Afrikaans and Racial Privilege

Afrikaans is not under threat. We must not be misled by the media and its partners. Afrikaans and English in our universities, schools, and even our workplaces is a historical political reality that is still present today.  

During apartheid and colonialism a concerted effort was made to eradicate and marginalise the indigenous languages. [The argument that Afrikaans is an indigenous language is a fallacy. It is a creole language.] This was an effort civilize and transform the indigenous along European lines. We still see this in the present. 

 Indigenous languages during colonialism and apartheid were marginalised to give 'white people' in South Africa a sense of superiority. I have noticed that this kind of privilege manifest itself in the new democratic dispensation. The term I rather uses is 'racial privilege,' because it is not restricted to ‘white people’ only. I define ‘racial privilege’ as the continuation of apartheid racial privileges in the new democratic dispensation. The only racial group, who did not have any petty racial privilege in the past, was ‘black people’. They were situated at the bottom of a very discriminative and inhuman apartheid racial hierarchy, which was given life by the Population Registration Act. 

To give you an example of how this privilege manifests itself in South Africa, let us consider the following example. There is this expectation from a 'white person’ who is asked something from someone who speaks an indigenous language that it must be in Afrikaans or English.  However, ‘white people’ do not make the same effort when they start a conversation or ask a person who speaks an indigenous language a question. They will automatically address that person in either English or Afrikaans and expect that, that person must respond to them accordingly. This is the situation at historically ‘white universities’ across South Africa. This expectation of ‘white people’ is a ‘racial privilege.’

This privilege is largely a result of how the post-apartheid society was reconstructed in terms of legislation. The thinking behind the reconstruction and transformation was to reverse or undo the inequalities that were created by apartheid. The solution was in the form of the American notion of racial transformation - affirmative action. Affirmative action aimed to redress the inequalities that were created by apartheid. However, what the proponents of affirmative action did not think of was how these racial groups of the past, now enacted in a New South Africa, would continue 'white,' 'Indian' and 'coloured' people's sense of racial superiority towards 'black' people. The continued sense of racial superiority towards black in South Africa is the result of subjection and the post-apartheid government’s inability to break away from or emancipate itself from these racial groups. [To understand and to follow this argument please read my blog post titled 'I became conscious of I.' http://jacobcloete.blogspot.co.za/2015/12/i-became-conscious-of-i.html]  

Given this, we have to view the campaigns against Afrikaans as a language policy at historically ‘white universities’ not as an attack against Afrikaans but an attempt to stop 'racial privilege' and the marginalization of indigenous languages in South Africa. The university in Africa must rethink how it would address 'racial privilege,' especially if language reinforces the dominant epistemology which in turn marginalizes indigenous peoples in the Global South.  

It is a dog’s world

It is better to be a dog than a black sub-Saharan child. Or is it? I have lately been critical on Facebook of people who have dogs as pets. I made some statements that could have been possibly unfair and uncalled for towards some of my dog owner friends. However, my intentions were pure and not aimed at hurting anyone. Facebook has become a tool where I preserve my thoughts, to which I can return to at any point. As a tool it helps me not to lose any of my thoughts I had around a particular subject matter. The subject matter I am currently grappling with is humanity and it started off with me rejecting it when I became aware that some people treat their dogs better than their own family members. Ironically, some of these people are also staunch human rights supporters and the notion of humanism.

Dog lovers and dog owners are found across class and racial boundaries. For me, this became apparent when I saw a group of homeless people in the Bellville CBD owning a dog. Ironically the dog is better cared for than most of them. I also recently saw my brother also acquiring himself a dog, and yet he is not in the position to afford a dog. Funny enough these dogs are better kept and cared for than them in both cases. Thus, I do not contribute this phenomenon to class or race.

It was on this basis that I rejected the notion of humanity. It did not and still does not make sense, to me, that people treat their dogs better than human beings. However, I have made some progress regarding my investigation into this phenomenon. The scholarly work of Julia Kristeva, Judith Butler and Michel Foucault has helped me in this regard.

Kristeva argued that we can only desire objects. An object is either something physically or abstract. Abstract concepts have to be objectified to be desired. This means that we objectify abstract concepts such as love and humanity. Objectification here would entail embedding notions such as standards, norms and goals to abstract concepts such as love humanity. This enables us to develop a mental picture of love and humanity and once the picture is created we can desire it.

