The owners of the rights shall be the holders of traditional knowledge, namely the local and traditional communities, and recognized individuals within such communities, who create, preserve and transmit knowledge in a traditional and intergenerational context in accordance with the provisions of section 4.
The application of this section is partially significant for how it allows customary groups to take ownership of their stories. The colonial era had oppressors taking the role of the authority on people’s stories. While we remain grateful for education, we can’t neglect the messaging that, “foreign knowledge is superior to indigenous knowledge.” This has played out as indigenous people not often being at the forefront of being historians of their own cultures. Since independence, many cultural groups have been making efforts to correct the stories that have been told about them. In this article we’re covering two works that have been conducted in Namibia, surrounding the cultural relationship between people and the ocean.
A phenomenal production retelling the story of the ǂAoni people and the ocean. The play consists of a cast of three, the father (Dawie Engelbrecht), the mother played by Hazel Hinda and their daughter Khoendikhoes, played by Chantell Uiras (Diolini). The story follows the three as they revisit the events of the colonial past and how these impacted on the current socioeconomic position of the ǂAoni people, a clan of Nama people mostly found around the !Kuiseb river in the Erongo region also referred to as the Topnaar community.
Setting things straight
One of the main issues covered in this play is that of the history of the community. Colonial era historians alleged that the community’s displacement during the colonial era was in response to countering fighting within the community and harm to the natural environment. The story starts by letting us know who these people were recognized as, ‘the water people’ or guardians of the water and marine life. Their role as caretakers was undermined by the ambitions of the colonizers. It was also clear that they were moved without consultation and that it was carried out in a forceful and chaotic manner. They did not stand a chance against the armed invaders and had no other choice but to comply. An all too familiar history. Before anyone else felt the hit of the colonial invaders, they, being at the coast, felt the first and strongest blows, and because the settling of foreign invaders on the coastal territory did not help their case much.
They spoke of the !Nara fruit (Acanthosicyos horrida), how it was not just food, but the unique way in which each family farmed it was a way to distinguish between families. After the displacement, restoring the practices that were central to their cultural identities has been a struggle not so much because they have lost the capacity to do so, but more because of the policies put in place to make sure that they never do Policies that have seen their way into post-independence Namibia. The play was not made out to be an attack on the contemporary government, but a channel to shed light to the fact that they (the Topnaar community) too are a people that were uniquely disempowered by the apartheid system, and that their story continues to be swept under other emerging and apparent issues. The story has been written in collaboration with academic research institutes like the University of Namibia (UNAM), One Ocean Hub, Global Research Fund, and UK Research and Innovation. Researchers such as Robert Vigne are also amongst those who have showcased the significantly disproportionate level of harm faced by the Topnaar Community during the colonial era. It’s safe to say that the message shared is one grounded in facts not a baseless critique.
When speaking to the audience after the play, a leader from the ǂAonin community, Joel Kooitjie, as well as, acting chief of community Stoffel Anamab, pointed out the struggles that their people continue to face today. Some impacts include the fact that they are only about two Topnaar people in local authority offices and that decision makers in their area can sometimes fail to capture their context very well and ultimately miss their needs. Furthermore, as a community that had largely survived on marine life for sustenance, bearing witness to the harm the ocean and its creatures have faced while disempowered from taking any feasible steps to help serves as a testament to the gradual weakening of their own development, this is in part because a great amount of their income came from inland circulation of oceanic goods. The historical and cultural relevance of ocean governance in this community has been significantly undermined and resulted in having to re-adapt to a life where their strongest skills remain in the backburner. It goes without saying that this need to suppress who they are in order to be convenient for invaders is a level of robbery that digs at the core of personhood.
Conclusion
The play ǂAONI //AES is an example of the Swakopmund Protocole at work. It’s the active reclaiming of a history by the people. It is also an assertion of who they are and who this land has known them to be. The impoverishment and struggle they face today is a result of being subject to a system that has unfortunately kept them down. The post-colonial government canntot take the blame for this, but, in their continuous efforts to decolonize Namibia, they can take the Topnaar Community and their pleas into consideration.
Uno and Hatago is an aptly timed production. It was largely marketed as a lesbian film, and it is, but it goes beyond that by addressing harmful cultural practices and promoting unity.
Uno and Hatago follows the story of a nurse, Uno, played by Diana Master, who’s world suddenly crashes when her family finds out about her sexual orientation. Up until then, Uno had been living in Windhoek with her partner Hatago, a feminist and LGBTQ+ rights activist played by Uakamburuavi Jeomba.
Patriarchy, Family Secrets and Tradition
The film is centered on how Uno’s family of OvaHerero traditionalists react to finding out that she is a lesbian woman. The traditionalism is explored from two ends. First is the ‘traditionalist’ idea that lesbianism is not acceptable or that is something foreign, and second is a traditionalism which acknowledges that lesbian women (and other members of the LGBTQ+ community) have always existed in Namibia and that true tradition is that this is not unAfrican.
The patriarchal nature of the first perspective is perfectly portrayed by Uno’s uncle, played by Mervin Cheez Uahupirapi, and her father, played by Lesley Tjiueza. These two played these characters so well, I left the theatre with so much animosity for fictional characters. The way they are written doesn’t stretch far from reality at all, the audience is likely to think of characters in their own lives who are like these two.
We meet Uno’s uncle during an intimate gathering at a restaurant, where they (Uno, Hatago and a few of their friends), have gone to celebrate Uno’s graduation. During that same night, Uno’s uncle is having dinner with his girlfriend, an extra-marital partner. His girlfriend insists on taking a picture of him, and as he protests this, he notices that she also captured his niece, Uno, kissing a woman right behind him. Suddenly his focus turns away from the possibility of being caught cheating to excitement having caught his niece in what he considers to be a cultural ‘sin’. He asks his girlfriend to share this picture with him and takes it to her father under the guise of taking immediate action to save the family’s reputation. His solution to this is to marry her off to Tove, his nephew with seemingly low marital prospects. The two agree on a dowry that Uno’s father can pay and thereafter, call Uno to the homestead to tell her that they found out about her ‘city life antics’ and about the marriage they have organized for her. In line with unspoken cultural norms, this uncle sexually assaults Uno to ‘prepare her’ for marriage.
Her father shows pride in his recently graduated daughter for her qualifications before completely discarding that in favour of viewing her as a shameful person. From the moment he finds out that his daughter is a lesbian, he focuses on hiding this “shame.” Essentially, it seems like, she is not truly successful if she does not let a man dominate her. He expresses this more by defending her uncle and disowning her after she reports the assault and carries on her relationship with Hatago. Embracing her lesbianism is a rebellion against the idea that she is not a real woman if she is not in a relationship with a man, just as being gay may be falsely viewed as not ‘real manhood’ if one is not dominant over a woman.
