Children between two cultures

By Sicelo Fayo

COMMENTATORS in the Eastern Cape have lamented what they describe as the loss of Xhosa culture through the education of black children in previously whites-only schools.

They also confirmed a new behavioural trend in the black community where others taunt English-proficient black children by calling them “coconuts” and other such derogatory names.

This taunting of English-proficient black children by their mates still confined in so-called “black schools” is intended to actively intimidate and possibly denigrate the children.

The problem with the views articulated by commentators, who seem content to weep publicly about the apparent loss of Xhosa culture by these children, is that, at best, they are short-sighted or ignorant; and at worst, hypocritical and unnecessarily malicious.

The views and attitudes ignore the fact that the Xhosa-culture alienation experienced by English-proficient black children is a painful process that has not occurred by accident – where these Anglicised Xhosa children suddenly found themselves equipped with a foreign “western” culture – nor did this occur purely on economic grounds.

For those familiar with John Wesley (and other European Christian church pioneers), there will be full recognition that it is not even the first time a huge wave of deculturalisation of amaXhosa is in progress.

The argument here is a simple one: neither amaXhosa, nor any of the indigenous African tribes in South Africa at least, are in a position to reverse the situation nor should they be making attempts to change it.

The amaXhosa – again, like most other indigenous people of South Africa – have been effectively deculturalised and are now deep in the process of denationalisation. But, of course, seemingly few are prepared to admit to it.

Those familiar with amaXhosa will point randomly to practices such as isiko lolwaluko and intonjane (adulthood graduation rites), ulwendiso lwentombi (marriage practices involving ilobolo) and related as current practices that distinctly point to the definite existence of a unique Xhosa tradition and culture.

Others might even point to the practice of the preservation of the elderly in that community as “active” members of society as further evidence of the preservation of the Xhosa culture and tradition. Yet those who hold this up as evidence would have to also agree that all these activities have suffered pollution and dilution over the years due to various socio-economic and political factors such that none of them lend themselves to more than a historic symbolic status.

To illustrate, take ilobolo in its original context.

Ilobolo was a ceremonial practice involving the exchange of livestock to symbolise two things – the establishment of a new blood relationship between two families and to provide insurance for offspring of the marriage in the event that a misfortune (often involving the death of the husband) befell the young family.

In symbolising the establishment of a blood relationship between two previously unrelated families, ilobolo thus represented a stamp of approval and acceptance of the relationship by both sets of parents of the couple concerned. This approval also denoted their full willingness to support and nurture the young family as it begun its own journey to adulthood.

The simple reason that the bride‘s family received the ilobolo was a sober socio-economic consideration taking into account a number of human relations issues.

As indicated, in the event of separation of the young married couple by death, invariably the young wife would return to her biological family. Having been provided with insurance in the form of livestock, her children would not suffer hunger and starvation.

This practice ensured that no woman or child was left homeless and without support, regardless of the outcome of the circumstances, hence amaXhosa had no such thing as street children or problems with prostitution.

In the modern world, the amaXhosa cultural practice has lost its original meaning due to factors that include urbanisation and its associated western world values. These influences are entrenched through a number of ways, including school education, religion, business and economic practices. Similar arguments can be made about the rest of the remnants of popular amaXhosa cultural and traditional practices, including isiko lolwaluko.

Regarding the assertion that, evidently, to the extent that amaXhosa still practice their cultural and traditional customs, they therefore still appreciate them, an appropriate and meaningful extension to that would be amaXhosa only still appreciate these practices now solely for self-identity within both the African and global community context.

Yet even that self-identity is also purely an idealism borne of an unannounced recognition that the forces of global integration of cultures and tradition within both the African and global contexts are far too powerful to allow any one tribe or nation to continue to preserve itself successfully from the ongoing detribalisation and denationalisation of communities.

In this milieu, amaXhosa families are vigorously positioning their children and future generations for advantageous positions in the new detribalised and denationalised community, by adhering to and following closely the dictates of contemporary global socio-economic trends.

Thus the progressive production of English-proficient black children is as incidental to the dominant influence of western culture as it is deliberate.

Most of the parents involved in this process are seemingly acting largely on instinct, rather than with a conscious effort to disengage from their own cultural and traditional practices, hence the apparent confusion about the status of English-proficient children.

The blame is directed not at these parents or their community, but at the so-called model C schools or at least their black products.

Malice and hypocrisy characterises those in the black community – mainly academics or the enlightened – who, while indulging fully in the practice with awareness themselves, deny understanding or knowledge of what is going on with the English- proficient children. Yet they are in a distinct position to analyse, interpret and explain these issues in the interest of progressive development of their own communities.