A lot has been written on TL about race and about racism — some of it insightful, some less so, to say the least. I usually steer clear of writing about this because it is such a sensitive issue and because certain idiots will always try to capitalise on anything one says that may appear in any way as creating an opening for a personal attack. However, when the woman in my life and I were enjoying our pizza at a well-known pizzeria in Port Elizabeth last night, we were struck (in my case for the umpteenth time) by the friendliness that exists between customers (including ourselves) and the almost exclusively black staff at the restaurant and I decided it was time to write something on this theme.
It is not only at this specific restaurant that I have observed such cordiality — at coffee shops (including the one at the university where I work, where I often sit and work on my laptop) and other such establishments it appears to me to be no different. From this it seems reasonable to conclude that, at least at a pragmatic level, race relations in South Africa are in good shape. Invariably the staff — mostly, if not exclusively black these days — and white customers communicate well, which has not surprised me, given the conspicuous friendliness with which waitresses and waiters approach you. It helps a bit, I believe, if one speaks some Xhosa (or another indigenous language), as I do, but that does not appear to be essential.
Taking this restaurant experience as one’s point of departure, I must confess that I do not see any reason why race relations in this country cannot be harmonious. This may seem naïve to some, and I am certainly not blind to the manner in which professional competition between black and white may affect such relations for the worse, or to the vested interests that some whites and blacks may have in promoting feelings of suspicion between the races, or, for that matter, to the lingering racial fears that still exist regarding the racial other in some black and white quarters.
My point is simply this: if, at such a pragmatic communicative level, one witnesses such friendly, harmonious exchanges between people of different races, should one not be entitled to take this as a model of what race relations could be?
Granted, not everyone seems to be able to look at people of other races and cultures as people — that is, as being human — no less than oneself. For me this has never been a problem. I recall one day telling my grandmother on the farm where I grew up that it was strange not to have my Xhosa friends visit me in the farmhouse, while I could visit them in their “stroois”, and asking her why the differently coloured farm cats, some tabby, some black, some ginger, seemed to treat one another as “cats”, that is, playing, sleeping, and sometimes fighting among themselves in such a way that they clearly recognised each other’s equal “catness”. Which seemed to me to entail a lesson for humans.
Things are never that simple for us so-called “higher animals”, of course. For one thing, other animals don’t seem to be susceptible to the divisive force of that strange thing we call ideology (or discourse). I mentioned “other races and cultures” above and with a reason. The history of racism is one with many shifts and contortions, and has to do with, among many other things, the history of imperial conquests, of totalitarianism, and of fascism (in Germany and in South Africa).
Reflection on race and racism also has a history. During the 1980s, I recall, there was a debate on race and racism in the journal Critical Inquiry, and what struck me at the time was that most of the contributors did not even regard “race” as a useful or valid category for cultural, social or anthropological analysis, preferring “culture” in its place — a preference predicated on the belief that it is one’s culture, and not the pigmentation of one’s skin, which “makes you what you are”.
This may seem plausible, and up to a point I believe that it is right. In fact, the critics of what Hardt and Negri call “modern racism” in Empire, rejected the latter position precisely on the grounds that, unlike the one that views culture as being constitutive of one’s identity, it was essentialist in a biological sense, that is, it reduced people to an essential racial condition because of the biological fact of their skin colour. Moreover, this “modern racist” position was hierarchical — some races were regarded as being intrinsically superior to others, and this was unchangeable. Nazi ideology concerning Jews, as well as apartheid, represented such a modern racist position.
So, if one can reject “modern racism” on the assumption of the priority of culture over genetic racial endowment, what is wrong with granting it (culture) the fundamental role in determining what one is as an individual subject? It would have the further advantage of dispensing with hierarchy, in other words, if one’s culture is the source of one’s identity, this means that all cultures are fundamentally “equal”, even if they are “different”.
There’s the rub. As Hardt and Negri observe, referring among others to Balibar’s and to Deleuze and Guattari’s reflections in this respect, this new emphasis on culture as the provenance of one’s “cultural identity” is just a subtly disguised form of racism in a “postmodern” sense. The granting of priority to culture has a rider, after all, which states something like this: it is not one’s skin colour that essentially determines what you are in the hierarchy of races, “race” is simply an index of culture, and this is where the roots of one’s collective and individual identity lie. But — and this is a crucial “but” — one can NEVER shake off one’s cultural determinants. Once a Jew, always a Jew; once an Arab, always an Arab; once an African, always an African; once a European, always a European and so on.