This form of ‘traditionalism’ which focuses on filling heteronormative and patriarchal templates completely undermines that dignity of women and this film explores this in a realistic way. The fact that Uno’s uncle was cheating is a non-issue while Uno’s committed and healthy relationship is. The fact that he has violated his niece is less of an issue than the fact that she is a lesbian, even to the police officer who recieves the matter.
It is Uno’s grandmother who sheds light on another of the other view of ‘traditionalism.’ The idea that lesbianism has always existed and that assault on women is an unacceptable norm. She helps Uno escape and return to the city after finding out that her uncle has attacked her, and the film ends with her sharing a story of a same-sex partner that she had before being married off to her husband. She shares about the grief she experienced when that partner passed away and the pain she felt not being able to express the extent of that grief given the nature of their relationship. She emphasizes togetherness through love and acceptance within a family, rather than allowing harm to go on, in the name of protecting family honour. She frames honour as being something that can come from showing up for each other rather than maintaining socially imposed images. In this case, the images of the ‘macho men’ and ‘high achieving, good girl daughter.’
Uno’s mother starts off with a similar stance to that of her husband. Rejecting her daughter because of her sexual orientation. However she gradually leans towards accepting her daughter after seeing that her family is becoming torn apart because of this, and worse still, that Uno’s sexual orientation has not stopped her from becoming a productive, successful and helpful member of society, or from having a child. Throughout the film, she maintains a regal and stoic disposition, not showing affection and avoiding vulnerability until it becomes clear that her husband’s stubbornness may force Uno to completely cut them off. This may have also been amplified when she meets her daughters mother-in-law, Buruxa (I hope I spelt that right), who shows unconditional love, encouragement and acceptance to Uno. Buruxa is the mother Uno needed and this may not have landed well with Uno’s biological mother. Soon enough, she takes on the grandmother’s stance, to lean into love and acceptance, while maintaining her rigid mannerisms. The character doesn’t change drastically, but in subtle ways like inviting Uno home and making her tea, and in her most expressive moment when she stands up for Uno to her husband, pointing out that his pursuit of family honour is fueled by hatred and that this is not the kind of family that can stay together for very long. She seems to represent anyone who has experienced this changing of perspectives, from a tradition rejection to one of radical acceptance.
Criticisms
Unfortunately we do not get to see Uno’s mother reacting to the assault and we do not get to see her express pride in her daughter’s achievements. We just see her expressing a whole lot of disappointment and coldness. Which can bring up the question of whether her distant nature is just who she is or if it came as a result of finding out that her daughter is a lesbian. Sure, Uno becomes tense when she notices that her mother is upset with her but the inexpressiveness seems to continue even after they have made amends, and seems to be there when Uno’s grandmother shares her story. It is not clear if we should expect affection from this woman if this is the personality she has always had or if she has taken on this persona as a reaction to Uno being a lesbian.
With the exception of Uno and Hatago’s friends whose cultural backgrounds and sexual orientations remain a mystery, the OtjiHerero heterosexual women we meet are all homophobic. On the other end of the scale, Buruxa, the only other woman we meet who is accepting of Uno and Hatago’s relationship, is of Damara heritage. Her sexual orientation doesn’t come up, but there would have been some reality balance in seeing a non-Herero speaking homophobe or a non-LGBTQ+, OtjiHerero speaking ally. This may come off as pitting the two customary groups against each other in how they view LGBTQ+ issues given that Namibia has the added context of tribalism and these two groups are mentioned on opposing ends of this issue. (But then again, the existence of this dynamic in this one story doesn’t mean there’s no alternative dynamic elsewhere, so don’t miss the plot by centralizing these criticisms)
Conclusion
More LGBTQ+ stories are needed in media, especially one’s like this one that humanize same-sex partners. Homophobia is just dispensed without consideration for the humanity of the people being attacked and the fact that they too are members of society (Just scroll through the comments section of any LGBTQ+ related post on the Namibian pages, it’s a mess). Beyond this, the authenticity of LGBTQ+ stories told by a predominantly LGBTQ+ production team didn’t go past any of the audience members, and likely contributed to how impactful the overall story is. The story touches on other themes that are not LGBTQ+ centric such as family, harmful cultural practices, civic action, women’s rights, gender norms and romance (I didn’t get into it but Hatago is such a supportive and loving partner, they’re a wholesome couple which makes it so much easier to root for them. The way their relationship is depicted is enjoyable and if not for the political aspect of this movie, you may want to watch it for the romance story.)
On the 21st of June 2024 the High Court of Namibia ruled in favour of declaring the sodomy law unconstitutional in the case of Dausab v the Government of Namibia. This follows years of activism alongside a steadily rising amount of homophobic attacks and an Anti-Gay Bill. We are in a pride revolution and here’s why its an important step against colonialism and genocide…
What does this have to do with colonialism?
Before colonialism, being gay was a norm. This sounds like a taboo to many who have fed into the false idea that tradition justifies homophobia. In many African countries, the word “gay” was normal enough to acquire its own title. For example; Eshenge in OshiWambo, Ngochani in ChiShona and Adofuro in Yoruba.
In the Namibian Ovambo cultural context it was believed that these men simply possessed a feminine spirits and were regular members of the community rather than ostracized minorities. German anthropologist Kurt Falk confirmed this during the 1920s having spent time with several Namibian tribes, including the Ovambo, OvaHerero, Nama and Himba. Ethnologist, Carlos Estermann supported this during the 1970’s and added that it was a culturally acknowledged ‘third gender’. The very first anti-homosexual trial was conducted under the German colonial rule. Four German men were banished for having defied paragraph 145 of the German Code which outlawed sodomy. This outlawing of sodomy was carried on by the South African colonial regime after taking over Namibia as a protectorate. If it isn’t already clear, the anti-homosexual laws were not born of tradition but of colonialism.
