It was 1994 and a Canadian comic at a South African festival thought that given our apartheid history, he’d be edgy by poking fun at race. He got mere titters and derisory silences from the audience. He didn’t realise: we got race.
We South Africans had been through race, come back and turned it inside out. We had lived it, been poisoned by it, and were on the road to recovery. We were acutely sensitive to it, and we knew two things:
First, the moral position that racism is wrong. The Oxford definition of racism is lucid enough: “The belief that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group” and “discrimination against or antagonism towards other races or ethnic groups based on such a belief”.
Secondly, (and this forms the basis for the first categorical imperative that racism is immoral) the scientific fact that there is no such thing as race. The scientific / biological proof is incontrovertible; race exists only in the sense that it is a pigment of the imagination.
This was of course not always the position of scientists (nor philosophers — Kant, the father of the categorical imperative, had racist ideas of his own). But the scientists who set out with their cameras, callipers, measuring tapes and eye charts to justify their racial theories, in the end only disproved themselves.
Under apartheid, debunking racial mythology was a moral obligation. After liberation, I thought we had slain the beast. How naïve.
What I did not take into account is the extent to which racism gratifies people. To put it somewhat crudely, it allows them to get their rocks off without having to exercise their brains. The emotion it usually satisfies is anger; anger based in despair, powerlessness, revenge or guilt. “The whites are criminals and must be treated as such”; “Blacks can’t run anything, look at the mess they have made of Africa”; “Don’t come here with that white tendency”.
When Census 2011 confronted me with the question: ‘How would (name) describe him / herself in terms of population group? Black African / Coloured / Indian or Asian / White / Other’?, I answered, “Human” (taken from Robert Sobukwe: “There is only one race to which we all belong — the human race”).
The census question was carefully worded. It does not use the word race. It pretends to give me the power to describe myself, to choose my identity. But then in negates this by suggesting I must think in apartheid categories. It demands I give them legitimacy.
To impose this question today on a 17-year-old South African (born 1994) and demand they classify themselves, I think is repugnant. Or what of a child with a black skin who has been adopted by white-skinned parents and is now 13 or 16 years old? Or what about someone who went through the trauma of being reclassified during apartheid, must now answer this question again because the State wants to know? I can think of many more examples where this question is clearly degrading.
(I am keen to see how many ‘others’ there will be in the final result. Under apartheid you could be “other coloured” and “other Asian”; it got you an ID ending with 06 or 07. Am I an “other white”?)
Personally, I do not and never have held my identity in “white”. I can at best think of myself in terms of “whiteness” as a social construct (for example, at Frankfurt airport I’m unlikely to be searched as I disembark from the plane; I can trespass and not be chased away without first being asked what I want, etc). But does it count as a “privilege” to be treated the way all human beings should be treated?
Defining another individual by the colour of their skin is anathema. If there was one black-skinned man in a room of white-skinned people I’d still rather refer to him by some other means than say the “black man”. Ridiculous? Perhaps, but my interlocutor might look more closely at the individuals in the room.
(Some might say that I am inventing a new paradox: by acting in a non-racial way, you are denying that racism exists. But that is clearly illogical.)
We all know people whose attitudes to others are defined by race. It is also an awful reality for people with black skin that they have little choice but to take on board the racism of others and try to overturn it. Then there are the Afrikaans and American white supremacists, Scandinavian Nazis, North Korea’s ideologues (someone needs to tell the admiring ANCYL leadership that “blacks” are regarded as subhuman in that country) etc who invent a racial mythology affirming their superiority.
I am in accord with Neville Alexander, that if we are serious there are other ways than using the ignominious and inaccurate shorthand of ‘race’ to achieve legitimate affirmative action.
We must as a matter of principal break this paradox of using apartheid ideas to redress apartheid legacies. It will lead us into the demeaning practice of racial quotas; has corrupted a nation into a myriad, shady practices; produced moral hazard; and spawned such unedifying debates as: are Chinese “black”? are Coloureds African? Governments often use clumsy tools, and the blunter the instrument, the more collateral damage.