What makes this a position of “postmodern” racism is the fact that it recognises cultural “difference” and attributes a fundamental, pluralist “equality” to all cultures, but subtly, insidiously, it reintroduces the racist virus by insisting that one should recognise and “respect” these cultural differences. Paradoxically, it acknowledges that cultures are historically determined and therefore contingent (they could have developed differently) BUT simultaneously claims that recognising existing cultural differences is necessary in practice to be able to preserve different cultures and to promote intercultural understanding.
The upshot is that, again paradoxically, the affirmation of the primacy of culture for identity serves the same purpose that the essentialism of modern racism served: it surreptitiously promotes the preservation of “race” but this time in the guise of “culture”. At an ideological or discursive level, therefore, by implication it imprisons individuals in their cultures of origin, as it were.
Postmodern racism is wrong, of course, that is why I said earlier that one can agree with the culture-primacy position “up to a point”. It is wrong for the simple reason that, as psychoanalytic theory as well as post-Saussurian, poststructuralist linguistics teaches one, no one who has acquired language — any language, which always has a diacritical or differential structure — is ever “imprisoned” in his or her culture. From the moment that one has language — which is inescapably the repository of cultural values — one is able to use that very language which is the bearer of one’s culture to criticise one’s very “own” culture, and either attempt to transform it, or (if that seems a futile exercise) reject and abandon it, in the process appropriating a different cultural position.
In short, as a linguistic being, every person is capable of adopting a critical position vis-á-vis one’s “home” culture, and of migrating to a different, more acceptable cultural position. If this were not the case, people like myself (and there are many) would have remained caught in the straitjacket of apartheid ideology, because we grew up in that cultural context, instead we rejected it. At the cost, of course, of being regarded with severe suspicion and even of being ostracised. Criticism of one’s own culture always comes at a price. But if it is done on the basis of a set of preferred values, it is worth it, and in the process one becomes an autonomous being in so far as one escapes from the clutches of ideological suffocation.
Not everyone is capable of doing this, of course. Most people are too caught up in the comfort zone of their “racial” or cultural ideologies or discourses. But perhaps there is hope for moving beyond these realms of zombie-like imitations of what one’s “culture” seems to prescribe in the name of cultural “purity” or “loyalty” — judging by the apparently healthy state of race relations in South Africa as displayed at the pragmatic social level of interaction between races in restaurants, people are (re-?) discovering their common humanity in their ability to overcome so-called cultural differences effortlessly at the level of verbal communication.
This may help.
If we had to remove the idiots and racists from South Africa there would only be a handful of people left.
@Bert You are bravely wading into a political quagmire here because no matter how we frame the debate around race, culture and inter-racial/inter-cultural equality, someone will reduce the entire issue to a political one. Nevertheless, I shall wade in, too.
I think there is more that we don’t know about ‘race’ than there is that we do know–or think we know. Evolutionary theory has not–as far as I know–been confirmed by genetic study. Yes, humans share almost all genetic characteristics in common but that tiny fraction that makes an ‘Oriental’ distinguishable from an ‘African’ has so far eluded us. Differing levels of UV exposure, temperature, even food supply all contribute to some differences in racial characteristics. But those factors do not explain all differences. For example, ‘Orientals’ do not produce ear wax. The excreta of the ear is sand-like in their case. Why? What environmental characteristic could possibly explain such an anomaly. Skeletal differences in eye socket shape and facial bone structure, between, say, indigenous people of North America and those of West African descent. are apparent to forensic anthropologists. In fact, those differences are crucial in identifying human remains after catastrophic events such as tsunamis or 9/11.
Our differences must exist for a reason unrelated to ‘racism’. The planet needs a huge variety of life forms to make it capable of sustaining itself. Our differences may yet play a crucial role in evolution, differences we do not understand yet. TBC
Racism can indeed be subtle. And the substitution of ‘cultural’ differences for racial differences may be nothing more than a semantic ruse, a kind of ‘diplomatic speak’ designed to avert outright confrontation.
Just as moral relativism can be self-serving rationalisation in disguise, ‘multi-culturalism’ can be a convenient way to ‘other-ise’ whilst keeping different races at a distance. We are treading on egg shells to avoid confronting the issues whilst our planet is in crisis and humans are largely the cause of it.
