The Diaspora’s Dilemma (Part 1)

A Little Background 

  In 2018, a remarkable case made its way through our courts, sidestepping those bureaucratic hoops and never-ending court fillings that have come to define our justice system.

  After passing through many hands within the judiciary, this case landed on the desks of 5 judges; the type of well-respected and well-socialized justices that presided over the highest court in the country. With decades of experience between them, it is these judges that would put an end to this 8-month dispute.

  But for all the temporary curiosity it stirred, this case has since been forgotten. It has suffered the same fate as those other court proceedings that have been narrowly understood yet continue to be culturally significant.

  It has, in effect, been left out of our legal discourse just as much as it has been overlooked in our cultural debate.

 This piece will try to remedy this by exploring the curious case of ኤፍራታ ወንደሰን, an Ethiopian child who was to be entrusted to an aunt who lived in the United States of America. 

 Although a common practice in our community, this case of inter-country adoption was complicated by the similarly complex question of identity. For the aunt, Miss ጥሩነሽ በቀለ, was a first-generation immigrant who has since traded her Ethiopian papers for an American passport and a “Yellow Card”.

 With Ethiopia having prohibited foreigners from engaging in inter-country adoptions, this case revolved around two seemingly simple questions:

  How do we to determine the status of Foreign Nationals of Ethiopian Origin (ትውልደ ኢትዮጵያን ዲያስፖራ)? 

  Are they to be considered as foreigners or Ethiopians at heart?  

 The 5 judges, using their broad and abstract benchmarks of cultural norms, traditional values and conventional ideals, made short work of these questions.

 By implicitly associating American culture with negative traits and firmly erecting an Ethiopian-ness that is different from similarly vilified identities, these judges presumed to know one thing. They presumed to know the cultural attitudes of millions of Diasporas. As they put it:

“ትውልደ ኢትዮጵያኑ እና በጉዲፈቻ የሚወሰዱት ኢትዩጵያዊያን ሕጻናት የጋራ ባህል እና ማንነት ያላቸው ሆኖ በዜግነት ብቻ የሚለያዩ ስለሆኑ የህፃናቱን የቀደመ ማንነት በሌላ አዲስ ማንነት ለመቀየር ፍላጎት ይኖራቸዋል ተብሎ አይታሰብም። ”

The Cultural Test

  Now I understand that this is a widely accepted sentiment in our country; where the idea of being a “true” Ethiopian is intrinsically tied to a set of norms, values and ideals that are not to be openly questioned or easily forgotten.

  I am also aware of our brand of cultural nationalism; where the very immobility of our norms is seen as a sign of their perfection. That to be selective or wary of our proclaimed ideals, especially after moving to another country, is to betray an identity that is as exemplary as it is superior.

  And exposing our children to values that might, at first glance, seem foreign or contrary to ours? Even when said values aren't inherently bad or can enrich the lives that they are leading abroad?

 Well, that is a cultural sin that no misguided ትውልደ ኢትዮጵያን can easily come back from; for there is nothing worse than failing to shield Ethiopian children from this type of cultural dilution.

 The Court, of course, framed this culturally biased sentiment a little differently:

“ኢትዮጵያዊ ማንነት ያላቸውን የውጭ ዜጎች የሀገሪቷን ባህል፣ ቋንቋ፣ እሴት እንደማያውቁ የውጭ ሀገር ጉዲፍቻ አድራጊዎች በጉዲፈቻ የሚወስዱትን ኢትዮጵያዊ ሕጻን የሀገሩን ባህል፣ወግ፣ልማድና በማህበረሰቡ እሴት ታንጸው እንዳያድግ ተጽኖ በማድረግ፣ ፍቅር በመንፈግ ለስነ ልቦናዊና ማሕበራዊ ችግር ያጋልጣቸዋል ተብሎ አይታሰብም።”

  It might, at this stage, be of some benefit to mention that certain cultural attitudes have indeed persisted within our diaspora communities. From norms regarding gender roles and division of labor to rigid family structures, hierarchical relationships and religious conservatism, it is clear that there are some that would pass this cultural litmus test with flying colors. 

  But what is to become of those that “fail” it? 

  What happens to those progressive and questioning Diasporas that opt to challenge our cultural status-quo rather than succumb to it? Are they to be accommodated? Or are they to be judged in a court of law as well as in the court of public opinion?

The Old Law

 Lucky for us, we can look to those Ethiopian writers and artists that have taken the time to explore these questions of diaspora identity, social conformity and the consequences of cultural criticism.

  From the lived experiences of ነጋድራስ ገብረ ሕይወት ባይከዳኝ, ፕሮፌሰር አፈወርቅ ገብረኢየሱስ, ፊታውራሪ ተክለ ሐዋርያት ተክለ ማርያም and ሃይሌ ገሪማ to the fictional characters created by ብላቴን ጌታ ኅሩይ ወልደ ሥላሴ, ደጃዝማች ግርማቸው ተክለ ሐዋርያት, ዳኛቸው ወርቁ and በዓሉ ግርማ; these writers used their skills to paint a very clear and sinister picture.

  A picture of what can only be described as conditional acceptance; where any expectation of inclusive overtures and outright acceptance, especially from our Ethiopian community back home, comes at the hefty price of cultural conformity.

  And to openly question or challenge our traditional beliefs is to open oneself to the type of targeting, labeling and marginalization that is as violent as it is longstanding. Leading to the type of cultural exclusion and personal attacks that is as old as the 1920s: 

“ፓሪስ ደርሶ የተመለሰ ሁሉ ራሱ እየዞረ መበላሸቱን ስናውቅ አንተን አምነን መቅረታችን ዕብዶቹ እኛ ነን”

አሉት።

ብላቴን ጌታ ኅሩይ ወልደሥላሴ

  But with study after study highlighting the different ways in which immigrants re-examine, re-interpret and re-engage with their cultural heritage, how is it that we still continue to do this? Why do we, at all personal and moral cost, prescribe an Ethiopian identity that is constantly presented as being conservative, singular, exclusionary and never changing? 

  Or better yet, what does it say about us when we easily employ such cultural outlooks in more formal settings? What do we get when we use our social psychology in places that are supposed to function on the basis of objectivity, impartiality and the law?

 What we get are ministers like Dr.  Ergogie Tesfaye  who, as the Minister of Women and Social Affairs, sees nothing wrong with associating homelessness, drug addiction and other complex social issues with cultural erosion. Where the need to understand the root causes of substance abuse and chronic homelessness is substituted by remarks that focus more on cultural revivalism than evidence-based solutions.

 What we get are parliamentarians like  Genet Bete, who is a Standing Committee member that has no qualms with linking a rise in crime rate with cultural dilution. Where all foreign cultures are stigmatized, scapegoated and labeled as being a direct threat to an Ethiopian way of life that is as superior as it is without blame.

  What you also get is a case like this.

Click Here For Part 2 of “The Diaspora’s Dilemma”