I have to note that any object (eg. dog, cup, or flag) can be used as a symbol for something. It is my argument that a dog becomes the symbol of one’s notion of humanity. Therefore, it can be true that when you are unable to obtain your notion of humanity, the treatment of your dog represents your notion of humanity. How you would like to have been treated or how you would make amends if you were a perpetrator. The wellbeing of your dog becomes your symbol of humanity and it is explicitly expressed towards the dog. In this case the treatment of your dog might be the reflection of your guilt. For example, if you actively participated in the humiliation of black people during apartheid, the humane treatment of the dog would be a way of cleansing your conscience of what you did in the past. Or, if you are a drug addict or a homeless person the treatment of your dog is how you would like to be treated by society; a society which pushed you to the periphery.

However, you might point out that some children at a very young age want dogs. My response would be that what you observed is the effect of the culture industry and societal norms. In my last blog post I explained how the culture industry alters our desires from a very young age. It is no different in this case. Children from a very young age see how dogs are treated in society and this is repeated on television. Through this they develop the desire to own a dog. In some countries the desire would be to eat dogs. Given this, I have to conclude that it is not innately human to desire or treat dogs better than human beings. More importantly, it raises a question as to what it means to be a human in this day and age. For me it means that certain humans (in particular black children) would be better off if they were dogs.  
#1/Jan2016

“I became conscious of I”

During the first semester of 2015 I was part of a reading group on the aesthetics and politics, which was facilitated by the Centre for Humanities Research at the University of the Western Cape.  It was while reading the required texts that I have become aware that we, young scholars, are joining age old debates somewhere in the middle, or sometimes at the end and then we exit again taking particular strands from these debates. Reflecting on the strands I took from each debate I am forced to ask the question: How do we know something is something? I always had this childhood problematic of how did “they” decide that one is one and blue is blue – could blue have been pink and one could have been three. After sharing this with my good friend Lorato her answer was simple yet profound. She said; “we convince others that something is something and then we act like something is something.” If we do not we will drive ourselves to insanity.

I reflected some more and asked myself what do I take from the reading group.  I came to the following conclusion: I have become conscious of I. From a certain age I was aware of my existence but never conscious of myself as I. And since I have become conscious of myself I realised, after reading Deleuze’s text on Bergson’s Matter and Memory and Stiegler’s “Cinematic Time” and “Cinematic Consciousness,” that the most dangerous activity, currently, is watching television or anything related to the cinematic. It robs you of the realisation that “I am I” because it alters your subconscious, your emotions, your everything. The effect it has on you is very ‘real.’ Stiegler makes the argument that your conscious flux coincide with the cinematic flux and thus it is difficult for you distinguish between the two. Evidently, you become caught up in the cinematic moment and the moment something horrific happen [for example, the Jon Snow incident in season 5 of Game of Thrones] you experience real emotions such as fear, disgust and betrayal. It is only afterwards you realise it was fiction. Another phenomenon is the pornographic experience. When you are watching porn you have a ‘real’ stimulation even though it is based on a fantasy. For you it is only a fantasy but for the actors the sex was real. Likewise, when you are watching a horror movie you might get scared to the point that you find it difficult to fall asleep even though you know it was not real. However, even after the realisation that it was not real you will find yourself recalling images of your cinematic experience. The cinematic has the potential to evoke strong emotions and believes based on fiction. In many cases it is so strong it distorts the reality of people.

How do we explain this?

We find our explanation for this phenomenon in Bergson. Bergson argues that our consciousness interpret and relate to reality in terms of images. In cinema movement is reproduced in 25 frames per second. This mean that some device took 25 photos in very short succession and when you play it back at the right speed it produces a ‘movement’ on screen. The interesting part is when your conscious recall movement it is only one image. Cinema replaces and adds new images to your ‘real’ images of your lived experiences [my reading of Stiegler]. Thus, it is possible to recall distorted images that are mix with reality and the cinematic. The more you watch the more you are transformed by the cinematic. Horkheimer and Ardorno call this the effect of the culture industry. Thus, the more time you spent in front of the television the harder it becomes to distinguish between reality and fiction. For example, the followers of Keeping up with the Khardashians look like the Khardashians. Look at the Instagram accounts of their followers and you will notice their followers mimic the lives of the Khardashians closely. They alter their reality to become that of the cinematic.

So why does this happen?

The answer is found in the desire of the subject. In the second semester reading group I was introduced to the work of Julia Kristeva and Judith Butler. Kristeva in her essay the Powers of Horror notes that you can only desire objects. The culture industry alters your desires. It makes you desire the lives of the people on the screen, an artificial live that are not real, and the people who benefit from this is the companies who sell those products. Your mind gets programmed to like a particular brand, a particular individual or a drink. We objectify the lives of celebrities and that informs our desires. When I say you desire something I refer to the subject’s desire. 