This continent suffers daily under the scourge of inter-tribal wars disguised as ‘revolutions’. Led by genocidal sociopaths and their following of sycophants, such ‘revolutions’ place the entire continent at risk. The phenomenon of ‘racism’ is justified in ‘cultural’ terms with one tribe seeking to eradicate another. That is the real danger of re-defining race as culture without doing the hard work of creating sustainable social, economic, and legal structures that can make ‘race’ irrelevant.
Until we create a human ecology based on sustainable communities, ‘race’–even disguised as ‘culture’–will continue to be used as a method of population reduction. No ‘colonialist’ power is forcing African leaders to conduct genocidal wars disguised as ‘revolutions’; these are homegrown, black on black racists engaging in deadly warfare for petty, self-serving reasons. Any sustainable human society of the future will have to solve the problem of monomaniacal ‘leaders’ whose only interest is in killing the ‘other’. White>Black racism is no longer the major threat.
Funny how all philosophy these days is “post-” something. They’re all past a point which they once occupied, but all are unable to attach a name to where they currently are. They’re all currently referenced to some point in the past, by conveniently adding “post-” to it. That didn’t happen until recently. Existentialists called themselves existentialists even as they were actively developing existentialism, etc.
Will today’s “post-modernists” become tomorrow’s “post-post-post-modernists” and just keep on adding more “post” prefixes as time goes by?
Ponder this: has philosophy finally run out of -isms?
“In short, as a linguistic being, every person is capable of adopting a critical position vis-á-vis one’s “home” culture, and of migrating to a different, more acceptable cultural position.”
If some cultures are more acceptable and culture is a proxy for race, as you seem to contend, then, by extension, you are a racist too, sir.
“If this were not the case, people like myself (and there are many) would have remained caught in the straitjacket of apartheid ideology, because we grew up in that cultural context, instead we rejected it.”
Yes, because you perceived your own and the other indigenous cultures to be inferior to English culture.
Would not a culture of stereotyping which is a
product of apartheid,upbringing by peers and parents the source of all our problems instead of
race?
If all SAffers would do a DNA test on their male off-spring, most will come out with a serious link to the SAN and Bantu line. The DNA test goes back some 17 generations.
I had it done for my son, my wife being of SA origin. Guess what?? Suggested my son goes for coloured and get the jobs he wants.
I told one of my SA friends to do the same. His response: “no ways”..afraid of facing the truth?
Bert, firstly, its really stooopid to extrapolate the state of race relations from a bunch of restaurant workers. Workers are trained to smile and be nice even if they hate serving you. They are governed by financial forces beyond your ken and they fully understand the consequences if a regular like you complained of poor service etc. Unlike your ivory tower, in the real world, workers do not enjoy the benefits of tenure that a professor is entailed to!
Secondly, this blog resembles Rip Van Winkle awaking from his hundred year sleep and finally understanding that racial superiority is a figment of the imagination of racists driven by pure greed, who used brute force to impose their will on defenseless peace loving indigenous people of Africa. If only you wrote this article during the apartheid years, you would have been infinitely more credible.
Finally, it unbecoming of a “professor” to call his readers readers idiots, since it seems like you actually steered clear of writing about race and culture in the past because you were too afraid to speak out against the apartheid system. Hmmm, yummy…once you tasted the sweet fruits of apartheid, you were hooked buddy!
What a brilliantly written piece.
@Rory
Interesting take.
However, you say, “Evolutionary theory has not–as far as I know–been confirmed by genetic study. Yes, humans share almost all genetic characteristics in common but that tiny fraction that makes an ‘Oriental’ distinguishable from an ‘African’ has so far eluded us.”
What about quantum leaps in genetic mutation in evolution after the ‘Africans’ and ‘Orientals’ had parted company.
What I am saying is, an ‘Oriental’ becomes 90% ‘Oriental’ through evolution that can be detected in genetic study, but in a quantum leap in genetic change the line that survives does not produce ear wax.
This may sound a bit fuzzy, but maybe you will see what I am alluding to. Quantum leaps in genetic changes are part of evolution but would they be detected up by gentic study to confirm evolutionary theory?
@Dave Harris – get back on your medication.
Epigenes,the affect of the enviroment,changes us
or defines us.Orientals are not different to any of
us.Its the skin hue because of the enviromental differences in Africa and Asia.
