I was not unsurprisingly taken aback when I heard that the latest occupant of the Union Buildings expressed his opposition to a national debate on race. Being from the school of thought that views deliberation as the cornerstone of a democratic society, the president’s opposition to it sits quite uneasy with me. Equally disconcerting, if not more so, is the justification and reasoning behind advocating for a moratorium on discussing something so fundamentally a part of our history and so deeply entrenched in our society.
With President Jacob Zuma having so vehemently defended the institutions and traditions of his ethnic and cultural background, I had, perhaps naively, hoped that this would ultimately usher in a new culture of debate and discussion around issues of race, ethnicity and identity. It seems apparent that I have incorrectly assumed that the president — unlike his predecessor — had a much more syncretic understanding of the politics and psychology of identity. Having hoped for an era of meaningful deliberation on the state of race, race relations and racial identity to transcend the racial nativism of Thabo Mbeki, it seems I have set myself up for disappointment.
The time is/was ripe for a new government with a new president and a fundamentally different leadership style (and more “people skills”) to position itself as the leader in championing a vibrant democratic society characterised by open and honest debate. Having established himself within the first 100 days of taking office as the “people’s president”, Zuma can take up the responsibilities of a truly transformational leader and provide inspiration and motivation to a nation in dire need of a new vision.
Unfortunately he has instead chosen to block a debate on race and transformation as suggested by Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, arguing that such an initiative would take the country backwards. Debating race has become retrogressive, and according to the president we must instead deepen our understanding of non-racialism, a policy that the ANC has apparently defended even at a time “when apartheid was killing people”.
Anyone vaguely familiar with the history of the ANC and the struggle for liberation would immediately spot the historical inaccuracy that probably has Biko and Sobukwe spinning in their graves. Zuma’s ignorance in this regard is perhaps forgivable — I don’t know whether he was at any time intensely exposed to the tenets of the Black Consciousness Movement — but he does need to be reminded of why the PAC broke away in 1955 when the Freedom Charter was adopted. Although the difference between multi-racialism and non-racialism is readily ignored, the Freedom Charter and Chief Luthuli’s message to the Congress of the People gathered at Kliptown completely omitted a commitment to non-racialism advocating instead for a celebration, affirmation and foundation of a society premised on multi-racialism. In simple terms, the ANC opted for a position that celebrated “unity in diversity”, as opposed to the Black Consciousness Movement’s commitment to emancipating and reclaiming a “common humanity”.
Although a minor historical inaccuracy to some, it is not at all acceptable to let it slip. The ANC’s attempt to lay a claim to the sole ownership of the struggle for liberation should be resisted precisely because, as George Orwell put it: “Those who control the past, control the future; those who control the future, control the present; those who control the present, control the past.”
I am not too sure who the “we” is when Zuma says “we have never looked at things in terms of race and ethnicity but, rather, in terms of people being South Africans” but I am sure that it must exclude the former president. Even beyond this it is idealistic and naive to believe that race, for all South Africans everywhere, is not factor or a part of their social gaze. Maybe the president and I live in two fundamentally different countries. In my South Africa, race and poverty is intricately intertwined, as is race and riches — large racial inequalities remain, with white people accounting for just 9% of the population but 45% of the country’s income. In my South Africa, racism is alive and kicking, with incidents such as the Reitz men’s residence at the University of the Free State and racially motivated attacks, slur and crime being prevalent. I live in a South Africa in which racial prejudice and ignorance is internalised and socialised, lying dormant and waiting for the right moment to rear its ugly head.
This is exactly why we need a national debate on race and transformation: to expose and emancipate ourselves from the deep-seated, socialised ignorance and prejudice about race, ethnicity and racialised privilege. The political education apparently offered by the ANC on non-racialism is not sufficient or broad-based enough to combat and uproot years of socialisation that has produced not only a remarkably racial identity and politics, but has had far-reaching ramifications in terms of the psychology and socialisation of this identity. I hope the president reads or revisits the work of Steve Biko and discovers what true non-racialism means. Deepening an understanding of non-racialism is useless if we don’t pro-actively pursue it, which does mean we are required to discuss race and transformation to truly know what non-racialism is and should be.
Though the president may place a moratorium on a debate on race within his own party and within the executive branch of government, it is unconstitutional for him to interfere with and block initiatives that pursue a national debate on race within the broader state institutions. Spearheading a national debate on race is pivotal and must be engaged in, not only at an individual level (in which we all have a responsibility), but also by the Chapter 9 institutions — specifically the Human Rights Commission, among others — along with research institutions and think-tanks like the South African Institute of Race Relations, the Human Sciences Research Council and civil society more broadly. Parliament as the pre-eminent deliberation body of a democratic society cannot fail the people of South Africa again by toeing the party line and refusing the debate an issue so central to understanding and navigating the modern South African social landscape.
