Ebrahim Harvey
CROSSFIRE
The South African situation is no longer simply black and white. Since 1994 our situation has acquired a much more complex and dynamic character. Yet, unfortunately, a narrow, inward-looking, simplistic and unscientific approach manifested itself at last week’s South African Human Rights Commission (HRC) inquiry into racism in the media.
As the inquiry unfolded, glaring mistakes, weaknesses and confusion became apparent. For the remainder of the process to be constructive and for the final report to enable us to chart the way forward in eradicating racism, important lessons must be drawn from both the process before and during the hearings. Let us hope that all the parties have the capacity for frank self-criticism, because only in this way will the inquiry be a learning experience to enrich the process and debates.
Many factors and forces are at play in the discourse on racism. That the fact that we have suffered so long under brutal racist oppression does not make for easy discussion and simple solutions became evident during the hearings. Some serious misconceptions about racism were expressed.
A big problem was that the inquiry started without a clear and comprehensive definition of racism, especially of the “subliminal” kind. In the absence of this, how will the final report confirm, deny and clarify the instances of alleged racism which the Braude report stated? In fact, the Braude report went on at great length about allegations of racism without a clear and adequate definition of the subject matter of the research.
How, too, can a code against racism be developed and monitored without a definition? What came out at the inquiry was too vague and loose.
Scholars with different political and sociological views provide different definitions of racism. But what is clear is that racism cannot be adequately defined or eradicated by dealing with it in isolation from the economic and class system within which it is expressed. Not a single definition offered came even close to this perspective.
In a society where class distinctions, cutting across “racial” identity, has been a growing social phenomenon since 1994, nothing was said of the inseparable connection between “race” and class and how it manifests itself in South Africa. There are countless examples of how “race” and class intersect under concrete conditions in this country, and how class has been reflected and refracted through the prism of “race”.
But even reading the relevant literature, which clearly was not done, may not by itself lead to a common definition. To a large extent one’s views, ideas and class position, already formed, will influence what we agree with or not in the relevant literature. Academically, the definition of the concept of racism has been fiercely contested terrain for many years.
But how does one reconcile a fight against all forms of racism when Kaizer Nyatsumba, editor of the Daily News, could refer to “coloured” people as a minority when there exists no scientific evidence whatsoever for identifying these people as a racial, ethnic or national minority?
This is not the first time he has used these apartheid-inspired divisive and denigrating designations towards people who have historically been an organic part of the black oppressed and exploited peoples of this country. On what basis are they a minority?
What is a “minority”? Is this not an inverted and internalised form of racism? The black consciousness movement did not view “coloured” or “Indian” people as minorities.
Khulu Sibiya, editor-in-chief of City Press, was adamant about the need for “black” newspapers to be owned and controlled by black people. How does this call relate to the ethos of non-racialism inherent in the Freedom Charter and the Constitution? Is it not a flagrant contradiction in terms to raise at a forum to combat racism the need for black exclusivity? The black middle class conceals its own ambitious class interests behind such calls.
The black editors also spoke about “white views” and “black views”, “black majority view” and “white minority view”. Why did they not add “coloured views” and “Indian views” since, for them, these are “minorities”? That aside, there has never been homogenous black and white views, and are even less so today than before.
Sibiya also claims that English newspapers see things in the “English tradition”. What is the “English tradition”? All this is pseudo-intellectual confusion and unscientific nonsense. A stark lack of conceptual and analytical rigour is evident. What we have here is a self-serving and dangerous majoritarian Africanist middle-class chauvinism which we should be as vigilant against as white racism.
The Black Lawyers Association (BLA) and the Association of Black Accountants of South Africa (Abasa) are elitist groups who are more concerned with removing any obstacles which could hinder their ambition to move into the ranks of the big black bourgeoisie, than with the racism which affects ordinary black working class people.
Did they publically condemn the many racist attacks on ordinary black people over the past few years? What have they had to say about the degrading and worsening conditions of poverty of black people, from which they are far removed, nestled comfortably in Johannesburg’s northern suburbs?
Nobody mentioned, let alone clarified, the difference between subliminal and subtle racism because nobody seemed to recognise that there is a difference. Subliminal is by definition unconscious or subconscious, whereas subtle racism clearly implies an element of consciousness.
Besides, the proponents of “subliminal” racism don’t see that this amorphous concept plays into the hands of those who, though they may be racist, could simply claim their innocence on the grounds that they were not consciously aware of it and hence did not intend it.
We must turn our attention to racism that is discernable and visible rather than get trapped in a maze of disputations about intentional or unintentional racism. Who today in South Africa will admit a racist intention? Even Eugene Terre’blanche would deny he is intentionally racist.
The concept of subliminal racism is in theory highly contentious and in practice virtually absurd. It is much more practical and measurable to speak of racism that can be clearly identified. Not a single explanation of subliminal racism was offered precisely because nobody can say what it means. In legal, constitutional and political terms it is a useless concept.
To proceed with the charge of subliminal racism is to entertain endless abstract and subjective tail-chasing. The discourse on racism and the need to eradicate it must proceed on firmer, more credible ground. As difficult as it may be, we need to discuss racism, which is a very sensitive and impassioned subject, dispassionately.