Why certain South Africans insist they are different is because of what our parents/peers/teacher/pastors teach us to think.
Apartheid ingrained into us that people of colour
were different and even their action suspect.
Even today in 2009 South Africans still practice
this abuse hiding behind religion or education
principles.The day we do not tolerate any of this in any form or manner is when this mindset changes.
Nice piece a bit confusing but I understand you were trying to be subtle and tried to avoid conflict.
You cannot walk the fence on this subject of reason because some like @daveHarris will read it differently.
Nevertheless it nice to be treated wth respect when being served. Quite different with the government service.
There is indeed a great deal of goodwill among the people of SA, praise the Lord, and more kindness between the races than many would think. We still have a long way to go to find each other. I find Mr Harris’ comments rather ungenerous (to be polite) as the truth is that it was not only the old elite that used racial divisions to further their own narrow interests, but some in the new elite as well – greed could be a motive in both cases. I think that ordinary South Africans need to be always on our guard against those who deliberately try to sow discord to further their own ends. Let those of goodwill stand together.
The best thing I have read on identity politics is “Ethnic Solidiers” [Cynthia Enloe -USA]. It is from the 80′s, I think. Her thesis was that rulers surround themselves with those they trust (in Britain, the army – the main force maintaining power – is predominantly officered by English, the navy and airforce, less involved with power, have higher proportions of Scottish, Irish or Welsh officers). She also points out that one’s identity varies according to situation and observer. To different observers, for example, Oliver is a white, a man, over 30 (you gotta be over 30 to remember “never trust anyone over thirty”), a professor, an academic, a philosopher, a media student, and within these latter disciplines, no doubt, praised or damned as a member of a particular “school”; whereas to his wife he is a husband, his children a father, and so on.
Race is so one-dimensional.
On a point of culture and language: these change, acted on by the environment. Safrican English borrows from Afrikaans or Black languages, ne? One also hears blacks slipping English or Afrikaans phrases into their conversation. Hopefully this will lead to a common “broad church” culture.
Sadly there ARE politicians who think it profitable to play the race card, but most Saffers ignore them.
Dave Harris:
The “defenseless peace loving indigenous people of Africa” have been killing each other for hundreds of years, just like the decent,peace-loving Europeans and Asians were doing.
@Rory…again
If the genetic mutation that does not produce ear wax happens to be a dominant gene, everyone in that clan or tribe will eventually have that characteristic.
Maybe speak to a friendly geneticist on the possibilities. Please let me know if you find out.
@Benzol: if your son went for “colored”, he would lose a lot of the priviledges that come with being white so it is understandable why he said “no ways”. A very weel-known anthropoliogist has informed me that more than half of all black Africans in SA have European ancestors. And we all know that 93% of Afrikaners have black blood. So race is a myth…
@Phillipa
you said “if your son went for “colored”, he would lose a lot of the priviledges that come with being white”. And these are what exactly these days?
@Dave Harris
You said “the defenseless peace loving indigenous people of Africa”. Uh, the Mfecane never happened for you? Misrepresenting your name is one thing, habitually misrepresenting the facts is another.
@Bert Olivier
Good, hopeful blog, thanks. But reading even a “liberal” medium like Thoughtleader, I think the South African mindset (B&W) is still a long way off from “equal” but “different”, and unfortunately I think sj has a point. Paradoxically, I reckon I was privileged growing up in a small town in the Free-State, as I had heaps of contact with other cultures. The township was only a few hundred meters away, and I spent much of my time with township kids, either at their homes or mine. We played, hunted, ate, listened, danced, worked, studied together, etc. At a young age, Sesotho was my second language, and English a foreign language. My parents weren’t exactly liberal, but encouraged contact and mutual respect. It became natural, and these lessons stayed with me. (Which is why I refused to patrol townships when PW Botha conscripted me to do so in the 80s). From this pov, I don’t envy people who grew up in large cities with little contact with other “races” and “cultures”.
@Rory
Good post.
@ Phillipa Lipinsky
This time I kinda agree with you, but what do you mean by “93% black” blood? That racial inference is wrong, as I have pointed out to you before. (Besides, like most other people, my blood was red last time I checked).
