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

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.

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.

It is better to be a dog than a poor ‘black’ child

I can’t help but wondering about the value of a ‘black’ child in society; that is when you consider that dogs are treated better than starving ‘black’ children. It is safe to conclude that it is better to be a dog than a poor ‘black’ child.

As a dog you will at least have three meals a day. You will also have a comfortable place to sleep, be protected by high security fences, and receive regular pampered treatments by the owner.

As a dog you will not be abused by your owner because animal ‘brutality’ has become a greater sin than child abuse. Now days you cannot even swear at a dog because you will be crucified by animal activist all over the globe (like I would be after writing this).

And dare you defend yourself when a dog attacks you, you will be threatened and abuse by the owners. I know this because my brother not so long ago was attacked by a dog and when he defended himself, one of the ‘white’ (I have to emphasize the ‘race’) owners threatened him, and tried to chase him out the area.

She (the owner) said to my brother that he was not allowed in ‘their’ neighbourhood and hence, the dog had all the right to attack him (in a public road). When he stood up for himself and said that Mandela and others fought for his freedom he was cursed at and threatened more.

Minutes later after the incident on his way home he was almost ran over the other ‘white’ owner (husband). He brought a friend with and they threatened him. He was also advised never to set foot in that neighbourhood again.

This all happed because he did not allow a dog to bite him in a public road. Thus, my conclusion: it is better for a poor ‘black’ child to be a dog, than to be a poor ‘black’ human being.

P.S.: At least some celebrities stopped the dog trend and are adopting ‘black’ African children, but still I cannot help but wondering how much they value these ‘black’ children.