Let me explain.

Let’s take Thabo as an example. Thabo as the subject has been created since birth. Thabo’s was given the name Thabo and his parents moulded him into Thabo. As Thabo grew up he loved watching cartoons. Cartoons started to alter his desires from ‘primary’ or basic to ‘secondary;’ from food to toys. Thabo soon learns that he is a ‘he’ and not a ‘she.’ He also learns that he is ‘white’ and not ‘black.’ He learns that ‘white’ people have a particular culture and that ‘black’ people have a particular culture. That ‘black’ and ‘white’ people are too different to mix. Thabo is now almost a teenager and is not watching cartoons anymore but television programmes such as Big Bang Theory where there is hardly any ‘black’ people in it. The culture industry programmes his mind to feel comfortable in an all-white world; where ‘black’ people are almost none existent. He watches movies where the hero is ‘white’ and the girl the hero saves is ‘white.’ Slowly the culture industry is programming him to desire only ‘white’ women. As a teenager he is forced to play sport and start to read his father’s Men’s Health magazines. He is so oblivious and comfortable in an all-white world that he does not notice that all the women who are portrayed sexually desirable in the magazine are ‘white.’ Thabo soon only desire ‘white’ women and what a ‘white’ world has to offer.

Now consider this, do you want your child to spent most of his or her time in front of the television, supervised or unsupervised. Television has become the babysitter so that you can spend time online with your fake friends; even if you are sitting next to your child on the couch ‘supervising’ what he or she is watching you are distracted by Whatsapp, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. No wonder children are naughty and constantly seek attention because when last did parents look up from their phones to see what their children are doing.  And then we say children grow-up and mature too fast nowadays. This is not the case. Their consciousness are filled with images that are mature and they find it hard to distinguish between reality and fiction. Thus, even though they seem more mature they are not mature since with maturity comes experience. They can mimic maturity and not necessarily be mature. Children need constant attention and reaffirmation; the last thing you want is your child getting it from a fictional world.

Thus, manoeuvring through the texts of the 2015 reading group I became conscious of I. It is only now that I can put an experience I had a couple of years back in the Namaqualand National Park into context. It was away from the confined spaces of my room and office and in the open spaces of nature that I realise I am alive. It was away from the haste of everyday life and the mass media that I realised that I am alive. It was only in the open spaces of nature that I become conscious of my existence, that I am awake. It is only now I realise the way of living in rural areas is to understand the philosophy of living without; where you are satisfied with yourself in relation to the little that you have. Or as my friend Lorato puts it ‘you are also satisfied with yourself, knowing that you can acquire more if you want to.’ This philosophy is possible because most parts of their lives are far removed from the culture industry and the massification of consciousness. It was I who sat on the bench during my lunch time writing this.

I became conscious of I .

Putting the Ghost of Resolution 1973 to Rest

The Bashir visit and the Cuban Five was a brilliant foreign policy move by South Africa and it was a clever move to restore South Africa’s tainted image since the 2011 Libyan crisis. 

South Africa, while a non-permanent member on the United Nations Security Council, voted for resolution 1973. Resolution 1973 was essentially to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya during the Libyan chapter of the Arab-spring. This was essentially done to protect civilians from aerial bombings and to enable NATO to deploy their troops. When South Africa’s voted in favour of the resolution it took many African states by surprise.

Ebrahim Rasool recently explained, during a book launch in Cape Town, the immediate consequences of resolution 1973. Rasool at the time was the South African ambassador to the United States of America (USA). He explained that soon after the resolution was adopted a delegation of African leaders was unable to land their plane in Libya to negotiate with Gaddafi to step down. Gaddafi was killed soon afterwards and South Africa’s reputation as a defender of Africa’s interest received a massive blow.

In 2013 South Africa’s image was further tarnished by a comment made by President Jacob Zuma. During the build up to the 2014 elections e-tols overshadowed the ANC’s Gauteng campaign. Hence, during the ANC’s 2013 Manifesto Forum President Zuma said the following: "We can't think like Africans in Africa. It's not some national road in Malawi" (Ephraim, 22 October 2013). This did not sit well with most African states.   

The events mentioned above left South Africa in a sticky situation. As you would recall the ANC tried to use Mandela’s funeral to repair the damage of President Zuma’s comment and South Africa’s vote in favour of resolution 1973, but it was not as successful as the ANC hoped for.