It is true that most Afrikaners have non-European ancestry, however mostly Asian, particularly Indian (secondly Indonesian). But many of us have African blood as well, from East and West African slaves (not often Southern African “black” ancestry). Many marriages occurred between settlers and freed slaves. Further, several early settlers legally married Khoisan and produced offspring, who were accepted into “white” society – several well-known Afrikaans surnames, including ones in my family tree. My 85-year old mother accepts that she is from Indian descent (ironic in the FS), insofar as current DNA technology can determine it. So our ancestors were slaves and slave-owners. (And some slaves, freed after conversion, became slave-owners themselves).
@ Benzol
I have done some research on early history, and DNA testing for purposes of genealogy. Female DNA (mtDNA) of Afrikaners is often non-European, and (male) yDNA is usually (not always) European, due to early European male settlers marrying freed slaves. Imo were all coloured, but Phillipa is right about the privileges. At some stage in the 20th century, our grandparents and parents “looked” white, and were classified white. But it was all a myth.
@ Dave Harris.
Me thinks the good professor may have been talking about you.
Bert, you seem to have accumulated quite a following eh?
Mark Robertson, screams reverse racism.
Hugh Robinson, the bikini salesman, thinks I’m weird to always read things differently.
Ian Shaw, thinks whites brought law and order to the savages of Africa.
Errol Goetsch, is dying to know my racial identity.
Chris in Aus, like you, resort to name calling.
Nobody yet, not even you, has had the balls to refute any of the 3 points I raised about your blog.
1. Does the generalization of using restaurant workers to extrapolate the state of race relations in SA justified?
2. Why didn’t you speak out against apartheid when we needed you to?
3. Why do you resort to name calling?
Are these not legitimate questions?
How we ‘think’, from a cultural perspective, is what differentiates the races. This is not a visible attribute and therefore it is not recognised and explored.
One culture may have family units with a predominant maternal influence while another may have family units which defer to stronger paternal influence, and the mother of the home plays a role of lesser importance and servility. Other cultures defer to a religious father-figure, to which parents relinquish influence. Some defer power to a tribal king who becomes father to all his subjects/children who must serve with obeisance. Others still have family units which instill individuality, confidence, ability, learning and cause to develop curious questioning mind.
Only one of these cultures grow their children to be successful in all they endevour. To which ‘thinking’ do you belong?
If racialism is to be regarded as a behavioural or social disease, then condemning its symptoms to cure it. One does not get rid of a condition by calling it a bad name. No progress was made in the treatment of leprosy while the practice was to cry “Unclean ! Unclean !”. And picking at the ‘sores’ can merely make a condition worse And standing on our little hills of self-righteousness and wringing our hands and moral bells over the evils of others only tends to confirm each others’ prejudices.
Consider the reputed case in the darkest times of Apartheid when a Chief had called a mass meeting to report on the way the S.A. government had reneged on certain promises. He ended by proclaiming that he would ‘Never trust a white man again’. Then his eyes met those of a long-standing relationship all had had with a missionary doctor. He paused – and said. “My people, I take that back. For as long as there is one man [and he pointed him out] whom we all know and respect – I cannot make such a statement”
South Africa does not a have a ‘racial problem’ – it has a ‘Trust Problem’ – which cannot be solved by legislation Nor is it possible to trust any group of people, Trust can only be created on a person to person basis.The task before each person therefore is to purposefully build up a trusting foundation of Goodwill with just one other person of another culture,
@Dave Harris – I do not know why I ever bother to respond to you. Most people do not because you are a person who rarely raises a legitimate issue. As for your questions:
1. Does the generalization of using restaurant workers to extrapolate the state of race relations in SA justified?
No it does not, but yet it works well as a literary trick to explain a contentious issue from a microcosm to a macro. The point is not to say this is the model, but to make a claim it is possible.
2. Why didn’t you speak out against apartheid when we needed you to?
Speaking out against Apartheid took many forms and Bert Oliver is on the books as someone who did speak out, but he like many good South Africans were born into the situation and did their little part. Not everyone needs to be a freedom fighter cobvered in blood to be worthy.
3. Why do you resort to name calling?
Writing a blog can be painful as stupid and ignorant people such as yourself hide behind veils of anonymity and make wild claims and accusations based on things that have not been written by the blogger. Everything you write is always in the frame of a personal insult and attack as opposed to the use of logic, reason or rational. So sometimes we writers do lash out or merely call a spade a spade and you Dave are a prepostious and pompous fool.
@Dave Harris:
In answer to 1.