My contention here is this: race can never be used in a positive way. Race is a false and pernicious concept; it contaminates and makes society sick. By deploying it for progressive ends, we have once again become insensitive to racism. In the public discourse black and white are used glibly; people are once again being labelled and thought about in racial terms.
When I write or blog, I try my damnedest never to use the words ‘black’ or ‘white’, unless I am using the term in its historical apartheid context or describing the factual colour of someone’s skin or discussing racism (eg. “white racism”, “white blindness” i.e. the inability to see one’s white status).
It is an exercise I highly recommend any writer or commenter try. It forces you to think about issues more accurately, to define more precisely who you are referring to. “Predatory elite”, “vested interests”, “the political class”, “homeless”, “landless”, “rural”, “working poor”, “lumpen radical”, “capitalist”, “wage labourer”, “middle class” and so forth; all far more useful terms in most contexts that reducing an issue to “whites” versus “blacks”.
So when Nco Dube (fellow Thought Leader blogger) keeps referring to ‘White Inc’, he then finds he must clarify that not all members of White Inc are “white”, that some “blacks” are very much a part of White Inc, that some “whites” are not part of ‘White Inc. Finally, the label White Inc is, Dube explains, “not a racially descriptive one but rather of a heterogeneous group not necessarily working together but all seeking to protect white interests” (whatever these are: are white interests property rights? capitalism? homosexuality? monopoly power? hate speech laws? anti-poor policies? free trade agreements? regime change in Zimbabwe? the market economy? cession for the Western Cape? pornography on television? a self-regulating media? private hospitals?).
His definition is totally circular. We are back to “white interests”. But what about those white-skinned people who do not share these interests – the “whites” Dube has just told us are not in White Inc? And what about the black-skinned recipients of BEE scheming and crony capitalism who are included? Dube wants to say they have aligned themselves with “white” interests, well those “white” interests that not all “whites” share. So there are “blacks” with interests embedded in White Inc.
There are some white-skinned people who have found that their economic interests are best promoted when aligned with their black-skinned co-workers in the unions. There are also white-skinned “ultra-leftists” (a pejorative term employed by the ruling party to marginalise opposition to its neoliberal policies and self-enrichment). Surely we should know by now that you cannot know a person’s politics, what they think or the morality of their character, from the colour of their skin?
I understand his sentiments, but I hope Dube will admit that White Inc is simply an unhelpful term. Perhaps it’s that it provokes the people he wishes to provoke – those denialists who won’t own up to their historical advantages, and the newly privileged who are “disloyal” to Africans. In other words, it rewards an emotion.
(Taking the stance I have, one might be accused of trying to deny that we live in a very racially (in apartheid categories) skewed class structure. But I can’t see how this follows.)
Rather, redeploying race terms may blinker us and obscure important truths. It fuels prejudice even as it seeks to undo it. It can lead to a false diagnosis.
The much quoted widening Gini coefficient needs a gloss. Hein Marais has pointed out: “inequality between population groups is very high” (after half a century of apartheid), but “inequality within groups [both "black" and "white"] has worsened dramatically” (after 18 years of ANC policy). President Jacob Zuma has warned that we can’t blame apartheid for much longer.
Economist Sampie Terreblanche deduced already in 2002 that inequality was starting to track class not racial lines. Stats SA in 2008 confirmed that the highest inequality is now within the African population (Marais, 2011).
Cosatu President Sdumo Dlamini tells us at the ANC centenary that 80% of the JSE is white owned. Besides the fact that I am not sure the 80% figure is correct when you consider pension fund holdings (and its membership), international capital – which is global (and therefore unclassifiable by race), American, Chinese, Indian, Malaysian etc – my question is: do we not run a risk of being blind to class issues when we think about capital in race terms? What does race add to our strategy to deal with “transformation” or “economic freedom” for our citizens?
Dlamini wants to indicate that little has changed structurally. Historical injustice persists. But why? Is it really white-skinned racists? Is it not deeper than skin — the economic system? How do we defeat both these?