The state of race relations in South Africa demands that we organise a meaningful, broadbased and representative debate on race. The president specifically has a responsibility towards the people of the country to support initiatives conducive to an honest, open discussion. Moreover, the president and his government has a responsibility to reverse the legacy of Mbeki’s modus operandi, exactly because “it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle it without debate”.1
This entry was posted
on Sunday, August 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
51 Responses to “Debating race is not ‘backward’”
Marius
So in a nutshell, you concur with Malema’s call of ‘Africanising the SA economy’ ?
If so, then the score at the quarter time would be:
Debating race and transformation does not equate with agreement on Africanising the South African economy. It is an absurd, illogical and ill-informed conclusion to draw.
If you actually followed the developments your score-card would read:
On this one, I side withthe President. Given the inability to hold decent debates in this country, this one would quickly degenerate into a farce. So, until we are more mature or the debate can be begun from a more considered position, the Malema approach already begings it in the wrong footing, let’s concerntrate on health, education, the economy.
Marius – you are right, we need to discuss race honestly. We need to understand that, even when we throw money and resources at uplifting the sporting abilities of one race, members from another race just seem to generally be better rugby players.
We need to get our heads round why two schools, less than 5 Km apart like DHS and XXX senior secondary can have a 100% Matric and a less than 20% Matric respectively, even though we have spent 8 times as much on each of the XXX students for the past 5 years as we have on DHS students.
We need to understand why white Nat Politicians, while they had repulsive policies were honest to a man and the black ANC politicians, while they have honest policies, have repulsive, dishonest and thieving characters (well not quite to the man!).
Only when we can discuss the unfashionable and uncomfortable truth of the failure of our current political system can our country start to use the amazing human potential we possess. The longer we leave this, the greater the haemorrhaging to emigration of our brightest and best.
There have been four genocides in South Africa. The killing of the Koi-San and Bushmen by the VD Stelle and long after, Chaka Zulu’s slaughter to unify the Nguni as Zulus, the British slaughter of the Afrikaans women and children during the Boer War and Mbeki’s refusal to acknowledge HIV/AIDS. I don’t see Nationalist Afrikaaner on this list!!!
While I agree that as things currently stand the debate would degenerate into a farce, I also set criteria for this debate: open, honest, reflective, inclusive and broad-based.
The government has no monopoly over setting the public discourse agenda. I also never sided with Malema. I think he is, in and by himself, a farce.
Thab, I agree with you fully. A race debate is likely to be high jacked.
The next thing you will hear that Banks must be nationalized because they are overcrowded by whites, a call for the nationalizations of the mines has already being made by Malema.
Marius’s intentions are noble, but we must tread carefully.
Although the tilt of poverty to the poor communities was a result of apartheid, a race debate will not help in addressing poverty.
And the white people, who are still caught up in the past, will not be helped by a race debate.
We need to then be bigger than race and explore our humanity broadly. Those people who are poor and have no access to resources must be given priority so that our society starts to integrate.
Change will not happen overnight, but change is taking place as we speak. The fantasy of an overnight change will lead to distraction.
To accelerate change, we need new heroes who are going to dirty their hands in ensuring that basic services are provided to the poor, and more and more people who live in poverty are skilled, educated and integrated into the main economic stream.
I feel that there are better subjects to tackle.
The Debate on racism will end us in more trouble than we are in now. Imagine a call for a debate on tribalism because there is no Venda minister or Premier. I really believe that these subjects can be better handled.
An article online by Lois Landis Kurowski quotes John Higham, apparently an authority on nativism, as defining nativism as “… intense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign (i.e., “un-American”) connections.” According to Kurowski racial nativists have attempted to show, among other things, that: 1) cultural differences between immigrants and native Americans were significant and dangerous because they threatened the political and social stability of the USA; 2) such cultural differences were external manifestations of an immutable, inherited inferiority; 3) therefore, immigration should be greatly restricted or prohibited to avoid the pernicious effects of such inferior human beings on the USA. Other articles provide vivid accounts of the nativist response to the immigration of the Catholic Irish to the United States. Now, it would be very disturbing for any serious scholar even remotely to associate Thabo Mbeki with this Anglo-Saxon, Ku Klux Klan racial nativism.
The attempt to create an opposition between the ANC of the 1950s and Steve Biko is false. I am quite surprised that Redelinghuys doesn’t invoke the name: South African “Native” National Congress, against the ANC, seeing that he has already indicted Thabo Mbeki on a charge of “nativism.” While the language of the Freedom Charter may seem a bit archaic, it is mischievous and sinister to suggest that the values of the Freedom Charter are somehow at variance with the ideals of a society that transcends race.
Marius, i also agree with our president. Mostly we are sick and tired of race being the main reason blogs like this get written in the first place. I myself are trying very hard not to be a racist. I think this has been talked to death and nothing new will come from a new debate. Its time to really admit that with maybe a few exceptions people are racists but that doesn’t mean that they don’t try being better. Talking about this bad side of us have to stop now and focus placed on Safricans being all they can be. Do i make sense?
