The DA has taken the lead on initiatives that demonstrate a commitment to redressing history’s injustices rather than reinforcing “neoliberal” caricatures. But when we say things like “ubuntu and African-ness are illiberal”, an impression of hostility to cultural heritage is created, and the party could appear as tone-deaf as its critics claim.
The choice to never have displayed Zuma’s Spear is easy to understand. But to remove it could be sensitivity (which is often good), or it could represent another win for the hypersensitive – with the latter being something which should cause us regret and concern.
Exactly which categories of human does identity politics grant special protection to, and on what grounds is this discrimination justified?
It’s not necessarily Zuma’s “blackness” or “Zulu-ness” that motivates the mockery – it’s also quite plausibly (for some) the fact that they perceive him as a philanderer, who happens to be our President (and further, happens to be black and Zulu).