Not by engaging in a cultural war that is for sure. I doubt we want to end up like the economically enslaved populace of the USA who waste all their political energy and capital by fighting over gay marriage, abortion, gun control, evolution and “who is more American?”, while they sink en masse into poverty.
I propose: 1) we need to be vigilant and condemn racism where and whenever it raises its gorgon head. Pierre de Vos has pointed out how few people take advantage of the Equality Courts. We must expose, unpack, and shred it. And that includes the denial of racism (which is in itself racist). Or the grossly insensitive, “Oh can’t we just move on from race!”. Racism is alive and as toxic as ever and experienced by many people on a daily basis.
2) We have to be much more cautious in deploying race in our rhetoric and analysis (when not discussing racism itself).
Here is why. Let us imagine now that government’s BEE was successful, and that President Zuma takes the lectern and proudly boasts to the nation, “Today, a mere 18 years since democracy, more than 60% of the JSE is in the hands of black capital”. Let us picture this success. Would that indicate to us that the workers were better off? That there was more employment? Less poverty? Less inequality in the country between rich and poor? I do not believe it would. We already have too many examples of BEE businesses engaged in ruthless labour practices, while tenderpreneurs further impoverish (if not actually kill) the poor. Corruption is equally spread amongst those with the opportunity, whatever their skin colour.
The inevitable endpoint of race politics in our context is this: it will entrench a new elite disguised as transformation. Race is used to perversely legitimize neoliberalism. “Look at our black millionaires, isn’t this wonderful? Let us drink champagne on your behalf.”
And here is the nub of race: it alienates us from each other and it dehumanises the self. The tragedy of the apartheid legacy is that there is little social solidarity. Unlike for instance the protestors on Tahir Square making common cause, race has destroyed an essential shared civility.
There are many South Africans who have white skins who remain ignorant, who still lead separated lives along colour lines, and it is easy for them to say, that grinding poverty over there, that misery and despair, that has nothing to do with me. Sadly, they do not identify with the suffering of their countrymen, and they never will as long as the message is: this is race war and not a class struggle; we don’t want your civility. And if that is the only answer, then we are as morally bankrupt as we ever were under apartheid.
Follow Brent on Twitter.
@Tofolux – You and I are on the same wavelength. After I posted my previous reply to you I was thinking about the ridiculousness of supposing that of all the species of the animal kingdom us human beings are so exceptional that we never experienced any further speciation into sub-species. It must be a holdover from the biblical doctrine that man was created in God’s image to rule over all the other animals on earth.
@Graham Johnson
It’s not my quote, that’s straight from the HGP site itself. If there are newer figures to the contrary can you please point me to them?
Una
Actually the Cavemen conquered the Romans eventually – not the British ones, but the EurAsian ones.
And the Nordic Cavemen (Vikings) destroyed and pillaged most of Britain and Europe very successfully.
More often than not the Cavemen won over the Civilised.
@Brian B: “Apartheid benefited whites.”
Come on, prove that statement to me.
Note: I am NOT saying it is wrong, but I am also NOT saying it is right. If you can give me the concrete, unequivocal proof based on independent, scientific research, I will gladly look at it and decide whether I agree or not. But until then, I do not know for sure whether apartheid benefited “whites” (as a group) or not.
PS. Just as a heads-up, don’t say to me jobs were reserved for whites and therefore they benefited. Actually, according to economic theory I read, the opposite is true. Many white businesses lost out on good value because they were forced to select from a smaller pool of available (white) resources.
I also note that mostly white expertise built the early infrastructure in South Africa, from which non-whites benefited.
On the other hand, many gifted non-whites were unfairly denied an opportunity to acquire the expertise and contribute to everyone’s success – which means many non-whites unjustly lost out because of that. Frankly, the whites also lost out on the value the non-whites would have brought.
You see, it is not as clear-cut a case as many make it out to be (based mostly – and understandably! – on personal, emotional, non-objective reactions). There are way too many factors at stake to allow anyone to simply declare: “Apartheid benefited whites.”
