There seems to be a debate amongst evolutionary biologists between “group selection” and “standard selection”. A quick glance at the Wikipedia page for group selection seems to indicate it is mostly a matter of how much group selection contributes to evolution, rather than whether it does. Sure, I seem to be digressing, so let me get back to the point: in human culture, our memes have a very significant contribution to selection, and religion is a key factor in survival of a particular tribe. (I’m referring to a book titled The White Tribe of Africa, which I’m interested in reading if I can find the time.) Whether group selection happens amongst other animals or not, humans are clearly meme machines, governed as much by their memes as by their genes.

Just over a century ago, this country saw a war between the British Empire and two independent Boer republics. Among South Africans, this war is known as the Anglo-Boer War. At times of war, religion, being a shared world-view, plays a very significant role in encouraging humanity and giving them hope and unity. During this time, the Dutch-Reformed church and politics got welded together, setting the stage for the rest of the twentieth century.

Enter Apartheid, another originally noble but ultimately misguided idea (similar to the versions of communism/socialism that have been implemented so far), for it did not take human nature into account. The wedding between the Dutch-Reformed church and the state resulted in a deadlock situation that was resolved largely thanks to outside influence (sanctions, international pressure, etc). This experience has left many South Africans aware of the dangers of fundamentalistic dogma.

The Dutch-Reformed church is doing what it can to make amends. A large percentage of those in charge are truly “very good guys”, carefully considering the problems and weighing the odds, in an attempt to find the best path forward. This is not an easy job.

Like any large community with a modernistic creed or culture, like any large community or organisation not consciously embracing diversity as a whole, there are various forces and undercurrents at work. Some of these undercurrents seem dangerous, some seem misguided, and some are truly focused on building bridges and engineering peace, prosperity and mutual understanding in this diverse rainbow nation of ours.

Over the next few weeks, I hope to investigate and examine some of these undercurrents, and attempt to share what I learn about the current state of affairs as well as what I see with regards to a possible future. During this discussion, please contribute what you know. Please share your knowledge, ideas, criticisms and questions, and let us have a friendly conversation about the state of affairs. Please question and contradict my statements. Please maintain your critical thinking faculties.

Everyone is welcome. May I request of all militants, extremists, fundamentalists and polemicists, of all sorts and flavours, including those that refuse to accept the militant, extremist or fundamentalist labels: Please lay down your torches and axes for the purpose of these discussions. On this blog, in this church of diversity, we are interested in cross-cultural understanding and peaceful coexistence. Thanks.

No, I haven’t thought it out. In fact, most of my beliefs are poorly constructed out of pure whimsy. This one is no exception. The only anomaly I can think of to my “whimsy” rule is this: I believe that the biggest pimp on the block is our government and the ONLY reason marijuana is still illegal is because our government can’t figure out a way to make more money off the profits than they already do by locking up the stoners and charging them huge fines. Yeah, it’s a bad drug. But it’s a kitten compared to alcohol and nicotine. And don’t tell me it’s a gateway drug either. If marijuana is a gateway drug to the hard stuff then a butter knife is a gateway to manslaughter. I’m not going all “Willie Nelson” on you here. I’m just saying that locking up someone because they use marijuana is financially motivated and in the end all it produces is a stoner who has just received a first class education on how to become a criminal. Now that’s a gateway.

I do agree with that. I typically point out that if marijuana is a “gateway drug”, then alcohol is also, and much more so than marijuana. Not that I really know what I’m talking about. (I have a much better idea of the effects and uses of alcohol than of marijuana.)

With regards to economic implications: I have heard that in South Africa keeping it illegal is a good thing: that keeps it in the informal sector, helping boost the economy amongst the poor. Legalising it would bring it into the formal sector, with the “big companies”, the “rich people”, making the profits instead. Thus, it is better for the economy to keep it illegal, but not enforce the laws too harshly? Interesting thought, whether it is true or not?

Back at the beginning of the year, when I joined Facebook, I took a look at the definitions in American politics, and determined I am quite certainly not a conservative. I was not sure if I was a liberal, I marked myself moderate. (I considered the Libertarian perspective for a while, but I am in favour of a welfare state of some shape or form, as tricky as it may be.) I have since come to the conclusion I do fall in the “liberal” camp, though, of course, I still reserve the right to disagree vehemently with certain typical “liberal” perspectives. (I have no idea what I might disagree with yet, I’m just saying.)

In terms of Facebook classification though? I am now one of the 60% “None Listed”, clearly not because I extend “dinner party etiquette” to my online presence. It just seems rather absurd to use such labels in a global setting, labels simply become too misleading when they cross international borders. My definitions influenced by American politics, I really thought most South Africans would adopt the “conservative” label. I have since concluded that “conservative” implies ties with “apartheid” in too many people’s minds? Give it another couple of decades for the definition pendulum to swing, for the new “conservative” to emerge less ambiguously. (Afrikaans-capable readers: realise “konserwatief” is close to the same thing as “behoudend”, with “liberaal” being related to “progressief”?)

Consider for another example, the Netherlands: there defending the right to smoke Cannabis in coffee shops is considered conservative? I liked the Netherlands, it broadened my horizons. (Of course, the country does seem rather “artificial” in a number of ways, that gets to you if you miss the “wilderness” and outdoor life style of South Africa…) I was relatively young while we lived there, I wonder in what ways my experience would have differed if I had been older?

(Hmm, just to clarify: it is indeed not absurd to pick a label if the people you are communicating with understand it correctly. So, by all means, keep your labels! My definitions are just in chaos with too many inputs and unclear definitions.)

UPDATE: Stéfan sent me a link to a Political Compass Questionnaire. Let’s be civil about this (i.e. let’s not be divisive), but share your results! Different perspectives are welcome in this world, that way we find a better overall solution… I think?

On first quick fill in, in my current frame of mind, never abstaining despite wanting to (don’t know if it is allowed), I ended up on the Libertarian Left. -6, -5.23. I expressed opinions rather strongly. Who knows how my perspectives will differ tomorrow… I expect I will remain in the Libertarian Left category, but with opinions less strongly expressed? I do like to think of myself as a moderate. (A moderate with strong opinions.) Maybe less left…? Hmm, who knows.

Drop yours in a comment! Do so anonymously if you’re a chicken. Chickens have rights too! No discrimination against chickens, please! You can still fill in your email address if you want to share your identity with me only…