To illustrate the notion of “unity in diversity” as envisaged by the Freedom Charter and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, it would be helpful to consider the issue of the many and diverse languages of South Africa. For example, many Ngunis have been natives of the North West Province for decades, and have even adopted the dominat Setswana language, contributing to its preservation and development. I am actually a concrete example of this phenomenon: my grandfather came from the Free State and was a Sesotho speaker, even though my great-grandparents, who are buried in the Free State, originally came from KwaZulu-Natal.
My grandfather migrated to and settled in the North West. However, my maternal grandparents were Thembus who migrated to the North West from Cofimvaba in the Transkei. In fact my paternal uncles and aunts married vintage North West Ngwenya’s, Dlamini’s, Mabaso’s, all of whose progeny now fancy themselves Batswana despite their quintessentially Nguni surnames. This integration and assimilation has been so complete that a girl I met in the North West glorying in the surname Nhlapo was adamant that “ke Motswana.” This phenomenon plays itself out throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. For example, people who have Sotho or Tswana ancestry in the Western Cape have embraced Xhosa with gusto. And I have no doubt that when, say, the “Mokoena” family in Gugulethu sits at dinner communication takes place in impeccable Xhosa.
Now, all of this is possible because Zulus, Xhosas, Sothos, Tswana, have largely integrated the letter and spirit of the founding values of the Constitution and do not believe that their tribes, languages, cultures, are superior to those of other South African communities. It is however inconceivable for any white family in South Africa to similarly embrace the language of the communities amongst which they live. The reason is simply that whites believe, more often than not a conscious, elaborated belief system, that the languages and cultures of other communities in South Africa are inferior. Thus racism, or a$ccording the George M Fredrickson or Barbara Jeanne Fields, the belief that black Africans and people of black African ancestry are inherently inferior, biologically, culturally etc., is clearly not the problem of black Africans in South Africans.
Finally, it is ludicrous to claim that crime against whites in South Africa is politically motivated. It would probably make more sense for artists to express paranoia about being singled out for violent crime. Quite a few have tragically succumbed to crime: e.g. Gito Baloyi, Dumisani Dlamini, Lucky Dube. I think this obsession with the notion that crime represents a vindictive vendetta against white South Africans illustrates my point about the inherent incapacity of whites to emulate other communities and adopt a frame of reference that encompasses the entire country and not, as whites are wont to do, always evince parochial, myopic, tribal perspectives on almost every issue, including crime.
Agreed with Thab on this. And your historical reference to Biko turning in his grave could not be more incorrect. Biko would most certainly be on board with a black-consciousness race dialogue, but only if it were indeed BLACK conciousness, which likely means that Madame Zille would not get an invite. Anything else would be irrelevant and non-productive from a Biko perspective, and I would tend to agree.
How can one debate race, when the definition of racism as define by a dictionary is not accepted by many academics, public intellectuals and polititions. It is a debate fraught with peril for the transformational policies. What Zuma avoided is a debate on transformation. It is an uncomfortable debate, and to have it will result in stripping the ANC of one of it strongest governing leavers, government tenders. Consider the contradictory behavior of the people who trade with foreigners, because they offer better prices and services and the same community which then condones the burning of these businesses. To strip the ANC of transformation based on apartheid classifications is to strip of it Raison d’être. Such a debate would quickly lead to the conclusion that once empowered always empowered based on the idea, that people cannot be endlessly empowered. This will also make way for new entrants at the table, but ANC would be shorn of key leaver of power over the broad church. No wonder Jacob ducked the debate.
@ Thab Monare. I am not south african so please take my comments with a grain of salt. You are right that govenment should concentrate on health, education and the economy. But I think the point of the article is that an honest debate on race is still useful and perhaps necessary in order to concentrate on health, education and the economy. Particularly as racial inequalities impact access to the formal economy, access to quality healthcare and access to quality education.
One last point. I think democracy is not just about people electing leaders. Democracy is really about a society having free and open debates about policy and issues that are important to them. It is only by doing this that leaders who reflect the majority opinion are elected and held accountable. Not debating an important/divisive issue such as race relations may very well prevent the development of viable solutions. The notion that south africans may not be mature enough is not reason enough to ignore such an important topic.
To not debate race is to remain in denial. lost and confused within our emotional realities. Is the idea so fearful we can’t stand at the wicket and face the challenge as defined by race.
There are politically ‘good’ reasons why Mr. Zuma wishes to avoid racial debate.
The very Politics itself, crudely put, is the eminent justification as to why some deserve and should get a bigger slice of the ‘pie’ than should others.
It is the ‘reasoning’ (and I use that word advisedly) as to why some group interests should prevail over others.
Traditionally, these justifications centered upon birthright.
Both King and serf inherited their station in life by virtue of birth, and for centuries, this social structure was deemed both just and maintained by way of political force.
Today the justifications center upon reparation and ‘equity’, which as a political concept is ‘group’ based, i.e. as distinct from individual equality, and antagonistic toward individual liberty.