Over time, the colonial effect of self-rejection (a phenomenon whereby subjects to colonialism consciously reject colonialism but have learned to look down on their ethnic origins, cultural groups, cultures and customs) included a rejection of the LGBTQ+ community. Colonialism left in its wake, many with the idea that “all are equal but some more equal than others.” In our context, this idea from George Orwell’s animal farm wasn’t limited to just financial pursuits, but to the pursuit of love and happiness as well. A 2013 baseline study revealed that about 73% of nmaibians were under the impression that members of the LGBTQ+ community were accorded equal rights. This has not been true since the pre-colonial era. It has since become more evident that many are more aware of their own rights than those of others. So when words like moffie are blurted out in the same tone as the word nigger or kaffer , it is easy to play it off as common rhetoric despite the fact that such terms are intended to humiliate and undermine an entire group of people for natural differences that they have no control over. Worse still, many have used these rhetorics and the laws supporting them to justify their violence and hatred, and further to pervert religion to suit these hateful narratives in the name if dispensing justice for God’s wrath. But that’s another conversation. In short, the same way colonial laws emboldened racist attacks, is the same way anti-homosexual laws embolden homophobic attacks. The same way racism was rationalized to seem like something morally acceptable, is the same way homophobia is rationalized to seem like the more morally acceptable stance. It is not.
The Dausab v Government of Namibia Judgement
Fortunately many LGBTQ+ people and allies have taken a stand against these senselessly exclusive laws. Everyone should have the opportunity to freely pursue romantic relationships. Human rights are a core aspect of the Namibian Constitution and are found in Chapter three. These have been developed with various religious and ethical concepts in mind, with the goal of ensuring that the law treats us all fairly. That we treat each other fairly.
The court in this case had to deliberate on three issues that relate to this;
Whether the sodomy law violates the right to equality (Article 10(1))
Whether the criminalization of same-sex relationships between men serves a justifiable purpose
The balance between the interests of society and the interests of gay men
A few interesting points came up during the discussion that led to the decision that the sodomy law is unconstitutional. These are that;
If the same act takes place between men and women, it is not criminalized, which means that this law targets and unfairly discriminates against men on the basis of gender.
This law does not serve a legitimate purpose. The moralistic justification that sex between men is unnatural is subjectively held by people whose rights are not infringed by the existence of these consensual relationships. Upholding these peoples morals over those directly affected by this law goes against the principle of democracy.
Outlawing these men’s private relationships is irrational and serves no justifiable purpose.
Although the discrimination differentiating heterosexual men from homosexual men is not covered by the grounds listed in article 10, it still amounts to unfair discrimination.
This landmark judgement has made room for more Africans to enjoy their sovereignty within the continent. If we keep moving in this direction, LGBTQ+ may not be discouraged from living and thriving in their own continent, and in turn, will not move away from helping their continent thrive. LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Let’s change the statutory provisions to make them more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people.
NTN (The National Theatre of Namibia) came back with a bang and I am more than glad that I didn’t skip this play, The Wasp was, in one word, jaw-dropping. When we act like there’s no elephant in the room, it will eventually stomp us. That’s one of the major themes in NTN’s latest production “The Wasp.” This play is not for the feint-hearted, you might just question your own ethics while watching it, at least that’s what I found myself doing during the climax of this, thriller.
The Wasp is the story of two women, who reconnect after years to rekindle what they keep referring to as a friendship, but, friendship is the furthest term I’d use to describe this relationship. They are the only two characters we meet and they’re all we need, Morgan Lloyd Malcom’s writing this had a fly on the wall effect to it, giving us the sense that we know the characters very well through us eavesdropping on some very hush hush conversations, meanwhile still being able to deliver twists that keep the audience hooked. So a 10/10 from me on those stage directions and the dialogue. Here are my biggest takeaways from this play:
On Friendships and “Friendships”
Ever wondered what the worst case scenario could be in a friendship where unaddressed competition and bitterness are at the core? Well The Wasp does a great job at showing us just what might happen if you and that frienemy keep walking on blurred lines. This play shows us that things can change and eventually something has to give in blurred line based relationships.
The play starts with a meeting at a café between the two, Heather and Carla. Heather has become wealthy since their school days while Carla lives more paycheck to paycheck, the remnants of what was a love-hate relationship between the two are clear in how they speak to eachother. In in their first meeting in years, the awkwardness of an unlikely meeting between two people who had fallen out was very well portrayed and spilt over into the audience. It was clear that there were a lot of unspoken words between them throughout that first meeting. Carla has little patience for any outside opinions about her, she has shown up fully prepared to fight Heather, should the need arise, it doesn’t, but if it had, best believe Carla was ready to go from the very beginning. Meanwhile, Heather is the embodiment of the seemingly polite aristocrat whose back handed statements are delivered like they are either facts or gifts.
Heather has a proposition, for Carla to kill her husband. Why Carla? A strong belief in her capacity to be callous. The oddness of the proposition struck us all, a very much needed “o O” from one of the audience members, vocalized what we were all thinking. If someone wants their husband, or anyone killed, why would they reach out to an old high school frienemy? Well the twist ending was the perfect pay-off for this confusion.
All too often fears of being alone, the need to assimilate or be one of the ‘cool kids’ can lead to whitewashing rather than confronting violations. This play shows how, if left unaddressed, these dynamics can spill over well into adulthood. How talks of ‘healing the wounded inner child’ don’t just stop at some internal reflection, but also involve looking at addressing conflict and hurts from other people, and how if that doesn’t happen, the cycles continue until either you or the cycle are broken.
The Authority of the Sacred Victim
*Big spoilers here*
Molly Brigid McGrath published a paper called “The Authority of the Sacred Victim” in 2020 which talks about the harms of maintaining a template of how a victim should be observed. That the possibility of harm by a social victim can result in the creation of new villains. It is wrong when an individual uses their trauma to justify causing trauma, it explains it, but it definitely doesn’t make it right or acceptable. This play does an excellent job at exploring that. It takes this a step further by giving us two protagonists who have understandable backstories for why they are the way they are, and why they do the things they do. Heather is the one looking to murder her husband for infidelity, resorting to catfishing Carla and spying on her before presenting this proposition, and even convincingly threatening to torture and kill Carla after the proposition is made. On the other hand, Carla violently bullied and sexually assaulted Heather in high school, because she was the more teacher’s pet type and her family was more loving than Carla’s abusive family. I’ll admit that it’s easier for me to lean towards Heather in this situation, bullies, especially the ones who do it intentionally not out of ignorance, are disgusting. Yup, I said it and I’d say it again. But the play is written in a way that asks us to both empathize with and dislike these two. Both are ‘sacred victims’ and the finale has one offering the other a way out, to choose to walk away and be forgiving, and start a new chapter or to embrace animosity. The choice she made was definitely worth the wait (not spoiling everything ).