It would probably be more valid to say: “Some whites benefited from apartheid.”
Race attitudes are as natural as class attitudes. Perhaps in a perfect world we would not have either of them, but we are very far from being in a perfect world.
to all of you commentators on this article just read Meersman’s input, savour it and let it sink into your medula oblangatas for the sake of progress. Definition of RACE or ethnicity is like denying the fact that we are running the full circle… remember Adam and Eve? were they Jewish, White, Black, Asian, Aryan blah, blah, blah…..aaaah yaaawwnnnnn!!
Wonderful article Brent, note you also have a great name.
When you touch on economics you strike at the truth and the key solution. Govt talks about creating 5 million jobs in 10 years but no one looks back and sees that back in 1997/1998 SA created 1.8 million (YES 1,8) jobs mainly via investment by local and overseas firms. SA benefitting from the peace/Mandela factor. (Something for the Mandela haters to consider) . What was Govts resonse, tougher labour laws and prominent spokesmen attacking ‘capitalism/globalisation’ – the result dried up investment?
Imagine if that rate had of been maintained for the next 10 years = 18 million new jobs.
Would Julies be so prominent, would we be racially abusing each other etc etc – easy answer NO. Race and racialism would still be there but be a minor factor as S Africans focussed on doing their jobs and being productive/successful.
Brent
Please excuse typos but 8000 words of comments is a lot to get through in the time I could devote:
Thank you for shared sentiments: Zikhali# Jobe# mike venter# jandr0# Brendan# Neil McCafferty# Marianne# Mark Mywords# Jean Wright# Mariano Castrillon# anti_non_sequitur# Brent#
Ayanda# My article is very clear racism exists. Race as scientific concept is bunk.
Amelia# Shaman sans Frontieres# Given the article, my position is clearly that not all Afrikaners are racist, nor are all Americans, Scandinavians etc. I did not mean to cause offence. In each example though I had certain individuals clearly in mind.
Peter Win# I cannot see how the extension is valid, however the kinds of problems with race stereotyping crop up in gender and the other areas you raise. Remember, I’m looking at our society through the prism of our history where discrimination was law, justified by some laws, and racism was perversely seen as morally good.
Maimillian# By acting non-racially ALL of you is accepted and acknowledged. One simply doesn’t make assumptions about you based on that. About the elephant in the room I did mention that possible paradox.
Robard# Percipient# Graham Johnson# The racial nomenclature of apartheid has no scientific basis whatsoever and please produce a scientist who thinks it does. Identification of genes for medical use does not prove the existence of “race”, nor do certain genetic traits in small percentages of sample populations. Scientist that say these prove existence of race genetically do so by inventing their own definition of ‘race’, and those definitions bear no resemblance and give no support for race as social construction. For instance the biggest genetic differences on the plant exists within the Indian subcontinent. That was one box on our form.
Tofolux# I agree: “the dilemma is that what we had/have is a construct steeped in racism.” What I wanted to do with this article was to remind people how we are backsliding. We talk about race today as if it were real; when we should be talking about racism. There are so many ways of redressing without using skin colour. Socioeconomic situation should be the chief criteria for redress. And of course one must look at a person’s background, their previous classification, what opportunities they were and are still denied, rural development etc etc. There are so many better ways. You’re getting rich people (tendrepeneurs) rewarded and re-rewarded; you’re getting fronters and all kinds of chicanery – and this is happening at the expense of the poor. As I said the blunter the instrument, and race is a very blunt instrument, the more damaging.
Wela Patrick Msimang# Sad sentiments. You want apartheid adoption laws brought back? Also:I clearly say redress should be made but we need better instruments. Nowhere do I claim past racism doesn’t matter now. I also point out the prejudice that people suffer. I also say wherever racism exists it must be slain and racists must be taken to the Equality Courts.
Chris Roux# I’m saying don’t use obvious physical traits like the colour of the skin for policy; and that skin colour does not make race scientifically real.