A serious debate on race (from a political perspective) is intellectually untenable, as it would reveal the inherent presumptions underling justification for fostering group ‘opportunity’ over that of every individual, i.e. discrimination, which is morally untenable.
Politicians do not have the power to sit around a table and debate and determine broad social outcomes, even though they pretend such competency.
On the contrary, every social injustice suffered, every social antagonism (race, ethnicity, religion) fostered and all national looting and war has had its origin in politics!
Perry Curling-Hope on August 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
marius,it is true that at the time of adopting the freedom chatter, two options were open, a policy of multi racailism or a policy of non recialism. Having adopted a multi racial policy, I feel we have failed in so many ways. Imagine a sociaty where you are not judged by the colour of your skin, your enthnicy, your back ground, where your ancestors chanced to come from. Imagine not being judged by other poeples preconceced ideas about who your people are. Imagine being able to aply for work, free of predudice from being of south african ancestary, or from some other african country or beyond. Imagine being judge only by who you are, what you stand for. Imagine being proud to call yourself South African. that is the potential future a non racial sociaty holds. A far cry from the dividing and segrigating force a multi racial sociaty is bringing us to.
BEE is not racialism??
Government, provincial and municipal appointments are not racial?
What’s the use of discussing racialism when all that we see around us these days is the reverse of what we saw in the days of the Nats.
Yes, it is all about race as in the case with most countries around the world. Inadequacies will always be covered by drawing the race card.
Slavery, Apartheid and discrimination will be the crutch and excuse for decades to come. Until me realize that all men are born equal but from that moment onwards this ‘equalism’ ends and some people go forward and others go backwards or nowhere at all.
Look at all the destruction of services that has taken place in the name of transformation. Everything that worked had to be fixed and now, everything that has been fixed has to be fixed again.
A conference will only prove to show that South Africa is more racial than it ever was before and, this will not be good for the ANC as they orchestrated all this mess. Rainbow nation is a good description because there is no white in a rainbow.
I become very worried when a person with a white skin attempts to contextualise the ‘race’ debate.Obviously JZ is taken out of context once again. His obvious relevance to solidarity is totally ignored and then to accuse the ANC of not attending to racism is so opportunistic. But lets go back, Julius clearly shoots himself in the foot once again. His reasoning is clouded by the issue of colour and if this columnist should investigate further he will find the expressions of YL on colour as nauseating as it is BACKWARDS. ANC has always identified race and the class struggle as one of the major obstacles to unity and cohesion. Proper investigation into some of their policy documents shows clear and intended thought and action on this evil.In the Western Cape Colony, if one looks at the problems of Hlope which is soley related to transformation of the judiciary,then how can ANC turn a blind eye to the societal and institutional practise of an embedded practise.The obligation of non-racism is not the sole responsibility of ANC it is the responsibility of all SAns. But the minute we accuse leaders of appointing ppl according to the colour of their skin,that surely is as backward and as stupid & ignorant as we can get. Question,why did Malema raise this in a public forum and not from within? He must begin to concentrate on gangsterism, drugs school dropouts, unemployment etc etc.Some useful contribution plse!
The issue of race deliberations are less pressing issues that service delivery protest, it is less of an issue that poverty and it is less of an issue that N1H1 and HIV/AIDS. Its quiet convenient that a comparison is made between JZ and his predecessor. In 1996 T Mbeki raised the issue in his debate to Parliament and the response was well for lack of a better word ”conservative”.The issue of race cannot be separated from the problem of inequality and poverty in South Africa. Apartheid has socially engineered the poverty experienced by Africans in general.Shoud we debate what we all know Marius. What are the great outputs and achievements that we shall achieve when we debate about what we know. I think a debate is not necessary and I will not have a debate about this.
Firstly I believe that there should be a debate on race.
Secondly, we should ALL admit that we are racist despite the claims to the contrary.Many people/organsisations in SA claim to be non-racist but in fact are. Biggest example - the ANC claim daily and weekly to be a non-racist non-sexist organisation whereas in fact they are hugely racist and sexist. But they are not alone. This is not a dig at the ANC. They are just the most obvious example.
You can only properly discuss the issues of race and racism when yo admit your own faults. For example I am a 50 year old white man, who only realised the crime of apartheid at age 18 when attending UCT. I became strongly anti-apartheid, pro non racism, and pro democracy. A liberal and proud of it. I have worked my entire life since then to promote those ideals. And yet I am a racist. I do not yet see only people without including race. Why? Because of my environment and upbringing, and in spite of knowing its wrong. The biggest problem in SA is that many people cannot admit their racism, even if only small traces are left, and many black people believe that it is imposssible, by definition, for a black person to be racist.
We need more honesty to solve the problem and we need a race debate to kickstart this.