Perfect is in the eye of the beholder
We are introduced to Carla the pregnant Mother of five sitting outside a café and smoking and Heather enters the scene making her out-of-placeness apparent. This place is a casual enough place for Carla yet too casual for the likes of Heather. On first listening their ‘have and have not’ relationship makes Heather’s situation more preferable until she speaks about how much she’s been struggling to have children. Carla dangles her upper hand in this instance and even offers to become a surrogate for some money, bragging about how easily she can get pregnant. After some awkwardness over this, the two gossip a little about a former classmate who is in a relationship with a serial cheater, briefly sharing a high horse over this before even that high horse is broken by how differently they think about it. Carla thinks its normal for men to cheat, the role of the woman is to tighten the leash on him, while Heather believes men should not be excused for such behavior. (Very much noted the heteronormativity of these views and their normalcy.)
Each woman is desperate to escape aspects of their lives. Heather longing for a healthy family of her own while Carla hopes for financial freedom. In our discovery of this, each one is free and confident with whatever they have over the other, and to point out the inferiority of the other. It is Heather who announces Carla’s difficult financial situation, repeating how desperate she must be, and that she’d “obviously” do anything for money. And while Heather speaks of her marital and fertility struggles, it is Carla who emphasizes how easy this part of life should be and adds salt to the wound by making light of Heather’s struggle, the discovery of the abuse in high school make Carla’s jokes more jarring and almost make her seem inhumanely cruel.
Conclusion
All in all, this play is fully worth the watch. If the opportunity ever presents itself, GO WATCH IT!!! These are only a few of the themes I picked up but there’s a lot more I left out. The cast, stage design, directions, all of it were a superb “welcome back to the theatre.” I hope to see more from this writer and can’t wait to see what else NTN has in store for us.
Happy April first, we’ve got a new addition to our mini-March stories series, where we’re sharing stories written that center the holidays that we celebrated in the month of March, International Women’s Day, Independance Day and Easter. Girls Night Out is a story that acknowledges violence against women and girls following independence, how it has become something that spoils freedoms hoped for by many freedom fighters and how these terrifying situations have often become just common cautionary tales.
The dance started promptly at 6pm. Thandeka and Mary and I were already there by 5:30 , we didn’t know that people never came early for these events and we’d soon find out that we didn’t need to save up for new high heels unfamiliar make-up and heavy jewelry, we could have easily pulled off a look with some high tops, tube-tops and flared mini-skirts or shorts and lipstick. But it didn’t matter, we had just made it to our first school dance and that’s what mattered the most.
It was well orchestrated, we had told our parents that we would have a hockey match, an away game, and that’d work for a good cover to see the dance through to the end. None of us was particularly good at hockey, we’d made the team thanks to a quota formality and would tag along and bench. There was no game this weekend though, but we needed an excuse to make this happen, it was the last year of high school and we were going to make it count. The night would end with a sleepover at the home of Thandeka’s aunt, Ms Marange.
She was one of the teachers at the school with a house on campus, and, had played the role of a fairly open-minded older sister to her rather than that of an older mother as her familial title “mainini, young mother” had demanded. She’d go along with their plan as long as they promised to report to her every 15 minutes and to make sure they would head home and do their homework as soon as the dance was over. She was in her late forties, a former soldier who met her husband when he was in exile and moved to his home town soon after the war. He’d remained in the army, and travelled on missions with the NDF and she left that life and was now a drama teacher and writer, known for being unreserved and amicable enough for students to be very liberal in her presence yet firm enough to innerve cold-feet in anyone who thought of disrespecting her. “Yho, maborn-free with your pre-occupations” she mused upon seeing our shoes. I felt a slight wash of embarrassment because I really felt like an adult in my peep-toed heels.
People started piling into the school hall by 6:30, this was the big Independence day bash that took place annually and was always the source of the juiciest gossip and stories that would illicit a fear of missing out that served as enough justification for lying to our parents. “We were doing this for a greater cause…we must enjoy our youth,” we agreed. By the time everyone was settling in, we were barefoot, dancing in the glory of a very well executed con on our parents and a coming of age moment being experienced. Our fifteen minute report-backs to Ms Marange started off as a group endeavor and after around 8pm became individual check-ins. We’d separated after Terrance, a classmate of ours, had asked Thandeka to dance, Mary and I didn’t want to hover around them, so we moved away and soon enough Mary was swept away by Ndapewa, a girl she’d been enthralled with in the previous year while I remained absorbed in the music and dancing. Ms Marange didn’t seem to mind us splitting up, her responses to our check-ins were a slight nod and waving away while talked to some of the other teachers.
I was just about to show off my routine to Soulja-Boy’s CrankThat when Mary tugged at my arm asking where Thandeka was. My impulsive shrug-off was met with a loud, “Where did she go!” from a raging Ms Marange. I knew the fifteen minute mark had just passed but this was a rare opportunity to show off that I knew all the moves from the music video. “I told you girls to make sure you report back every fifteen minutes. Both of you, go and find Thandeka now!” We raced out of the room, averting our eyes from the gaze of our nosey peers, none of whom had a word to say about Thandeka’s whereabouts.
“You were on the dance floor, didn’t you see where she went?” Mary asked.
“Honestly Mary, I wasn’t paying attention. Where’s Ndapewa, why isn’t she helping us look?” I responded in a tone that made my irritability very apparent.
“She’s checking the bathrooms, Marange started with me before we got to you, Ndapewa and a couple of other students were told to go check the bathrooms and the junior classes, you and I should probably head over to the car-park, the sports field and senior block.” Mary remained unbothered
“Why is she so furious, it’s not like Thandeka has been missing for hours, it’s just been a few minutes. Did you tell her she was with a boy?”
“No, and let’s keep it that way, you just know she would never let us forget if we did.”
“I don’t know, all I know is that I would rather search for Thandeka for the rest of the night than have my mother know where I really am.” Mary said, making me focus on the bigger picture.
We called for Thandeka and Terrence, scanning through the car park and the sports fields. The more we looked, the more the thought that they were somewhere fooling around eroded. She and Terrance flirted often and passed each other notes from time to time. She once said they had been texting on Mxit throughout the holiday before her phone was confiscated. So we had no reason to suspect that anything was awry. Our walk up to the classes was silent. Neither one of us wanted to discuss the possibility of anything terrible happening to Thandeka. The distress Ms Marange had shown had caught up to us, but neither of us would acknowledge it, jokes about horrid possibilities and expressions of annoyance turned into fast paced marches and echoed calls.