To make matters worse for South Africa was the recent ‘xenophobic’[1] attacks. The recent attacks caused further damage to South Africa’s reputation on the African continent. It reached boiling point at the recent SADC conference in Harare Zimbabwe. During the conference South Africa had to respond to questions from its peers about the recent wave of ‘xenophobic’ attacks in South Africa. 

Therefore, the only way to restore South Africa’s tainted image was to allow Al Bashir to attend the African Union (AU) Summit in South Africa. This was a very anti-American move, since it was American civil society organisations who accused Bashir of genocide (See Mamdani’s book ‘Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror’).  Bringing Al Bashir to South Africa was step one. Step two was to bring the Cuban Five to South Africa, which purpose was twofold. The first was to distract the general South African public from Bashir’s visit and the second was to repair South Africa’s tainted image on the continent. This was a clever move because South Africa knew since Cuba supported the independence movement and that most of those independence leaders are still in power they would forgive South Africa for resolution 1973. 

The South African public like to overreact, but they do not know extend of the damage they caused with the recent ‘xenophobic’ attacks. The Cuban Five and Al Bashir was nothing but a clever foreign policy move by South Africa. Let’s us appreciate it for what it is.

---

[1] See me post “The Convenient Silences of Xenophobia’”

The Convenient Silences of 'Xenophobia'

I did not want to write about ‘xenophobia,’ but I was unable to contain myself when I saw four of my colleagues standing with anti-‘xenophobia’ posters and with these words printed on them: “injury 2 one, injury 2 all;” “Africa for Africans;” “Africa Unite;” and “we are all foreigners somewhere.” I am sick and tired of the word ‘xenophobia’ and the way the petite bourgeoisie are pretending they have nothing to do with it. However, this article is not about my dislike for the petite bourgeoisie, but rather about the silences in the media and conversations on the topic of xenophobia.

I identified five convenient silences that exit in the popular discourse of ‘xenophobia’ in South Africa. I called it convenient because everybody know about it but choose rather not to speak about it. These five silences are: (1) race, (2) gender, (3) locality, (4) nationality and (5) class. If you consider these five silences that you realise that what is happening in South Africa is not xenophobia but something completed different.

Firstly, if you define xenophobia it simple means is the fear of all strangers. If this is the case then it does not explain why only a certain group of foreigners are attacked. White European and Chinese foreigners are not being targeted even though they just as foreign African nationals.

Secondly, the feminist movement also haven't say anything about this particular incident mainly because the majority of victims are males. Here the popular discourse is lacking because it does not consider the gender of the victims.

Thirdly, popular discourse also does not consider the location/locality of these 'xenophobic' incidents. Yes they refer to the place like for Diepsloot Soweto or wherever it is happening, but the discourse neglects to contrast it to where white foreigners are residing. It does not happen in Sandton or the Waterfront, it happens where the majority of people are poor and destitute.

Fourthly, popular discourse neglects to contrast the nationality of the victims to other foreign nationals. Chinese and European foreigners are not being attacked. It is only some foreign nationals on the African continent who are being attacked, especially those who own spaza shops.

Finally, the discourse also does not focus on class. ‘Xenophobia’ in South Africa happens amongst the working class and not amongst the elite in society. Thus, ‘xenophobia’ is rather class bias.

If we consider these silences in the popular discourse we have to conclude that it is not xenophobia, it is also not 'Afrophobia.' If it was 'Afrophobia' then foreign nationals from West Africa would have also been attacked. It is not black on black violence. If it was black on black violence then black people from all walks of life would have participated in these attacks. It is also not economic violence or criminality since it does not explain the pogroms (mob). Crime does not explain the pogroms.

It has to be something else!

My investigation so far has led me to the 'politics of belonging.' If you see it as a 'politics of belonging' then what is happening in South Africa is not unique to South Africa. It is happening all over the continent and the world. In Uganda it is called 'indigeneity, in Cameroon it is called 'autochthony' and in the USA and Europe it is the ‘anti-immigrant sentiment.’

The 'politics of belonging' raises the question as to who may lay the claim that one group belongs more than another in a particular geographical area. As you would see this already raises issues around the idea of the national versus the international - nationalism versus globalisation.

Just a few years ago everyone was hopeful of the prospects of globalisation; however these incidents the world over see a retraction into the idea of the national. We have once more become a citizen of the nation-state. Some argue that the politics of belonging is fuelled by national consciousness. I am not convinced since the politics of belonging in most cases are isolated incidences. 