I hope that young people will see things differently
Further to my last e-mail I believe we need to see paragons of virtue like Desmond Tutu saying “I am a racist” and then get as many people in all walks of life to admit their racism, no matter how inert, no matter how small, no matter how insignificant. And when our entire society, or a cross section of it, has seen its own flaws and limitations, then we are ready to start the debate on race and racism, and to futher heal this country.
I partly agree with the president.We need to deepen our understanding of non-racialism, but not necessarily because it is the ANC policy but mainly because it is part of our Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be our guiding light or point of reference on these issues. It is supposed to define our common values and norms and ideals that we all should be striving towards.But we seem to want to engage in debates on issues relevant to our Constitution without reference to it. This is why we all tend to debate from the premise of our old ideals. My point is that what is in the Constitution, non-racism should be the stariting point. Until we all have a common understanding and have internalised what is meant by non-racism in the Constitution it will be pointless to engage in those baseless debates. Once we all have a common understanding of what non-racism means in our society, we can then begin to debate and intepret our “world” (social, political, economic etc.). For instance when Julius Malema says we need to Africanise our economy we can be able to debate and intepret what Malema says in the context of our common understanding of what is non-racism. But also there is a small issue of denialism. Do we all or at least most of us, agree that there is racism in our society and it is not right-Let the debate begin.
“Even beyond this it is idealistic and naive to believe that race, for all South Africans everywhere, is not factor or a part of their social gaze. Maybe the president and I live in two fundamentally different countries. In my South Africa, race and poverty is intricately intertwined, as is race and riches — large racial inequalities remain, with white people accounting for just 9% of the population but 45% of the country’s income. In my South Africa, racism is alive and kicking, with incidents such as the Reitz men’s residence at the University of the Free State and racially motivated attacks, slur and crime being prevalent. I live in a South Africa in which racial prejudice and ignorance is internalised and socialised, lying dormant and waiting for the right moment to rear its ugly head.’
If I didn’t see the author of this article I would have thought T-Man is trying a resurrection.
Which goes to show that a lot of people chose to misrepresent T-Man’s injuction on the subject to justify his lynching.
If the debate on race serve to expose the clearing inequalities perpetuated in our society and seeks to develop solutions, by all means lets have it.
But we know that the likes of John Bond would find fertile ground to spew their racial prejudices.
One question to JB why does the issue of poor whites arises if whites they are so good at evrything?
Does that not negate urgument.
Racism is said to have a power relation to it. It is premised on the belief that one’s race is superior to others.
Alto want us to “acknowledge” the racist streak in all of us. Assumming that racist believe their race to be superior who should admit to their latent racism?
Me thinks that africans cannot be racist. They are however tribalist!!
I agree with Peter Joffe. SA today is racially obsessed to the point of self destruction . At least the Government , SAP , Eskom …..etc.etc.were functioning during the evil days of apartheid . A debate about race will only serve to expose who is responsible for the sorry state of current affairs nl.the ANC !!Any wonder why President Zuma is shying away from such a debate.
@Hlabirwa who wrote
“Alto want us to “acknowledge” the racist streak in all of us. Assumming that racist believe their race to be superior who should admit to their latent racism? Racism is said to have a power relation to it. It is premised on the belief that one’s race is superior to others. ”
Your definition buddy not mine. If you read my original post. I never used the word “superior”. I am talking “different” not “superior”. Look past your own racism and don’t put definitions in my mouth.
Sadly, you prove another point I made when you wrote “Me thinks that africans cannot be racist. They are however tribalist!! “
To Hlabirwa and other racists posting here….
Consider for a moment that probably all people posting here must be racists on some level as this topic interests them. To anyone truly non-racist this topic would have no interest and they woudl not post.
If you are here, you are almost certainly racist. I will give you a let out by qualifying with “on some level”.
That does not mean you are necessarily an AWB type although you might be, it does not mean that you are a rabidly anti-white black person although you might be.
Racism is much like any other “illness”. So, are you a social drinker or an alcoholic? If you are alcoholic, you cannot heal and you cannot forgive and be forgiven until you pass beyond the denial stage.
So the first stage in healing this country of racism is for all of us to admit/concede/confess to some level of racism, and then move forward. To the ones who cannot do that, ask yourself “are you really just a casual observer in this country participating in no way in any acts of racism, no matter how benign?”
I doubt it.
@S.P.van Niekerk What a load of bull.
Everything functioned under apartheid if you were white.
- Last year’s ESKOM’s problems were a return to my childhood of frequent blackouts
- Crime was high in the townships - No functioning SAP
- The bucket system which regretably has still not been eradicated was common
- Bantu Education was a mess. I had the luck of a Catholic education.
- I can still remember the smog in Soweto that covered the area in the evenings due to the coal stoves. Electrification has put an end to that.
What is lacking in our debate is honesty.