So when we headed back up-school to a crowd in front of the science lab, I was certain that the anvil I felt weighing on my chest had also struck Mary. She was braver than I was though, she shoved through the crowd to find a bleeding Thandeka centering this crowd of mumbling students being herded back by teachers. A teary eyed Ms Marange pacing rapidly on the phone, coupled with involuntary eaves dropping confirmed a worst case scenario that had just been too convoluted for us to plan for. Thandeka wasn’t moving, and Terrance had been taken to a separate classroom. My mind couldn’t comprehend it. Suddenly what had been my worst fear earlier that night paled in comparison to the actual reality. My parents were called, and they too were caught in the surrealness of what had taken place.
A combination of piecing together questions from the police interrogations and newspaper articles eventually helped us draw pictures of what had happened.
Thandeka and Terrence had been dancing, a supervisor who had been reminding them to stay at an arm’s length distance apart, claimed they stopped keeping track of them after realizing that they had been reporting to Ms Marange, and that they generally had been trusted students, so “…they didn’t require as much monitoring as more rowdy students.” A line in a newspaper article read. Eventually they left the hall and snuck into one of the science labs. They began to make-out and eventually she worried about her aunt looking for her, she wanted to head back to check-in, but Terrance insisted that she stay longer, he claimed that they tussled and she fell and hit her head on the corner of the table. Mary and I think he wanted a lot more, she’d wanted to save herself for marriage, and was deathly paranoid about becoming a mother before she was ready. But we only had his version of events.
We didn’t get to talk to Ms Marange after that night, not even at the funeral. To apologize for being lackadaisical about her panic that night. To apologize for putting her in that position and for causing this, to be part of her legacy at the school.
Lately we’ve been exploring the freedom to practice any religion which is found at Article 21 (1)(c) of the Constitution of Namibia. In previous posts we’ve mentioned that this freedom is based on international agreements. These fundamental freedoms don’t exist in a vacuum, here is a small reference list on some international agreements that form the basis of this freedom in Namibia.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18 (Freedom of religion)
Article 20 (Freedom of Association)
Article 2 ( Anti-discrimination)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 18 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
Article 22 (The right to freedom of association)
Article 2 (Non-discrimination on the basis of religion or belief)
Article 26 (All persons are equal before the law)
Article 27 (Protection for religious minorities)
1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of hid choice and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of hid choice and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.“
Article 18
Now that we’ve covered some of the rules and grounds on this, lets take a look at some opposing perspectives on how this right is enjoyed. Recently the comment below was mentioned in referenced in relation to the Catholic Church creating a more inclusive policy which allows for the church to bless same sex marriages, something which the Namibian branch is strongly opposed to.
This is one interpretation of the African ethos in relation to the Christian African LGBTQ community.
On the other hand…
The African ethos has been seen to be broader than expressed in this statement. Works written by Adriaan Van Klinken voice an opposing opinion that you can check out. Adriaan Van Klinken is a Professor of Religion and African Studies at the University of Leeds has some interesting views we can consider.
A lot of religious leaders see religion as being inclusive
He talks about the advocacy work of Bishop Desmond Tutu in this article, pointing out that while he faced some opposition from his colleagues he, and thought leaders like him, viewed homophobia, heterosexism and racism in the same light. In Namibia there are organisations that advocate for religious LGBTQ+ persons and their allies such as Tulinam.
2. The Bible can be interpreted in a way that upholds Ubuntu
In a book he co-wrote with Ezra Chitando, Reimagining Christianity and Sexual Diversity in Africa, they explore a radical theology of inclusivity, where they unpack two myths. The first ‘myth’, commonly articulated in African nationalist discourse, both within the churches and in wider African society, is that homosexuality is a purely Western phenomenon, imposed on Africa by the ‘gay lobby’ and other international human rights advocacy groups, a product of neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism. The second stereotype originates in Western secular discourse, which often characterises Africa as intractably homophobic, fuelled by a regressive, pre-enlightenment version of Christianity.
3. Homophobic attacks can be dehumanising to an extent of missing crucial lessons in Christianity
The human rights listed above also apply to LGBTQ+ people who are religious. In this article, he speaks about a wide array of effort against the LGBTQ mentioning how those who have been discriminated against in Uganda seek refuge in Kenya but are also subject to harrassment there. In the article he also talks about the documentation of lives of African LGBTQ+ people through art, one work he cites is a collection of stories titled Stories of Our Lives, wherein 250 stories are submitted by Kenyan people showcasing everyday human experiences.
Conclusion
A view of religion in Africa that is inclusive also promotes concepts that are central to Africa like Ubuntu. While neutrality and middle grounds are difficult in most instances, Adriaan van Klinken believes that room seems to exist for an interpretation of religion and the freedoms associated with it, which promotes togetherness rather than division and conflict.
July was the YLO pride month, possibly because of a protest against performative June pride commitments, also possibly due to scheduling delays and a lost wordpress password…I’ll never say… The discussion is non-the-less an important one. We discussed South Africa on the instagram page, which is often heralded for having progressive laws, yet we saw that changing the law often isn’t enough, social changes still restrict the enjoyment of human rights. Hate speech is often regarded as mindless opinions, yet can have the impact of harmful people justifying their violent behaviour with these views. This month we also took a look at two more conversations around LGBTQ+ rights:
The argument of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities being “unAfrican” and rejected by the Bible
The argument that there are more important issues
This is how those played out;
The argument of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities being “unAfrican”and rejected by the Bible
This has never made sense to me. The fact that measuring the extent of Africanness is in the same breath as Biblical principles doesn’t compute because it’s never been a secret that the Bible was a significant tool for colonisation to succeed. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here, the Bible is also very insightful and a source of peace for many, in this instance though, it seems to me like those who rely on this argument can’t see that they have taken on the role of the coloniser, using a book of hope and love to perpetuate the idea of “hating in the name of God.”
But pushing the contradiction of this aside, suppose we accept the Bible as the standard of what should be accepted in Africa and what shouldn’t, there are things that are very obviously unAfrican and rejected by the Bible; heterosexual couples sharing clothes (Deuteronomy 22:5 technically forbids a girl from looking cute in boyfriend’s hoodie and a guy getting cosy in his girlfriend’s gown), women preaching
(1Timothy 2:11-12; 1Corinthians 14:34; Acts18:26; 1Corinthians14:35) , braiding hair (Timothy 2:9-10)….these are commonly accepted with ease and translated to purposfully accomodate more ways in which many Africans want to exist authentically and comfortably, yet relationships between consenting adults are too difficult to accept by people who are not even required to participate in those relationships.
