The second stanza further defies any mutualism between speaker and land. The diction in the word “but” marks a turning point; the speaker’s realization that the prospect of having his/her love returned will remain a dream. The speaker was “never wanted” by the land as one of its rightful tenants. His/her history is tainted with imperialisitc oppression, forcing upon the land a culture that it shames to carry. In the same way the imperialists objectified the black population, the local Africans have judged the remaining colonial population as successors of white superiority. The speaker, a victim of prejudice, struggles to overcome the label placed upon him/her. When forced to admit rejection “no matter how [the speaker] stretched to lie down in rustling blue gums”, the multiple connotations in the diction “stretched” emphasizes the effort made by the speaker to integrate. Not only has she physically submitted himself/herself to the land, but metaphorically he/she has strained her character to mould into that which is socially accepted by the land. The act of lieing down implies the speaker’s peaceful offering of love and devotion to the the land. The following anaphora of the word “in” marker how the speaker goes on to express her desire to embody the various elements of the land. The nature imagery expressed in the “rustling blue gums” refers to the species of European gumtrees introduced into Africa by colonizers. The “blue” color imagery symbolizes liberalism on a political level, and is associated with the speaker’s desired peace and hope. The “cattle lowering horns into Diepvlei” are a metaphor for the land’s native population yielding to the Afrikaans oppressors. Their “jowls drink in silky tassles”, as if drawing stength from the land when “quivering” with fear. The water imagery implied by the “silky tassels” introduces water’s ability to alter shape and form as a symbol of purification and rebirth. However, the loose, threadlike state of the water implied in the diction of “tassels” lacks a sense of unity. History offers only a fragmented freedom, as imperialism has forever tainted the land’s people with a lack of trust in each other. This theme of disturbance in the natural flow of life is continued in the diction of the words “rustling”, “rippling”, “quivering”, and “dripping”, which all carry undertones of uncertainty of form and structure. The accompanied plosive sounds warn the potential effect of the historical shift in state of the land. The final line describes how the “thorn trees…have slid into emptiness”. The thorns on these native African trees act as a protective shield, thus serving as a metaphor for the preservation of African culture. It is as if the land has not only surrendered itself to a history of cultural suppression, but also a future of civil unrest. The land has lost its nationalistic unity—submitting itself to “emptiness”.
The speaker’s personal reaction to the land’s rejection of his/her love continues to build the third stanza. The repetition of “me” emphasizes the speaker’s internal struggle to live independently from his/her land. The anaphora in the phrase “me you” shows the forced closeness of speaker and land, there is no conjunction to connect the two; no mutual bond. The phrase “time and again” breaks the anaphora, and stresses the speaker’s continued attempts at establishing the missing connection with his/her land. The diction in “shook…off” and “rolled…out” indicates a dismissal; rejection over and over “again”. In the last line of this stanza the speaker places the first and only punctuation in the form of a comma. It is as if the speaker is addressing the land directly, blaming it for how he/she “became nameless”. By not granting him/her a voice, the land ojectified the speaker and robbed him/her of an identity worth living. The land’s rejection of the speaker has “slowly” caused the lack of personal acceptance.
In the fourth stanza, the past is brought to the present. The foreshadowed imperialistic situation is solidified by the word “now” in this stanza. The idea of the land being “fought over” is expanded on with the following list of words “negotiated divided paddocked sold stolen mortgaged” created with a natural caesura. Plosive sounds consistent in the line ensure the significance of the fight—it is not only physical, but a social and political battle to preserve a culture; a history of living. The speaker seems not to have given up the fight either, and proves his/her unconditional love and devotion to the land despite its nonacceptance. Even now, when the land is in its most vulnerable and vile state, the speaker wants to “go underground” with it. The speaker is asking the land to hide and seek protection internally, finding defintion beyond the technicalities associated with physical ownership in the same way the speaker as ignored his/her European heritage. The land “never belonged” to the speaker, but he/she belongs to the land.
The last stanza offers an answer to the speaker’s developing relationship with the land. It is a final plea, a final declaration of his/her unmitigated “love” to its landscape, its people, and its preservation. The land that he/she loves “more fruitlessly than before” defines it as an unproductive, useless love that fails to reach his/her desired results of mutual acceptance. Not only is the speaker’s love fruitless, but the land itself is now futile, stuck in the brutal tug-of-war of the dominant European powers. The speaker’s love is epitomized—it is purely selfless as he/she continues to dedicate him/herself without receiving anything in return.
The relationship between a nationalist and his/her land is an integral part of defining identity. This is what Krog teaches us in land, as the speaker offers an unconditional love in the hope of becoming part of the pride the land carries, and not remaining the symbol of its scarring past. Krog warns the reader that when history is not forgiven, it hinders any chance of a full recovery in the future.
