Sometimes, actually, almost always, when I write about race relations in South Africa, I have to remind myself to insert the qualifier, “not all white people”. Besides the obvious fact that it is really bad to generalise, it is also true that not all white people are bad, racist, nasty, self-righteous, eternally innocent, don’t deny that they benefited from apartheid – even as its generational legatees – and some, actually, sacrificed their lives and livelihood to remain firm in their beliefs in justice and equality.
As it goes, one very senior journalist I have known for the better part of 40 years has refused to get sucked into money machines like The New Age, and the SABC of Christopher Mpofu and of Hlaudi Motsoeneng. Others became wealthy and…. What the hell am I wanging on about? Apologies for that. The mind goes where it wants to, from time to time, and anyway, very little of what I write is scripted or even drafted in outline on a piece of paper.
Let me start, then, with what I really wanted to start with. We, black people, did not enter into the bargain or reconciliation with white people on the back of a promise that we would behave like good natives. We did not approach reconciliation in a transactional or utilitarian manner. It was done because it was the right thing to do. In other words, we decided that the evils of the past system belonged in the past, we have to roll back its worst and most enduring effects, but white people are saying, “Now behave yourself properly” – and don’t touch us on our gains from centuries of exploitation, abuse and privilege. Let me explain how I got to that.
I recently caught up with the ritual, among white rugby supporters, who shredded their Springbok jerseys because the team’s first black captain, Siya Kolisi, supported the Black Lives Matter movement. Then, in a separate incident, a white member of Parliament of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Natasha Mazzone, was pissed off at Pravin Gordhan for some reason, and reminded him (Gordhan), that when the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) approached him threateningly at the podium in Parliament, she stood up for him. You would imagine that Mazzone did it because it was a good thing and the right thing to do, and not in a utilitarian manner in the sense that Gordhan was now eternally indebted to her.
It’s almost as if we have to thank whites for not being racist, or if they act like normal citizens in a democratic polity, we have to humble ourselves, and worst, still, we owe them a great debt because, you know, we sold our souls to them, when they wore the Springbok jersey, or when they came to the assistance or stood up for someone’s rights. And so, they infantilise us – “here, boys and girls, behave like good natives, and we will like you, because, you know, we showed the grace to let you wear the Springbok jersey, and even tried to defend you from those nasty EFF types, now here’s a cookie” – to the point where “reconciliation” once again, rears its ugly snout, as a beast that lacks compunction, humility, and looks more like it was a simple utilitarian or strict transactional agreement. You forgive us for centuries of abuse, and now you have to do as we tell you to….
For the most part, this transactional agreement runs one way. While some of us are trying to improve everyone’s living conditions against great odds – and making many great mistakes along the way – it is almost as if they will take back their reconciliation (cutting up their Springbok jersey), or they’re surprised that we have lives, beliefs and values that do not include them (Mazzone). Now, these are clearly two different cases, with some overlaps.
In the first instance, Kolisi was not behaving according to the dictates of the people who decided to shred their jersey (as if Kolisi promised: support me and I will abandon all my values). To the shredders, race apparently matters, because Kolisi supported the Black Lives Matter movement. To Mazzone of the DA, race “does not matter” – or so it seems, from the party’s latest policy positions. We can dismiss the shredders as crude reconciliation transactionalists. Mazzone, but more her party, deserve closer scrutiny.
In fact, with respect to the DA, we have to expose the immanent contradictions in its most recent policy statements. A lot has been said and written about the DA’s recently concluded policy conference and its ditching of race-based policies. There’s little more that can be added, at this point. What I want to focus on is, precisely, those immanent contradictions.
Let me start with an analogy. To be anti-god – an atheist or in opposition to belief in god – is probably the cynosure of a bewildering antinomy. For instance, to say you are anti-god means you have to accept the existence of a god, to which you are opposed.
Here we are, then, with white people (not all white people) finding reason to complain (often justifiably) about the failures of the black government, because that’s not what they signed up for. It’s like that guy who bought the Springbok jersey. He did not buy it so Siya Kolisi can behave the way he (the buyer) demands. Mazzone stood by Gordhan not because it was the right thing to do, but because she expected him to be a good native.
So, to say you don’t consider race as a factor, is an admission, of sorts, that race actually exists. You can’t be opposed to something that does not exist. In Kantian terms (apologies for philosophising), these are two irreconcilable statements. It’s like saying, there is water in that pool, but if I jump into it, I will not get wet – or in my case, drown because I can’t swim. It is, also, a denial of at least a century of spatial segregation (starting with the Glen Grey Act of 1894, which culminated, in some ways, in the Land Act of 1913), upon which an iniquitous system (of wickedness, cruelty and immorality) was laid, brick by brick for the next 80 years.