Identity and Divisions
During this month I came across the idea that ‘if we view our roots and tell our stories from slavery the best we can hope to be is great slaves,’ similarly I’m of the view that if we focus on the lines that divide us to justify exclusion, we can only hope to be more divided. Is Africanness about who you sleep with? I got into a mini-silent protest against stating my sexual orientation and gender identity, mutually fuelled by me swivelling on the spectrum and my interest in this subject. I don’t think it’s fair that members of the LGBTQ+ community have doors closed for revealing this part of life, take for instance the Digashu case, if gender and sexual orientation were not used to make decisions about people’s choices, then a family could have peacefully moved through countries just as any heterosexual headed house does. I will acknowledge that this is also a pessimistic view of self-identifying, because this is also rooted in having pride for one’s own existence and celebrating oneself fully and loudly.
I also could not articulate this view well and my mini-protest was met with some reasonable conflict, my initial reasons were that it puts a bull’s eye to violent attackers and that its information that should only be asked by people who are romantically interested in a person, not as a means to try categorise a person. An acquaintance would tell me me that the bull’s eye is necessary because it is more harmful to hide from adversity, and that martyrdom is a risk that comes along with this, it made ‘picking the hill you would die on’ make more sense too me. This same acquaintance sees a necessity in categorising people as a way that people make sense of the world more easily, I can understand this view because it is human to do so, I do it too. But, I think its important to challenge these boxes rather than rely on them. I’m on the fence with how this can be applied because I can also see how it can result in people not being accepted as unique beings, but leaning on categories and boxes perpetuates stigma and discrimination and has the very possible effect of stopping people from broadening their experience of life.
Conclusive View: Differences in identity are part of being in a community. We aren’t all the same and its important to accept and acknowledge that. Viewing sameness and peace as synonymous is harmful. That’s the formula for oppression, because in a system like that, only those with power get to define and maintain the sameness while calling it peace. To be African intrinsically means accepting and welcoming diversity and that we don’t all understand each other and that’s okay for as long as we are not harming eachother, we have about 3000 tribes in this continent and none is more African than the other. Expanding this to diverse sexual orientations and gender identities involves accepting the reality that we are not all identical and that is something worth celebrating, each of us should be able to exist in fulll bloom of uniqueness.
The argument that there are more important issues
This argument assumes that problems can’t be solved concurrently. It undermines the whole LGBTQ+ movement and treats those in it like toddlers having a tantrum over wanting sweets when the electric bill isn’t paid. As if a group of people saying, “I can’t go to the police, they will chase me away because I’m gay, but I can’t go home because there are people who want to kill me for being gay,” shouldn’t be a human rights crisis. Had the word ‘gay’ been exchanged with the word “Christian” or “Black” the insensitive response of a passive “Then stop being that way,” wouldn’t roll so easily out of people’s mouths.
Not to mention, other issues aren’t often pitted against eachother in this way. I’m yet to hear someone respond to the issue of youth unemployment with the notion that its not important because we need to focus on more important issues like sanitation in informal settlements. I can guarantee that the outcry over how dismissive this is would lead to an almost instant loss of political power. No one likes to be dismissed, especially when they are crying out for help.
Democracy is intended to make sure all voices are heard. In practice this can be difficult for several reasons. The most clear to me are that;
“The power is in the people” seems like a formality. The power is in the administrative decision makers.
Many administrative decision makers are largely influenced by their political power and rhetoric than their administrative role.
Political power mostly rests in the hands of post-colonial war heroes and I’ve explored how these powers can be destructive in their goals to maintain power here
Innovative thinking and new ideas are only welcomed by these powers if they are profitable or if they promote their ideas.
Ultimately, it seems like the goal of democracy in action is to maintain the ideas of the political power in force, not to put the power int the hands of all the people. The question of “your rights end where mine begin” is poorly addressed when it comes to just recognising that the LGBTQ+ community is a community of human beings who deserve human rights. A common response to “You’re not part of the relationship, no one is asking you to participate in them, your life will go on as it usually does” they say it will confuse the children. Children are easily confused by many things, shall we ban taxes, mortgage, talking about puberty, mathematics and school in general because of the risk of confusion? This, in my view, is a veiled response instead of an honest admission; “I won’t know how to respond to my children if they ask.”
Love and Culture
Religious dogma and cultural beliefs provide a comfortable standard for accountability. What we owe and expect. Human Rights does this too. Unfortunately, these face the challenges of political power being very linked to control of decision making in the law.
I got into a couple of conversations with two men who were against the lgbtq+ community. Both of them argued about morals and that there are more pressing issues. Both of them pressed on the idea that the goal of romantic relationships is to produce children. Both seem to me like genuinely kind people who have different views from mine. I did get heated when they said statements that are dismissive, but I had to bite my tongue, it was not the time to shove my perspective down someone’s throat, but to listen. We may never reach an agreement, but it may be possible to create more acceptance and inclusivity, but perhaps if we see where the other side is coming from, we can foster more conversations that allow for inclusive laws and accomodating societies.
I’ll just point out that this says a lot about why the crisis of single motherhood and absent fathers is riduculously high in Namibia. It comes off as if they think they have fulfilled a duty by making someone pregnant. But I digress, love is gatekept, or rather, what love should look like is so heavily guarded by heteronormative views even when the arguments in favour of them make no sense, this isn’t new information, and sometimes its for the safety of those who cannot consent to love but are subjected to harm in the name of a one sided idea of love. We did agree on the idea of love being co-built, that consenting adult couples should help eachother determine what they want their love to look like. This idea did not translate well with my conversation buddies when I asked if we could make it about hetero and homosexual couples having that right when they are in the same community. Adult-adult relationships self-determining in general without others qualifying them by gender or what they’ll do in the bedroom. These interactions were also limited to brief 10-15 min cab rides so we didn’t really go into too much.
When I brought up couples who can’t have children, those who choose not to have children, those who vow celibacy for life, IVF, and adoption, the response would often still go back to the Bible allegedly saying that love is only for heterosexual couples for the purpose of children. The two men I spoke to seemed well intended, their belief is also in love, seemingly, love of the community. They spoke to me as caring fathers trying to correct a lost child. It felt demeaning, and whether that was their intention or not, the core of it is that they believed they were being helpful. That made me challenge the idea that homophobia is motivated by hate.
It dawned on me that their expression of care and love is control, to not listen but to just lead, after all the man is the “head.” At least that’s what I concluded from that interaction. And when I say love I don’t mean some deep sentimental connection, I mean an ethereal platonic care that religion and spirituality say exists in all people.