We can talk all we want about race, identity and all that stuff, it will not change the mind of one racist. It will probably only turn into the kind of slurring matches found on these forums. Racism will only fade (it will never go away) over generations of children going to the same schools and universities and growing up together. Therefore our best hope is to try to fix up the way we raise children. Fix up the schools and so much else will fall into place. I kinda understand where Zuma is coming from. He’s probably trying to be pragmatic about the whole thing. When Thabo Mbekhi read an a racist e-mail letter that was sent by an engineer (I think) in ons of his State of the Nation speaches, it did nothing for the unity between people - it just scared and angered people. I think more attitudes are changed by selecting a brilliant black Springbok than through talk shops by supposedly brilliant intellectuals with no idea on how to get people to change. I think people have changed a lot already and they are still changing, despite incidents like Reitz and Skielik.
I found Perry Curling-Hope’s comment very enlightning. I agree, and I think that such a debate is something that a politician cannot control. The process and outcome is unpredictable, and that is the last thing Zuma wants now. I also agree that racist presumptions are underlying most group identities, and to expose some of that is the last thing a politician wants to do (except if it seriously threatens stability) since it is easier to control groups than individuals.
Heitha Bantu Bakithi:
In order for us to discus race, we need to put issues into perspective. Race separation was the corner-stone of Verwoerd and his cohorts. The scope of this system has to be succintly addressed. “Debating Race is not Back ward”, instead, we should be looking backwards in order to understand the present,so’s to make a better future. How did the Apartheid system work? The white minority controlled the political and economic structures; the African majority provided cheap labor within this white-controlled arena. The first laws depriving Africans legal rights to the land were passed in the 19th century. By the 1940s there was a battery of laws restricting Africans’ right to own land, to travel, to work in skilled jobs, to vote, to organize etc. Then in the 1950s the Nationalist government systematically reworked these laws into one comprehensive structure, known as Apartheid(separateness).One of the keystone of apartheid was the so-called “Tribal Homelands. Africans were said to belong to the Africans, the rest of the country to whites.To enforce this, the Nat government instituted Pass Laws with all its concomitants.This government used Influx control laws with different sections. By 1977. more than a quarter of a million Africans suffered pass and influx controls violations. The Africans were forced intoa migrant labor force. The control of African people’s movement was backed up by political control; hadno say in ggovernment; could not vote, etc.Black education was designed such that ”
Cont.
“natives will be taught from childhood that equality with White ppeople was not for them(This was called Bantu Education). Apartheid rested upon a rigid security legislation: people could be held indefinately; many were banned from any activity; they controlled what could be destributed and read;the head a police force notorious for torture and death in detention; people were moved form the cities to the Bantustans, as a result, the bantustan population lived on the verge of starvation. One doctor in the Ciskei reported that among the 100,000 inhabitants, ‘the babies were dying of gastro-enteritis and diarrhoea.. adults deaths were attributed to malnutrition, causing diseases like Kwashiorkor, tuberculosis, and Pellagra, typhoid, . Apparently the emergency rations rushed in after the first scandal were of a lower standard than those supplied to Boer War Concentration Cams internees. In a nut-shell, this then constituted the apartheid system by the mid-70s. It was primarily a system of exploitation based on a division of society in terms of race. This then brings us to the discourse about Racism. In order for us to discuss honestly issue of race, we ought to confront our past with brutal honesty. Racism is what was created and in and around Mzantsi. If we say that we are not going to talk about racism in S.Africa, we are merely going to be content with the Social, political and many other structures that have been created over the hundreds of years. Now we vote, yet…
Cont.
This is what happened and that is why we have such a virulently racist society.It has been sixteen years since Africans took Power through the Vote. Race and racism has not subsided. Going through the Blogs gives one an idea of what’s the temperature on the issues of race in S.Africa. The chaotic interaction amongst the races should be and could be traced to the past enacted apartheidized relations. The question therefore is, what have we learned and do we have the will to make meaningful and substantial societal changes. These changes could be premised on the past constructions which still exist today in our physical world and mental state. We have to use history as a means if reconstructing our personality and restructuring ourselves. when one looks at ads on TV and hear them on the radio, one notes that they are designed to bypass a person’s critical and analytical scrutiny. This opens us to manipulation and we cannot bring forth to bear on our everyday problems,common sense and reasoning. As a nation, we should therefore realize that we have experienced a shared history. The commonality of experience of shared experience can be used as a basis for Mzantsi’s economic, social and political development. It is important to realize that using the internet as a communication tool beyond racism, we can change the conditions within which we find ourselves, without officialdom dictating what and how should we tackle the issues of Racism today.
@Thabo Monare,
You are right things are so much better now .We shall soon have a nationalised health system run by the dept. of health that is doing such as sterling job . OBE was no doubt a roaring success . Need I say more . You must just pray that the dwindling number of private business owners who pay for your new found unsustainable corrupt Government run utopia do not all decide to pack up and go .
Me find this whole article funny actually considering that in most cases it’s whites who don’t want to discuss racism. I believe Zuma’s reasons for shying away from this are stupid and he needs to be ashamed of himself. We need to discuss this, and as you know in SA racism goes together with the liberation of the masses and making sure that blacks participate in the Economy which is one of the reasons why whites want to shy away from it. Because they don’t ever want to see themselves as equals with blacks and they get bitter when blacks are on the same level as them.