I have been struck by the same thing as Bert in this regard, and wondered whether the ‘niceness’ merely reflects the economic power relation of cutomer/waiter. Two things tell against this:
1. It is not like this everywhere. SA service is generally friendlier than in other countries (compare England). Non-SA friends of mine have also rmearked on this. So it cannot be PURELY economic.
2. I have also generally found this in non-economic interaction. There is a lot of goodwill in this country.
Bert, my best guess is that racism/accusations of, is too convenient a political device for our politicians to acknowledge how much goodwill there is. Maybe it also reflects the fact that people treat individuals in a way that does not always reflect their views concerning the group an individuals belong too.
Let’s engage with the text again. Some interesting indeas spring forth from the concept ‘At an ideological or discursive level, therefore, by implication it (the affirmation of the primacy of culture) imprisons individuals in their cultures of origin’. Perhaps a useful analysis would be the dichotomy between the ‘individual’ and the ‘group’ – the latter could be cultural, racial, religious or any other collective grouping. Stereotyping and bigotry always requires subordinating one’s personal knowledge of an individual to one’s stereotyping of the group. Even in the worst example of bigotry – the Holocaust – there was a speech by Himmler to the Gauleiter at Posen in which he noted how ‘every German seems to know at least one decent, A1 Jew’. I must have received more requests for clemency from Germans on behalf of Jews than there were Jews in the whole of Germany..’ How relevant that even in that ultimate horror, the better nature of people was evident when they evaluated people as individuals, not as members of some collective.
@Everyone
It seems every blogger here is an expert of one thing or another.
@Bert
I do appreciate your endeavour to bring a very sensitive topic to the fore and not try to score points.
People of this blog have a tendency to score points and call people names when they fail to make a point forward.Example can be the past time of calling Dave Harris names.
Allow me also to be an expert as well.The word AFRIKA is a derivative of WAFERIKA meaning THEY WHO CAME FIRST.Negroids (dark hued HomoSapiens) fall into this category.When the European settlers in this continent realised the wealth abundant,they decided to colonise.We now are familiar with the history of the Anglo-Boer War at the turn of the last century.The English literally left the reins with the descendants of the Dutch.These descendants were born in AFRIKA and had no idea how to get back to the Netherlands and decided they will stay.For purposes of identity they decided to call themselves Afrikaners and developed a FANAKALO,naming it Afrikaans.This they did to identify with the continent for economic reasons.That is why they still make an annual ‘trek’ to the Voortrekker Monument to celebrate their nationalist Afrikanerdom (on Reconciliation Day nogal) which in essence is the fictitious victory of their battle. In return AFRIKANS had to battle through colonialism and apartheid yet must settle to be part of the rainbow nation with such a legacy.
@Bert
Let’s call racism what it is.RACISM is the subjugation of one race by another through social,political and economic means.It is further a misconception that one race is particularly superior than another.When the Nationalist goverment introduced Apartheid, it was based on this ideology of superiority.This was done for the benefit of European descendants.That is why that after 1952, on average, an Afrikaner family had a house and a car. This practice continued for decades until now that we had a democratic breakthrough of 1994.This should not be misconstrued with the so-called rainbow ‘freedom’ the Arch is preaching(with whose funds,we dont know).It should further be noted that in return people like Steve Biko came with philosophies that seek to remind us that we are not inferior.In fact it was an anti-thesis to racism and I qualify it by not saying it is White racism.
This philosophy taught Afrikans like Tokyo Sexwale and Patrice Motsepe not to hate White people.I am mentioning them simply because they are in a position to be racist given the economic,political and social means at their disposal.Yet no one taught them to be racist.The least they can do is for them to be tribalist and suggest to us that BaPedi are intrinsically business people thus all BEE deals should go their way.This should at least give impetus to the discussion without the calling of names.Amen!
@JP
“SA service is generally friendlier than in other countries”
Could not be further from the truth.
“There is a lot of goodwill in this country.”
Could not say that from looking at these blogs now, could you?
Lets face it, the “goodwill” really comes from the generosity and nobility of the previously oppressed.
@Phemelo
Thank you for helping to jog the memory of our fellow countrymen who seem to be afflicted with a sudden onset of amnesia.
@blip
Notice how nobody, including Bert, had the decency to address your question?
This pre-this and post-that is merely a way to carve out time to suite the hidden agenda of the writer.
@Michael Francis
Thank you. You deserve a medal for answering Dave Harris. Harris is the Julius Malema of the Thought Leader bloggosphere but like Julius does not realise his limits.