For a good while it would upset me that the hating in the name of God is a thing, and that many are of the view that it is necessary to do so. While some do hat in the name of God, others decide what God’s love should be and that everyone should view it that way and follow their understanding. Moral superiority. People are responsible for their own souls, we must not try to be the messiah for everyone. Everyone shoul be free to express their own spiritual views as they wish. If I decide that my god is a cricket on a cloud, and I am not harming anyone, that’s my business. Friendships, relationships and the like should be about how we relate to eachother. Conversations on morality can take place with the goal of gaining insight rather than imposing views. A general view that none is greater than the other.
These conversations would fortify my ideals on feminism, equality and human rights. Mostly that patriarchy is a massive contributing problem. These men genuinely seemed to speak from a place of concern and care, to give some context, one is a cab driver I have been familiar with for a while who often drives me from school, and during exams extended his hours specifically to drive female students who were staying late at the library. We saw each other in town and it was an instant reminder of how broad life is, that feeling when you see your school teacher doing something ordinary people do like buying bread. I knew he’d had that same feeling when he jokingly asked, “I didn’t think you went anywhere else but UNAM, so you also come to Wernhil…” The other I had met for the first time, and he was a jolly guy who was just being social and bubbly, he shared jokes and small anecdotes from his life, before saying “aaah but I don’t understand why so many children are lost, this same sex ruling will be the end of us,” which shifted the conversation significantly from an upbeat “My son eats bread like I own a bakery, I don’t understand that boy’s stomach, but he will never refuse food, its good because the groceries don’t go bad…” into a low toned “My daughter, you are lost…” They didn’t speak violently, but I do wonder if I was just spared harshness for seeming correctable, but again this ‘wondering’ might have been my own implicit bias expecting harshness from calm men who just have different views from mine.
Conclusive View: Undermining rights violations and systemic failures that are happening concurrenty is a patriarchal approach to problem solving. I say patriarchal because not everyone is involved in deciding what the priority should be and patriarchy has made many facets of life that are intended to be inclusive, very heirachical. Democracy plays out as being about who has power and religious love seems to be about controlling behaviour and beliefs not acceptance.
Black holidays as I’ve known them have been hecticly traced with tragedy. Unfortunately, all the holidays I have experienced have to do with colonial suffering. This month, at my big age, I found out that a lot of people and institutes in Africa also celebrate Black History Month, something I thought was unique to the experiences of those whose ancestors survived the slave trade, another historic event characterised by Black people suffering. The month came after a long struggle to make sure that Black stories are never lost. I won’t get into the history of it too much, if you’d like a quick history, you can read about it here.
The slave trade and colonial era were undoubtedly an operation of the mass erasing of Black consciousness. A month dedicated to undoing this harm must have been a huge win, considering that the establishment of this this took place between 1970 and 1986 in a more openly and violently racist world. The first celebration kicked of on 2 January till 28 February 1970. Somehow this has moved down to just the 28 days of February and has been clumped up with LGBTQ+ month in the UK.
The decision to have Black History Month in February was in honour of the birth of President Lincoln who is credited for criminalising slavery , and the death of Fredrick Douglass a black former slave and abolitionist.
There is an implication around this that doesn’t sit well with me. Some sense of duplicity I feel when I think that the timing was based on the birth of a white man on a pedestal for admitting that “Black people are people too,” and laying it on the tragic death of a Black man who spent his life fighting to prove this fact and could not enjoy it almost to say ” Celebration for the black people comes throug suffering.” Maybe I’m being too pessimistic in may analysis but something about it highlights the current nature of many African holidays. That they are anchored on the deaths of Black people who died fighting for what they could not experience and exist in the shadow of more lighthearted holidays birthed by white people, like Christmas, Easter Day and April Fool’s Day. Sure we can be a part of the fun, but it is not a fun we designed, it was given to us, and when it’s purely about us, it’s about how much suffering we have apparently overcome.
Maybe I’m just drawing at strings here, but, while I see how Black History Month is worth celebrating, I find it difficult to think of it as less than sad in 2023. If not celebrated, it dismisses efforts put in by Black advocates and activists, if celebrated with full glee then it disregards the fact that this is the bare minimum and that we need to uplift the value of more culturally appreciative holidays. A lot of whitewashing needs to be undone, and many generations have grown with the view that indigenous holidays are ‘evil’, that the bare minimum and assimilation are better than carving out an identity. Let us never forget those who struggled to get us to where we are, and let us move on to honouring who we are. Even if a customary group viewing a holiday is less than a dozen, I still say its better to sing in the joys of the practices that have shaped us, to contribute to the evolution of tradition, rather than to watch customs die and forever sing of the times we suffered like we had no joy.
The concept of intersectionalism can be described as the occurrence of discrimination based on various categories of identity such as race, class and gender .
Kimberle Crenshaw captures the fundamental nature of intersectionalism in her analysis of black women’s existential experience. This was in a time when intersectionalism was not practiced within the political sphere. Her work is particularly essential when highlighting how intersectionalism satisfies the need for inclusive dialogue . She pointed out the harms of a single axis political atmosphere where discriminatory practices and the multiple -isms, are discussed as being mutually exclusive to each other.
What often results in such settings is a favoring of the more privileged among those who are discriminated against. The narratives of those who are privileged in some aspects becomes prioritised. For example, white women not being harmed due to the privilege of being white, Crenshaw refers to the case of Moore v Hughes Helicopter Inc (144), where there was a lack of consideration for the unique experience of black females being separate from the type of discrimination they endured alongside white women.
Communication involves trying establish a common understanding with someone . Taking this under consideration it is essential to note that teaching intersectionalism in communication is vital as a means to capture the, “endemic and everyday nature of racism and sexism and how these other -isms manifest in and through communication.”
Democracy is a tool that should essentially allow for the election of individuals who represent the majority. Which often excludes a significant minority, one may take under consideration, the treatment of the LGBTQ community in Africa as well as that of women in political spheres prior to the 21st century.
In the USA, Kamala Harris represents a remedy of the communication disparity that can result from a lack of consideration for intersectionality. Among the communities she represents, there are black women, Indian women, racially mixed individuals and immigrants. In this regard she can be said to be sensitive to the unique experiences of each of these groups and would be able to convey the concerns of these groups.
This does however raise the question of whether or not she can adequately represent and communicate the needs of groups she is not a part of, such as the LGBTQ community, a question raised in the case of Payne v Travenol, wherein the court concluded that because the plaintiffs were Black women they could not adequately represent the needs of their black male colleagues. Simply put, being oppressed doesn’t mean one can understand the oppression of another.