And I find the Authors figures about inequalities a bit conservative, he says “large racial inequalities remain, with white people accounting for just 9% of the population but 45% of the country’s income.” Makes me wonder just were you managed to get these stats. Last time I checked the figures were higher than this as in whites only 9percent of the population still controls a good 80% plus of the South African Economy. It’s funny how when it comes to crime stats whites are actively interested in knowing them but when coming to “Income Stats”, they don’t want to engage in them. My guess is that the author is encouraging a race debate because he wants’ to open a debate on AA and BEE and not necessary racism in the SA and especially in corporate SA. He is looking for an opportunity to debate these laws to a point of challenging them in court. If not can he explain what his take is fixing the past injustices and making show the Demographics of SA are represented Economically, as in whites who are only 9percent of the population only controls 9percent of the Economy, Indians only 5 percent controls only 5 percent, blacks… etc.
@Alto - I think you are a little confused. The mere noticing of race is not racism. It simply means that you have a brain. Most relevant quote is by Mead is “society precedes the mind”.
Racism is applying cognitive biases to that classification and either conciously or unconsciously acting according to those biases.
@Hlabirwa is correct in mentioning superior/inferior as that is one of the main cognitive biases applied.
You also claim a non-racist would have no interest in a debate on race. That would mean that being a non-racist would require a denial that racism exists or that other humans have defined a category called ‘race’. That means only deluded people could be non-racists by your definition.
@Ali who wrote “I think people have changed a lot already and they are still changing, despite incidents like Reitz and Skielik.”
The clearest example of that is white people. 20 to 25 years ago, when I was a young man, most white people supported NP and when I engaged them in discussion on the terrible apartheid system, they usually had frothies. These days, try and find a white person of that generation who admitted to supporting the NP and even if you do
their views will have softened substantially. Eventually they got it that they were just plain wrong. Millions of them got it. Huge numbers joined the DA where they were effectively reeducated by principled leaders.
A small success story really, but we still have a long long way to go.
Sadly, the biggest battle re racism right now is ridding black people of racism.
Your guess, TlanchTau, is unfortunately incorrect. I find it, however, saddening that there are white people who label me as someone wanting to force white people to admit their culpability (which is partly true) and then dismiss my argument (see comments here: http://iluvsa.blogspot.com/2009/08/debating-race-is-not-backward.html)
More saddening is assumptions like yours who believe that I am opposed to BEE and AA (which is not true) and then make me out to be an Apartheid or white neo-liberal apologist.
I want to debate race because I truly believe in the necessity for broad-based social, economic and psychological transformation.
I will respond, or attempt to respond, more lengthily in a subsequent post, but would like to thank everyone for proving one thing: debating the necessity for a debate on race is pivotal, and it is not the prerogative of the president to give it the green light or not.
They do say that assumption is the mother of all F***-ups.
What was applied to your posting was in fact the technique which you requested we use, i.e. ‘comparative analysis’, and just look at what emerged. One has to be careful that one does not use big words not actually knowing the meaning thereoff.
I agree with you however, on your other statement, a bridge I will not be able to build, I am not a civil engineer, but as an Industrial en Mechanical Engineer, statistical analysis happens to be my forte.
However, the CA analysis on your posting, although scientifically correct, was actually done tongue in cheek so for anyone to take it seriously really points to a level of intellect of which ………………………
In terms of the doings of the French or the Hawaians or the prostitutes on the Third Rock from the Sun I could not care a hoot. My interest is with SOUTH AFRICA and its citizens and history and anyone trying to convince me that the whites in this country are responsible for the Holocaust because their ancestors came from Germany in the 17th or 18th century would really be a waste of my valuable time.
@ Lyndall Beddy,
Good answer. To lump the Boers and the Brits who actually ended up fighting each other in the Anglo Boer war and who had completely different fighting styles in one basket, for what I believe is termed a “comparative analysis”, would actually be unthinkable to anyone that knew SA history.
@Marius Redelinghuys on August 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I hear you Marius, seeing that you support AA and BEE it would be nice to hear what many of people of your own race have to say about that.
And what is your takes on the idea of the South African demographics being represented as they are economically, as I mentioned on my previous post? Would you be ok with that?
Another issue as you would have noticed is that South Africans always talk about Economic representation when an opportunity to talk about racism arise.
I believe we need to address racism and as soon as people are no longer racist they won’t feel the need to defend their privileges as they will believe that the others are also entitled to those, or rather we are supposed to enjoy the same privileges in this democratic country of ours.
HOLA Babemi!!