Dave Harris# I’m sure I’d love to have a drink with you and a chat. The comment section isn’t working for me because you are using it for your agenda no matter what is written in the articles.
I think your comments need more nuance. I know they are based on outrage. But you are making a mistake. Socioeconomic disparity is occurring now along class lines. There is still the apartheid category inequality yes, and I agree with you that racism will never be addressed until that inequality is tackled. But that doesn’t make any form of racism valid.
Des Currie# If you are you saying there are races and some are superior then I cannot agree.
chantelle# I have no issue with people who answered the question. I’m not prescribing to others; I’m saying why I did not. I have no issue with physical description as long as it is only that. I avoid it where I can however.
chris# haze# You can’t classify black and white skinned (and all the shades between) the way you classify black and white rhinos, or various chickens. Chris#, I agree: the problem is the stereotype; but how do those form? From the classification. I’m not imaging a bland world, rather a world where you stop lumping people together who when you look closer are infinitely diverse
NathanBlows# thank you for your supportive the post on race and science. I now looked up Wikipedia on race for a quick reference and it confirms what you say and Robarb# is just sophistry.
Brian B# I agree: “Most South Africans demonstrate exceptional racial collaboration in their daily interaction with others.”
Karl Steinacker# Given what you write I don’t see how the article misses its point. Your point logically follows: Each of us has a multitude of belongings….while we might be different we are nevertheless equal.
To all my critics and supporters I urge them to read “Racial Redress and Citizenship” edited by Adam Habib and Kristina Bentley. HSRC Press. 2008. 369pgs (with contributions by Mcebisi Ndletanya, Steven Friedman and may more). They criticise both primary race-based affirmative action (government policy) and also point out weaknesses in a purely class based affirmative action programme (which I tend to favour, though I think as part of looking at the individual one should look at what a person was classified as under apartheid, or what their parents were classified as if they were not born then). They advocate a class-based programme that then takes into account race.
Brent:”The racial nomenclature of apartheid has no scientific basis whatsoever and please produce a scientist who thinks it does. ”
I didn’t argue for the racial nomenclature of apartheid, which was based on little more than folk taxonomy. The very fact that forensic anthropologists can predict with 99.9% accuracy the race of a perpetrator from a specimen of DNA is ample enough evidence that race is a scientific fact. Also, the fact that the very same government who supports the human genome project’s doublespeak on race has itself approved medication on a race-specific basis.
The greater-genetic-diversity-in-one-race argument that you allude to has long ago been defeated by geneticist AWF Edwards as Lewontin’s fallacy. By that argument you can also argue that there is no such thing as sex differences, since there is also far more genetic variation within the sexes than between them.
@ Brent Meersman. I dont agree with you. Your counter-argument is far too simplistic. Racism is complex and here I am deliberately not using the word complicated. We havent even begun to interrogate the complexities of racism. Also racism is the practise of race identity, so the colour of ones skin is the single factor that determines this practise. Affirmative action as we know it in SA is the only viable tool we have, To argue that a class base system should be used is simply myopic and I think that as much as those you have mentioned make progressive arguments they are still terribly unprogressive in some. But lets nit pick this alternative of class base. How would you determines class in the statute books? How will you go about proving your class? Is class permanent? Who will police class redress?
I have not heard a good redress argument other than the tool we are using at the moment. I think that we should take the example of America, who introduced AA in late 1980′s. They failed dismally because the policing mechanisms and Republican politicians were too scared to stand by this policy.
Also, let me say that our constitution is a negotitated one and those who had alternative ideas presented them. So the class base argument is not a new argument. But in SA today, it is a bad proposal.
@Tofolux There are many mechanisms.Please have a look at the Habib / Bentley book if you get a chance. They ultimatley support “race” but with lots of provisos and after class. You wouldn’t divide people into classes, you’d look at their socioeconomic situation. There is also much good analysis showing the numerous shortfalls and failures of the current approach which I have not even argued. What about the rural population and the isolated poor. Race based AA is not hleping these people at all. Evidence is clear that affirmativ action on race that does not use class entrenches inequality within the target population for affirmative action.