It is true that the intrinsic nature of suffering that different groups go through cannot always be captured outside the scope of experience, however it is important to have someone who understands that discrimination can manifest in layers rather than as a single arch -ism.
Community movements in Africa do this well by building bridges where intersectional concerns arise. Identifying commonalities has been a useful way to start conversations, with one key one being the colonial era. Relating on the mutual grasp of inequalities that existed back then, makes dialogues in political spaces easier to have.
This isn’t a “save all” technique though, there is a risk of drowning intersectional issues in colonial narratives. On many occasions the colonial narrative has been weaponized by many founding parties as grounds for why they should forever be in power. In such spaces, intersectionality is overpowered by the colonial rhetorics and minimized to “less than” issues.
Striking a balance in intersectionality and communication is key to political change.
*Note that ‘African’ here is used to refer to black people, including those historically displaced by slave trade and the colonial and neo-colonial processes.
It’s 2021 and the feminist movement has circled right back to the unnecessary out-grouping through the #Pickme and #Tweetlikeapickme trends. I say circled back because it has been pointed out through many historical events have shown to us that more than anything that divisiveness is counter-productive to the feminist movement. It became clear that any racial divisions that were underlying in the women’s suffrage movement resulted in wins that only really benefited the white women who had the significant racial advantages of the time, it did not result in a successes for all women, hence the ensuing waves of feminism and identification of the African Feminist Movement, often with limited trend based participation from those who benefitted from earlier movements.
The African Feminist Movement functions alongside other human rights movements as we saw during the 2020 BLM protests following the cruelty the world witnessed against George Floyd, it was clear that the injustices associated with being black resonated among black people all over the world. Feminist protests in solidarity with this captured Angela Davis’ notion that Black Lives Matter embodies feminism. Anyway, I digress, my point is this movement cannot be a success for as long as there is any amount of injustice existing alongside it, this is why it does not make sense to me that it be the source of any amount of injustice especially when it is directed towards women, the very group it seeks to protect. Out-grouping seems to only be recognized as an injustice when it captures men as the villains, e.g the exclusion of women from the workforce, but what about when it villainizes the people the movement seeks to protect? In this regard, the out grouping of the pick-me seems totally justified because she has aligned herself with men.
A comparative look at the unjust out-grouping of transgender women and the out-grouping of the pick-me. In both instances there seems to be a failure or refusal to accept that ‘they’ are women too, your need to understand and accept them is not the point , the point is that the movement seeks to defend us in all our differences. No woman needs to fulfill a certain standard to gain validation of her femininity, this includes the pick-me. The exclusionary ‘they’ labeling is what I am addressing here. It is counter-active to the goal of unification and change, an unnecessary divisive pause which strengthens the solidarity of those against the movement.
The pick me phenomenon was created to call out women who were allegedly directing their actions in favour of the male gaze. It came as a response to women who supposedly thought they were better because they fulfilled the terms of the patriarchy. A common example is the classic African church aunty who chastises young women because of how they fail to meet the patriarchal standard of the perfect woman, one who simply accepts the rules that are there to make the life of a man simpler; cook, cleaner, passive sister-wife, child bearer and rearer, modest dressing beautician with a wild side in the bedroom, one who strives for marriage through being a man pleaser… the whole lot. Or the ever portrayed chill, all vibes girl who has gained the trope of ‘not being like other girls.’ Although the term seeks to make the women reflect and change their behaviour, the interests and characteristics of those who allegedly fit this description often spills over to innocent bystanders. For example, the African church aunty may hold a deep respect for women’s rights while enforcing rules to do tasks and chores around the household as a means to add healthy structure and discipline in a young woman’s life, she may view this as a healthy way to prepare them for an unbalanced world especially if she felt these lessons were helpful to her and her generation mates. The chilled girl and her trope may have been a result of undue male sensationalism rather than a deep desire to seek the male gaze, the interests she is often described to have can be had by anyone, the application of the term ‘pick me’ in association with specific interests alienates any young woman who may have those interests and further distances them from the feminist movement, rejecting what has rejected a part of who they are. It is a term that often neglects context and situations with the sole goal of exclusion.
Granted there are characters who have fed into maintaining patriarchal views, she is no more a threat to the movement as a whole than a child who believes some things are just for boys and some are just for girls. The true villain is the one who taught them that and keeps enforcing it, the real villain is the one who has made those views seem to be facts. More often than not we see that this woman has been taught that there is virtue in resilience and endurance, in many cases she suffers some form of oppression as well. She may choose to accept it as a norm or may really be enjoying the benefits that are beside this suffering, she does not mind her reality. A narrow focus on creating a blanket “type” of woman like this, distracts from the greater reality, which is that of the oppressive force behind her, aiding that position by giving sense of justification to be antagonistic.
While this woman, the pick me, has contributed to the oppression and confinement of other women, oftentimes seen as the face of men’s rights movements that undermine feminism and believe feminism to be an anti-men movement, with little to no knowledge of the intersectional aspect of feminism, her goal may be to protect the men in her life who have been helpful to her, her fight, albeit naïvely informed, is against social exclusion and in favour of some sort of justice. In this regard her actions only manifest as further evidence of the injustices that feminism seeks to fight, she is not an enemy, just a tragic tool of the enemy, like if the movement against black slavery became solely focused on putting down house slaves or those who worked along the slave masters. They were a sore part of the problem, but they were not the problem.
The context in Africa is such that divisions were created through the formation of very static boundaries between countries, various language groups, customary groups, dialects not to mention factors such as colourism and the massive gaps between social classes. There are injustices surrounding each factor I have mentioned, which have caused and still cause separation between people who are suffering together, there is no need to create any more division among ourselves.
It is a term that ultimately defies the entire goal of the movement. If anything the ‘pick me’ should gain some empathy for being trapped or viewed simply as a woman who is living her own truth, even if that truth is not particularly palatable, she must be addressed, individually on her view points directly, rather than to create an exclusionary term, fulfilling the movement’s desire for non-gender specific classifications. To give this group of women a diminutive term only creates more division in a group that would probably be more successful if there were efforts to create solidarity, an unnecessary division at that which only amplifies the perspectives of those against it; the idea that feminists claim to be in favour of amplifying all women’s rights in all their phenomenal uniqueness, yet still excluding women who act in a certain way.
So what if she claims to be better and gains the attention of a man? Or iff she is a ‘puppet for the patriarchal agenda?’ It is inconsequential if the women who are part of the feminist movement are pushing that agenda rather than placing efforts on petty out-grouping, it is the equivalent of echoing their alleged message that ‘you are not a good enough woman!’
ZENZE 