a big topic there are lots of possible directions to go in. In one sense, my response to tensions between nationalist v globalisation groups is the opposite of a typical left wing response, which I see as being to limit the number of immigrants but then be very supportive to those who do come. I’d like lots of immigration but more assertive about enforcing local norms/laws (until these norms change naturally or via immigrants voting and normal democratic evolution). This doesn’t properly address those who feel threatened by the change, but I think nationalists feel defensive over their own norms and laws and don’t want to apologise for them.

Source: Webbed Wary Cow

Trev:

In the UK there is a concept of 'Silent Tories'. People who don't say much and then vote Conservative in the poll booth. Quite often the Globalist approach can take the moral high ground and be very loud. To show any form of dissent in public, or to say you feel uncomfortable is seeing as against any number of righteous values. This makes working these things out and gaining comfort with change hard. I regard myself as very liberal, but I come from a socially conservative background. 

One example is homophobia. I 'didn't know' a single homosexual growing up. This is not true, but the environment was so negative that there was no way anyone could come 'out of the closet'. Despite the world moving on dramatically, and a number of people from my neighbourhood now feeling free to be themselves, gender roles are still very clearly defined. Men still don't show affection as naturally and being effeminate is still a problem. People aren't vocal about their discomfort, but still wince at public displays of affection etc. 

It is easier for people to be loud about 'progressive issues'. If there isn't space for people to be vocal about their conservative issues, I am not sure we will work our way out of them.

Phil:

To show any form of dissent in public, or to say you feel uncomfortable is seeing as against any number of righteous values.” I feel like this is quite a detour off Nationalism and Globalism, but perhaps one worth having. I call it “The Great Pscyhological Dilemma” and, at its heart is the question: “What Sort of a World do We Want to Live In?” Take Trev’s example of homophobia. We want to live in a world in which people who identify as homosexual are free to live without fear of discrimination. How do we realise this goal? Do we 

(1) police the uttering of gay-slander? or 
(2) educate and wait for people to realise that sexuality lies on a spectrum, and that homosexuality (like transgender) is completely “normal” in the sense that a bell curve has tails. 

(1) Is external policing. (2) Is internal change (both rational and emotional). 

Ideally we want (2). BUT… human beings enjoy power (superiority) over others, enjoy creating “out-groups”/enemies, like to hate, and mostly hate to think for themselves. To me, one of the greatest challenges of the coming century is how to deal with HUMAN BEINGS… such that they aren’t policed into a Brave New World (or Equilibria), but aren’t left to become Lords of the Flies. Suggestions welcome...

Animal Farm in Reverse

Library of Economics and Liberty

Trev:

Perhaps this is a case of us simply not recognising the forward steps we are making, and getting very upset about the steps away from what we want? If we take a broad historical look, we are getting better at cooperating with each other. We are chipping away at prejudice. Something we are doing must be right even if it occasionally feels like we are being punched in the stomach. 

We are treating each other better

The internal change Phil speaks of can only come from intimate friendship. Those conversations outside of the public realm where you feel confident enough to express your prejudice and work on them. People change from where they are, not from where we want them to be. I don't think Globalisation is about assimilation. It should be as simple and as limited as possible. Like agreeing on the number of keys to put on a piano, but then allowing people to play Jazz, Rock, Classical or improvise. I know Stuart is much more positive on the state of the status quo than most. In a world of free speech, we focus on the bad stuff. Animal Farm in reverse.

Why it's so tempting to build walls

ideas.ted.com

Nick

I myself do not think of myself in terms of a national or global identity, or have any desire to reflect any particular identity to anyone else (although a reflection is unavoidable). I don't get excited about which sport team (/person) wins anything anywhere - but I do like watching skilled sportspeople. I find a lot of cultural identity practices abhorrent. We are collectively very happy to give up personal liberty sometimes in the name of common identity which is regrettable. None of it makes much sense to me; I have no idea why people are attached to these identities although if I gave it some thought I am sure there are plenty of candidate explanations I would accept. 

Ignorance drives our lives and this is just one of those areas which I do not get too worked up about not knowing much. The same as notions of cultural appropriation - just not something I am driven to better understand, although some are very passionate and vocal about it at the moment. It is another issue wrapped up in identity politics and in this regard it is not something I have much interest in. 

In the end the us vs them thinking is probably unavoidably human, its suppression undo-able, its glorification universal, but if left unchecked would probably destroy our species, and if it could be expunged, that would probably be a good thing (and to be clear it is not disagreement that is a problem, it's the division of us against them which is the problem)

Brett

This animal is so beautifully complicated that we really could take it to so many deep levels and flesh it out for weeks. I definitely agree with the idea of holding tension lightly and tend to think more and more that we would be a lot more healthy if we leaned towards Both/And belief systems more than Either/Or. Echoing what I’ve heard above, I love some things that are distinctively South African but I love the possibility of eating Indian food at the Eastern Food Bazaar in Cape Town centre. It would be a shame if everyone assimilated and became all the same. So holding on to some things that feel family or culture and embracing some that feel important from the local context. Each person is different and so we would be cultivating a variety of expressions which feel like they would create a richness when experienced alongside each other. The need for community in this scenario becomes so important though, whether at a family or wider level. And the importance of accepting each other and what we bring as well as learning from each other, the things that we don’t understand yet. Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu.

Shivani
Brett, I love the point about Both/And. Recognising where we come from and where we have ended up. If respect flows both towards migrants, as well as towards those who receive migrants, the issues start to dissipate. We forget that there are no pure identities....everything is mutable. Embracing the fluidity is tough. But building in rigidity cannot be the solution. As with most things, it seems to come down to a willingness to connect as human beings and not entrenching in/out groups (so often underpinned with assumptions of better than/less than).

Trev

I get very scared by the idea of laying ownership to cultural ideas. The communities who have been best at avoiding cultural appropriation are the ones who believed their ideas were better than everyone else's. Supremacists. This is normally just a case of historical amnesia. Our language, clothes, songs, food and all we held dear has been built collaboratively. Equally, I understand the desire to build close, exclusive, intimate relationships. A value to uniqueness. The anti-Globalisation forces are not just a basket of deplorables. Some argue that keeping things local and separate is a form of respect. It recognises tacit local knowledge. It prevents sameness. It prevents systemic risk since connections help good ideas and bad ideas spread.

I understand ideas about self-determination, identity building and keeping things holy. Having grown up in Apartheid South Africa, I just get sick at the bottom of my stomach when I see the damage that can be done by living purely in relative terms. Only looking around you and caring solely for those in your immediate community is toxic in its ignorance. We need to find a balance. You can still have a global world full of local flavour.

History Chuckles

Saint George was Syrian

One of the useful things history does is laugh at people who stake a claim. Any restraints on free movement of people, goods, capital, and ideas is temporary. We know we are very different to our parents and siblings, so the idea that there is any separate group identity that is not just a flimsy story is bizarre. I have spent the morning in the British Museum with some friends who live in Seoul, South Korea, and teach English. One is South African, and one is American. Both have red hair. There was a map in one section on the history of the UK which made me chuckle. More a gutted chuckle than a haha chuckle. The people who have 'the biggest claim' to the UK are the Celts of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. The Anglo-Saxons were very European immigrants. Saint George was Syrian. But if Celts stake a claim, history will also laugh. The Celts themselves came from Europe way before that. Most of them get that.

If you lay claim to culture, history will laugh. How we learnt to hunt, speak, farm, write, travel, build, love, fight, eat and drink has always been a communal effort of Global Citizens. 

The Celts spread from the Yellow bit

The Dark Green is where Celtic languages remain widely spoken