Every time Africans wax historical, Whites do not want to acknowledged the historical genesis. Therefore, truthful history is seen as affecting European’s ego, status and position in the world. Eurocentric history most popularly functions as mythology. Mythology has many functions. Mythology can also be seen as a form of denial of reality. The knowledge of truth threatens those who wish to imprison us, keep us imprisoned and keep us dominated. The European projection of history into our minds as a mythology is a way of repressing untruths within our minds, and within our breasts as a people. European profit by the lies they tell, the false perceptions and consciousness he creates himself and others. A more realistic history threatens these gains. A debate about racism should recognize the victims point of view. We, the victim of separate development, have been historically oppressed and made to feel less human and made slaves. Those who oppressed us, today, do not want to even acknowledge that what were now suffering is the huge hangover of Apartheid. Our detractors , most of them, feeling like we complain and carry-on about nothing. It is those who had apartheid imposed on them that feel its horrible effects, than the executors of that system. The state of race relations in South Africa needs whites to accept that we African people were adversely affected by the cruel deeds of Colonialization,Apartheid and genocide against our people. If we debate racism, Europeans need to pay serious attention.
Reading your article, Marius, left me with the same impression I had when 1st reading Steve Biko’s works i.e.wisdom way beyond your years. What a pity that Steve is no longer with us.
We do need the debate and we fortunately do not need the President’s permission to do so. You have started the debate and I have been enriched by your article and the postings above.
One should probably include in the debate what it means to be South African and African?
The debate may also be viewed as a dialogue between people who remain divided? An extension of the TRC Hearings to faciltate healing, understanding and moving forward - together.
Denial is never a good thing. As our previous President taught us.
‘Psychological transformation?’ Sounds like Big Brother language to me.
I wish we could all face reality and admit that there is a hint of racism in all of us. It is somewhat of a natural condition. Wishing it away is a fallacy. Forcing it away breeds resentment.
Some will choose to mix, fine, some will choose to stay separate, fine. It’s a free country… or is it?
Perhaps I myself am in need of ‘Psychological transformation’? Would the author kindly oblige?
Late to the party here, but … Jacob Zuma needs to have two chairs in his seminar on the history of the ANC - one for Julius and one for you. Although you are right that the Freedom Charter was born out of a multi-racial gathering, you are distorting history not to acknowledge the ANC’s stated dedication to non-racialism since at least 1969, at Morogoro, and as many scholars argue, since the ANC’s founding in 1912. Look to nearly every speech made by every ANC leader in the past 40 years to find a commitment to a nonracial South Africa in words if not in deeds. Yes, it is still aspirational but hope should spring eternal when it comes to such high ideals. Until I read your article I was only worried about the lack of interest among young blacks in a nonracial future. Now I’m worried about whites, too!
Eisch…, the language of liberalism, designed to misinform, amongst other things.
“the ANC’s stated dedication”, “Yes, it is still aspirational”, “but hope should spring eternal”.
These phrases carefully camouflage the fact that after almost a hundred years of smoke and mirrors “since the ANCs founding in 1912″, nothing has actually been done. In fact just the opposite, unless of course you think that punitive, racist legislation such as AA, BEE and the 24 other similar legal acts are actually non-racist.
In truth the history that is actually distorted are the massive contributions made IN DEED by the white race in South Africa. Does anyone still know that the ANC is in power because, in reality, they were voted there by white South Africans. That in 1992 we, the white race (yes, I was there) voted with an overwhelming majority of more than 70% to place a black government into power. What could be more non-racist than those deeds. Yet I have never seen those actions acknowledged or even mentioned anywhere, not in political speeches, not in gestures or acknowledgements of gratitude, not even on these blogs.
I will be convinced that the politicians are sincere when they started walking the talk. Talking is cheap.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Marius Redelinghuys is a 20-something "Alternative Afrikaner" currently pursuing a post-graduate degree in political science at the University of Pretoria as a Mandela Rhodes Scholar (which has made him fortunate enough to be the only member of his family to converse with Tata Madiba). In addition to the academic and mundane, he is the president of Rotaract Pretoria East -- the youth subsidiary of Rotary -- and the Head of Communications of the COPE Youth Movement Tshwane Region, positions in which he lives out "service above self", a passion and commitment instilled during his tenure as youth ambassador in the US.
He is an aspiring academic and politician, who enjoys actively engaging in discussion and debate surrounding issues of racial and social transformation in a post-apartheid South Africa.
The president of the Republic of South Africa is a joke, or so a Facebook group proclaims -- almost shouting -- "JACOB ZUMA is A JOKE (We are Disguste...
Recent utterances from Cope Youth Movement (CopeYM) leaders on a potential strategic cooperation with other opposition parties stand as a testament to...
Whenever I find myself sadomasochistically desiring to feel spectacularly insignificant recourse to classical and continental philosophy usually does ...
Had this been any other country (with the possible exception of Italy), there would have been an uproar over the latest instalment in the increasingly...
Loading ...
Marius
So in a nutshell, you concur with Malema’s call of ‘Africanising the SA economy’ ?
If so, then the score at the quarter time would be:
Malema 1
Zuma 0
(Report abuse)