@Bert
Great post, and except for the usual suspects it appears most people want to discuss racist issues seriously.
The fact that we can talk about rascim in this forum shows that South Africa is maturing as a democracy. 20 years ago Europe was ahead of us, now with the rise of right wing elements there we are streets ahead of those skin heads.
@South Africa
Give yourself a pat on the back.
Michael – Thank you for taking the trouble to answer DH, which I am no longer willing to do. You’re right about taking the restaurant experience, not as reflecting the sum total of race relations in SA, but merely, hypothetically, as a ‘model’ that other people entering into relations/interactions between races may emulate.
JP and Mark – Thanks for pointing out the difference between the way one tends to think of, and act towards groups (often the result of ideological thinking) and of individuals, respectively. I think you are right, and personally, I hope that the salutary experiences at this level will eventually grow to a critical mass at a collective level. JP, I am gratified that you have also observed the phenomenon that I refer to.
Phemelo – Sure, I agree with your description of racism, but that is no different from what I said in this post. I merely used other scholars’ work to make subtler distinctions within this way of conceptualizing it – you will notice that both the modern and the postmodern form of racism enable their adherents to vindicate (erroneously) the supposed superiority of one race (or culture, in the case of postmodern racism) over another.
The Middle Finger – Good point, that most of the respondents to this post are able to talk openly and rationally about an issue as sensitive as racism. But that is the point, isn’t it? To raise important issues, no matter how ‘sensitive’.
@Michael Francis
Nice try but no cigar!
Amazing how a Canadian, with NO INKLING of the SA experience can write with such confidence about SA. I suppose a delusional sense of self-confidence coupled with a brief stay in SA, has given you a sense of righteousness over the “natives”. How about focusing on your own Canadian race issues, rather than trying to “fix” our problems.
1. A ” literary trick”? Gosh, that looks and sounds like plain old BS to me. If you wanted a microcosm of SA, try looking in our school playgrounds, or our university cafeterias. btw. Isn’t Bert in education doesn’t he teach at a real university?
2. Actually there was no need to become a full-time freedom fighter. All we wanted during the dark days of apartheid is for people in positions of influence to at a minimum, do their duty and speak out against racism and brutality.
3. “people such as yourself hide behind veils of anonymity” – do you not understand the purpose of anonymity in any democratic society?
” Everything you write is always in the frame of a personal insult and attack ”
Sometime the truth comes off as a personal insult but if you wish to exert your conservative censorship and only entertain opinions from “like-minded” people, then I’d suggest you continue watching your FOX news network or whatever equivalent conservative media you seem to subscribe to up there in the freezing Canadian hinterland.
Dave Harris I do worry about Canadian issues but do not use a South African blog as the forum that would be silly. While I am a visitor to SA I have dedicated a third of my life to understanding it and am saddened by people like you who carries such hate and further polarizes society.
Your anonymity is a veil not for freedom of expression but a front for intellectual insecurity and use this forum to spread discord and xenophobia.
@Dave Harris
“Amazing how a Canadian, with NO INKLING of the SA experience can write with such confidence about SA”
You are incorrect. A bit of traditional South African arrogance and xenophobia coming out there.
Michael Francis has worked and lived closer to the ‘other half’ in South Africa than you probably ever will.
@Michael, thanks for all you have done for SA and the valuable contribution you make on this forum.
Yes Bert, you are right to use the restaurant anecdote. It takes only one exception to challenge a rule, and you are saying if people can put aside racism once, we can put it aside every time. Of course, that assumes we want to. Thank you for trying to show a path out of the darkness when some people on this site want to drag us back.
@Michael Francis
“use this forum to spread discord and xenophobia”
Didn’t you write recently about the farm murders as being “racially” motivated? That my friend, is the real meaning of “spreading discord” in our country.
Didn’t you write this article about a Canadian’s view on xenophobia recently (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/michaelfrancis/2009/03/26/a-canadians-view-on-xenophobia-poverty-populism-and-a-history-of-mob-justice/)
where you claimed that xenophobia violence was a result of the ANC’s armed struggle and to make the country ungovernable…etc. You understanding of SA’s history and the dynamics of our struggle are shocking but since you are Canadian, I’m not surprised.
“I do worry about Canadian issues but do not use a South African blog ”
So, why are you shy about point out your blog where you discuss Canadian racial issues?