So far, through my investigation, I have narrowed the cause of the politics of belonging to migration and scarcity. What I observed so far is that there is always a migration from an area of ‘scarcity’ to an area of ‘plenty.’ The migrants integrate themselves amongst the locals and develop a new national consciousness which they share with the locals. However, when a scarcity arises a politics of belonging is ensued as to who may lay claim to the resources. The locals believe since they were the first they have the sole right over the resource distribution. This automatically leads to a confrontation especially since some of the migrants developed the same national consciousness as the locals. They believe they belong just as much as the rest, especially if they have been there for generations. 

The confrontation in most cases has been violent. However, in Europe and in the USA this confrontation so far has mostly been through law. In some cases the confrontation develops into a full scale civil war such as the one in the Great Lakes region of Africa (Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo); where the immigrant’s national consciousness is just as strong as that of the local’s. 

If we consider this, the politics of belonging is a much better explanation then the current ‘xenophobia’ discourse. The consequence of the discourse will be the following: ‘xenophobia’ will be trapped in a dominant narrative and will be reinforced by empirical research. This will blind us from its broader significance.

The Poor Boy

I feel terrible! I did something I am not proud of. I did something so middleclass. I have become cold and insensitive to the lot of the poor.
Maybe this is because I am bombarded by it on a daily basis. Or maybe I saw myself in the eyes of the child who asked me for a R1 at the Bellville train station. Maybe it is because that was me growing up: begging for 20c and 50c, so I could also buy me the things other children were eating.
Later when I saw that child crying and his mother reprimanded him for that - I prayed to God that, that it must never be my child one day.
And even though my heart softened and I wanted to give him the money, I still did not. I rather soothed my conscience like a typical middleclass would: do not give a person a fish rather teaches him how to fish. Bullshit!!!
That simple middleclass bullshit allowed me to walk away, and to push the incident to the back of my mind. But as I was taking a shower tonight it came back to haunt me and taunt me. It was telling me that I am no different then the people I despise - the middleclass.
It was then I realised I have become middleclass.
Jacob the poor boy who used to walk barefoot to school in the middle of winter has finally made it to the cold and sanitized middleclass.
Jacob the boy whose mother was and still is a domestic worker, and who was raised by farm workers can finally afford and own the movies he used to sell his dignity for at the neighbours' house.
Jacob the boy who begged for money can finally treat another poor boy the way he was treated.
He walk away but not before the child imprinted a lasting image on his conscience that will keep returning as a reminder of what he has become.

Can you afford the new South Africa?

I was visiting my dear friend Thendo in Milnerton when it struck me: he is living in the ‘new South Africa’ – in Mandela’s Rainbow Nation. He lives in the kind of community where you see black and white kids of equal social standing play together. In his kind of South Africa the race and nationality of the next door neighbours do not matter. 

What really matter though are the cost of living and the taxes you pay. This is the price you must be willing to pay for your piece of Mandela’s ‘new South Africa.’

In his community the conversations are not limited to cars, hoes and sport, or to furniture, colour schemes and hair styles. Actually we did not speak about any of these. We had conversations about our Rector begging for money in the Mail & Guardian and why the BRT system has to be in Milnerton and not in Khayelitsha. Debates on whether, we are middleclass or working class, and interestingly enough none of us see ourselves as middleclass – we see ourselves as part of the working class. Rather wishful thinking but allow us to have our wishful thinking.

It was during this visit I realised that the ‘new South Africa’ comes at a price and if you want it you must be willing to pay for it. You have to pay for a truly interracial, interethnic and international experience. Pay to be relatively safer than others. Pay to have the BRT at your door step. This is the kind of life we were promised in 1994 but it is now only accessible to those who have university degrees and have far better jobs than the majority of South Africans. Not that there is anything wrong with pursuing a better life and escaping poverty, I am applauding anyone who strive for a better life; I myself is pursuing Utopia.

However, I cannot help but wondering how we got here? How did the middle class become Mandela’s new South Africa?

Mandela’s new South Africa and the poor’s new South Africa are two completely different ones. The poor’s new South Africa is a life with access to water, electricity, health care, housing and employment. Racial integration is the least of the poor’s worries. 

The reason why the middle class appear to be Mandela's new South Africa is because the majority of black people in 1994 were poor and only a handful was in the middleclass. In 1994 the middleclass was predominantly white and now 20 years down the line there are more black people in the middleclass and still almost no white people in the working class. This also shows that the status quo for white people largely stayed the same whilst the standard of living for black people marginally increased. 

The interracial, interethnic and international transformation of the middleclass is thus largely an appearance; the reality is that more black people can afford a middleclass lifestyle. Hence, Mandela’s new South Africa comes at a price: a university degree, a house loan, car finance, a contract phone, medical aid and dog food. 

A price the poor cannot afford.