Unless you don’t understand contingency (the combination of processes and events that shape uneven development, and especially how racial inequality is linked to gender and reproduced by spatial inequality), intergenerational inequality (that range of material and immaterial privilege that is handed down), or the inheritance of inequality (brilliantly detailed by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron in The Inheritors) you can be forgiven for thinking that nothing happened in South Africa before 1994. In this scenario, poverty does not have a face, inequality does not adversely affect black people, the contingent outcome of decades of iniquity which is evident from access to opportunities, poor educational outcomes, and even the availability of language with which to express oneself. For an especially good example of how poor educational outcomes limit vocabulary, how it constricts the ability to express oneself, and to explain or understand the world around you, see the video clip below.
So, like the person who is opposed to god, you have to (first) accept that there is a god. For the DA to believe that race and especially racial inequality should not be the basis of policy, you have to accept racial inequality exists.
The best way to understand the DA’s position is to lay it at the door of liberalism’s economism – a combination of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and David Hume’s libertarian separation of facts and values. In this somewhat perverse combination, to work purposefully and deliberatively to eliminate racial injustice is considered to be a “value” (and, therefore, not the domain of facts), and “correction” should be left to Smith’s invisible hand.
Here we are, then, with white people (not all white people) finding reason to complain (often justifiably) about the failures of the black government, because that’s not what they signed up for. It’s like that guy who bought the Springbok jersey. He did not buy it so Siya Kolisi can behave the way he (the buyer) demands. Mazzone stood by Gordhan not because it was the right thing to do, but because she expected him to be a good native.
As for the DA… Well, I really do wish we lived in a country where we were all the same colour, spoke the same language and were equally poor. It would be boring as fuck… Oh, and all that homogeneity did not help Somalia from collapsing. What am I wanging on about…. DM
Become an Insider
Let’s rather focus our energy on the reliable supply of electricity, water, education and good healthcare with a thriving economy.
It is so easy to generalize. There are millions of Springbok supporters. How many have torn up their springbok jerseys. I haven’t heard of any amongst the many that I know or any that even talk about it. You are right about discrimination against black people ,this is not only a South African problem. It is world wide.
Atheists are not ‘anti-god’. Atheists do not go along with reality, as defined by theists. Apropos reality as defined by others: where does Ms Ngwenya fit into the category in your essay of ‘the natives’, or is she invisible to you?
As justified as it may seem to seek retribution, like any other social engineering it is doomed to failure. There are no short cuts to improving the lot of the poor. Quality education, decent healthcare and laws that encourage and support economic initiative will provide an environment that creates opportunity for those willing to improve their lives and those of their families over generations.
The exploitation of others was not a necessary part of the economic success of white people. Many generations of innovation and hard work provided the wherewithal to enjoy a better quality of life. There can be no defence of the abhorrent racist laws implemented in the past, but we can only build on what we have to improve the lot of the poor and focus on our common identity as South Africans with a shared destiny.
You are spot on Mike.
Absolutely
An adolescent’s essay. Complete with the interlectual and literary references useful to obscure a weak and superficial piece.
As in “we”, you speak for all black people and have no difficulty in drawing conclusions from anecdotes and stereotypes. But then again, everyone is entitled to earn a living by exploiting the market segment in which he specialises.
Spot on.
Absolutely spot on. Exploitation indeed… the author lobs his regular, appallingly crafted race-baiting grenades and steps back to snigger at the reactions.
And then…. repeat!
I can’t understand. Centuries? of oppression? Race exists just as countries exist , in the imagination. What economy existed before Mining began? Sorry but it’s called industrialisation , it was brutal to poor europeans also. In Europe the have apartheid but it’s not legislated , it’s called the class system. South Africa is not a special case. Try fixing what has broken and grow the economy so we can all have jobs.
That was, um, a complex narrative. I think it’s better to say there are idiots and bigots of every colour in this world. Do we really have to analyse, generalise, and then de-generalise because not all people are like the general classification…. in SA I think we would all be better off if journalism focused on the idiot at hand, not the colour of her skin. No one EVER needs to apologise for the colour of the skin they were born in. Black white or purple!
This is such a bad piece of writing in so many ways. At the most superficial level, it exposes the author’s lack of understanding of some very basic things. I honestly don’t even know where to start, but let me try…
For example, the conflation of “atheist” with “anti-god” is laughable. It’s like saying that non-belief in the existence of unicorns implies that unicorns exist(!?). Well, if you argue “actually I *just* mean anti-god”, then it’s such an obvious point that stating it is probably just a waste of space. It’s like saying that “anti-bacterial” implies the existence of bacteria. Wow, how insightful…
Then it uses this as a false equivalence for saying that “race is not a factor”. Huh? If I understand correctly, this is being used to critique the DA’s policy on non-racialism? Well, ignoring the fact that “non-racialism” is also a core stated policy of the ANC (or whether this statement was even made by the DA!), there is an obvious and clear difference between saying “race IS not a factor” and “race SHOULD not be a factor”. I’m not even sure why this needs to be pointed out… surely the author *at least* understands just that!?
