Engaging Ntokozo Qwabe on disrupting whiteness and black people's attachment to whiteness:
Dear Ntokozo
I trust you have been well and that you have enjoyed your brief sojourn before you return to your studies in "Mother England".
The past few weeks have been an exhilarating time to witness the dialogue between, amongst other things, whiteness, blackness (with a white waitress in between) and the inherent contradictions which lie at the heart of the two in the post democratic era we live in. All catalysed by the antics of yours truly of course.
I remember when I became privy to your remarks on social media. I was somewhat amused but also taken aback by what had transpired. How could this respectful, modest young man (whom I know relatively well), gloat about reducing a woman to tears. I really considered this unbecoming of a gentleman and further of a social activist like you. At the time, given the furore caused by the shallow analysis and media condemnation by the tabloids of your acts I took a decision not to comment and hoped we could discuss this in person.
I recently came across an explanatory note published in the "Daily Vox" (not that you need to explain yourself) and was quite intrigued by it and saw this as an avenue to engage you on this issue (sitting in an office at the heart of white monopoly capital with a cup of good English tea - I hope this does not reinforce your liberal views of me, haha).
With hindsight, I began to realise that the act, albeit terribly distasteful, was not directed at Ashleigh. It was a political statement which highlighted the understated story of how black lives and black pain in the grander scheme of things are not taken seriously. I recall being in matric when four white males at the University of the Free State pleaded guilty to charges surrounding a video they made humiliating black university employees by forcing them to consume food and drinks that were tainted with urine.
There was never any mass mobilisation against this racist, patriarchal act by the "Reitz four" and I even recall many sympathisers calling for their readmission to the University of the Free State and their subsequent rehabilitation as "a model of racial reconciliation".
University of the Free State rector Jonathan Jansen later came out to say that many of us who felt extremely betrayed by this act had "missed the spirit and content of his speech". Perhaps it is correct to say that every revolution has its own "askaris" and "Uncle Toms". Does the name Sihle Ngobese ring a bell?
That is however not the crux of the point I wish to make. It is a historical fact the African people were dispossessed of their land with sword and fire in almost 200 years of wars of conquest. The legacy of wealth created by many white people from the times of Cecil John Rhodes and Sir Ernest Oppenheimer was built through widespread commercial exploitation of this land through mining, commercial agriculture and industry.
This thriving white monopoly capital was built on the backs of black pain and black suffering. The critical political question in South Africa was in the late 1800's characterised through native rebellions like the Bhambhatha Rebellion as an issue of land (I make reference to the Bhambhata Rebellion as it culminated in my great-grandfather Inkosi uSkhukhukhu Mkhize being incarcerated on the St Helena Islands - lol, so you see I do have struggle credentials).
This highlights the significance of your protest and why the question of a landless majority is so important to real politick in this country and to any social dialogue serious about change.
Where I feel we disagree many times is on the issue of a way forward. With all this anger and hatred where do we go and where do we start? In the 1920's the South African Communist Party in attempting to grapple with the South African question diagnosed it as a form of "colonialism of a special type".
It is important that we emphasise from the outset that there is no qualitative difference between what happened in South Africa and in every other colonised land. There was conquest and exploitation. The fundamental difference in our instance however was that the colonisers had naturalised into South Africa and established an economic, socio-cultural and political presence in the same locality as their indigenous counterparts.
This culminated in a policy shift in how the leadership of the African National Congress (which was the vanguard at the time) viewed the problem and this culminated in the creation of a Freedom Charter. A social compact in which we acknowledged the injustices of the past and said that together we would craft a way forward. A "new deal" where all South Africans would benefit from equal opportunity.
The problem with that is that it requires very uncomfortable and painful concessions from all sides. It means that white people should understand that the redistribution of wealth is essential in the "new South Africa".
As you correctly have captured it, this new South Africa should not be about being queuing with white people or being disinterested bystanders in the this country's affairs more especially the economy. On the flip side, and I probably say this at my peril, it also means as black South Africans we have the responsibility to be pragmatic in our approach in building this country going forward.
To understand that for the sake of progress, we have to move forward and in doing so, move forward together. With the Van der Merwes and Smiths of our time. This should not be misconstrued as an obsession with whiteness or white approval but rather as the only practical mode of progress.
Frantz Fanon describes how each generation must discover its mission, fulfil it, or betray it, in relative opacity. I feel we have discovered ours. Lord forbid, if our children one day are still faced with this problem then we will have failed. But if we are serious about change, it will need a collective effort from all sides.
And it starts with being nice to the waitress next time!
Ngibonge Yeyeye.
Ozithobayo,
Samukele Mkhize