Also take a look at Spring 2011 issue of Daedalus: Race, Inequality and Culture. One academic mentions an old Texas example: the top 10 graduates of every high school had to be accepted into university. Imagine that here. It is obvious how geographic measures will facilitiate the necessary redress until there is no longer an imbalance or apartheid geography. Many many ways.
Do grow up and learn some basic arithmetic.
Affirmative Action was an idea started in California, America, to uplift the black MINORITY of slave descendents. It did not even work there.
Where ever it has been transported to it has resulted in the targetting of racial abuse against an educated MINORITY by an uneducated majority – which includes the Black Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, and the Chinese minority in Indonesia.
HOW can affirmative action uplift a MAJORITY?
There are less than 10 percent whites – if ALL their jobs got given to blacks it would still leave 80 percent unemployed (10 percent being Coloured (Khoisan), and Indian).
All Affirmative Action has done EVERYWHERE is breed a culture of entitlement and laziness because “I am owed, I don’t have to achieve or try or study or work”!
@Tofolux: I mostly enjoy your reasoning, but this time around it is somewhat below the standard I’ve become accustomed to.
“Racism is complex”
Why? Either you discriminate based on race, or not. While the causes MAY be complex (although I actually think the underlying psychological constructs are reasonably well-known), the phenomenon is not – and here we are addressing the phenomenon.
“Affirmative action as we know it in SA is the only viable tool we have.”
As compared to what? The ANC deployed cadres actually using tax money to improve education and infrastructure, rather than treating SAffers like sub-humans, wasting on unjustified flights, fancy cars, siphoning money to friends, etc?
And then, how viable is it, viewed against the questionable track records elsewhere?
“Also, let me say that our constitution is a negotitated one and those who had alternative ideas presented them.”
The constitution provides for action. AA is a specific action. So, if there’s a better action, let’s rather do that.
“So the class base argument is not a new argument. But in SA today, it is a bad proposal.”
Why is it a bad proposal? For instance, a simple single economic grant to everyone who is not a taxpayer is potentially operationally easier and cheaper to implement (and police!), much more targeted and fair.
It is the ANC that is keeping us in this “race” game. They are exploiting our emotions to the detriment of everyone, especially the poor.
Affirmative Action and BEE are not in the Constitution – but what is in the Constitution was interpreted that way by the original Constitutional Court, which was mainly former activists, not trained judges.
Which is why they over-ruled the High Court on the Civil Servants Act in respect of Public Proscecutors- and decreed that Civil Servants no longer had to be the best qualified for the job (because they were paid with taxpayers money).
Which is where the corruption/ deployed cadre rot started.
@jandro, YOU have absolutely no idea of the suffering you caused us, that is the one thing that one finds it so hard to wrap one’s head around.
@Lyndall, can you stay on the issue and make a point….(just one point,,,plse)
@Brent, I do want to leave this argument but before I move on let me make the point. The arguments made by Habib/Bently cloud the issues of racism, equality and finally justice and here one is continuously reminded of the problem of colour in relation to the idea of equality. You see Brent, if we are equals, then we are entitled to equal things. Similarly, when we talk about redress in relation to racism we need to agree on the sources of racism because certainly any proposal for remedy must rest on a diagnosis of the condition to be remedied. I mean eg, the black population is not homogenous (surprise, surprise) there are different hierarchies of blackness and this is supported by the idiotic classification of öther coloured”or “honary black”.
Also, equality in terms cannot be introduced in terms of premise of the argument. And this is what our analysts seem to do all the time. We are unequal. We still experience racism. POVERTY is our daily experience. Now how do we begin to reconstruct our society INTO the JUST society we dream of? Class base action, definitely not in my view. Sure, class base for another issue. But racism and equality are two totally different issues in SA today.
Tofolux
When I comment is often on points raised by others – which are not one point only, and often off topic.