If Mr Lagardien is simply trying to act as an agent provocateur, then I guess he succeeded – I was in fact offended by the poor quality of this piece.
Excellent response to a really bad piece of writing!
Great article Ismail, I agree with most of what you have to say here (but, then I’m one of the ‘not all..’ brigade, who is quite willing to admit to the benefits someone with my white skin obtained from Apartheid – despite being under the age of 18 when Mandela was released)…..Those ‘Springbok’ supporters who shredded their jerseys (instead of doing the decent and humane thing, namely taking a knee – even metaphorically – alongside him) are the same type of people who whine the constant refrain that ‘Apartheid ended 25 years ago, can’t you just get over it?’…. And as for the DA and their new policies, the less said the better – they’ve been on a downhill slope ever since they allowed the only person in the world who might be able to beat Trump in the ‘idiotic tweets’ category back into their ranks in a very senior position…..One thing I do take issue with though, is your position that atheists are anti-god – I am not anti-god, I simply do not believe he/she exists (it would be the same as trying to classify me as anti-ghost, since they do not exist either), but apart from that, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Thanks, Ismail. Whiteness is a kind of near impermeable birth-caul, a comforting bubble, from which we struggle to escape.
You are putting words in my mouth, sir. I’m not complaining about “the black government.” I am complaining about the government.
This is such a juvenile and generalised piece, I am not sure where to start. The fact that you do not understand the difference between anti something and non belief in something is staggering; and then use that as a premise to your weak argument beggars belief. Who can argue about the DA shooting themselves several times in both feet, but what are you really wanging on about?
Well said Clive, this was a waste of a read from someone who doesn’t read the situation and tries to obfuscate the real issues with some irrelevant quotations & then hide behind the generalization invisibility cloak. I’ll avoid reading his drivel again!
He just like big words and slogans. Put it real simple….. If you want race based politics, vote EFF or ANC. If you like non-race based politics vote DA. If you don’t know who to vote for burn tires.
What on earth is the second paragraph about?
Write drunk, edit sober. Don’t sip and send.
Just a suggestion from one particular white, who is not the same as all other whites, but nonetheless has a view of this particular author. Not a generalisation of a race or… ad nauseum.
So, the natives misbehaving is due to a people (not all, but some[thereby implying most]) professing not to see colour, but ripping up the jerseys for a particular Rugby player some how applies to an opinion on all black people? Black Rugby Players? Black Rugby Captains?
“What am I wanging on about” – indeed
Dear Ismail. As always, a thought-provoking piece with many truths (although not all 🙂 .
Where I come from and I’m proudly white – I was taught to respect all people, irrespective of the colour of their skin, gender, age, sexual persuasion, religion etc. You want respect – you respect first – it is as simple as that. I don’t criticise this government because it is black, I criticise because it is a miserable thieving one, who have virtually bankrupted this country and reduced it to its knees. So much promise and a place in the sun for all – instead we have a waste land. I don’t despise minibus taxi drivers because they are black – I despise them because they are lawless, reckless and dangerous on the road. Until SA can get past its myopic race obsession, it can never move forward, never mind reach its full potential. You make some good points Mr Lagardien, but you have a giant-sized Simba chips packet on your shoulder. Move on!
Jeeze, Ismail, you were just doodling and look at all these responses. Way to go. And Cyril’s still da prez.
To this moment there are at least 20 comments on the article. Apparently the writer touched a raw nerve but doesn’t offer any real plan or solution. Looking back ALL the time will not solve our predicament (sorry for the big word which means difficult or embarrassing situation), asking if one is part of the problem or part of the solution might help.
It’s called race click-baiting. And lazy journalism. Let’s hope it was unpaid.
I agree wholeheartedly
“…don’t deny that they benefited from apartheid….”
This phrase is from the opening paragraph, which paragraph, by the way, immediately said to me that the author is lost in group think. I am a person who left this country in the late 70’s because my continued opposition to Apartheid was threatening to place me in detention without trial. In one way you could say my ‘privileged upbringing as a white person is what had enabled me to see the gross injustice in Apartheid. But privilege is bad, according to group thinkers, so my opposition to Apartheid was a product of my privilege and therefore must have been bad. This kind of thinking is illogical and contributes to the mess we are in and certainly will never get us out of it.
“What am I wanging on about”, indeed. As usual Ismail you write like the clever little boy nobody noticed at school, and who was thus embittered by the circularity and impotence of having only himself to talk to. This barely concealed resentment belies all your writing, and it serves you poorly. Except of course as others have noted, as an agent provocateur, at which you excel. You are after all, so very much cleverer than everyone else here.
It’s just silly.
Uhm…which part of Mazzone’s pathetic comment to Gordhan is racist? I know many people that will start an argument just so they can sit back enjoy the fallout. I have never found that interesting.